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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yes, Sunday morning. Yeah.

 

Greg Johnson: Okay.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So the first point that he makes is:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[07:17]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[13:19]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[20:10]

 

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

 

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

 

I started thinking, you know:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[26:52]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[33:24]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, of course.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[39:51]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Which historically is what nationalism generally means.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Okay, so what’s your critique of that?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: It’s imperialism. Right?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[47:24]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[53:49]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:00:10]

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:07:22]

 

Greg Johnson: What’s stopping us?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And that means that, …

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

But the point is that, …

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:15:07]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: They pose no threat!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:21:40]

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Will Germany and France fight it out?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

[1:27:09]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

That’s what politics is about.

 

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

 

[1:33:57]

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Absolutely! Absolutely!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

That’s fantastic!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:40:47]

 

 

Greg Johnson: Absolutely, yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:46:16]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Well, I would agree with that.

 

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

 

“We need to step over this.”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:53:28]

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yeah.

 

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

 

So that’s not a reasonable:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And right now our race is being genocided! Right?

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, yes and no.

 

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

 

[1:59:26]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Absolutely.

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: I absolutely agree with that.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And there’s no way of doing that!

 

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

 

[2:06:39]

 

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

 

[2:50:10]

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

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

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

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

18
0
Hide replies

@v0lum3
6 months ago
Hitler dindu nuffin

2
1
Show reply

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

Hide replies

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

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

Continue Thread

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

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

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

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

16
2
Hide replies

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

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

4
1

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

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

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

9
1
Hide replies

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

4
0
Earthling Carl
6 months ago
Easy Joel W.

10
3

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

9
2

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

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

10
3
Hide replies

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

7
0
Hide replies
ThinRedLine
6 months ago
it does

5
0

@Arilando
6 months ago
Of course you can.

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

2
0

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

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

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

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

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

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

6
2
Hide replies

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

2
1
ThinRedLine
6 months ago
Hail Joel

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

5
3

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

2
0

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

5
3
Hide replies

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

Hide replies

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

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

Hide replies

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

2
0

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

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

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

4
3

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

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

1
2

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

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

6
0

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

2
3

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Joel Davis: We are live. It is 27th July, 2025. Another episode of the show this evening and there’s a lot to cover. Not because Australian politics, or world politics for that matter, has had a particularly interesting week. It’s actually been a relatively dead week, I would say, in both Australian and international politics by the standards of this year.

 

But it’s been a rather eventful week for us personally. And so like we are the news! Like that’s the lucky thing about this show is that because a lot of drama, political drama embroils us so often, even on a slow news week, it can be still be a good show.

 

So yeah, I’m here with Tom. Tom’s back on the show, regular guest again now that he’s off the non-Association and obviously Blair. And before we get into it, how are you boys feeling this evening? We’re going to talk about the fact that three different police agencies raided both of you guys on which day was it? Wednesday? Wednesday morning.

 

But before we get into that, how you guys feeling?

 

Thomas Sewell: Blair?

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, I’m feeling fine. I had to work some overtime last couple of days to make up for the days that I lost this week, so I’m feeling the fatigue.

 

Other than that, fine. How about you, Mr. Sewell? How’s the week been for you?

 

02 Tom’s Door Kicked in by Police

top

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, well, I gotta replace my door. That sucks!

 

But yeah, it’s just pretty usual state harassment, isn’t it? They kick doors in now and they don’t even charge you with a crime, either of us. Neither of us were charged with anything, so that’s fascinating!

 

Blair Cottrell: Are they gonna fix your door?

 

Thomas Sewell: It’s like they said:

 

“It’s a grey area of the law.”

 

I’ve got it on recording them saying that:

 

“Yeah, they’re kind of responsible, but just send us a Bill for the door.”

 

So it’s pretty fascinating!

 

Blair Cottrell: Right, you’ll have to do all the work to quote the new door and tell them how much it’s going to cost and source the trade.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, they said:

 

“Yeah, fix the door, send us the Bill and we might pay it. It’s a grey area.”

 

So it’s probably based off how strongly worded the lawyer’s letter is.

 

03 Blair’s Home Raided by Police

top

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, well they sent the real coppers to my house and I suppose you got the real coppers too, meaning the Aussies, the blokes who are relatively fit, kind of guys who aren’t easy to overpower.

 

So there was at least a dozen people in my house. They sat me down in my lounge room for about five and a half hours.

 

To be honest, it was all very boring. I just had to sit there while they tried to ask me questions the entire time. Forensics teams taking photos of everything in my house. Like a murder investigation! You ever watch one of those crime shows like Law and Order in Australia. People with forensics on the backs of their jackets, gloves, they were like, Post It noting each room and every item of interest they found. They took photos of Australia Day flyers, anything even remotely Right-wing. Some newsletters that I brought back from England after my visit to England, they photographed those. Keenly interested in those, they were.

 

04 Blair Accused of Doing a Nazi Salute at a University in Perth

top

 

And they seem to believe I’ve flown over to Perth, visited a university where a friend of ours used to go, a friend of mine used to go. He wanted to show us the architecture. They think that while I was there, I did a Nazi salute. Not just a Nazi salute, but my left hand was., … This is what they claim, that I put my left finger under my nose and extended my other arm out like a John Cleese style, you know, Hitler impersonation, a satirical Hitler impersonation. And I did it perhaps in full view of a Muslim woman in a burqa. It’s a sensationalist story that’s kind of ridiculous on the surface, but it seemed believable to Western Australia police. Believable enough for them to expend all the resources coming over here and taking all my stuff or taking my phone and photographing my whole house and asking me about it.

 

Someone hopes that I did it! Some government bureaucrat or series of government bureaucrats seems to hope that I did it. I don’t know where they got the notion that I did that. I didn’t even do those Nazi salutes when they were legal. It’s just never been my style.

 

So I would have thought I was the most unlikely candidate for a raid on the pretext of a Nazi salute.

 

But it’s just funny how things work out sometimes, I suppose.

 

But look, the way I see it is, I just don’t know what they’re up to. I don’t know what they really are up to. They could be up to something else, I don’t know. But time will tell, I guess.

 

05 Speculation on Police Motivation

top

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, I mean, on its face because naturally one would have to be kind of concerned about this. Like it wasn’t your average raid.

 

I mean, three different agencies like WA Police, Victoria Police and the Federal Police, all coordinating. How often does the Western Australian police conduct raids in Eastern states?

 

I mean, this is a pretty exceptional circumstance!

 

But I think it can probably be chalked up to the fact that if someone misreports you doing a Nazi salute because they’ve invented it in their mind or they’re just maliciously making up lies, there really is no bureaucratic mechanism for anyone to be realistic within like the contemporary police force of any state in Australia because it’s become so politically correct and it’s gutted everyone rational with red blood in their veins who isn’t just a yes man at this point.

 

[05:52]

 

And so if someone comes along and says:

 

“The evil Nazi did bad thing, illegal thing X!”

 

Who’s going to pull them up on it and say:

 

“Wait a second! Is this true? Does this check out?”

 

I think they would have to go along with it so they don’t be seen to be themselves a Nazi sympathizer or whatever. Right. So I could see how the kind of bad bureaucratic hubris could, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Maybe the Federal police in Western Australia just don’t have as much intelligence on me as an individual. That’s how I tried to understand it. Maybe they just have this paperwork that says:

 

“Blair Cottrell, Nazi fascist!”

 

And then they heard the accusation he’d done a Nazi salute in a university. They thought:

 

“Yeah, he probably did do it. Let’s go and ask him. Right, let’s go raid him!”

 

Something like that. Maybe, I don’t know. Like you said at the start of the stream, I haven’t been charged with anything, so I don’t really know.

 

06 Police Lie About Blair’s Phone

top

 

The only thing I’m concerned about is they were very keen on taking my phone with them and they told me that I had the right to go with them to supervise whatever they’re doing with my phone, some data extraction process or something like that. And initially I said:

 

“Well, yeah, I’ll go with you, I’ll supervise that.”

 

Because I’m not doing anything else. I can’t even go to work without my phone, so I might as well go supervise the process.

 

But when I said that, they got really sketchy. They looked at each other and they started to tell me:

 

“No, no, no one ever does that it takes forever. We have to book a room and there’s all this paperwork to fill out. It’s easier if you just let us take it back to the station and do it. We can get it back to you sooner if you let us do that.”

 

I said:

 

“Well, how soon?”

 

They said:

 

“Probably tomorrow morning. Usually it takes about a day.”

 

I said:

 

“All right, well, that sounds good. I’ll be able to get my phone back tomorrow.”

 

Then they said:

 

“Yeah, yeah!”

 

And they never came back. So they lied to me, but they lied to me in order to get me to waive my right to go with the phone. And I’m a bit concerned about why they would want to do that. I’m thinking:

 

“Well, what else are they lying about if they’ve lied about that?”

 

But I don’t know what to think.

 

07 Blair’s First Time to Be Raided for Political Activism

top

 

It’s strange, the first time I’ve been raided or had my house searched for anything in the realm of politics. I’ve been doing political activism, public speaking, for, what, 10 years now? Maybe more than 10 years. I’ve had some time off in that 10 years, but I’ve been at it pretty consistently. I’ve had the police come to my door to ask me questions about things, but they’ve never burst into my house. Certainly not Federal Police and Counterterrorism Agency or whatever they’re called. Never had them come into my house and search me like that and take stuff from me. So that’s all very new.

 

But, yeah, like, it’s just weird! I think maybe it’s just because there’s all this new resource being dedicated to “anti-semitic task force”, and there’s probably all these new coppers on the payroll and they’re all. They’ve got to produce something, they’ve got to do something to justify the money that they’re being paid. Right?

 

So that’s probably got something to do with it.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, absolutely!

 

08 Fear of Blair’s Potential as a Political Candidate

top

 

Joel Davis: How do you feel? I think maybe one of the objectives was to spook you out, get under your skin, because I think they’re afraid of your potential as a political leader and a political candidate for our prospective political party. And they know that Cottrell will get votes. They know Cottrell can produce followers, can appeal to the people. And they’re afraid because look at the garbage that is in Parliament at this point. I mean, it’s just a bunch of feminists in pantsuits, and immigrants, nerds, homosexuals, paedophiles!

 

I mean, they’re not sending their best. So a real Aussie battler like you comes along that people can relate to, who is going to stand up for the people against the establishment. I can see why they’d be afraid.

 

And to me, that probably explains a lot of this as well. A lot of the reason why they’re so heavy handed with us in general, whether it be with Tom, you, me, Hersant, everyone else in the organisation and other people in the nationalist movement, broadly, because they’re petrified of if we were able to get any momentum and we were able to have confidence to build a political movement that could challenge them. They’re terrified of what could be possible with the political movement like that.

 

And also they probably have successfully spooked a lot of people out of the movement over the years. I think we’re made of sterner stuff, but do you think there’s something to that?

 

09 Blair’s Been Deleted off All Social Media Since 2017

top

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. And look, I’ve been deleted off all social media. I’m still censored to the same degree that I was back in 2017, now. I’ve lost bank accounts and I’ve had bank accounts closed down while I was trying to pay lawyers to defend me against a hate speech charge back when. I think that was like 2017, 2018. I’m no stranger to bias, unfair treatment, pressure, harassment from some element of government. I’m not even sure who’s responsible for it. I just know that I’m on a list of some sort. A list that affords me no rights and no dignity! Even though I’m an Australian citizen, I don’t get any rights or dignity or any specific freedoms that matter.

 

No one really does in this so-called democracy. But some people get to at least be comfortable with the illusion that they have these things. But I don’t get the illusion. So I’m kind of used to it.

 

I’ve always sort of operated on the basis that I could be rated any moment. Like I’m a dissident and so I don’t do anything illegal anyway, so I don’t know what they hope to gain out of it. Like I said, I don’t really know what they’re up to. It seems like they really do think I did that Nazi salute or they hoped that I did it. And just as a result of failed intelligence, they actually believe that I may have done it. So they’ll do their investigation. They won’t find any evidence and I’m not sure what’ll happen next.

 

[11:49]

 

10 Speculation Re Preventing Blair from Running for Office

top

 

Joel Davis: Of course there’s a carrot there too, because now the changes they made earlier this year to the federal legislation, if they charged you under the Commonwealth act and got a conviction, which they won’t because you didn’t do it, but let’s say for argument’s sake, you did, that’s minimum one year jail.

 

And so they’re probably thinking:

 

“Oh, well, if we can slap that on him, we can basically have him in prison and therefore not campaigning to run for office.”

 

And if you get convicted of a crime, you can’t run for office until you’ve finished your punishment in Australia.

 

Blair Cottrell: But just for the record, I never confirmed that I was planning to run for office or anything like that.

 

Joel Davis: Of course.

 

Blair Cottrell: And I would be surprised if this is some sort of like, pre-emptive conspiracy to stop me doing that in the future. Because the party you guys are making isn’t even registered yet.

 

11 Targeted Harassment and Lawfare Likely to Ramp Up

top

 

Joel Davis: Of course, but I think that’s factored into their thinking, I think, because I hear you see them talk about it a lot in the media and it’s a lot of what they try to ask about, whenever we’ve engaged or we haven’t engaged intentionally with the authorities, when the authorities have arrested us or harassed us in the time since we made it known that it was our intention, they always bring it up.

 

So I think that probably does. If you were going to comport any kind of strategic rationale, I think that’s part of it is targeted harassment and lawfare, basically. And that’s what’s probably going to happen as we move forward. The lawfare is going to ramp up. We’ve got to be very careful with our tax returns. We’ve got to be very careful with everything because they’re going to scrutinise everything and if we make one slip up, we’ll probably get punished. So!

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, the thing, I was never actually like, solidly planning to run for office or be a statesman, you know what I mean? I’ve never really put it out there that I was planning to do that. So like I said, I would be surprised if that’s the motivation. But, hey, who knows? Who knows?

 

12 Tom Raided Because He Allegedly Videoed Blair’s Alleged Crime

top

 

Joel Davis: Well, yeah, how do you see it, Tom? Because, I mean, you got raided as well, they took your phone as well, just because allegedly you took the photos.

 

Do you reckon maybe that was part of they kind of massaged that situation to get a chance to get your stuff.

 

Blair Cottrell: Took what? Hang on, what photos did Tom take?

 

Joel Davis: Well, they alleged that he took a photo.

 

Thomas Sewell: That’s what the police said when they came to my house.

 

Thomas Sewell: I said:

 

“What are you doing here?”

 

More or less after they kicked my door in and threatened a pepper spray me. They said that:

 

“They were here because they’ve got a warrant from a judge in WA saying that I potentially have evidence of you committing a crime.”

 

And they gave me a copy of the search warrant and on it had a whole number of clauses. And then it said clause three, which I think was uploaded by The Noticer, or maybe one of the others, maybe XYZ, someone uploaded or maybe you did. And it said that you’ve committed, they’re alleging that you have committed:

 

“An indictable offence against the Commonwealth, against the federal version of the law.”

 

And so they said because they’re alleging you’ve committed a crime. Part of their evidence is that I, they’re alleging that I videoed it. They didn’t say the details that you have said on stream. They didn’t mention the mustache hands, the John Cleese thing, the seven second hold. They didn’t mention the Muslim woman. They just said they had evidence. And so yeah, I, obviously I didn’t do an interview with them, I didn’t do a statement. I didn’t even say “no comment”. Normally I say “no comment”. But whenever they asked me a question I just said nothing.

 

13 Tom’s House Searched for 8 Hours

top

 

But then yeah, they were just talking random shit! While they were searching through my house for eight hours, they managed to find all the old like phones and electronics that got given back to me from the previous raid. So it’s funny that electronics, my old phones and old USBs are all just on this like infinite cycle getting captured by ZOG [Zionist Occupied Government]! So they took like a couple phones, a couple USBs the first time.

 

So then I had to buy a new phone and get new USBs. And then they took that the second time and then I got the first stuff back. And then when I got raided the third time they took two lots and then I got more stuff back and then I kept losing phones and hard drives. And so I built up over the years like 15 phones and like 20 USBs. And they just took like a whole bunch of old shit and they just tried to download everything off all the old stuff. And I was just like:

 

“Cool, it’s just going back in the rotation!”

 

[16:44]

 

14 Police Unable to Operate a Standard Trademan’s Ladder

top

 

Yeah, they couldn’t operate a ladder. They asked me, to borrow my ladder and I just laughed at them. And then they tried to use my ladder to get into my roof cavity. They wanted to like search the roof. And they couldn’t open the ladder. And I was just so embarrassed by the fact that they couldn’t open my ladder that I just walked over and opened it for them and I just said:

 

“Not a tradesman amongst you! Not an Aussie battler amongst you. Like, look at these nerds. They can’t even open a ladder!”

