Mark Collett: Hello everybody, and welcome to tonight’s special stream. We are live tonight on Odysee, Rumble, DLive and Entropy. Please do share the links because we’ve got a very special guest here tonight that I’ll be introducing shortly. It is of course, Germar Rudolf. And before we do that, I’m going to give you a couple of updates.

 

Now, as I said, this is a very important stream. It’s because we’re introducing a special event that Germar Rudolf is hosting called, The Holocaust Summit. And this event is something that hopefully will be very big. And this is basically a bit of an advert for the event, a bit of a discussion about how it came about, but also a discussion about who’s trying to stop it!

 

So we’re going to go through all those things and many more tonight and at the end you’ll have a chance to ask questions.

 

Now, if you support my work, if you like what I do, please share the stream.

 

But also if you support my work and like what I do, you can give a donation, you can donate through Rumble, you can donate through Entropy. Anything donated throughout the show will be read out live on the show and any questions will be put directly to Germar Rudolf.

 

So if you ask me a question or pay for a question via a Superchat, I will read it out after the initial presentation and we will answer your questions. All donations are gratefully received. And as I always say, if everyone gave a small amount, $3, $5, $10, that would make a great, great difference. Some of my streams in the past few months have been seen by upwards of 75,000 people. Imagine if everyone had just given $3, what we would be able to do with that money would be almost limitless at that point. But everyone would barely notice that money leaving their account because it’s probably the price of an energy drink, probably less than a coffee house coffee, certainly less than the price of a McDonald’s double cheeseburger these days.

 

So if you can afford something, please do consider donating. You can also donate by crypto-currency. All the crypto links, as always, are in the description below and you can email me at mark@thefallofwesternman.com. And many of you will be saying:

 

“Well, how can I get in touch with Germar?”

 

And this is obviously all about Germar. You can get in touch with Germar via the Show Notes. The Show Notes have the link to his website about this very event. So you can find him there. You can also find him on Telegram.

 

So thank you so much to anyone who does donate in advance. And please do consider supporting Germar’s event, because that’s what this is all about.

 

Now, obviously, Germar is the special guest here tonight, and I did a special show with him a while back. It was an excellent show, and his ability to present his evidence and to tell his story is almost unrivalled! I couldn’t believe it! I asked one question and Germar sort of spoke very eloquently for about 58 minutes, at which point we went to Questions and Answers. It was sort of the least work I had to do ever in a show! I didn’t need to interrupt. I didn’t need to ask him any additional questions. He just has this skill of being able to tell his story in a timely way and weave it all together almost perfectly in the allotted space that we had on the show. And after doing that show with him, I was sort of really happy with the way it turned out. I was really happy with the reception, Germar got from my audience, and I really did want to have him back on.

 

So when he contacted me and told me he was doing this conference, this Summit, I was very happy to promote it. And I asked him:

 

“So, hey, sort of, what can I do to help you?”

 

He said:

 

“Well I could always come on the show.”

 

So I thought:

 

“Well, what better way to push this event than invite him back on and spend sort of 45 minutes to an hour talking to him about this event and also just having a general catch up.”

 

Because the last show, as I said, it was so good and everyone appreciated it so much. I did want to get him back on eventually anyway, so this is a perfect time.

 

Germar, you have been a very busy man since we last spoke. How have you been? And what sort of led up to you wanting to do this event? Because you have an excellent website, you have a number of really good books, you’ve been busy with other content creators. I know that you went on Unity News Network and you’ve had sort of a little flurry of appearances, but if you want to get people up to date with what you’ve been up to and when, what sort of inspired you to decide to put on this conference, please tell us all about it.

 

[04:45]

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah, well, thank you.

 

First of all, thank you for having me on the show again. A short remark. If people want to get in touch with me personally, learn more about me, how they can support me if they are so inclined, the easy way is just go to my personal website, which is Germarrudolf.com. So you see my name there on the screen. Just put this together without a blank and a dot com at the end, and you’re on my personal website and you can browse it there.

 

Now, as to what I’ve been up to over the past year, the main work that I’ve been focusing on was getting the Holocaust Encyclopedia, the English edition of which had appeared in late 2023, out in several other languages. The Spanish and French are out. The Spanish came out in I think it was maybe of last year. And the French we got out, I think it was in November. So we are up now to four languages. English, German, which was done by a different company. It was not in my ballpark. But the French and the Spanish edition, and that’s a lot of work. I mean, writing an encyclopedia is one thing, then AI helps you translate. But at the end you have to walk through it. My Spanish and French is good enough. I could do most of the proofing and editing myself. And then came the big one that we’re preparing right now! It’s an Arabic edition.

 

So that’s like proofing a pot full of spaghetti, because that’s how that language looks like to me. [chuckling] No clue about it! But I have professionals working on it.

 

And so this is making good progress and hopefully within a few months that will hit the mark and we’ll see how that’s going to be received. What kind of ripples that we’ll have, if any. So that’s on that side.

 

Now coming to the actual event for which we have come together today. Holocaust sceptics have been organising conferences since the late 1970s. And the early, …

 

Mark Collett: Okay, I just ask a quick question before you go into this?

 

You mentioned that the books are available in French and Spanish, but aren’t the Holocaust sort of revisionism laws or laws and against revisionist literature in France?

 

Germar Rudolf: So what?

 

Mark Collett: I was just asking about sort of the legality of the sales. Really, I was just, … What you might have to overcome in that case.

 

Germar Rudolf: Yes, if I have the intention to abide by unjust and illegitimate laws that violate United Nations Charter of Human Rights, I wouldn’t have gotten into the topic to begin with. So I don’t give a rat’s arse about any dictatorship passing laws, prescribing the writing of history at government gunpoints. This is something that doesn’t go down well with me.

 

Now, when it comes to printing and publishing the book, that’s an international network and I’m not going to expose here or reveal here what kind of logistics we use. But it basically gets lost in the massive mail stream that goes into and out of every country every day. So we haven’t had any interference, be it getting literature, English literature, or French, also to Canada, to France, to, … You name the countries. If we had them by the bag or by the truck load going into the country that would be selectively subject to border controls, that would be a problem.

 

But it’s just going individual for every customer into the mail stream. And this just gets lost in the shuffle. So we haven’t encountered any problems yet. So knocking on wood. Fingers crossed. I hope I’m not going to jinx it now.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, I was just interested about the logistics of these things because there are draconian laws and I think what you’re doing is obviously very brave. And that answer of you’re not going to allow unjust laws to stop you. I think you’re a very courageous man. So sorry for the interjection. Please, please continue.

 

Germar Rudolf: That’s quite all right. So back in 1976, the first really scholarly book of Holocaust scepticism was published. That was Arthur Butz’s hoax of the 20th century. The first edition of which actually was published by Historical Review Press, kind of a small outlet that was established on occasion of that book appearing down in Brighton by Tony Hancock in the UK, even though the author, of course, is in the United States. That was the launching pad of people getting interested into Holocaust scepticism seriously, but also realizing that this is a serious School of thought that has to be reckoned with. And it led to the formation of the Institute for Historical Review in California. And they did have first conference was in 78 or 79 [1979], I can’t remember, I think it was in 79.*

 

 

[* See: The World’s First Anti-Holocaust Convention-Instauration Dec, 1979

https://katana17.com/2016/09/27/the-worlds-first-anti-holocaust-convention-instauration-dec-1979/.

[In this article, written for the Dec. 1979 edition of the revisionist journal,  Instauration, an interesting account is given of the first ever, “Anti-Holocaust” convention,  with speakers including:  Robert Faurisson from France; John Bennett from Australia; Udo Walendy from Germany; Louis FitzGibbon from Britain; Arthur Butz and James Martin from the US. This was held in Los Angeles and organised by the Institute for Historical Review  —  KATANA.]

 

And they had had subsequently, over the next two decades, conferences almost on a yearly basis, with a few exceptions. And unfortunately they had some internal strife in the mid-1990s, a kind of a schism there that led to internal fighting, unfortunately. That’s something that occurs on occasion. And that led to the whole School of thought and the Institute losing steam. And eventually those conferences petered out in the early 2000s.

 

And there hasn’t been any for the better part of 20 years now. And now I myself participated, since the first conference I attended was in 2000, I think so participated in the last few that happened, until I got arrested and deported back in 2005 and had a hiatus of six years in Germany, well, 44 months of them, full board at government expense. And after I came back to the United States a little bit shell shocked, got my feet wet slowly and eventually got back into the race.

 

But my family situation, I was married to a US citizen and we had a baby. And of course I was deported right out of this family. And she had to raise her daughter the first six years almost by herself. And so she was more traumatized by that event of government persecution. It was eventually decided that they deported me in violation of US law, and I had to litigate but eventually succeeded and came back. And now here I am in the United States, relatively safe from European style thought crime prosecution.

 

But my wife wasn’t happy in me continuing this kind of work, fearing that it would have another negative impact down the road for the family, not just for me.

 

[11:49]

 

So we had an agreement that I could continue my work privately but keep my head down and limit or try to not even at all have any public exposure. That also means I couldn’t do any conferences. I was approached during those years starting 2014, 15, something, that a conference should be held again and I would have been the person to go to with my connections, with my involvement in the various organisations and with my track record of productivity. But I waved it off. I couldn’t have pulled it off logistically back then.

 

A physical conference requires a lot of work of getting the venue, organising food and accommodation for all the people that want to attend and of course for the presenters themselves. And the costs, the overhead costs could be daunting! And it’s not clear that at the end you actually walk away with profit more likely not. Most of all because you always have to have a “Plan B”. The traditional enemies of free speech and freedom of assembly in the past have always tried to shut down events like that. And they most certainly continue doing this to this day. Not just when it comes to Holocaust scepticism, but anything that is considered Right-wing, whatever that be. Even though Holocaust scepticism is neither Right nor Left. It’s about accuracy in history. But it is something that finds interest in the Right-wing spectrum of the political spectrum more prominently than in Left-wing circles or libertarian for that matter.

 

Be that as it may, you have to have a Plan B, a second venue, in case the first bails out under pressure of the usual suspects, you have to quickly be able to switch over. So you always have to pay kind of for both. And if your contracts are not written right, you start paying through the nose. With all these challenges, I said I can’t do it, apart from the agreement I had with my wife.

 

Now Covid hit. With all the negative things there is one upside to Covid and that is that in the meantime everyone is used to and technically capable of attending virtual conferences.

 

So the kind of discussion we have now with a lot of people watching, we can have 10 people discussing something and 10 million people watching. It has become so common due to Covid that this is something that can now be pulled off. The platforms are there are plenty of them and the overhead costs are reduced. People have the software, have the gadgets to participate, to watch it. And they used to it. Particularly the new generation is very comfortable that kind of technology.

 

So last summer a friend and supporter of mine, actually a pair of sisters, approached me and said we need to do something with Gaza brewing there’s an opportunity opening with people opening their mind that who see that the Zionists and the jewish Israelis to a large degree, not all of them, are pushing and committing genocide. The United Nations Commission has officially recognised Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza with the justification that they have to pre-emptively wipe out the Gazans in order to prevent them from committing another holocaust against the jews.

 

So the Holocaust is used as a political weapon to commit mass atrocities, to commit a genocide. That has made people realise that the agendas and the historical narrative pushed by Zionists and it’s not just jewish Zionists, I always say there are more Christian Zionists in the world than they are jewish Zionists, is recognised by people as being illegitimate, as being driven by a Holocaust narrative that is misused for these ends. And they see how the narrative about what happened on October 7th back in when was that? 2023, right? So long ago already, wasn’t quite accurate what Zionist sources told about it either. So there is the distortion and misuse of history for political purposes.

 

And then people are willing with their open mind:

 

“Wait, what’s going on here?”

 

To look back in history and see other cases and then the to look at the big elephant in the room when it comes to historical narratives. And that’s the Holocaust used by pressure groups, not just jewish, not just Zionist ones, to push their agendas.

 

With that said, I couldn’t really bail out anymore. Unfortunately I had gone through a divorce in the meantime. And so my a home still agreement with my no ex-wife was no excuse anymore, that had evaporated. So my family situation also most of my children are now grown up and they’re out of the home. There’s only one left who needs a little bit more of tender loving care still.

 

So that argument is gone. The logistical nightmare of doing physical conferences doesn’t exist when you do a virtual one. And I had agreed:

 

“Okay, let’s do it!”

 

The sisters actually suggested a name, Holocaust Summit.

 

[17:30]

 

So I went online and looked whether the domain name is still there was. HolocaustSummit.com was available. I instantly reserved it and we started contacting people who would be willing to present it. Now the website is up. If we can share that screen with the audience. I’d like to go through a number of things we’ve put up there.

 

So as I mentioned, anyone can go there. Holocaust Summit.com, and it is organised and sponsored by a number of organisations. I’ve actually created a Holocaust Academy roughly a year ago, which I plan on and in the process of developing as a platform to teach sound Holocaust historiography to whoever wants to listen to give an accurate and holistic picture of the evidentiary situation when it comes to this event.

 

One of the first things that we’re now doing as the academy, major things we have already given private lessons, but the website itself is currently under development. So having a curriculum of a college style is somewhat daunting. But I’m working together with a retired Professor of humanities to get this going. And sometime later this year we will have that flying. But it will come now into the open as the organisation that will officially host the Holocaust Summit. So we are going to be independent, we’re going to be fearless, because unfortunately in this area you have to be! And we are not going to be censored if we can help it. And we’re not going to be constrained by politically correct taboos of thinking and asking questions and looking for answers.

 

So we’ll be tackling the most harmful ideology, undermining peace, truth and freedom world-wide. Because the Holocaust is used to trigger wars and genocides. That is used to enact censorship laws that suppress the search, the sharing of truth, and thus is used as a starting point for government to increase censorship measures. It’s easy to get a quote, unquote, “anti-Holocaust denial” law through Parliament.

 

And once the first fortress of freedom has fallen, then censorship like a cancer grows. And we see that in every country in the UK. You know it for yourself, what’s going on in your country. It used to be a stronghold of freedom of speech until they passed the new., … What was in 2002, I think the Public Communications Act. And now it’s completely escalating with the constraints they put on it.

 

So we need to be aware that the Holocaust is at the centre of the orthodox Holocaust narrative and its abuse, its misuse for political purposes, is at the centre of the problem of deteriorating freedom world-wide, or at least in the Western hemisphere.

 

Now we have picked the 27th of January, which, what is today, the 20th? I’m getting flustered here. Third. It’s already the 23rd, so it’s just in four days and next Tuesday should be. We picked that day for a reason. 27th of January 1945 was the day when the Red Army conquered the Auschwitz camp. And I choose that word wisely because the Red Army never “liberated” anyone. So they conquered the camp. And in 2005, if I’m not mistaken, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution declaring that particular day 27 January, International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

 

So the iconic camp of Auschwitz, which is the most known alleged crime scene of what is labelled the Holocaust, Auschwitz is also the reason why we have this day as the international day of commemorating this event. And we want to use that too. Commemorating the truth and the lies, the exaggerations and distortions and the victims of this Holocaust narrative. The Gazans are the most recent, most extreme victims of this narrative. But we will have people present their experience of persecution and prosecution. Victims, martyrs, dissidents thrown into prison or having their livelihood destroyed.

 

So there’s a lot to commemorate and remember for us as well, and we will do that as well.

 

So the event itself will start 9:00 AM Eastern US time, which if I’m not mistaken is 2 clock in the afternoon for the UK and 3 PM for the rest of the most of the, …

 

Mark Collett: I think 7 PM in the UK. 2 PM Eastern is 7 PM in the UK.

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah, but we started 9 AM so it should be 2 PM

 

Mark Collett: Oh, okay. Sorry.

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah. We actually may start the stream a little earlier to test things and make things sure that things are running smoothly and make few accommodations and have a few organisational remarks before actually the day picks up with the presentations that we have.

 

Now if you click on the second link there, that CCR list and timeline of presenters that gets everyone down to the actual table where we have the presenters.

 

So this is our day. How we plan on having it unfold. We have the day started out with a contribution that I’m giving. Originally we had hoped actually for Nicholas Kollerstrom to take that spot. He initially had submitted a paper but then he had to retract it because it came under pressure, has been under pressure for a long time. So he wanted to talk about the English eclipse of communications.

 

But anyway, it’s not going to happen. There’s already one casualty of censorship and suppression, which is mounting and increasing in the UK. So I’ve taken that spot. And I take the opportunity because that event, short side note here, that event of course is streamed live. We will have the links on that website where people can reach it. Actually at the top there is already one and we’ll keep that updated.

 

But it’s a Tuesday. Not everyone will be able to sit and watch an event like this all day, on a normal workday. We will of course record it will be posted and people will be able to watch it whenever they please. And we will have it not only on our holocaustsummit.com website, but the company that actually hosts it, as at least the plan, is FTG media.com, and they are an independent platform.

 

So when it comes to them, we will not be de-platformed because it’s owned actually by one of the board members of one of our main sponsors, which is the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust. And he’s on the board there and he has suggested we use that platform so that we can’t be de-platformed.

 

I will be talking about 80 years of Holocaust scepticism, whence we came and where we are. So I give a historical overview since we assume that a lot of people over time, as years go by and these contributions will be accessible, a lot of people will not know much about our School of thought, its history and its views, that an introduction is due. We haven’t had anything like this happen in 20 years.

 

[26:02]

 

So there’s an entire generation that has grown up which needs to be or should be given an introduction of what we are handling and what we’re dealing with here. So I will be talking about the main events and the main achievements of Holocaust scepticism over the past, well, since the end of the war, basically 1946 or 47 when it kind of started. And in the second half I will give a quick rundown giving the most striking, the most convincing arguments why everyone should be sceptical about the mainstream Holocaust narrative, and give resources in that context where people can learn more.

 

So with that, the event kicks off. Every contribution, full contribution will have 45 minutes. I hope everyone stays in that slot, but you know how it goes. There will be a time overrun, possibly. Followed by 15 minutes of question answers. There will be a chat feature, FTG media.com like any other, like Rumble, like YouTube has a chat feature. In order to chat you have to have registered with the platform that doesn’t cost anything. You just submit your email address and get a free account and then you can chat. Now for the question and answer series session at the end, the last quarter hour, people are requested to make a donation in order to submit a question like the Superchat and various other platforms. And in order to do that you have to have a wallet with FTG media and the wallet is just automatically set up. When you get an account, you just have to fill it with some funds, whatever resources you take it from, plastic money or crypto or whatever.

 

So that is the plan. My contribution is followed by a compatriot of yours, James Mosley, who is a Catholic priest from the UK. He has done a number of documentaries on the Holocaust over the past several years. Really good documentaries. And when he was working on his first one, he approached me and asked me a number of questions. So I became his historical advisor, if you wish. Each time he was working on one, he submitted what he was doing and I would make suggestion how to improve it.

 

And he will be presenting what he found about the evidentiary situation in one particular camp that he had investigated and done a documentary on. And that’s Treblinka. Now if you click on James Mawdsley’s name up there in the list that actually will get you to, for every one of the presenters will get you to where there’s a short bio, you can see a portrait and a summary of the presentation. If you scroll a little up or down, you can go back to the list, back to the timetable.

 

So this is James Mawdsley. We have actually grouped the European presenters first. UK comes first. James Mawdsley. Next one is Peter Rushton, also from the UK and he will be talking about also history between dogma and taboo. He talks about the British intelligence communications and interaction with the German intelligence toward the end of the war. Looking for evidence that the Brits were really thinking that the German intelligence community, which was under the rule of Heinrich Himmler, the supposed main architect of the Holocaust, that the British were actually acting and communicating as if they believed that Himmler was really murdering or had already murdered at that point of time six million jews is a very interesting contribution. I’m looking forward to myself the that the title of it, the Dog that Didn’t Bark is already an indication of which direction that will go.

 

We’re having a lunch break after that. It is scheduled to be 2 hours long now I expect some time overruns and maybe stretching into the hour between 12 and 1. But we will have enough time during that break and I have yet to announce it because we just finished up preparing for this. The lunch break will have will see the premiering of a new documentary we have just finished. And this is about an appearance of representatives of the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust in the public arena. And we had a little bit of an impact there and we want to share that with the community. That’s I think a 35 minutes so it will fit in there either way.

 

So in the afternoon the first session is actually shared by three individuals who will be talking about their personal experience getting into Holocaust scepticism, how that happened and then also to what degree they were exposed to persecution, prosecution, ostracism and that kind of stuff. Nathaniel Kapner has been a very active person on social media, on YouTube, and now on other alternative platforms going after self-chosen people and their capers and also critiquing the misuse of history for political purposes.

 

Leo Walls is a bookstore owner in the US who tells his story of how that went when he started offering books that most don’t like.

 

And Georges-Marc Theil is actually a French fellow who has had decades of experiences of exposure to persecution in France.

 

Which leads us then to the next contribution that’s a bigger one. Seasoned revisionist Vincent Reynouard from France has under his belt now already 30 years of activism and I would say historical scepticism in general on the World War II issue, not just the Holocaust. And he has been the main focus as of last two, three years of the French judiciary to lock him away for good. He currently has to deal with seven court cases at once. He will be speaking during his presentation primarily about his experience of the abuse, … No. Not the abuse, the misuse of the law and the judiciary to suppress dissidents, peaceful dissidents on historical issues.

 

[32:54]

 

 

And after that we go into abuse of power and politics based on history. Heinz Bartesch and Andrew Allen will report about their experience with the Office of Special Investigations, that’s the jewish branch of the FBI that was focusing on what they call informally, “Nazi Hunting”. Hunting down immigrants who had some association during the war with what the Axis powers were doing and the OSI was trying to deprive them of their immigration status or even citizenship and deport them to Europe to have them put on show trials there. The biggest case known is probably the case of Ivan Demjanjuk, John Demjanjuk from the 1980s. Bartesch and Allen will actually discuss a different case, that concerns Heinz Bartesch’s father, late father, who the OSI wanted to deport. And they got a bloody nose because they didn’t reckon with the stiff resistance and skilled defense that Andrew Allen, a lawyer from the San Francisco Bay area, was putting up. They were presenting some insight into how the FBI’s branch, back in the days, it has been disbanded by now, was violating the law, breaking the law left and right and forging evidence and so forth in order to frame immigrants, just to have a heyday for themselves or to push Holocaust propaganda.

 

After that we have retired Professor Dr. David Scrbina, who used to lecture in the humanities and philosophy at Michigan State University, if I’m not mistaken. He will be talking about early mainstream voices of Holocaust scepticism already during the war and right not too long after the war, which shows that back in the days, even mainstream people were sceptical about the narrative being pushed at war’s end.

 

And we wrap up the day making full circle what I started beginning the day, showing where we came from and where we are. Carlo Mattogno, probably the most prolific revisionist scholar and writer that we have, but in my opinion, also the most knowledgeable Holocaust scholar on the planet! The mainstream included! He is. He can’t speak English or understand it well, and he is currently in a besieged situation in Italy where they passed a law in 2016, threatening anyone voicing their dissent on the Holocaust narrative with up to six years in prison. Now they haven’t done anything against him, even though he kept publishing books by the truckload. I think he’s by now more than 50 books published on that topic. But he does that in a very scholarly manner and in a very low profile. So in Italy there are a few, 10 people and maybe buy the books, but they’re kind of shelf warmers. And he wants to keep it that way. He doesn’t want to gain a larger profile. He wants to do his work underneath the radar of public attention in Italy. And therefore he has submitted his paper to me to present it. And I have increased it by my own take of: Where Do We Go from Here? One part of it is what are the White spots on the map of Holocaust historiography, which still need to be investigated, explored. But also what else needs to be done to hand the relay staff over to the next generation. And there are some quite promising prospects when it comes to new people coming on board with new ideas, with the help of new technologies, bringing it to a new level and a different level. So trying to imitate or copy what Carlo Mattogno has done with his massive work is not what’s going to happen. The direction I think will go somewhere completely different. And I will be talking about that and hopefully this is going to happen. And with this I hope we will be closing the day.

 

Now, there’s always a possibility that things don’t run as smoothly as they are listed here. Just today we got information that a powerful group, international group, in the business of suppressing a free speech and freedom of assembly. They call themselves “Opponents Against Racism and Anti-semitism”. But basically what that means is they want to stifle anyone who has an opinion that certain ethnic and religious groups with power and influence, don’t want to hear!

 

So they are working in the background. We know of that and we hope hopefully will be able to prepare for there’s no way of telling from DDoS attacks to trying to get to the backbone provider and what have you. Anything is possible these days to just. And if it takes to turn off the power plant so you don’t have electricity, [chuckling] but that’s what it takes, that’s what they’ll do! So we expect something. They have noticed with the kind of exposure that our Summit has already received beforehand that we are there, what we’re doing and that we are reaching out and having a ripple effect and they don’t like it!

 

Now the kind of presentation that I’m giving here right now, I’ve done a number of them. If you scroll up on the screen here slowly, you can actually see listed on the right-hand side a number of presentations linked to of other platforms where I have given an introduction to this event. So if anyone is interested in listening to those, you just click on the image and go to the respective platform which is usually Rumble or Bitchute where this is posted. And because of this, I think, and you helping out now too, this event hopefully is going to be a success. It promises to be a success for us, and it threatens to become one for those who don’t want our voices to be heard.

 

[39:37]

 

So there is going to be in the background the usual electronic warfare from the traditional enemies of free speech, to be expected, and we will see how that goes.

 

This is by and large my narrative now we are here right on the screen where the organisation of that event is shown. We actually, when we submitted to people who were potentially able to give presentations, the invitation to do so, we said we basically accept papers on three main topics.

 

The first is Holocaust in History, Taboo Between Dogma and Descent. It just talks about new historical findings and insights and interpretations on the event itself. The next one is Holocaust and Politics History as a Weapon. And I mentioned we have one contribution in this regard which will discuss the weaponisation of immigration law against immigrants in order to get propaganda campaigns out of it. And the last one is Holocaust and Human Rights History as a Muzzle, Holocaust Used to Push Censorship. And we have a number of presenters as mentioned who will discuss their very private experience of censorship.

 

So it should all be civilised and decent and for no one to get overly excited about in either direction. But of course certain groups get extremely excited if they fear that voices be heard that can disrupt their main source of power and influence. And there’s a lot at stake for them and they will go to extremes if need be to shut us down. We’ll see who at the end will have the upper hand.

 

Mark Collett: So are you expecting the usual sort of suspects to try and put a stop to this? Have you had anybody threaten your platform or have you had any threats in the run up to this or any attempts to stop this already?

 

Germar Rudolf: Yes, yes! We just today we got information that as I mentioned, you can have your own platform which is a computer program, but it has to run at the end of the day. It has to run on a server and has to have the connection to the backbone with the Internet cables with enough bandwidth. And usually you have some company providing services from the telecommunications company that hooks you up to what we call today the Internet, the physical Internet, to companies who do server co-location or dedicated server renting. And along that line I’m not quite sure what it was and I wouldn’t necessarily want to reveal it either. We already had approaches from certain quarters of pressure groups to shut down any link in that chain that would get our voice from where we sit to the Internet to the world. So that’s going on in the background and we have to see how that goes. Nothing has been shut down yet, but they’re trying.

 

Mark Collett: And when you kick this off, what sort of attendance are you expecting?

 

Germar Rudolf: Well, the Holocaust Summit website itself, HolocaustSummit.com if you go to the top, you actually see a link there where people can jump to the sign up form and just submit their email address so that they can stay informed if there are any sudden changes in the timeline in whatever is going to happen. Because we never know. If we go by that the last time I checked and that’s a week ago, that’s not quite accurate. We had submitted 300 emails through that. But I would expect these are only the hardcore ones who are willing to share their email. And the other, there’s not really a need if you just keep to the website. Go to the website and look up what the link is to the actual event and we will have it posted on other websites as well. You don’t have to identify yourself. So I would assume that the vast majority will not identify themselves even with an anonymous email.

 

So we need to see how it goes. I don’t know. Sign up has really accelerated with my frequent experience appearances on shows like yours over the past two weeks. And I would assume by now we have probably harvested several hundred more. But there’s no way of telling, as I mentioned, how many people who, how many of those who will attend will actually have submitted their email address. I would assume it’s a minority.

 

So hopefully we are going to have several thousand which will most certainly exceed, far exceed the range we could have had in the past with physical conferences, which were limited to a few hundred.

 

And of course then we have it not just streamed, but we have it posted. So on the usual platforms that will reach many, many more thousands, ten thousands in days, weeks, a month and years to come.

 

Mark Collett: And bearing in mind you said you are going to be doing donations and questions and answers on the day, sort of how do you expect or is there a way that people can sort of sponsor you in advance?

 

So obviously these events, they take a lot of time and effort to put together. I know it’s not a physical event and I know you’re not paying people to be there, but sort of, is there a way that people can actually sponsor the event and make donations in advance to help you guys with your infrastructure and to make sure the event goes smoothly?

 

[46:00]

 

Germar Rudolf: Absolutely! The HolocaustSummit.com website itself, if you were to go there and you go to the very end of the very bottom of the page, it shows the logos of the two companies who are the main sponsors and have officially declared themselves to be sponsors. You know, most actually want to stay anonymous. But there’s also a link that simply says, “Become an AMREC Holocaust Summit sponsor today”, which gets you to the shop of our Holocaust Academy where you can buy sponsorship packages and that actually has several tiers of whatever you want to invest in it. This would be the way to go. So holocaustsummit.com at the very bottom of the page, that’s where you could chip in to cover any costs. Most of us are actually working for free right now and there’s no payment. And FTG Media.com is a sponsor itself and their way of sponsoring is by giving us access to the platform free of charge. We don’t know what happens if, excuse my French, shit hit the fan with all kinds of attempts to shut us down and then we have to come to some more expensive ad hoc solutions to circumvent these things. There’s no way of telling right now!

 

Mark Collett: And one final question. So with it being on a Tuesday, it’s going to be difficult for some people to attend. Obviously it looks like it’s going to be a fascinating day and your lineup is an extremely strong lineup. And it’s rare to have a conference that is that well packed with guests, to start at 9 AM and go all the way through to 6 PM. It’s a big event. So where will this be posted for Replay? Is this going to be up on Odysee? What sort of places will it be available on replay?

 

And as a final sort of additional question, usually with conferences there are some kind of sort of, I don’t know, maybe a brochure, or some kind of physical keepsakes available. Is there any merchandise that people can purchase as well to support the event? So sort of two questions. There will there be sort of a full re-upload of everything? And is the like to commemorate this, any kind of physical merchandise that supporters could also purchase?

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah. So to the first question, once the event is over, it’s getting archived on our own website. HolocaustSummit.com will be moved to a folder 2026, and we will have there with posters and a short description, all the contributions listed. You click on it and you will probably have several options. They will be on Rumble and Bitshute and Odysee, and you can pick which platform you want to watch it on. We are probably not going to strain our own server because those platforms are good enough.

 

So this will all be available and the link to that archive will then be of course on the front page, on the home page, prominently displayed. When it comes to merchandise, we just started developing that and if I am not mistaken, … Let me have a quick look where we are with this.

 

The only company right now that actually has a merch contract is Armreg and we are developing, … Now if you were to go to armreg.co.uk as you know, the publishing branch of what we are doing is actually located in the UK. It is located in London. So if you go to armreg.co.uk and share that with the audience or do you want me to share it? Which way is faster?

