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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 4/5/2026 = )

2 Comments

leibekohne
2 days ago
https://www.noticer.news/joel-davis-released-bail-telegram-post/ Joel is free after 133 days, this zog cowardly act must never be repeated, zog should pay huge compensation, and be replaced. Viva; White international unity p….

GreenGladeAryan
4 days ago
Bloody legend this bloke
0
1

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Thomas Sewell: So it is a fact that White people are being replaced in Australia and around the Western world. This is not a fact that’s disputed, although it may be referred to as a “conspiracy theory” by those that are actually performing this action. And the people that are responsible for it, the media, the government, the banking system, and especially the academics, who say that it’s happening and not happening simultaneously, because they’re psychopaths, these people are all very gleefully happy about the passing of a new law here in Australia that defines the opposition to White genocide as “hate” or as a “hate group”.

 

Now, obviously it’s perfectly reasonable to hate the idea of your own people being genocided, and to hate the people that are doing it. If someone hates you, it’s perfectly reasonable that you would also hate them in return. Unless, of course, you’ve got a moral structure where you believe in loving everyone, even though even those that wish harm upon you, which each their own. Some people think like that.

 

But the average person is not okay with what’s happening, and why people in Australia and around the world are rightfully upset and frustrated that their government is actively replacing them. It is a form of genocide, to bring about conditions that replace one group of people with another, whether accidentally or not.

 

And in our case it is certainly not accidental. It is a purposeful action, and they call it “diversity” and “multiculturalism”. You know, all this.

 

But it’s important that despite these laws being put in place, it’s really important that White people in Australia still continue advocating for the interests of White people. They just may have to do it differently.

 

It’s really important that we continue to raise awareness of White genocide, although we might have to do it differently. And you hear the expression:

 

“Nothing can stop an idea whose time has come.”

 

And the truth ultimately is like a sword. The truth itself can Pierce through any amount of lies! You can be fed lies your whole life. And when you come across the truth, if you’re a good person, it should immediately resonate with you.

 

So don’t lose hope, don’t be pessimistic about what’s happening. It’s not the end of the show. It simply means that the government has exposed itself as an even more tyrannical anti-White machine than it previously ever did. And this ultimately will polarise more White Australians against the government and their agenda.

 

So keep up the good work, keep mounting pressure on the system. Just do it in a way that you won’t be going to jail for 15 years! It’s important that everyone reads this legislation and doesn’t fall victim to it.

 

And lastly, I want to remind everyone that what our enemies are doing to us, they will ultimately be on the receiving end of it. So any legislation that they’re passing to try to destroy resistance to White genocide, that same legislation, or potentially even stronger legislation will be ultimately passed in the future to ensure that those that are perpetrating White genocide are punished fairly. So abide by the law at all times.

 

Have a nice day!

 

[04:20]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Jacob Hersant: There needs to be no compromise on the Hate Crime Bill the Labor Party is trying to pass! Right now they’re trying to get support from the Liberals so that they can pass it. And there are people that are already celebrating as if somehow we have won. We have not won! The Labor Party has only made a small concession. Getting rid of one aspect of the Bill while keeping the vast majority of it. And that vast majority is some of the most damaging stuff there is. It’s going to completely destroy the way that policing and the justice system works in this country.

 

They’ve gotten rid of one little aspect to try and coax the Liberal Party into passing the vast majority of the hate crime stuff. Everybody hates these laws and yet they’re trying to do this little trick where the vast majority of it will pass anyway! The Labor Party are splitting the Bill so that the Greens will pass the gun aspects of it and they’re taking away just a little bit of it, of the hate crimes aspect of it so that the Liberal Party will pass it.

 

Now Advance have brought out a post saying:

 

“Breaking: Albanese has dropped his hate crime censorship laws. Massive win for Aussies. PM dumps Hate Speech laws.”

 

And as you can see there, it has 192,000 views. And Advance made another post here:

 

“Thanks to the thousands of Advance supporters who contacted their local MPs over Labor’s hate crime censorship laws. This win is yours! A Labor member of the committee said many of the last minute submissions appeared to be the result of lobbying by One Nation and conservative group Advance.”

 

So this is not true. The Hate Crime Bill has not been destroyed! It is still, 90% of it is still there. And the Labor Party is making a gambit so to try and coax the Liberal Party into supporting it and passing the vast majority of it. If we allow them to do this, we deserve to have our freedoms taken away! If we are going to be fooled like this, we deserve to live as slaves in this country.

 

And here you have idiots like Monica Smit:

 

“We won again. The government showed its hand and we learn that we are ready for whatever they throw at us.”

 

We have not won! That is what needs to get through people’s heads. We have not won! The Bill is going to be voted on Tuesday, and the Liberal Party hasn’t made it clear whether or not they’re going to vote for it or they’re going to vote against it.

 

So the Liberal Party needs to be pressured into not supporting these laws because they are draconian. And as unfortunate that the Greens and the Labor Party are going to pass through the gun laws. I get that people are upset about that, but we need to lament the guns later and focus on what is actually in the air. The Right-wing aren’t gonna have any influence over the Greens voting through these gun things, so it’s over.

 

But we do have influence over the Liberal Party and we need to pressure them to not pass the hate crimes aspect of this. The Hate Crime Bills is the most dangerous because it’s going to hold 15 year jail sentences over the heads of radical political activists that did nothing more than engage in political communication.

 

So it’s going to ban organisations and it’s going to expand. It’s not going to only be the National Socialist Network. Give it time and they’ll start banning other organisations that are inconvenient to the government’s agenda. This Bill alone is going to take away all of our political freedoms!

 

And not only that, these laws are bad enough, but they’re only going to expand as you see them constantly expand over the decades. They get one thing through and then give it five years, they’ll expand it, they’ll amend it. It’s going to make politics impossible for anyone on the outside of mainstream politics, whether that be on the Left or on the Right. It’s going to make politics impossible! Because the chilling effect this is going to have is going to make everyone so scared to do anything in this country. And then you’re going to be stuck with idiots. And like the people who run Advance who celebrate too early and may end up being the key people that make this Bill get passed because they celebrated too early! The Liberal Party backflipped on its decision and passed these hate crime laws. If that happens, it’s gonna be people like Monica Smit and Advance and all of these idiots that are to blame!

 

The main message we have to get out there is there is to be no compromise on these hate crime laws! The whole Bill needs to be shredded! We’re not going to be placated by them getting rid of one little aspect.
The whole thing needs to be gotten rid of and the people who thought that they could get away with these laws need to be humiliated!

 

Do not celebrate as if we’ve already won and don’t get distracted with all of these side issues. I see people posting about who the US Ambassador is going to be and other things. The whole future of politics, Right-wing politics, is at stake right now! And people are talking about the US ambassador. They’re talking about things that can be talked about any other day. We have two days to oppose this. The vote is going to be on Tuesday. You need to be spending all of your free time influencing these people.

 

So you need to be influencing, going and telling everybody that they should not be fooled by the fact that they’ve gotten rid of only one aspect of the hate crimes bill. You need to tell them that the vast majority of it is still going through and the Liberals might vote for it. And that the Liberal Party is going to be severely punished in the next election if they go through and destroy our criminal justice system and destroy policing in this country.

 

Because policing is going to go away from policing actual criminals. It already is like this where you have political policing, which is out of control, but that is going to expand beyond anything that we have previously seen. We’re going to have two tier justice in this country like we have never seen. We have to get across the message that the whole thing needs to be opposed! We cannot just be fighting it piecemeal, one little aspect or another aspect.

 

We need to take this seriously. We have two days. You need to be spending all of your free time trying to influence the Liberal Party, particularly because it’s the Liberal Party that will work with the Labor Party to bring forth these hate crime laws that are going to destroy any freedom we had left in this country. Any politics outside of the mainstream is going to be destroyed by this bill! You know, so lock in and make sure that everyone knows that our position as the Australian people is no compromise! Shred the entire bill!

 

[6:46]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 1/19/2026 = 3)

leibekohne
1 hour ago
“Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jews), is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God.” ~ Talmud: Bammidber raba c 21 & Jalkut 772 Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity. The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists. Noel Ignatiev, Harvard Magazine, Sep-Oct 2002 We intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed, not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed. https://birthofanewearthblog.com/the-jewish-agenda-to-destroy-the-white-race/
2
0

charliebrownau
3 hours ago
Gday We wont have Free Speech till the people have removed state mandated – Hate Speech 3 bills 2026 – Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024 – Surveillance Legislation Amendment Bill 2001 – 18c of Racial Discrimination Act 1995 – Racial Discrimination Act 1975 – Sex Discrimination act – State Mandated Equality of Opportunity – Remove State Mandated Affirm Action – Remove State Mandated Duluth Model (Men automatically guilty) – Remove State Mandated Multiculturalism – Remove State Mandated Diversity – Remove State Mandated Feminism No Fault Divorce Alimony Child Support Divorce Separation I would advocate to remove GST/VAT Welfare Income Tax I would advocate to remove funding/support for G20, Nato, UN, WEF, IMF Central Banks Overseas nations ‘aid’ funding PNG, NZ, China, Middle east funding Lower min wage back to $10 per hour Remove mandated paid ‘leave’ for holiday/sick days/pregnant Since at least 1936 the current ‘Government’ is actually a legal fiction which is registered with the American system The “Australian Government” is a registered corporation as is the ‘parties’ We need to go back to sourvien governance system in Australia They ALL need to be DISQUALIFIED under Section 44 of our Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1900 UK. They are ALL sitting in treason as political parties and preferential voting is in direct contravention of our Constitution. Our Constitution came with a letters patent, meaning our constitution is indissoluble, it can’t be changed, altered or backdated unless the people are consulted via a referendum but it has been intentionally usurped since Federation that ALL past and present politician have/are sitting in treason. _________ Regards Charliebrownau * Email – charliebrownau@protonmail.com * Videos – https://www.matildatv.com/@charliebrownau * Videos – https://poast.tv/c/charliebrownau/videos * Telegram – https://t.me/s/Charliebrownau
1
0

fastnail
6 minutes ago
Remove all jews from Australia.
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

Joel Davis: Welcome to the show. Apologies, we’re slightly late, there was technical difficulties, but we’re here. It is the 4th of November 2025.

 

Another show for you guys this evening and a lot to discuss, a lot to break down, before we get into the agenda. How are you doing? I actually haven’t spoken to you properly since we last did the show because I live in Sydney now, we don’t get to hang out so much, which is sad.

 

So how have you been?

 

Blair Cottrell: Good. Busy, working hard, trying to put together content for my business in my spare time. And I don’t mind the streams because now I get to play hardcore World of Warcraft every night we stream. It’s kind of the perfect slow paced background game. And my hardcore paladin is currently level 36. This is the first time I’ve played this character since we last trained. I’m pretty happy with it too. I’m pretty proud of myself. I got to level 36 without dying once, which is I think that’s a milestone. I don’t think I’ve done that before and I’ve been playing this game since I was like 14 or something, on and off. I haven’t been playing actually since I was 14.

 

But what’s been happening, …

 

Joel Davis: Level 36 without dying. Isn’t your birthday soon?

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, it’s on Remembrance Day. November 11th.

 

Joel Davis: That’s right, yeah. Remembrance Day, that’s like a week away. Everyone who went out of their way today to like put a bet on the Melbourne Cup or something, go out of your way on Remembrance Day to remember the fallen. More Australians gave their life in the First World War than basically every other war we’ve ever fought combined. So it needs to be reflected upon. We talk about it on Anzac Day often and so on, but it needs to be reflected upon.

 

The Anzacs were fighting for a White Australia. That’s what they thought they were fighting for, at the very least, they were fighting for the British Empire. And in the First World War, whatever you think of it, which I think there’s criticisms to be levied that the First World War was you know, Judeo-Masonic attack on the old monarchies of Europe and so on, from the Australian perspective, they were fighting for the British Empire in order to try and protect a land for the White man. For us here, that’s what they were fighting for. That’s why so many of them gave their lives.