 

Every bloke on a work site has that exact ladder. It’s not like some sort of fancy, unique ladder. Everyone knows how to open those ladders. And, yeah, so I actually, I did. I shouldn’t have done that. Maybe I was a bit too compliant. But I opened the ladder as a matter of principle so they could search the roof cavity.

 

15 Police Find Tom’s Pants in Roof Space!

top

 

And then they found a pair of my pants. And then they were like, they made a big deal out of the pants. They were like:

 

“We’ve got the pants!”

 

And they, like pulled it [out]. Then four people, …

 

Blair Cottrell: They were the pants that you were wearing when you took a photo?

 

Thomas Sewell: That’s what they’re alleging. Yeah. They’re alleging that they found the pants that I was wearing on CCTV, when I allegedly was, … Well, they didn’t even allege that they have CCTV of you doing it. They said that they had CCTV of us at the university, of you and I.

 

Blair Cottrell: And a still image of that?

 

Thomas Sewell: And I was like:

 

“Do you have any CCTV of Blair committing a crime?”

 

And they refused to answer that question. They just didn’t know, …

 

Blair Cottrell: I asked them that as well and they said:

 

“They didn’t have it with them.”

 

And I thought:

 

“Yeah, why didn’t you bring it with you?”

 

16 Muslim Woman at the Uni Called Police

top

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, they’re full of shit! Otherwise they would have charged you. So it’s just a fishing operation. It’s just an attempt to disrupt the organisation, disrupt our morale. And, yeah, it’s a form of swatting. I think that’s what I said. This is a hoax and that it’s a form of swatting where you can just be a brown woman on the other side of the country and you can just make accusations.

 

Because my theory is that there was actually a Muslim woman. I don’t recall that. I don’t remember it. But my theory is that there was and that she’s recognised you and I walking through the uni and she’s made up this story just to be like:

 

“Fuck you!”

 

The last time we were here, we did an anti-Islam rally like 10 years ago, and I reckon she’s recognised us. She would have been some university Palestinian Lefty, and she’s just made up this nonsense to just see what would happen.

 

And I just hope that you know that there’s serious repercussions for these kind of false accusations.

 

17 Police Claim That the Muslim Woman was Fully Clad in a Burqa

top

 

Blair Cottrell: They said to the Muslim woman who was in the vicinity of where I was standing when I allegedly did this Nazi salute for seven seconds they said she was fully clad in a burqa, so only her eyes were visible. I thought:

 

“Aren’t women like that not even allowed to leave the house?”

 

They don’t even go out of the house without the husbands. What’s she doing at University of Western Australia in the middle of the day?

 

And I thought, I think I would have remembered if one of those walked past us. But I’ve got no memory of it. So that’s why I said it’s just a weird story. It’s a bizarre story! It’s like someone made it up and they were laughing about it while they made it up.

 

18 The Magistrate’s Name and Signature Were Redacted from the Search Warrant Shown

top

 

Thomas Sewell: Either the police are lying or there’s been a false allegation made by a political opponent. Either way, it’s disgusting! Either way, it’s disgusting that the police can come to your house on false allegations. That a judge would sign off on that when there’s no evidence. There’s no evidence!

 

Blair Cottrell: I couldn’t even see the judge’s signature. The judge’s name and signature were redacted.

 

Thomas Sewell: That was on the same as my search warrant as well. The judge’s name was not there. So I wonder if they even got a judge. But that form was meant to be signed by a magistrate.

 

Blair Cottrell: When they show you a document that’s meant to justify their access into your home to investigate a crime, that document is supposed to be signed by a magistrate. Right? And you’re supposed to be able to see that. But they said:

 

“For the safety of the magistrate, his name was redacted, his signature was redacted.”

 

There was just a big black rectangle over where his name and signature were. I’m thinking, wouldn’t that make the document illegitimate? [chuckling] Am I supposed to be able to see that a magistrate has legitimately signed this?

 

But yeah, that’s another interesting aspect of the whole ordeal.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, well, we’ll certainly take that up with the lawyers because fundamentally, it’s not signed. How can we prove that the police had any right to enter our homes in the first place?

 

Blair Cottrell: They claim that they did have the signed copy on them, but they could only show me the one where the judge’s name was redacted, but they had the signed copy. And I just had to trust them.

 

Thomas Sewell: That’s crazy! We can’t do, like secret search warrants. They’re just taking the piss.

 

Blair Cottrell: Especially because I’ve never threatened anyone.

 

[21:16]

 

 

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

 

 

[1:57:58]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

(Comments as of 8/3/2025 = 85)

HyperChat minimum:
$0.01

@auamoti
6 days ago
adam green is right about christianity

20
5
Hide replies
Lampshade Denier
6 days ago
Sure, but he’s a nigger lover.

5
12
Teutonic Truth
6 days ago
TheHolyNewTestament Word infuriates SatanicJeews more than anything else does, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. This isn’t rocket science.

3
7
King Tut
5 days ago
i agree, but I got banned from his channel for saying i don’t follow killstream bcuz the leader is a race mixer. he bans half his followers, including his regular donors who later come and give him superchats asking him to unban them. the way he acts, i can see why so many people say he’s a fed. fuck him!

alexdauginas
6 days ago
Im a pagan but i defends Christians because they are a target of jewish hatred

9
0
WhiteLightWhiteHeat
6 days ago
Wow! Doing a Roman with your finger under your nose is enough for a full police ride including destroying your front door? That’s completed sanity. Three different police agencies? Police this needs to be international news for every white person to understand how hated we are by government. It has to stop.

8
0
Thorne91
5 days ago
Maybe this can help. Verses to deconstruct kíke worship in modern Christians.
John
8:44
Jesus calls Jews liars, murderers, and the children of the devil
Matthew
27:25
Jews demand Pilate crucify Jesus, and say “his blood be on US and OUR children!”
1 Thessalonians
2:14
-16
Blatantly says Jews are responsible for murdering Christ
Acts chapter 7, Stephen the martyr criticizing Jews and being stoned for it
Revelation 2:9 & 3:9 (my personal favorites)
Jesus HIMSELF calling Jews the synagogue of Satan – which is exactly the same group of kikes pulling the strings today.
There are many many more. These are just some of the prominent ones. Use these to show Christians this judeo-bullshit does NOT belong in our Church
Less

6
0
Hide replies
Thorne91
5 days ago
Regardless what flavor of Christianity someone belongs to, these are solid scriptural verses attacking Jews right from the text of the KJV and nobody can deny it. Jews are the absolute enemy of Christianity. They’ve just subverted the church, the same way they subverted Hollywood, media, politics, medicine/pharma, food industry, pornography, every fucking thing we ever had they subvert. They did the church the same way. But the Bible itself refutes this, it takes bare-minimum research and it’s super easy to show judeo-Christians why they are wrong. Super easy. It’s right there for anyone to see.

3
0

@SpyroTheFascistDragon
6 days ago
Jewry in England by Peter Aldag

5
0

@SpyroTheFascistDragon
6 days ago
why are you still trying to interface with the anti-Islam movement? it is an entirely a Jewish diversion

5
0

@DarthGreenslade
6 days ago
Love you guys from london

6
0
Teutonic Truth
6 days ago
More than enough Abiding Christians know the Truth about SatanicJeews.

5
0

@david_smith
6 days ago
Rule 1 no poofters

4
0

@Jim
5 days ago
True, “Aussie Cossack” is not Russian, he isn’t White but Asian Mongol and kgb agent. There are no cossacks in the USSR/Russian Federation after 1945. They seems got another dumb non-White, some fat mongrel with a nigger wife for their channel, same as “Aussie Cossack” promoting Caucasus Asians, race traitors and anti-Whiteness

3
0
alexdauginas
6 days ago
anti islam movements are a cucking to the real struggle against jewish power which is responsible for all the problems we face

3
0
Hide replies

@Odeon3008
6 days ago
Those who haven’t moved on from the anti Islam counter jihad movement are either part of the establishment or they are not very bright or inquisitive.
Counter Jihad = Zionism

4
1
Hide replies
(((THEY))) want you enslaved, after that, DEAD!
5 days ago
Tell that to 1.5 million young white girls in the UK who have been raped, the jews have always used islam against the whites, now it’s full on, in every whites countires The broom of israel” . They are directing us against islam, the jews, but we both need to foucus on JEWS and ISLAM, nothing good comes from both.

2
0
Hide replies

@Odeon3008
5 days ago
I agree 100% the problem is the Tommy Robinson and Pat Condell types go on and on endlessly about the Islam issue and just have the Brits going endlessly in a duck duck goose game.
If we didn’t have counter jihad controlled opposition it could make the conflict slightly less difficult for us.
Counter Jihad is just endless complaining without getting us anywhere.

1
0
Hide replies
(((THEY))) want you enslaved, after that, DEAD!
5 days ago
Yup my brother, i get you…… Yet tommy ten names is even mentioning the jews now, ever so slighty though, due to everyone awaking to them so he has to gate keep, mate gaurd his followers, to keep them inline….. he’s paid via the jews. always has been, the EDL was a company, you can look into it, it was also another company, the JDL and we both know what that stands for my brother….. Even he knows that the game is up, he has to mention them, then says, well they aint the main players, my asss they’re not lol

ChainReaction
6 days ago
More

3
0
M88
6 days ago

@DawnBrowning
nick is a subversive jew lover.

3
0
Teutonic Truth
6 days ago
“Eminem’s very heartbeat is Noise Pollution.

3
0
Lampshade Denier
6 days ago
Nick sounds like a christ cuck faggot!

3
3
Dawn Browning
6 days ago

1
0
Teutonic Truth
6 days ago
Behold the absurdity of being censored by SatanicJeews.

2
0
M88
6 days ago
nick is a spiritual race traitor….

1
0
Dawn Browning
6 days ago
Pete Quinones’ reading & commentary of author: Israel Shahak’s “Jewish History, Jewish Religion” is eye opening.

2
0

@SpyroTheFascistDragon
6 days ago
it is well within the natsoc tradition to work with Arabs

4
2
Hide replies

@Ainïsse
5 days ago
for mutual goals, in our own regions, but the ‘enemy of my enemy dies second’ as they say. I would expect no semite to say “pray for Europe and her disparate Kindreds’.

1
0
Teutonic Truth
6 days ago
The Apostate church along with Everything else is accurately predicted in TheHolyNewTestament Word.

2
0
alexdauginas
6 days ago
Michael Jones books on jews and Christianity is a testament of how Christianity has failed to solve the Jewish question

2
0
Dawn Browning
6 days ago
Schofield Bible interpretation is the recent menace

2
0
Teutonic Truth
6 days ago
He’s Not a Cossack like Martin Luther was Not a low IQ black Communist.

2
0
Teutonic Truth
6 days ago
TheHolyNewTestament Word infuriates SatanicJeews more than anything else does, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. This isn’t rocket science.

2
0
Alice1488
3 days ago
White Unity never ever allie with nons! They want your land and your wife, never trust .

1
0
Lampshade Denier
6 days ago
Love you Aussies! Wish we had real men here in the US.

0
1
Hide replies

@Ainïsse
5 days ago
Not looking around enough, my dude. P.Front is the real deal, RTTL and Aarvoll are the real deal. NatVan is the real deal, RenegadeTribune = real deal. Volkish, also, the real deal.

Hide replies
Lampshade Denier
4 days ago(edited)
PF is more low key, however, I value what they do. As a woman, I want to see manly men and those are the Aussies. And Aarvoll is religious and that is a huge problem. I respect his work but christianity is a jew psyop and needs to die.

@RobertE.Pyle
6 days ago
HIT THAT FIRE EVERYONE

1
0
M88
6 days ago
nick is a jews bitch

1
0

@SpyroTheFascistDragon
6 days ago
yep, I’ve been reading it too, it is a treasure trove

1
0
alexdauginas
6 days ago
warstrike has been going though that lately

@SpyroTheFascistDragon

1
0

@SpyroTheFascistDragon
6 days ago
a must read

1
0
M88
6 days ago
Joel is 100% correct

3
2
M88
6 days ago
nick is surrounded by jews

1
0
Dawn Browning
6 days ago
Nick’s awesome. Purity spiral later?

0
1
alexdauginas
6 days ago
Blair has always been the best expression of Australian white expression in this era

1
0

@SpyroTheFascistDragon
6 days ago
Free Palestine

5
4
alexdauginas
6 days ago
avi yemini is a jew?

1
0

@DarthGreenslade
6 days ago
o/

1
0

@katana17
6 days ago
[Joel Davis – Zionist (Paedophile) Occupied Government – Jul 17, 2025 – Transcript]

Joel Davis – Zionist (Paedophile) Occupied Government – Jul 17, 2025 – Transcript

1
0
alexdauginas
6 days ago
I tried to sign up. Didn’t end well for anyone it seems.

alexdauginas
6 days ago
N 88

M88
6 days ago
to think nick made a mistake by removing the boys is naive at best

Dawn Browning
6 days ago
disappointing, Nick.

Dawn Browning
6 days ago

@kong
Aye

alexdauginas
6 days ago
Do you support Hamas killing jews Joel?

Dawn Browning
6 days ago
Woodsie followed my main & pinned my tweets in his early days….He knows the score. He’s playing Sargon, is all. Don’t discount him, yet.

M88
6 days ago
\o

alexdauginas
6 days ago
I know Tom is a strong Hitler supporter. Just wanted to know what their take was. I cant superchat sadly.

Dawn Browning
6 days ago
Drew would be awesome. I liked him when he was still at uni. WTF happened with him?

Cone of Silence
6 days ago
Devon Stack’s latest is sobering

1
1
alexdauginas
6 days ago
Brown people are not a threat really. The problem is white people lacking racial consciousness

1
3
Windham
3 days ago
weird, always political drama with wn ecelebs. internet drama? maybe you are a woman.

@EihwazUllrman
4 days ago
China has become a National Socialist State despite their claims to be Communist. This is why the Jewish Empire fear them. Why are you guys hostile to China? A remigration policy implemented in a fair and reasonable way, need not lead to poor foreign relations.

InReality
4 days ago
Blair? You okay buddy?

@Jim
6 days ago
Why be surprised they preemptively attacked you? In Russia they cut short Maxim “Tesak” Martsinkevich at a much earlier stage.

Cone of Silence
6 days ago
isn’t Kossack the muscle for that subversive Jew Yemeni ?

@tubeyou
6 days ago
it pays the bill best reason to go for a job.

Dawn Browning
6 days ago
We’d already decided tbh, but the affirmation was welcome.

Dawn Browning
6 days ago
8 fkn months going $ backwards. Thanks Blair

@david_smith
6 days ago

@alexdauginas
Probably, didn’t read it

alexdauginas
6 days ago
Do you disagree with Keith Woods article on Adolf Hitler?

MarcoEire
6 days ago
like they are streaming to 40 people and nobody afterwards can watch it

MarcoEire
6 days ago
Afternoon men. Why do they not post the replays anymore?

alexdauginas
6 days ago
Tom stole my moustache lmao

@david_smith
6 days ago
Non mongrel

@david_smith
6 days ago
Ping pong ding lo

@david_smith
6 days ago
Blair still has both of his guns

@david_smith
6 days ago
How would you feel if you didn’t have a loan with interest?

elfoffgazza
6 days ago
Fuck KOG

danzimmons
6 days ago
fuck zog

Dawn Browning
6 days ago
That WA uni states that they have 24/7 security with full-on CCTV.

Dawn Browning
6 days ago
It’s pathetic of the police.