 

Mark Collett: I’m just doing that myself now.

 

Germar Rudolf: So Armreg.co.uk.

 

Mark Collett: Just bringing that up. There’ll be two seconds. Just give me a couple of seconds just to get that set up. There we go.

 

Germar Rudolf: Okay, now at the top menu you see merch as the third entry. Yeah, click on that’s for merchandise and once that has loaded.

 

Mark Collett: Oh, it has loaded. Sorry, it’s just now I have to share that window as well. Well, just give me a second because it’s a pop out window. So two seconds. It’s weird how that works. Give me a second. Share screen. That’s the one.

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah, that’s the one, yeah.

 

So if you scroll down a little, we have our various merchandise there’s one for Armreg itself and general stuff and there you see some merchandise. We have a mug and a Tshirt right now that has the announcement of that particular event.

 

Mark Collett: Wonderful.

 

Germar Rudolf: So that’s how to go about it.

 

Now I have still to put that link more prominently on the Holocaust Summit website so people can get there directly. That’s a good point for you to make that and I will make that happen once we’re off here, and I will add that to the site so people can get to the merchandise easily.

 

Mark Collett: Well, thank you so much! We do have some Superchats so I’m just going to bring them up two seconds. We actually have a couple that hung over from the other night, so I’ll deal with them quickly. Covenant Soldier gave $10. Thank you so much! And said:

 

“Love the show with Rob Rondo. Hail the active clubs.”

 

Thank you so much! Flying Dutchman gave $50.

 

Thank you very much. And said:

 

“Catching up. Happy New Year!”

 

Well, thank you my friend. I’ve actually sent you a message today so you can pick that up on Telegram. Thank you very much. Nationless Nationalist gave $3. Thank you so much! And said:

 

“Hope and encouragement to those suffering in silence.”

 

Well, thank you so much! Some Guy 14 gave $10, thank you so much! Said:

 

“Qu huge respect to Mr. Rudolf.”

 

Thank you so much! And Aunt Sally gave $5 and said:

 

“Mark, how likely am I to get my door kicked in for watching this conference?”

 

In the UK you see, one thing I’ll say is like in the UK, if I’m correct, And I’m just getting this sort of as correct as I can. In the UK it isn’t illegal to actually deny the Holocaust or to engage in revisionism, as far as I know.

 

[53:13]

 

However, if you were to do so in a way that was seen as insulting or demeaning to people, it would be. So if you were making jokes or if you were saying things which were couched in the way that was meant to be insulting, that may be illegal.

 

However, if you were doing sort of academic work such as what you do, that would be seen in a different light.

 

So I think in the UK this would be legal, but it would be very hard for anyone to get into trouble for simply watching this at home. Would you agree with that?

 

Germar Rudolf: Absolutely! We have, with all the censorship laws we have not a single case where a country has stooped down to the point where they persecute people for just attending, listening and consuming. Even the countries with the harshest policies when it comes to this. That’s Austria and Germany. You can, for instance, you can buy Holocaust sceptical literature that is not illegal if you buy only one copy for your own use. If the government happens to intercept it, they can still destroy it, but they can’t prosecute you for it. The same with attending a conference like this. It is not an offence in any country of the Western world. And when it comes to the UK, case law says you can contest the mainstream Holocaust narrative until you’re blue in the face. What you cannot do is in that context, disparage victims, survivors, martyrs, whatever. So in any way talking ironically, sarcastically, humourously, or in any way that is considered offending toward the survivors, the victims and so forth.

 

Now the company, as I just mentioned, Armreg.co.uk that has published and republished all this material and before that we were actually in the UK since 1996. I was personally, I lived in the UK until 1999. And I started the whole operation there. And it was called Castle Hill Publishers has gone belly up in late 2023, and then we switched over to Amreg. So just a reorganisation basically. Almost at all times been in the UK except for a stretch of one and a half, two years, and we have never been harassed by anyone. So keeping it scholarly, keeping it matter of factly and civilised, as you should, any discourse anyhow, keeps you safe in the UK for now.

 

Anyone attending, when you are in the chat and you make comments in there that can be considered disparaging to jews in general or survivors or descendants and victims of the National Socialist persecution of the jews. And you do that with an account that for some reason, because you set it up that way, allows the authorities to identify you, which would probably not be smart.

 

If you want to go on FTG media or somewhere else, use an ID that doesn’t allow anyone to identify you. And if an email is required, if you want safety, use a burner email or someone, some email that is not officially traceable to you directly.

 

However, if you abstain from making those kind of comments, which I advise under any circumstances, because nasty language doesn’t reflect good on the community and I’m no fan of it. So if you abstain from these kind of comments, you should be good under any circumstances on any place on this planet.

 

It’s different for our presenters. Some of them come from Europe and as I’ve mentioned, when we’re talking about those coming from France, they’re talking about their persecution. They’re not going to make statements on history themselves because we don’t want to get them in trouble. And if we have the question and answer session, I would like the audience also to abstain from questions that corners those French individuals and putting them on the spot, because they need to fly home and don’t want to be arrested. Not fly home, [chuckling] because they are at home! They don’t want to get arrested the next morning or whenever.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, and I want to echo that. I mean, look, I believe it’s very important to talk about the kind of things that we’re talking about tonight. I think it’s important that we discuss things like this.

 

But I also think it’s very important to ensure that we do so in a productive and polite manner. Talking about this kind of stuff in a way that is disparaging or rude or ridiculous, it not only opens you up for arrest, which is a ridiculous position to put yourself in, but it also demeans the seriousness of the topic and it takes what we do out of an academic light.

 

Now, I’m not a revisionist. I talk about revisionism. I have revisionist guests on, but I’m generally speaking somebody who talks about demography and jewish or Zionist power and the way that jewish power affects the Western world. They’re the topics that I mainly specialise in. I do speak to revisionists. I’m interested in it. But obviously, if you are going to get involved in this, my suggestion is that you deal with it in an academic way for your own safety.

 

And also so the topic is held in the high regard that it deserves to be held in. If you’re there sort of cracking jokes and sharing memes and trying to be as edgy as possible, kind of undermines what people like Germar are doing. And there’s an awful lot of revisionists who have suffered greatly at the hands of the authorities over the years. And you don’t want to demean their suffering and their sacrifices.

 

We’ve got a five dollar Superchat from Mr. Smalls 14, who, regardless of what I just said, said:

 

“Germar, is it true you tried to sell soap in Sacramento with Pastor Eli?”

 

That’s obviously one of those jokes. You don’t have to answer that if you don’t wish. No.

 

[59:57]

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah. The UK’s attitude towards Germany is that Germans have no humour. And you need to understand that the chicken has come to roost. The UK, as a winner of the Second World War, has pushed Germany in a situation where Germans can go to prison for jokes. The shortest German joke, do you know what that is?

 

Mark Collett: No, I don’t.

 

Germar Rudolf: The German word for joke is “witz”. Okay. The shortest German joke is “Ausch-witz”.

 

Mark Collett: [uncertain laughter from Mark]

 

Germar Rudolf: That gets you in prison in Germany.

 

Mark Collett: Indeed, indeed.

 

Germar Rudolf: So Germans don’t have humour because they have to watch their back. And they had to watch their backs for centuries. The Nazis didn’t invent book burning and the current government didn’t invent censorship laws. Germany has been under the stranglehold in the medievals of the Holy Inquisition, the worst of all European countries. So it has been bred into the German and out of the Germans to make certain jokes. Jokes live from the tension of putting things together that are not quite acceptable, talking seriously about them. So you package them. And that is exactly the attempt that this fellow has been doing, pushing the envelope into the not quite acceptable. But making this joke.

 

And that has become a crime in Germany and in borderline areas, has always been. And now in the UK, people are getting in trouble for showing sarcasm, irony and so forth in that context. If and when jokes become punishable by law, you stop laughing! And I take that opportunity to make that clear. These kind of jokes. Make them when you’re sitting in the bar, but don’t make them publicly.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, I want to sort of echo this is a serious point. So I actually believe that when it comes to comedy, when it comes to humour, when it comes to making a joke, really nothing should be off limits.

 

And once you start making certain things off limits, it’s very easy to make anything and everything off limits. So then you get sort of the Edinburgh Fringe voting the joke of the year as “Why did the chicken cross the road?” Because no one’s allowed to actually joke about anything else.

 

And I think it was Jimmy Carr who made the remark, a famous British comedian, who made the remark that:

 

“He’s probably already made the joke that will get him one day cancelled and ruin his career.”

 

And that’s how it is, because we constantly see the mainstream media, liberals, sort of fans of censorship, spending hours, if not days, if not in some cases weeks, trawling through people’s back catalogue of streams, tweets, Facebook posts, searching for something that they can find offensive in order to cancel someone, or worse still, get them arrested. And I find this very interesting because I’ve wrestled with this myself. People might say:

 

“Well, look, Mark, I came to your shows and I’ve now watched 200 hours of them and I found these three things offensive.”

 

And my question would be, if you came to the shows of Britain’s leading ethno-nationalists, and you were looking to find something offensive, is that really my fault? You know, I’m not out there saying it in the street. I’m not shouting it through a megaphone into people’s faces. I’m hosting a show. People come to the show, they know what they’re gonna get when they come to the show. This isn’t something that’s being broadcast to every car and home and workplace in the UK. You come here and you seek this out, knowing that you’re going to get a discussion about things relating to our cause.

 

And I think the people going out of their way to dig things up on people and to, it’s like Germar’s conference. If you were to go there and to record everything that was said and watch it in detail, taking notes, looking to find something offensive, that kind of defeats the object of watching the conference in the first place or attending the conference in the first place, because you’re not going there in good faith and then finding it offensive by accident. You’re going there on purpose to look for a reason to be offended so that you can then report it.

 

And this is one of the widespread problems in the West that people, the people who claim they don’t want to be offended will go out of their way and go to great lengths in order to be offended, or so they can claim that they were offended in order to report people to the authorities, which is just essentially a charter for censorship, allowing this to happen. But I do always ask people to be respectful, to exercise caution, not to use racial stuff.

 

As I said to all my guests, you know, please abide by sensible rules so that we are always the polite academic group that talk about things in a sensible manner.

 

And one thing that impresses me with Germar both times I’ve had him on is the way he can speak so fluently and in such a way that I think it would be impossible for anyone to find him offensive unless they were going out of their way to do. Optics prime gave $5. Thank you so much! And said:

 

“This man is a national treasure. Thank you for your work, good sir.”

 

Well, thank you for that Superchat. Lars Aerback with AE, gave $15.

 

Thank you so much! He said:

 

“A positive story from Denmark today. Our Supreme Court acquitted a man for hosting a site with racist jokes. Old fashioned holocaust jokes amongst them. The case has been through all three courts and has been going for over six years. This is a win for freedom of speech!”

 

Well, that is certainly good news from Denmark, and I hope to see more.

 

[1:06:17]

 

Germar Rudolf: Denmark? Regarding Denmark?

 

Mark Collett: Yeah.

 

Germar Rudolf: Oh that’s good! Yeah. Denmark has been a stronghold in all those years. Some German holocaust sceptics and historical sceptics actually fled to Denmark and found refuge there over the past four, five, six decades.

 

Mark Collett: And I’d like to say as well, big thank you to Malibu and Coke for gifting 10 subs to the channel.

 

And as I always say, those who accepted the gifted subs. It would mean a great deal to me if you kept them up. You know, $5 a month means very little to most people, but if I had four or five hundred people every month subbing my channel, it would take a lot of weight off my mind at the beginning of every month.

 

And that’s the end of the Superchat so I’m going to bring the stream to a close now. You’ve been a wonderful guest as ever! The advert for the conference has been excellent and again you’ve done most of the heavy lifting tonight and most of the speaking, but is there anything you’d like to say as a final thought before we wrap things up?

 

Germar Rudolf: Not much more than holocaustsummit.com! So the ultimate link will be streaming and that can change any minute depending on what happens, will be posted there there. If you submit your email, you’ll get it also in an email. And I hope we all see you there! And we are going to build a new community that gets stronger by the day!

 

Mark Collett: Well, thank you so much!

 

I’d like to thank Germar for being here. He’s a courageous guy. He’s a very good speaker. We have interviewed him in full before. If you want to watch that interview, it is in my previous videos. Go and watch it. It’s well worth watching. It’s a two hour special, that one where we talk about Germar’s personal journey, what he’s been through, the incredible repression he’s faced and his incredible journey in his life. Please do that and also support his event, support his work. He’s a really nice guy. It was really kind of him to come on here tonight and he’s been, as always, the perfect guest.

 

I’d like to remind you all that I will be back on Sunday with the ladies from Return to the Land. That’s three housewives, mothers and home-schoolers from Return to the Land talking about women in nationalism and their roles as mothers and homemakers and educators. So that’ll be an interesting stream. Please join me then 7 PM UK time on Sunday for that. Until then, if you’re out doing activism at the weekend, please be safe, stay within the law and know your rights. And until Sunday, have a great evening, have a great weekend and I’ll see you all again soon.

 

Thank you to Germar, thank you to everyone who donated so generously. And as always, thank you to this wonderful community for supporting us, for supporting these shows and for supporting the good work of my guests. Thank you everyone. I love you all. Have a great weekend. Good night.

 

 

[1:09:08]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

(Comments as of 1/25/2026 = 60)

Mark Collett
1 day ago
Pinned by @MarkCollett
If you would like to contribute to the stream, please use Entropy:
https://entropystream.live/app/markcollett

3
0
Valkyria81
1 day ago
88

8
0
The Bee Sting
1 day ago
Wooden doors?

5
0
Alice1488
1 day ago
Watching replay. I’ve never heard this brave intelligent man speak before.

5
0
Sir Trancealot
1 day ago
14

5
0
Secure the future of our people
1 day ago
14 Night all!

5
0

@Aunt-Sally
1 day ago
Thank you Mark and Germar

5
0

@noreplacement
1 day ago
Thank you Germar

5
0

@noreplacement
1 day ago
One day Mark and Laura will be presenting a day time TV show. With guests like Monika Scheafer

5
0
yes dear
1 day ago
2mm glass and a wooden door, no in/out pipes.

5
0

@RonP1
1 day ago(edited)
This HMD is getting more unbearable with each year that passes. For starters, they start talking about it in the media a week or two before the actual day, that’s without all the other propaganda being inflicted on the public all year long. What a sick world we live in where a vile group, with the help of its puppets, think it is their God-given right to teach young minds of British children a load of old BS.
As Arnold Leese said..
“Fascism holds that education up to 14 is a half-measure with attendant
evils nearly as great as its benefits. It produces a population which can
read but which has not learned to think, and is accordingly open to every
kind of evil suggestion or lie, readily disseminated in print.”
Less

4
0

@noreplacement
1 day ago
Britons will not have humour for much longer. Just look at the liberal boneheads we have for “so called” comedians.

4
0

@tuer
1 day ago
the jews ethnically replacing their liberators in europe and america should be the eye opener gaza is

4
0
Hide replies

@Evola19
15 hours ago
That is a misunderstanding of history – the jews have been at war with Europeans their entire existence. WWII was a gentile uprising put down by other gentiles – no jews were “liberated” from anything, they won WWII and were still surrounded white Europeans whom they hate. Not for much longer though.

2
0
yes dear
1 day ago
God Bless Kamerades x

3
0

@BritishGammon
1 day ago
Sophie Duker can “joke” about killing White folks on the BBC and the police took no action

3
0
yes dear
1 day ago
Jailed for physically explaining how high his dog could jump!

3
0
yes dear
1 day ago
holes in the roof and chimney built after surrender

3
0

@nationless8nationalist
12 hours ago
Just figure all subscriptions giving a mere 12 dollars a year. 192000 dollars in a year. Do not get frustrated and be overwelled. We can help our activists.

2
0
jm
20 hours ago
Problem: if you order a book when you live in EU, you have to pay a lot in douane rights -I ordered a book from Antilope Hill from Irving en had tot pay MORE in charges and taxes than the book itself…

2
0
yes dear
1 day ago
One People

2
0
Echo_Harp
1 day ago
Thanks.

2
0
Valkyria81
1 day ago
hi from denmark

2
0
yes dear
1 day ago
Im looking forward to wearing my Flecktarn next week

2
0
Secure the future of our people
1 day ago
“I said to him, ‘Simon, you are telling a lie,’”

2
0
yes dear
1 day ago
God Bless Ursula x

2
0
Skyler Durden
11 hours ago
I have Germar’s encyclopedia.

1
0
Through it, not around it
13 hours ago
WTF is Germar promoting FTJMedia? That site is cringy basement soy larper central. It is the complete antithesis of Germar and represents everything he tries to distance himself from.

1
0

@nationless8nationalist
1 day ago
just missed it

1
0
Secure the future of our people
1 day ago

@ForKamerade
wot???

1
0
yes dear
1 day ago
British gammon, Turncoat Dlive Traitor lol

1
0
Valkyria81
1 day ago
ive just found out. and im out… so sad im beeing missing this

1
0
Echo_Harp
1 day ago
“Found 3 things of offensive stuff” sounds like a joke in its own…

1
0
yes dear
1 day ago
Not long Enough Valk!

1
0
Valkyria81
1 day ago
how long do u continue this chat tonight?

1
0
yes dear
1 day ago
\0

1
0
Secure the future of our people
1 day ago

@BritishGammon
you can say anything as long as you can make the cops run away showing up at your house.

1
0
Secure the future of our people
1 day ago

@ForKamerade
o/

1
0
yes dear
1 day ago
Thanks Merkal, Congratulations Kalugi

1
0
yes dear
1 day ago
Only in Deutschland 2026!

1
0

@noreplacement
1 day ago
The state can easily spin revisionism into anything they want

1
0
yes dear
1 day ago
Will look, Thank you

1
0
Secure the future of our people
1 day ago
https://www.timesofisrael.com/remember-the-11-million-why-an-inflated-victims-tally-irks-holocaust-historians/

1
0
yes dear
1 day ago
Scientific & Engineering Impossibility

1
0
yes dear
1 day ago
How dare you question history, Its got Laws protecting it Because Truth needs Laws or you go straight to the Gulag Goy

1
0

@Aunt-Sally
1 day ago
Good evening folks

1
0
Sir Trancealot
1 day ago
Evening gents

1
0
Secure the future of our people
1 day ago

@SublimeBraid
gassing 6 million jews and fighting a two front war at the same time?

Hide replies
Tomigun
19 hours ago
They decoded the Germans’ Enigma in 1941, yet didn’t intercept ANY message about a “holocaust” or “final solution” carried out.

SublimeBraid
1 day ago
the risks of multitasking, lol

yes dear
1 day ago
Dragged out, “One by One” LOL

danzimmons
1 day ago
it’s all of them.

Secure the future of our people
1 day ago
odysee chat ded?

Secure the future of our people
1 day ago
evening all

@Aunt-Sally
1 day ago
I don’t blame his wife, they’d probably take their child away somehow

yes dear
1 day ago
test

yes dear
1 day ago
LOL

yes dear
1 day ago
110,000 at most

yes dear
1 day ago
Guten Abend Kamerades!

Hide replies

@nationless8nationalist
13 hours ago
thank you comrade.

0
0

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Jacob Hersant: So this is a video where I’m going to explain this new Bill that the Australian government is bringing out in the wake of the Bondi shooting where two Islamists went and shot a bunch of jewish people. And the jewish lobby has pressured the government to bring out these really extreme laws which practically nobody is happy about, really. Only the jews are really happy. Labor Party obviously draughted these laws on behalf of the jewish lobby. But everyone else seems pretty annoyed about it, so I’ll go through it. I haven’t seen any videos that comprehensively go through what the Bill says and what is so egregious and why it’s problematic. So I’ll do that in this video.

 

First I’ll give a disclaimer that I’m not a lawyer. No lawyer has gone through and talked about all of this stuff. So unfortunately I’m the best that you have. The only reason I’m interested in it is because it’s going to be affecting me and my organisation, the National Socialist Network. So that’s why I’m making this video.

 

I’ll be providing photos of the Exposure draught as I read it. I’ll also show the link so you can go read it yourself to make sure that I’m not misinterpreting it or I’m not making any mistakes. If I’m making a mistake, please message me, tell me how I’m wrong in my interpretation, and I’ll be happy to retract what I said and correct it for people, because I just want to try to give an honest assessment of what this law is and the effects it will have on society.

 

So this is a massive bill, they call it an Omnibus Bill. It is going to change a lot of things.

 

So a lot of its about to do with criminal law and hate speech. But it also does have some gun stuff. Not going to talk about the gun stuff because I don’t know much about guns. And this video is just going to be too long. I’m more interested and know more about the politics aspect of it and the hate crimes and hate speech and that aspect of it.

 

So that’s what I’m going to be talking about. I’m sure there’s someone that can talk about the gun aspect of it and in all likelihood the two are going to be split. The gun stuff will probably be chucked into its own Bill and the hate stuff will be bundled in its own bill.

 

I’m going to start off by talking about what this law does regarding hate and what they call “violent extremism, hate speech, hate crimes” and all the like. It’s all doublespeak. The bill’s called “Combating Anti-semitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026”. So in the title, they don’t even hide who it’s for. Obviously, on behalf of the jewish lobby, they’re the only ones that support this law currently. And because they have an outsized influence over Australia’s politics, that’s why this egregious Bill has even been introduced.

 

Part One is “Aggravated offences for preachers and leaders”.

 

So this just goes into the Criminal Code and it makes it so that there’s a bunch of laws where if a person is a religious official, or a spiritual leader, while they commit the offence, they can be imprisoned for longer. So it aggravates it makes the judge give them a more severe sentence. And the charges specifically are to do with encouraging violence and encouraging terrorism and all these kind of charges.

 

So when you look at the Bill here, it doesn’t specify what the crimes are, but those crimes are basically advocacy of violence and advocacy of terrorism. If this Bill passes, if you are an imam, or a priest [or rabbi?] or some other spiritual leader of a religion, you can be punished more because you advocate violence. So that’s part one.

 

And then I’ll move down to Part Six, bundled part six with part one, because it’s the same kind of thing, the same kind of change there. And it’s just for when these spiritual leaders, the charges are when you’re trying to get a young person, someone under 18, to commit violence as well. And more or less the same thing, though it is in a different section of the bill. They have changed the penalty to a person might commit an aggravated offence if the person is a religious official or other spiritual leader.

 

So in terms of grooming children for violence or for advocating terrorism or inciting violence against a particular group, if you are some sort of spiritual leader, religious official, you can be punished more severely. This is obviously going after Muslims. This is to punish Muslims more severely if they’re caught saying stuff about Israel and Palestinian resistance against Israel. This is pretty obviously what this is directed towards.

 

So Part Two is there’s increased penalty for using a postal or similar service to menace, harass or cause offence. And that’s been increased to five years in jail. So that’s what Joel Davis has been charged with and he’s still being remanded now. I think it’s been two months or maybe even more.

 

[06:09]

 

So Part Three is “Aggravated sentencing factor”. And this affects the Crimes Act 1914. And it basically makes it so all criminal offences can be aggravated by being racist. So if you commit a crime because you’re racist, you can be punished more severely by the judge.

 

Read out the specific part:

 

“The person’s conduct constituting the offence was motivated, whether wholly or in part, by hatred of another person, or a group of persons, and that hatred was because of the person’s belief that the target person or persons in the target group are distinguished by race or national or ethnic origin.”

 

So theoretically, if somebody raped a woman because he hated that woman’s race or nation or ethnicity, he can be punished more severely than somebody who rapes a woman for choice and noble reasons, like lust or hatred of some other kind.

 

Every single crime now, if you can be proven to be a racist, you get punished more severely. That’s basically what this aggravated sentencing factor is if the crime you commit is motivated by hate, well, racism or nationalism, then you can be punished more severely. That’s what this change means.

 

But basically every crime can be turned into a hate crime, essentially. So if you assault or rape or murder, then it can aggravate it if it’s proven that you’re a racist.

 

So Part Four is “Prohibited hate group”. And a prohibited hate group is a designation that the Home Affairs Minister can give out. So the current Home Affairs Minister right now is Tony Burke, for the Labor Party. This legislation allows the government to ban particular organisations. It can ban organisations, it can unban them as well, and they can add multiple names to a ban.

 

So if you ban an organisation, you can’t just rename it because that’s going to be banned as well. They’re just going to add it as an alias. So you can’t just get around the ban by rebranding.

 

So to be designated a prohibited hate group, that group has to have committed a “hate crime”. And they define what a hate crime is so here it is. 1 14. A. So definition of a hate crime:

 

“A hate crime is conduct that would constitute any of the following offences. Urging or threatening violence and offences against groups or members of groups to the extent that the targeted group is distinguished by race or national or ethnic origin.”

 

So either:

 

“Publicly displaying prohibited symbols or giving a Nazi salute.”

 

So a hate crime can either be threatening violence or it can be publicly displaying prohibited symbols, like the swastika or giving the Nazi salute. And then here it says:

 

“A hate crime is also conduct that was engaged in at a time before a provision referred to in subsection (1) commenced and would constitute an offence against the provision had the provision been in force at that time.”

 

What this means is that you don’t have to have committed a hate crime after this legislation passed. If you’ve given the Roman salute or you’ve displayed a swastika, as your group, then you’ve committed a hate crime and you can be listed as a hate organisation. So you can be punished retroactively. I will further explain this, but make no mistake, being listed as a hate organisation is a punishment in itself. So the process is the punishment!

 

And you got to remember, a hate crime can be just political expression, like flying the swastika or moving your arm in a gesture in a Nazi salute. That is political expression. And if you just do that, you can be banned for being an organisation that gives the Roman salute. So you can be banned for retroactive conduct.

 

This is insane, because laws aren’t supposed to be retroactive. Non-retroactivity is a fundamental legal principle. That law should only apply to actions occurring after the law was enacted, not before, preventing new laws from punishing past behaviour.

 

Everyone just takes that for granted. But when you have the jewish lobby demanding laws, they really don’t care about what we take for granted, obviously.

 

For banning an organisation, a conviction is not required. So:

 

“A person does not need to have been convicted of a hate crime in order for the AFP minister (which is the Home affairs guy, so Tony Burke) to be satisfied, an organisation has engaged in conduct of a kind mentioned in paragraph one.”

 

And then there is:

 

“No procedural fairness required. The AFP minister (so Tony Burke) is not required to observe any requirements of procedural fairness in deciding whether or not the AFP Minister is satisfied for the purposes of this section.”

 

So basically that means the people that are affected by the banning, so say the National Socialist Network was banned, we get no hearing, no say, no chance to respond, no recourse, no explanation about what’s happening. You’re just basically told:

 

“Tough luck! Like, enjoy being banned!”

 

So yeah, you get no hearing, you get no way to explain yourself or try to defend yourself in front of a judge or anything like that. And that’s what they’ve written right here, “no procedural fairness required”. Which is another legal principle that the jewish lobby don’t care about. They don’t care about what’s called natural justice or procedural fairness.

 

So:

 

“Director-General of Security advice to be provided before specifying an organisation as a prohibited hate group.”

 

So Mike Burgess has to give advice to Tony Burke or the Director General of Security has to give advice to the AFP minister and he has to be satisfied that:

 

“The organisation has engaged in activities, and that the activities or the like, the continued engagement in the activities would or are likely to increase the risk of politically motivated violence or of the promotion of communal violence.”

 

You have to use your intelligence here and think about what they’re saying. Obviously the logic that people like Mark Burgess are going to say is that because you’re engaging activities like giving the Roman salute that those activities are going to make it more likely that people go do terrorism.

 

[14:04]

 

So that’s what it’s saying and that’s what’s going to be argued. So if this Bill passes, Mike Burgess is gonna go tell Tony Burke:

 

“Well, yeah, giving the Roman salute makes it more likely that terrorism is going to happen in the future. They need to be banned!”

 

If Mike Burgess thinks that giving the Roman salute, giving the Hitler salute and saying “Heil Hitler” and wearing black clothes makes it more likely that someone is going to go out and blow up something or kill a bunch of people, well then your organisation gets banned.

 

So that’s what happens. So they can list an organisation. And when an organisation gets listed, then it opens up people to be charged with a number of offences that relate to that prohibited hate group.

 

Those offences are:

 

“Directing the activities of a prohibited hate group.”

 

Which can get you 15 years in jail.

 

“Membership of a prohibited hate group.”

 

And you have to keep in mind that being a member of an organisation you can be an informal member of the organisation and you can be charged with this because they define member of a prohibited hate group as:

 

“A member of an organisation includes a person who is an informal member of the organisation and a person who has taken steps to become a member of the organisation. And in the case of an organisation that is a body corporate, a director or an officer of the body corporate.”

 

So if you’re in so-called informal member of an organisation, you can be charged. So:

 

“Membership of a prohibited hate group”, 7 years.

 

“Recruiting for a prohibited hate group”, 15 years.

 

“Training involving a prohibited hate group”, 15 years.

 

“Getting funds to, from or for a prohibited hate group”, 15 years.

 

“Providing support to a prohibited hate group”, 15 years.

 

And most of these offences have a lower offence if you’re convicted for one of them while being reckless rather than, I guess knowingly doing it. So being reckless means that you’re aware of a substantial risk that you’re doing the crime, and it changes like the imprisonment from like 15 years to 10 years if you’re only proven to have recklessly done it.

 

And the only defenses that you have are either you didn’t do the crime or you were a government agent when you were doing the crime. So if you’re some sort of informant or secret agent infiltrating a hate organisation then you have a defence, but otherwise you have no defence.

 

This legislation is obviously directed towards having a chilling effect on advocacy and activism of organisations outside of the mainstream. That’s obvious.

 

And you gotta remember that there is no procedural fairness. The fact that your organisation gets banned and then you have 15 years hanging over your head, that’s the punishment!

 

And obviously having your rights taken away that you can’t politically associate or politically express yourself in that particular way, that’s the punishment!

 

And I’ll go off on a little bit of a tangent here. In my case, the Roman salute case that was brought against me in the Magistrates Court for which I was convicted and then I appealed. Went to the county court and was had had the conviction against me upheld. They argued that the Roman salute offences are very narrow and hence it could be justified taking away that form of political expression. They did admit it was political expression but they said they could take it away because it was relatively narrow what it was.

 

Well you know, now it’s having very serious consequences because that offence, giving a slew has been recategorized as a “hate crime” and it can be used to retroactively ban a organisation like a 300 man organisation and threaten its leaders with 15 year sentences if they continue. A lot of the judiciary get too focused. They get narrow minded, they don’t understand like how dangerous these laws you give them an inch, they’re going to take a mile. And this legislation is taking a mile. It is insanity! Also vindictiveness! Like I don’t know how it could occur to you to have a maximum of 15 years for some of these charges when you can be prohibited as a hate group because you moved your arm in a particular way that offends the jews!

 

And another case that I saw on the news today actually funnily enough was someone who’s been charged with threatening to kill the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. And the charge for which he’s been charged, threatening to kill an MP is a maximum of five years.

 

So you get a maximum of five years for threatening to kill an MP. If you direct the activities of a prohibited hate group. A prohibited hate group that gave the Roman salute. You can be in prison for 15 years. That sounds perfectly reasonable!

 

So Part Five is “Racial vilification offence”. And this offence is:

 

“Publicly promoting or inciting hatred. A person commits an offence if the person engages in conduct in a public place.”