 

Blair Cottrell: So I think too, if you were alive in those times and of fighting age, you were conscripted, was there conscription? Did Australians have to fight or was it all voluntary?

 

Joel Davis: No, it was voluntary.

 

Blair Cottrell: But if you were volunteering, you wouldn’t have been privy to all the information about criticisms of the mechanics behind the war. All you would have seen was war, like military recruitment propaganda about fighting for your country.

 

And that’s why you would have gone to war. If you put yourself back in those times, it’s very naive to believe that you would have behaved differently to how your great grandfathers behaved. You would have gone to war for the same purpose, to defend your country.

 

So I think it’s a mistake to denigrate soldiers of the past, because:

 

“Oh, it was just some contrived, you know, rich person business. It was some war put together by capitalists and they’re idiots for fighting!”

 

They still believed in what they were fighting for. Even if we have information now to prove those beliefs may have been misplaced, we still have to show respect for our ancestors. Right?

 

Joel Davis: Exactly! They were. And I mean, at the end of the day, we were a part of the British Empire and they were fighting to maintain British Imperial dominance, which is if the British Empire wasn’t brought down from within through traitors, jewish subversion and so on, then that would have been a completely valid thing. But by the same token, fighting the Japanese in World War II mean, obviously we don’t agree with fighting the Germans in World War II, but fighting the Japanese in World War II was obviously necessary to defend Australia from a hostile Asian empire with designs on our territories.

 

Blair Cottrell: Were the Japanese actually planning to invade Australian territory?

 

Joel Davis: They didn’t have really well developed plans to directly invade Australia. They did bomb Australia, though, and they did invade territories we controlled, such as Papua New Guinea. You know, New Guinea we actually got after World War I because New Guinea was actually under the control of the Germans up until World War I. And at the Treaty of Versailles, we basically walked away with control of New Guinea.

 

So when the Japanese got to New Guinea, they were effectively invading one of our territories. And we fought them there and resisted them there.

 

Also, we were part of the British Empire. The Japanese took Singapore off us. They invaded other kind of British Imperial holdings around Asia. So, yeah, it was a direct battle between our empire and theirs.

 

And ultimately, if we lost the Second World War to the Japanese, maybe they wouldn’t have invaded in the Second World War, but then they would have been this massive empire that we would have been at the mercy of and who knows what would have happened in the ensuing decades as a result.

 

[05:26]

 

Blair Cottrell: If the Germans and by extension the Japanese won the Second World War, what would that have meant for Australia, where would we be?

 

Joel Davis: I think we would have been forced to make an alliance with the Germans. The thing is, if they won the Second World War, that would mean some kind of victory over Britain for the Germans. If there was a victory over Britain for the Germans, then it would be like a Nazi Australia, I guess. It probably would have been pretty good. So that would have been pretty cool! But, you know, it went the way that it did.

 

Anyway. Rather than talking about World War II again, let’s talk about more current matters, more contemporaneous matters. I want to play this clip. It was publicized by The Noticer* in recent days, but I think it needs to be analyzed and discussed over and over again! And it got attention, but I thought it should have got more attention.

 

 

[* See: Police admit targeting nationalists and say it’s ‘concerning’ they’re forming political party-https:// www.noticer.news/police-target-nsn-white-Australia-political-party /]

 

A lot of cowards in Australian politics refusing to weigh in on this because they’re afraid of being seen to be sympathizing with Nazis, which is really pathetic! And it says a lot about the state of play and the rest of the Right-wing in this country. But I’ll play this clip. The person speaking is the acting Deputy Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and it’s some Parliamentary committee [Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters] of some description. Here we go.

 

 

Female: And AFP [Australian Federal Police] can perhaps speak to this a little as well, Senator.

Nigel Ryan: (acting Deputy Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police) Yeah, thanks, Senator. I’m not aware of any specifics, but I think I can talk to some of the issues that we’re seeing and the things that we’re focusing on now, I don’t know whether you had the opportunity to hear our new commissioner, Chrissy Barrett, speak about the focus of the AFP at the moment and what we’re pivoting towards, particularly around issues affecting social cohesion and some of the groups that we’re seeing in society now that are affecting that social cohesion. Sovereign citizens are not necessarily a group, they’re usually individuals, but obviously of particular concern when you have a look at some of the instances of isolated violence more recently, particularly against police, that sovereign citizens have been partaking in.

I guess of more of a concern are some of those groups like the National Socialist Network, who we’re seeing trying to get into more of a political space. Our understanding is that the NSN is looking at whether they can form themselves as a political party, but we do see their activity more broadly. That doesn’t actually hit a threshold in terms of criminal offending, but the behaviour is concerning in terms of them pushing towards the line and a threshold that would be considered not violent behaviour, but disturbing behaviour in terms of what it means about how people feel about their safety and how they feel about the social cohesion aspect.

So to that extent, the AFP has formed new teams, the National Security Investigations teams, which are looking more towards those fringe elements that are working within society that are causing concern, but not actually meeting the threshold to have a look at where we can actively work in the preventative and disruptive space to dissuade some of those groups from some of their public behaviours.

Joel Davis: So, yeah, I mean, there’s a lot to break down there. Obviously you’ve seen the clip already, Blair.

 

I’ll say a few things. One, at the beginning he mentioned sovereign citizens. Obviously there was that recent occurrence in Victoria where Desi Freeman, the so-called sovereign citizen, I know they don’t like going by that term – that’s what the media and the police call them – where he killed two cops. Apparently the AFP is less concerned with people killing police officers than they are with us forming a political party because we might hurt people’s “feelings”. That’s quite incredible! He literally says in that spiel, that:

 

“He’s concerned about our behaviours which don’t meet the so-called criminal or violent threshold, but that we would disrupt so-called social cohesion.”

 

You know what disrupts social cohesion? Importing a bunch of niggers into my country! That’s what disrupts social cohesion! Deporting a bunch of sorry, importing a bunch of non-Whites of every different description into our country. That disrupts social cohesion. Because it means we don’t have a cohesive society because everyone is a different race. It’s pretty basic. They’re blaming us for pointing that out. It’s a total inversion of reality!

 

But yeah, now apparently it is now the police’s job to not worry about what crimes are. Not worry about people committing acts of violence, they’re less concerned about that. What they’re really concerned about is people trying to participate in liberal democracy who have opinions that differ from the status quo.

 

Blair Cottrell: Opinions that are “disturbing”. Not criminal, but disturbing. And they’re classified as such because they affect how people “feel” about social cohesion.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, exactly! So it’s just ridiculous! Obviously we have a constitution in this country that says we should have a representative democracy. Apparently the Australian people are sovereign. They get to elect their own leaders. Well, there’s an open admission there from the Australian Federal Police. They don’t actually believe in liberal democracy. They believe in this thing called “social cohesion”, which appears to be “White people being replaced and not getting upset about it”. That’s what they mean by social cohesion. Is that why people need to basically:

 

“Shut up and not complain about the fact that they are being genocided! The fact that we are being ethnocided!”

 

And if you complain about it, if you stand up against, if you try to form a political party and be political and follow the laws and don’t meet the threshold of criminality or violence, then the police are going to take it upon themselves, the Federal Police are going to take our tax dollars and then form special units that are going to disrupt that political party.

 

[12:25]

 

I mean, this is clearly unconstitutional, illegal. This is like a communist country. It’s like they’re basically admitting that they’re like the Stasi*, they’re like the NKVD*. They are political police, whose primary responsibility is to uphold the political establishment, not prosecute crimes.

 

[* Stasi: Official state security service of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) The Ministry for State Security, commonly known as the Stasi, was the state security service and secret police of East Germany from 1950 to 1990. The function of the Stasi in East Germany resembled that of the KGB in the Soviet Union, ⁠ in that it served to maintain state authority and the position of the ruling party, in this case the Socialist Unity Party of Germany. Wikipedia]

 

[* The People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs, abbreviated as NKVD, was the interior ministry and secret police of the Soviet Union from 1934 to 1946. The agency was formed to succeed the Joint State Political Directorate secret police organisation, and thus had a monopoly on intelligence and state security functions. The NKVD is known for carrying out political repression and the Great Purge under Joseph Stalin, as well as counterintelligence and other operations on the Eastern Front of World War II. Prior organisation was the dreaded CHEKA.]

 

It’s quite an incredible admission. And what cowardice from the Australian Right-wing where basically none of them said anything about this. The only person who did that I saw were the New South Wales libertarians, like John Ruddick’s people in New South Wales as ideologically consistent libertarians. Ralph Babet said something and then deleted it, five to ten minutes later. He pussied out!

 

And no one else said anything. Probably because they’re partially happy that the Federal Police are going to fuck with us because they’re afraid that we’re going to take their voters away or something, that we’re going to come in and steal their spot! But it just kind of exposes the whole system for what it is! That these people who claim to be upholding democracy and all of this garbage, they don’t actually believe any of that it’s a total lie! It’s a total farce! And why are the Nazis at the forefront of free speech, democracy? Why are we the ones trying to uphold it? I mean, it’s a total inversion of the roles [chuckling] that are supposed to be denominated. But I think it’s an incredible story!

 

What’s your analysis, Blair? Like, what kind of tactics do you expect them to use because they said “disrupt”, they didn’t say they’re going to put it, … Obviously we don’t meet your threshold of criminality. They can’t stop us from forming a political party. They’ve got no legal recourse to do.

 

So I think some of the things that they’re doing probably is creating social media accounts and using them to spread misinformation about us, turn people against us, imitate us. We’ve seen a rise in fake NSN accounts online, causing dramas, a rise in accounts that seem like that all they do all day is just make posts about the NSN and how offended they are by us. And that’s the only thing that they post about. Who has time for that? You know, people usually have jobs and families and this kind of thing. So maybe it’s feds? Maybe it’s just all feds? A lot of these accounts.

 

What also they’re going to do probably frivolous lawsuits. We’ve had plenty of those. But yeah, other than making, basically doing psyops online and engaging with frivolous lawsuits, these are kind of the more obvious things. What else do you think they’re going to do, or are doing already?

 

Blair Cottrell: I suppose this explains why specialised teams of Federal Police officers have been raiding people across the country who are in any way, shape or form supportive of National Socialist Network or White Australia, raiding them on no evidence and trying to find some reason to set them up on charges. So this has probably been happening for a few months already. At least a few months.

 

And it’s really concerning because the term “disrupt”, when people in official politics use terms like “disrupt” and “dissuade”, that basically means anything. That means anything beneath the ostensible. And the ostensible must appear as legit. They have to act like they’re working within certain frameworks on the surface, but underneath the surface, that’s the realm of “disrupt and dissuade”. That’s like the tier of counterinsurgency. That’s literally anything, man! That’s anything they can get away with!

 

So that’s like a secret political police developing strategies to fuck with a specific group because they don’t want them forming a political party, and because they’re not actually doing anything criminal. I don’t think there’s any precedent for a Federal Police officer making that statement in Australian history. I can’t actually stress the significance of this is really fucked up! This basically means what I think this means, what it exposes to me is the Australian political system, the Liberal versus Labor voting system is extremely fragile. No one likes the Liberal Party and no one likes the Labor Party. They just kind of vote one way or the other based on traditional. And there’s no effective Third Position for people to vote their way out of that sequence, that never ending sequence of Liberal-Labour. There’s One Nation but they’re in bed with Israel. There’s the Greens, but they’re just communists.

 

So I think what they do, and I’ve said this before on previous streams, I think there’s like analysts within the government that run various scenarios through AI programs in order to estimate the effectiveness of a White Australia party. Meaning they run it through like a scenario system, a computerized AI system that’s going to give them answers based on the current political climate situation, based on the current environment:

 

“How many votes would a White Australia Party get if it was formed right now?”

 

And I think the answer is staggering! I think it’s really frightening them! I think they know that a White Australia Party could be like the next One Nation but bigger and cooler, younger, more exciting, more interesting. And because there is such a large silent White Australian voter base who can vote basically anonymously, I think it’s obvious that a lot of people would vote for White Australia Party right now! Not only is it new, fresh and exciting, it has its roots in tradition. And tradition is one of the pillars of power. You’ve got force, popularity and tradition.