@ItWasMadeUp
6 days ago
Gents o/

0
0

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

RUMBLE COMMENTS

43 Comments
0/2000
Comment
Jak_85
Supporter
6 days ago
I love White Christians, but damn they are subverted beyond belief.
14 likes

Report
‹ Hide 1 reply
Motion937
5 days ago
It has become ridiculous. This is why I cannot take endless denominations seriously. We are not all equally valid.
2 likes

Report
Bumble_Bee
6 days ago
I’m Christian Identitarian…. and my belief is that the majority of Zio-Christians are deceived because of the jewish falsification of the Christian message…. The Jews have successfully infiltrated and deceived the Church using cleverly contrived arguments eg: Equating Hebrews with Jews or Equating Israel with Jews or Even Judahites with Jews…. Secondly, no where in the bible does it say that the Jews were “the chosen people”…. the fact is that the Ruddy Red curly haired indo European tribes that became known as the tribe of Jacob became the lost tribes of European nations today…. they became the Gauls and German Tribes and the Pictish Tribes of Europe…. they have no association with “Jews” (except through the line of Esau whom was cut off by God for Race mixing and thus not the Heir to the Promise state in Galatians 3:29)…. Jesus said to the Jews…. “If you were of Abraham you would do as Abraham did” (ie: Your race is also your God, your race Belongs to your God….. ie: Your god was liar and murderer from the beginning…. ie: Jews were the race of the Serpent or “Cain”)
9 likes

Report
‹ Hide 2 replies
Bumble_Bee
6 days ago
The Children of the Devil John 8:44 …43 Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you are unable to accept My message. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out his desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, refusing to uphold the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, because he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me!…
1 like

Report
Neqis
6 days ago
Can you tell me about some sources where I could read/ learn more about these things? The real bible story and connection to ancient Europeans?
0 likes

Report
‹ Hide 4 replies
albion14
5 days ago
One good source of ancient European links to the Lost tribes can be found at christogenea.org under essays. Another useful site can be found at The Fellowship of God’s Covenant People. There are others but be this should get you started. God bless on your journey.
2 likes

Report
Cossack98
4 days ago
There is no real story. The bible is jewish mythology. It is judaism for gentiles and prepares our people as slaves for the jews worshipping the god of israel and hailing a dead rabbi as a mosciach
1 like

Report
‹ Hide 1 reply
Bumble_Bee
2 days ago
What is “Judaism”?…. can you even make any sense at all?… maybe start with foundational definitions.
0 likes
Report
Bumble_Bee
5 days ago
christogenea.org and Truthvids.net…. if you are truly a beginner and need a some dopamine fix and need some entertainment and your adhd is bad then just watch the “100 proofs” 1 minute shorts…. or the whole 100 proofs video (which is quite long), but if you are quite conscientious… then Christogenea.org has articles which have a audio button you can play.. very thorough and deep…. Lots of rabbit holes you can wonder down and a lot sources and research and speakers…
0 likes

Report
Dissident_Loner
Supporter
6 days ago
Fucking scum traitor police losing legitimacy and earning more hatred everyday. Hope to live to see them going on trial and trying their excuses out…
8 likes

Report
CreateAnArmyToSaveWhites
6 days ago
I love white people, but I just want to say to hell with you and your Christian white areas. Not only does this exclude mostly whites, but it also potentially excludes future atheists from the community. Nothing like kicking out your children in an all-white area or forcing them to live with nonwhites etc., all because they didn’t believe or think the same way as you. Christians have no place in any white advocacy, as they all believe with all their hearts that they will go to heaven someday, where they will live for an eternity with all their fellow whites and nonwhites, because God doesn’t exclude based on race. Nope. God only wants you if you believe. Why are Jews superior spiritually to the white race? Because their religion is entirely about them and their people. Christianity is about anyone that believes. You could alter it, but why share something in common with nonwhites in the first place? Something you knowingly altered but believe is from God at the same time should also create more atheists.
5 likes

Report
‹ Hide 3 replies
Motion937
5 days ago
I am pretty fed up with atheists subverting culture & making everything an unlivable multi-cultural nightmare. Then lecturing White Christians as though we are supposed to listen. You are damn right there will be exclusion.
2 likes

Report
Motown88
Supporter
6 days ago
If you think the Christian God isn’t race exclusionary you’re fucking cooked… try reading the bible before you cast assumptions or make false accusations about what it contains. And I’m not a Christian, I’m an empiricist – I stick to the facts and right now you aren’t representing the full facts.
1 like

Report
Bumble_Bee
5 days ago
Christians not Christianity…. don’t conflate these two things… Secondly Post WW2 Christianity is race cucked… where as the Old Church used to be Kinist…. there were Bishops to the races and the nations…. where race mixing was not allowed because the bible forbade it….
1 like

Report
palacepony
Supporter
6 days ago
These laws are beyond ridiculous. It’s sinister bullying, what’s gone down this week. We used to throw romans and Austrian painter moustaches as piss-takes during lunch & recess. I cannot get my head around the triviality and absurdity of this multi- state ‘TASK FORCE’.
4 likes

Report
Seppl88
4 days ago
NatSoc is the only solution to our problems, it will provide a just and stable society to the benefit of the people. AH understood remove J influence and power and a nation will thrive. The system is on the edge hence all the cop harassment.
4 likes

Report
Proofviewer
5 days ago
When are you cunts going to call out America. It’s all very well and good to waffle on about the Chinese Communist Party but they don’t run their economy like a communist country and our economic relationship with China yields us billions of dollars a year whereas our trade relationship with America costs us billions of dollars a year effectively meaning the profits we make from trading with China is handed over to America. You blokes haven’t said anything about the awful AUKUS submarine deal which will bankrupt and destroy this country. America considers Australia’s resources their domestic resources because we are the 51st state of the union. Our fighter aircraft are designed to only work in conjunction with American warplanes and not on their own. Australia is under American occupation so if you are true patriots call out the American occupation.
3 likes

Report
mharrison52
4 days ago
the struggle is ours our ancestors tried but uk traitor Churchill traded the future of the Anglo race for his business debts to jewish bankers
3 likes

Report
Cossack98
4 days ago
Those Christians arent the fringe. They are normal standard christians. Thats what Christianity is. It turns our people into slaves to serve a jewish empire. Hitler, Lane, Pierce, Rockwell all came to these conclusions. And it was Christians who eventually turned on our movements. They killed Rockwell. The only reason Jews are relevant is because Europeans adopted their faith system. If we stuck to our own native beliefs the jews would either be some backwater tribe or destroyed without mercy as Hadrian did.
2 likes

Report
katana17
6 days ago
[deleted]
1 like

Restore
katana17
6 days ago
[Joel Davis – Zionist (Paedophile) Occupied Government – Jul 17, 2025 – Transcript] https://www.katana17.com/2025/07/24/joel-davis-zionist-paedophile-occupied-government-jul-17-2025-transcript/
1 like

Delete
ParrhesiaTime
Supporter+
6 days ago
Christian nationalism is an oxymoron. Christians believe that after the Jews rebuild their 3rd temple and usher in the “antichrist” (meaning the Jews achieved their goals) after that, the Messiah (Jesus the king of the Jews) will return and rule the world from Zion. all Christians believe in the destruction of the nation states,….. except for Israel. Christianity is philosemetic.
1 like

Report
‹ Hide 3 replies
Motown88
Supporter
6 days ago
“Christians Believe” – Coming from a non Christian that doesn’t hold the weight you seem to think it does
0 likes

Report
albion14
5 days ago
The true oxymoron is when Christian Zionists say that they believe in judeo/christian values. However what most Jews believe in are anti-Christ in nature both the religious and atheistic Jew. I would disagree putting Christian nationalism in the same camp as the Crusades showed that when Christians are pushed eventually you will get a response. As a Christian nationalist myself the Jesus I believe in will be coming back having his garments stained in the blood of the Edomites (Jews) first then moving on to the other tares. At the moment all Western nations are flooded with the hordes of foreign people that come from the Dragons mouth as in Rev 12:15.
0 likes

Report
LutheranFascist
1 day ago
you’re a fucking retard, everything you just said has zero connection to historical Christianity. that’s all dispensationalism which is a modern heresy only showing up in the last 150 years
0 likes

Report
AaronWn
5 days ago
Montages of Indians being hit by trains
1 like

Report
fdgrdfg
5 days ago
God, what happened to Blair’s mic…
1 like

Report
DeadandWell
4 days ago
Blair my man, Christianity is from the middle east. It’s not of white genetics.
1 like

Report
ThigASteach
Supporter
6 days ago
99% of todays “Christians” have very little “knowledge” of what the Holy Bible (The Message) says. IT is very much encoded and takes a real look at language and basic math to interpret. If you are interested and not cowed by the “masses” gibberish, invest some time to learn. Knowledge IS power. #PeaceAndRespect #GodBless Alchemical Christ & The Zodiac as the Key to the Mysteries https://rumble.com/v6whyb2-marty-leeds-alchemical-christ-and-the-zodiac-as-the-key-to-the-mysteries.html
0 likes

Report
cowolf
6 days ago
American Evangelicals, who worship Jews and the state called ‘Israel’ with PM Netanyahu, are in fact pagans. And since they call themselves Christians that’s deception which is in fact Satanic. American Boomers is the worst generation ever, responsible for endless wars, the White Replacement and building the Israeli Empire while failing their own children and country. I am only concerned with the Catholic Church (all the protestant churches went woke beyond repair). The fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church’s is that Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit is ONE GOD, they are consubstantial and form the Holy Trinity. Since neither the Farther nor the Holy Spirit is a Jew then Jesus is not a Jew either. Mary was a virgin and there was an immaculate conception by the Holy Spirit so she was a surrogate in today’s terms. So the Catholic Church is not worshiping ‘a Jew’ (Jesus) or Israel. The new Israel is the Church itself according to the New Covenant. The Jews hate Christianity because it erases their ‘chosen’ status. True Christianity is in fact anti Jewish. In recent decades the Church got infiltrated and ideologically subverted, it has reached the very top of the hierarchy with Mr Bergoglio (the fake pope Francis) as the best example and a fake term ‘judeo-Chritstian’. So the Church doesn’t teach it’s most basic principles anymore, instead it became a tool of the globalists. The Church should serve and protect any local community just as the locally worshiped deity did in the pagan times. It doesn’t and instead it serves globalist agenda (mass immigration, covid tyranny, etc). A religion is the strongest bond you can have, just ask the Jews or Muslims. If you think any return to Thor, Zeus, Odin or whatever pantheon of White gods is realistic, wise and worth it you are delusional. Also building without any religion will not stand the test of time. In practice the official state Christianity have coexisted with popular local pagan traditions and folklore.
0 likes

Report
cowolf
6 days ago
Great discussion about the subverted Christianity from 1:22:53
0 likes

Report
Jak_85
Supporter
6 days ago
That bit about functional narcissism by Joel was too
0 likes

Report
ParrhesiaTime
Supporter+
6 days ago
1:34:00 tom makes claims about Christianity that show he doesn’t comprehend it at all. back to the drawing board mate.
0 likes

Report
Goraxium
6 days ago
Never forget that Australian pigs have the legal right under the “disturb and disrupt” bill to upload incriminating content to your electronic devices. If they didn’t want you there, there’s a damn good chance they’re planting something on the device they will try to use against you at a later date. THEY ARE ALL SCUM.
0 likes

Report
AaronWn
6 days ago
Does Blair mention the name of that book on the Talmud?
0 likes

Report
AaronWn
5 days ago
“A nazi rave” Not sure why I find that so fucking funny
0 likes

Report
Ri0Brav0
5 days ago
It’s afraid.
0 likes

Report
DeadandWell
4 days ago
Blair, dude stop trying to overthink and caveat every little thing. Joel has the better approach, pure expression of will and agenda. Appearing smart is inconsequential.
0 likes

Report
DeadandWell
4 days ago
Deconstruct it correctly? Bro, that is no different than liberal double think. Through it all away. It’s a burden you don’t need.
0 likes

Report
mharrison52
4 days ago
I feel like its shouldn’t be a crime to roman salute.. its infuriating, but you cant make that mistake especially on video
0 likes

Report
SpergNation
4 days ago
Nice to see all the boys together again on the same stream. Much love from Canada.
0 likes

Report
TombOfArminius
Supporter+
6 hours ago
It’s wild that in just 70 years we went from lists of traitors as enemies to the nation to lists of patriots as the enemies.
0 likes

Report
Howsitgoing
VerifiedSupporter
6 days ago
W stream!
-1 like

Report
DaveScribe
5 days ago
I had my car searched & phone taken, illegally by cops just for being in my car in the parking lot of my college. I got charged with trespassing & a felony. This is in the US. I had political flyers put up at my college, & the authorities came knocking at my door. Like you, I was searched & my phone was taken because of a woman’s false accusation. I’m brown, but at the end of the day, the problem seems to be this dishonorable effeminate behavior; not color. Yeah, Muslims are raping your girls while you blame Indians, but really the problem is this bitchmade culture. If you white males actually enforced traditional patriarchy, the W€$T wouldn’t be so cucked.
-1 like

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

Hello?

 

Ernst Zundel: Hello.

 

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

 

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

 

Radio Host: Okay, I’ll ask you that.

 

Ernst Zundel: Thank you.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: No.

 

Radio Host: Okay.

 

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

 

Radio Host: Okay.

 

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

 

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

 

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

top

 

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

 

Radio Host: Hi.

 

Ernst Zundel: Hello.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: Thank you very much.

 

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

top

 

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

 

Next to Reynolds Reports.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

top

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Radio Host: You really believe that?

 

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

top

 

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

 

Radio Host: Okay, you were born in Germany.

 

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

 

[06:27]

 

Radio Host:

 

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

 

Are you back there?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

top

 

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

 

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

top

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

top

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Radio Host: Say that again.

 

09 No Six Million Jews – the Red Cross Report

top

 

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

 

Radio Host: How many?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Radio Host: Yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[11:45]

 

 

10 There Were No Gas Chambers Anywhere in Germany!

top

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Radio Host: [words unclear]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, I thought we were through.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay, thank you.

 

11 Zundel’s Commentary on the Conversation So Far

top

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, I am.

 

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

 

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

top

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: Oh dear!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[17:48]

 

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

 

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

 

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

top

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Caller 2 (female): No, we’re not.

 

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

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay, thank you.

 

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

 

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

 

[break]

 

Ernst Zundel: Hello.

 

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

 

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

 

[break]

 

14 Why Don’t You Use Your Real Name?

top

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: That’s right.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

15 West Germany and East Germany Are Dictatorships

top

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

16 Do You Believe in the White Superiority?

top

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: No. No.

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: He’s a jew!

 

Radio Host: Yes, I know that.

 

[22:43]

 

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

 

Radio Host: Go ahead.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

17 Problems with Canada and Its Immigration Policy

top

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: Certainly, yes!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: Don’t import problems!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Radio Host: I’m sure it is.

 

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

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: Certainly.

 

Radio Host: Okay, go ahead.

 

Caller 4 (male): Mr. Frederick?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yeah?

 

18 Have You Ever Been to Auschwitz?

top

 

Radio Host: Have you ever been to Auschwitz?

 

Ernst Zundel: Pardon me?

 

Radio Host: Have you ever visited Auschwitz concentration camp?

 

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

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes.

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes.

 

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

 

19 Red Cross Report on German Concentration Camps

top

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And he said:

 

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

 

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

 

[28:34]

 

 

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

top

 

Radio Host: And you say the same for Belsen?

 

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

 

Radio Host: That was raised to the ground also?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay. Fine, thank you.

 

Radio Host: How’s the weather in Toronto?

 

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

 

21 Zundel’s Advice Re Dealing with Radio Station Hosts

top

 

[Zundel’s commentary]

 

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

 

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

 

[Interview continues]

 

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

top

 

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

 

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

 

Radio Host: Explain that.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: Of course.

 

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

 

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

 

Radio Host: What talk about it all?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[34:48]

 

Radio Host: That’s a crime.

 

23 Was the Canadian Concentration Camps Not a Crime?

top

 

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

 

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

 

But it’s well talked about.

 

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

 

Radio Host: Go ahead.

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: I’m 39.

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: That’s right.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: Hey, that’s nice.

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: Good.

 

Caller (male): I saw it was, …

 

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

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: I never did. I never did!

 

Caller (male): You don’t?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

24 Caller Recounts Seeing Ss Shot People

top

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: And what did you do about it?

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: Exactly!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Caller (male): I probably was.

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: I’m not ranting or raving.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[break]

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: Not anymore. Not anymore.

 

Radio Host: They did it one time?

 

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

 

25 There is Always an Uncle Tom.

top

 

[Zundel’s commentary on the caller]

 

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

 

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

 

[39:59]

 

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

 

Hello?

 

Caller (male): Hello.

 

Radio Host: Go ahead.

 

26 Caller on Japanese in Concentration Camps

top

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Caller (male): Pardon?

 

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

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: And Mr. Reynolds.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: This was after the war was on.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[45:47]

 

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

top

 

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

 

[Zundel’s commentary]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

28 Caller on the Suppressed Book ‘All Honorable Men’

top

 

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

 

Radio Host: Yes.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Radio Host: Make your point, please.

 

Caller (male): Pardon?

 

Radio Host: Make your point.

 

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

 

Radio Host: Okay, thanks for your comment.

 

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

top

 

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

 

Radio Host: Go ahead.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

You see?

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: No.

 

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

top

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[53:02]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

31 Caller Claims Innocent Children Put in Gas Chambers

top

 

Caller (male): Hello?