 

And to be clear, the Internet includes a public place.

 

Basically everywhere is a public place except for inside your own home where it can’t be seen by the public. But the Internet counts, as is sending it through the mail, some sort of business, or out on the street or something like that. All counts as a public place.

 

So the conduct is:

 

“Promote or incite hatred of another person, or a group of persons because of their race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, or disseminate ideas of superiority over or hatred of another person, or a group of persons because of the race, colour, or national or ethnic origin of the target or target group. And the conduct would, in all the circumstances, cause a reasonable person who is the target, a member, or a member of the target group to be intimidated, to fear harassment or violence, or to fear for their safety.”

 

And they call the “reasonable person test” as an objective test, but really it just comes down to the judge to decide who a reasonable person is, to describe who the reasonable person is so really, it isn’t actually a objective test. It’s just a subjective test. Like, it comes down to what the judge thinks. It’s not like there’s any empirical data about who this average person is based on polling or anything. It just comes down to the judge, who he thinks, he or she thinks this reasonable person of the group of a particular ethnic or racial group is.

 

[21:42]

 

And obviously you can be charged here with a criminal offence if you:

 

“Disseminate ideas of superiority over a group of persons because of their race, colour, national or ethnic origin.”

 

So you can’t say that particular nations are better than other nations. So if you say “Australia is better than China”, well, you could be charged. You could be charged with this. I’m not saying that that’s likely to happen, but with what this law says, I’m somebody who is disliked by the government. If I said that “Australia is a better society, Australia is a better nation than China”, well, that’s disseminating an idea of superiority over a group of persons because of their national origin. Maybe I could say that and someone feels intimidated or they feel fearful. And the issue is, there’s so many people in this society that feel intimidated or fear from the littlest things. We’ve become a very soft society. And judges love to rule based on sentimentality when it comes to these things! And you can be imprisoned up to five years for publicly promoting or inciting racial hatred. Yeah!

 

So:

 

“For the purposes of subsection 1, it is immaterial whether the target or members of the target group actually are distinguished by the particular race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, or the conduct actually results in hatred of another person or group of persons, or the conduct actually results in any person feeling intimidated, feeling harassment or violence, or feeling fearing for their safety.”

 

So what that says is that they don’t have to prove that any person of that particular race or nation or ethnicity was present and kind of a target of it. They don’t have to prove that hatred was actually kind of incited in somebody. They don’t need to prove that anyone was intimidated, felt harassed, or feared for their safety. None of that actually has to be proven because a judge can come up with this magical, reasonable person of that group, this imaginary person, and say:

 

“This person has been targeted. This imaginary person has been targeted. It could potentially have led to hatred being incited in other people and it could have potentially intimidated or made someone, this imaginary person, fear for their life.”

 

At least you have a defense here for religious teaching or discussion:

 

“Subsection (1) does not apply to conduct that consists only of directly quoting from or otherwise referencing a religious text for the purpose of religious teaching or discussion.”

 

So this is lucky for our Muslim friends who can quote directly from that Hadith saying that the stones and the trees are going to tell them where the so the Muslims are safe in that regard, and so they should be.

 

“Part 7. Hate symbols – Reversing the burden of proof for public interest elements of prohibited symbols offences.”

 

So it means that there’s already these hate symbol laws. So if you display a hate symbol or you display the swastika or give the Roman salute, there were defenses saying that you could do these things as long as there was a public interest like a religious, academic, educational, artistic, literary or scientific purpose that isn’t contrary to the public interest.

 

And previously the prosecution would have to prove themselves that this hate symbol or the salute wasn’t given for one of those legitimate purposes. So it’s been flipped now, that if you display this a symbol or give the salute or anything like that, then you can be charged. And then you have to prove that you did it for a legitimate purpose, like a religious, academic, educational, artistic, literary or scientific purpose.

 

And so basically this gets rid of the presumption of innocence, and so it makes it easier for the prosecution to charge people and drag them through the courts. Because if you post a picture of Hitler with the swastika, you can be charged. They don’t need to prove that you did it for hateful reasons. Actually you need to prove that you didn’t do it for hateful reasons.

 

So that’s what it literally does. It reverses the burden of proof. An example would be if I posted a photo of Hitler next to the swastika. I can be charged easier because the prosecution doesn’t have to prove that I posted it for a hateful purpose. I have to defend myself in court and say, perhaps I posted it for an academic purpose or to teach or something like that.

 

[27:15]

 

The other thing is the prohibited hate group symbols are added to the criminal offences. So it’s not only just terrorist symbols and the swastika and the Roman salute. So if NSN got banned, the converging arrows, for example, the converging arrows, flag or the patch, you’d be able to be charged with displaying that.

 

These laws also have a minimum one year in jail. So a judge has to give you a year in jail if you’re convicted of this.

 

I’ve went through all the hate speech stuff in this Bill with you. I think it’s clear that the people that wrote this Bill don’t care about the basic legal principles that are supposed to underpin the whole of our judicial system, like natural justice, presumption of innocence, freedom of speech, freedom of association, proportionality. Non-retroactivity.

 

So what has been the response? One Nation has come out opposing it, which is good for them. The Liberal Party have come out opposing it as well, but they’ve said that they want to come up with their own version of it, which I suggest would be far more watered down than this, which would be good.

 

But these laws don’t need to be passed. There are laws that stop people. Well, that criminalises terrorism. It’s not like the person who went and shot those people in Bondi is at liberty because there’s a fault in the laws. He’s going to spend the rest of his life in jail. Changing the laws isn’t going to fix any of this. It’s going to make it worse!

 

The real danger isn’t what we have to do to apparently solve “hate”. The problem is what are we going to do to solve the fact that we have a government that wants to destroy all the principles that are supposed to underpin our judicial system because they don’t like particular groups, opposition groups in society, whether they be National Socialist or Islamist.

 

The response from the entire online Right has been very positive. Like everyone is raging about this, like it’s all that anyone is talking about in the Australian Right-wing now. Everyone has come out against it.

 

We have the Home Affairs Shadow Minister, this guy, the dishonourable Jonathan Duniam, some total nobody no one’s ever heard of or cares about. And he was mocking the National Socialist Network for us, saying that this Bill is draconian.

 

Jonathan Duniam:

 

“Of course they cite in that statement that these laws ‘most draconian in the universe, making freedom of speech impossible, etc, etc’. Clearly they’ve seen this identification of formal groupings and hate group listing etc., as something to try and avoid, which is good in one sense.”

 

And then I think he went and checked the Internet and saw that everyone else was saying it as well and then he changed his positions.

 

What’s the response been from the Muslims? The Muslim response has been good. They’ve been coming out against it and you know, they shouldn’t be banned. There’s been like arguments that the problem with these laws is it doesn’t come out hard enough against Islam. These laws shouldn’t be passed at all! Even if they were going to be just confined to Muslims. These laws need to be opposed. We don’t need to ban any of these Muslims organisations. Now just because two Muslims went and killed 15 people, it doesn’t mean that we have to destroy the judicial system that governs 27 million people. Like the threat is not these two Muslim terrorists killing 15 people, it’s the Commonwealth that is unnecessarily going to destroy all of our freedoms. Proposing this supposed solution that’s not even going to do anything. It’s not going to do anything to stop terrorism.

 

And then we saw fat Ross who runs the White Rose Society, she’s an anti-fascist. She described it as “state oppression”. I think you’re right there for once. And then Socialist Alternative came out against it. Their front group for Palestine. So they’ve got a group they use to organise Palestinian activists. They came out against it, so good on them.

 

Jews say it doesn’t go far enough. To be expected. I don’t think I need to comment much more on that.

 

Mainstream media has largely came out against it as well. They’ve been publishing voices that come out against it. They haven’t really been publishing any voices that go for it other than the jews. And everyone, when it comes down to it, everyone hates this Bill other than the jews. And luckily I don’t think it’s gonna pass.

 

And the Greens have come out against it. But they said they might be open to just amending it. But I’m not sure how likely that actually is. But wouldn’t it be just a perfect summation of how stupid and disgusting this country is, if after a Muslim terrorist attack in Bondi they draughted these laws which go to severely persecute and oppress National Socialists and Islamists, if the Greens amended it so that it didn’t go after Islamists and then it only affected National Socialists! So White Australians and National Socialists would be the only ones who get punished for an Islamist terrorist attack. Stranger things have happened. That sounds like something the Commonwealth would do. And that just tells you how reprehensible it is.

 

But in the first place, the fact that we are under threat, the National Socialist Network is under threat from laws that are draughted up from a Muslim terrorist attack says all that it needs to. Why are we getting banned from for an attack that has nothing to do with us? I could at least understand the rationale, even though I’d disagree with it, if some sort of Right-wing or nationalist person went out and shot people, or shot an MP or something like that, I could understand the rationale. But for us to be banned for Muslim terrorism?

 

Yeah, with the Greens and the Coalition coming out against its looking more and more like it’s not going to pass, which is a good thing.

 

Nonetheless, the National Socials Network is disbanding. Some people are disappointed by that. I saw someone on Twitter, or X as it’s now called, said that:

 

“We should be martyrs and that we should continue operations until we get charged with these 15 year offences.”

 

He said:

 

“Just be the martyrs, bro!”

 

Well, perhaps you should do that in my stead. Maybe put on a converging arrows patch, make your own one, dress up in black and go out there, get arrested on our behalf. Just be a martyr, bro!

 

And there’s not going to be any way to get around this. Like they’re not going to be charitable, they’re not going to help you out. If you even slightly do something that could be perceived as continuing the organisation after it gets banned, you’re going to be arrested, charged, remanded and facing serious jail time.

 

[35:20]

 

There’s no oversight in terms of whether or not the listing is correct. Like you get listed, it’s a done deal! You go before a judge, if you are genuinely continuing or doing any of those offences, there’s nothing he can do. He has to find you guilty or you go before a jury. And if they find you guilty, then you’re getting punished severely. You’re getting probably half a decade in jail at the very least.

 

And there’s been people on the far-Right who love to engage in victim blaming. So they say:

 

“The only reason this is happening is because the National Socialist Network engages in street activism, dresses up in black, praises Adolf Hitler, gave the Roman salutes in the past.”

 

All of that kind of hard hitting, confronting street activism. But we’re not the ones that pass these laws. Like agency obviously belongs to the legislature and the people who control the people who run the legislature, so obviously the jewish lobby.

 

So if anyone is to blame for these laws, it’s not the groups that are being banned. And it’s being done in response to these two Muslim shooters in Bondi. But it’s not even their fault. It’s not the fault of Muslim preachers, it’s not the fault of National Socialist activists. And this is the thing. It’s taking the blame away from the actual agent that has perpetrated this, who has created this, and it’s pushing it on the people who are getting targeted and who are going to suffer the most from these laws.

 

The real blame is the jewish lobby and the Australian government. That is why these laws are coming through. The people that push for them, the people who wrote them up and the people that passed them. But the issue is even if we had better optics, these laws would still be being brought through and we would still be under threat of getting banned. And this has been proven by other countries where you have groups like Generation Identity in France that got banned by the French state. I don’t think anyone’s gonna argue that their optics were an issue. Their optics were pretty tame, yet they got banned.

 

So whatever represents the strongest force of nationalism in a particular country, the jewish lobby and the government is going to try to legislate them out of existence. That’s what’s going to happen. And if we were the Nationalist Network and we didn’t wear black clothes and we just wore regular clothes, I guess regular bourgeois clothes, maybe suits and ties and had said “Australia for the Australians”, if we were the biggest group, we would still be getting banned. That’s the truth!

 

In this regard, all roads lead to Rome, as I’m sure some of you have seen in the memes recently with the rabbit with its clock. You know, it doesn’t matter which road you go down, you’re eventually going to go to Rome and it doesn’t matter what road you go down when you have an unjust system, you’re eventually going to be banned by it if you’re a big enough threat to its agenda. So you need to stop bargaining with the system when it’s fundamentally unjust.

 

And the optics people, the only thing that would be different in this situation is these optics people, because of their particular ideas of activism, they would just be a bit more sympathetic.

 

But people should stand for principles and ideas and for an actual fair legal system more than just perception and optics, in my opinion.

 

We really don’t need to total our legal system. What angers the government and the jewish lobby is that we have deeply felt political conviction and that we want to do whatever we can to further our political agenda while staying on the right side of the law. So we’re trying to stay within the legal framework while pushing forward our political agenda, what we deeply, deeply believe in. And that is what angers them the most. And it angers them so much that they don’t care about their own rules, they don’t care about their own judicial system, they don’t care about any of this.

 

Of course, the jewish lobby never really cared. It shows you that the people that profess to be liberal Democrats in this government and one of their claims for legitimacy, how little they care about it. They don’t care about their own rules, they don’t care about their own system anymore.

 

And it’s pretty obvious that these people have no respect for the system of government that our ancestors erected at the beginning of the last century. I might have a so-called “violent extremist” opinion here, but I don’t think we should total our legal system. The legal system and the principles underpinning the judicial system of yesteryear, it’s actually one of the things I do like about this country. And they accused me of hating Australia. You know, I don’t hate Australia. I don’t hate the nation, I don’t hate the continent.

 

I do certainly hate the Commonwealth, because a government that cooks up legislation like this is reprehensible!

 

[41:19]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Gab Comments

top

(Comments as of = )

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

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

Newsreader: Good evening. First tonight, violent scuffles have broken out on the streets of Melbourne this afternoon with two sets of rival protesters clashing in ugly scenes. A far-Right wing group had gathered to protest what they see is an increasing influence of Islam here in Australia. But those voices were drowned out by a vocal anti-racist group. Matthew Sattler [sp] has the story.

 

 

 

Reporter (male): Two sides with two very different views quickly clashed. Protesters jostled with each other as mounted police were moved in.

 

 

Authorities were made aware of the protest by several social media campaigns.

 

 

A previously unknown group called the United Patriots Front assembled to take on what they say is the spread of Islamic.

 

 

 

 

Blair Cottrell: These Left-wingers, the people that are lost and confused over there, they are more concerned about the feelings and the rights of foreigners than they are about their own countrymen!

 

 

Reporter (male): A nearby motorist stood up to the group.

 

 

Female: You have the right to say everything, but don’t generalise Islam, okay?

 

Reporter (male): Her opinion received an angry response. But the Front was outnumbered by hundreds of anti-racism protesters.

 

 

Reporter 2 (male): Protesters from each side are yelling and chanting slogans at each other and the many police who are here are doing their best to keep them apart.

 

 

 

 

Female: (Alison Thorne) History shows that they want to stamp out all of [word unclear] human race, right? We cannot let that happen. We must learn from history and we need to stop them while they’re small.

 

 

Reporter (male): After a seemingly endless stand-off, the patriot group marched away, leaving the anti-racism protesters to claim victory on the town hall steps. Matthew Sattler, Eyewitness News.

 

 

[End of clip]

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, what was that, 10 years ago now?

 

Thomas Sewell: That was 10 years ago, almost to the day.

 

Blair Cottrell: Wow! It’s been 10 years since then already. I saw some footage of you at the beginning there. I remember when you were on the steps at that particular protest. This was the first ever protest we posted as United Patriots Front in 2015. I think it was in May of 2015. Is that right?

 

Thomas Sewell: That was the May 31 protest. Which was our second. It was the first ever as UPF and it was the second one we attended.

 

Blair Cottrell: And I used to have some really cool footage of that one, but I’ve lost most of my footage. But wow, that was a throwback, man! That was a real throwback. And I found myself looking back recently and I didn’t really realise at the time, just a few days ago I didn’t realise, but it’s actually been 10 years. It’s been a decade since the beginning of our political activity. I first met you I think on April 4th, 2015. I met you at the first rally we ever went to.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And ever since then, I remember how different we were treated by police back then, or just how different the police were generally. It’s like we were a new phenomenon back then. The police didn’t really know how to handle us or what was going on, or they were learning as we continued to demonstrate.

 

I mean, one of the main motivations for United Patriots Front was to be an aggressive and consistent public protest group. Because after observing Left-wing protest activity, I began to understand that the only way you get your voice heard is to be aggressive and persistently loud in the streets. That was my perspective anyway. But that had never really happened, or no Right-wing group had formed in recent Australian history and started actually doing that and generating a lot of support by doing it like we did.

 

So initially the cops were kind of like, they didn’t really send a lot of numbers. They didn’t know how to handle it. But they learnt gradually and something happened. They used to be kind of fair to us, I remember, they used to be kind of fair.

 

But then something happened and the situation flipped and then suddenly we were the villains and the Leftists were the noble, you know, defenders of democracy or something like that.

 

So I’m not really sure what happened there, but it was all a learning curve and we were pretty young at the time. We were basically just kids getting into politics and throwing ourselves out there to see what happened.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, I think I just turned 22 in that footage of me you see at the start of that video. And I think you were like 26, so.

 

Blair Cottrell: 25. Yeah, I would have been 25. But I was a young. I was a young 25. [chuckling]

 

Thomas Sewell: Wow! I remember observing those first two rallies. Not that the police were necessarily fair to us, but it’s the first time I observed what you could call “democracy in action” or “mob rule in action”. And I saw the police not care who was breaking the law or not breaking the law, who was attacking old ladies in the street, who wasn’t attacking old ladies in the street.

 

What I observed was which group is bigger and which group is smaller. And the one that’s bigger will let them do whatever they want. And the one that’s smaller will attack them. Or we’ll tell them what to do, and if they don’t do what we say, we’ll attack them, we’ll attack the smaller group.

 

And that’s what I observed. That’s my first impression of democracy manifest in the street. And it was a great experience.

 

[05:42]

 

I mean, that April 4th rally, which was at Fed Square, which I hope we’ve got the video of that as well. I’m sure you’re working hard in the back room to get these videos up. I’m sure we’ll get them up as we go through the stream today. But at Federation Square, there was a Reclaim Australia rally, which is where Blair and I first met. And the sort of the idea of UPF formed out of just the violence that we saw on that day, where we were blocked from entering the rally by these communist groups.

 

And the police. I think the police were helping the communist groups, even if they were a bit fair on us, and they weren’t as violent and aggressive, they certainly weren’t doing their job, which again, was actually eye opening for me. I was a bit of a system believer back then. I was definitely very moderate in my political and philosophical takes, and I was a system believer. I didn’t have an issue with the police. I had a huge respect for the police. Back when I was 21, 22, I’d only just left the army and I assumed the police and the army were basically the same institution. One for fighting foreign enemies and one for, I guess, like domestic rabble. And yeah, I was a system believer.

 

And seeing firsthand the police just allowing that kind of violence because it was being done by a communist mob radicalised me beyond belief! I think that was my most radicalising moment! If you would have pointed that meme, like, who radicalised you? It’s like watching the police stand there and let old ladies get pushed down stairs. And then I guess, like eight years later going to jail for confronting people, stalking and harassing us.

 

I mean, it’s just crazy to think the time I’ve gone, like, what I’ve done, which has resulted in going to jail is so absolutely minimal. It’s so minuscule compared to the violence I saw on that day that just went without punishment, just nothing! And that radicalised me. That made me go:

 

“I’m doing this for the rest of my life!”

 

I already figured I would, but in that moment. And that’s, I think, why street protests are so important. It’s so important for people to voice their opinions in real life and see what comes of it! Comes of the system, comes of the enemies of the system on either side.

 

Blair Cottrell: What’s the main thing or the main difference between those days and now, like, when you protest these days? Because you’re still very active in the field of public protests.

 

But I know that you’re experiencing very different treatment. Similar treatment but different in very important ways. So how have things changed do you think? Fundamentally, or the most observable change you see in protesting now versus protesting 10 years ago. Any comments on that?

 

Thomas Sewell: The police now are arresting us for pre-crime!

 

So that’s the most significant change now is the police organise before a rally and they plan how to stop us from having democratic rights before the rally even begins. I don’t think that happened back in the day. I think they were just reacting in the moment. I think a lot of the police were trying to allow both sides to demonstrate in public. And then over the course of the day the police would make a decision on the ground:

 

“Oh, one group’s bigger than the other. You know there’s going to be punch ons if we don’t move this other group on. And we’re not necessarily doing it for anyone’s individual safety but for I guess just the cohesion of society as a whole.”

 

They would make that decision.

 

But now it’s not like that at all! Now it is 100% state mandated brown faggotry! And 100% state suppressed White power! So back then it was a bit vaguer. The police weren’t really on anyone’s side. They were just inept! They were just inept and inexperienced and unsure.

 

But now it is very clear that it’s not just police ineptitude, it’s not just:

 

“Oh, we’re just doing our job bro!”

 

Now it’s very clear the police are being radicalised by Commissars within the state police force. And at a federal level they are being politically educated by political Commissars that are radicalising the police into being violent thugs. And that’s the major difference.

 

I mean the police will allow the Burn Australia, Hate Australia, Fuck Australia, Destroy Australia crowd to rally. And they’re “the most loving, peaceful, kind people on earth”, the Hate Australia crowd, according to the police.

 

But then the pro-Australia crowd are:

 

“Evil terrorists that need to be fucking shot and they need to be stomped. And we got to get rid of these people from society. They’re not allowed to express their views!”

 

So that’s a major difference.

 

What do you think? What have you noticed?

 

[10:58]

 

 

Blair Cottrell: The culture is much more sensitive now.

 

Thomas Sewell: Polarised?

 

Blair Cottrell: I mean definitely more polarised but also what people are saying on the Internet and what is regarded as unacceptable speech, you know, dangerous opinion, the kind of stuff that gets you put on blacklist as extremists, potential terror threat. It was the stuff that basically every Boomer was posting 10 years ago. And so like now things are so much more sensitive. What you can and can’t say, what you shouldn’t say. You’re not really sure if certain opinions can be construed as potentially threatening to somebody.

 

And I think obviously the point of having speech laws like that is to have people self censors, so people don’t talk about things and people are too afraid of potential consequences to have open discussion. But 10 years ago, I remember some of the content I was putting out there. You know, it was quite contentious. And I was never vulgar in the way I used to present my videos. You would agree, or anyone would agree who knew me back then. But I still was one of the first Australians to be nuked off Facebook and censored from all social media, then had my bank accounts closed.

 

In addition to that, while I was trying to fight a hate speech charge, in addition to two of my colleagues, I’ll bring up when I work out how to do it here, I’ll bring up a picture of the original United Patriots Front gang. It’s like the original Boys in the Hood. This was the first ever group that we had, the sort of inner circle leadership team you might want to call it. But this is when we were still generating a following.

 

 

We probably had like a few hundred followers on the Internet at this point, or maybe a few thousand. We started off like we hit the ground running after our first demonstration in May [2015]. And this was after a little flash. Demonstration and speech at the front of April. Sorry, not at the front of April, at the front of the ABC building just after the April rally or after the May rally, one of those.

 

But yeah, some old faces in there and that’s like a picture from 2015. And this was before we were really on the map. Like I said, this is when we were really putting in the work. Hard to believe this was 10 years ago now already.

 

But yeah, thanks for joining, guys. If you’re just watching the show, hello to our friends, friends of the show, hello to enemies who might be tuning in, people who don’t like us very much, hello to members of police department, whatever state you may be watching this from, and also intelligence personnel. It’s probably your job to review these little episodes that we make. So hello to everybody and I hope you enjoy our illustrious weekly show. I’m going to be beginning tonight with Thomas Sewell, leader of the biggest nationalist group in Australia right now.

 

And later on as the show progresses, we’re going to get Joel on. Tom’s going to jump off and Joel’s going to jump on. And the reason we’re doing that is because there are still anti-association laws or conditions as part of your bail conditions for charges related to “loitering and displaying a Nazi symbol in public after you marched on Australia Day in Adelaide”, is that right?

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, correct. I can go into some detail about. We had a court case, I think only two days ago was either yesterday or the day before. I think it was yesterday, actually. A lot happens. Yeah, it was yesterday morning. And we were doing a bail amendment to try and get those things dropped. And in the process, our lawyer, a guy called Matthew Hopkins, put forward that the Bail act suggests that only people that are serious organised crime figures, people that are doing five or 10 years in jail, these are serious offences like drug trafficking and rape and murder and serious violent firearms offences, that these are the only people that get non-Association orders, as per the Bail Act. And that it’s an overreach. And that was his main argument.

 

The other arguments were just that it’s unconstitutional. That these charges are all going to get dropped because it’s political policing, it’s policing their constitutional rights or trying to stop them from having their constitutional rights. It’s all going to get dropped, and that the process is the punishment, and they shouldn’t have these draconian bail conditions that prohibit their political speech with one another.

 

Now, what was interesting, I mean, there’s so much to go over, there’s so much to cover and I’m sure Joel will cover a lot of it as well. But what is fascinating is that the judge said that we would pursue the charge of, … The prosecution wasn’t prepared to drop the charge of loitering.

 

So what I want to update the audience on, is on Australia Day this year, there was about 80 of us prepared to march through the streets of Adelaide. They arrested about 17 or 16 of us, I think, before the rally even happened.

 

And then they arrested another 16 at the start of the rally, and they turned away almost another 20 on top of that, like gave the move on orders and threatened to arrest them for being in the CBD with an Australian flag, basically.

 

And so I think ultimately about 40 guys or so marched on the day that weren’t arrested. And the guys that were arrested were charged with “wearing an article of disguise”, which was hat and sunglasses. They were charged with “loitering”, which means standing around without police permission. It means standing around without a legal reason. It’s a law that implies you’re going to break into, enter somebody’s house or car. It’s like loitering is like you’re standing out the front of a joint, casing it, and you’re about to break into it. And the police can’t charge you with robbery because you haven’t done the robbery yet, but they can charge you with loitering. That’s what that charge is designed for. That’s basically all the criminal pretence for that charge.

 

So they charge us with loitering, which is standing around without a reason. And they charged us with wearing a Nazi symbol, which implies in the law a swastika. But we weren’t wearing swastikas. We were wearing our trademarked symbol for our own organisation, the Jacob Hersant NSN Arrow Cross symbol and a Union Jack. And they declared that one of the two of these symbols was some Hungarian fascist Nazi party symbol during World War II. And therefore it was under the legislation. Which it is not. But that’s the argument that they were making.

 

[17:43]

 

And during the court hearing for the bailout, the magistrate, who was very politically charged, said that:

 

“It’s obvious that we were standing around in order to perform a political demonstration to hurt people’s feelings and cause distress.”

 

And he said this within about a five minute period of saying that we’re going to go forward on the loitering charge. But this already contradicts himself. How can we be loitering if we’re standing around for the purpose of performing a political demonstration? So it’s beyond all reasonable doubt! It’s a fact, it’s a statement of fact. And it’s in the judge’s own record that we were standing around for a political purpose. He just didn’t like that political purpose. That political purpose was distressing to people in the Aboriginal community and other protected communities.

 

And then he stated that he was a victim. He said:

 

“That we’re all victims, that we caused distress to everyone and that everyone is a victim of this distress!”

 

And that myself am pretending to be innocent. He actually used the term “fake innocent”. He said I was:

 

“Fake innocent of the crime of causing distress to the public.”

 

But I wasn’t charged with causing distress to the public, and causing distress isn’t actually a crime. So he agreed that we weren’t loitering but decided to pursue the loitering charge. And he agreed that the reason why the charges are being pursued is because we’re:

 

“Fake innocent of the crime of causing distress in other communities and in himself. That he was personally distressed and personally affected.”

 

So these judges aren’t very intelligent, they’re just very corrupt and they’re very evil! And that’s basically the court update. And Joel received more or less the same treatment.

 

Blair Cottrell: What was the name of that magistrate, do you remember?

 

Thomas Sewell: [chuckling] Unfortunately, it was Magistrate Davis.

 

Blair Cottrell: Davis, like isn’t spelled the same way as Joel Davis?

 

Thomas Sewell: Yes.

 

Blair Cottrell: Wow!

 

Thomas Sewell: And also one thing I forgot to mention was about two hours earlier, one of our members had court that morning in the Adelaide Magistrates Court. The guy had a Polish name, the magistrate. It wasn’t Magistrate Davis, it was Magistrate Smolix or something like that. And he was also charged with loitering. And the charges were dropped because there is absolutely no case to answer for.

 

So one of our members of our organisation that was arrested at the exact same time that I was arrested in the exact same place, who was also charged with loitering as myself was charged with loitering, the charges were dropped two hours prior, in the exact same court, not the same room, but in the same court by a different magistrate, Magistrate Smolix, because there’s no case to answer for, because he wasn’t loitering, because he was there for a political reason.

 

Blair Cottrell: Did your lawyer make it clear that the chances of a conviction were very low, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Yes.

 

Blair Cottrell: Therefore the bail conditions weren’t necessary? And he still didn’t accept the variation in the conditions.

 

Thomas Sewell: Correct. He said I was a threat to the community because I’m:

 

“Capable of marshaling many men together to form these political rallies and that that would be distressing if it was to happen again. And that the purpose of these bail conditions are to stop me from doing that again. And that seems to be working.”

 

Blair Cottrell: Stop you from engaging in legal public protest?

 

Thomas Sewell: Correct.

 

Blair Cottrell: That is illegal to do that, though. It sounds like this magistrate was turning the matter into a good versus evil debacle rather than a legal consideration. Considering you guys as evil and himself as representing this arbitrary good in the name of the community. It’s my understanding too that if a magistrate declares himself a victim of a crime or an accused set of crimes in a legal matter, then that’s conflict of interest. He should excuse himself from overseeing the matter immediately.

 

Thomas Sewell: Correct.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yet he declared himself a victim and continued to hear the matter, is that right?

 

Thomas Sewell: Yes.

 

Blair Cottrell: Who is this guy? What kind of judge is this guy? I’ve never heard of anything like it!

 

Thomas Sewell: Well, what’s the average person listening needs to know if they don’t have much experience. Sorry, I think you cut out. What I was going to say is that magistrates are political appointees. They are assigned by the State government, like a police commissioner.

 

So the police commissioner was the one that said before the rally, a day before the rally, he went on TV to do a press conference to try to spook us from performing the rally, saying that they were going to use extra special powers to stop us from demonstrating. And this is a political appointee. This is the same police commissioner that also recently did that ad saying that they are hiring non-citizens for South Australian police because they’ve got a police shortage. They’re hiring non-citizens, non-Australians, and that will fast track your family’s Visa if you join the South Australian police force. Did you see that video? It’s him in his board shorts. He’s wearing his cop uniform on the top and his board shorts on the bottom, and he’s at the beach in Adelaide and it like, zooms out. Yeah, same commissioner.

 

 

[23:18]

 

 

Blair Cottrell: I did actually see that video. And sorry, guys, I was just kind of shorting out. I don’t know. I never usually have problems with my Internet connection like that, but it was just kind of dropping in and out. But I think I’m okay now.

 

So, yeah, look, in summary, you guys are hosting a march for Australia Day in Adelaide. You’re marching down the street. Adelaide police tackle you, arrest you. They charge you with loitering and displaying symbols that you weren’t actually displaying. Then they whack these bail conditions on you, saying you’re not allowed to talk to each other, you’re not allowed to go to other protests together. Then you go back to court, what, two months later? Because you’ve got to wait two months. Because that’s the way the court system works. It’s banked up with all of these other matters. You wait your turn, you go back to court and you say:

 

“Hey, these bail conditions aren’t just unnecessary, they’re unlawful and they need to be struck out.”