 

And you’ve got to ask yourself what does the government have on its side right now in regards to those three pillars? Does the government have popularity? No! Does the government have tradition? It sort of pretends to observe tradition because it knows it has to in order to maintain power structure, but it’s actually trying to destroy Australian tradition and replace it with its own version of ceremonies and rituals, largely surrounding Aboriginal culture. Right?

 

[18:55]

 

The only thing the government has on its side is force. It’s operating on a single pillar. Whereas a White Australia party would have popularity and tradition on its side. So already the government is at a disadvantage. Even though it has all the resources, the only real resource it can call upon to defend its current position is force, is violence! And BC beneath the tier of violence, such as disruption and dissuasion, right? Which is all manner of cloak and dagger activities.

 

So I think they’re really worried! And I think they know they have to nip the White Australia Party in the bud! And I think there’s nothing they won’t fucking do to achieve that.

 

So it’s very concerning. It’s really concerning that the Australian Federal Police are now being used as a bulwark, as attack dogs against a specific group of young people coming together to try to form their own political party legally. As you said, how is that democracy? That’s not fucking democracy! And it just exposes yet again that we don’t live in a fucking democracy! So I don’t really know what to expect.

 

Basically, it’s:

 

“Brace yourself, lads!”

 

That’s my feeling. And my analysis, my intuition’s been telling me for the last six months that things are going to get really ugly. Because I could see the potential for a White Australia party. I could see it a year ago and the potential is growing! It’s especially going to grow in, how should I put it? In reference to what’s going to happen in England. Things are starting to heat up in England and around the West, the rest of the world. In Europe you’re going to see similar situation and people in Australia are going to look for a way to vote themselves out of a similar fate. And if White Australia is all there is, they will vote for it! It’ll get millions of votes! It’ll explode out of the blocks, I think.

 

And I think that’s what this is all about. Yeah. So very concerning times ahead, is where I’ll wrap up my analysis.

 

Joel Davis: Concerning, but it’s also exciting! It’s very exciting because I think, as you said, if they thought that it was going to be a dud, if they thought that we weren’t capable of achieving anything, then they just let us do it. They’d be like:

 

“Let them go down this path.”

 

This is going to be a more neutral path and a safer path from their point of view. You would think, they would almost, like if they didn’t think anyone would vote for us why not let us go up there and embarrass ourselves?

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, that’s the thing, Joel. You don’t really need to be very intelligent to succeed in politics. You just need to be consistent and simplistic. I don’t mean like intellectually simplistic necessarily. I mean you just need that one simple, easy to understand message. You need to ground yourself in some manner of tradition relative to the culture that you’re trying to persuade, you’re trying to represent, and you just need to be consistent. You just need to keep pushing, keep fighting and protect your reputation as much as possible.

 

It’s not really rocket science, politics you’re basically trying to persuade simpletons to tick a box that says your name next to it. [chuckling] It’s not really a difficult process. And because the circumstances, the environment right now in Australia is perfect for a new, young, exciting party to basically steal the show, the current power structure is developing political police tactics in response to that.

 

And I think it’s going to be so something that we’ve never seen before. I think it’s going to be something that Australia, there’s no precedent for in Australia. So as I said, it’s like a brace yourself situation and prepare to support each other.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, but what I’ve also noticed is that Australian police are very incompetent, …

 

Blair Cottrell: What makes you say that specifically? Give me an example of Australian policing incompetence.

 

Joel Davis: Well, I would say the way that they handled, for example, Australia Day last year we were in Adelaide. I think all they did was create a sympathetic scenario for us that gained a lot of positive attention and they tried to engage in a legal strategy that has been ridiculously unsuccessful, and just basically de-legitimize themselves and make themselves look stupid and mishandle the whole process. They have not been effective in stopping us. The only move they were able to make against us was more recently against Sewell, putting him in jail. But you know, that was an unforced error by Sewell. Like running up the police didn’t make him do that, run up a hill in 4K and beat someone up.

 

So in terms of like their strategic designs, the sum total of the efforts over the last two years are basically added up to fuck all, in terms of actually, …

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s what it’s worth. It’s worse than fuck all! If you are in the position where you consider NSN an enemy or even a nuisance for yourself as a police officer or something. If you’re in a government position where you command police officers, you’ve made the situation worse for yourself! It would have been better for the police to do nothing than to publicly and aggressively arrest people for trying to host an Australia Day march. Like obviously that’s going to win sympathy from the public. For the public who loves an underdog, Australians love to see someone struggling against authority. They love an underdog!

 

[24:39]

 

So you’re kind of creating this hero class of people by policing in a manner as aggressive as that. So for them the situation is worse than zero. They’ve actually contributed to elevating you guys in. I think what’s really worried them is when you guys arrived at August 31, March for Australia rally, it was clear that you had support from the majority of the people there. Very clear! And people were doing interviews saying:

 

“They don’t even care if there’s Nazis here, as long as everyone’s united against immigration.”

 

And that means people won’t even care about voting for a Nazi party so long as it’s against immigration. You see, that’s what that translates into for any government analyst.

 

So I think that’s what’s triggered, … It’s one of the things that’s triggered this effort to create a new tier of political policing, which was already in the works before that anyway. But that really pushed it over the line because it would have proven their analysts correct if they had already ran the White Australia scenario through their AI sequencing. Then when they saw in real time people shaking hands with you guys, cheering you guys on, and just admitting in interviews that they’re willing to support you, like regular people, that kind of proved all the data they already would have been collecting. It proved it correct.

 

So that’s what’s motivating them, I think.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. Well, the reason why people are supporting us is because they’re genociding the White race and people are waking up to it. I mean, it’s that simple. We’re actually behind the curve in this country from where it is in other Western countries.

 

I mean, I saw Lindsay Graham from the Republican Party giving an interview the other day, and he said:

 

“Oh, I’m from the ‘Hitler sucks’ faction of the Republican Party!”

 

He’s like:

 

“What how crazy is this thinking Hitler is awesome thing now?”

 

What is he implying? That there’s a Hitler is “awesome faction” of the Republican Party now? That’s crazy! Yeah, but there kind of is. And like the Overton Window has shifted so far the Zeitgeist, like the attitude of the people. And that’s largely down to social media, because what has happened with social media is the traditional media has lost its influence over the collective consciousness. There’s been a decentralisation of political media in particular.

 

And that means that jews don’t control political discourse anymore. And so jews and academics and all of these different, like, committed political groups that have advanced this agenda against our people. Now a more grassroots, a more independent form of political discourse exists. And so it will tend towards the authentic politics that we represent.

 

So what is coming? Like, where people are at now is already a lot better than where they were before. But what’s coming is way more than this! The next five to 10 years, there’s going to be an explosion in our worldview, particularly with young White people. An explosion! It’s inevitable and it can’t be stopped! Doesn’t matter how many laws they try to pass on censoring the Internet, how many divisions they create within the AFP to arrest anti-semites. It doesn’t matter, because they did all this stuff in Britain and it’s still happening in Britain!

 

I saw a opinion poll in Britain. If an election was held today in Britain, the conservatives and Labor between them would have like 29 seats out of a possible 650. That would be like if we were going to hold an election in Australia tomorrow and only three people were going to get elected from like Liberal and Labor. That’s literally where it’s at in Britain. The political centre has been eviscerated. And obviously the parties on the outside of that are still, they’re not perfect. They’re not what the kind of party we want to build.

 

But the point is that the old political formula has been smashed! It’s been fucking smashed in Britain! And it’s been smashed all over Europe and a new paradigm is rising and it will rise here, inevitably. Zoomers in America are more Right-wing than Boomers now. That’s insane! Like, no one was predicting this. Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson talking about the jews is like mainstream political discourse.

 

And then you’ve got like Ben Shapiro complaining about it on the corner of the Internet and no one’s watching anymore. That’s how it is now. No one’s watching the old jew media anymore. Everything’s different. Everyone’s Instagram algorithm is pumping out Hitler speeches at them. It’s become normal to talk about the jews now? It’s become normal to talk about these kinds of issues. And that’s just the start.

 

So when we come along and we bring a political party with the kind of policies that we’re going to put forward and the approach we’re going to be put forward, fuck yes, there’s a constituency for it! And they can throw the kitchen sink at us because we’ve already proven we will go to jail for this! If, I mean, we don’t want to go to jail, but if we have to, we have determination. We will sacrifice. We will continue pushing forward.

 

The Liberal Party isn’t going to go to jail to stay in the Liberal Party. The only people in the Liberal Party going to jail are the paedophiles that get caught. Like what happened to that guy the other day. Imagine if we had someone in our organisation, by the way, who got caught literally touching up a kid. They would call us paedophiles, right? Liberal Party literally just had that happen. Crickets! No one blames the Liberal Party.

 

But anyway, my point is this. The political establishment in this country is flimsy. It is weak. I’m not saying that we’re going to win an election anytime soon, but we are going to be a really disruptive force on this. And they can try and fuck with us, and they can try and put some of our guys in jail and they can make a nuisance of themselves. And I’m sure it will suck. I’m sure it will suck for me personally. It might suck for you personally, Blair, and a bunch of us, but we ain’t gonna fucking stop! And they’re not gonna kill us. I said this I think last. Do you agree with this take? They’re not like the communists of old. The communists of old would fucking shoot us. They’d just fucking kill us! These are fucking soft, they’re not gonna do that.

 

[31:13]

 

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, but there’s different standards now. It’s that there’s modern ways of being burned at the stake where it’s not really effective to kill. When you kill your enemies, especially in politics, you actually embolden your enemy further and you win more sympathizers for your enemy by how cruel your conduct is. And sort of factions within politics have worked that out these days. And plus, we live in this post violence era. Violence will always be a thing. It’s an eternal aspect of the world, our reality. But the era that we’re in right now is a post violence era, where everything except violence is basically permissible. Like, even down to the dirtiest, darkest tactics, so long as you’re not being outrightly violent, it’s all well and good!

 

And so, yeah, even though they won’t kill you, as I said, there’s modern ways for them to publicly burn you alive and sort of torture you, humiliate you in a political way. And that’s what you’ve got to be worried about, basically.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, but it’s not as bad. They’re not going to kill us. So it’s like we grit and bear it. You know what I mean? It’s not the like, it’s bearable. Like this is not an enemy that you should be that afraid of:

 

“Oh, maybe if you work in one field where you will lose your job or something.”

 

Blair Cottrell: You say they won’t kill you too. How can you be so sure? I saw some information that Charlie Kirk may have been killed by some sort of mechanism that shot up out of the microphone he was wearing. That might sound a bit conspiratorial, but when I saw the footage, even I had to admit, sounds pretty weird! Do you think it’s possible that Charlie Kirk was assassinated by like an organised political effort by an overseas country?

 

Joel Davis: It’s not that it’s impossible! Like it’s possible, but I don’t think any of these theories about it was a mechanism on his body, blah, blah, blah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Have you seen the footage?

 

Joel Davis: If someone else was involved, they would have just like groomed a tranny to do it.

 

And then you’ve got the, like, they would like the way that it was described. Like it’s within the power of the intelligence agencies in America or in Israel or whatever to groom trannies into committing political assassinations or tranny fuckers nto political assassinations.

 

So I don’t think you need to have this elaborate:

 

“Oh, there was a device!”

 

You know, know all this kind of stuff. I don’t know why. We’ve talked about this before on the show. I don’t know what we’re going back to this.

 

Blair Cottrell: But I was just thinking about, because you said that’s the thing, …

 

Joel Davis: If they’re going around killing everyone who disagrees, why are they’re killing Charlie Kirk? Charlie Kirk was a fucking moderate! They’re not killing Nick Fuentes! They’re not killing like more radical voices. They’re killing the more moderate ones. That doesn’t even make any sense. Since Charlie Kirk has died, things have only become more anti-Israel, more racist, more radical! So you know, what the whole like, theory around it, …

 

Blair Cottrell: For the record, I don’t actually believe anything I’m putting forward here. I’m just saying that I saw that stuff on the Internet and a lot of people seem to believe it, but I was only throwing you something contrarian because you were suggesting they won’t kill you. Like these people won’t kill you.