 

Radio Host: Yes, go ahead.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

top

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[58:44]

 

 

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

top

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

top

 

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

 

35 Anti-Semitism as a Natural Self-Defence Reaction

top

 

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

 

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

top

 

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

 

Back to the program.

 

37 Female Caller Supporting the Holocaust Movie

top

 

Radio Host: Hello, Good morning.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Caller (female): They do!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:07:53]

 

38 Male Caller Somewhat Supportive of Zundel’s Position

top

 

Radio Host: Thanks for your call. Go ahead.

 

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

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: Absolutely!

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: Absolutely!

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: Absolutely!

 

Radio Host: And two wrongs do not make right!

 

Ernst Zundel: Absolutely!

 

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

 

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

 

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

top

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: Controversial!

 

Radio Host: Controversial.

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: What?

 

[Call cut out]

 

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

top

 

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

 

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

 

Radio Host: Yes, go ahead again.

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: A Hollywood movie.

 

Caller (female): American supervision.

 

Ernst Zundel: A Hollywood movie.

 

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

 

“I was lucky I survived!”

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: In other words, …

 

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

 

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

 

[1:12:59]

 

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

top

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Radio Host: Hey, thanks for your call.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr Reynolds.

 

Radio Host: Go ahead.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

In other words, the Indian judge calls them barbarians!

 

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

 

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

top

 

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

 

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

 

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

top

 

Radio Host: Yes caller.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

top

 

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

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: Pardon me?

 

Radio Host: How many votes did you get?

 

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

 

Radio Host: Why?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:18:47]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel: The results are obvious. Thank you.

 

Radio Host: Thank you very much.

 

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

top

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:27:06]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

[01:29:13]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

 

See Also

top

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

 

And now we have another interesting program for you.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[07:46]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[15:26]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[22:05]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Ernst Zundel here thanking you for your support.

 

[29:34]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

(Comments as of 4/2/2025 = )

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

See Also

top

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

Ernst Zundel – 1967-68 Radio Shows in Montreal Discussing Israel and Jewish Topics 2 – Transcript

 

 

 

 

The World’s First Anti-Holocaust Convention — Instauration Dec, 1979

An Open Letter to New Jersey’s Governor

Historians or Hoaxers?

House of Orwell

Misha: Surviving with Wolves or …

Bradley Smith’s Smith Report # 1

The Liberation of the Camps: Facts vs. Lies

The Plum Cake

 

 

 

Auschwitz: Myths and Facts

Powers and Principalities XI – Ewen Cameron, MK-Ultra, Holocaust Revisionism — TRANSCRIPT

Tales of the Holohoax – A Historian’s Assessment – Part 1

The Holocaust Lie — Made in America

Probing the Holocaust: The Horror Explained — TRANSCRIPT

Jim Rizoli Interviews Prof Robert Faurisson, Oct 2015 — TRANSCRIPT

Holocaust Eyewitnesses: Is the Testimony Reliable?

Alain Soral – My Homage to Robert Faurisson, Oct 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

Inside Auschwitz – You’ve never seen THIS before! — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

Amazion Bans 100s of Holocaust Revisionist Books!

AUSCHWITZ – A Personal Account by Thies Christophersen

Jim Rizoli Interviews Bradley Smith — TRANSCRIPT

London Forum – Alfred Schaefer – Psychological Warfare – TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report Interviews Eric Hunt — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio – Germar Rudolf – Persecution of Revisionists & Demographic Disaster – Part 1— TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio: Nicholas Kollerstrom — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice TV – Ingrid Carlqvist – Scandal in Sweden When Ingrid Questions the Unquestionable — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report with Carolyn Yeager on Johnson vs Anglin debate — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

 

 

Joel Davis – WWII Revisionism Re-enters the Mainstream – Sep 6, 2024 – Transcript

Mark Collett: Hello everybody and welcome to Patriotic Weekly Review, episode number 305. And we’re live tonight on Odysee, DLive, Rumble and Entropy. Please make sure you share this show because it’s going to be a good one. And you might be thinking, where is Thomas Sewell?

 

Well, I can tell you this now, we’ve been chatting for about 10, 15 minutes. He’s just making himself a coffee and he said he’d be back in a couple of moments. He said:

 

“Do you do an intro?”

 

I said:

 

“Yeah.”

 

“He says:

 

“Do you mind if I grab a coffee?”

 

Because I think there for him now it’s about 6 am in the morning, so obviously I appreciate him getting up at that time to do this show. So don’t worry, he is here. I’m just doing the intro.

 

Now, I’ve got a couple of things coming up later in the week. I’m live with Dr. David Duke at 4pm on Friday. I’m also doing a little pre-recorded video. It’s only a short one because I’ve been very busy with the baby, as you know and all the other stuff. And it’s about how quickly demographics can change. It’s actually about a borough in London that went from majority White British to White British being about 10% of the population in just two decades!

 

So that’s like about a generation, is all it took for the White Brits in that area to go from being the majority to being a very small minority, and not even the majority minority as they call it, where you know, the Whites are a minority but they’re the largest group. You know, Whites weren’t even the largest group in The Borough. Bangladeshis were. So anyway that’s coming out on Friday.

 

Then on Sunday I’m having another Australian on. I’m having Joel Davis on. Now Joel and me have been talking quite a bit recently. And Joel wants to discuss his essay, his sort of debate he’s been having with Keith Woods via a series of essays about National Socialism. And he’s very passionate about this. And I’m doing a bit of an interview saying:

 

“Can National Socialism be salvaged and is it a relevant ideology in the 21st century?”

 

And that’ll be with Joel Davis at 8pm on Sunday. So that’s going to be a bit of a sort of an interview, not really a debate because I want to hear his point of view. I am going to put some searching questions to him and I’ll be about a two hour show but that’ll be an hour later than usual. 8pm on Sunday. So if you want to hear Joel Davis on why he believes that National Socialism is still relevant and can be salvaged and why he thinks it’s important, I’m going to be showcasing that on Sunday at 8pm. So that’s what I got planned for the rest of the week.

 

Now, if you like this show, if you like the work I do, if you like the fact that I never give in, I never cuck, and I’m very, very consistent with my output, even when, you know my son is born, I’m here on a show with you guys, please do consider dropping a small donation. $3, $5, $10, whatever you can afford, whatever you think this show’s worth, whatever you think my work in the movement is worth, please consider supporting me. Because nothing goes behind a paywall and I have never, ever charged a penny for any of my work! Everything’s always been free.

 

And obviously tonight’s going to be a big interview.

 

So if you want to ask questions to myself and Thomas and the second hour of the show, you can do that by dropping a Superchat. And any paid Superchat we will read out in the second half of the show or ask relevant questions from the audience.

 

And as I said, uou can donate on Odysee, you can donate on Entropy, and we’ll read those out in the second half of the show. And it all goes to a good cause.

Anyway, let’s introduce tonight’s special guest. It is of course, Thomas Sewell.

 

Now, Thomas is from Australia and he is one of the most famous Australian nationalists. And the state have come down hard on him for that he has stood on a very, very firm platform. He has never cucked, he has never given an inch and he has kept fighting despite the incredible state oppression. He runs the National Socialist Network. They are a very active protest and advocacy group which also helps young males with their self esteem and fitness. They do a number of very, very provocative protests, but they’ve been gaining a lot of support and as such, the state are coming down hard on them with some of the most draconian legislation that Australia has ever seen! Something that brings Australia in line with the likes of Britain and Germany with Hate Speech laws and even jailing people for raising their right arm.

 

But this hasn’t beaten down Tom. He still leads the group. The group keeps on growing and their protests get ever more provocative. And they will not be beaten.

 

So, Tom, how are you doing this morning? It’s morning for you, evening for us. I hope you’re well. How’s things going down there?

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, we are engaged on all fronts.

 

So we’re keeping very busy. We are doing a lot of background work at the moment because of the lawfare we’ve encountered. So our first objective is to maintain the organisation momentum. But we’re definitely in the trenches. So I like to compare it to manoeuvre warfare. And this is obviously not endorsement of any paramilitary strategy, Just the notion that you can study politics and you can study war, and you’ll find that they’re basically the same thing.

 

[05:37]

 

And I think most of the people in the audience have a quite almost autistic understanding of World War II history and the blitzkrieg or manoeuvre warfare. They have an understanding that the First World War was a failed strategy. The idea of trench warfare and trying to bleed the enemy dry in this kind of sense. It’s not an effective strategy if you have a smaller economy than your enemy. And that’s what the Germans figured out pretty early on in the war, in the First World War, hence the Second World War, when people were able to be mobilised, so to speak, you saw these very, very deep, penetrating warfare, manoeuvre warfare movements.

 

And I think that we need to take that strategy to politics. I think we’ve always taken that strategy to politics, Even if we’ve used quite a vocal and almost abrasive terms, to most people within the general public, that is what penetration does of the psyche, because politics is really about penetration of the psyche.

 

And I believe that the conservative model is trench warfare. I believe that they don’t want to take ground. It’s too dangerous to take ground because the enemy’s too established in their position, and they need to just hold ground. And you can never win a war, or a political conflict by just defending, by just holding ground. Obviously, we’ve seen the Conservatives concede and concede and concede by an enemy that is just innumerable and has a has a better fighting spirit than the conservative weak Right.

 

And so we’re trying to get mobile again. We’re just currently in the trenches, but it’s okay. There’s always time to consolidate and work out your logistics and move forward.

 

But I think we’ve got about 34 court cases at the moment that have built up over the last year or so. and this is obviously the main system of the state to bog us down. And the spring will come, the snow will melt, the mud will clear, and we’ll be on our way soon. We’ve just got to win one crucial court battle to get things back up and running again. And that’s going to be the most important, but not actually the most expensive. We’ve actually had a lot of really expensive court battles over the last three years. But we need one critical, like a wonder weapon to get us mobile again, which is going to be in the High Court.

 

So that’s what we’re working towards. And that will free up a lot of our organisation to continue operating the way it is and the way it’s winning and the way we’re taking ground, the way we’re penetrating through and shifting that Overton Window. We are the fighters on the Right. Well, I’ll be careful with my language. You know, we’re streaming in Britain, but we are the political movers on the Right versus the political trench warfares on the Right, the Conservatives. And we’re actually the movers. We’re actually shifting the line. And that’s why they want to tangle us up in the barbed wire. So, yeah.

 

Mark Collett: I do agree with your analogy. And one of the books I recommend people read is The Art of War, because I think The Art of War is directly applicable to politics. I would say that and Machiavelli’s The Prince are two books that are very helpful to outsider politicians.

 

Now, one of the sort of tools that you guys use so effectively is you are a small group, and I don’t mean that in an insulting way, and you punch well above your weight.

 

Now, obviously, ethno-nationalist groups are usually small groups because most normal people are quite scared to be involved because of the repercussions. And it takes quite brave men to be involved in a cause like this because you stand to lose an awful lot by being involved in this cause.

 

I mean, I know you have personally been harassed by the police. And you face incarceration regularly.

 

But one of the things I’ve got to say is you guys, you punch well above your weight. And with the use of your sort of provocative rhetoric and your provocative protests, you get notice, and you get far more publicity than a lot of maybe, you know, larger in membership terms, but more milquetoast groups.

 

And I’ve seen people in the past criticise groups for doing this. One of the guys historically that got criticised for this approach was George Lincoln Rockwell.

 

But as Warren Balogh said the other week, people today are still talking about George Lincoln Rockwell. He’s still a guy that inspires people to this day and still inspires people in the media even to write articles about him, even though he’s long gone. And you guys are treading that path now. But arguably times are far more oppressive now than they were in Rockwell’s time.

 

Now, when you do get these media blitz moments where everybody’s talking about you, is that something that you’re sort of really gunning for and how does that affect the organisation? Are you bringing in a lot of young blood from those articles?

 

[10:52]

 

 

Thomas Sewell: We’re getting a lot more support from the wider community, from Conservatives that are switching sides, that are switching strategy. They’re starting to believe that we do need to have pushers and movers and shakers on the Right, that we need agitators, that we need a far-Right. That without a far-Right, we can’t have anything that we want, even if we don’t agree with everything that the far-Right agrees with but what I’ve often found with a lot of these supporters, for example, for every hundred people that contact us, probably almost 90 want to support us. They reach out because they want to support us. They want to be involved in a political party or they want to be involved in some sort of pay a little bit of money, get a little pin and say:

 

“Thanks, guys, I’ve done my job.”

 

They want to send a little present to the front line, so to speak, the political front line. They don’t actually want to go sit in the trenches with you and work out how to take ground. But about maybe 10 out of a hundred, probably 10%, are actually keen to get involved and join in. And honestly, they come from all demographics. They come from all demographics. For every, for every 18 or 21 year old that we recruit, we recruit a 44 year old with three kids.

 

So that’s something that we never used to have. And we’re seeing the movement, we’re seeing men that actually have something to lose, realizing that this isn’t just the strongest horse, but there isn’t actually an alternative. And if we don’t start building the manpower at this level, we’re never going to see change in this country.

 

So the other conversation I think you asked about getting in the media spotlight, our objective isn’t to get in the media spotlight as much as it is, because that obviously helps shift the Overton Window in of itself. It’s not spotlight for spotlight’s sake. Like, I know that’s not what you’re suggesting, but that is sort of what some people suggest. A lot of our critics in the more moderate Right they just say that we’re just doing this purely to get attention. And that’s not actually how politics works. We’re doing it so that we can present as the only legitimate opposition to the system. Because the system is obviously a Uni-party. And when people are watching the television, the system is agreeing with each other on everything that is important to, for there to be an opposition. There is no opposition when it’s a major subject.

 

And then the Left and the Right disagree on things that are irrelevant, things that are minute. And we are trying to not just bring ourselves into the picture, but bring those important conversations that are being avoided by the mainstream parties and forcing them, forcing them into a position where they’re defending an indefensible position! Whether that be Drag Queen Story Hour like this tranny nonsense, whether it be mass immigration, whether it be laws against free speech. By forcing their hand, by forcing them to react in the stupid and silly and overconfident ways that they have, they lose legitimacy way faster than we gain 100 members. And that’s a hard thing to measure. And that’s what a lot of people, I guess on the tactical level, they don’t understand about the strategic level. They think like, we’ve had some rallies where things haven’t gone to plan. People have been a little bit upset afterwards and morale has been low.

 

And what I’ve said to people is:

 

“Don’t worry about where your morale is right now. Like, you guys have done a good job. We got this message on the table. Give it the next couple weeks, See the news articles that come out, see how the system overreacts, overplays its hand.”

 

See how the public, even if they don’t support us, that because in the early days, the public didn’t support us at all! They do now, but they didn’t support us at all in the early days. But what it did was it made the public not support the regime! And that is more important than getting public support, is making the public turn against the regime. Because regime legitimacy and regime support is at an all time low!

 

And obviously there needs to be an alternative. But alternatives are often built in vacuums. Like serious alternatives are built in vacuums. You can only really build a vanguard. You can only build that Spearhead. You can only build that very small formed body of volunteers in the early days when system legitimacy is really high. And so attacking the system’s legitimacy is actually more important. Making the system attack its own legitimacy is actually far more important than 15 seconds of fame.

 

But we’ve had so many segments of 15 seconds of fame that we are starting to become, you know, household names or even folk heroes to some people. You know, we’re the Kelly gang, we’re the agitators, we’re Eureka Stockade, we’re the Aussie battler, we’re the underdog!

 

And a lot of people respect us and a lot of people recognise us in the street. And our allies are growing and are numerous and a lot of people are jumping ship from the regime to support us in our attacks against the regime, our political attacks against the regime.

 

So we’re in a struggle for our survival.

 

And I do also believe that fame is important. I do also believe that the spotlight is important. If the spotlight’s not on us, who’s it on? And you know, and I’m sure most of the audience are also concerned about the ever growing presence of bad faith actors that the system is building in a lab. We see them pop up on Twitter all the time, these nobodies that have never done anything, that have never built a group. They don’t have any community behind them and they don’t have any media experience by the looks of it. And then suddenly the algorithm is putting them in everyone’s feed and they’ve got 300,000, 500,000, 700,000 in such a short period of time, followers on social media.

 

These people are very concerning because these people are obviously part of the regime trying to not necessarily bait and switch, but the regime trying to transform and mutate and synthesize our talking points to then redirect them back into ultimately, obviously, if it doesn’t appear right now, ultimately back into system legitimacy. And the greatest of all time, in my opinion, is Donald Trump, in that regard. He absolutely perfected dog whistling our talking points and continues to do things and say things in the immediate that are in White interests. But then very quickly he works out a way to mutate them into jewish interests.