 

But the magistrate turns around and says:

 

“No, what you represent, Mr. Sewell, is a political evil! And I’m going to protect the good of the community from your evil. And I’m also a victim of your evil. So these conditions will remain in place. You’re not to associate with your colleagues or politically protest further.”

 

That’s essentially what just happened to you guys.

 

Thomas Sewell: Correct.

 

Blair Cottrell: What do you even say? That there must be some process you can go through to complain or something. Like, what do you do? You just, well, you go through appeal, right? You appeal to a higher court. Is that what you’re doing next?

 

Thomas Sewell: Well, that’s one of our options, and it’s a very expensive option. We’ve been quoted upwards of $20,000 to get a King’s Counsel to properly contest this at the Supreme Court, which is absolutely no point in spending that money for the sake of myself and other members of the organisation associating with each other. The purpose of the bail application was not as much, the bail amendment, was not so much about me being allowed to talk to my friends, as much as it was about setting the precedence that Stephen Wells can be freed without a politically motivated Bail Act.

 

So Stephen Wells is in jail at the moment. He can get out of jail. All he has to do is sign away his political rights. And Stephen Wells at the moment is deciding that he hasn’t done anything wrong, he hasn’t committed any crime, and that the process is the punishment. And he’s not consenting to signing away his political rights so that he can be free. That if they want to hold him as a hostage and threaten him with:

 

“Hey, we’re going to lock you in a box if you don’t sign away your political rights.”

 

He’s made the decision:

 

“Well you’re going to have to lock me in a box!”

 

Which is very admirable and honourable, and he’s a very strong man.

 

Now, the only reason why I would be willing to spend $20,000 to have the bail amended would be so that Stephen Wells could be free.

 

Now, we are going to win these court cases, and we are going to get justice for how Stephen Wells, and all of us, have been treated by this government. But we’re certainly not going to get that justice at the magistrate’s court. It is definitely a corrupt kangaroo court by these political appointees that are no better than a Soviet Union magistrate. That two plus two is five if you’re part of the party. And they don’t care about the law, they don’t care about jurisprudence, they don’t care at all about any sort of ethics.

 

He admitted. He admitted in court that he had predicted what the outcome was. He admitted his premeditated decision. He admitted, … I’ve got the whole notes on it. And he admitted his own prejudice against our case. Which should excuse him from being able to hear the case. You can’t join a jury if you admit any prejudice against one of the parties. You can’t be on a jury. You can’t make an informed decision. You can’t make an ethical decision if you have prejudice.

 

And so this judge is, again, it’s just absolute corruption. He incriminated himself in court. At this stage, there’s no way of getting justice for it. We have to actually take the whole country back and get rid of these political appointees in the Magistrates Court, as well as everything else we need to fix with this country. But it is very interesting how the Liberal Party and Labor Party treat their opposition, and how they weaponise the courts and they weaponise the media and they weaponise the education system and they weaponise everything against the White Australian that wishes to be free and left alone, which is how we all started this.

 

And now it’s well, now we’re in for a fight, aren’t we?

 

So those are our options.

 

Blair Cottrell: I wonder if there’s a process through which your legal representative can call the judge out next time something like this happens. There must be some sort of process by which your lawyer can identify a political or preconceived bias in the judge, point it out, and demand he step down based on that law or process.

 

And I think they need to get really bold. The problem with lawyers, I’ve noticed. I’m not saying your lawyers aren’t good or something like that, but I’ve noticed that lawyers can be very, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Timid.

 

Blair Cottrell: Tedious. Is that the right word for it? They tiptoe around the judges. Yeah, they don’t want to upset the judge because they want to get a good ruling from the judge. I think they need to get pretty aggressive, man! I think they need to indicate that there’s some sort of consequence for any judge with a preconceived bias. Because consequence is the only thing these people care about. Their own bureaucracy. And some sort of consequence as a result of violating the bureaucracy is what the judges fear. It’s what the police officers fear, I found. And unless they feel like there’ll be consequence, they’ll do whatever they want.

 

[29:18]

 

Thomas Sewell: I would say that this is the first time that we’ve had a lawyer that has actually understood the politics of the matter. We’ve had a lot of good lawyers over the years, and all of them want to tiptoe and timidly enter the subjects at hand. They will make these concessions, moral concessions, to the court, or I should say not the court, but the temple, because they’re all part of the guild, they’re all part of the temple! And they will make these moral concessions to the temple as some sort of pennance to then argue the case.

 

So they admit this moral guilt of the accused, and then:

 

“Okay, that’s done. That’s sorted. Yes. Evil, horrible views! Rah, rah, rah. Now let’s argue the facts of the case. The facts are he hasn’t done it, or the facts are this isn’t a crime or whatever.”

 

And then they try to go to the rational. But they already lost the legal battle by conceding the moral ground.

 

And this is the first lawyer we have ever had that hasn’t done that! That hasn’t gone into the court and grovelled! He hasn’t gone into the court and said:

 

“My learnt colleagues of the Temple that I belong to, I submit to you that I am also a learnt colleague of the Temple. But these gentlemen are certainly not! And they are what they are. But let’s argue the facts here, my friends.”

 

He didn’t do that. He said:

 

“What these men are doing is right! They have the Constitutional right to do it. You don’t have the legal power to do what you’re doing to them. What they’ve done is morally right! And it is in line with the greater constitution. And these laws do need to be struck out. And this is a clear case of political policing, and I can prove it!”

 

And then when dealing with the media, he more or less did the same thing. He didn’t concede the moral argument to the media. When the media asked him, you know:

 

“Would you consider these people’s views extreme?”

 

He said:

 

“That to the Left-wing, the Right are extreme. And to the Right-wing, the Left are extreme. We live in this polarised society, and part of democracy is that we can argue these things.”

 

Instead of conceding being like:

 

“Oh, yes these are quite abnormal views or quite extreme views.”

 

He actually backed us on the moral argument. So I think he did a very good job because he understood the politics! Not just the law. And that’s hard to do.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. I’ve got here the Channel 7 report, I believe, of this particular situation that you’re talking about now. So we can check this out and react to it if you are keen.

 

 

Newsreader: A prominent neo-Nazi boss arrested in Adelaide’s CBD on Australia Day has declared he wants to enter politics. Thomas Sewell’s Lawyer told a magistrate it’s his constitutional right and any attempt to stop him would be an abomination.

 

Reporter: (Deanna Williams) Neo-Nazi activists in full voice on Australia Day.

 

(NSN members marching and singing) Waltzing Matilda! Waltzing Matilda!

 

 

Their leader, Thomas Sewell, taken into custody. Today, a stunning admission. He and his National Socialist Network co accused Joel Davis, intend to form a political party.

 

 

Lawyer: (Matthew Hopkins) It would seem to be a political organisation and it’s an abomination in this country that we are seeking to ban or criminalise a legitimate political ideology.

 

Reporter: The pair appeared via telephone link in a failed bid to have removed what they say are “draconian” bail conditions, preventing them from associating with their members.

 

Lawyer: We do have a constitutional issue here. Their right to political communication is clearly being infringed.

 

 

Reporter: (Deanna Williams) The prosecutor said the non-Association order was sought for good reason, to stop mass gatherings like the one on Australia Day. And there were serious concerns about disruptions to the upcoming Anzac Day events.

 

The magistrate agreed:

 

“I do have a real fear of a risk of re-offending by Mr. Sewell. He is a leader of a White supremacist group. I fear for victims.”

 

Both men intend to contest the charges. A trial date will be set at the next hearing in May.

 

 

Deanna Williams, Seven News.

 

 

Blair Cottrell: They seem to have drawn a parallel, both the magistrate, through his comments, and the Channel 7 journalists. They’ve drawn a parallel between offending, criminal activity, criminal offence, and your protests. But they’re two very different things. Marching around with some Australian flags and singing Waltzing Matilda is not an offence, but it’s being held as though it’s an offensive or criminal activity. Right? And that I thought I found that to be interesting. So, obviously, maybe these bail conditions are about stopping you guys from demonstrating on Anzac Day [this coming April 25]. What do you think about?

 

Thomas Sewell: Well, that is word for word what they said. That is word for word what the magistrate said. That his purpose for placing these strict conditions on is to “stop further mass gatherings”. It’s literally to stop democracy. They have charged us with laws that are not real! Well, the law itself is real, but not applied in a real sense. We’re then “fake innocent”. We can’t claim innocent. We’re pseudo guilty of the crime of hurting people’s feelings, and therefore we’re no longer allowed to perform mass gatherings.

 

But performing a mass gathering is not illegal in Australia. But the bail, he said, interestingly so they’ve worked out this very clever way to shut down democracy. When you do a demonstration they don’t like, they arrest you and charge you with something that isn’t a crime, something that you haven’t done, and then they slap bail conditions on you that stop you from demonstrating. So it’s a very clever way to shut down free discussion.

 

Furthermore, he admitted himself that that’s the purpose. So this is not like a theory that me and you are coming up with. These are his words.

 

[35:52]

 

 

Blair Cottrell: It seems like ever since that Covid fiasco the idea of democracy just never recovered. It didn’t recover in the minds of judges or police officers, certainly not statesmen and public officials, and it never recovered in the minds of ordinary people either. But I suppose the human right or principle of freedom to protest, some of us have held onto that. You’ve held onto that and you’re being punished for it.

 

But what does “fake innocent” mean? I find that a really curious term. How can someone be determined “fake innocent”? Exactly! Is that because you are innocent of the crime they’ve charged you with? Obviously. But you’re not innocent because of what you believe politically. And that’s considered abhorrence by the social culture. And therefore, even though you’re innocent of the crime you’re accused of, you’re still guilty of being a Nazi, and that’s worse. So you’re treated as though you’re a criminal. Am I getting that right? That’s how it feels.

 

Thomas Sewell: Correct.

 

Blair Cottrell: [chuckling] What do you even say to this? What kind of option? You see, what you guys are doing right now is you’re still playing the game. You guys are still doing your utmost to abide by the law and operate within the bounds of the law. You’re going to court, you’re showing up when you’re supposed to show up. You’re playing their game still.

 

But what option are they going to give you guys if this is the way they treat you? If they just find you guilty on the grounds of being morally abhorrent and you’re basically not given the same rights as any other person in court would have because of the ideology you subscribe to, which is non-violent, by the way, it’s totally legal. What option are you going to be left with at the end of the day? Like, how much longer can you keep playing this game?

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, well, they just want to break our spirit. They want to break our spirit.

 

Blair Cottrell: But if they can’t break your spirit like, they expect that that will happen. Because Australians have demonstrated, unfortunately, in recent history that with enough pressure they will break. And I hate to say it, but that’s what the Covid fiasco demonstrated. It demonstrated that if you take things away from Australians and you keep taking them away, you hold them for long enough under a boot, then eventually they’re going to cave, they’re going to give way and they’re going to do what they’re told.

 

And it feels like that’s what the government is waiting for you guys to do. They’re waiting for you to just roll over and go:

 

“Okay, we’re sick of this, we’ll just go back to our wage jobs and shut the fuck up!”

 

It’s like that’s what they want you to do, they want you to feel like there’s no hope.

 

But obviously that’s not going to happen.

 

Thomas Sewell: It’s fascinating that the two most contentious dates that they’ve discussed in that news article is the “evil protests” on Australia Day and the fact that there could be more demonstrations at Anzac Day. And these are both things that they’re trying to ban.

 

If you look at the Race Discrimination minister or commissioner just today put out a post, it was in the news today, the Racial Discrimination commissioner, whatever the fuck that is, some Indian piece of shit that’s come to our country and is trying to tell us how to think and what to do. He put out today that:

 

“Celebrating Australia Day is racist and we got to put it behind us. We’ve got to stop doing it.”

 

[See: Australia’s Indian-born Race Discrimination Commissioner declares Australia Day racist]

 

So this piece of shit bureaucrat that’s not even Australian, it’s being paid [$398, 450 a year plus $50,000 in accommodation and travel assistance] by the government to tell Australians they can’t celebrate their own national holiday.

 

And so then it puts into context the charges against us on Australia Day. We were the only people in Adelaide publicly celebrating Australia Day! I’m sure lots of people were celebrating Australia Day in the privacy of their own homes at the park, although that’s technically public, they weren’t demonstrating it. They weren’t showing their national pride on display. They were doing it at the park, at the beach, you know, under a little umbrella with their friends. We were in the city marching, showing that we still love Australia, we still care about Australia, and this is how we’re treated by the police.

 

So it’s very obvious that what they’re trying to do is ban Australia Day and they’re trying to ban Australia Day because they’re trying to ban Australia. How do you destroy a people? You have to take away their holy days. You have to take away their significant cultural events and days and deracinate them, de-route them to destroy their history and their legacy and their identity.

 

And then they’re just mindless consumers of the [goy] slop. And likewise Anzac Day. They’re not as overt about their hatred of Anzac Day, but what they do instead is corrupt it and they distort it and they try to defund it. You’ll notice that there was that debacle which Tim Lutze and Jim Roberts, both of whom have grandfathers that were, and great grandfathers that were Anzacs. I think, Jim, on both sides And Tim on one side, hence he’s got a German name. He had a grandfather, I believe, in the SS and a grandfather as an Anzac, which is an interesting life story, but here we are. And you know, he had grandfathers that fought on both sides, and Jim had grandfathers that fought for both, for Australia and the British Empire. And these are guys that have been banned from attending the Anzac Day ceremony because they attempted to attend the shrine in general.

 

[See: Nationalists banned from Melbourne’s Shrine of Remembrance on Anzac Day ]

 

I mean, their charge is something about “attempting to attend the shrine”. They didn’t commit any crime, they didn’t do anything illegal. They tried to go to the shrine to pay their respects. They were attacked by about 150 police officers and then they were arrested because they wouldn’t move on when they weren’t causing any disturbance. They just wanted to go in and hear The Last Post*.

 

[* The Last Post is a bugle call played before the period of silence at a commemorative service. In military tradition, the Last Post is the bugle call that signifies the end of the day’s activities. It is also sounded at military funerals to indicate that the soldier has gone to his final rest and at commemorative services such as Anzac Day and Remembrance Day. The Last Post is one of a number of bugle calls in military tradition that mark the phases of the day. While Reveille signals the start of a soldier’s day, the Last Post signals its end. The call is believed to have originally been part of a more elaborate routine, known in the British Army as “tattoo”, that began in the 17th century.]

 

And the reason why the guys were going to hear The Last Post was because the, as you would know, the police have said they’re going to defund The Last Post, that they’re not going to play the bugle on the Sunday afternoon. And so just like they’re trying to shut down Australia Day, they’re also trying to defund and shut down and distort Anzac Day, and distort the shrine.

 

[42:16]

 

 

Blair Cottrell: Do you think that’s how they kind of tear strips off it gradually, little bit by little bit, they remove traditional services until it’s kind of got nothing left. Right?

 

Thomas Sewell: Exactly, exactly! That’s what I’m trying to say. Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: What about, Are you guys, is it legal for you guys to demonstrate or publicly observe Anzac Day this year? Is that now legal for you to do? And if you do do it, is there a certain distance you have to be apart from each other? What’s the law say? Are you actually allowed to observe Anzac Day publicly as a group?

 

Thomas Sewell: There’s no law that says you can’t go as a group to celebrate or recognise Anzac Day, or any day, within the Australian veneration calendar, whether that’s Remembrance Day, Australia Day, Anzac Day, we have a veneration calendar. It’s basically the religion of White Australia, is Anzac Day, Anzac Day and Remembrance Day, and I’m sure there’s some smaller ones in between all that. But there is no law. It doesn’t exist. You can’t get drunk and have sex on the lawn out the front of the shrine. That would be a disturbance of the shrine. You couldn’t do that. I don’t think the Anzacs would actually mind too much.

 

But obviously all the old bitties [women] would probably be a bit upset. But I mean, the dead diggers* would be like:

 

“All right, well, we did worse!”

 

You know, they were larrikins*. But it certainly would be a disturbance and there would be laws against that. But they certainly weren’t against partying, that’s for sure.

 

[* Digger is a military slang term for primarily infantry soldiers from Australia and New Zealand. Evidence of its use has been found in those countries as early as the 1850s, but its current usage in a military context did not become prominent until World War I, when Australian and New Zealand troops began using it on the Western Front around 1916–17. Evolving out of its usage during the war, the term has been linked to the concept of the Anzac legend, but within a wider social context, it is linked to the concept of “egalitarian mateship”. Wikipedia]

 

[* Larrikin is an Australian English term meaning “a mischievous young person, an uncultivated, rowdy but good-hearted person”, or “a person who acts with apparent disregard for social or political conventions”.]

 

But it is a place of veneration. It is a place of solemn veneration. And that’s a big part of how we culturally recognise the fallen. But that’s not what the guys were doing. They just rocked up as a group, as you’re allowed to. You can rock up with your friends, you can rock up with your family, you can rock up by yourself. “Welcome to democracy!” But the police swarmed. Apparently the police didn’t have 75 grand to pay the bugler this year. Why that cost 75 grand, I don’t know. It’s obviously know, money laundering, but, …

 

Blair Cottrell: I’m sure someone would do it cheaper.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, but they didn’t have 75 grand to play the bugler for the bugler for this year. But they had the money to put 150 cops on a Sunday to go tackle Tim Lutz and Jim Roberts.

 

I mean, there was hundreds of them!

 

Blair Cottrell: That would have cost more than 75 grand. Right.

 

Thomas Sewell: I did the maths and it was about 100 grand. Yeah. For one day, let alone the bugler for the whole year.

 

Blair Cottrell: So I can imagine there’s probably a few cops watching this. Right? Because that’s their job. And there’s people from various different walks of life and departments that are viewing the stream, will view this stream. And a lot of them would be thinking:

 

“You talk about veneration of the ancestors, Sewell, but you represent the same ideology they fought against. You represent National Socialism or Nazism.”

 

That’s what they’re going to think. Right.

 

But what do you say to those people, to people who believe that or have that perspective of you? How do you respond?

 

Thomas Sewell: There’s a lot of different ways to answer it. Most of them, you end up getting caught in the weeds. But a parable, or an example, would be, are they Christian or do they recognise Christianity as a part of the foundation of Western civilisation, or a component of it? Well, didn’t the Romans kill, didn’t they crucify Jesus? So how can we respect Roman law like the Magna Carta and Roman law and Jesus at the same time? Didn’t the Romans kill Jesus or vice versa? How could you be Christian and become a lawyer?

 

So we can hold two mutually exclusive structures. We can venerate the ancestors, and we can acknowledge that what the Germans fought for in the Second World War was righteous. I’ve always answered the question and said:

 

“My uncle and my father fought. Although I honour my father, my uncle was right!”

 

And what do you do in a scenario where your uncle fights your father? Obviously, you’re on your father’s side. Of course I’m on the side of the British Empire. Of course I’m on the side of Australia. We fought the Germans and we won.

 

But why did we brutalise our cousins like that? Why did we brutalise Hitler like that? These were honourable men. These were good men, and we destroyed their country, we incinerated them! We genocided them! And for what? So what, that communism could spread further in Europe and the jews could take control of our economy?

 

So that’s one way of answering it. That’s one of the crucial ways of answering it. Yeah.

 

[47:06]

 

 

And also there’s the semantics of it, which is Gallipoli wasn’t against the Nazis. Kokoda wasn’t against the Nazis. White Australians fought for White Australia. The only reason why they killed Germans was because they were even more racist than the Germans were. The only reason why they killed Germans was on behalf of the British Empire. They were like:

 

“Well, we don’t want to speak German! Even though we’re speaking German. We’re speaking, you know, we’re speaking English.”

 

We’re speaking modified German. We’re Anglo Saxons, primarily. It’s probably 60% of our DNA is Germanic. The rest is probably Celtic.

 

And so we, you know, we’re speaking German. We are a Germanic people. They’re our cousins. And most of the wars that we fought were against the Turks, were against the Japanese, were against the Chinese, were against the North Koreans, were against the Vietnamese. We primarily fought against Asian yellow expansionism and communism. And only a very small amount, like in the early days, obviously, was against., … Well, it’s not a small amount, but obviously we had the First World War where I think something like 110,000 Australian soldiers died, wounded or casualties. But again, that wasn’t against the Nazis. They didn’t exist yet. That was against the Germans in a “civil war”, in a brother’s war.

 

So I think, in summary, you can still venerate your father, even if he was technically wrong. I still love my father even though he’s wrong. And as the cliche David Irving saying is that if those boys that went and fought against in Tobruk and Alamein that went and fought against Rommel, against Hitler’s soldiers in North Africa, if those Australian soldiers knew what Australia would turn into now, they wouldn’t want anything to do with fighting the Germans. You know, they would have come home and would have fought against the Japanese.

 

So I think it’s very easy to be able to venerate both. I know that was a long answer, but I think it’s important for the patriots and for the people that maybe don’t understand the Hitler stuff or the German stuff so much.

 

Yeah, I mean, we’ve had lots of civil wars. For example, there’s the English Civil War between the Catholics and Protestants. Now, if you’re Catholic, how can you be proud of the British Empire? If you’re Catholic, I mean, you’re ultimately serving a Protestant construct that genocided basically the Catholics.

 

So you can make these kind of yeah, it’s just a cheap little jewish trick that is effective. It is effective. I will admit it is a very effective propaganda technique to try to turn fair dinkum [true, real, genuine] Aussies against people that have a little bit more political understanding of how the 20th century actually played out.

 

Blair Cottrell: It sounds like for you, veneration of your ancestors is always right, regardless of ideology.

 

Thomas Sewell: Correct.

 

Blair Cottrell: And National Socialism is much more nuanced than what major academics and influential powers have led us to believe it is. And there’s actually a lot of carryover between real National Socialist principles and common sense nationalism, even sort of Australian nationalism that we might employ or feel like we lean towards today.

 

You know, for me, I’m really proud to be Australian because of how good the Australians were at fighting. Australians had an international reputation for being really good soldiers and no one wanted to fight them. Anyone with experience fighting Australians did whatever they could to get out of fighting them again. Even Rommel, one of the most famous Nazi generals, had a lot of respect for Australian soldiers and he wrote about in his personal diary.

 

So for that matter alone, I’m really proud to be Australian and I want to honour the men who fought for my country, just because they were so good at it and they had the reputation that they had. I’m proud of that, obviously.

 

But look, 10 years ago, we started off this stream by talking about a decade ago when we first got involved in political activity. Before we were censored and the whole thing got cancelled by government intervention we were setting up a political party. We were in the process of building A political party after the popular protest movement became so popular that we realised we had to do something with all that manpower, something that would have real measurable political impacts on the culture and our country.

 

But as a result of intervention, censorship, hate speech, strife, and me being in court for about four or five years trying to clear my name of it, bank account closures, it kind of got swept under the rug, or at least put on the shelf. It’s been collecting dust ever since.

 

But I heard through some major media reports and through the channels the boys have that you’re in the process of putting together a party again. What’s the story with that? Tell me about it.

 

Thomas Sewell: Well, first of all, I’d like to clarify that we are building an organisation called “White Australia”.

 

And the first step before registering a political party is to build a supporter class for White Australia [https://whiteAustralia.org]. And we have recently just developed a website, a placeholder website. It’s not the final form. It’s certainly not what we want to put forward to the public as a hard launch of our organisation, but it’s certainly something that you can just check out quickly to get a rough idea of what we’re doing. An unfinished product at this stage.

 

 

[See: White Australia]

 

[52:43]

 

 

So that’s why we’re not doing any sort of big announcements. But I will discuss on stream that we are building a supporter class for this greater community group that we’re building. And we’re getting people’s details in compliance with the Australian Electoral Commission so that when we are ready to make a political party, we can send everyone those forms and you can register straight away.

 

So signing up, I want to make it clear, I want to clarify to everyone, because I have had a lot of questions about this. You’re not signing up to a political party called “White Australia” at this stage. What you’re signing up to is being a supporter of the organisation. And when we reach critical mass, say 2,000 people or two and a half thousand people, because you need 1500, and we know that there’s going to be auditing issues. So we want to maybe wait till we’re at 2,000 or 2500 before we then have the party platform finished. All the Constitution done, all the art styles done, the logos, everything else, maybe win a few court battles in the process. Because at this stage, they’re basically making it illegal for us to exist. We’re going to have to win these court battles probably before registering.

 

And then when that’s all done, everyone that signed up as a supporter will get either an email or if you’ve given your address which will come later. We haven’t asked for addresses at this stage. We will send out the paperwork. We will send out two bits of paperwork to you, either electronically or physically.

 

The first will be a form to sign up to our party registered through the AEC. The second will be a form for you to register with the AEC as a “silent voter”. And the importance of registering as a silent voter is so that people cannot look your name up on the electoral roll and then firebomb your house. It basically takes you off the electoral roll. It takes your details, your personal details.

 

We’ve had a lot of people reach out to us and say that they would be worried if there was a breach of security, like if ASIO or Mossad or political enemies within the AEC had leaked the information of the names of people that are signed up to the party.

 

And we’ve had, I mean, there was a threat recently by someone from the Victorian Libertarian Party that made a threat about being happy that we’re going to register so that he can personally go through the AEC roll and look for names and addresses. I mean, that’s a very serious threat from the Libertarian Party.

 

So the second piece of paper we’re going to give you when we give you the sign up paperwork for the AEC is how to register as a silent voter so that the Antifa, so that these libertarians that have got some ax to grind with us, they can’t do any harm to you. And it’s just for your safety. Everyone should do that regardless of signing up to our party or not.

 

So I just wanted to clarify that, Blair, that’s what we’re doing. That’s where we’re at. We’re probably 12 months away. The next election cycle after the one that’s going to happen in a month’s time is obviously in three years time, 2028.

 

So we have three years to get this up and running properly! So we’ve got about 12 months and then we’ve got two years to look at, well, what are we trying to achieve with this? What are our goals and how are we going to legitimize so that we can continue operating legally despite all this pressure.

 

Blair Cottrell: Great! Well, thanks for clarifying that. I was under the impression there was a party getting started up and I keenly signed up to it as a supporter. But I’m glad you explained that because if I thought that there was a party happening, then other people probably thought there was too. And it’s good to know that it’s in the works and I’m excited for it to come to the forefront in the near future.

 

But what is in the immediate future for Thomas Sewell and the group? Are we focused on the legal battles? Are we focused on getting that done first? Is there something else that we can look forward to? What are you focused on at the moment? Where’s your energy going to primarily?

 

Thomas Sewell: We always have our calendar of affairs, our calendar of special days. So we perform four major events a year, at minimum, and then we’ve got minor events in between those major events. So that always happens no matter what, regardless of anything. That will happen with me or without me. We always have our monthly meetups, we always have our weekly training and you know, we’re building, building Mannerbunds* all across the country, you know, constant recruitment. So all of those things are constantly in motion. That’s like a homeostasis.

 

[* The Männerbund, or warrior band/union/association, in ancient times was a prominent social institution among the Germanic tribes during the Iron Age (presumably even before that during the Proto-Germanic era) and afterwards. This institution was characterized by the formation of small groups of Men typically Nordic warriors, who formed a close Bond of brotherhood based on shared experiences, hardship, and spiritual beliefs and other determining factors.]

 

What is a big focus of this year is fighting these legal battles. And going hand in hand with the legal battles is registering our community group as a legal institution, as a legal organisation, which is, as I said, co-current with fighting the legal battles. We have a series of court cases that all rest on constitutional judgements. So we haven’t committed any crimes. No one in this organisation has been charged with any criminal offences from a criminal offence perspective. Like there’s been no bashings of security guards. There’s been no, you know, intimidating people while they’re pissing their pants out in, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Hang on. Didn’t you beat up a security guard though? Is it everyone except you or?

 

Thomas Sewell: No, that was in 2021 and that was a rightful self defense, Blair, as you’re aware.

 

But what I’m saying is that there’s been no incidences of such, this year. But there is about 30 pending court cases. And all of them are political court cases. None of them are criminal charges. Well, they’re criminal charges for political action. So basically every single court case we have is a constitutional matter.

 

So we need to go to the High Court, which is very, very expensive. And we’ve got three different methods of going to the High Court. And we’re deliberating between those three methods and deliberating with the three different teams of lawyers on these three different methods.

 

[59:09]

 

 

And ultimately the purpose of going to the High Court is to secure freedom of speech and freedom of political communication again, because it’s already in the Constitution. But to put it in there again, for ourselves and for everyone! We’re fighting for everyone’s right in Australia to have a political opinion. And they’re going to do everything they can to stop us from doing that. And the High Court will have to decide whether Australia has freedom of speech or not.

 

And that would mean, if we win, what it would mean is the striking out of the swastika ban, the striking out of the Roman salute ban, the striking out of all these loitering charges, and also the striking out of the “offensive behaviour” charges, because that’s the other method of lawfare that the police use. They say that:

 

“We don’t like your political opinions. We’re going to say that they’re not political opinions, they’re in fact offensive behaviour.”

 

And when you look at the precedent cases for offensive behaviour, it’s usually someone mooning the police, pulling their pants down and showing their bum to the police. It’s usually not a political statement like “Australia for the White man”.

 

So all of these things will be struck out if we win at the High Court. None of them will be struck out if we don’t win at the High Court. They will do exactly what they did to you, where they say:

 

“Well, you hurt people’s feelings! And your argument that it’s political speech is wrong because you actually hurt these people’s political speech by you existing!”

 

And they do the UNO reverse card*, and that’s what they’ll try to do to us.

 

[* The Uno Reverse Card is a special card in the Uno game that, when played, reverses the direction of play. It can be used strategically to change the order of turns among players.]

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. And what you’re talking about there, just so the audience understands, when I was charged with “intent to incite ridicule” on Facebook of a specific class of people, namely Muslims, that was the exact wording of the charge. Not “inciting ridicule”, “intent to incite ridicule”. The prosecution, the Department of Public Prosecutions in Victoria, Australia, they understand how sensitive the courts are about infringing on someone’s political communication rights. Well, at least the courts were sensitive about it back then. Apparently, Adelaide Magistrates Court isn’t so sensitive about it at the moment. But they were so aware of that being a sensitive topic. Part of their argument for having me convicted of that particular crime was that convicting me of the intent to incite ridicule charge would enhance political communication for everybody else. Because removing divisive, offensive me and my offensive opinions, by removing me from political discourse, everybody else would feel safer to engage in free and open discussion.

 

And so it was “enhancing free speech by canceling my speech”. And the judge went for it! The Chief Judge of the County Court of Victoria went for it. He accepted that submission. And that was a while ago now. That was what, seven or eight years ago? So that set a very unfortunate precedent. And I would have worked to overturn that precedent if I hadn’t have been censored from all social media and had my bank accounts closed and been unable to continue to fund my lawyer as a result. So you got to love that democracy, right, guys?

 

But good on you, man! I think out of everyone who’s currently engaged in any kind of politics, no one’s got it harder than you guys. You guys are riding the tiger. You guys are at the forefront of a very important struggle, and you’re not going to give up. That’s an admirable thing. Despite all the flak you’ve copped, despite all the nonsense that just seems to continue to escalate, you’re remaining calm and focused on your goal, which is to legally and rightfully defeat these people, this evil, that’s creeping into our institutions and just destroying our country. And so I really admire you guys for that!

 

Now, is there this year, tell me, is there going to be like, I hope that everything’s legally sort of cleaned up by this point. Is there going to be a weightlifting competition?