 

But I think there’s some evidence they, …

 

Joel Davis: If they kill me one day, they’re going to turn me into a martyr and make me more popular!

 

Blair Cottrell: Israeli intelligence, yeah, definitely would kill you! But I think you have to be a pretty significant threat or you have to be projected to become a pretty significant threat for them to start considering that. Because, as I said, they run the risk of making you into a martyr and actually just building their opponent up even more.

 

But now we’re going full circle back to what I was talking about before.

 

Joel Davis: You’re doing like little haphazard killings is always counterproductive. You have to kill everyone. You just knock off a few people all you do is turn them into heroes and embolden the rest of them to get revenge and to kind of move forward. So, they’re not gonna kill every nationalist in Australia. There’s no one is shaping up seriously to do that it’s not going to happen. And they are creating obstacles.

 

Like, for example, there’s a lot of people that have not signed up on our website to be a political supporter. A lot of them is sheer laziness. And I know there’s a lot of the you lazy fucks that are listening to this right now, …

 

Blair Cottrell: When you say, …

 

Joel Davis: Wait a second, I want to say something. If you’re one of these lazy fucks that hasn’t signed up to our political party out of laziness, do it tonight! Do it now! Literally do it right now! You can do it while you’re listening to this or watching this, go to White Australia.org, sign up as a political supporter! If it’s just laziness holding you back, particularly if you live in New South Wales, because, that’s actually the key state where we need quick signups at the moment because, …

 

[36:11]

 

Blair Cottrell: What are you asking people to do? Because I don’t understand. What are you asking people to do when you say sign up as a political supporter, what does that mean? What are you asking?

 

Joel Davis: It means basically you, … We have an encrypted database, right, that you basically import your details into on our website. It is highly encrypted. We do not want anyone getting doxed and they won’t! It’s a highly encrypted database that you know is not going to be breached.

 

Blair Cottrell: But what information do you need? What information?

 

Joel Davis: Your basic details. Your name, address. But it has to be what your electoral role address where you’re enrolled to vote. And we can send that off to the Australian Electoral Commission to then say, we’ve got enough members of our party to register the party.

 

Blair Cottrell: I don’t mean to be, … Maybe it’s not the right question, but I’ll ask it anyway. Do you trust the Australian Electoral Commission?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. I mean, yeah, they’ve never leaked anything like this before. So there’s privacy laws. It’s like the cops know, like ASIO know who all of you are! They can figure out every single person who watches one of these streams on their phone or something. They can figure out who you are. Right.

 

So you’re already on a list that the government can access, but they don’t just publish it. That’s not how it works. And it’s not going to be how it works. So people need to fucking chill. It’s never been like that and never will be like that.

 

Secondly, how the fuck are we going to do anything unless we build a political vehicle in order to advance our ideology, our worldview, our position with the Australian public? So if that means you have to take a little bit of risk, obviously it’s not really much of a risk. We are protecting your ass! We’re not asking you to put on the black block and go march in the street, yell “hail victory”. Just asking you to sign up to a political party. And there’s legal protections. You’ll be fine. And we’ve encrypted our databases.

 

But yes, that’s the small sacrifice you have to make of spending two minutes inputting your correct details into our website so that we can go and register a political party and perhaps get thrown in jail! We’ll deal with all the difficult shit for you! All you have to do is just sign the paper, put the fries in the bag. That’s all you got to do. So just do it! Particularly if you’re in New South Wales.

 

And then also don’t just do it yourself. Go to your friends, go to your family and get them to do it. Get them to do it as well. Get as many people as you possibly can to do it! We need as many members as possible. The more members we have, the more momentum. Like even once we reach the minimum thresholds, the more members, the better. And they’re going to audit the members. Some people are going to move house or have put in the wrong details or whatever.

 

And so we’re going to need to have a glut of members, like I’ve explained before. It’s such a minimal thing. That’s such a minimal ask. It’s a really minimal ask!

 

Blair Cottrell: I noticed someone in your organisation, one of the leaders I saw through Noticer News tried to register “White Australia” as a business entity through like some sort of government business or like regulatory board.

 

And the response from this board was that the term “White Australia” because it meant White ethnically, the registration request was rejected on that basis because it was like offensive or something.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, that was to register a corporation. That wasn’t to register a party.

 

Blair Cottrell: I know that. My question is, has there been any progress with that? Because I know that that same board accepted a registration request from Black Lives Matter and registered them as a corporation, but they said no to White Australia because of the term White. But they didn’t have a problem with the term “black”. I wonder if there’s been any update with any response.

 

Joel Davis: We just registered under a different name. We couldn’t be, there’s an appeals process, but we just couldn’t be fucked with it because it doesn’t really matter that much.

 

Blair Cottrell: It would have been a good test because you’re probably gonna get the same response from the AEC.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, you know what would be an even better test? Building the fucking party!

 

So that’s why we’re focusing on that rather than dicking around, on arguing over registering corporations and stuff, because it’s a side issue, you know what I mean? But because a lot of people said:

 

“Oh, you can’t have your party because of that!”

 

It was like, it was almost like we shouldn’t have like put that out there because people don’t read past the headline and it confuses people. But they won’t be able to block the political party on those grounds because the Electoral Act doesn’t give them the same kind of leeway and the Constitution doesn’t give them the same kind of leeway on political parties, that they have with corporations.

 

And I think we would have won the appeal on the corporation, but it would have cost thousands of bucks and it would have taken a while and, …

 

Blair Cottrell: It would have said a precedent though too. So then you could have used the same argument with the aec. That’s what I was thinking.

 

[41:04]

 

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, we can look into, we can look into still doing it down the track, but it becomes a bit of a drawn out process anyway.

 

But when it comes to the party, like people just need to sign up! In New South Wales election is in March 2027. There’s a Victorian state election I think next November and then the following March in 2027 is the new South Wales election. So it’s some time away. It’s like a year until the Victorian election and then a year and four months till the New South Wales election and then the following year we’ll have the next federal election. Those are the three elections we’ve got our eye on. WA doesn’t have an election for years. Queensland doesn’t have an Upper House and so it’s less worth focusing on.

 

And the other states are kind of irrelevant, to be honest, not fully irrelevant, but they’re kind of irrelevant in terms of the national conversation. So Victoria, New South Wales are the two main, two biggest states, the two states where we have the most members and the two that we wanted to target first as a political party.

 

But in Victoria you only need 500 Victorian members in order to contest their state elections. And so that’s going to be a lot easier for us in Victoria. In New South Wales it’s 750. And in New South Wales, if you’re not, if you’re not registered a year prior to the election, you can’t get listed on the ballot paper.

 

Additionally, New South Wales, we probably have a better chance at actually getting someone elected than in Victoria, not because we’d get a higher percentage of the vote necessarily in one state or the other, but because of the system. So in New South Wales, like John Ruddick got elected off like 3% of the vote because New South Wales, they don’t have group voting. It’s more like kind of the Senate election in the federal election is kind of the same in the New South Wales state election.

 

Whereas in the Victorian state election they break the Upper House down into eight zones, three regional zones and five metro zones. And the top five from each of those zones get elected.

 

But the thing is that in Victoria, in the state election when you., … That seems like a good system, you just have to come fifth in your zone and you can get in. That doesn’t sound so hard. But and we probably could still do this. But the more difficult aspect of it is that in Victoria people usually don’t vote below the line and preference all of the different parties, they just put a vote above the line and then they get automatic preferencing. So we would have to do preference deals with all these other parties and get them to preference us high in order to get all their preferences. And it’d be really difficult because we’re Nazis and they’re probably not going to work with us. Who knows? We can cut some deals but it might be hard.

 

In New South Wales cutting the deals isn’t the same level of difficulty because there is an automatic preferencing in how people vote. So in New South Wales in theory we will get more preferences, you would think. So that’s why we really want to be registered to contest this election in New South Wales.

 

So if you live in New South Wales, sign the fuck up! ! We are desperate, and do it immediately because I would really much like it if we can get above the line that election, it would be great! But I’m going to stop talking about that. I know people are probably annoyed at me yammering on about that.

 

Blair Cottrell: No, we’re never annoyed about your yammering, Joel! Yammer away!

 

Joel Davis: I guess that’s what the show is. That’s literally why we’re here.

 

Blair Cottrell: But well you mentioned Remembrance Day, …

 

Joel Davis: Because people, Australians, one thing about us, and I’m like this too, we’re fucking lazy! We can’t be fucked as a people.

 

Blair Cottrell: I don’t know if, would you say we’re lazy?

 

Joel Davis: We work hard, but when it comes to like, …

 

Blair Cottrell: I think we’re more, we’re a bit black pilled on politics. I think that’s what it is. I just don’t think we like politics. Australians have a general disinterest. They don’t think there’s any hope. They think it’s all bullshit!

 

Joel Davis: That’s true. But also people are fucking lazy. People are fucking lazy in terms of doing it.

 

Blair Cottrell: Mental laziness that leads people to think this stuff too. Because politics is made to seem a lot more complicated than it really is. At the end of the day it’s just when you’ve got a homogenous society it’s different ideas competing, usually economic ideas and then there’s a few subversives in there trying to fuck your country up. If you have a good intelligence system it prevents that from happening.

 

We don’t have a homogenous society anymore. We have a multi-ethnic society. And so all politics is now is different ethnic groups trying to get an advantage over each other. It’s just different ethnic groups and some ethnic groups, namely the White ethnic group that’s currently in Parliament is working against its own ethnic interests. Generally speaking. And it’s happening in England, it’s happening in Europe. As soon as society becomes multi-ethnic political politics becomes racial. It’s just different racial groups battling each other to try to get an advantage or to try to put the other group at a disadvantage. And it’s really that simple. There’s Nothing else to consider in politics right now!

 

So you mentioned Remembrance Day, though, and I was curious, what would I call them? People from Sydney, New South Walers. What do people in New South Wales do for Remembrance Day? What do you do? Is there somewhere in the city that everyone goes?

 

[46:31]

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, we don’t really have, like a massive shrine, like in Melbourne, which I mean, I was in Melbourne for the last two Remembrance Days and so I was able to go to the Shrine of Remembrance, which is better.

 

Blair Cottrell: But what about Hyde Park, there’ a big stone structure?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. In Hyde Park, there is a big War Memorial.

 

So there’s something, but it’s just not as impressive as the temple, basically, that exists in Melbourne to the Anzacs, which is probably the most magnificent building in Australia. But we can talk about Remembrance Day next week because that’ll be the week of the show. I really want to talk about.

 

Blair Cottrell: I just want to say something about it.

 

Joel Davis: Oh, okay. Okay, go ahead.

 

Blair Cottrell: The date November 11th is significant for a couple of reasons. Ned Kelly was hanged on November 11th. And I’m pretty sure the Berlin Wall came down on November 11th as well, I mean, that’s not necessarily pivotal for Australia, but it’s definitely a pivotal moment in European history. I’ll just say a lot of significant stuff happens in November, and November 11th, like there’s this whole list of weird shit that happens on November 11th. I don’t know if anyone knows any more about that than I do, but if you’re into that kind of stuff, hit me up because I’m interested to learn more about the strange occurrences that always seem to take place throughout November.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. I don’t know what are you alleging, what’s going to happen?

 

Blair Cottrell: I don’t know, it’s something to do with the stars, man! I’m telling you. Usually radical change, violent change, or just something really significant tends to be happening throughout November, historically speaking. And I don’t know why that is. Someone might have a better idea as to why that is. I’m not really talking from a numerological perspective. I’m not into numerology at all! But, yeah, I’m just throwing it out there. It’s always made me feel a bit weird about my birthday, too. It’s just like:

 

“Oh, God, what’s going to happen to me?”

 

Cukg Time will tell!