 

[17:49]

 

 

So that’s also why fame is important. Because if they’re talking about you, like if America had a genuine, well, obviously there’s some guys rising stars, like Thomas Rousseau, for example. But if America had a genuine Right-wing alternative over the last 15 years, you would find that, I mean, there was some guys and certainly they were put in prison. Unfortunately, as we know, that’s what the system does. If they see someone of high value, they put him in prison, a lot of the time.

 

But yeah, Donald, Donald Trump wouldn’t have found his feet so easily, I think if there was an established Right-wing alternative the way there are in European politics.

 

But with the Uni-party and with it being 49-49% Democrat, Republican, that’s America is in the most dangerous situation with that to continue to occur. And our goal has to be in Britain and Australia to transition more into those European style politics to attack system legitimacy and let other people fill that vacuum and then see where we’re heading, what our timeline is.

 

Mark Collett: Well, I think it’s really interesting what you’re doing in another sense as well, because the Left have always been very, very successful in that they’ve always pushed boundaries.

 

So the Left have got where they are not by towing a line, not by being polite, not by accepting their enemies arguments or playing by their enemy’s rules. The Left have created their own rules and they’ve put pushed every single boundary as hard and fast as possible.

 

Now, on the other side of the political spectrum, the sort of quote, unquote, “Right” has largely believed that if they tone down what they say if they play the game, if they adhere to the Left’s playbook and the Left’s sort of language rules, they will be more acceptable and be more successful as a result. And this has tended to lead to not just sort of punching Right, but it’s tended to lead to a fragmentation on the Right where you have groups that are closer to the sort of conservative centre spending more time attacking groups to the right of them rather than what the Left do.

 

So the Left have the centrist Left groups, but they actually support groups to the Left of them because they realise that the groups to the Left of them are involved in the same tug of war and pulling in the direction they want to go.

 

And I think the NSN really is sort of one of the leading, if not the leading group in the Anglo-sphere now for pushing the argument as far as it can go in the direction that many Conservatives have given up on. And saying all that as a follow up to this point, would you say that you get more attacks from the Left or more attacks from establishment Conservatives? Because I often find that when someone does raise the issue of radical ethno-nationalism or as you guys do, National Socialism, often more attacks flow from the sort of centrist conservative right than they do from the Left.

 

Thomas Sewell: Hmm. Now I don’t have a solid answer for you on that one because it changes. It does change. We do find that the centre Right often has a strategy of asphyxiation, where they just, they refuse to talk about us. They don’t want to acknowledge their competitor, so to speak, for space in the Right. But, and you’ll find that the Left establishment will attack us constantly. But then sometimes it changes over. The Left get their act together and they start ignoring us and they start actually taking their own advice, which is asphyxiation. And then what you find is the centre Right have a habit of attacking us again from the position that:

 

“We don’t love Israel. And these are evil. They’re bad for the jewish community!”

 

And they’ll attack us for social cohesion. Because they don’t want to necessarily use the word far-Right extremists. They obviously have to frame the argument against us differently to how the Left frame it.

 

And so what they’re doing at the moment is they’re saying that:

 

“We’re bad for social cohesion and we have to protect multiculturalism because these people are bad, they’re troublemakers.”

 

I think the opposition leader [Dutton*] who’s soon to be prime minister said that:

 

“We were losers with no friends, and that we’re awful!”

 

And that was really interesting because we have a lot of friends. We just don’t, we just don’t take jewish money like he does. Scukg on we, yeah, we just have different friends. Our friends are all people that care about this country. His friends are all people that want to destroy the country.

 

[* Peter Craig Dutton (born 18 November 1970) is an Australian politician and former police detective serving as the current Leader of the Opposition, holding office as the leader of the Liberal Party of Australia since May 2022. He has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for the division of Dickson since 2001. Dutton previously served as the minister for Defence from 2021 to 2022 and the minister for Home Affairs from 2017 to 2021. He held various ministerial positions from 2004 to 2022 in the governments of Howard, Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison. Dutton grew up in Brisbane. He worked as a police officer in the Queensland Police for nearly a decade upon leaving school, and later ran a construction business with his father. He joined the Liberal Party as a teenager and was elected to the House of Representatives at the 2001 election, aged 30.]

 

So everyone’s got friends in politics.

 

But what they mean is obviously that we are, yeah, we’re not a “system approved” ideology and therefore they should be discredited. But the problem with that rhetoric coming from the system is that no one likes it anymore. It’s unpopular. It’s never been so unpopular.

 

So calling us the outsider is actually playing into our playbook and I think they know that, but they’re just ill disciplined. But yet, in short, to answer your question, yeah, we get attacked from, I think both sides equally. I don’t really keep track of it as well as I probably should, because I’m just focused on destroying their legitimacy and focus on building ours.

 

[23:27]

 

 

Mark Collett: Well, one of the things I’ve noticed of late is around the world, in every White country, there now seems to be a huge divide which is largely being pushed by the Trump-Musk regime. So Trump and Musk have captured Twitter and they are now saying that:

 

“You can be a nationalist on Twitter as long as you are not openly an ethno-nationalist. And as long as you support Israel.”

 

So genuine radical groups such as NSN, Patriotic Alternative, the NJP, when they were active Patriot Front, they’ve been completely taken off it. The Nordic Resistance, there have been almost every genuine radical group there are. You know, there are no radical groups in the UK still allowed on Twitter. They’ve been completely cleansed. And it seems to be that this new, you know, Elon Musk era of Twitter is almost as censorious as the previous one. But previously you had to play by the Left-wing rulebook, but now you have to play by the sort of Zio-Right, you know, pro-Israel, don’t push it too far, rollback. It’s not genuine free speech. And I was appalled when all you guys lost your Twitter accounts because people like Joel were blowing up on a daily basis there.

 

And I noticed one thing that was really interesting. Every time you guys got into a debate with an Australian politician, even if that went right to the top, like the Prime Minister, you guys were completely destroying them. And there seemed to be a very, very positive reaction, especially from young males in Australia to the policies you guys are pushing.

 

And obviously I watch, strangely enough, out of all the political shows that are on social media, I actually tend to watch you, Joel and Blair the most, because you’re on at about 10, 11 o’clock my time in the morning.

 

So I’m always sat at the computer, working there and having something on to listen to is always great. And you guys are always on. And listening to the stride you made into that sort of young, disaffected White male sector of Australian politics, which has been completely neglected, was amazing!

 

But how do you feel now moving forward without Twitter? Do you think that’s going to limit you to a large degree?

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, it’s limiting us a little bit. But we were getting ahead of ourselves. So apologies for those that don’t like the blitzkrieg references, but we pushed so far into the enemy territory, we dragged that Overton Window so far across and had so many successes that we were running out of supplies.

 

And so in my perspective, it was Adolf Hitler says:

 

“There’s always a silver lining. Every defeat can be turned into a victory.”

 

And I truly believe that if you actually look at what the universe is asking of you, or God, then it’s very clear that we were stretching our supply lines thin. The structure of our organisation needed to be addressed, our recruitment needed to be addressed. Just the management of the organisation as a whole, we were evolving into that next stage where we needed to develop more junior leaders and more people to manage region reps and stuff like that. And this is where our focus needs to be for the first half of this year.

 

And obviously all the legal cases and having clarity, we couldn’t just keep doing what we were doing. If we did, we would have ended up. I think I gained about 20,000 followers in about two or three months.

 

And so I went from getting my account back, I think I got, when I got it back, I think there was a 9,000 followers on it. And because obviously I had it for a short period of time last year before it was deleted. When I got it back, I was smaller than most of the Australian politicians and within two months I was much larger than most Australian politicians with far greater reach, despite the sort of tenfold they’ve got, like a tenfold. I noticed that you’ll get about 10 times as many likes as you do views in proportion to other accounts. So that obviously that nerfing or that bottling of the reach. I was still getting far more reach than all of these you know, Mark Dreyfus and James Patterson and you know, Peter Dutton and Anthony Albanese [PM], like some of them are senior people within the Australian government. The ones that are writing the laws to have us locked up for destroying them on Twitter. They were just getting absolutely pillaged in their supply lines. They had no support. All of our support was mounting. And the public that’s on Twitter, which is probably hundreds of thousands of Australians they were loving it! They were enjoying it. They were loving it that someone was sticking it to the man, so to speak.

 

And even though we’re not on Twitter anymore, that doesn’t really matter because we pushed so much, for now. Obviously next year it might be good to get back on Twitter. And that ties in with some other logistics issues that we’ve got to deal with and I think registering as a registered and recognised political organisation within the Australian Electoral Commission will give us a huge advantage in terms of maintaining our social media, because then you can get that government check mark.

 

And that’s something that I think Twitter would have a very hard job at censoring once you’re technically recognised as being part of the government, even if you don’t have any MPs or Senators. But to be an actual political, registered political organisation, which is just something that we’re looking at over about a 12, 18 month period. We’ve got some other things to deal with first, but then we’ll get to it.

 

[29:17]

 

But as I was saying, because I can still go on Twitter, I can’t like anything. You can’t see my account. But I’m still, I’m still on there, just viewing occasionally, probably too much because I’ve got a lot on my plate. But what I’ve noticed is that you have not just disaffected young White men on there, you have a lot of middle aged men and women, you have a lot of grandmas, you have a lot of mums and dads on there with their full name and their profile photo echoing our talking points almost to the word and becoming political commentators on their own without getting shadow banned because they’re not on the government register of naughty boys or naughty girls.

 

And they’re getting in some cases 10 times the reach that we’re getting just as average Joes and without a political organisation, but building up a huge social media profile. And their talking points are spot on! And they’re calling out, you know the fact I just looked at it this week, Australia brought in 200,000 Indians this month for student visas!

 

Obviously they’re all returning back to university so that’s going to be a big influx this month.

 

But I think it’s been 700,000 since last year and, or since the last season or however it works. But I’m seeing figures pop up. I’m not looking too hard at the exact nitty-gritty of it, But I’m seeing 200,000 in a month, 700,000 in a year. And the Australians are just going wild over this. This is insane!

 

And none of the political parties are looking to do anything about it.

 

And what I’m seeing in the comments section from basically everyone in these threads, not NSN members, not radical far-Right extremists, I’m just seeing from everyone saying:

 

“Mass deportations!”

 

And so that’s what we were on Twitter to say, and people are saying it now. So we’ve broken through the enemy lines and the trenches have now caught up to us.

 

And I said that about Drag Queen Story hour. No one in Australia protested Drag Queen Story out until we did. We did it a couple times and then we never needed to do it again because the Conservatives or you know, the centre Right and these alternative Right-wing people that are still within the realms of the mainstream, they started holding that ground for us. We took the ground, they hold the ground. We take the ground, they hold the ground! That’s it!

 

That’s how it works. We are on the offence, we are offensive, we go on the offence. And then these people fill in the ranks and they bolster and they hold the ground. And that’s a position that’s never going to shift. Now that trench where, where the centre Right is at in Australia, where the average Australian person is at, that doesn’t feel that they identify with the Liberal Party or Labour Party, which is our two major parties, where they’re. And probably most people within the Liberal Party, but they’re probably quiet about it. Where they believe right now is that mass deportations it’s not a debate, it’s not negotiable.

 

And then the system is coming out, especially the premier [Chris Minns] of New South Wales, who’s an idiot, which is the biggest state in Australia, New South Wales, he’s come out and said that:

 

“Freedom of speech is incompatible with multiculturalism, and that’s why you’re not having it. You’re not allowed freedom of speech. It’s incompatible. And we choose multiculturalism and social cohesion.”

 

And so you’re not getting your rights back. And that is just a fucking, … A lot of guys in our camp have been saying, Chris Minns must be our guy, he must be an accelerationist. You know, he must just be an infiltrator within the system that’s just crashing and burning the Labour Party and the Liberal Party, the Uni-Party, because that is the dumbest fucking thing a politician could ever say to a bunch of White people.

 

And it just shows how out of touch they are. Obviously it has consequences for political activists. As we are all aware of, senior political activists and senior spokespeople are going to bear the brunt of these laws. People like myself and Jacob Hersant and Joel Davis and potentially even people like Blair Cottrell and a lot of other guys that are periphery to the movement or periphery to the organisation, but deeply within the movement.

 

And I don’t think we’re at British style laws yet, but we are definitely one step closer. We are definitely getting very close to those British style laws, which again gives us time to go back to the drawing board as to what our strategy is going forward and what’s our Left and Right of us. Because as you said earlier, our objective has always been to put forward the most radical, lawful position!:

 

“What is the line in the sand? Where is it? And let’s go right up to that line in the sand and test their nerve!”

 

And we’ve done that quite successfully with only a couple entrapment operations, only a couple of us going to prison. And we’re out of prison now, and I’m sure there’s more prison time to do, unfortunately. But that’s not going to stop us, is it? Because we’re going to secure the existence of our people!

 

[34:09]

 

 

Mark Collett: So if you guys did pursue elections, would you be pursuing the elections with the goal of winning, or would you be pursuing the elections with the goal of getting yourself into potential TV debates or town hall debates, where you might not go out there to win, but you go out there to upend the system and to shift the Overton Window? Because I’m not sure whether the world is ready quite yet to vote for the majority of people to vote for a group like yours.

 

But I do think people would turn up at a town hall debate in greater numbers because you’re there. And I do think you would be the ones that, whether you won or not, you would be the ones everyone was talking about.

 

And I think there’s a I think it’s sort of like when David Duke stands. You know, David Duke stands and he knows now because of the demographic shift, that it’s very unlikely that he wins. But when he attends a debate, he knows that the numbers watching are going to be boosted by sort of 20, 30% just because he’s there. And his talk of Israel, where the where American money goes, AIPAC*, you know, jewish control of the media. By raising those issues in that way, in such a sort of public spectacle, it does shift the Overton Window. So would you be going out there to actually win, or would you be more going out there to sort of hijack the whole process and really upend the political system in your own way?

 

[* AIPAC: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is a pro-Israel lobbying group that advocates its policies to the legislative and executive branches of the United States. One of several pro-Israel lobbying organisations in the country, it has been called one of its most powerful lobbying groups.]

 

Thomas Sewell: It’s a very good question.

 

And I think that any leader, any organisation, should be honest with its supporters and with its members so that they know what they’re getting into. And I don’t think that you should start any process without that honesty. And you shouldn’t start any process, I think, without the intention to win! We have to have an intention to win!

 

Now, what does winning look like?

 

Now, that is another question in itself. I believe that it is possible for significant change to happen within the Parliament system, but ultimate change is not possible.

 

And so in the past, I have echoed the talking point, the very radical talking point, that there is no “political solution”, which is often misused and misunderstood by people that are edgy and angry and online. But what that really means is that there’s no ultimate Parliamentarian solution. That’s kind of the fine print of the subject. There is no political solution.

 

Obviously the system itself, the regime wishes to conflate that statement with one of illegal activity, which it isn’t! That’s not actually what that statement means, even if it’s misused by a small percentage of people. What “no political solution” means is that it’s mostly a statement of motivation for people to realise that Parliament does not change society. Society has to change so that Parliament changes that. The solution to the problem is to change the culture, the political culture to then impact Parliament.

 

And so many people are focused on the political party route and they’re thinking that:

 

“Oh, if we only we election harder, if only we hand out more leaflets, if only we., ..!”

 

And they’re working harder, but they’re not working smarter. They’re kind of stuck in the political factory mindset where they’re in the factory and they’re building. I’ve worked in a steel frame factory when times were tough and it’s probably not the worst job I’ve ever had, but it was the lowest paying job I ever had. And you know, when I first got doxed. And I was in the factory and you’re screwing off thousands of screws a day into these steel frames to build prefab walls and no matter how fast you screw off those frames, you’re not getting out of poverty. It’s not possible. You are stuck there. You have to think smarter, you have to work smarter, not harder. You’re never getting out of that poverty once you’re there.

 

So that’s the same mentality that people need to understand when they’re getting involved in party politics is that it’s not about electioning anywhere near as much as it is about shifting the culture and attitudes of the society which you’re running for Parliament is meant to be only one small component of and so I have dedicated, I have stated to my cadre, to my core members that:

 

“Yes, we are building a political party, no, we are not changing direction at, at the absolute maximum, 25% of our resources is going to be going towards this project. The majority of our resources still needs to go towards this overused term meta-political shift.”

 

And what I’m much more focused on at the moment than building a political party, despite the fact that it’s the news everywhere that everyone’s talking about and everyone’s saying:

 

“Oh, you know what’s this political party going to look like? What’s it going to be like? And you know, when are you going to launch it so I can sign up and be a member?”