 

Thomas Sewell: Yes.

 

Blair Cottrell: Good. Because the last two years I’ve injured myself going to the weightlifting competitions, but this year I’m preparing myself. This year I’m conditioning my body to actually do the movements. So I’m not going to go home with a torn quad, or a completely ruptured pec tendon like the last two years. So I’m excited for that. And I hopefully see some guys down there. It’s good to catch everyone at those competitions.

 

And I got to tell you, I’ve got to tell you this is the honest truth, too, because I’m 35 now, right? And I’ve been very competitive in my life up until now, but I thought to myself, there’s some really good and strong younger guys that I’m keen to compete against. And you know what? I would like to come third! I want to see two of the guys beat me. I want to see two of the guys beat me. It’ll mean a lot to them, I think. And I just want them to win! I want them to be able to win!

 

So that’s the challenge. I want two guys. And I’ve got two guys in mind, actually. I got two guys in mind. One of them was the winner last year. I reckon he could have it again. But, yeah, I’m excited. I’m just excited about the weightlifting competition. I’ll throw it out there.

 

But, yeah, man, thanks for the chat. And it’s great to have you on because, … Sorry, I was reading the chat before too. People were saying I ruined the joke about the security guard. Sometimes I take things too literally. I don’t know what that is about me. So sorry if I ruined that joke. I didn’t intend to.

 

[1:04:33]

 

 

Thomas Sewell: What was the joke?

 

Blair Cottrell: When you said that there’s been no beating up of security guards, obviously you were insinuating that that had happened in the past, but I have to spell it out so I kind of ruined it. Sorry for my autism.

 

But we’re gonna get Joel on next. I know we haven’t had you on for a while, Tom, and there’s a lot more I’d like to talk about, but maybe you and I can do our own stream in the next few days and we can get a bit more into some interesting topics and I can pick your brain on a few more things, if you’re willing. What do you reckon?

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, absolutely! There’s a lot to cover. What I wanted to finish with is to encourage everyone, even though we’re not registering a party yet, to trust the plan, so to speak. If you’ve been around for a while, you’ll know that we’re not going anywhere. That, you know, 10 years, as of last week, Blair and I have been engaging in street protest movements and in real life politics and trying to shape Australia’s future in the right direction.

 

And I think that’s a pretty strong legacy. There’s not many politicians that you can say have been in the public spotlight and under the same scrutiny and stress that we have for 10 years. And we’re still here! We’re still doing it. You know, barely any politicians receive any flack. They don’t get their bank account shut down, they don’t get raided by the police, they don’t get attacked and intimidated. You know, they’re just left to just advocate for global finance and the housing market whenever they want!

 

Whereas we advocate actually for the Australian people, the real Australian people. And we’re not going to ever turn and run from this struggle. And if 10 years of doing this and we’re doing it now, smarter, wiser. We’ve been around the block a few times now. We’ve been through the courts, we’ve been through hate speech trials and criminal cases and that might, for a certain period of time, I think your time might be over by now. I think for me, I still got maybe another three years before I could even run for office. Is it five years or is it 10 years, the exclusion period? Because your time would be up, wouldn’t it?

 

Blair Cottrell: As a result of jail time?

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, because I don’t think you can go for office if you’ve, … I can’t remember, 12 months?

 

Blair Cottrell: It may be permanent, but I know that it doesn’t apply to Senate candidates, so I think he can still be a Senator, however, check my laws.

 

Thomas Sewell: Maybe someone in the chat would know?

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, I was under the impression that after 10 years had elapsed, your convictions prior to that 10 years, so long as there had been no reoffending of a serious nature or similar nature, your convictions were regarded as spent, and they didn’t even show up on your criminal record. But that’s not true! Because I got the police or I requested the police to send me a copy of my criminal record and some of my convictions, most of them, in fact 90% of them, are from over 10 years ago, so they have been technically spent, but they still show up on your record. So, I don’t know, you might need to go through some court process to get them removed. I don’t know.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, I remember there’s a “fit and proper person” thing, which I don’t know if they’d give it to us, but certainly we have shown through our efforts and shown through our hard work and consistency that we’re not in this for cheap thrills. We’re not in this to just simply stir the pot, although we enjoy doing it. We are in this to change the country. And we’re doing it for our whole lives. So if that doesn’t guarantee a sense of legitimacy and public support, then maybe another 10 years will. But we’re not going anywhere! We’re doing it again, but we’re doing it better this time. We did attempt to make a political party after a couple years of street activism back when we were in our early 20s, and we’re doing it again.

 

And as much as Blair acts a bit aloof, he is actually, I think, looking forward to running for office. And he certainly would be the first person I would recommend to run for office for White Australians. I think he’s the ideal candidate for a Senator for White Australians.

 

Blair Cottrell: I am but a humble patriot. Oh, well, I’m a curious humble patriot. Just like seeing what’s going on here, that’s all I’m doing here man.

 

Thomas Sewell: I know, I know, but, yeah, I think that for this election, there’s really only one man that stands out for this election, the 2025 election, and that’s Rennick. He’s definitely a statesman. The Australian people don’t deserve him at this stage. Like, I don’t think that he’s going to get very far politically because of where politics is at the moment. But he is, I think even if he’s not a White nationalist, even if he’s not a racist like me, I think that he does genuinely care about Australia and Australia’s future. I think he’s probably one of the only honest men in Parliament.

 

And you can’t support us this year. You can’t support us for this election. You can join as a supporter and help us build our community and help engage in the process of building a party and building a community group and building a legal lobby and all the other things that we need to do, because it’s a multifaceted effort.

 

But what you can do this year, if you are thinking purely politics, party politics, you need to get behind Senator Rennick. He is the only honest. Well, he’s not the only honest man, but he is the most honest man in Parliament. He is the most honest man in Parliament. He’s the only man in the Senate that actually has a fucking plan! He’s the only one with a plan of how to fix Australia, even if he’s not focused so much on the racial aspect. And this isn’t me being a moderate. This is me being genuine and sincere. Like, I started this journey as a moderate. I did. I’ve become a radical political entity now after 10 years of being tortured by the government, and everything else, like set up, entrapped, arrested.

 

[1:10:52]

 

 

Blair Cottrell: Our first idea for a party was the “National Democratic Party”. We started off as, like, believing in democracy, believing in the rights you know that are enshrined by democracy.

 

Thomas Sewell: We still do. We’re just contesting a whole bunch of things.

 

But, yeah, I’ll finish with that. Get behind Rennick if you can. He is an honest man. He has an honest plan. And I hope that the Australian people recognise that. I hope that they see what kind of statesman and gem they have. Because Parliamentarians, I think Adolf Hitler said in Mein Kampf that:

 

“Sooner will a camel pass through the eye of a needle before an honest man is found in Parliament.”

 

And Rennick is that camel in the eye of the needle. He is honestly, I don’t care what his policies are, on race, I know he doesn’t have any because he’s playing careful, but he’s an honest man. And you can’t vote for us. You can support us, but if you’re going to vote, work out how to vote for him.

 

If you can’t vote for him because you’re not in his state or however the ballot box works, make sure you put the Liberal Party and Labor Party last. And I do mean that. Vote for the Greens before you vote for Liberal Party and Labor Party. Vote for the Greens. Our political strategy is to take power away from the centre. Do not vote Liberal or Labor under any circumstance! Put Liberal and Labor last. Whether you put labour last or Liberal last doesn’t matter. One or the other. But make sure you put the Greens third last. Do not put the Greens last. You need to put the Greens even though a lot of their votes just go to Labor, we need to smash the Liberal Party and Labor Party.

 

It needs to be a fight between the communists and us. And the Greens are communists. They are openly communists. It’s obvious they’re communists. And we need politics to polarise to the polls. We need it to be far-Left versus far-Right. We have to smash the centre!

 

So, yeah, that’s my advice.

 

Blair Cottrell: One more question for you. And if you don’t know for certain, that’s okay. But I was seeing Trumpet of Patriots billboards from Clive Palmer. Do you know where those votes will go? Is that just a trick? Should people vote for that?

 

Thomas Sewell: Put them., … Yeah, just their votes will go to the Liberal Party. That is just how the conservative Right works. They think that if they just become a satellite party of the Liberal Party, they’ll eventually get what they want. And they’re not really playing long term going well, actually, we have to destroy the Liberal Party if the centre Right is going to get anywhere. Because the Liberal Party is just a parasite. It’s very, very important.

 

So the short answer. Yeah, okay. Yeah. Vote for the majors first. Vote for all the majors of first. Don’t vote for the Teals, vote for the minor parties first. Sorry, did I make a mistake there? Vote for the minor parties first! Put the major parties last. Simple as!

 

Blair Cottrell: Right. Well, you’ve got a five dollar Superchat here. And before we transition, before I bring Joel on, I’ll give this to you so you can answer it now. Jake, 1219 sends through $5. Thanks, mate. He says:

 

“Tom, what would you say?”

 

Because you just said vote for the Greens. Right. But he asks:

 

“What would you say about the Greens’ South Australia Senator Sarah Hanson Young, who’s urged the government to consider designating the National Socialist Network as a terrorist entity?”

 

Thomas Sewell: What would I say to her?

 

[See: Far-left senator says nationalist group should be listed as terrorists for celebrating Australia Day]

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, you’ve, like, you basically told people to vote for the Greens. Sarah Hanson Young is a Greens leader or member, and they reckon you should be terrorists. Would that just maybe make it easier for them to designate you? Would that accelerate the process? I don’t think it would, because certain intelligence agencies would need to agree that that’s what you are. And legally, technically, you’re not doing anything violent that could actually designate you in that, into that category.

 

So I don’t think it’s an issue. But do you have any thoughts on Sarah Hansen Young? I guess that’s the question.

 

[1:15:01]

 

 

Thomas Sewell: So obviously she’s a Communist and she wants to eliminate her opponents. That’s why she’s like, this is obvious, this is a Schmittian* politics. It’s a “friend-enemy” distinction. They are the enemy. We are therefore their enemy, and they want to eliminate the enemy.

 

[* The Concept of the Political is a 1932 book by the German philosopher and jurist Carl Schmitt, in which the author examines the fundamental nature of the “political” and its place in the modern world. The Concept of the Political was published in the last days of Weimar Germany. Schmitt joined the NS Party in 1933, the year after its publication. The most famous line of the work is that “the specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy.”]

 

And so what can be said about that? What you will find is politics is accelerating in a polarizing direction. Obama came out recently and complained that the things Donald Trump is doing:

 

“We never even considered while we were in office!”

 

And the reason why they’re upset about that is because they did consider it, but they knew that they didn’t have the pretence to do it, to do these kind of extreme things, extreme things that Trump is doing. And what will happen is when it swings back the other way, the other side will do things that the conservatives and the Trump administration wouldn’t have even considered doing!

 

And this just goes back and forth and back and forth until eventually we’re actually in a real political fight. And it’s no longer “we’re all just friends, let’s all get along!” Now, it’s like there’s two opposing sides. Now the Australian people really have to engage in politics and decide are we going to let communists or basically fascists take power? And we will never succeed in any scenario where the communists are weak. We will only succeed in a scenario where liberalism is weak, where the Liberal Party and Labor Party are weak. We can never succeed in a scenario where the Greens are this weak little faction on the side and the Liberal Party and Labor Party maintain the Uni-Party.

 

The only version of reality where we can solve this problem through cultural and political methods is through either polarisation within Parliament, which leads to one or the other taking control and outlawing the other. Either we take control and outlaw the Greens, or the Greens take control and outlaw us. The Liberal Party and Labor Party do not have the balls to engage in the friend-enemy distinction. They can’t actually do it. They’ll tear on it, but they won’t ever be able to do it.

 

So it’s a risk! You’re right. Supporting the Greens could mean that we get shut down. Well, we need to organise then, don’t we? We need to build a polar opposite faction to the Greens to make sure that we have as much sway within the Parliament as the Greens do. If the Greens are 10%, that we need to be 10%. If they’re 15, we need to be 15.

 

So instead of being like:

 

“Don’t do that! It’ll strengthen the Left!”

 

Good! Let’s smash the centre and then we can have the actual discussion which is:

 

“Do you hate Australia or do you love it?”

 

Because at the moment, the centre can pretend to love Australia. And that’s what, that’s the problem. Minns came out recently. Chris Minns, New South Wales premier, came out recently and said that:

 

“That the Race Discrimination minister is bonkers. It’s not racist to celebrate Australia Day!”

 

Now, Chris Minns is probably a boy fucker. He’s a faggot in the Liberal Party because they’re all homosexuals, in New South Wales. And you know, like the Labor Party, Liberal Party, they’re all paedophiles, they’re all homosexuals, they’re all freaks and they hate Australia and they hate Australia Day! But the Liberal Party have to pretend to like Australia Day in order to win the election.

 

So let’s remove them from the ballot box. That’s what we got to do. They’re the most serious threat.

 

But, yeah, you get the point.

 

Blair Cottrell: I do. What you’re saying is an amplified anti-national enemy to our country is a means for empowering real national resistance, in contrast.

 

Thomas Sewell: Heighten the contradictions! That’s what I’ve always been saying.

 

Blair Cottrell: I like it. It’s very succinct. It’s well said.

 

Thomas Sewell: Well, I’ll leave it there.

 

Blair Cottrell: Thanks for joining us, mate.

 

Thomas Sewell: Thanks for having me. It’s been a pleasure. See you later.

 

Blair Cottrell: See you later, mate. Thanks for being on.

 

[1:19:08]

 

So next up, guys, we’re going to bring on the illustrious Joel Davis and enjoy some superior intellect. We’re going to go through some similar topics and we’ll get our perspective, Joel’s perspective on things, especially the court matter, which was just yesterday because it involved Joel as well. I believe Joel was part of the tele telephone link in the courtroom because Joel’s being charged with similar offences to Tom, I believe. Is that right Joel? Have you guys got similar charges or are they different in some way?

 

 

Joel Davis: The difference is that Thomas has been charged with one count “Nazi symbol”, one count “fail to cease loiter”, which is obviously ridiculous! Both of them are ridiculous! The distinction is that he was arrested on the day I was arrested going to pick them up from jail two days later. They slapped the Nazi symbol charge on me when they arrested me.

 

And then when they arrested me two days later I was in a suit because I anticipated we’d be going to a courtroom. So I was in my suit and I had a belt buckle with an eagle on it and they decided that that also was a Nazi symbol apparently. So I have two counts of Nazi symbol. One for the NSN patch on Australia Day and one for the belt I was wearing two days later when picking up the boys, or attempting to pick them up from jail and then getting thrown in jail myself. Which I guess is quite funny. I’m sure everyone has seen the video.

 

But Tom and I have the same lawyer and our lawyer was in Adelaide. So our cases were heard at the same time and they were fundamentally the same arguments. So it was all basically one session. I believe Tom went before me. I didn’t hear his case because I’m not legally allowed to call into his case. I called into mine. I guess Tom made the same decision as I did which was that later in the proceeding we’re going to have to go to Adelaide and front up to the court in the flesh. And so because it will be so many different court dates, traveling to Adelaide every single time is going to become quite labourious.

 

[1:21:22]

 

So we just kind of calling in for these early hearings. But our lawyer was there. The lawyer was basically, it wasn’t even about the charges, it was simply about the bail conditions. So we both have conditions, as do everybody else who is was charged from Australia Day. We have a condition in our bail agreement that says we’re not allowed to associate with other members of the organisation. And you know, it’s a ridiculous condition.

 

Number one, it’s ridiculous because in the Bail act of South Australia, the provision in the Bail act which determines that a non-Association clause should be applied is connected in the act to the condition that the charge itself be an offence that is serious, defined as having a maximum penalty of five or more years. So it’s quite ridiculous! We’re charged with very minor offences. The maximum penalty is one year for Nazi symbol. The maximum penalty for cease loiter, I believe is like three months or something. So these are minor offences. They’re summary offences, to use the correct language.

 

And the whole purpose of these bail conditions exist for basically biker gangs or other organised crime gangs if they get them on something to prevent them from associating with their criminal gangs, basically. So being treated like as if we’re a criminal gang, even though we’re a political organisation, which is unconstitutional and the charges are ridiculous!

 

Number one, the Nazi Symbol law, in my opinion is itself unconstitutional, then also to interpret it to include the NSN logo or the eagle on my belt is ridiculous! When the public think of Nazi symbol, they think of a swastika. They might think maybe of SS bolts. And it’s actually defined as that, for example, in the Victorian laws, in the Federal laws, it’s defined as these specific symbols.

 

We have had NSN rallies in Adelaide before where the boys have had the Patch on their arm, the NSN patch. No arrests were made. And the Police Commissioner of South Australia has basically been interviewed and grilled by the media afterwards in a press conference where they’ve said:

 

“Why didn’t you arrest any of them, the Nazis?”

 

And they said:

 

“Because no crimes were committed.”

 

So we were under the reasonable belief that the patch was legal in South Australia because we have literally on record the Police Commissioner of South Australia saying no crimes were committed while we were wearing these patches.

 

So anyway, it’s something that they’ve invented. They’ve invented this interpretation, this ridiculous interpretation by equivocating the NSN symbol with some obscure Hungarian fascist Arrow Cross symbol. It’s a completely different symbol. It doesn’t say, “resemble” a Nazi symbol. It says Nazi symbol. And also, Hungarian fascists aren’t Nazis, they’re Hungarian fascists. Fascist symbols. It’s Nazi symbols. So for multiple reasons, it’s ridiculous!

 

But anyway, these charges have been slapped on us. We will end up prevailing in court. But in the meantime, they can hold these bail conditions over us.

 

Now, what the prosecution said is they want these bail conditions held over us because they’re afraid that:

 

“We’re going to conspire to come back to Adelaide and host another rally in Adelaide on Anzac Day.”

 

We have no intentions to do that. I don’t want to go back to Adelaide anytime soon, to be honest. We kind of have a rotating schedule with our national meets and we hadn’t been to Adelaide for one of them. And so we decided to go to Adelaide for one and then it was going to be put back in the rotation and we weren’t going to return to Adelaide probably for some time. Like we went and did our job in Adelaide and now we’ll probably go to other places. So we had no intention really to go back anytime soon.

 

Also, on Anzac Day, we don’t protest Anzac Day. We didn’t protest Australia Day, by the way, either. It was a celebration! It was not a protest.

 

But we don’t even do that kind of thing on Anzac Day. We generally just participate like normal members of the public in Anzac Day events. We’ll go to the Dawn Service and other services and we’ll just stand there as members of the public. Like, we don’t have banners, we don’t make noise. We don’t see that as respectful to the ancestors on that day.

 

On Australia Day, it’s a bit more appropriate. So that’s why we did it. It’s not so appropriate on Anzac Day. We have no precedent for doing it on Anzac Day. So it’s just ridiculous!

 

But even still say they’re worried about that and it’s legitimate, which it isn’t. We’re Australian citizens. We have the right to go wherever the hell we want on Anzac Day and to engage in peaceful political activity however the hell we want. That’s our constitutional right. That’s what it means to live in a representative democracy, and that’s what the High Court has interpreted it means to live in a representative democracy. It’s not illegal to demonstrate, it’s not illegal to march around. It’s not illegal to be a National Socialist.

 

Nevertheless, let’s say that’s a legitimate concern for argument’s sake, which it isn’t. Why then do we need to have bail conditions that restrict what we’re doing in Victoria or in New South Wales, places where the Nazi symbol laws are specific and the NSN symbol is legal or having a belt with an eagle on it is legal. It’s actually impossible for us to reoffend against these laws in Victoria or New South Wales, or anywhere else in the country. It’s only possible with a contrived interpretation of the South Australian law because it’s more ambiguous. It just says Nazi symbol in the statute with no further elaboration.

 

[1:27:14]

 

 

So the bail condition shouldn’t apply outside of the state of South Australia. If we’re trying to form a political party and organise the foundation of a political party in the rest of Australia and that is being impaired so that the South Australian police can “feel safe” that we aren’t going to march through the street. I mean, think about how ridiculous that is! So there’s so many levels under which this is ridiculous!

 

Our lawyer argued against it. I listened obviously to my court case. The magistrate literally said:

 

“Well, they (referring to Tom and I) have not reoffended since they were arrested. Therefore the bail conditions are working*. So I don’t want to change them.”

 

So what is that implying? That we should have committed a crime between Australia Day and now to prove the bail conditions are invalid and he would revoke them? So basically we’re being punished for abiding by the law, by being law abiding citizens. That means that we don’t get to have political rights.

 

[* Having complied with the bail conditions is a nonsensical, Alice in Wonderland, logic for continuing to maintain them, but rather, if anything, should be reason to ease the bail conditions! – Kat]

 

Blair Cottrell: I mean theoretically, you theoretically never broke the law in the first place. Right?

 

Joel Davis: Well, exactly!

 

Blair Cottrell: So how are they working? They’re working to. That’s going to be my next question. How has your political and personal life been affected by these conditions? And I suppose that’s what the magistrate meant by “they’re working”. They’re preventing you from freely communicating with people who you’re engaged in for political purposes. Is that a legal or ethical reason for a bail condition?

 

Joel Davis: In Australia we have a constitutional right to political communication. The High Court has determined across multiple decisions, many, many decisions. It is affirmed again and again and again that the clause in the Australian constitution that says “Australia is a representative democracy” implies that Australians have a right to politically communicate. Because how can you be represented by in the democratic process if you can’t even communicate what your political views are, or if basically society isn’t able to communicate with each other, then the process of actually creating representation for the people is impossible!

 

There are Australians, millions of Australians with White nationalist or quasi White nationalist views, and very substantial amount of Australians with National Socialist views. They need representation. We are their representation. We represent them. If we aren’t able to communicate, if we unable to do demonstrations, form political parties, etc, then we don’t have representative democracy! Because these people are legally barred from being represented. So it’s unconstitutional! And it’s fundamentally against the principles of liberal democracy. So it’s completely wrong!

 

And it’s basically this magistrate is just arbitrarily deciding because of his own personal political bias. And he basically defined himself as a “victim”. He said that:

 

“We’re intimidating and distressing the community of South Australia.”

 

And he referred to the community of South Australia as “us and we”. He used pronouns that included himself, which means he should have recused himself immediately from the case because he’s now defined himself as a victim, which is fundamentally illegitimate within the practice of law.

 

Blair Cottrell: How can a victim preside over a legal matter? They can’t.

 

Joel Davis: Exactly! It means he can’t be impartial. He accused Sewell of having “a fake innocence”. A basic principle of criminal law is that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The process of going to court is the onus is under prosecution to prove that you have committed a crime! The onus is on them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt you have committed a crime. Until that has been proven, we are not guilty. But the judge has decided, …

 

Blair Cottrell: No, no, you’re not innocent though. You’re “fake innocent”.

 

Joel Davis: It’s what he said. And he said “fake innocence”, whatever the fuck that means! And he didn’t say it on the basis of anything to do specifically with:

 

“Is it a Nazi symbol? Is it not a Nazi symbol?”

 

He didn’t even engage in these kinds of discussions. He said because:

 

“We distressed and intimidated the community.”

 

We didn’t get charged with distressing or intimidating the community. That’s not what we’re going to court about. We’re going to court about is:

 

“Is the symbol on our clothing a Nazi symbol or not?”

 

That’s what we’re actually going to court about. And is that even constitutional for that to be illegal? No one has been convicted in the state of South Australia under this law. It’s a brand new law, and it’s an unconstitutional law. And we’re determining is it constitutional? And if, let’s say it is constitutional, which it isn’t, is the NSN logo banned by this particular law? This is all up for debate!

 

So while we’re having this debate and probably having to go through an appeals process because this magistrate is a fuckwit! We’re going to have to go to a higher court where you’re going to get a better judge that’s more reasonable. That’s how it works in the Australian legal system. We basically are now politically disempowered. I can’t talk to Tom. I can’t associate with him. I can’t associate with anyone in the organisation. Right in the middle of us trying to get together and organise a political party, which has also been upheld by the High Court of Australia.

In the 1950s, the Liberal government, under Menzies, tried to ban the Communist Party. The High Court said that’s unconstitutional. The Australian constitution gives Australians the right to form political parties according to the provisions in the Electoral Act. You know, you have to abide by certain rules, but it can’t be unreasonably impaired, except to like facilitate elections in a reasonable and orderly fashion.

 

[1:32:55]

 

Then the Liberal government held a referendum to try and change the Constitution to allow them to ban the Communist party. This is in the 1950s. Everyone hated communism. This is the height of the Cold War. Conservative government. The Australian people voted no. We don’t want to change the Constitution to ban the Communist Party. The Australian people wanted to protect the Constitutional protection for anyone with any ideology to form political parties. Then two explicitly National Socialist political parties were formed in the 70s and contested elections as National Socialists explicitly in this country. They were not banned, they were allowed to participate.

 

So there’s precedent. National Socialists have participated in Australian democracy before and the High Court and the Constitution prevents you from banning political parties.

 

So what is happening right now is this magistrate is unconstitutionally in collusion with the pro, the prosecution, which is the South Australia Police, under the orders obviously of not just the South Australian government, but probably even higher, probably people in the federal government are coordinating this to prevent us from forming a political party. And also to prevent us from doing activism together during a federal election cycle. We’re not contesting this election, but we have something to say about it. We can’t participate in the collective conversation without impairment.

 

And so therefore it isn’t just our rights that are being violated. Me as an individual, Tom as an individual, other members of our organisation as individuals. The rights of all Australians are actually being impaired to have a fully open electoral process, a fully open democratic process. And every single Australian who feels represented by us, which is many! You can see the support that we have online. You can see the popularity and the notoriety of the things that we do. Love us or hate us, we are part of the conversation! We are some of the most interesting people in Australian politics, probably the most interesting people in Australian politics. And we represent the views of many, many Australians. There’s a lot of racists in this country and the Left will agree with me on that. There’s a lot of racists in this country. We are their representatives!

 

In fact, Australia was built on racism. Australia was founded as a White nationalist country by White nationalists! You know, you guys were talking before. I was listening. You guys were talking before about the Anzacs. Well, what did our Prime Minister Billy Hughes say in World War I when he sent the Anzacs over to go and fight for the British Empire in France? He didn’t say:

 

“I bid thee to go fight for the British Empire in France.”

 

He said:

 

“I bid thee to go fight for White Australia in France.”

 

White Australia! Why did he say that? He said that because he was afraid, as were many of our founding fathers, and he was in the Parliament from the beginning. They were afraid of the threat of the Japanese Empire and of the Asian powers in general, the Chinese and so on, becoming so powerful that ultimately that they could basically threaten Australia’s national sovereignty. And they saw the guarantee of Australia’s national sovereignty as the power of the British Empire. At that time, the British Empire was the world’s pre-eminent naval power. They had, they were forward deployed in Hong Kong, in Singapore, they were all over Asia. They dominated the waters of Asia. And so that secured Australia.

 

And so we thought, well, if Australia loses World War I to Germany, then the British Empire, sorry, if, sorry, Britain loses World War I to Germany, the British Empire will cease to exist in the Asia Pacific region and Australia will be left isolated. And that was why we went to go fight for the British. We didn’t go fight for the British just because we were loyal to the Empire and some kind of sentimental attachment to the Monarchy or something. We were fighting for Australia’s interests, at least as that’s what everyone perceived them as at that time.

 

So that’s what the Anzacs fought for. That’s what they died for. 60,000, 65,000 Australians died in World War I. Those were the Anzacs. They died for White Australia! Then they came back to Australia. They created the, what was the precursor organisation of the Return Services League, the RSL. It used to have a longer name, I can’t remember the exact acronym*. All of the leaders of the RSL were staunch, staunch advocates, not just of the White Australia Policy, but of defending Australia as an outpost, a citadel of the British race! They said this explicitly. And our prime ministers again and again and again affirmed the White Australia Policy, the racial principle and so on.

 

[*The Returned and Services League of Australia, also known as RSL, RSL Australia and the RSLA, is an independent support organisation for people who have served or are serving in the Australian Defence Force. The League was formed in 1916 in response to the lack of a unified approach with Australian repatriation facilities and medical services for those returning from World War I. On 6 June 1916, a meeting of representatives from New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria resolved to form The Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League of Australia (RSSILA). Their intention was to lobby for better benefits, treatment and welfare of veterans and serving members of the Defence Force and to preserve the health, well-being and security of Australia and the Australian way of life. Before then, state Returned Service Associations had lobbied for better conditions for returned service people in their respective states. The League soon became, and remains, the nation’s largest ex-service organisation. In 1940, the name of the League changed to the Returned Sailors’, Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia (RSSAILA). It changed in 1965 to the Returned Services League of Australia (RSL) and in 1990 to the Returned & Services League of Australia. [citation needed] Before that time, those who defended Darwin from Japanese bombing in World War II were not eligible to join, as they had never left Australia and thus could not be “returned.” Wikipedia]

 

The only thing that everyone could agree upon in Australian Parliament for the first half of our nation’s existence was that Australia would be for the White man! They disagreed on all other kinds of policies around economic policy and other policies. They agreed Australia would be for the White man.

 

Blair Cottrell: That was actually some disagreement or opposition to the Immigration Restriction Act, which would later be dubbed the “White Australia Policy”. There was disagreement about whether or not that policy should be passed or put in place, but not on the grounds that it was racist, only on the grounds that it wouldn’t be enough to keep Australia White. Which ended up being true. Everyone supported it! Every one of our original statesmen supported the White Australia Policy. That’s a fact!

 

[See: Australian Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies on the ‘White Australia Policy’ – 1955 – Transcript]

 

Joel Davis: Yep, that’s exactly the case. And the reality of the situation is this. We represent, in today’s Australian society, in today’s Australian political process, we represent the White nationalism of our founders.

 

In fact, that was the whole reason why Australia was federated [1901] in the first place, was to create a coherent immigration policy to secure Australia for the White man. When we say “Australia for the White man,” we didn’t make that up. That’s our slogan. But that slogan has been around since before Australia’s federation. That’s, that was the slogan of the Australian nationalist movement in the 1880s, the 1890s. That’s where we got it from.

 

[1:39:02]

 

So that’s what needs to be understood here. We are the representatives, yeah, we are National Socialists and that is distinct. But we are fundamentally the representatives of the White Australian nation in the 21st century in Australian politics. The people who wrote the fucking constitution in the first place.

 

[See: Joel Davis – The White Australia Policy with Matthew Grant – Jul 27, 2023 – Transcript]

 

And the people that are trying to ban us from participating have absolutely no regard for the Constitution, for the founding of this country, for any of the principles or values upon which this nation was built. And they showed that contempt in the way that we were treated for celebrating our national holiday and contrasting that with the way that the anti-Australian, anti-Australia Day protest was being held at the same time. And basically the red carpet was rolled out for them.

 

So anyway, the point is this, the point is that this whole thing is a joke! I look forward to going to the High Court, but it’s going to be a process. When we get to the High Court we have an opportunity for a serious victory. We are the vanguard of political freedom in this country. If they can ban us, if they can prevent us from legally organising, that means liberal democracy is over. That means Australia is no longer a free nation. That’s the conclusion of Australia as a liberal, democratic country.

 

Now they can just ban you because they decide that your political ideology offends their feelings. They have total contempt for the law, total contempt for the Constitution, total contempt for all the values upon which this nation was built and which it pretends even to this day to aspire to, but actually doesn’t. That’s what this is. We are the test!