 

Joel Davis: But, yeah, on the party, I’ve been working a bit on the policies that we’re going to have and we haven’t put them out yet because it’s one thing that Tom can actually have some input in from jail. So send him some a draught and we’ll see what he thinks. He might have a few different ideas so we can at least work together on something even though he’s in prison.

 

But a few of the ideas that I’ve had, I mean, we’ve spoken about some of them on the show. Some of the policies that we agreed upon, like debt forgiveness and mother’s allowance and executing paedophiles and things like that. But a few others.

 

I was going to get your takes on some of my ideas Blair, of policies here or some of our ideas.

 

Blair Cottrell: You care what I think?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, of course.

 

Blair Cottrell: Let’s do it!

 

Joel Davis: Of course. So one idea for a policy that is oh so necessary is pretty basic, but just got to have restoring free speech in the platform. Now some people will call me a cuck. They’ll say:

 

“Why are you trying to restore free speech? Why are we trying to give free speech to communists and brown people?”

 

Now, yes, from an ideological standpoint, I don’t agree with giving free speech to everyone because I don’t believe in giving free speech to my political enemies. But considering the fact that it’s our speech that is being rejected, not theirs, I think tactically it makes sense to advocate for restoring free speech because it’s really only our speech that’s under threat.

 

So there’s that. Another policy area that we think is very important because we don’t have too many. We have like 10 policies and just call it there and keep it simple. Because as you said, Australians aren’t going to bother to read 50 policies and have opinions on them. But another policy is, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, I do think free speech is dangerous because that makes you receptive to enemy ideology.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, but the enemy ideology already has freedom. Our ideology is the one that’s restricted.

 

Blair Cottrell: So basically you want to reverse the current circumstances.

 

Joel Davis: At least level the playing field. I think that’s the right tactical decision. But yeah, well, maybe you don’t. Should we run on taking away communist speech or something? I don’t know.

 

Blair Cottrell: Oh, no, I just think just certain there just should be agencies dedicated to counter subversion.

 

So like if you’re identified as a subversive unit group ideology, then you don’t have many rights basically. And that can be abused, that kind of policy. So there would need to be some sort of oversight in place to prevent it from being misused. That’s the thing that we had ASIO, which is Australia’s version of like a security agency. Would it be the Australian version of FBI Joel? Is that accurate to say?

 

Joel Davis: It’s like NSA, FBI? Yeah, it’s like a few agencies in America mixed together.

 

[52:08]

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, subversion or working against subversive tactics was part of ASIO’s definition of state security before the Hawk Labor government, I think up until around 1989, around the year of my birth, somewhere around there perhaps. But the Hawk Labor government actually put ASIO to the test because they accused them of using the term “subversion” to intrude upon the freedoms of certain groups and personalities.

 

And so the Hawk Labor government removed “subversion” from ASIO’s definition of state security and replaced it with “politically motivated violence”. So I’ve spoken about that a few times because I think that was a real pivotal moment in Australia’s history because we had a state that was making some effort to prevent hostile ideology from taking root in institutions like schools, police departments, government agencies.

 

But that was all just removed by the Hawk Labor government. And instead our national security or intelligence agencies were refocused on just violence. As though pushing people around in the street because of ideology is more of a threat to the nation than teaching kids transgenderism and communism. You know, obviously subversive ideology is more of a threat than direct violence a lot of the time.

 

So I think that was one of the greatest mistakes any government has made in Australian history.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, but that leads to the next policy which is like restoring patriotic education. Like getting rid of all anti-White garbage out of every level of education, including the universities, and restoring pro-Australian, pro-White version of how history is taught and also compulsory martial arts for all boys. Because I think we need to become a nation of fighters. That’s our education policy. I think if you fix it, the level of education, just regulate education correctly.

 

Blair Cottrell: You can’t run a nation on love. You can only run nations on hate. Like the current civilisation is run on hatred of White people.

 

So if you reverse that situation where suddenly White people are no longer the hated enemy which unifies all of multicultural society, who’s the new enemy? Who are we united against?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, we’re not going to like create an education policy of like, we’re going to build an education policy of fuck jews, and make like anti-semitism, [chuckling] like official government like that, I mean, it’s probably not a smart angle. Like the Left didn’t do that. The Left appealed first to free speech and to equality and so on, first.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, but that’s boring now. The reason conservative elements of society are failing right now is because appealing to all of this moral goodness is fucking boring! ! And we’ve got a desensitized youth who are looking for more edgy messaging. And Hitler sold anti-semitism to people openly and they took it.

 

Joel Davis: You can sell it to people openly like a political strategy.

 

But in terms of like, I mean, the point is that like the education system is basically penetrated or just like overwhelmed with anti-White ideology, like a genocidal ideology against our people. Basically. It just needs to be like reversed.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, but the point still stands like within that edgy. You’re saying the Leftists are being crafty. They’re not really like, you go into a university and they’re like:

 

“White people are responsible for all the fucked up stuff in the world.”

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, of course.

 

Blair Cottrell: You know what I mean? Like you want to change it to:

 

“Jewish people are responsible for all the suffering of the nations.”

 

Like you want to flip that.

 

So the whole mantra of the education department would replace the enemy of society. It’s currently White people. It would need to be someone else, is the point that I’m making, …

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, well, I mean patriots have many enemies. So like the historical enemies of patriots have been jewish subversion.

 

I mean, you talk about ASIO, the reason why ASIO [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation] came into existence in the first place was because jews immigrated here from Eastern Europe after World War II and they were communists, because all jews in Eastern Europe were communists at that time, basically.

 

That’s why they all had to be put in camps during the Second World War, which was against communists, by the Germans.

 

But anyway, they started stealing. They started infiltrating our government and stealing state secrets and giving them to the Soviet Union. That’s why they had to create ASIO to create a barrier. They never even needed to have something like ASIO before World War II because our country was so homogenous that there just weren’t any traitors. So there was no traitors to deal with. [chuckling] That’s the power of a homogeneous society, what it can achieve.

 

But yeah. What do you think about compulsory martial arts for all boys? I think that’s a good policy. I think we need it.

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s okay. I always said that you should give people a choice because forcing all people through the same pipeline doesn’t always produce, …

 

Joel Davis: Children don’t get choices. Children get forced into all kinds of shit! Children don’t get a choice:

 

“Hey, would you like to learn how to read? Would you like, . ?”

 

Blair Cottrell: Oh, no, no, the choice is pretty, like it’s not that much different. I always thought, and I’ve had you disagree with me on this before. I thought you should be able to choose between two years military service or an apprenticeship in a specific trade such as carpentry, bricklaying, plumbing, something like that.

 

So you’re either demonstrating yourself as useful to defend the country as part of a huge reserve army, you know how to use weapons, et cetera, and you’ve also had your mind and body hardened by the military training. Or if you don’t want to do it’s not your thing, you can learn a valuable skill and become useful to the nation in that way. You don’t have to do it. You can do your apprenticeship and then choose to go into university or do something else. But I’ve always thought or said you shouldn’t be able to become a citizen until you complete two years military service or complete a trade. That’s what I think.

 

[58:10]

 

 

Joel Davis: I agree with compulsory military training. I don’t agree with people being forced to do a trade.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s because you’ve never done an apprenticeship. You don’t know how tough it can be. It’s tough on your mind and stuff on your body.

 

Joel Davis: I did, I was a locksmith apprentice, once upon a time.

 

Blair Cottrell: A locksmith? Did you? Yeah, but you need to do some time on the shovel, Joel! You need to dig some trenches!

 

Joel Davis: I’ve worked in construction, I’ve done my time on the shovel. I’ve worked in landscaping.

 

Blair Cottrell: Okay. When did you do that?

 

Joel Davis: In Sydney, when I was younger.

 

Blair Cottrell: But like, then you got to understand the value, right? Like, it’s great to have soldiers, but you’ve got to have people who can actually produce something, who can build, who can plumb, who can wire a house.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, everyone’s going to do that anyway. Everyone’s going to get a job anyway. The, …

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s not true, though. No. People don’t get a job unless they have to.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, well, you do have to. How are you going to get money?

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, right now the government will give you money for being a retard!

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, well, I mean, obviously we’re going to do something about that. We can’t have 18% of the country on NDIS or whatever it is. Like, it’s ridiculous!

 

Blair Cottrell: Look, all I say, I’m a big advocate of learning a trade. Even if you don’t stick with it. To me is of equal value to learning how to defend the country with like real military.

 

Joel Davis: Objectively, not of equal value if you’re at war. Obviously nothing is more valuable.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, obviously. Well, not necessarily because you still need amenities, you still need transport.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, of course, I’m not saying that being a tradie is bad or something, but what I’m saying is if you got a kid who’s going to become a lawyer or something, we don’t need to be a tradie first.

 

Blair Cottrell: No, no. I think it’s about character building in that case. So even if he never becomes a bricklayer, if he does three years bricklaying before he goes to university to learn to become a lawyer, he’s learnt about the grit, the reality, the harshness of reality through three years of bricklaying, which is hard labour, right? Not just the labour itself, but the way you’re treated by the guys who you’re going to be working under. It builds character.

 

Joel Davis: Everyone be a bricklayer?

 

Blair Cottrell: But look, think. Have you ever played a strategy game like Warcraft 3, for example, back when it first came out? You can’t do anything without the worker unit. You can’t build soldiers without the worker unit. You can’t mine minerals without the worker unit. The worker unit is the beginning of everything. Building strong workers with good spirit, good character is, I think, it’s possibly even more valuable than having soldiers.

 

Joel Davis: Well, what I think is that when it comes to compulsory military service, I don’t think that people should be forced to serve in foreign wars. We should only ever, and that’s actually in the Constitution. You can’t conscript people to fight foreign wars under the current Australian constitution. The only pretext for conscription would be if Australia was like, invaded and we were like fighting a war of national survival.

 

Blair Cottrell: And that’s the benefit of having like mandatory military.

 

Joel Davis: But you could still force everyone to train for a year. They wouldn’t have to get deployed, but you could at least make everyone train so everyone knows how to use a gun. Everyone knows how to, …

 

Blair Cottrell: But that’s the point. But then if Australia does get invaded, if everyone’s done, two years military service in order to achieve citizenship.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: They’ve at least trained a huge reserve army of like everyone who knows how to use a gun.

 

Joel Davis: If every boy in Australia grows up doing martial arts, grows up doing combat sports, then they go and do their military service, then you’ve just got an entire nation of fucking beasts! You know what I mean? Everyone can fight. And then your baseline is so much higher than any other country at that point. That, to me, that’s going to be our policies.

 

Blair Cottrell: But did you do martial arts?

 

Joel Davis: Being bricklayers, that’s a bit extremist for me. I’m too moderate.

 

Blair Cottrell: Hang on! I think I explained my case pretty well. I’m surprised that you don’t agree!

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. I just don’t think you need to force people into particular fields in the economy. I think people can pursue their own career path, obviously if they’re doing nothing. But everyone doesn’t have to do a trade.

 

Blair Cottrell: My perspective is one of the reasons we have a lot of the problems we have is because we have weak people in positions of leadership and they wouldn’t be weak if they did a trade when they were young.

 

[1:02:41]

 

Joel Davis: Well, I know plenty of tradies who are soft cunts! So I don’t know.

 

Blair Cottrell: Like these days they work differently, I suppose. Maybe it’s just the way I was worked.

 

Joel Davis: But like, also, there’s different trades too. Like I said, if you’re a Sparky [electrician], like, you just walk around just plugging things in. It’s not really that hard.

 

Blair Cottrell: You still crawl around inside ceilings, underneath houses, occasionally have to dig around in, …

 

Joel Davis: In like in awkward spaces. Like, how’s that special? Like, I don’t know.

 

Blair Cottrell: You’re providing electricity to the community. It’s very special.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, well, they get paid well. Sparkies get paid well. But we don’t need to make everyone be a Sparky to like have a society or something like that.