 

What I’m actually focusing on more than anything is aesthetics. Aesthetics! I believe that the Right-wing, and this is a little bit of channeling the esoteric Bowdenism, but we need vitality! If the pro-White position, if the National Socialist position, if fascism, if radical nationalism, if whatever we want to call it’s irrelevant to me in some ways, but I think fascism is a pretty cool brand. We need to make a brand! It’s the brand power, it’s the staying power, it’s the aesthetic power of delivering a worldview through visual, through spectacle! The great masses of people, they know in their hearts that we are endeared to Australia. They know that we care about this country and we want the best for everyone in it. But they are caught up in the spectacle, in the bread and circuses of modern political culture. 21st century, boring Left versus Right political culture.

 

And what I’m focused on more than a political party is how do we bring vitality and vigor and strength and esthetics into the political conversation! Because to me, most people already agree with our talking points, so we don’t really need to educate them much to support us.

 

And on top of esthetics, there needs to be a way of interpreting the carrot and stick dynamic into the political arena. And so we are mostly stick as a political entity and yourself as a political entity.

 

A lot of people on the street may support us, but we think it’s just stick, stick, stick! They just think it’s fascism, it’s authoritarianism, or it’s radical nationalism. And we’re just going to start beating people with sticks in the street and they’re just going to be like:

 

“Well, they don’t hate me, so they’re not going to beat me with a stick. That’s why I support them.”

 

And it’s like, what is the carrot? What is the carrot? And there has to be a balancing act of that.

 

And that’s why, for what we’re trying to do with the launching of the political party or the policies is trying to have a balancing act between carrot and stick. So that’s very important to us.

 

[41:41]

 

And the last point that I’ll make on the subject is you asked me about what is going to be our sort of goals with making the party within the political system. And what I’d say is this, that those goals are ever evolving.

 

Of course the goals initially in launching is to show people that there’s an alternative and maybe you know, rabble raise and cause enough stir that we can get one or two guys in the Senate. We’re not going to be getting any MPs anytime soon, and it would be delusional to think that we are. We have to have a rational approach to it. It’d be good to get one guy in, even if that takes us five or seven years. That would be, that would be difficult. But at least we’ve got a representative and we can keep focusing on what our actual meta-political and community building and you know, White fortressing and everything else that we’re doing. All of these projects, the culture shift, the aesthetic shift, the active club shift, all of these things are so absolutely crucial!

 

And then not ultimately, but then the middle goal would be to be the tiebreaker and that’s the term that a lot of people are using. That worst case scenario. All that we’re ever going to be able to accomplish over the next 20 years is be a tiebreaker. That’s the sort of realistic worst case scenario that we could probably get a couple seats and sort of like what the BNP did and get up to that sort of 7%, maybe 8% total population. And that’s best case scenario. But that 7 or 8% could be a massive tiebreaker and help shift Australian politics into a more dynamic and fluid European style politics where 8% is actually a really big party. Where 8% could be the third or fourth biggest party in the country. Well, I think at the moment 8% would be the third or fourth biggest party. But ideally that 8% would come from smashing the centre parties, and there would be a lot of 8% parties. That would be the ideal scenario for us.

 

And then forming not coalitions of ideology but coalitions of convenience to ally with other smaller parties to be able to vote against and take away power from the Uni party. Because we can’t have any Parliamentary change until we smash the Uni party. Until we smash the centre two parties into a million pieces, there won’t be any Parliament change because they’re just too powerful and there’s just too many of them. So our goal shouldn’t be necessarily immediately to try to take power. Our goal should be to take away power from those that currently have it and to introduce a little bit of chaos into the system to create a vacum that can be filled later.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, I agree. I think part of what we do has always got to be taking a message to people that’s going to provoke a reaction. Now you want two reactions from people. You want the people who like you to be cheering and the people who dislike you to be wailing. So you make the maximum amount of sound possible with what you do.

 

Now, something else that we do is we do a lot of legal work, we do a lot of advocacy, we do a lot of help with young men.

 

So this week I helped the young guy who’s been struggling to get a job. He’s been in the doldrums, but helped him with a CV. This is something that I do regularly and help people with sort of training for interviews, for going for a job. We do legal advocacy and we do a series of different sort of training seminars, helping young people with life skills, things like that.

 

And I think that one of the things that’s missing amongst the White community, well, firstly, we’re not a community. But as soon as we stopped being a community, there stopped being a support network.

 

And I think that something that we do here that I’m particularly proud of is providing that support network. So Patriotic Alternative has already helped this year with several legal cases, one employment tribunal and one other legal case. And we’re always doing this to help people who’ve been discriminated against. Do you think the National Socialist Network will get involved in that kind of advocacy as well, or is that something you’re already doing?

 

[45:50]

 

 

Thomas Sewell: We’re already doing it a little bit on the side. So we have something, we have a similar tribunal, it’s called the Fair Work Commission, for when guys get doxed and lose their jobs.

 

So we’re always providing basic administrative advice for how to guys to engage in those processes, because it’s obviously unjust and improper for someone to be fired for their political views. And often they get a good result and they get a little bit of a payout and then, but “the process is the punishment”. You know, they, they’ve lost a job in the industry they actually want to work in. I’ll preface this whole conversation with what I’ve been telling my junior leaders as of the last sort of nine months, which is that their main trade is politics! What I’ve been teaching my guys, the guys that are region reps and sort of little branch reps, is that this is actually long term, their trade.

 

So whatever you’re doing for a job, whatever you’re doing for your career, whatever your trade is at the moment, whether you’re an engineer, whether you’re a lawyer, whether you’re a dentist, or a doctor, or a plumber, or a carpenter, regardless of all those things, you need to be starting to transition over the next 10 years or five years, depending on how high you are within the organisation structure. You need to be starting to think:

 

“Well, I’m doing 40 hours a week hitting nails into wood. How many hours a week am I learning statecraft?”

 

Because what we need to do more than engage in party politics is actually build a shadow government. We need to build an opposition government. We need to build a government, not a political party.

 

And that’s what I’ve always told people, that we are currently engaged in the endeavour of building a political party. But from day one, we have been engaged in building a government. And so a government provides services to its people.

 

So obviously an intelligent White nationalist organisation or ethno-nationalist organisation engages in some sort of quasi government service with its people. And it needs to be balanced. It needs to be balanced. You know, stick and carrot or, … That’s probably not a good term for talking about your own people. That’s more talking about the wider population that doesn’t really get it yet, but it is important to balance. It’s a very fine balancing act between the feminine and masculine forces of politics. And the feminine forces, I think, of politics. Well, that’s one way of looking at it. You could divide it as feminine or masculine, or you could divide it as fighting and logistics. You could, you could look at it from the perspective that the Taliban are the government in Afghanistan at the moment. And they obviously had people fighting us, fighting the Australians, fighting the British, fighting the Americans in open warfare.

 

But if you look at it purely from a political perspective, a lot of their success was the fact that they actually controlled vast swathes of the rural society. They governed over that society before they governed over the cities. And when we have the so-called fall of Afghanistan and the Taliban rule as of 2020 under the late Trump and Biden administration, what we’re really seeing is not the Taliban take over all of a sudden, nothing to everything, we’re just seeing them take over the cities. They already ruled the countryside, they already provided services to the countryside within their own rulebook, what they perceived to be the rule of law through obviously Sharia. They then implemented that on the fake astroturfed Afghani liberal democracy that was never going to be able to be sustainable in Afghanistan because it’s not real, it’s fake and gay.

 

So likewise, our people need to have a sense of loyalty to our mission based off the theoretical, which is, sorry, the ideas space, but unfortunately, well not necessarily unfortunately. But the reality is that that’s only a certain percentage of politically effective and politically active and politically thinking people of all different ages and also male and female, men and women. But the average Joe is thinking more in Terms of Services, more in terms of not what I can do for the state or for the folk or for the government, but what’s the government or the state or the nationalist organisation can do for them. So it does have to be a balancing act.

 

Obviously our main disagreement, which we don’t need to get into is that I ban picking up rubbish, for example, But I will change my policy on that when we actually have a suburb, when we have a suburb and when we have a town and when we have a park that we visit all the time and we actually have a sense of community, because we don’t, like as White people. There is no White National Park. There is no White public hall or public park or anything like this. When that occurs, I will change my policy on obviously keeping our streets clean.

 

But I do think that, and I do like what you guys and Patriot Front have done in terms of disaster relief. And we actually for the first time ever did a little bit with the storms up in Queensland. Not this time, but I think. Oh, sorry, both times.

 

So last year and this year there were some storms in Queensland and some of our guys, we didn’t promote it as much as maybe we should have or could have. But we’re not looking at this stage to over inflate our sense of community service because we’re not doing that much community service. So we are focusing on the political first and community service in the background.

 

But yes, certainly an expanded answer as well on the subject of a legal lobby and on lawfare. And we, every organisation that wishes to succeed in this game, yours, mine, Patriot Front, needs to have multiple wings, multiple arms. And I do appreciate the way that the British, that yourself and others, have focused quite heavily on building the infrastructure. Because every country, every White country doesn’t just need a White vanguard, doesn’t just need a White political force or meta-political force, but it does also need, … Because what is a meta-political force, it’s a way of achieving a political goal without the, just the direct and obvious route of Parliamentary politics. And so everything is political power.

 

[52:10]

 

And that’s what I tell people A petrol station, or a service station is technically political power, it’s meta-political power. But it is like investing in your own community is a political action. You know, building a political lobby group is political power. So we do need to have all of our white-collar people combining forces and working together as a team and building these, … We’ve got an overarching model where it’s not actually called the NSN, it’s called White Australia. And we have the NSN as our primary activist network. We have the EAM [European Australian Movement] which is our active club organisation which has been running just as long as NSN.

 

And a lot of people been confused of that is are you NSN or are you EAM? And it’s like, well look, for all public purposes I guess we’re NSN, but we’ve always had EAM running in the background as more of a community building and active club operation.

 

And obviously what we’re transitioning into is how do we go about building, like we don’t have a name for it. We’ve got a team of guys at the moment, some within the Org itself and some people that we’ve recruited from outside the Org that don’t want to necessarily run around the park and do push ups or run around the street in black block saying “Australia for the White man”. But they do believe Australia is for the White man.

 

And so we’re trying to build a team that. I don’t have a name for it just yet, but I’ll come up with one eventually when it’s necessary. That yeah, their main focus is just lawfare. Their main focus is just getting judgements at higher levels of court so that the political rights of Australians are protected, whether that be to do with freedom of speech, which we actually do have in Australia. We do! And that’s what’s being contested at the moment is we’ve got two different sets of laws in Australia that are contradictory to each other. And we’re the guys are going to be going to the High Court saying:

 

“Well hang on a minute, you can’t exist in a state of here’s four judgements within our constitution saying we have free speech and here’s four new laws that have been passed in the last 12 months that say we don’t have freedom of speech. So which one is it?”

 

So it needs to be contested. They’ve overstretched, overreached! And we’re going to catch them lacking. I think there’s a very strong chance we’re going to catch them lacking when it goes before the High Court, and they’re shitting themselves at the moment and they don’t know exactly what to do. And the people that are responsible for this fumble and this mistake, they’re just going to be removed from office. And a bunch of new faces that haven’t made mistakes yet are going to be put in place. And that’s a Band Aid issue that the system always has.

 

But multifaceted. And again, media is another important wing of any political organisation. That’s something that the Right-wing in Germany did very, very well. Right-wing the nationalists in Germany did very well in the late Weimar years, was they had a huge amount of Right-wing media. Now in Australia, all we really have, well, what we have on our side, there’s a great independent media company called The Noticer which does a very objective and fine job at stating the facts. And that is absolutely, … I see grandmas and grandpas, even see Leftists sharing articles from The Noticer. And that’s a great alternative media platform to what we call “Sky Jews” or Sky News. So I’m sure you’ve got Sky News as well in Britain it’s like in Australia it’s like our equivalent of Fox News. I think three quarters or over three quarters of the presenters are Zionists. The whole platform is a Zionist platform.

 

But I think three quarters are actually jewish Zionists and the rest are non-jewish Zionists. And it’s an absolutely horrible and disgusting platform that has maybe 10% at best, fair and reasonable people on it. I think 10%, maybe 20% of the guys on that platform actually care about Australia. They just unfortunately have to also care about Israel in order to care about Australia at the same time.

 

But that is a genuinely horrible platform outside of those, that sort of 10%. And that is a dangerous situation where the Right-wing is reliant on one singular news platform to try to get any sort of fair take in their favour because they’re always going to attack us because it’s a complete, you know, Zionist operation to control the Right-wing. So media would be just as important as your lawfare, as your legal lobby.

 

Whereas what I get asked by a lot of the older guys is:

 

“Where is the ADL for White people? You know, where’s the Anti-Defamation League for White people? Where’s the White lobby?”

 

And I think that is absolutely! And I know that one of your colleagues, is it Kate? Kate is trying to build A White lobby, I believe at the moment in England?

 

[56:55]

 

 

Mark Collett: We work with a group called the Workers of England, Union. So they have actually set up a trade union and that’s who we sort of ally with because they’ve actually got qualified legal experts, which is what you need to win these cases. And we partner with them to help promote a genuine trade union that stands up for workers.

 

And obviously a trade union has to be all encompassing. It can’t discriminate on the basis of race. So anyone can join the Workers of England, Union. But the Workers of England, Union is the only union in the country that will defend nationalists who are sacked for speaking their mind.

 

And this year we’ve already had some massive wins doing that. And we work with a solicitor called Robin Tilbrook, who runs a political party called the English Democrats. And he is the only solicitor in the country that has used civil law to actually, because he’s a practicing solicit, so he can go to court to sue the leaders of the grooming gangs to get civil compensation for the victims. Because what happens in this country, which this might shock you with, the grooming gangs, they get very, very short sentences and they might be forced to pay a couple of thousand pounds in compensation.

 

But most of these men are actually quite wealthy. They own their own businesses, they own property and their wealth is tied up in lots of different assets that can be seized. Well, Robin Tilbrook actually used the civil court to take a convicted grooming gang leader who had already been found guilty in the criminal court through the civil court system and they got a massive compensation package.

 

So what we’re actually hoping to do is roll out a system whereby as soon as these grooming gang leaders are released from prison, we immediately take them to court, civil court, and seize their houses. Because in their community, going to jail actually doesn’t shame them. Their community stands by them. But when they lose their wealth and their house, that does shame them. And it hits them a lot harder because most people can stand four or five years in jail. Most people can’t stand losing a 500,000 pound house. You know, that affects the entire family. So we do have legal advocacy and we do it with those groups.

 

Now, there is one question I wanted to ask you briefly because we’re going to the second hour now. We’re going to do the Superchats. If you haven’t Superchatted yet, but you’d like to contribute to my work on the show, please consider doing so.

 

But one thing I was going to ask you is, I don’t know if you saw it. But I did a review of the recent documentary on NSN. I did it here on Odysee. I watched the full thing live and gave commentary on it. And I’ve got to say it was one of the most blatant and disingenuous hit pieces I’ve ever seen!

 

So even in the UK, the hit pieces aren’t as bad as that because the whole thing built up to like some kind of terrorist attack and then the terrorists ended up being Muslims or blacks [chuckling] and it was nothing to do with you. They obviously using that or try to use that show to bring in new laws or new legislation to potentially harm you. Is that something you worry about in the future? The media colluding with the state to actually bring in some kind of legislation that would outright stop you advocating in the way that you are?

 

Thomas Sewell: It’s not a new concern of mine because it’s been happening since day one. If you are familiar or remember that I was imprisoned without trial for seven months before giving bail and having a whole series, I think 12 out of 13 charges were dropped and I was released from prison. That occurred in 2021 during the Covid lockdowns.

 

And when I tried to get full disclosure from the prosecution, which is what it’s called here in Australia, I’m sure it’s called something similar in Britain. Full disclosure. Is that correct, Mark? Yeah.

 

So when we try to get full disclosure for the defense, …

 

Mark Collett: It’s just called disclosure. In the UK, they have to give you every bit of evidence that supports your case as well, even if it undermines their case. And just as a funny aside, when they took me to jail, I made a claim that we had information that Muslims had guns in mosques in Bradford.

 

And when I got my disclosure bundle, there was actually a redacted piece showing that the police actually did have information that Muslims had guns in mosques in Bradford.

 

So yeah, we do have disclosure.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. So when my lawyers organised full disclosure from the police, there was actually a bar on that. There was a ban on that full disclosure and, or a stop, a hold, I don’t know what the exact term was called.

 

But they went to a higher court and they did something called public interest immunity, which basically is like:

 

“This is a state secret. It’s against the public’s interest to know this state secret. And therefore Mr. Sewell and the defense can’t have full disclosure.”