 

But anyway, we wouldn’t get into that legal debate, this was basically just a bail hearing. We haven’t even entered into a plea yet. So it’s going to be a long process. And we’ll probably lose in the magistrate’s court based upon the attitude that this ridiculous person calling himself a magistrate had. But we’ll just appeal it. We’ll appeal.

 

The question is, are we going to go to the Supreme Court, Are we going to go to the High Court or we go Supreme Court first and then maybe we need to go onto the High Court from there. There’s all these different legal strategies that have been proposed to us. It’s going to be very expensive.

 

But ultimately we’ve been given a potential great opportunity here, because if we can win, it doesn’t just mean, oh, we beat the charges and we walk free. It’s not about that if we win, we set a precedent. We set a precedent that will limit the state, will limit the state from its overreach, permanently! And we will secure the room to move for, not just for National Socialists or even not just for White nationalists, but for any non-conforming political tendency in this country to organise and manifest itself.

 

So this is a vital importance. And the entire Australian Right and everyone who has liberal, democratic, libertarian sensibilities should coalesce around us and support us. And we want to participate in the political system. We want to form a party and we will. And we have enough, we have the numbers. Like we’ve barely even started trying to collect signatures. We just did a little signature drive on Telegram and we’re already a long way of the way there to where we need to be able to register a political party. We have a lot of supporters.

 

Blair Cottrell: I noticed that Channel 7 news in Australia already can’t help themselves. They’re already talking about the formation of your political party long before it’s even actually happening. It’s only being mentioned and the media is already, you know, legacy media, TV news are already demonstrating that they’re going to be a major vehicle in driving your party into the subconscious of the masses. So even me saying this isn’t going to stop them from doing it. Obviously they won’t be able to help themselves. So that’s a bonus.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. When we register a political party, we are going to be the most interesting thing in Australian politics, even as a small, brand new party, everyone’s going to want to have something to say about us. Everyone’s going to know about us. We’re going to establish a powerful brand. And I’ve been talking to a lot of people. I know a lot of people. I know a lot more people than people realise perhaps across the Australian Right. And the mood is very positive.

 

A lot of people in politics believe that we can get people elected, that we can get someone like you elected. We can get someone like me elected. I think you’re easier to elect than me, but we can get people like Tom elected. We’d be the most interesting candidates on the bill.

 

And someone said before, if you have a criminal conviction, does that mean that you are constitutionally that you’re barred from running for office? I need to fact check that. Article 44 of the Constitution is interpreted to only apply if you are basically either sentenced or haven’t completed your sentence when you are trying to run for office.

 

So if you served, like, if you went to jail like 10 years ago, served your sentence and they’re out, it’s irrelevant. Like you can run for office. It doesn’t, it doesn’t impact you in any way. So that’s not a concern.

 

It could be a concern if we start trying to run for office and they try to put us in prison and mess with us, and then I believe it has to be a sentence of one year or more. Even so, if they get you for like a little petty offence, it still isn’t enough to like disqualify you from office or running for office.

 

But anyway, we will register a political party. There are very strong constitutional protections, legal protections for registering political parties in this country.

 

[1:45:05]

 

 

Blair Cottrell: Hang on. Sorry to interrupt, but something just occurred to me. Didn’t they just change the punishment for displaying a Nazi symbol or gesture to minimum one year?

 

Joel Davis: That’s the new federal law. But they changed that after we were charged.

 

And also the federal law doesn’t apply to us because the federal law is only the swastika and the SS Sig-rune bolts*. That’s the only two symbols that are prohibited.

 

[* The Sig-Rune (“Victory rune”) or Siegrune symbolised victory (Sieg). The names of the ᛋ-rune (on which the Siegrune was based) translate as “sun” (see Sowilo), however, von List reinterpreted it as a victory sign when he compiled his list of “Armanen runes”. The Siegrune was adapted into the emblem of the SS in 1933 by Walter Heck, an SS-Sturmhauptführer who worked as a graphic designer for Ferdinand Hoffstatter, a producer of emblems and insignia in Bonn. Heck’s device consisted of two sig runes drawn side by side like lightning bolts, and was soon adopted by all branches of the SS – though Heck himself received only a token payment of 2.5 Reichsmarks for his work. The device had a double meaning; as well as standing for the initials of the SS, it could be read as a rallying cry of “Victory, Victory!”. The symbol became so ubiquitous that it was frequently typeset using runes rather than letters; during the NS period, an extra key was added to German typewriters to enable them to type the double-sig logo with a single keystroke. Wikipedia]

 

 

Blair Cottrell: It just occurred to me, maybe they change it to a minimum sentence of one year in order to, by default, disqualify anyone convicted of it from participating in politics later.

 

Joel Davis: No. Well, if once you serve the one year, then you can.

 

But it’s like if you’re trying to run and then you get sentenced or you haven’t completed the time served, you can’t. You become disqualified. But like, say I went out tomorrow and I waved a swastika flag on Parliament steps and got arrested and charged under the federal laws and thrown in prison for a year. Once I get out and I’ve served my time now I can go and run for office. Right? Yeah, it’s not something to be too worried about.

 

Blair Cottrell: But I think you’re right though, the feeling amongst the general community, the Australian nationalist community, the far-Right, whatever you want to call it, is positive and it’s ready for high controversy. Ethnic nationalism entering into official politics. I do sense that as well.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. And that’s the thing. Like Australia, if you understand Australian political history, it’s literally the whole purpose of this country’s existence was White nationalism. Like that’s in the soul of the country. Like the same way that Americans care about their rights. Like what rights are to Americans, racism is to Australians.

 

Blair Cottrell: Like, yeah, man, yeah. Truth.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. So anyway, I wanna branch to talk about the upcoming election.y.

 

Blair Cottrell: Before you do, you said something there and I wanted to pick your brain on it. It’s going to be a little segue, but I think we can sort of keep it within a five to ten minute answer. You said that National Socialism is distinct and that’s what makes you guys distinct. And then we went on to talk about the original statesman and the White Australia Policy.

 

Now, how is National Socialism distinct from the political position of our original statesman who established the White Australia Policy? Is it that much different? And if so, how?

 

Joel Davis: Sorry, I zoned out. What were you saying?

 

Blair Cottrell: [chuckling] I was asking because when you said that National Socialism is distinct and that’s what makes you and your guys distinct in particular from our original statesman who established the White Australia Policy. How? How are you guys different? How is National Socialism distinct from the political position of our original statesman?

 

Joel Davis: Well, the distinction is that in the origin of Australia’s history, they were willing to have a politics of compromise. And that’s what liberal democracy is. Liberal democracy is a politics of compromise. Now it exists. So people say:

 

“Oh, Joel, if you don’t agree with liberal democracy in fundamental principle, why do you demand liberal democracy recognise you?”

 

Well, at the end of the day, it’s what liberal democracy is. What a constitution is a contract, a contract of compromise between diverging political factions. And the government justifies itself on the basis that it is guaranteed by the contract of liberal democracy. The government couldn’t say:

 

“Hey, we’re going to have a dictatorship where we impose all the values of multiculturalism and diversity, …”

 

And all this bullshit that they’re imposing on us, if they said:

 

“We’re going to do it as a dictatorship!”

 

It’s not, people aren’t going to like that it’s not going to be popular, it’s not going to be respected. It’s going to be seen as a horrible tyranny. The way in which they’re able to get away with it, insofar as they can, is by saying:

 

“But if you don’t like it, you can vote for something different and you have the freedom of speech to dissent against it. And you can organise a political opposition movement as long as you do it peacefully and within the contractual rules of the democracy. And then you can, if you can change it under those means, you’re able to change it.”

 

So that’s the so-called deal that we have.

 

So insofar as they’re giving us that deal, I say that we try and actually enforce that contract and use it to limit them and use it to make space for ourselves to operate. Right.

 

But the principle underneath the contract is itself the problem. We should not be in a position that we’re in now where jews and non-Whites and all these other special capitalist interest groups and special interest groups are able to have so much power over us. And they were empowered to get into this position because of the compromises made back at the beginning, at the founding of the country.

 

If, at the founding of the country racial exclusion was in the Constitution, there was a much higher bar for citizenship. It was basically, if it was a lot more exclusionary, the jews were kept out, the Freemasons were broken up, the communists were never allowed to get established. If the capitalists, investor interests were held in check and not able to take over the political system through political campaign donations and buying up the media and all these other various methods, then we could have prevented what has transpired from transpiring.

 

And that’s basically what National Socialism is. National Socialism is okay, we need to go a step further. Liberal democracy isn’t enough. It gives too much leeway to our enemies. And so we need to seize control of the state, completely remove jews, Freemasons, Marxists, et cetera, from political life to guarantee the survival of our nation and of our race.

 

[1:51:18]

 

Blair Cottrell: Do you think if our original prime ministers, original statesmen, if they could see where liberal democracy went, like if they could, for example, see into the future, would they have probably embraced National Socialism or something of the like?

 

Joel Davis: Absolutely! They would have embraced something more authoritarian and more exclusionary. If you read the arguments that were taking place at the earliest sessions of Australian Parliament. The argument was primarily between people that were, as you said earlier, more radical on the White Australia Policy and those who are more compromising. Everyone agreed that it was a good policy and that we should maintain a homogenous White Australian nation. But the British Empire at the time we relied upon for our national security, as I mentioned earlier, because they had the world’s strongest empire. We were a member of, we were part of the British Empire. We are an Anglo Saxon people, a British people. And so we enjoyed that protection.

 

But at the same time, the British were forging and ultimately did forge an alliance with the Japanese that was ultimately signed in 1904. We did not approve of that so much, because we saw the Japanese as a threat. The British saw the Japanese as important allies, because the British were trying to maintain stability in Asia, because they saw rising tensions in Europe. There was an ascendant Germany. There were other European powers that trying to colonise different parts of the world and compete with the British.

 

And so they saw the alliance with the Japanese as ultimately in their commercial and geopolitical interests. And the Japanese were offended by the White Australia Policy because they were like:

 

“Oh, we don’t want to be classified as on the same level as like negroes and Arabs. We’re the Japanese. Like, we’re a great people. Like, we’re worthy. Our people shouldn’t be barred from immigrating to Australia because we’re a noble people with a great empire and you should respect us as equals.”

 

And the response by people like Alfred Deacon, who was our second prime minister, he was our Attorney general originally. So he draughted the Immigration Restriction Act himself. He was one of our founding fathers. He became our second prime minister. His argument was:

 

“Well, we are excluding you because we respect you, actually! Because the Japanese are a very industrious people. We don’t want to let them in to our country because we fear Japanese are numerous, industrious and powerful people, and we don’t want you guys taking over our country.”

 

Blair Cottrell: One of your arguments. The more sophisticated and industrious immigrants are actually the most dangerous. You’ve made that argument several times.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, well, Alfred Deacon* made that argument many, many times, actually. So I’m just copying one of the founding fathers of my country when I make that argument. You know, I’ve made that argument. And people have criticised me:

 

“Joel Davis, he’s ridiculous! He wants the country flooded with Muslims and blacks!”

 

Obviously I don’t, I’m a fucking Nazi! But idiots will say that to misrepresent me.

 

[* Alfred Deakin was an Australian politician who served as the second prime minister of Australia from 1903 to 1904, 1905 to 1908, and 1909 to 1910. He held office as the leader of the Protectionist Party, and in his final term as that of the Liberal Party. He is notable for being one of the founding fathers of Federation and for his influence in early Australian politics. Deakin was born in Melbourne to middle-class parents. He was elected to the Victorian Legislative Assembly in 1879, aged 23, additionally working as a barrister and journalist. Wikipedia]

 

But what I’m saying is not that that’s good, obviously, but that actually bringing like Chinese and jews and so on is more dangerous than Arabs or blacks, like on a political level.

 

But there were other people in the Parliament that were saying:

 

“Alfred Deacon is a cuck! That even if the British Empire are upset about it, we should just ram through a explicitly racist constitution, explicitly racist legislation. And who cares if the Japanese don’t like it and who cares if the British government don’t like it? We’ll demand it. And ultimately they will have to bend to our will.”

 

And people like Deakin and others were like:

 

“Well, we don’t want to upset the British and we want to be good members of the Empire and maintain the diplomatic relations. And so we’ll still ban non-Whites from the country, but we’ll do it through indirect means. We’ll do it through a dictation test, we’ll do it through bureaucratic mechanisms and so on.”

 

So basically there was no explicit law saying non-Whites can’t immigrate to Australia. But if they tried to, basically an immigration officer, because all the immigration officers in the immigration bureaucracy were all super racist and employed to be racist. They were told not only if someone was non-White, but if someone looked a little sus, they would literally do a physionomy check and be like:

 

“Does that guy look kind of jewish? Does that guy look kind of Asiatic?”

 

And if they thought that he didn’t look up to scratch, or he or she didn’t look up to scratch, they’d make them sit the test in a language they knew that they couldn’t speak so that they would fail. They would just pick a language they couldn’t speak and make them sit the test in that language.

 

Blair Cottrell: What were the initial languages that they could choose from? I think it was English, French and German. Is that right?

 

Joel Davis: There were others, I think Italian. It was a bunch of European languages they had.

 

[1:56:12]

 

 

Blair Cottrell: And apparently I think there was only three in the beginning, but then they changed it to include some others.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, they expanded it. Yeah. But the point is that it worked. They were like:

 

“Oh, if we do this, it’ll work. It’ll keep Australia White.”

 

And so then that people were like, okay, we’re not happy about it. But they managed to agree to it.

 

But ultimately it was wrong. Because ultimately it laid a foundation that was too weak, that ultimately was then disassembled over a period of time.

 

Blair Cottrell: What is that race? What is that race that speaks all the languages or the most languages?

 

Joel Davis: Well, I mean they still kept jews out. You got to understand like these guys were, these guys were anti-semitic. There’s fuck all jews that came to Australia really until, … There was a few that got in. They got in before Federation. Some jews came with the British Empire. But from Federation till the end of World War II, barely any jews got in. So it more or less worked.

 

But then after World War II, jews then started coming in and in a big way and radically changed, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Do you think that was a consequence of post World War II propaganda, the racist terminology having a impact on the psychology of Australian statesmen?

 

Joel Davis: No, they, I mean the RSL {Returned and Services League (of Australia) ] for example were very against any jews being allowed into Australia. And many Australian politicians were very against jews being allowed to into Australia. Jews pretended to be Greeks or Italians and snuck in that way. Jewish immigrant ships were funded by American jews to help get them into the country.

 

But ultimately it wasn’t that people weren’t anti-semitic or weren’t racist. The problem was that they weren’t willing to go far enough politically to create impervious boundaries. Because liberal democracy is ultimately a system of compromise and that compromise created weakness and that weakness was ultimately exploited.

 

Blair Cottrell: What would be an impervious boundary?

 

Joel Davis: Well, if you had explicit racial testing and there was no room to move.

 

Blair Cottrell: Would that involve like measurement of facial characteristics, blood tests, what would that involved?

 

Joel Davis: Today it would be more simple because you could do DNA tests. So it’d be a lot more simple and straightforward today.

 

But anyway, the point is that there was a lack of political will to go ultimately far enough and to create explicit, difficult to change laws and even constitutional amendments. If they had a referendum and they put to the Australian people:

 

“Do you want to put the White Australia Policy into the Australian constitution so that no politician can change it and it can only be changed by a referendum?”

 

The people would have voted for it and it would be in the Constitution. Like it would be literally unconstitutional for a non-White person to immigrate to Australia. So even if the government tried to bring them in, you could just like literally go to the court and be like:

 

“They have to be deported!”

 

So that’s what the most radical people wanted. And they should have been listened to, but they ultimately weren’t listened to. Not because people disagreed on the principles of racism, but because they believed in compromise. They wanted to compromise with the British Empire. They wanted to compromise with certain powers that be. And that’s where this has got us.

 

[words unclear] is uncompromising nationalism, zero compromise! And that’s what we represent. That’s why we embrace National Socialism rather than just simply reproducing the same White nationalism of our Founding Fathers. We agree with them on White nationalism. We don’t agree with them with the methodology. We think that we need to go further this time. We have to be more radical, more totalizing, more absolutizing in order to ensure that:

 

“Oh, we’ve got a lot to do, we’ve got a lot of people to deport and a lot of in domestic enemies to deal with!”

 

So that needs to be dealt with. And radical politics needed for that. A radical political programme once you take power.

 

And then you also need to have a more robust system that has greater safeguards against it being wound back and relaxed for the jews and the Communists and the Freemasons and whatever other groups to get a foothold again and unravel the whole thing again a second time.

 

So that’s why we’re National Socialists, rather than just being White nationalists.

 

Blair Cottrell: Right. And it’s a logical position, considering where we were versus where we are now. Obviously where we were initially wasn’t good enough. Logically, you can’t really dispute that.

 

But tell us about the upcoming election. You wanted to segue onto that. Tell me something I don’t know about it. Explain to me who am I voting for, Joel? Who should the Australian people vote for in the upcoming election?

 

Joel Davis: Well, maybe we should have. So we talked about it last year. We were considering trying to get a party going for this election and to run you for the Senate in Victoria. And we decided it was too early. We wanted to spend more time building up the organisation and we would target the election after and we would take our time building the party.

 

[2:01:20]

 

And I think that was the right choice. I think that’s the prudent choice and it will end up paying off. But if we did try to slap a party together quickly over the last year and we ran you, I reckon you would have a bit of a chance because there’s literally no one interesting to vote for in the Victorian Senate, because obviously you vote for the Senate by state.

 

So the only interesting Senator or Senate candidate that’s Right of the Liberal Party in Victoria is Ralph Babet*. But Ralph Babet isn’t even up for election this time. And obviously I wouldn’t endorse voting for him because he’s brown. Although he probably is the most Right-wing Senator in Australia. Like he posts about White genocide, he’s going at the jews, he’s pushing anti-semitic conspiracy theories, he follows Nick Fuentes and Andrew Tate on Twitter, he even defended Nathan Bull the other day on Twitter.

 

[* Ralph Emmanuel Didier “Deej” Babet is an Australian far-Right populist and conservative politician. He has been a Senator for Victoria in the Australian Parliament since 2022, representing the United Australia Party. He is the party’s only current federal elected representative. Prior to entering politics he was a real estate agent. Born: June 29, 1983, Rodrigues, Mauritius. Nationality: Mauritian, Australian. Wikipedia]

 

So that’s [chuckling] kind of funny. The Senate terms are double terms. He got elected at the last election, so he’s not up for re-election this election, he’ll be up for re-election the following election.

 

So there’s no one good to vote for in the Senate in Victoria. Now in the lower house. In the lower house, like your local electorate, I mean most electorates are not that interesting to vote in because it’s either going to be Liberal or Labor that win or maybe Teal or maybe Green, and who fucking gives a fuck between those options! Like there really is barely any electorates that you can live in where someone more interesting than those four options exists to vote for.

 

But insofar as you have to vote, I would say put the Liberals last, I’d say put all the Right-wing minor parties, you know, first. Put Liberals last. Punish the fucking Liberals! Because the Liberals are the main obstacle to good politics in Australia. Because the Liberals create a fake opposition.

 

And if you look at their campaign, they deserve to be punished. Because they’re supposedly conservative, they’re supposedly Right-wing, they’re going up against a ridiculously unpopular government that has made so many mistakes and has pissed the whole country off. All they would need to do is say:

 

“We’re going to shut down the borders for a few years while we get the housing crisis under control.”

 

And they’d win this election in a landslide. That’s all they would have to do! They can’t do that. They’re completely owned by the property lobby and the migration lobby and all these other lobby groups that financially benefit from mass immigration, and they cuck out to them.

 

And they also have a political strategy where, I talked to a couple people who are in Liberal Party world, and what they said is that what Liberal Party strategists are doing is they’re targeting a certain set of electorates that they think they can win that have a large portion of Indian and other migrant populations and they think if they go too hard on immigration they’ll lose their votes. So they don’t give a shit about the White vote!

 

The fact that 90% of the votes for the Liberal Party come from White Australians. They don’t value you as a White Australian and your vote. They care about winning over the votes of foreigners that shouldn’t even be in our country by putting forward a policy that’ll bring even more of them into our country to replace you.

 

So fuck the Liberal Party! And then anyone in the Liberal Party that gets too Right-wing, they kick them out. So there’s Gerard Rennick, who’s running, … This is what I would also say. If you live in Queensland, I would put Gerard Rennick number one in the Senate. Gerard Rennick is not a White nationalist, but he is an immigration restrictionist and he’s an economic nationalist and he’s probably the smartest guy in politics. And he’s an honest man. Like, he’s an honest politician. I spoke to him on a Twitter space just before I got banned from Twitter. I said:

 

“Listen, …”

 

And this is just after Jerome Roberts had spent 10 minutes arguing with him about the White Australia Policy. Gerard Rennick was willing to spend 10 minutes arguing with Jimbo about the White Australia Policy. Fair play! Then I came onto the Twitter space and I was like:

 

“This fucking caravan. It’s obviously an Israel con job. It’s obviously Mossad conducting a psyop to take away free speech in New South Wales!”

 

And he said:

 

“Yeah, I agree.”

 

He went into the Senate the next day and called it out. And then he started posting all these tweets about how the Mossad, accusing the Mossad of basically conducting psyops in Australia to attack our freedom of speech. And that the Mossad have been guilty of many, many psyops and false flag attacks [USS Liberty, 9/11] and so on against British-Americans and so on throughout history and that they’re a big problem.

 

So he won me over with that! He went up against the Israel Lobby, he went up against the jews in an optical way. He listened to the concerns of like literal Nazis and spoke to us reasonably and fairly. And I think his policies are pretty good. Like particularly his economic policies. I think of he’s an economic nationalist and he calls out a lot of, … He’s just a good man.

 

And I’d much rather him be in the Senate than any of the other candidates, I think. And he got kicked out of Liberal Party for being too nationalistic, too conservative. He should be rewarded.

 

And that’s the other thing I’ll say. One Nation, I think One Nation are basically a Liberal Party front. Pauline Hanson, the election was called. She goes on Sky News and says she wants Peter Dutton to be prime minister. And is campaigning for the Liberals and all of the One Nation campaign, insofar as it exists, they barely have a campaign. But insofar as it exists, all their messaging is just directed against Labor. They should be attacking the Liberals and competing for the Right-wing vote, but they don’t. They’re fucking weak! And I don’t think they’re weak just because they have bad strategy. I think they literally are a Liberal Party op. Pauline Hanson is a fad-hag.

 

[2:07:28]

 

 

In other words, she has a homosexual guy called James Ashby whose claim to fame was that he got sexually assaulted by Peter Slipper when he was in the Liberal Party. He’s a fucking homosexual bum boy! He left, leaves the Liberal Party after accusing some old Liberal Party faggot of raping him. And he probably did or trying to rape him. He goes to work for Pauline Hanson. And One Nation has been totally defanged ever since that happened. One Nation has become a totally weak, ineffectual party that just campaigns against Labor and is basically an extension of the Liberal Party. So fuck One Nation!

 

Fuck Malcolm Roberts as well, who is directly competing with Rennick for the Right-wing vote in the Senate in Queensland. Malcolm Roberts cucks to the jews. Gerard Rennick doesn’t. I’ve seen it time and time again. Jared Rennick is a nobler man and I think a more genuine guy on every level. And he’s a smarter man as well. And he has better policies. He’s just better in every way. So I would endorse Rennick. I would say fuck One Nation.

 

In New South Wales, I would say vote for Craig Kelly for in the Senate. Craig Kelly is not as intelligent as Gerard Rennick, but Craig Kelly has pretty good instincts and he has nationalistic views. He kind of tones it down to try and play to, not be too controversial. But he’s running for the Libertarian Party and I don’t like the Libertarian Party in most other states. In New South Wales, Libertarian Party has more, … Look, there’s a lot of people I know in Libertarian Party, they’ve got a lot of our guys in there. And in New South Wales, that is. And they still have cucked policies.

 

What I like about Craig Kelly is he goes on Twitter and he doesn’t even give a shit about the policies of the Libertarian Party. He just makes up his own policies that are better [chuckling] than the Libertarian Party’s policies! His immigration policy, he said on Twitter the other day, was Net Zero immigrants coming in, and special visas for White South African farmers, and British citizens trying to escape the political tyranny that has become the UK. That’s the best immigration policy anyone has put forward this election.

 

So I would say in New South Wales, I would vote for Craig Kelly and Libertarians and the People’s First Gerard Rennick Party are on a joint Australia First Alliance Senate ticket. They just specifically in New South Wales. So it’s simpatico. Like if you support the Rennick thing, you would. If you vote 1 for on the Australia First Alliance, I think the, whoever the Gerard Rennick endorsed candidate New South Wales is will become your second preference or something.

 

So I’d say in those two states you actually have an all right Senate candidate to vote for. And it would be much better if those two guys were in the Senate than if they weren’t. And if we end up getting in there, like, if you get in there in future elections. If I get in there in future elections, though, if those guys are in there as well, like, we’re probably going to end up voting the same way that they do on like quite a lot of stuff. Because they’re quasi-nationalists. We’re going to be basically a little crew, you know, we’re going to be there like more radical like Nazi bros or whatever in there against all the fucking filth, the Uni-Party filth and communists and everything else that’s in there.

 

So I would say that if you don’t live in New South Wales or Queensland to be honest, there isn’t really much else worth voting for. Like, if I’m really honest. I would just say put the Liberals last, punish them. I don’t at this point. I’d rather the Liberals lose because they, their campaign is sucked so bad. It seems like all they care about are fucking jews! And they’ll sell us out and everything. Their campaign is giving the jews everything they want. Abolishing free speech. Yeah! Money for synagogues, sucking off Israel at the UN! Just anything Israel want or the jews want, they give it to them. Jewish property developers say:

 

“We want to flood the country with migrants. Who cares what the voters want? Who cares that it’s destroying the country? Who cares that Australians are. That homelessness is going through the roof and no one can afford to pay the rent or the mortgage. Just keep flooding us with Indians!”

 

So fuck them! Peter Dutton is the most ugly bastard I’ve ever seen!

 

Blair Cottrell: I noticed Peter Dutton in a recent speech was kissing Zelensky’s arse and talking about saving Ukrainian lives, even criticising Trump’s treatment of Zelensky. What was that about? What’s the motivation behind that, do you think?

 

Joel Davis: I mean, that’s just kind of standard, like, every Western politician other than like, the new Trump administration is obviously going to be pro-Ukraine because that’s like the Liberal international consensus. And if the Australian political elite turned on Ukraine after supporting them, they would get a backlash from the media. And then if they went to go and sit down with European governments to try and hammer out a deal that would really piss them off. It’d piss off the British and the French and everything. And it doesn’t really, from their perspective, like, they don’t really gain anything from having a different opinion because Australia isn’t really, like, doing much, doesn’t have much to do with what’s going on in Ukraine.

 

So I think they’re just playing ball because they hope that Europe would do the same thing in return if it was to do with China or something that we cared about more. So I don’t think there’s much to really care about when it comes to that. I mean, you can have your opinions, but I think the, I don’t know, it just, …

 

[2:13:21]

 

Blair Cottrell: To me, it felt like he wanted money. He wanted to attract more money from someone maybe he, …

 

Joel Davis: Well, yeah, yeah, there’s obviously the US State Department funds, puts a lot of money into Australian politics and the Australian political process. And all these elite interests are all interconnected and cliqued up with each other. And I know that Trump has taken over and American policy is shifting, but I don’t think it has seeped through into the US State Department yet, or a lot of the Liberal internationalist establishment in America. It’s going to be like you’re going to take a few years for the change, the sea change in America to bleed down into Australia. It will eventually happen, but it’s like a slow process.

 

But anyway, the point. I think the message to the people is very simple this election. Fuck the UNIP Party, Liberal labour, same shit! Same fucking smell! More curry immigrants! It literally doesn’t matter which one wins. They basically have the same policies and they have very slight differences.

 

And I thought maybe if the Liberals won, it would be slightly better because then we could attack them from the Right. But now the view that I have is just like, they deserve to lose. Like, they were going to win all they had to do was throw a few bones. They couldn’t even throw a few bones to like the Right. So they deserve to lose, they deserve to be punished. They don’t deserve to be rewarded for being total traitors and like giving nothing!

 

And I think maybe having another like three years of like Albanese Labor, like insanity will only like radicalise the population more, perhaps. So and that may be better for us when we try to get our political party going at the next election cycle.

 

And also we got to train people as well, like fuck the Liberals! Like we want to, we want to create a culture on the Australian Right-wing where everyone hates the Liberal Party and views the Liberals as the enemy, rather than our guys. So that’s the message that we’ve got to teach people and people are starting to get it. I see the online right, and I’m not just talking about Nazis, like the online Australian Right in general, they seem to be more like the Liberals. We’re going to vote for one of the minor parties. That seems to be the prevailing attitude, like fuck the Uni-Party, that kind of thing. And that’ll bleed down into the general population more and more in the next few years. Because like there’s like the political nerds who go on Twitter and then there’s like the average person. And the average person is very disconnected from political nerds. But slowly the political nerd ideas do seep back out into the population. It just takes a while to like slowly progress. So by the time we get to 2028, I see the Liberal Party vote tanking.

 

So I think we should just really just like push them over. Because if the Liberal Party fall apart, that just creates a lot of space for people like us. And the Greens are gaining. Like if you look at like voters under the age of 30, the Greens have like a quarter of the vote. Like they only poll it like 13%. But then their youth vote is like double that. Young Whites, they’re not going to Liberal or Labor. Young Whites are going to the Greens or they’re Right-wing and they’re looking, probably looking for something like what we want to create, or a more soft core version of that maybe. And that’s what we want.

 

We want basically everyone to defect from Liberal and Labor. And Liberal and Labor to get pushed together like at one point in the future. It would be funny if Liberal and Labor have to form a coalition government with each other against all the radical parties outside of them. That would totally de-legitimize them as a fake opposition. And like you see that in some European countries where like this happened in Austria recently. Austria has like a nationalist, like almost ethno-nationalist party called the Freedom Party. Then they have the conservative Party, which is their equivalent of Liberal Party, their equivalent of the Labor Party and like some more radical Leftist parties or whatever other random niche parties. And traditionally in Austria it was between their version of Liberal and their version of Labor.

 

But in recent years, the Nationalist Party grew bigger and bigger and bigger to the point that the conservative Party had to make an alliance with the basically imagine, imagine the Greens and like our future party got so big that Liberal and Labor had to form a government. That’s what happened. And what has happened since is the Nationalist Party has become more and more and more popular to the point where they could now maybe win the entire election outright without even needing to form like a coalition with the conservatives. And the conservatives are bleeding voters because all their voters are like:

 

“Hey, wait a second, you’re allying with the Left-wing against a Right-wing party. Like you guys are fucked!”

 

And you’re seeing a situation perhaps emerge in Germany where something similar is occurring as well, and in other European countries. I would like to see that in Australia. Like that would be like moving us towards like the polarisation necessary for like real political change to start occurring.

 

So yeah, I think this is basically the “fuck the Libs” paradigm, like is what really we should be focusing upon.