 

Blair Cottrell: I don’t know. I think we have a very spoiled generation who just think that things just happen! They think that guns just get made and buildings just. Lights just turn on and shit just works because that’s how things have always been for them. But when the shit hits the fan, man, you’re gonna need to have a lot of maintenance men. You’re gonna need some men who know how to build shit and maintain shit! Otherwise no one’s gonna know even where to start.

 

Joel Davis: You know, Australia has one of the highest, I think we have like the second highest builders per capita of like any country in the world.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, they’re all going broke right now too, like it’s hard, hard times out there because we’re bringing in a lot of foreign people who are undercutting local builders but then producing really shit houses!

 

Joel Davis: Garbage! Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And yeah, people just getting ripped off and going broke left, right and centre. You have to be a pretty reputable builder with a good reputation to survive out there. I heard that Matt Trihey, who’s still a builder and runs a protest group called National Workers Alliance in Melbourne, he was on with Graham on Offaly Offensive podcast, I heard. And hopefully they discuss a little about what it’s like to be a builder currently out there. Because I haven’t been in construction for a few years now and I’m not sure how the building situation actually looks with boots on the ground from that perspective. Hopefully they talk about it.

 

Joel Davis: So speaking of Matt, because obviously Matt took over the Melbourne wing of the March for Australia, and the next March for Australia he’s going to be heading up Melbourne again, I believe. There’s been some interesting developments in March for Australia world that I’m privy to.

 

What I’ve heard is that, and what I’ve seen, is that the Brisbane March for Australia people have now broken away. They’ve created their own website which is actually a couple months old, which indicates that this is premeditated, called Australiamarches.com or some shit like that! And they’re stealing the branding of March for Australia but at the same time separating themselves and saying:

 

“Oh, we’re not racist, and we’re not Nazis!”

 

And so on. And they’re trying to cuck everything out and they’re separated themselves from the rest of the March for Australia around the country. Because people who were paying attention would have noticed that in Brisbane, March for Australia turned into a bit of a cuck fest. Like in the first one, they had like some Indian guy give a song speech at a mass immigration rally. And then basically it just seems like the last one was just like all these politicians back to back to back giving speeches as like campaign pitches. And like the idea of March for Australia was supposed to be this like grassroots nationalist uprising against mass immigration. And in Brisbane they’ve kind of moderated the message:

 

“Oh, patriotism has nothing to do with racism!”

 

And here’s 3 [6] million speeches from politicians. And there was disputes. The national March for Australia team wanted to ban Gerard Rennick from giving a speech at the last one because he came out the week before the rally kind of with all these pro-immigration comments. We discussed it on the last stream, but he was allowed to speak anyway. He didn’t even mention immigration. There’s an anti-immigration rally. He didn’t even mention immigration because these organisers up in Brisbane have gone their own way.

 

And so that’s interesting because now that I guess there’s going to be a bit of a dispute between two different factions. The people in Sydney, the people in Melbourne, in other cities, are a lot more radical than the people up in Brisbane. It feels like in Brisbane there’s like this big conservative scene. Brisbane has become kind of the capital of conservatism in Australia. You know, like all the Right, the kind of smaller Right-wing parties are kind of based there, it seems, and they have CPAC there and it’s like the heartland of the Liberal Party and all of that. And there’s a lot of all White Boomers who moved up to Queensland and it’s a Whiter state, it’s an older state, it’s got a lot of conservative voters.

 

Whereas like in Sydney and Melbourne it’s gone Left-wing, there’s a lot of immigrants, there’s a lot of Lefties. But then the Right-wing is a lot more nationalist and a lot more radical. It’s kind of polarised. Whereas like in Brisbane it’s just like a conservative, you know, hug box.

 

[1:07:54]

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s funny, is that things need to be worse, things need to be pretty bad before people stop trying to be the nice conservative guy and just accept the fight for what it is like I heard Elon Musk on Joe Rogan Show recently. There was a clip of him and he was saying that:

 

“There is no perfect way to do deportations. That if you’re seeking perfection, it won’t happen.”

 

What he means by that is if you’re trying to be nice about deportations because they were talking about how there’s a conspiracy within the Democrat Party in Australia [America] to bring in as many illegals as possible because then they then count those votes through some voter fraud system. And that’s how they’re trying to keep themselves in power or regain power in that country’s system. And Musk was saying that deporting illegals is basically the main priority of the Trump administration because that’s one of the ways they can prevent the Democrats from leveraging that whole corrupt system to gain power, the illegal immigration system.

 

But anyway, he was saying that if you’re going to try to be like morally good, to be the nice guy and perfect how deportations happen, it just won’t happen! You’ve just got to like literally grab people and remove them. You’ve got to be mean, you’ve got to be nasty. You’ve got to understand that this is like an attack on your country.

 

And there’s a similar situation with conservatives in Australia where no one’s willing to just “be mean”. No one’s willing to understand that this is a fight for our survival. Right. It’s like everyone’s still trying to be the nice guy:

 

“I don’t want to say anything mean. I don’t upset those people over there.”

 

And I suppose things are still that way in Brisbane because things just aren’t bad enough in Brisbane yet? Come down and stay in Melbourne for a couple of months and you’ll realise how concern like bullshit trying to be the nice guy is. You realise how much of a waste of time it is trying to not be racist and not upset those people over there. It’s just that time is done down here in Melbourne! It’s done in Sydney as well! But I suppose Brisbane still needs to arrive at that realisation.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, that’s part of it. I think that’s part of it. But also what’s part of it, I think, is that the institutional strength of the Right-wing there is such that they’ve kind of hijacked things. Before the first March for Australia, there were people that were behind the scenes trying to get involved and they wanted to bring in people from the One Nation Party and bring in people from this Right-wing minor party and that Right-wing minor party. And that’s one of the reasons why the NSN stuck our nose in it because we were like:

 

“No, fuck off!”

 

Because we had to secure it from being kind of watered down and turned into, just like a campaign opportunity for all these politicians. It’s not about the politicians, it’s about the rest of us! It’s about the fact that the politicians have failed us. It’s about the fact that there are no good politicians. We’re trying to create a new generation that could provide an alternative.

 

But the establishment is complicit. Even the Right-wingers that are somewhat better are still complicit because they haven’t offered anywhere near enough of a resistance, a meaningful enough of a resistance. That’s why March for Australia came into existence because no one was, I guess other than us, was doing it! Was saying what needed to be said anyway.

 

Of course they saw the numbers swell and the opportunity to gain legitimacy and whatever. And so then they started jumping on it late. But then they said:

 

“Oh but if you want, we’ll bring in money so you can have security and big stages and good speakers and like a speaker system and everything. But in order to get our A list speakers to give speeches, we can’t have the Nazis there and we can we can’t say things this way and we can’t say things that way and everything has to be toned down.”

 

And they were all told:

 

“To get fucked!”

 

But the people who kind of played ball were the guys in Brisbane. The guys in Brisbane were the ones that played ball with those types. And now it’s basically been a conspiracy to usurp not just the March for Australia Brisbane, but I think they want to try and take the whole thing. They’re not going to be able to.

 

Blair Cottrell: Unfortunately for them it’s not speakers and better electrical equipment that’s spark political upheaval and even revolutionary politics. It’s personalities.

 

So I don’t think the Liberal Party can produce the personalities to actually keep the March for Australia going. But is it the Liberal Party that’s actually doing this? Are they behind that?

 

Joel Davis: I don’t think it’s a Liberal Party. I think it’s the conservative establishment, let’s say.

 

Blair Cottrell: Who is that? And is that like all the T-shirt salesmen?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, there’s a series of influencers. People that are associated, on the fringes of Sky News, people that are associated with all these different One Nation, these other political parties, the Andrew Hastie wing of the Liberal Party, that whole spectrum. The professional protesters who are always doing protests all the time, the well oiled machine protesters that every time there’s an issue they pop up and try and do, … The people that were doing the September 13, a lot of the people involved in that this is what I’m talking about. There’s a whole kind of like industry. It’s nowhere near as big as it is in America, thank God, but there’s an industry of like professional conservatism, let’s say, that’s not in the Liberal Party. It’s like outside it. And sometimes there’s a cross pollination with it. And it’s those people and, …

 

[1:13:29]

 

Blair Cottrell: They’ll kill it, won’t they? If they do get control of it.

 

Joel Davis: We’re not going to be able to win this by being nice. That’s what they wanted. They want to nice guy our way to it.

 

Blair Cottrell: They don’t want to win it, though. They probably don’t want to win it. They probably just want to get control of it, leverage it, milk it for all it’s worth, or whatever they can get from it until it dies. That’s it!

 

And it will die in their hands. Because they just don’t know how to handle that kind of like, they see it as a marketing opportunity. They see it as a way to make some money. They see it as a way to divert some votes here and there, and that’s it. And that’s what they’ll do. They’ll just milk it for that purpose. They won’t see the energy, they won’t see the potential. They won’t use that energy for anything truly revolutionary, truly meaningful, to create an upheaval, to create a counterculture, to build momentum for a great change, like for a great purpose, which is going to change politics somehow. It’s just like:

 

“All right, how can we make some money out of these people? How can we sort of divert their votes in a direction which is favourable to our sponsors? And then how can we just move on after that and wipe our hands clean of it?”

 

That will be the conservative approach, the merchant approach to the March for Australia.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, the “Merch for Australia”. So Brisbane is going to turn into grifter slop garbage, unfortunately. But Sydney and Melbourne, I think Perth and the other cities should stay solid. So for this is for Australia Day, of course, the next one is on Australia Day [Jan 26, 2026]. And that I remember when the idea of doing the August 31st March came up. Part of what made me excited to do it was thinking two steps ahead. Not just that it in of itself would be a great day and that it would be a powerful expression of national sentiment and so on. But I was thinking if that is a success, then you can then leverage that to then call the patriots back out on Australia Day. Because of course, everyone remembers what happened last Australia Day. Last Australia Day, we did our march in Adelaide. We had our national conference in Adelaide, you know, at the beginning of the year. And we were mass arrested for trying to celebrate our national holiday.

 

Meanwhile, you know, every city in Australia has these huge Invasion Day communist-Aboriginal fuck Australia, fuck White people protests! And it’s just outrageous! It’s outrageous that our cities get overrun by that every year on our national holiday. And there’s no proper celebration of our national holiday that Australia is under attack.

 

Blair Cottrell: How is that not disfavorable to social cohesion? It’s like you guys are the only thing affecting or having any sort of negative effect on how people feel about the state of social cohesion in Australia. But having like, what are they, what are they? These rallies against like Australia Day Invasion Day protests with people holding signs saying Burn Australia Down:

 

“Oh, that’s all fine. No threat to social cohesion there. No need for special AFP task forces! No need to disrupt and dissuade those people from their activities. No need to talk about that at all!”

 

It’s only nationalism that’s a threat to Australia, apparently.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. Like, so being anti-Australia is sweet, but being pro-Australia is the worst possible thing. That’s literally like we live in the inverted, … Obviously everyone watching this gets it. We live in the total inversion.

 

Blair Cottrell: Wish we could be a fly on the wall. Like watching certain task forces and police officers get briefed on like Right-wing groups, the sort of shit that they would get fed about Right-wing groups.

 

Joel Davis: I know what they get fed! Because I’ve been pulled over with Jack Eltis. I remember we got pulled over by the Raptor Squad. This was last year. And the Raptor Squad are like an anti-bikie task force, which is for the benefit of the audience. And they were just like, Jack was driving and they were giving Jack like tickets for not indicating left when exiting roundabouts and just trying to fuck with him, you know, stuff that like police never care about, that no one, like stupid laws on the books, technically that no one obeys. And I said:

 

“Qu do you feel good about yourself? I mean, this is fucking pathetic! You guys are fucking pathetic!”

 

And they said:

 

“Well, you guys are terrorists!”

 

Blair Cottrell: Is that what they said?

 

Joel Davis:

 

“What!”

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s because before they go out to disrupt and engage with you guys and whatever you’re doing, someone from the government or someone from police command briefs them and says:

 

“These guys are terrorists. They will stab you, they will kill you! So go hard on them!”