 

And we got this very small, very thin, maybe not even/4 disclosure. I don’t even think we got 1/4 of what we asked for in the disclosure. And they sent three King’s Councils to the Higher Court, not the High Court, but to the, I think it was the county. And they sent three Kings Councils. And can you guess who the three Kings Councils represented? One the police, the prosecutor, one the Attorney General, which is ASIO [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation], the government, and one, Channel Nine, the news.

 

Now why would Channel Nine be sending a King’s Council to a serious court of law in Australia to ban Thomas Sewell from getting full disclosure to defend against false allegations, if they’re not in collusion already? Why would Channel Nine, AISO and Victoria Police both send three lawyers, one lawyer each? Why would three of them come to court together to say to a county court judge:

 

“We don’t think Thomas Sewell should have the information he needs to defend himself because it’s against the public’s interest?”

 

[1:03:34]

 

So it’s not a new concern of mine. I’ve known from day one that these, a lot of these media companies are embedded with ASIO operatives. And ASIO has admitted that themselves. ASIO just doesn’t give a fuck, clearly. And when they’ve been in Senate inquiries, The head of ASIO, Mike Burgess, which is equivalent to your MI5 has said that:

 

“We have journalists in our employment.”

 

I mean that’s a pretty stupid thing to say, don’t you think? And we all know how the American system works with the majority of journalists are CIA or ex-CIA in America. So likewise I’m sure Britain and Australia is no different. They’re either CIA, sorry, they’re either intelligence operatives, or they are Left-wing communists. And it’s usually pretty easy to tell which one is which because one always supports Israel and the other doesn’t support Israel. And that’s how you can tell which ones are communists and which ones are intelligence operatives.

 

So that’s what we deal with globally or especially in the Anglo-sphere.

 

But I don’t think Russia or Ukraine would be any different. Or Poland or Hungary. I’m pretty sure they’ve got the same problem.

 

And yeah, I’m not concerned about them passing any laws to ban us because we have survived like three major Senate inquiries. We get raised at the Senate Question Time all the time. Mike Burgess, the leader, the head of ASIO has to be rolled out every time questions are asked about us and he has to sit there and roll his eyes and look at his deputies and say:

 

“Well you know, they’re awful people. But they’re currently not breaking the law and I’m not making any recommendations to have them listed as a terror group.”

 

And he has to unfortunately do that about four times a year for the past sort of yeah. Ridiculous number of these inquiries. So even he’s getting bored of them. Even I’m getting boredom. I don’t even watch him anymore. I just get the highlight reel now because they usually go for three hours at least, sometimes more, sometimes six hours. I used to watch it start to finish, stressing out:

 

“Oh, oh, God! Are we gonna get., …”

You know what I mean? The word you don’t want me to say on stream. But are we going to get [word unclear] and become political prisoners and am I doing 10 years in jail and getting some peace and quiet so I can write a book, or five?

 

But now I don’t really stress about it at all because we’re just, it would take a radical, it would take a few things. It would take a number of things. But that hit piece that they did on us was really just low energy. It was the worst one they’ve ever done. What was it called, Leaving Hate?

 

Mark Collett: Radicalised, wasn’t it? That was the name.

 

Thomas Sewell: Okay, well, maybe it was called that, but I saw it advertised as Leaving Hate. I’m pretty sure it was the ABC, which is the Australian.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, just let me just look it up. I had the, it’s on my Odysee.

 

Anyway, what was it actually called? Because I actually used the graphic from their own, let me see if I can find it.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, it’s not super crucial, but yeah, …

 

Mark Collett: It was called Radicalised. Well, that was the name on the graphic that they produced.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, okay. Yeah.

 

So I think that that was the lowest effort that they’ve ever done. They’ve never made an attack on us. So low energy.

 

And obviously their strategy was very lazy and improper. And I don’t think it really convinced anyone but the lowest end of the bell curve in terms of political perception, which we’re not really going to be gaining their support anytime soon either.

 

But anyone that was perceptive and actually paid attention while watching it, even to the smallest degree while they’re doing their nightly routine of having dinner or whenever it was on television. They would see that. Okay, what are they talking about? Okay, a 17 or 18 year old joined the Org. The mother’s upset that he joined the Org. She freaked out and contacted the media because apparently I’m kidnapping her son by having him come to our boxing training voluntarily. And then try to conflate that with several non-Whites that went and committed terror attacks and one White autistic teenager that was groomed by a mosque into committing a terror attack. And then went back to talking about us. So, it’s called a “shit sandwich” and we were the bread! And you know, Islamic terror was shit the in the middle. And they were trying to conflate us with them.

 

And I don’t think it was effective. I think it was lazy. I was expecting it to be way worse! But maybe our OPSEC’s [Operational Security] a little bit better now. And we caught a journalist a little bit before that and he turned out to be a gay meth addict. And he just promoted us. He just wrote articles about how we’ve got blonde White baby makers and you know, we’ve got a fertility model and you know, we’re having lots of babies and we’re encouraging women to be Trad. And you know, and this was written by a guy that’s written articles in the past about going over to Thailand and having sex with little boys for $12. So these are our enemies? Yeah, I think we’re doing pretty well, to be honest. I don’t think anyone. They’re just so out of touch!

 

I mean, how can a gay meth addict criticise, … In what world does a gay meth addict have any right to criticise a bunch of wholesome, normal Chungus White people that are having babies, having families and dancing around a maypole? I mean, they just put all of our wholesome Chungus best optics up and then put dark gloomy music on. And they interviewed, I think two gay brothers from one of the wives. I think one of the wives in the Org has.

 

[1:09:42]

 

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, those two freaks were absolutely reprehensible! I mean, they were talking about like the way to bring up children. I actually said:

 

“There’s no way to let them [chuckling] anywhere near my children!”

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, and this just shows the complete out of touchness of the regime.

 

And as I’ve always said, Mark, it’s about heightening the contradictions. And sometimes these people do our job for us because it’s actually our job to hide in the contradictions, not theirs. It’s their job to muddy the waters. But they made it really clear that we’re nice, wholesome White people having blond and babies. And the people that don’t like that are pink haired freaks with shit in their face that suck dick every second night on Grindr.

 

So it’s not looking good for them. They’re not sending their best. They’re not really thinking this through. You know, these aren’t your grandfather’s jews is the expression that I heard from some, one of the senior members. These aren’t your grandfather’s jews! These are privileged, very, very privileged, lazy jews and non-Whites. This is DEI [Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion/DIE: Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity] hit pieces.

 

I mean, this is the DEI. It was like a Sri Lankan chick that was obviously organising it. We’re currently in communication with the Channel 7 journalist. Channel 7 is not a very good reputable company either. It is better than the ABC and it’s definitely better than Channel Nine.

 

Now this guy again, I’m, you know, no spring chicken to this. You know, I’m sure a lot of people will be like:

 

“Thomas, be careful! Thomas, you have to be really careful. Thomas, I don’t know if you know this, but journalists are sneaky. Thomas, be careful!”

 

So just everyone in the comments section that’s about to say this, just hold your tongue, all right? This is not my first rodeo, okay? I’ve done this a few times now. I’m actually kind of sharp and I know how to wield the sword of truth. So just don’t stress so much! The hysteria that’s going to come from this line.

 

But there’s a journalist at the moment that wants to do an insider documentary on us. He wants to do it properly, unlike what these people done where they’ve kind of done a hit piece without our permission and not even give us, you know, 15 seconds to defend ourselves. And now will he succeed in his operation in terms of passing through the editor stage? Probably not. And if it does, it’ll be edited to hell, of course.

 

But we’re going to show them what we do as an organisation. We’re going to give this guy an insight into the plan, not necessarily the planning, but we’ll probably larp some planning. We don’t want to give away what we’re doing before we’re doing it, but we’ll let him film our activism. We’ll let him film some of the training that we do. And you know, he asked if he can film like some political meetings and so, you know, we’re working out a way of doing that without having guys doxxed and just giving them a little bit of an open insight thing.

 

We are building our own documentary as well at the moment. It’s a very important thing to show the public and show people what you actually doing with your organisation so that they have an insider take so that it’s not all just doom and gloom music on the ABC.

 

But yeah, we’re working on those two projects at the moment with this channel, Channel 7 journalist and obviously with our own internal one which we need a lot of work and a lot of practice to pump that out.

 

And yeah, I think that one. I’m actually quite excited for my next meeting with this Channel 7 guy because he kind of got a bit famous during the Covid situation for being one of the only journalists that was actually against the lockdowns and against the Covid issues. And he actually lost his job at Channel 7 because of that. And he’s since been rehired and I think he’ll give us the fairest go we could possibly get and you know, we’ll put on a little spectacle and show people what we are.

 

But obviously long term, it’s not the solution long term. We need to produce all of our own media ourselves. But it would be an interesting way of working with the, I mean they’re going to do a hit piece on us anyway. So I’ve got nothing to hide. Truth fears, no investigation.

 

So it would be better to sit down and have the interviews with them. The most likely scenario is, I don’t know if you remember when I did the interview with Todd Sampson from Channel 10. Todd Sampson, he’s quite famous. I think he’s Canadian, but he’s quite famous in Canada and in Australia. He’s kind of like a Louis Thoreau. He’s like a 40 cent Louis Thoreau. He’s not as famous as Louis Thoreau. You’ve been interviewed by Louis Thoreau, haven’t you?

 

[1:14:08]

 

Mark Collett: No.

 

Thomas Sewell: Oh, you haven’t?

 

Mark Collett: He reached out to my organisation at one point wanting to do like a weird weekend, but we said no. Yeah, like he comes along and he sort of, … We have to do the Superchats in a minute. But he comes along and does the whole like:

 

“Well, we’re gonna make you look like you’re, …”

 

He comes along and sort of makes friends with you but then makes you out that you’re the weirdest people that he’s spent time with. And he’s done it with Right-wingers before. He’s done it with some American groups and I’m kind of sceptical about doing things like that. We tend to shy away from the fly on the wall documentaries to be honest.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, well, different horses for different courses. I think we did really well. We got a lot of really good feedback, Blair and I, from the public for our interview with Sam Newman, who is a huge talking head here in Australia. He is probably one of the most influential talking heads before he got kicked off the mainstream news for being too anti-woke so to speak. And he is one of the biggest, he was one of the biggest and most influential characters in Australian media. And we went on his podcast and obviously you would have seen that. And for some reason he had a hard on for Blair in a bad way.

 

And apparently I was the most reasonable person he’s ever met from this side of politics, which [chuckling] I thought was kind of bizarre because I’m pretty extreme. Blair was kind of the moderating factor and for some reason Sam saw it the other way around.

 

But either way I think that was really effective because it was a sit down for 40 minutes or 50 minutes and ideas could be properly fleshed out.

 

And a lot of older people that have watched Sam Newman for 20, 30 years were saying to me that they’ve never actually, because they don’t watch these kind of shows, they don’t watch a Mark Collett Tom Sewell podcast. They don’t watch a Joel Davis Blair Cottrell podcast. But they will watch Sam Newman. They’ll sit down for 40 minutes and watch Sam Newman waffle on about something.

 

And so they’d actually only ever seen the media’s perception of us in those little 15 second segments on the news. They’ve never actually seen us be sit down before and interviewed for any extended period of time. And they were quite surprised. And these are people that aren’t supporters of the Org. They were very surprised at how much they agreed with basically everything that we had to say except maybe they’re not as historically literate, like Sam isn’t, on Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust, which we don’t need to get into.

 

And likewise, I think with this Channel 7 interview, we will get a chance to show people what we actually are, what we actually do and that we’re a completely voluntary organisation. And try to fight back against this nonsense that giving young White men a system of values and giving young White men a new way of behaving that they haven’t been exposed to before within the faggot education system, and that there are actually positive male role models in society. You will just find that they’re all on the Right or they’re all in the pro-White scene. Because they’re the only people that actually care about a future for our people.

 

And to do that, we need to rebuild man and woman as the building block of society. And man and woman is fundamentally sick within liberal democracy and our political views. The root of them is to rebuild man as a new archetype and to rebuild woman as a new archetype. And we have had a lot of people reach out to us, not just in the media, but within people that have left mainstream political parties. And the thing that they’re most amazed and sort of surprised about us as a political identity is our obsession, as they call it, with physical fitness. They find that they actually like it. It’s shocking to them, but they’re amazed by it in the sense that they’ve never seen so many people come together with a political idea but engage in physical activity.

 

And they said to us, I’ve had one guy recently who was a someone, I won’t say who and where, but someone deep within the system that’s leaving the system and seeking out to help people like us, not necessarily overthrow the system, but certainly surpass it. And he was saying that:

 

“The reason why the Liberal Party is so afraid of you guys is because you guys can get more people to a boxing session with a political identity attached to it than they can to a political meeting! And that scares the hell out of them because they can’t even get people to sit in a seat and listen. And you guys are getting them to run 10 kilometers. That’s impressive!”

 

“And that’s why they’re freaking out. And they don’t know how to treat you guys. They don’t know how to deal with you guys because of the sheer tenacity and mental fortitude and strength that you guys have!”

 

Just the vitality of the whole culture, the political culture we’re building. So we are building a new archetype of man and a new archetype of women. Most of our women, not all, but most of our women have little side hobbies that they help out the movement with. They’re not just all just barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, although a whole bunch of them are a lot of the time of the year.

 

But they also have hobbies. They make trinkets, they do little art projects, they do things that they want to do. They’re not, a lot of them aren’t going to work. There’s very few women in our community that go to work. But it’s not frowned upon. They can, of course, if they want to learn skills and do certain things. But you know, everyone knows what the priority is and it’s focusing, if you can afford it, on having, which I think everyone can. It’s just about taking a hit to the standard of living without a dual income. I think everyone can do it. It’s just what you prioritize. A certain standard of living, or six children. Me. It’s obvious and I think with a lot of women in our scene, it’s obvious.

 

[1:19:55]

 

But yeah, they’re shocked at that because the Liberal Party and the Labour Party, they’re trying to turn women into prime ministers! And they’ve got all these staffers and they’ve got this culture within Parliament where they’re hiring gay prostitutes and you know, raping each other in Parliament, and then they’re complaining on the Australian Broadcasting Company that we’re, we’ve got women dancing around the maypole holding babies and pregnant!

 

And it’s like:

 

“Wow, that’s a bit of a contradiction, isn’t it?”

 

The evil outsiders are having little nice community festivals on Midsummer, which was near Christmas, three days before Christmas. And doing these little cute little kind of European, Aryan, Anglo centric community days, while Parliament, they’re having gay orgies! It’s a little bit different, isn’t it? So who will triumph in the end, who will triumph? Yeah, the Righteous or the evil?

 

Yeah, let’s just do some of these Superchats.

 

Mark Collett: Let’s do these Superchats and then we’ll see who triumphs! ItsOkToBeANationalist gave 14.88. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Thomas, are there billions of Indians attending their weird water purifying ceremony in heaven?”

 

I don’t know what that means, but.

 

Thomas Sewell: Short context, I said on stream that one way of looking at politics is not as a political identity, but as a near religious identity. And that whether you’re Christian or whether you’re pagan or whether you’re agnostic, the idea of heaven is something that you can fathom the idea of a future some point in the eternal and the ethereal, where you go after your life or where your children go after your life, that’s something that I think most people can imagine and can have a creative concept of, and a political idea is quite simple, but it can be subject to change. Whereas an idea of heaven is quite eternal. It’s not really subject to change.

 

And so the conversation was not, are there going to be millions of Indians in Australia? But are there going to be millions of Indians in heaven? And the water purification ceremony is some Hindu ritual where I think 450 million Hindus came to this one river and just sludged the whole river out. And there was a video of it that went viral on Twitter of the world’s biggest religious meeting.

 

And what I asked was:

 

“Is this in heaven? Do you see this in heaven? Like in your vision of heaven, does this concept exist?”

 

And the answer is, of course, no. And I preface that with, are there birds in heaven. Are there bees in heaven? Of course. Are there 450 million Indians doing a water purification ceremony in your version of heaven? That’s the question people should ask themselves and then that can help them. Perhaps, …

 

Mark Collett: Probably not.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. So are they grooming gangs in heaven? No! So why are they grooming gangs here? Well, clearly we’re not in heaven yet, so we should be working towards that, shouldn’t we? We should be working towards a better afterlife for ourselves and our children.

 

And so we got to solve these problems in a number of ways, including the political.

 

Mark Collett: Indeed. DerCherusker gave $5. Thank you so much, my friend. He said:

 

“Good episode and powerful takes.”

 

Thank you very much. Stan 1 gave, $25. Thank you so much, my friend. He said:

 

“Great show, great guest here in Britain. We recently had a former government advisor stating that a future civil war is a real possibility. Is that the same possibility for Australia? And will the dystopia of Mad Max become a real scenario?”