 

[2:18:44]

 

 

Blair Cottrell: But there’s this weird, there’s this strange Clive Palmer aberration that seems to pop up with every election now. There’s this yellow billboard popping up left, right and centre and it’s always like a new party name, or a new group name. And this time it’s called Trumpet of Patriots. And the slogan I think is “Common sense economic policies to lower the cost of living”. What’s going on there? What’s Clive Palmer doing if you vote for the Trumpet of Patriots? I don’t know who came up with that name, but if you vote for them, what happens to your vote? What’s going on there? I asked Tom the same question, but what information do you have?

 

Joel Davis: They seem just to be like a gimmick. There’s no substance. And Clive Palmer creates this pop up party just before an election and then immediately dissolves it after the election and like then like pops it back up like three years later. And it’s a joke! Like there’s no substance, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Obviously that’s to funnel votes into the Uni-Party, into the Liberal Party. Is it?

 

Joel Davis: Well, through preferential voting it will funnel votes into the Liberals. But like, I just don’t think it should be taken seriously. Like I’d rather people vote for that than One Nation because one nation’s actually more. One Nation might have slightly better policies, but One Nation is like more dangerous because they have an established brand that people respect.

 

And I think One Nation will still get like a decent amount of votes this time just because they haven’t, … Even though they don’t deserve it. They’ve done No campaigning to deserve it and they barely say or do anything of value.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, but a lot of people will be like:

 

“Oh, One Nation they’re the Right-wing group, let’s vote for them.”

 

Joel Davis: Exactly! And they have an anti-immigration brand and people are very dissatisfied with immigration more than ever before at the moment. So they’ll just get votes based upon like legacy brand recognition. But One Nation is like the party that we want to kill. Like we want to replace them with our party. Like that would be like objective one. So like fuck the Libs, fuck One Nation!

 

I don’t endorse the Trumpet of Patriots thing. They don’t seem to even have coherent., … They’ve got this woman running it. Clive Palmer isn’t even the chairman. It’s like this Suellen, I can’t remember her name, she’s dumb. Like, she can’t even explain like their policies, how they work. Clive Palmer he just puts up billboards of a picture of him with Tucker Carlson and just hopes if you like Tucker Carlson, you’ll vote for him. And then the idea is like:

 

“Do you like Donald Trump? Well, we’re going to do Trump style stuff.”

 

And it’s like, what does that even mean? Like, it’s pure vibes. Like there’s no substance and yeah, so it shouldn’t be, …

 

Blair Cottrell: The reason I bring it up is because it’s bound to hoodwink some fraction of the public. People will vote for that sort of stuff because they will associate it with stuff that they think they like, which is like Trump style patriotism or an alternative to the Uni-Party. They might see it as that. They’re not really going to look further into it than that.

 

And so they’re going to be like:

 

“Oh, there’s a picture of this guy with Tucker Carlson. I like Tucker Carlson. He’s cool. So I’m going to vote for them!”

 

And like, stupidity is no handicap in politics. We know that you don’t need to have a super intelligent structured plan for the country. You just need to look a certain way and convince people that you represent what they think they want.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, but I don’t think they look good. I think their logo was like made with AI. The name is stupid. They’ve got a woman that doesn’t know what she’s doing, running it. Like the thing is a joke, the campaign is not interesting or dynamic. They don’t deserve anyone’s vote. I’d rather people vote for them than Liberals. But like, I think you should preference the parties because we have a preferential system. So you kind of order things in like an order of preference. You don’t just vote for one thing. That’s how Australian voting works.

 

So I would say, like, you should put like Rennick’s party people first, whatever it’s called, the Libertarians, but not in Victoria. Like fuck the Victorian Libertarians.

 

But if you’re in New South Wales or Queensland or somewhere like that, there’s a party called Sustainable Australia. They also support Net zero immigration. But they don’t indulge in too much of like the populist rhetoric or whatever. They just go:

 

“Oh, like immigration is bad for the environment and like it’s putting strain on infrastructure.”

 

But they’re obviously like kind of racially motivated, but they just have incredible optics. Give them a vote. They’re a serious party with a lot of good policies. Vote for, I would say vote for these more serious parties that actually have good immigration policies and other policies before you vote for the Clive Palmer wanker project or whatever.

 

But yeah, like people are realizing in this election is that it’s all fucking trash! It’s all bullshit! And they just need to vote for White Australia. They want to vote for us. That’s the message.

 

[2:24:04]

 

 

Blair Cottrell: I’ll be glad when it’s all over, when it’s all said and done, this particular round. I’m looking forward to when we’ve got our stuff organised and we’re in the fight. For now, I’ll be glad to see less of the Labor Party propaganda and candidate pamphlets littering my street and just left all over park benches and so forth. I’ll be happy to stop seeing all these stupid smiling faces that I don’t care about, not even saying anything or it’s like:

 

“I’m ready to represent my local community, so vote for me.”

 

And then that’s it. It’s like, what the do you even represent? Who are you? I’ve never seen you in my life before. Who are these fucking people? You know, it’s like, how does this stuff work? Exactly? But I suppose that’s what we’re going to figure out. We’ll figure out how it works and we’ll get into it.

 

We’ve already got a lot of experience, though. We’ve done it once before. We’ve tried to put a party together once before government intervention prevented us from doing. So tom and I spoke about that earlier in the stream. But it’s particularly egregious, I was going to say, how the bail conditions, and I don’t mean to swing back to a subject that we already passed over, but I wanted to actually make this clear. It’s egregious how restrictive they are in your political communication because you guys don’t even know if the conditions apply outside of South Australia. And the reason we’re structuring this particular stream in the way that we are, that is me starting the stream with Tom, Tom leaving, then me bringing you on, is because I’m not under any bail conditions. I haven’t been charged. But you guys have, and you’re not actually sure whether streaming together is legal or not. Perhaps you guys getting on a stream together and talking about politics, it has been made illegal as a result of these bail conditions, which is a serious violation of your right to political communication. So I would very much like to see this taken all the way to the High Court, man!

 

Because if you guys consider precedent to protect yourselves in the future, and let’s be honest, everything in politics needs to be spoken in legalese. You know, you need to be lawyered up. You need to be ready to sue people for violating your basic human rights to engage in political discourse. So, like, that’s, I suppose, the lesson that we’re all learning and that you guys are going through right now.

 

Joel Davis: This is what people can do. Go to White Australia.org, White Australia.org and there’s a section there. Maybe you don’t want to join us, you don’t want to come to training. You don’t want to do street activism, but you like the political party idea. Put your name down as a supporter. And I know Tom mentioned it before, but before I came on, but you should really go through the process. Look up, go Google how do I register as a silent elector? And register yourself as a silent elector so that your name and address is taken off the electoral role. Go and do that now. Regardless of whether you’re going to sign up to the political party or not, just to protect your identity, go do that now.

 

Then when eventually the party, you can sign up to it, then you will be a silent elector. There will be privacy policies and you know, legal protections basically to prevent you from being doxed. I know some people are afraid about that, but like there’s protections in place to prevent that from happen.

 

The political party is going to be a process we’re going to build up to. We’re going to build up our supporter class. We’re going to build up the organisation of White Australia. Then we’re going to register at some point in the future. The aim is that is to build up branches around the country and to build up a campaign staff all around the country and to do it properly in like three years time. And maybe in 2027 there’s a few state elections, maybe we might have a crack at a few, a few of those to like practice before the federal election. But that’s kind of like the time scale that we’re looking at. So like it’s not going to happen this election, it is not going to happen tomorrow. But we are organising it. So be part of it. Put your name down.

 

But like politics is fucking gay! Like what you were just describing, like every candidate is fucking gay! Even the candidates that I kind of praise somewhat are fucking gay! Like it’s all fake, it’s all contrived, and no one’s really fighting for anything much, except for like maybe the Greens. Like, the Greens, they got a bunch of and like just freaks! And they really are fighting for their ideology and they’re really serious and extreme. Everyone else is basically either a retarded Boomer or someone who just wants to be something and they’ve never been anything. And then they think that they can build a political career and they can make some money and make some connections and be someone that’s relevant. They were like some nerd no one cared about all through school. They’re not smart, they’re not interesting, they’ve got nothing really going for them and they get sucked into politics. These people suck! They have no business making laws. They have no business ruling over us.

 

And the reason why they’re able to do so, why you have all these faggots in the Liberal Party and the Labor Party run our country, is because Australians largely don’t care about politics and don’t participate in politics. Why is that? Well, for most of Australian history, you didn’t need to because Australia was basically a quasi utopia. We’re rich, we’re full of, like eugenic White people. Everyone was making money, everyone was doing well, and we live in a beautiful country. And so why would you care about politics? Things seem to be more or less all right.

 

[2:29:54]

 

 

Well, in recent years, things have gotten a lot worse very quickly. And all of a sudden our country is being stolen from us and our major cities are fucking completely unrecognizable and everything’s going to shit! So now’s the time where the Australian population need to politicise and they will.

 

And what you have is you have a general population whose attitudes and whose mentality is way more radical and way more down to earth and real than the actual political process, which is the most contrived, fake and cucked thing imaginable! We have the political process of some gay country, like New Zealand, but we have the population, like, we have a far more radical population, a far more racist, a far more virile population of people who are just apolitical. When those people become politicised and look and actually get engaged with the political process and feel like they have someone they can identify with, someone who represents them, someone who they like who’s sticking it to the man, they will rally behind that. And it is possible in this country to build a very radical brand of politics, probably unlike most other Western countries that’ll actually have mass appeal.

 

So there’s an opportunity here to go from basically a completely boring and AIDS form of politics to having one of the more fun and interesting political systems in the world, where it’s actually this really fun contest, if we can get ourselves established and get involved, like, everyone will love it!

 

So I think we have a really good chance at doing something interesting if we all pull together. And it doesn’t I don’t think we can get it, like, it’s probably unlikely that we can win government. But if we just get, like, one guy elected that would be insane! Like, that would be massive! And we could just troll the Government from the inside. If you get into the Senate, that’s six years. And we can completely transform the political culture of this country just with like one guy being a elected. We can completely change the conversation, we can completely change the attitudes of the population, we can inspire young people to engage with politics in a totally new way. And we can completely change the direction of our country. I think it’s a realistic goal to be aiming towards.

 

Blair Cottrell: I’m going to take just a two minute break and feel free to jump onto either Superchats or another subject you wanted to raise. I’ll be right back.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, he’s done well to go two and a half hours. Usually, you know you get burnt out over the two hour mark a little bit. So obviously had some caffeine tonight.

 

I’m just going to go through some of these Superchats and we’ll end the stream. Someone called Civil Negro sent me a bunch of Superchats. He said that:

 

“The jew destroyed his homeland of Ethiopia and their communism slaughtered the only African country with history. Australia is next. Many don’t fully grasp the gravity of the situation.”

 

Anyway, he also said:

 

“The Right has no idea how to use propaganda. The jew, the Left creates entertainment and propaganda for all IQ levels.”

 

I think that’s been the case for a while, but I think that’s changing. I think the Right is becoming culturally ascendant I think in a lot of domains in the last couple years, particularly comedy, the Right is completely destroying the Left. I think the Left is incapable of good comedy at this point. And you know, Hollywood sucks! They’re not putting out any really good movies anymore. Wokeness is kind of played out like it’s not interesting, it’s not fun. And the Left used to. I mean the music industry, the Left claims to dominate but then you actually break it down and a lot of the top musicians and bands actually are like Right leaning or far-Right leaning actually, but just kind of conceal their politics a bit more where like the Left-wing musicians really shove their politics down your throat for obvious reasons.

 

But you know that there isn’t really much like good new music either. Like the music industry has kind of lost its centrality to the culture at this point.

 

So I don’t think the Left has been very effective with its propaganda in recent years at all! I think the tide is turning. He also asked me for my thoughts on World Ice Theory, but I’m not going to Discuss World Ice Theory with a fucking nigger!

 

Nick Bod said:

 

“Hail victory!”

 

What else do we have here? PHRC said:

 

“Was great meeting you last week. White Power!”

 

Not sure who that is. Actually, in the last couple weeks, I’ve had so many people come up to me in public and be like:

 

“Joel Davis, I follow you on Telegram, or I’ve seen you on the news or somewhere on this podcast or whatever.”

 

That has been happening a reasonably decent amount. But the last two weeks, it’s happened fucking heaps, like, way more than ever before.

 

So I don’t know what that’s all about, but it felt good. It feels like the messages getting out there amongst the community.

 

So if you do see me out and about, come say, hi. Like, you don’t have to feel intimidated. I don’t mind. It just makes me feel good to feel like there’s people out there that are hearing the message. Does that happen to you much lately, Blair? Because the last couple weeks, I’ve been approached, I’d say 15 times, and that’s heaps! Like, it happens maybe like. One. It was happening like, maybe like once a month before, but the last couple weeks, of some reason, everyone’s bumping into me in public and being like:

 

“Joel, nice to meet you!”

 

[2:25:46]

 

Blair Cottrell: It could be fate just.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Putting you in these situations to remind you that you’re a representative of the Australian people, the real people. And that’s the way I used to take it when it would happen to me all the time. It would remind me how much appreciation there was for both the message I represented and the fight I was engaged in. And it sometimes still does happen. Yeah. But did I hear you say that someone might be intimidated? Why would anyone be intimidated by Joel Davis? This is one of the nicest guys you’ll ever meet. I know it doesn’t seem like it through the screen, but this is a nice guy, believe me.

 

So, yeah, no, it does happen. And it’s something that kind of builds a little faith or helps to reinvigorate the faith in me that reminds me that what I’m doing is right.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. It feels good.

 

So, yeah, I don’t mind it. Maybe I don’t act like I care that much because I don’t really act like I care about much most of the time. That’s just my personality, but it does. It is nice.

 

Home of the Brave said:

 

“I missed you guys last week. You have the best commentary in the White national space. I wake up crazy early here in America, every Friday for this show. Any plans for more frequent streams in the future? Hail, Anderson.”

 

Well, of course we’ll continue to be streaming. We were in discussions in private about how to format things going forward and when we make changes, of course you’ll find out because you’ll be watching the new formats. But in the meantime, we’re just going to keep doing the show once a week. We didn’t do a show last week because there’s a lot going on a personal level for a bunch of us, and it is what it is. But that was a rare aberration.

 

Blair Cottrell: I’s rare that we miss a week. We try to do it on the Thursday night. It doesn’t always work because most of us still work for a living or we’re busy doing the things we need to do. So we usually do a stream each week and it’s unusual for us to miss a week, isn’t it?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, we did miss last week, but that was a rare aberration.

 

But yeah, we usually stream Thursdays, but sometimes we stream Fridays and sometimes other days. It is what it is. And then sometimes you’ll get a situation where you get like, me showing up on like two or three other podcasts in the same week and you get a whole bunch of Joel Davis content and then you go dry for a couple weeks. And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles.

 

Blair Cottrell: I’ve come to realise it doesn’t even matter so much when we stream. The streams all seem to get relatively, you know, good amount of views. My initial reason for streaming on Thursday night is because that’s the evenings Hitler used to host his beer hall meetings in Germany leading up to the process through which he took power. And the reason Thursday evenings were so favourable a time to speak to the German people back then is because that’s when everyone was leaving the factories and everyone would go to the beer halls or the pubs and they’d talk about politics. And because it was nearing the end of the week, it was Thursday afternoon. People only had one working day left, but they still had to get up the next morning and go to work so they couldn’t get too drunk. Therefore, they would be able to engage in reasonably sensible conversation. They’d, you know, retain memories onto the next day. Thursday evening, everyone was feeling pretty good. Everyone was open to new ideas. It was the end of the week. That was the reason they used to host meetings during that time.

 

And so that’s why we went with the Thursday afternoon. But I suppose it doesn’t really make sense for the time we’re living in. And that’s the conclusion I’ve come to realizing that we get the same amount of views regardless of when we stream. But that means we can be flexible. So that’s good.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. Jake 12:19 said:

 

“There’s a reason why the term “kangaroo court” spawned from the judicial system within Australia and why it was popularised throughout the world for crooked court dealings.”

 

I actually don’t think it spawned from within Australia. I believe that the term “kangaroo court”* actually came from Britain because when they were sentencing convicts to be sent to Australia, when it was a penal colony, that was referred to as, basically I’ve been charged by a kangaroo court. I think it was sometimes referred to as, you’re sentenced to a kangaroo jump in the other words.

 

[* The term kangaroo court may have originated in Britain. In the late 1700s, British courts began sentencing people convicted of various crimes to penal transportation to Australia. In the 1800s, this was sometimes referred to as the “Kangaroo Jump”. It is possible that those sentenced to transportation protested that they had been convicted and sentenced by a kangaroo court. Some sources suggest that the term may have been popularised during the California Gold Rush of 1849 to which many thousands of Australians flocked. In consequence of the Australian miners’ presence, it may have come about as a description of the hastily carried-out proceedings used to deal with the issue of claim-jumping miners. Wikipedia]

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. Does that mean the word kangaroo meant absurd? And so then when they came to Australia and saw this absurd animal, they were like:

 

“Oh, look at that, kangaroo, you know!”

 

So the word kangaroo actually predated the animal perhaps?

 

Joel Davis: No, no, like they already had discovered the animal at that point. But then like, it was like, definitive of being like, sentenced to go be sent on the kangaroo jump to Australia.

 

Blair Cottrell: Where there really is kangaroos.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah.

 

[2:40:49]

 

 

Joel Davis: And they’re like:

 

“I stole a loaf of bread and now I’m being fucking, this kangaroo court is shipping me away, like forever or whatever.”

 

So I believe that’s where it came from. Obviously, I don’t know, like, I’m not an expert, but yeah, it was really fucking infuriating the other day after the court procedure because the whole fabric of our society is supposed to be built around the idea of reasonableness and rationality and fairness. That’s kind of like the premise of Anglo society is that authority isn’t totally arbitrary. Everything is subject to a fair rational argument, whether it be in the court, whether it be in a Parliament, whether it be in science, that you can’t just tell people how it is. You actually have to defend rationally and correctly, like why you have a position of leadership. And our society used to respect these values. It no longer does.

 

And it doesn’t just not respect these things because of contempt for reason. But a lot of it is that the so many people are incapable of rational discourse. So many people are led by their emotions. And part of it is due to the fact that we let women participate equally with men in a lot of these disciplines.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s true.

 

Joel Davis: But another reason for it is that a lot of men are basically women. Like they’re fucking pussies! That are fundamentally emotionally driven and we don’t have standards of calm rationality in our society anymore. Like it is now considered to be strange or bizarre or kind of idealistic to expect a calm, rational procedure. If you don’t have that, you’ve got nothing.

 

Blair Cottrell: Not only that Joel, when the calm rational one does present himself, he’s savaged by the others because he’s considered unusual or threatening. So anyone who does present himself as that reasonable option gets chased out of the institutions by all the crazed emotive feminists. So through that process, even a good Apple that goes into the bucket of rotten Apples to try to clean things up either becomes rotten himself or he gets thrown out.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, we live in basically a hysterical society. And I mean this magistrate Luke Davis. It’s unfortunate that he’s of my name.

 

Blair Cottrell: House Davis on suicide watch! It is a common name, really common. Name though like that. When you go to England for example, and you look in the records of soldiers that died for the Crown in various wars, there’s so many. Davis’. It’s obviously a pretty common.

 

Joel Davis: It’s actually more common in Australia than it is in Britain. I believe it’s the 21st most common surname in Australia. In Britain, I think it’s the 45th most common surname. In America it’s the seventh most common surname. So Davis’ seem to be an imperial people. We seem to want to leave the old isles and go and conquer new lands.

 

Blair Cottrell: All the best families did, man! I mean I think in order to want to stay in England under the certain conditions that the Crown was imposing on the people for generations you’d probably have to be pretty cynical or small minded. That’s not to say the people that remain there are that way. It’s probably some, still some great families in the motherland.

 

But yeah, it seems to be generally true that a lot of the, at least in Australia, a lot of the bigger families, like literally physically bigger families ended up leaving the mainlands to explore new possibilities and go on new ventures, because everyone seems to be like Americans and Australians seem bigger than the people still remaining on the British Isles.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. Well, Nick Bod said with you hail victory!”

And I appreciate that. And maybe that’s a good place to end the stream this evening. We’ve been going for three hours, including the Tom and Blair segment.

 

So it’s been a good stream for everyone and I hope you enjoyed it. And well done Blair for going back to back, putting in a real shift. And we’ll be back again next week with another show and yeah, I want to troll this election. There’s going to be some shenanigans. I want to fuck with the Liberals in particular and, …

 

Blair Cottrell: What do you mean? Like on social media or?

 

Joel Davis: I just want to fuck with them!

 

Blair Cottrell: All right, we’ll keep it obscure. [chuckling] Yeah, I don’t know what this guy’s talking about, I swear.

 

Joel Davis: But like, look, this is the time where people care about politics the most. So everyone should be making the most of it. Like the next couple weeks. The next three weeks. There’s three weeks till the election, basically.

 

Next three weeks are going to be politically charged times in Australia, which is rare. It doesn’t get politically charged. We’re not like America, where it’s just like this hyper political society. It comes in waves and then people get exhausted with it and don’t want to talk about politics for a bit and it kind of ebbs and flows. So make the most of it. Like now’s the time to kind of be pushing your political messaging, your agenda and yeah, troll this fucking election.

 

I’ve noticed there’s been some trolling of the election so far. There’s been some stunts. I want to see more of that. I want to see. I want to see some stunts. I want to see because this whole thing is a joke. And we need to show, I think, collectively as a society, contempt for these frauds that seek to rule all over us because they’re all a fucking joke! And the real Australia has to come back. We need to have a kind of righteous indignation to kind of crop back up.

 

But also with that larrikin spirit. That’s the way Australians do it. Australians are that kind of larrikin convict energy. I think that’s what we need to bring back into Australian politics. Doesn’t exist anymore, really. And that’s the energy that will end up like upending this fucking fraud of a system. Redneck said:

 

“Keep fighting the good fight.”

 

And thanks for that. We appreciate that. What were you gonna say?

 

[2:47:29]

 

Blair Cottrell: What you’re saying there means to have fun with it. Right? If you’re going to take the initiative and you’re going to engage in some sort of stunt protests, have fun with it, Keep it legal.

 

Joel Davis: Yes, of course.

 

Blair Cottrell: You can voice your protest to it legally, but have fun with it! Make it funny. Have fun like politics, there’s no reason why you can’t have fun with it. It doesn’t have to be so serious all the time! And that’s one of the great things about the Australian spirit. I think that’s what you’re referring to, right?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. And that’s what I mean. What we do is fun. Like no one else is really having fun except us. Like we’re the only ones having fun in Australian politics. We’re the ones suffering the most. But actually that’s the price you pay for having too much fun, I guess. But I love it! Like we’re having so much fun. We’re having too much fun. If anything. We probably need to get more serious.

 

But yeah, everyone else in politics is a fucking gay nerd faggot bitch and they all suck! So I think it’s very important.

 

But yeah, I think, as in closing remarks, this is the attitude for this election. Fuck the Liberals. Liberal Labor, same shit, different smell. That’s the attitude that you got to tell your friends. That’s the attitude we got to spread amongst the people, is fuck the Uni-Party, put the Libs last. Traitors need to be punished harder than enemies! Right? Like the Greens, Labor. These are Left-wingers, like Labor you could say are traitors because Labor Party was built by White nationalists in defense of the White Australia Policy.

 

So they’re traitors as well. The Greens aren’t really traitors. They’re just fucking enemies. Like they’re just full on political enemies. Like they don’t make any pretence to have any of our values in common, they’re just straight up enemies.

 

Whereas the Liberals try to pretend to be patriotic and conservative and so on. There was this guy, I think he was running in the seat of Illawarra in New South Wales, so near Wollongong. And he was on the Liberal Party. He was pre-selected for the Liberal Party. He went on that Joel Jamal guy’s podcast the other day and he said something about how he doesn’t think women should be in combat roles in the army, which was like the policy until like five years ago or something. And that’s what like pretty much everyone thinks. Like almost no one thinks women should be in combat roles. If you do think that, you’re a fucking idiot! Like that makes no sense.

 

Blair Cottrell: If you think that it, …

 

Joel Davis: He was immediately tossed from the party for saying that. Liberal Party goes:

 

“Whoa, whoa man! None of that crazy Nazi rhetoric about how women shouldn’t be thrown in with guns into war zones.”

 

Blair Cottrell: Why wouldn’t you want your sister or woman [words unclear] with an assault rifle?

 

Joel Davis: What women are voting to be put in a uniform with a gun and sent out into a war zone? Like, women aren’t voting. Like, you’re losing the woman vote because you’re not forcing them to fight wars? Like, that doesn’t make any fucking sense! People say:

 

“Oh, Joel, you know how are you guys going to win the woman vote? By telling them that you’re against feminism?”

 

I actually think we’ll get a lot of women voters by coming to the Australian people with a policy saying:

 

“We want women to be stay at home mothers.”

 

Blair Cottrell: Look at what feminism wants to do.

 

Joel Davis: We want to reward stay at home mothers. We’re going to build a society around helping and rewarding stay at home mothers. Paying women to stay home to raise their children, valuing that. Building a society where you can raise a family on a single income. Deporting all the nons, bringing house prices down, bringing the wages up of their husbands, putting them back in the home. Why would they want to go to work? Wouldn’t you want to stay home and like, bake cookies, like, and have someone else do the work?

 

Blair Cottrell: No, no, no, no! ! That’s not strong and independent enough! You have to get a wage job and you have to pay tax and you can finally be strong and independent! Obviously Joel.

 

Joel Davis: They don’t want to be strong and independent. Women want, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. What are you talking about man! The current year, …

 

You are so far behind, man! You’re so out of time. [chuckling]

 

Joel Davis: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: If women have perspective of what feminism has actually done to them, of where it took them, like how it just destroyed feminine dignity and turned them into inferior men! If women have proper perspective on that, they would vote for anyone who was against feminism. Straight up.

 

Joel Davis: What do the feminists want to do to you women? They want to put you in camo, give you a fucking assault rifle and send you out to go and get shot or captured and raped! That’s what they want to do they want to import a bunch of fucking pajit Uber drivers to sexually assault you. They want to import a bunch of blacks and fucking Pacific Islanders to rape you in dark alleys.

 

Blair Cottrell: They want to turn you into a man!

 

[2:52:19]

 

Joel Davis: They want to make you go and work 45 hours a week! They want to make your ovaries shrivel up so that you don’t actually have any children. They don’t want you at home making cookies with hugging your babies. They don’t want that. Because they love you! I’m scum because I just want you to bake cookies. You know, I’m a fucking misogynist, apparently. I’m a piece of shit! I don’t want you to get shot in the head. I want you fucking growing flowers. You know, I’m a fucking scumbag! I hate women!

 

 

Blair Cottrell: You know, what do you want to do, girls? You want to grow flowers or do you want to roll around in the mud with assault rifles? I don’t know, man! You can do more than just grow flowers, though, obviously.

 

But you got to be careful of military propaganda out there. This is especially important for the ladies. And if you’re not a girl, but there’s a girl in your family, you should show them what I’m about to say.

 

Because military propaganda is currently aimed at women and it’s promising you things that it’s not going to deliver. It uses certain phrases and imagery suggesting that you’re going to explore the world and meet really interesting people and you’ll be able to get in really cool positions to take an Instagram selfie, like driving a submarine, or a helicopter. It’s going to be a really rare opportunity that no one else can get! You’ll get it if you join the army! Literally.

 

That’s what military recruitment propaganda in Australia is currently geared towards. You’re not going to get any of that. You’re going to get treated like shit! You’re probably going to end up in a situation where you’re making a rape allegation against another soldier and you’re going to leave humiliated! And you’re going to wish that you never joined! [chuckling] So, like, don’t get suckered in by that stuff.

 

And it really says something about the state of our culture and country where the army is trying to gear itself towards recruiting women because men have no sense of national identity that they don’t actually want to join and fight for their country in the first place. Like, maybe if we could have a country that we could be proud of again, men would join the army because they want to defend it, because they’re proud of it! And the army wouldn’t have to try to recruit women with promises of grand Instagram selfies and travel.

 

But straight up, don’t get sucked in by bullshit slogans. You’re not going to have a great time and see the world if you join the army. It’s going to be nothing but humiliation process.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, these are the Nazi policies.

 

Bring house prices down! Bring wages up! Execute paedophiles! Put criminals in jail and then deport them if they don’t belong here! Deport all these freaks that don’t share your culture or speak your language. Get rid of the traffic on the roads because you’re not going to have a bunch of Indians and Chinese filling them up with their space. Nationalise the banking system and forgive your mortgage. Put your wife back in the home, pay you to have children.

 

Like, man, like what horrible policies! Like man, why would you want to vote for that? Wouldn’t you rather vote for the fucking scumbags that rule over you, that are impoverishing you and stealing your country from you and making you work harder and harder to get less and less far in life? Like, wouldn’t you much rather that? Then you wouldn’t be a racist!

 

Blair Cottrell: I’m sorry, I’d rather live in gay dildo land! Sorry, I can’t accept those policies. [chuckling] Oh man!

 

Joel Davis: Our policies are going to be so much better than anything else on offer. Like, it’s crazy! And these cunts, aren’t even going to be able to, they don’t have an argument beyond calling us fucking slurs! Like, they don’t really have an argument. They’re going to start by calling us slurs. Then they’re going to try and call us hypocrites and then they’re going to try and call us idealistic. Like irrational and idealistic. When they get to that point, that’s how you know we’re going to win! Because then they already conceded the argument.

 

But anyway, that’ll be the end of the stream. Now, I know we’re supposed to end it before we start yapping even more, but you’ve got three hours of the stream tonight.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s a good thing about streaming, man! You can kind of just go as long as you want and do whatever you want.

 

Joel Davis: We had three and a half hour streams on here before. Whenever we had Jacob on, we went on for ages.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, those are my favourite ones.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, I can’t have Jacob on either because of these stupid bail conditions. Fucking bullshit!

 

Blair Cottrell: I might have to give Jacob a run in the next week or two. I’ll send him a message to see what he wants to do. But thanks for joining us, guys. It’s been a good one. I kind of liked the way it was set up too, but we’ll see how we want to do things moving forward. I hope everyone enjoys their Friday evening, afternoon or morning, if you’re from somewhere else in the world. We’re ahead of you down here in Australia, if you didn’t know that. We’re ahead of everyone! And I know it’s hard to believe for Americans who believe they’re at the centre of the world and America comes first, right?

 

I’ve said this before on stream. It’s funny because every time I’ve streamed with Americans or like, done something with someone from America, they find out that Australia is like, ahead of America in time and they can’t believe it. They’re like, what? Australia is ahead of us in time! What the fuck, man? How did this happen? [chuckling]

 

But, yeah, I’ve enjoyed tonight and I suppose I’ll see you guys next week. Thanks, Joel, for jumping on. And a big thanks to Tom as well.