 

That’s what they will get told. And these rank, these cops, you know what do you call it? Rank and file cops, they would just gobble that up because they’re paid to gobble it up, right?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: So who is it, who is it that’s lying to police and calling a group of people engaging in political protest “terrorists”? Who’s doing that? Wouldn’t that be illegal? Oh, I forgot. We don’t have any actual standards or rules. We’re not a real democracy. So nothing’s really illegal, is it?

 

[1:18:37]

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, if myself, I know this is true. Also, I remember I’ve been in the car driving home from night out with Jacob Hersant and they got his licence and put it into the system and they’re like:

 

“Oh!”

 

And one cop pointed to the other and said:

 

“Oh, Counter Terrorism watch!”

 

Like he’s on a counter terrorism watch list. What act of terrorism has Jacob Hersant committed? None! He just conveys his political views in public that offend people’s feelings and that’s “terrorism”.

 

But yeah, they brief the police that we, they literally have political police in this country as we have been discussing. We have political police in this country that are basically briefed on so-called Right-wing extremism, nationalism, as the greatest threat to our country. And that people like us say that it’s the immigrants that are a threat to the country and so on, when it actually is! Like people like us say the truth and then. But apparently we’re the threats for saying the truth!

 

But anyway, my point is that the Australian people know, the average Aussie knows that Australia Day is under attack and that it’s under attack because they’re under attack, because we’re under attack as a people. And they attack our day because they’re attacking the legitimacy of our whole country because they’re attacking us and our claim to this country.

 

And so if you look at the opinion polls, Australia Day has become more popular in recent years because people are feeling defiant. That’s what happens when you attack people existentially.

 

And so what I think is necessary spiritually for this country is for the cities to be just covered in Australian flags and patriots on Australia Day because then the media will say that it’s racist and that we’re all Nazis, … Some of us are Nazis. They’re going to put us all over the television. We’re going to be ready for it, but they’re going to make it all about that.

 

And then the average Australian is going to be sitting at home and says:

 

“Isn’t that what’s supposed to happen on Australia Day? Aren’t we supposed to celebrate Australia Day? Aren’t we Australia?”

 

Blair Cottrell: You know what’s funny is a lot of recently arrived immigrants are confused about that too. Like, when people who have just arrived in Australia, they hear about Australia Days happening soon, they sometimes, like, show up in a public place with Australian flags and stuff because they’re like:

 

“Wow, we’re citizens. I can’t believe we’re in Australia. We’re so happy to be here!”

 

And then there’s like White Leftists, like blonde people with Aboriginal T-shirts on, just throwing bricks at them and screaming:

 

“You fucking racist!”

 

Like, [chuckling] could you imagine how confused you would be?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, but that’s the thing. Like, last year, they were able to make it look like we’re this fringe crazy group. And people got very emotional. They were like:

 

“Well they shouldn’t be getting arrested for celebrating Australia Day, singing Waltzing Matilda. That’s fucked up!”

 

And we knew they were going to arrest us and that we’d create that optics trap. But how edifying would it be to then fast forward one year and it’s just tens of thousands and it’s all over the country and it’s like:

 

“Arrest this! What are you going to do this time?”

 

Then Australians need to remind one another that we’re still here and that we haven’t given up yet and that has an intangible quality. Some people say:

 

“What’s the point of marching in the street?”

 

And so on. But it has an intangible quality. And this wouldn’t be a protest. This would be a celebration. And the Lefties, they’re already protesting us regardless of whether we show up or not. They do it every year. They’re the protesters. Let them be the protests. We can be the ones celebrating who we are on our national holiday.

 

And I think this Australia Day will be incredible! I think if you’re not marching for Australia Day this year, you’re a fake patriot. I mean, you just have to get out there because, … Yeah, you just have to! We have to take our cities back. It’s like a matter of honour. Do you agree? I presume you must agree.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, what am I agreeing with exactly? That people should fly the flag of their country proudly on Australia Day and celebrate Australia Day.

 

Joel Davis: But then we should march, like in the cities, like with March for Australia.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, the local governments used to facilitate those marches. I think it was cancelled during the pandemic. The Australia Day parades, the traditional ones, were cancelled during the Covid pandemic for health reasons, for your “safety”. Because it’s not like any evil is ever done in the name of your safety.

 

And then they were just never reinstated. So after like Covid just vanished overnight after everyone got vaccinated because that’s all they cared about was injecting everybody with the shit that ended up causing heart attacks that they never talked about. Once they got what they wanted in that regard, well, everything just went back to normal. And the marches, the Australia Day parades were never reinstated.

 

So we should just have our own parades. I guess, like everyone should just get out on the streets and march through the city organically. You don’t need the government to tell you it’s okay to do it. Just go and do it for your country.

 

[1:23:45]

 

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, it’d be a fun day out. So I’m really looking forward to it. That was like, I’ve had this vision in my mind for some time,. So and I think it’d be powerful. And then we’re going to be doing our conference, our national conference that weekend and be launching, we’ll probably be launching the political party around then. I don’t know exactly when we’re going to do that, if we’re going to try and bundle it together or do it separately. We haven’t exactly decided on that timing. But you know, next year is going to be a big one for us and for nationalism and what a way to kick it off.

 

So anyway, because of all of that, and that’s a beautiful vision, great things to think about. Is really disappointing what’s happened in Brisbane. And I think it’s going to turn into a big drama and this is going to be like the animating kind of battle lines, I guess, of the next phase of where it’s going to be the containment Right, the remnants of the conservative establishment trying to rebrand themselves as anti-immigration populists, even though they’re not really that sincere about it and are just kind of grifting off it or trying to angle it for their narrow political purposes.

 

But it’s basically just maintaining “conservatism incorporated”, you know, maintaining the inertia of that whole structure of compromise and cowardice versus the re-emergence of real grassroots nationalism, trying to use that intergenerational energy, the energy of the White youth fueling the rise of a real nationalist movement. And the battle between these two forces and picking a side between these two forces is going to be the animating battle of the next few years. And like you can see that’s also kind of true, I think in not just in this situation but in America as well.

 

Like recent developments over there where I’m just seeing the old guard, … The difference I think between the Americans and us is that there’s more of a conservative establishment. So it’s like in America they’re fighting over control of the conservative establishment. Like nationalists are trying to like claim the conservative establishment and redirect it towards their ends.

 

Whereas in Australia the conservative establishment isn’t worth trying to like take over. Like it’s a joke! You should just push it over, just blow it up, get rid of it, replace it, beat it!

 

Blair Cottrell: By blow it up you don’t mean like actually blow it up, right?

 

Joel Davis: No, not literally planting bombs or something of that nature, but like, it’s a metaphor. But ASIO don’t care at this point that we’re not violent, that we’re not terrorists.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah apparently. You’re being treated as though you are anyway.

 

Joel Davis: So ASIO, stop with fucking us! Feds, stop fucking with us! We’re gonna try and take this in a political direction. We’re going to go away from the kind of more terroristic angle that you guys don’t like and we’re going to move into a peaceful political solution orientation. Allow us to do it! Because if you actually care about terrorism in the sense of you want to stop it, the only way that you’re going to stop it is by giving people with our views an outlet to express them within the system.

 

If you lock us out so that we can’t participate in the system, that’s how you’re going to create, … And ASIO said this themselves, like Mike Burgess* has said this himself, that he doesn’t expect us to commit terrorism. He expects some random guy who’s a nationalist, who gets black pilled, who thinks the movement has got no hope, goes off as a lone wolf and does some crazy shit! But they don’t even care about that. They’re not talking about terrorism anymore because they know they can’t make that stick on us. So now they’re just talking about what, …

 

[* Michael Paul Burgess is an Australian intelligence official, and the current Director-General of Security in charge of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). Prior to his appointment to this role on 16 September 2019, Burgess was director-general of the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD). Burgess was born in England, and immigrated to Adelaide, South Australia in 1973 at the age of seven. He was the first member of his family to study in higher education, receiving a degree in electrical engineering from the South Australian Institute of Technology in 1988.]

 

Blair Cottrell: What happens when like literally everyone who ever supported NSN or White Australia ends up feeling that way. Because as soon as they tried to form a political party, the police just went even harder to disrupt them from doing that. And there was no chance of them actually having a voice or any representation. [chuckling] It’s like you guys when you were just hosting protests, making social media posts. Like two years ago, things weren’t that bad. I mean, you had some minor problems with police, but mostly it was just journalists giving you shit in the media.

 

But now you want to form a political party, you’re almost on the way to doing it, you’re making real progress. And now all of a sudden the whole Federal Police service is forming task forces and openly admitting that they’re going to do everything possible to “disrupt you from forming a political party”. It’s like they go even harder when you actually try to establish yourself or establish some sort of legitimate political representation.

 

So if I were an intelligence agent, I’d be sitting there scratching my head thinking:

 

“What’s the real problem here? Is it these guys trying to form a political party and obey the law? Or is it whoever’s in government mobilising the police into special task forces to harass, disrupt and set those guys up on bullshit charges for trying to form a political party? Maybe we need to look a little deeper into the actual system. Maybe the system’s the problem!”

 

Joel Davis: This is an interesting, … So meanwhile, while they’re treating us as the problem, is this:

 

“ASIO boss Mike Burgess warns of realistic possibility foreign government could attempt to kill a dissident in Australia.”

 

This article came out today.

 

Blair Cottrell: What’s that in relation to? What foreign government?

 

Joel Davis: I’ll read it out:

 

“Delivering the 2025 Lowy Lecture on Tuesday, he said, ‘this threat is real. We believe there are at least three nations willing and capable of conducting lethal targeting. It is entirely possible the regimes would try to hide their involvement by hiring criminal cutouts, as Iran did when directing its arson attack’.”

 

So he’s still pushing this nonsense that Iran was behind the synagogue arson attacks when obviously it was the fucking jews!

 

[1:30:09]

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s weird! It’s like, why would Iran do that? What benefit is there for Iran?

 

Joel Davis: There is no benefit.

 

Blair Cottrell: It could very possibly be someone acting through Iran to make it look like it’s Iran.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, the jews! We know that Israel have penetrated Iran because when they had their war earlier this year, Mossad were conducting targeted assassinations inside Tehran of their top political and military officials. So it shows that Mossad have guys on the inside, that they’ve fully penetrated the Iranian system and establishment and so on.

 

So they could easily make, they could easily pay, you know, gangs here to do fire-bombings of synagogues and then make it look like they were Iranian or something. What a load of garbage!

 

But yeah, paying organised crime. So it came out, Mark Latham brought this up as well recently that he asked the, I think the police commissioner in New South Wales about, because they have something called Strike Force Pearl, which is their anti-semitism special task force or something. And he said:

 

“Of all the arrests they made in response to anti-semitic, you know, arson attacks and graffiti incidents and whatever, how many were organised crime?”

 

And they said:

 

“All of them!”

 

All of them were organised crime.

 

So it’s not anti-semites doing it. Someone’s paying, you know, biker gangs and shit to do it. Why? Why would they be doing that? Well, what was the net result? The net result? Did any jews get hurt? No.

 

So it wasn’t to get the jews. The net result was to basically provide a context, a pretext for the jewish lobby and its satellites in the media and Sky News. What does Mark Latham call it? “Sky jews”. And instead of the Daily Telegraph, he says the “Daily Tel Aviv”. For the jewish media and the jewish lobby to pressure successfully the government into passing Hate Speech laws.

 

So obviously it was the fucking jews that paid the gangsters. I mean, one plus one equals two.

 

Blair Cottrell: Maybe they know that, maybe ASIO knows that. But they’re publicly running with the “oh, Iran did it”, to make Israel think they’re not on to them. I mean, that’s a long shot.

 

But what they say publicly doesn’t always need to line up with what they actually know. They’re an intelligence agency, so they could be playing a long game.

 

Joel Davis: This is interesting. In this article, it’s supposed to be about foreign governments attempting to kill dissidents. And you were just talking about how you think they could try to kill me potentially, if I get too successful. Or you, or our friends. What he says here:

 

“Angry, alienated individuals are embracing anti-authority ideologies and conspiracy theories, engaging in uncivil debate and unpeaceful protest.”