 

Thomas Sewell: I wouldn’t go as far as Mad Max, but it’s certainly a prophetic idea with the fuel shortages that we’re going to have incorporated with the space and distance between living communities in Australia. But yes, absolutely! I mean Mark’s already concerned where I’m going with this question, so I’ll behave.

 

But yeah, obviously it’s not our fault. Obviously it’s not White nationalism that’s going to cause a civil war. It’s liberal democracy! Liberal democracy is continuing to lump non-integrable people that hate each other just as much as they hate us in a lot of cases, liberal democracy is lumping all of these people together, and it’s a recipe for disaster! And our goal is to actually prevent that disaster.

 

There’s obviously a lot of people that are preparing for it, but we need to prevent it. There needs to be a concerted effort, a strong effort to prevent that from happening. And the only rational way to prevent civil war is mass deportations! Because otherwise, I mean, look at the Middle East. Look at what happens when you lump a whole bunch of different ethnicities. They’re actually pretty similar to each other in one space. Sectarian violence is the result of all these vastly different communities on a long enough timeline. Because that’s the, … Yeah, I’ll leave it there Mark. How does that sound? I don’t want to get too deep on that question, do I?

 

[1:25:09]

 

Mark Collett: I want to say this. I’m just gonna say this. This was actually on a podcast. There’s this woman, and I’ve just looked it up, so I get the name right. She’s a British journalist called Louise Perry, and she does this podcast called Maiden, Mother, Matriarch. And she’s got less than 30,000 subscribers on YouTube, so significantly less popular than I was when I was on there. This podcast she’s done has blown up, and the podcast is called The Coming Civil War.

 

Now, I find this really interesting because I’m looking up this Louise Perry, and I think she’s obviously somebody who’s got some sort of influence in the system. And I kind of get really suspicious when you have a woman like that, some female journalists, she’s allowed on YouTube, and she starts talking about civil war, about the breakdown of society, how this is all going to be on racial lines.

 

Now, I know that if I did a podcast saying:

 

“Look, society is going to break down, there’s going to be a civil war on racial lines, and this is the end!”

 

I’d get my door kicked through within a couple of days. And I kind of look at people doing things like that. And then I see people who were arrested after the Southport incidents who did, who’ve said far less than that, who just said:

 

“Look, you know, problems are coming to a town near you!”

 

And they ended up serving two, three weeks in jail for just saying problems coming to a town near you.

 

And then there’s this journalist with some government advisor, like doing Fed Post Central!

 

And I kind of wonder what their game is because after being around as long as I have, I always smell a rat when people who are so involved in the system come out and are allowed to do a YouTube video that by any other standard would be an instant ban and a knock on the door. So probably beware of that weird Louise Perry. That’s my advice.

 

Great Works gave a hundred dollars. Thank you so much for your generosity. Said:

 

“Thank you, Mark, for networking between nationalists and the Commonwealth. I think the UK may fall, but we’ll still all in this together. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Ireland, and the US to a lesser extent. In my opinion. The US is so opposed to us ideologically, it will always oppose Commonwealth unity.”

 

Look, I love people from Australia, New Zealand. I like people from the U.S. I think the thing is, one thing I’ve always tried to foster throughout my sort of 300 episodes of PWR and 100 episodes of This Week on the Alt-Right is getting people from all over the White world to work together. Because this nonsense that because there’s been ethnic rivalries in the past, there should be ethnic rivalries now is just divisive. Because every single group of White people, wherever they are in the world, whether they’re indigenous or whether they’re settlers who built a proud nation, we all face the same problem.

 

So if we don’t stand together, we’ll all be screwed separately! That’s how I see it.

 

Thomas Sewell: Absolutely!

 

Mark Collett: Anyway, Ben gave $3, thank you so much, and said:

 

“Hello Thomas, to touch on what you said in the issue of Left versus Right, do you think that the association of far-Right politics with anti-female sentiment is harmful to White nationalism in terms of attracting young White women to the movement? Anti-Whites seem to have got a grip on that demographic.”

 

Thomas Sewell: I would argue that politics is polarizing everywhere, that it’s polarizing for young men, it’s polar polarizing for young women.

 

And so we are living in a society where toxic femininity is never called out, not once! No one is doing it. And the only people, sorry, no one is doing it that’s a reasonable person. The only people that are doing it are these kind of online mulatto pimps. And that’s not good that they can control that sentiment. So because it is a genuine sentiment, there is a genuinely toxic behaviour in both young men and young women. Now all the potentially toxic behaviour in young men that’s being called out usually isn’t actually toxic behaviour. It’s traditional behaviour. Traditional notions of masculinity are the healthy and normal ones and they’ve been conflated as being toxic.

 

Obviously there are some improper and impious behaviours that maybe not so much traditional, but maybe archaic that are called out from time to time. And I don’t usually engage too much in that, in calling that stuff out. But what I have done in the past is I’ve been honest enough. One out of every 365 takes, is to call out certain types of female behaviour.

 

And what I’ve noticed is that that is a fixation point for some people to argue that the entire Right-wing or far-Right or White national scene is now going to fail because now we’ve alienated women as a whole because one or two or three behaviours have potentially been called out. And second to that, the idea that I’m not a human being and I’m not allowed personal preferences, that I’m your spokesperson, I’m your slave, and I’m beholden to only hold opinions that you agree with, and that I can’t have my personal tastes in this world, I can’t be an individual, I’m not entitled to any sort of individuality, which makes me a character. That makes me more than just a political spokesperson, I find personally reprehensible because no one’s holding anyone else to that account.

 

So that’s my statement about that. I don’t think that we’re losing the female population. I think that liberal democracy is losing the female population. And I think liberal democracy is destroying the White female population.

 

And we shouldn’t be looking at gender or class war. I am a National Socialist and I believe in what Adolf Hitler believes, which is that we need class marriage and that we need marriage between men and women, that we need a marriage of the sexes where men and women are working together for a collective future. Now part of working together is having those difficult and uncomfortable conversations with each other. Women have absolutely no shortage of complaints about male behaviour. They’ve got an infinite list! But every now and then men have some small concerns with female behaviour where there needs to be a course correction.

 

[1:31:29]

 

And I think we attract a lot of women to the scene that in the past we hadn’t in terms of this was a very, almost entirely male dominated space. I go on Twitter now and I see just as many women using our talking points, even anti-feminist talking points, as there are men. And I don’t think that these are just groupies and girls that are jumping on the bandwagon because it’s a celebrity scene. I think that the average girl that is polarised into our politics is aware that there’s too much toxic female behaviour. And it’s part of the reason and part of taking responsibility. So men and women both need to share that responsibility. Obviously, more is always going to be expected of the men and for the hypothetical, let’s say, so it should be that way.

 

But, yeah, I do notice that, I mean, certain people call them “wife guys”. I obviously have used a different term in the past which has caused controversy because it shouldn’t be a controversial term. But I do warn all the time against a culture of submissive men! I do warn all the time against a culture where men politically aren’t trusting their instincts and instead are resting their judgement, on the feelings and opinions of their partners, of their women or of just random women on the Internet, which is even worse! And we do have to work together. We do have to lean on each other’s instincts to an extent, but men need to assert their instincts!

 

So I can go into more depth if they want, but I think that that covers the question quite coherently.

 

Mark Collett: It certainly does. It Was Made Up gave $10. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Your banners are awesome! Destroy Pedo Freaks is possibly the greatest banner of all time!”

 

Thank you so much! I agree. It’s a good banner.

 

Thomas Sewell: I’ll quickly respond to that. I think the secret to banners is somewhere between two to four words. I think between two to four words. And it has to be as aggressive as possible, within the law. I think a successful banner is right up until that point where that line is. And it really hits hard! It’s a force multiplier. I think that if you have a kind of, … Obviously different horses for different courses. But I think the success of that banner came from the fact that it was just three words. It was just sharp. It was revolutionary. And there’s no compromise in the message. It was just pure. It was beautiful. It was keener.

 

Mark Collett: Thank you. Jagdeep Jano gave $15. Thanks so much:

 

“Hey, both. Question for you, Tom. You spoke about how Keith Woods recently had his cringe-worthy private messages leaked by a former adult worker who’s now a groiper named Slayter. Could you give your take on this and psychoanalyze Keith? Why was he attracted to her? Are men really that desperate?”

 

Well, I’m going to Google this Slayter to see whether she’s attractive enough for a DM.

 

Thomas Sewell: I’m not sure if you’ll find anything on Google. I think the account was called SlayterHaus on Twitter. It’s probably still on Twitter. And I had people reach out and say, this is a fed operation. I don’t think so. I think it’s just a mentally ill former prostitute or prostitute.

 

Mark Collett: Very strange looking, isn’t she?

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, definitely some sort of blood dilution in there.

 

But, yeah, I did make a comment and I didn’t attack Keith. I didn’t feel the need to dogpile, …

 

Mark Collett: Too many tattoos! She’s literally covered. She’s got more tattoos than my ex. She’s literally covered in tattoos! Like, there isn’t like a spare bit of skin, is there?

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, which is not a not a good look. Not a very good look.

 

Mark Collett: She’s go a Breaking Bad tattoo on her leg.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yes, yes. That also made the meme rounds. Look at the end of the day, …

 

Mark Collett: She likes Nick Fuentes, though.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, well, she fits in with that crowd, doesn’t she?

 

Mark Collett: Do you know what’s odd about her? Like, I mean, if he’d had maybe quite a lot of alcohol and she sort of came up to you when you were pretty inebriated, I’m sure that you could be persuaded. But the issue is this. I never thought that would be Keith’s type. Keith is such a sort of an intelligent, erudite, charming young man. I didn’t think that would be Keith’s sort of thing. Keith! Who are you? Do we even know the real Keith?

 

Thomas Sewell: I would have expected a, like a shorter kind of goth girl. Maybe that’s what, if I was running a government honeypot operation, I would have sent. I would have lined up all the goth e-girls and I would have been like:

 

“We’ve got a mission. We’re going after the Keith!”

 

And I would have picked out the archetype of a certain type of goth girl.

 

But yeah, I think, like, what I said on stream, in brief, was that he didn’t really do anything wrong. He didn’t really do anything that bad. Like, obviously there’s a little bit of cringe there. But look, if that’s the worst that they could get. It’s not really that bad. She’s obviously. Yeah, I mean, look at it. It’s a problem.

 

[1:37:16]

 

But what I said on stream was that she presented as a snake. And yeah, she presented as a snake. That’s a snake. And when you have a snake telling you that:

 

“This is me, I am a snake, look at me!”

 

And you confide in them, because she messaged probably two dozen public faces. She messaged me asking me for advice on how to find a man. And I told her to stop being a slut! She messaged Jacob, same shit! She messaged Keith. She probably messaged, I mean, a whole range of people. I think she messaged Joel. Joe blocked her straight away because we told him like this bitch is crazy! And we started just blocking her.

 

You know, obviously, as a public figure, you get DMs all the time. You get e-girls and DMs all the time. And most of them you just block. And some of them are just amicable and you can just answer their question and they might not ever message you again or they might try to help you in some way. They might have some sort of they might give some sort of advice or not necessarily advice. It’s probably not the best way to put it. But in this case, obviously you have someone that’s very clearly mentally ill. And, it’s just sad that out of all the people that she messaged, the one person that was actually nice to her, and this is my take, this is what I said on stream. The one person that was nice to her, she betrayed! You know, it’s just evil. Like, it’s just a fundamentally evil creature!

 

Like, Keith didn’t do anything.

 

Mark Collett: No, no, no! He’s a single guy.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, he’s a single man and he’s being entertained by a woman that is really just a an adult entertainer. And he didn’t do anything silly. He didn’t send any nudes to her. Like, there’s way worse scandals than what Keith’s done.

 

And yeah, obviously they just dogpiled him because they use that as an opportunity to attack the personal, when obviously Joel did a really good job at attacking the political. You know, him and Joel had a great discourse recently about nationalism versus National Socialism. And the e-Girl is just a side quest drama that takes away from the political mission. And Keith’s done a very good job at handling it and just putting his head down and just focusing on the mission. And that’s what all of us should do, regardless of distractions.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, look, I got to say this. Keith’s a really nice guy.

 

Thomas Sewell: Should be used as motivation for everyone.

 

Mark Collett: To be honest, like Keith’s far too good for her. So look, Keith, if you need some brotherly advice, come to big Mark. I’ll help you out! Number one, bit of advice, don’t go for a girl like that. I’ll give you the rest off stream.

 

The Resident Baker gave 14.88. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Great show, Mark. Very pleased to finally see you and Tom in the discussion. Does Tom have an update on Stephen Wells? Also, congratulations to Tom and the recent birth of his second child.”

 

Thomas Sewell: Thank you for that. The update on Stephen Wells is he’s still fighting the principle. He’s an absolute legend! He’s a Martyr for the cause. No one’s putting it up him up for it, he’s just doing it himself. He just, he wants to argue the principle that he shouldn’t be punished with bail conditions for wearing a hat and sunglasses in public. That’s absolutely an injustice! And he’s going all the way with it and wants to prove a point. I do have some messages that I haven’t responded to that have come into my inbox over the last, 24 hours or 48 hours regarding an update on him.

 

But yeah, we’re just trying to get a bail amendment so that he can be not in prison and also not punished outside of prison for wearing a hat and sunglasses. About a third of the charges for the, I think there was about 34 court cases over the fortnight. I think 16 non-Victorians that, sorry, non-South Australians that had gone to South Australia, and I think almost 18, I think 18 South Australians were charged prior to.

 

So the media made a big argument saying that:

 

“Oh no South Australians were charged, there was all just these outsiders.”

 

But that’s because they charged 18 guys the week before the rally to have them on bail conditions to stop them from going to the rally. So they actually charged more South Australians than they did. And there was one random member of the public from South Australia that was charged as well.

 

So I think there was 19 South Australians and 15 from outside of South Australia. And yeah, about a third of those charges have already been dropped and it seems to be at random. There seems to be no system to why some people have had loitering dropped and some people are still fighting loitering and some people have had article of disguise dropped and others are still fighting article of disguise. And the symbols charge is going to have to be fought in the High Court, because we have the right to political communication, gestures, symbols, signs. So this is a High Court thing, this is a constitutional matter, can’t be fought at magistrates.

 

And so if we don’t get a bail amendment for Stephen Wells, he’s going to be in there for a very long time. Which I’m not 100 sure how he’s going. I do know that he has had some phone calls with the guys, but he’s getting tortured like we all were in solitary confinement. He’s getting tortured. So nothing new under the sun in that regard. He’s in solitary confinement being tortured.

 

And that’s what they do to political prisoners here in Australia. That’s what they did to the 16 of us for three days, locked in cells with the light on for three days straight and fed two sausage rolls a day and a glass of water.

 

So, and I actually had the privilege this time of having a Jeremy Clarkson book which was pretty funny, a Top Gear book which was just a series of articles where he’s calling people Trotskyites and communists and mentioning Hitler every third article, which I thought was pretty funny.

 

[1:43:19]

 

 

But yeah, that book was actually pretty horrible. So I almost would have preferred a religious book. But this is what they do. This is what they do. This is the system. This is what you have to consider when you go down this path. But it only makes you stronger. And Stephen Wells is a very intelligent man and he’s a very strong, spirited man and he’s going to take a while to recover from what he’s going through.

 

I know for me personally, spending that much time in solitary confinement, it takes you a long time to get your head. You have to spend a lot of time in nature and staring at trees for extended periods of time, because you haven’t seen anything alive for so long. It’s a fascinating experience to see something living and just work out a way of moving on with your life and getting back into being politically effective. And yeah, he’s a very strong willed man.

 

So they’ve just radicalised the entire public against the system. For locking up a man on Australia Day, for celebrating Australia Day. And he kind of just looked at me and it was like something out of Batman. What is it? The Dark Knight Rises. And he kind of just looked at me and I just had this psychic, the psychic feeling. And he was just saying:

 

“They expect one of us in the wreckage, brother.”

 

And that’s kind of, yeah, he’s tough as nails. So it does feel, it does feel, it’s sad, it does feel a bit sad.

 

But look, there is no victory without sacrifice. And he understands that. We all understand that in our organisation. Sometimes the sacrifice is very small. Sometimes the sacrifice is very great. And we need to remember that there are men on in other countries that have died, that have died. There’s many men that have died for things even less important than this. And many men that have died for how important this is so it is horrible. Anyone that has experience in solitary confinement will know that it is torture. It is a method of torture. So our strength goes out to him. He needs it.