 

[2:57:50]

 

 

[END]

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 4/14/2025 = 26)

jvlake
20 minutes ago
“Nemo iudex in causa sua” –A person should not have decision-making power in a dispute where they have a personal interest or stake.
0 likes
Report

palacepony
Supporter
2 hours ago
7 did not want to show the Nth Tce ‘White man , fight back’ chant. It has nothing to do with ‘Waltzing Matilda’. Am I correct?
0 likes
Report

piscator57
6 hours ago
The Nuremberg Trial set the precedent in refusing the NSDAP a political status and instead gave it the status of an organized crime gang….
0 likes
Report

Blurpus
16 hours ago
Which libertarian pollie made that threat? That’s just deranged.
1 like
Report

Neqis
1 day ago
Am I the only one who likes listening to these while working out? Such a high T energy from these podcasts lol
4 likes
Report

freedomfighter356
1 day ago
love the stuff but u didn’t have to disrespect the ethiopian guy who gave u money
0 likes
Report

palacepony
Supporter
1 day ago
Really good to see both Tom & Joel bookending the stream. SA Premier Malinauskas- (golden boy India jet-set simp/shill) and his illegitimate crow-eater ‘law’ system.
4 likes
Report

bigbuttwhole
1 day ago
Lol, Blair calling his shot, “I want to come 3rd”, like he is the man to beat. Start by not twisting your ankle on the way in mate
1 like
Report

katana17
1 day ago
[Joel Davis – So Much Has Happened, But We’re Only Just Getting Started – Apr 11, 2025 – Transcript] https://katana17.com/2025/04/12/joel-davis-so-much-has-happened-but-were-only-just-getting-started-apr-11-2025-transcript/ [In this livestream video episode Aussie nationalist activists Tom Sewell and Blair Cottrell have a discussion, followed by a separate Blair Cottrell and Joel Davis discussion. The two separate discussion are a result of severe and unreasonable bail conditions imposed on Tom and Joel as a result of police and court harrassment. The following points were made: At the start, Blair and Tom discuss a protest from 10 years ago that marked the beginning of their political activism. Tom reflects on how police treatment of their protests has changed over the years, becoming more hostile. They discuss recent legal troubles stemming from an Australia Day [Jan 26, 2025] protest in Adelaide. Tom explains charges of “loitering” and displaying “Nazi symbols” against them. Describes bail conditions restricting association between group members as “draconian”. Tom argues the charges and restrictions violate constitutional rights to political communication. Discusses plans to form a political party called “White Australia”. “We are building a supporter class for White Australia” – Tom. Explains process of registering supporters before officially forming party. Tom advises supporters to register as “silent voters” for privacy. Discusses legal battles and plans to take cases to High Court. “We are the vanguard of political freedom in this country” – Tom. [Tom leaves the discussion (01:19:05)] Cont’d, …
3 likes

Delete
‹ Hide 1 reply
katana17
1 day ago
Joel joins with Blair and recaps his recent court appearance and bail conditions. Argues charges and restrictions are unconstitutional. “We represent the White nationalism of our founders” – Joel. Discusses history of White Australia Policy. Explains how National Socialism differs from original Australian nationalism. “National Socialism is okay, we need to go a step further” – Joel. Discusses upcoming Australian election. Advises putting major parties last when voting. Endorses Gerard Rennick and Craig Kelly as Senate candidates. Criticises One Nation party as ineffective. “The UNI Party, Liberal-Labour, same smell, more curry”-Joel Discusses Clive Palmer’s “Trumpet of Patriots” party. Advises voting for more serious minor parties with good immigration policies. Criticises current state of Australian politics and politicians. “Politics is gay. Like what you were just describing, like every candidate is gay.” – Joel. Argues Australia needs more radical politics. Discusses potential for their party to change political discourse. Responds to Superchat questions. Discusses recent public recognition from supporters. Explains origin of term “kangaroo court”. Criticises current state of rational discourse in society. “We live in basically a hysterical society” – Joel. Discusses plans to “troll” the upcoming election. Advises having fun with political activism. Criticises feminism and argues for traditional gender roles. Warns women against military recruitment propaganda. Outlines nationalist policy proposals. And more, … – KATANA] [TRANSCRIPT – Words: 30998 – Duration: 2:57:50 mins] … ———– Cont’d here (includes 10 comments): https://katana17.com/2025/04/12/joel-davis-so-much-has-happened-but-were-only-just-getting-started-apr-11-2025-transcript/ #BanThe ADL; Stop immigration. Eject the invaders. Hang the traitors.
1 like

Delete
JFurM
Verified
1 day ago
As a woman (wife and mother) listening to this… Joel and Blair were spot on at the end when Blair brought up what the experience will most likely be for a woman that joins the armed forces. I served in the US Air Force and that was exactly my experience. It didn’t matter how professional, hard working or kind I was I was treated terribly and the whole thing was a giant mess. After I served my 4 years AD, I realized what a mistake it is for women to be in combat, alongside men, and to be clear I believe it’s messed up for both the men and the women in that situation. That experience started me on my journey to disconnect from the feminist agenda and begin to reclaim my femininity. We as women have been so lied to by our modern western culture, it will take generations to erase the deception we’ve believed and to rebuild our families to be free from the sinister agendas at work against both the masculine and the feminine. Thankful there are men in the world who aren’t afraid to operate in true masculinity, we need more of it! Thank you Joel, Blair and Tom for what you’re doing, I pray for all you Aussies often! Love from the US
10 likes
Report

‹ Hide 1 reply
GhostDogMan
Supporter++
1 day ago
Beautifully said! Thank you for speaking up for young men and women to hear.
0 likes
Report

Ragnarok92
1 day ago
Very intelligent strategy to get rid of the center parties. Good luck lads.
4 likes
Report

WHITESUNITEWORLDWIDE
2 days ago
TEAM WHITE UNITE 0/
5 likes
Report

Nationlessnationalist
2 days ago
Is there anything gayer than an anti racist?
4 likes
Report

RedOak83
2 days ago
Good afternoon from the AngloCeltic diaspora abroad
3 likes
Report

mharrison52
2 days ago
communistic activist judges need desperately the Luigi treatment.. in minecraft of course
2 likes
Report

WinstonWolf88
2 days ago
Is Sam Elliott now doing Rumble ad reads?
0 likes
Report

fastnail
2 days ago
The Davis named “magistrate” is an activist not a judge. Fire it.
2 likes
Report

ThexHopefulXDoomed
2 days ago
Google told me the Australian constitution said we have freedom of political expression. I guess it was wrong.
4 likes
Report

‹ Hide 1 reply
Ragnarok92
1 day ago
No it’s true! You have total and complete right to any political expression that you would like to do! As long as it doesn’t: – Talk about immigration – Talk about race – Talk about crime – Talk about birthrates – Talk about the % of Israelis in government – Try to put healthier food in stores & schools – Try to improve the quality of education – Try to gain power in any political fashion while talking about any of the aforementioned topics But besides that, you have total freedom!
4 likes
Report

eclipseNF
2 days ago
rip Australia and the entire Western world
7 likes
Report

‹ Hide 1 reply
GhostDogMan
Supporter++
1 day ago
No! Who in the fook are you?
3 likes
Report

ThigASteach
Supporter
2 days ago
Good morning from Nova Scotia (new Scotland) Canada. Appreciate you folks. As you are aware the same tyrannical tactics are being used on actual Canadians here. The browns get preferential treatment across the board. WASP’s must rise up en mass. Thank you for the education you are providing same. #PeaceAndRespect #GodBless
17 likes
Report

bobbytimms
2 days ago
hi all! o/
10 likes

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

Odysee Comments

As of Mon, Apr 21, 2025.

121 comments

HyperChat min: 100

@bollockscunt
3 days ago
This dressing in all black/military attire is not a good look and wont appeal to the mainstream. It will just alienate you. NRM in Sweden have been doing that for 30 years and have amassed about 10 followers. If you’d have dressed in Aussie green and gold and walked through the streets singing “waltzing matilda” you’d have gained way more followers. You have to understand that the average ‘normie’ is already scared shitless of the ‘far-right’ through leftist propaganda. I’ve experienced this fear myself before I became political… and that’s coming from someone who’s never been a lefty. It’s a very sensitive matter and the optics need to be taken seriously by someone who knows what they’re doing, like a marketing and branding director, not just “I think black looks cool and we looked cool and I think my sunglasses are cool” – how is that going to appeal to younger females (who have a huge influence over social media trends) or little old ladies or the average normie bloke who doesn’t want any trouble? Just think about what you’re doing. Try to be sophisticated and nuanced in your approach. I’ve been in the design and branding industry for 20 years, I do know stuff. And I don’t say that just to be critical or negative. You are probably 3 of the greatest minds in Australia – you all have a brilliant natural intellect and talent for public speaking, just don’t let that go to waste by creating even more of a barrier between you and the people.
More

2
1
Hide replies
Rebellious Goy
1 day ago
You think any of what you wrote is new to these guys?

@bollockscunt
3 days ago(edited)
32:12
“a prominent Neo Narrrrci boss” – this is the level of intelligence we’re dealing with. Very difficult to argue a case against the dumbed down majority.

Wesselmania
4 days ago
In America we have livestreamers who use Hitler and history to elevate their own online image, not as a model for putting themselves on the line IRL, and they will never, ever get off their asses again. Not blaming them for making a living…but when I hear such armchair Nazis claim vanguardsmanship and have the crust to turn their noses up at the Aussie boys, well.. I call them pieces of shit. Nobody anywhere is doing it better. If you’re feds, then fuck you, but if you’re operating from sincere motives, which I believe you are, then YOU GUYS ROCK, man! AA+++

2
0
Hide replies
MarcoEire
4 days ago
Shots at Warstrike lol you’re right though, these guys are in the trenches. Fair play to them, an inspiration to us all.

2
0
Mr
4 days ago
Keep givin’ ’em hell, lads….. You guys are inspiring.

6
0

@katana17
5 days ago
[Joel Davis – So Much Has Happened, But We’re Only Just Getting Started – Apr 11, 2025 – Transcript]

Joel Davis – So Much Has Happened, But We’re Only Just Getting Started – Apr 11, 2025 – Transcript

[In this livestream video episode Aussie nationalist activists Tom Sewell and Blair Cottrell have a discussion, followed by a separate Blair Cottrell and Joel Davis discussion. The two separate discussion are a result of severe and unreasonable bail conditions imposed on Tom and Joel as a result of police and court harrassment. The following points were made:
At the start, Blair and Tom discuss a protest from 10 years ago that marked the beginning of their political activism.
Tom reflects on how police treatment of their protests has changed over the years, becoming more hostile.
They discuss recent legal troubles stemming from an Australia Day [Jan 26, 2025] protest in Adelaide.
Tom explains charges of “loitering” and displaying “Nazi symbols” against them.
Describes bail conditions restricting association between group members as “draconian”.
Tom argues the charges and restrictions violate constitutional rights to political communication.
Discusses plans to form a political party called “White Australia”.
“We are building a supporter class for White Australia” – Tom.
Explains process of registering supporters before officially forming party.
Tom advises supporters to register as “silent voters” for privacy.
Discusses legal battles and plans to take cases to High Court.
“We are the vanguard of political freedom in this country” – Tom.
[Tom leaves the discussion (01:19:05)]
Joel joins with Blair and recaps his recent court appearance and bail conditions.
Argues charges and restrictions are unconstitutional.
“We represent the White nationalism of our founders” – Joel.
Discusses history of White Australia Policy.
Explains how National Socialism differs from original Australian nationalism.
Cont’d, ….
More

Hide replies

@katana17
5 days ago
“National Socialism is okay, we need to go a step further” – Joel.
Discusses upcoming Australian election.
Advises putting major parties last when voting.
Endorses Gerard Rennick and Craig Kelly as Senate candidates.
Criticises One Nation party as ineffective.
“The UNI Party, Liberal-Labour, same smell, more curry”-Joel
Discusses Clive Palmer’s “Trumpet of Patriots” party.
Advises voting for more serious minor parties with good immigration policies.
Criticises current state of Australian politics and politicians.
“Politics is gay. Like what you were just describing, like every candidate is gay.” – Joel.
Argues Australia needs more radical politics.
Discusses potential for their party to change political discourse.
Responds to Superchat questions.
Discusses recent public recognition from supporters.
Explains origin of term “kangaroo court”.
Criticises current state of rational discourse in society.
“We live in basically a hysterical society” – Joel.
Discusses plans to “troll” the upcoming election.
Advises having fun with political activism.
Criticises feminism and argues for traditional gender roles.
Warns women against military recruitment propaganda.
Outlines nationalist policy proposals.
And more, …
– KATANA]
[TRANSCRIPT – Words: 30998 – Duration: 2:57:50 mins]
More

King Tut
5 days ago
“anti-racist protesters” aka mind-controlled Jew golem

2
1

@bollockscunt
5 days ago
That initial video shows how you can be wrong though, as it was an anti-Islam protest, a copy of the Tommy Robinson narrative, which no one gives a shit about 10 years later.

2
0
Hide replies
Rebellious Goy
1 day ago
How is protesting Muslim invasion “wrong”?

@JupiterFive
9 days ago
Trump will just change the time so we’re ahead.

Heartland
9 days ago
This interloper has been so ‘lovebombed’ by his Bri-tish slavers, that he actually thinks he is English! (Apologies for the PJW link and his wanky advert in the middle of the video – skip).

danzimmons
9 days ago
signing up for the military make’s you an instant guinea pig for experimental big harma drugs

Friendly Neighborhood Fascist
9 days ago
you read the niggers superchats but not mine, sad

danzimmons
9 days ago
Thx

@sparkofspirit
9 days ago
thanks guys

Eh
9 days ago
Australian criminals!

Eh
9 days ago
Thursday works for those reasons still today.

Eh
9 days ago
good work u lot from England

Friendly Neighborhood Fascist
9 days ago

@warren-g
wasn’t sure if you were one of those Amia/Bunny simps, cheers

Eh
9 days ago
Passover starts tomorrow, so the Jews will be looking for the blood of White children for their Satanic rituals.

Eh
9 days ago
hello all!

warren-g
9 days ago

@FriendlyFash
im just teasing you

Friendly Neighborhood Fascist
9 days ago

@warren-g
fuck yourself, did it on entropy

warren-g
9 days ago

@FriendlyFash
well, thats because youre a loser and no one likes you

Friendly Neighborhood Fascist
9 days ago
weird, my superchat was declined

Heartland
9 days ago
The enemy is within, guys.

Heartland
9 days ago
The “Bri-tish” regime was telling English folk from 1945 that we “needed” immigration after WW2 whilst shipping over 1 million English folk out to Australia from 1945 to 1973. Ask yourselves why did the “Bri-tish” (Bry-tish) regime doing this?

Heartland
9 days ago
Over 1 million English men and women were “persuaded” by the “Bri-tish” UK regime to expatriate to Australia under the “Ten Pound Pom Scheme” from 1945 to 1973. However, at the same time, the “Bri-tish” were bringing in Indians, Pakistanis and Africans from their “Commonwealth” to the UK.

Heartland
9 days ago
The “Bry-tish” empire was the first ever attempt to build a globalist regime. It’s a corporate construct.

Heartland
9 days ago
Sorry, I should add – the “Bri-tish” (Bry-tish) regime is a corporate construct, a globalist parasitical regime. The regime does not care whether or not it’s slaves are English (industrial “revolution”) or mohammets, or pajeets, or ngubu’s. They only care that the regime perpetuates itself. The

Heartland
9 days ago
England was the first colony of the “Bri-tish” regime. English people need to finally understand that the “Bri-tish” regime is a corporate construct, hence why pajeets and ngubu’s can also become “Bri-tish”. It’s a parasitical regime.

@glider
9 days ago

@heartland
that’s brutal, what a betrayal

Heartland
9 days ago
My grandfather fought in WW2 (England) to protect his country, only to watch mosques being built at the end of his street in the late 60s. A total betrayal by the ‘Bri-tish” regime.

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League of Australia (RSSILA)

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
*did n’t

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
Billy did want to send cash back to Crown..held it back, paid the bridge builders instead

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
that water you are drinking Blair is owned by Juicers

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
Phil got a $500 fine – went the crazy and got away with a sloppy kiss

danzimmons
9 days ago
entropy ?’

@david_smith
9 days ago
Try Rumble or something

@david_smith
9 days ago
Doesn’t work on Odysee anymore.

FiringSquad
9 days ago
how tf do send superchats

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
consorting

danzimmons
9 days ago
those shabbat goyeam zogbots will be kvetching about how Sewell & Davis were on the same stream lol

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
Eagles are …wtf?

danzimmons
9 days ago
Hail Sewell

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
accelerate

@david_smith
9 days ago
When voting for the senate you don’t have to give Greens or major parties any preferences.

@david_smith
9 days ago
Read the how to vote thing.

@david_smith
9 days ago
You don’t have to preference them in the senate.

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
fuck the Greens

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
check preferences

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
Court – April 15th – Ballarat

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
April 20th

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
“only your name and the name of your division will appear on the electoral rolls”

danzimmons
9 days ago
to any anti White zogbot watching, especially you White anti White blmtifa type fagget’s’ we will win eventually & we will remember you nonces

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
https://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/Special_Category/silent-electors.htm

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
Silent Electors

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
May 2015

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
Rommel – “if I need to take Hell”

danzimmons
9 days ago
race first! & we’ll rule the world again

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
200 years oppressing Abos is nothing…try 1000 years of Roman oppression

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
Rennick is good value

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
Section 44(i) of the Constitution

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
exclusion –
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice7/HTML/Chapter5/Qualifications_and_disqualifications

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
well seasoned

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
Pauline was jailed…

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
no doubt

@Balltanner
9 days ago
share your steroid stack blair

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
this is the pdf for Silent Elector –
https://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/pdf/forms/silent/ER022ESw_VIC.pdf

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
intent to intent infinity

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
Dance Monkey saga

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
100 year war

danzimmons
9 days ago
if the jew gets their way we’ll be drone striking each other like the Ukro’s & Russian’s are rn

@haraldr1984
9 days ago
Germany is to the same degree “Celtic” as the British.

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
Boers

danzimmons
9 days ago
Gutes Zeug! fuck’em im speaking German

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
remove the ability to fact check.

danzimmons
9 days ago
we fought the wrong enemy ~ George S. Patton

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
the Judeo – Christian myth psychosis – the ability to justify anything regardless of negative outcomes

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
cocktail parties – the cash was needed for PSO’s

danzimmons
9 days ago
verdammt ja

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
small incremental removal of values

danzimmons
9 days ago
full spectrum dominance

danzimmons
9 days ago
exactly

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
Managed Decline – its a multi prong attack from all sides

Hess’ Channel
9 days ago
Achtung

danzimmons
9 days ago
insane level’s of anti White attempts to gaslight

danzimmons
9 days ago
you don’t haaate them enough

danzimmons
9 days ago
globohomo warming tax on air

danzimmons
9 days ago
weaponized everything! exactly

danzimmons
9 days ago
they own the court’s, literally

danzimmons
9 days ago
yep

warren-g
9 days ago
is that the one who was giving public speeches? a college age girl?

danzimmons
9 days ago
the pretty Spanish girl who just got a year incarceration

warren-g
9 days ago
i pity the people in the english speaking world outside the states…england, australia are so messed up

danzimmons
9 days ago
they wouldn’t dare harras non’s, unless they mention Israeli murdering psychopaths

danzimmons
9 days ago
guilty of being Pro White.

danzimmons
9 days ago
wonder who the biggest fury cucks are, fbi nsa or asio probably even

danzimmons
9 days ago
hi asio fagget cucks lol

warren-g
9 days ago
the joel show without the joel

danzimmons
9 days ago
was looking for Joel’s stream earlier

danzimmons
9 days ago
& much worse

@TaarasTopGuy
9 days ago
What a chad

danzimmons
9 days ago
remember what the French did using black Orcs to deracinate German’s

danzimmons
9 days ago
the bastids want non’s to rule any Whites that dare speak up

danzimmons
9 days ago
she triggers anti Hitler cucks

warren-g
9 days ago
she’s not a facist? theres alot of people in spain who still seem to like franco…the spanish government closed down the franco memorial and fascist heroes memorial or somemthing like tht

danzimmons
9 days ago
can’t remember her name Doh!

danzimmons
9 days ago
maybe, i just heard on WarStrike

warren-g
9 days ago
just got? i thought that happened a year ago or more

danzimmons
9 days ago
she’s a proud NS

warren-g
9 days ago
o/

danzimmons
9 days ago
warren °/

warren-g
9 days ago
youre gonna burn in hell buddy

danzimmons
9 days ago
damnit, im late again

WP Combat
9 days ago
Hail Thomas & Blair o/

@Balltanner
9 days ago
hf gl and tnd

warren-g
9 days ago
hhffhgh

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

See Also

top

 

 

 

 

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

An Open Letter to New Jersey’s Governor

Historians or Hoaxers?

House of Orwell

Misha: Surviving with Wolves or …

Bradley Smith’s Smith Report # 1

The Liberation of the Camps: Facts vs. Lies

The Plum Cake

 

 

 

Auschwitz: Myths and Facts

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

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

The Holocaust Lie — Made in America

Probing the Holocaust: The Horror Explained — TRANSCRIPT

Jim Rizoli Interviews Prof Robert Faurisson, Oct 2015 — TRANSCRIPT

Holocaust Eyewitnesses: Is the Testimony Reliable?

Alain Soral – My Homage to Robert Faurisson, Oct 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

Inside Auschwitz – You’ve never seen THIS before! — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

Amazion Bans 100s of Holocaust Revisionist Books!

AUSCHWITZ – A Personal Account by Thies Christophersen

Jim Rizoli Interviews Bradley Smith — TRANSCRIPT

London Forum – Alfred Schaefer – Psychological Warfare – TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report Interviews Eric Hunt — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio – Germar Rudolf – Persecution of Revisionists & Demographic Disaster – Part 1— TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio: Nicholas Kollerstrom — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice TV – Ingrid Carlqvist – Scandal in Sweden When Ingrid Questions the Unquestionable — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report with Carolyn Yeager on Johnson vs Anglin debate — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

 

 

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

Monika Schaefer: Hey, everybody. Greetings. You are listening to The Flipside with Monika. I am your host, Monika Schaefer and this is on the Republic Broadcasting Network at Republicbroadcasting.org. It is the 21st day of December in the year 2024. It is the solstice today. So that’s the shortest day in the northern lands and the longest day in the southern lands. And after this, the sun comes back, or if you’re in the southern hemisphere, I guess the days will get shorter for you!

 

Welcome. It is episode 24 of The Flipside with Monika. I have a few announcements and I guess housekeeping items to take care of and things to tell you about before I bring my guest on. My guest today, I’m very excited about this. I’ve been wanting this to happen for a long time. His name is Anthony Hall. He is a professor. Well, he’s a retired professor now at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta. I know him well. And we are going to present you with an interesting story.

 

But first I would just like to say that I’m going to take a little bit of a different approach to asking you to support the network.

 

So this is always a very uncomfortable part of my task because I feel like I’m asking for money, but I have to remind myself I’m not asking for money for myself. The hosts do not get money out of this. We do this because we know what is at stake and it is just critically important that we get to talk about the truth! I’ll just ask you to mute your mic, Tony, until you come on! No problem. Just some interference there.

 

So, yeah, so the reason, I’m just saying it always makes me a little uncomfortable because I don’t like to ask for money. I don’t want to guilt trip anybody. And again, it’s not for me personally. It is the network. It is a listener supported network.

 

And what I’m going to do is I’m just going to tell you the facts about it and then it’s up to you, [chuckling] dear listener.

 

So it is a network that is 90% listener supported and about 10% from the sponsors. So those would be the advertisers. And they have an operating budget. There’s the commercial internet, there’s telephone services. They have multiple lines. There are the satellite connections, there’s the electric bill, there’s rent. There’s equipment repair and replacement. And I can tell you that the staff do not earn much money. And there is free unlimited archives on the Republic Broadcasting Network and in fact, it obviously is a very, very important host, important messages, important things that are being done with this network because there are on average a quarter of a million downloads per month. Now there is unlimited free downloading on RepublicBroadcasting.org you can go there and download to your heart’s content and share these programs. So that happens a quarter of a million times per month. So that’s pretty big, I would say.

 

So anyway, that’s my little spiel and then it’s up to you. Just letting you know it is listener supported. And they are clean out of cash at the moment. So it is kind of a critical time.

 

Here are the numbers if you’d like to Support the network, 1-800-724-2719 or 512-246-9549 or just go to the website at Republicbroadcasting.org and there is a donate button there. You can also do it the old fashioned way by mail.

 

And by the way, speaking of mail, the postal strike is over in Canada. They were on strike for a whole month, which I think was part of their agenda to make us all go digital and online with banking and all our other needs.

 

But anyway, I am getting sidetracked. The address if you’d like to mail either cash or check, RBN2251 Double Creek Drive, Suite 302, Round Rock, Texas. And the zip code is 78664 in the USA. So that’s that.

 

All right, I’m going to set the stage, so to speak, for before I bring Tony in to tell his story and that we’ll have a little conversation about some of the things that have happened to him. I’m more or less entitling this, “How They Keep the Professors in Line”. As I told you, he’s a university Professor and they have a lot of pressure on them to basically stick with the prescribed narratives on any number of topics. And by now, and I’m sure that most of the listeners listening to this program are aware that we are being lied to on a grand scale.

 

Okay, so if a Professor steps out of line, what happens to him? And Tony will tell us about that in a few minutes.

 

But just a bit of history here. I first met Tony in 2015, so about nine years ago, and he was traveling with Kevin Barrett on a speaking tour after Kevin Barrett had published the book We Are Not Charlie Hebdo. And there were multiple authors to that project.

 

And one of the authors was my friend Tony Hall. And they came, I hosted them in Jasper, Alberta where I lived at the time. And they spoke to do with the Charlie Hebdo incident, you may remember that.

 

And then in 2016 we traveled together to Germany and that was the year that I made my life changing video, Sorry Mom, I Was Wrong About the Holocaust. We also contributed bits like video pieces which then CODOH, which is the Committee on Open Debate on the Holocaust, they edited together a four minute video in which we answered the question “Why Do You Support Open Debate on the Holocaust?” And Germar Rudolf was at that time, he was the one who was heading up the CODOH website, CODOH.com. He’s no longer heading that up now.

 

And by the way, he has been arrested! He is currently in jail and awaits transfer to another jail. And this is all to do with something completely trivial and unrelated to what they really are after him for. And he has done a huge amount of work on Holocaust Revisionism as they call it. I would call it “Correctionism”.

 

But anyway he has published many books, the Holocaust Handbook series and more recently the Holocaust Encyclopedia which is an incredible volume.

 

And so we will talk more about that with Tony because somehow this all ties together. And actually a little bit more history here. Before I met Tony there was this Tehran conference and I’m sure you’ll tell us more about that, Tony, but in 2014, the New Horizons Conference. But I’m just still setting the stage here to give people a bit of background.

 

After that conference there were some smear articles against you and I saw the clip there which you’ve included in your epic article, we’ll talk about that. But this newspaper article in which Ezra Levent was also pictured, but we’re not sure who authored these words. But they talked about you:

 

“Still a madman and poster boy for the end of tenure.”

 

And that was in 2014. And in 2016 after our trip to Germany together, something happened to you, Tony Hall, that indeed that statement two years earlier was a little bit prophetic.

 

And tenure for those who don’t know what that means, it basically gives Professors who have paid their dues and put in a lot of work and time and are full Professors, it gives them academic freedom or that is the theory.

 

Okay, and now one more thing, I’ll just say to set this up, I have a certain relative and his words ring in my ears when I was trying to inform him about the lies. And this was only about 9/11 at the time. I don’t think I’d yet gone down the road of Holocaust, discovering the lies about that. And his words ring in my ears as I was telling him about Bolshevism and how they murdered millions and millions and millions of people and that that was a jewish operation and all those things.

 

And then this relative says to me:

 

“You mean to tell me that all the university Professors were wrong?”

 

And I know I’ve shared that with you, Tony. You said yes, I’ve said it many times. But that sets the stage for today. So welcome, Tony, to the show, first of all, greetings. And why don’t you tell us what happened to you in 2016? Over to you.

 

Pro Tony Hall: Well, thanks, Monika, and congratulations on having a regular show!

 

Monika Schaefer: Thank you.

 

Pro Tony Hall: You deserve it. And your story is very important. You know, just before I get into my own story, this whole phenomena of what happened in World War II, resulting in this production of this narrative which became known as “The Holocaust”. You know that in 1948, there was something called the Genocide Convention at the UN. So “genocide” entered the language, and many genocides have taken place over history. But when does a genocide become a holocaust? And when does “a Holocaust” become “The Holocaust”? Are we seeing a holocaust in Gaza? And how do you get this title of “The Holocaust”?

 

So The Holocaust becomes a narrative with a huge impact. You know, in a way, the winning side of World War II use their political currency to create the UN, to create Israel, to create the Genocide Convention. And this Holocaust story becomes kind of the core narrative of our times. It sort of defines right and wrong, good and bad, and it certainly becomes the political pillar for the state of Israel. And so as we were socialized to sort of feel very guilty and feel that this act of atonement through the creation of Israel was a good thing and a required thing.

 

But then, lo and behold, the people who received this first supposedly primal, defining genocide became deliverers of genocide since 2023. And now they don’t want to face the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice. They want to say:

 

“No, no, this is not a genocide. It is not a “Holocaust”.

 

I would say that the suffering we’re seeing imposed on the people of Gaza and it’s expanding from there, it’s beyond anything, even in the most extreme versions of what happened in the Holocaust, what happened at, say, Auschwitz. Meeting a death, let’s say we assume this controversial thesis that people died in gas chambers in Auschwitz. Dying in a gas chamber is nothing like the harshness, the ruthlessness, the cruelty imposed on people in Gaza who are being starved, no water, carpet bombed, just faced with an incredible array of various forms of genocide.

 

So I want to acknowledge the people who stand their ground. And you sort of led me down this pathway to see these things, going to Germany and meeting your brother. I mean, it was a great pleasure and honor for me to be invited by you and I took it, you know, it was a personal matter in a way, meeting Alfred [Monika’s older brother]. I’m sure the audience knows who Alfred is.

 

And then you made Sorry Mom, I was Wrong About the Holocaust, a story that you told me very many times about your mother. And we made together this other video called “Why do you believe in open debate on the holocaust?” Which led me to become a kind of marked man. When I was saying it at the time, it seemed to me it was a no-brainer, this idea that of course we should have open debate on everything.

 

And as a university Professor Guarding the principles of academic freedom as I thought, it was a no-brainer to look in the camera and say that and justify that. And I was astonished by my colleagues in the university who didn’t take that as a given! We can’t allow the precedent to be set that there’s things we can’t talk about and issues we must avoid.

 

So very quickly after we returned to Jasper, you were immediately spurned and blocked from lots of things. The Legion, which was the major musical venue, you couldn’t play there, and then you couldn’t be on the environmental committee, and then you couldn’t be in the fiddle teaching business. And you know, it was just amazing to see all these institutional things shutting you down. And then most everybody, I saw, most every one of your friends turned against you and said:

 

“Well, now you’re a holocaust denier and you really seem to actually support the National Socialists. And I just can’t be friends with such a person.’

 

And I have to say that watching you at the time, you handled it well and strongly. But there were times I saw such sadness in you and it was something to behold. I wrote letters to explain how wrong it was to judge you by your political beliefs, to say whether or not you could teach fiddle. I would say to the fiddle people who run that school:

 

“Well, now you’ve gone into the political business of deciding thought policing. So you’re not really a credible fiddle teaching agency anymore or environmental agency.”

 

All of this thought control stuff came into place and I watch and actually one of your close friends decided it must be me. It couldn’t be dear sweet Monika, who was becoming this horrific Holocaust denier. And they figured I must be leading you [chuckling] astray.