 

Blair Cottrell: Where’s that happen?

 

Joel Davis:

 

“The aggrieved, not necessarily espouse violent views. It may see violence as a legitimate way to affect political societal change. The way nationalist and racist violent extremists attempted to leverage the so-called March for Australia rallies is a case in point. The biggest neo-Nazi group, the National Socialist Network, or White Australia as it is rebranding itself, identified the demonstrations as a vehicle to raise its profile. It strategically and opportunistically exploited the organisers complaints about immigration and the cost of living. Even if the organisation does not engage in terrorism, I remain deeply concerned by its hateful, divisive rhetoric and increasingly violent propaganda?”

 

What do you mean violent propaganda?

 

Blair Cottrell: Hang on, did Burgess say that specifically?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah!:

 

“And the growing likelihood these things will prompt spontaneous violence, particularly in response to perceived provocation.”

 

So what this is saying:

 

“We might upset people who will then attack us, and that this is therefore irresponsible.”

 

What a joke!

 

Blair Cottrell: So he’s actually referencing members of Australian nationalism or specifically White Australia as potential targets for assassination. Is that what he’s saying?

 

Joel Davis: I haven’t seen those explicit comments here, but I’m still reading:

 

“While nationalist and racist violent extremists make up the significant majority of our investigations into ideologically motivated extremism.”

 

So still the majority of ASIO’s work is on us. I mean, it’s crazy to think about how many people working in these federal agencies are just focused on the boys, like literally us!

 

Blair Cottrell: Fucking crazy! Especially when you see the boys and like you know them. They’re literally just normal guys.

 

Joel Davis: Like they’re watching right now! There’s like feds watch, like they watch every episode of this shit!

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, they have to.

 

Joel Davis: Like you’re fucking pathetic! Hi feds! Fuck you! Ike, what a joke.

 

Blair Cottrell: When he said, when Burgess said that White Australia or you guys utilise concerns about immigration to exploit or gain your profile or whatever as a political force. Doesn’t literally every fucking political group or party that ever existed do the same thing?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, One Nation is trying to exploit it for themselves. The Liberal Party tries to exploit it.

 

Blair Cottrell: Massive realisation, bro! Like literally that’s what politics is. You leverage an environment and situation to your advantage. Like as long as it’s not violent, it’s legal. But that’s changing right now, isn’t it?

 

Joel Davis: If people attack us and we fight back. And he says:

 

“Oh, they’re provoking violence.”

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, it’s very concerning.

 

Anyway, continue.

 

Joel Davis: Since, oh, he’s just going on about fucking October [7th] 2023, anti-Israel, blah, blah, blah. All he cares about is people doing nationalism or being anti-Israel. It’s just like political policing. Like the positions of the state is that:

 

“White people bad, jews good! And we want to enforce that.”

 

That’s all he’s saying, basically.

 

[1:36:26]

 

 

Blair Cottrell: I think the days are almost gone, where you can sit on streams like this and talk like we’re talking now, I don’t think this will be possible in another year or two. Maybe even sooner than that. I think the world we grew up in where you can just observe how ridiculous the government is or how unjustly you’re being treated by government agencies, by police, and you can just openly discuss that or draw attention to it. I almost think those days are gone. We’re almost done with that.

 

Like, you’ll be streaming like this and they’ll just come into your house and smash your camera and arrest you over some like. [chuckling] I actually believe that we’re going to go through a time like that pretty soon. I feel it in my gut. Yeah, we’re almost done with this. This will be a thing of the past pretty soon.

 

Joel Davis: I don’t know. I think it’s a bit much. I don’t think.

 

Blair Cottrell: I think you’ll be surprised. Australia is very corrupt.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, it is corrupt. It is corrupt, but I don’t think they have the ability to do that.

 

But anyway, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, they’re already raiding people on no evidence. Like they’re just coming into your house and saying:

 

“Oh, you did this!”

 

They don’t have any fucking proof. And they’re just using that as an excuse to take all your shit! So they’re doing it already.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. Well, it’s not really the same thing though, is it? Because you don’t, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, it’s only one step away. Like, it’s basically within the same tier.

 

Joel Davis: That’s like, they use the, “the process is the punishment” type thing, but they are not actually succeeding in getting the punishment in those scenarios. I mean, Tom just represented himself from a jail cell over zoom in court and won the other day.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, but he’s still in jail.

 

Joel Davis: Well, he’s in jail for running up a hill and hitting people. Like, it’s, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Partly. It’s like 25 other charges as well.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. I mean, obviously what’s happening to him is unfair, but it’s like I push back against this, like catastrophizing:

 

“Oh, they’re just gonna round us all up and put us in jail anytime now.”

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, if you look at what’s happening, like if you just observe the pattern of their activity, what they do is when they don’t get a result by going or by increasing their activity in regards to like taking a more aggressive approach. When they don’t get the result they want by taking a more aggressive approach, they just become more aggressive again to try to get a result. And if that doesn’t work, then they just get more aggressive again. That’s the pattern of behaviour I’m seeing from the current political policing government system. So based on that pattern, it’s just mathematical certainty that they’re just going to become more aggressive.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, but at the end of the day, like they don’t have the ability to just arrest, …

 

Blair Cottrell: They do have that.

 

Joel Davis: They still have to win in court. You’ll win in court and then you make them look stupid. Like there’s a limit., …

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, I agree. That can take years. But then it depends on how compromised the judges are as well. So there’s still variables there to consider.

 

And like they really do have the ability, they have the ability to do whatever they want. There’s just words on paper that they need to manipulate to make it seem legit.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, there’s legitimacy though. Like if they push too hard, particularly as we’re building this political party, if they push too hard against us, you know, it will be too delegitimizing. So they have, …

 

Blair Cottrell: There is that. But then you can argue that they’ll just make it exclusively about you and your ideology, and they’ll get everyone to agree on those terms. So it can’t happen to anyone else, but it can happen to these Nazis because of “how abhorrent they are”. And everyone will be like, “yes”! In Parliament. I think they made a law. Do you know who Julian Knight is? He was that guy who shot a bunch of police officers. Maybe Huddle Street Massacre, Was it Huddle Street?

 

Anyway, he’s in jail and he was eligible for parole a while ago. Did he get parole recently? I can’t remember. Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. But Parliament made a law specifically to keep him in jail because he was considered such a villain of society, specifically to keep him in jail. So reason I’m telling you that is because though they can just try to make laws specifically to stop you guys registering exclusively, and they’ll claim that that’s, …

 

Joel Davis: Like, if they want to try and do that. And then I’m happy to go to the High Court. We’ll win. I’m pretty confident, like, it’s unconstitutional.

 

Blair Cottrell: I hope. So yeah.

 

Joel Davis: And then it will just be like, good publicity.

 

Blair Cottrell: And I’m not being. I’m not taking a black pill here. Like, if you just look at the pattern of behaviour, like I said, of the Australian government and policing system, this is what they’re gonna do, I reckon. Because they just get more and more aggressive, more and more.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, they’re playing games.

 

But the problem that they have is the police try to go further than what the laws actually allow them to. They’re getting ahead of themselves. They’re not going about it with the Right progression. It’s not the policy, …

 

[1:41:29]

 

Blair Cottrell: Where’s the incentive for them not to do that, though? Because they do that and then there’s no punishment. There’s no drawback for them. The charges against you that didn’t hold up in court and that took a year for you to sort of clear your name of two years. Well, you still have to go through all of that process and then the charges just get dropped or you get found not guilty or whatever. And then there’s no actual consequence for the police for taking two years of your life.

 

Joel Davis: There aren’t any consequence for me either. I got a bunch of court dates I have to call into, and I got held in a jail cell for a few hours. Like, I don’t give a fuck! Like, it doesn’t really change anything for me.

 

Blair Cottrell: So I just think there should be an immediate and pretty severe consequence for police, for the prosecution department, if they lay charges on you that end up just getting dropped or you found not guilty. You shouldn’t have to go through like a second lawsuit process that takes another two fucking years and costs another $40,000 to try to get like some sort of justice against malicious prosecution. It should just be like some sort of immediate consequence. Like the prosecutor who signed off on the bullshit charge should just get sacked straight away! Maybe his whole team, something like that.

 

Joel Davis: Well, I agree with that, but that’s not gonna, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Especially when we have a system where there’s no real punishment for just being malicious as a prosecutor or as a police officer. You can just do it and then later, oh the judge finds that this isn’t legit, so throws it out and then the cops just goes home laughing anyway. Because he’s still robbed you of all that time and energy and money!

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, but that’s what happens. It’s just like this circle jerk where we just get jerked around. Obviously there’s an exception when it comes to. When they allege, like, an assault or something that’s separate. But when it comes to these speech crimes and political machinations, it’s just this. It’s just this big, like, jerk around that then ultimately doesn’t actually result in very serious punishments, or if there’s even a conviction.

 

So it’s like, I just don’t really care that much. And you kind of let it. That’s the thing. That’s why I do find it annoying the catastrophizing, because that’s like, part of what it is. It’s like to create fear so that people think:

 

“Oh, well, like, we can’t do anything because the police stop us.”

 

And it’s like:

 

“Okay, but they haven’t stopped us yet. They haven’t actually stopped us.”

 

And so it shows that if they could just stop us so easily, they would have by now. But they can’t. Like, there’s limitations on what they can do, and we’re skirting on the edge. But they don’t have the ability to just like an easy, like, snap us in half option because they would have taken it by now.

 

Blair Cottrell: They’re trying to create one. The limitations are changing fast.

 

Joel Davis: They’re trying to.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s what we’re observing right now!

 

Joel Davis: They haven’t actually come up with a formula on how to do it yet. They haven’t figured out how to do it. They’ve got all these think tanks and lobby groups and they’ve passed all these different laws and they do all these meetings and have all the, … And they still haven’t fucking done it yet.

 

So to me, that demonstrates something. You know, you got to take stock of that you have been around for a while. Tom’s been around for a while. Like this isn’t like something that just popped up in the last year that they’re dealing with. They haven’t figured out how to deal with it. All they’ve done is kind of amplify us and make us more famous. They haven’t figured out the method. And using like policing tactics to deal with something like this is the wrong way. If they wanted to beat us, the way you beat us is by creating a fake opposition movement that basically is kind of nationalist, but it’s still controlled by them. And you bring all the people that would otherwise support us into that alternative. But they can’t do that they don’t have the skills to do that and they don’t have the personnel to do that. And they don’t have the ability to concede that because they’re so ideologically fixated that even like the ZOG version of us, they would be still too offended by it, to allow it to exist.

 

So yeah, I think we should do some Superchats. Unless you can respond to that, but we could do some Superchats.

 

Blair Cottrell: No, it sounds like a good idea. It’s been a good discussion. Pretty intense talking points and topics. But it’s an intense environment down here in Australia right now, isn’t it?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah it is.

 

But yeah, Sign up to the party! Sign up to the fucking party! Like seriously. Mr. Marshwood said:

 

“What’s your take on the mischling* question?”

 

Well, I don’t even know what you mean by the mischling question. Like, yeah, do I agree with the Nuremberg Laws? Maybe they’re a little bit too lenient I would say.

 

[* Mischling was a pejorative legal term which was used in NS Germany to denote persons of mixed “Aryan” and “non-Aryan”, such as Jewish, ancestry as they were classified by the Nuremberg racial laws of 1935. In German, the word has the general denotation of ‘hybrid’, ‘mongrel’, or ‘half-breed’. Outside its use in official Nazi terminology, the term Mischlingskinder was later used to refer to war babies born to non-White soldiers and German mothers in the aftermath of World War II. Wikipedia]

 

But you know, from what I’ve seen like an Ashkenazi jew is like 70% White, 30% Levantine.

 

So if someone is like, so the Germans, if you’re between 1/2 and 1/8 jewish, you’d be classified as a Mischling, which meant that you weren’t classified as a full jew. Or you could stay in Germany but you couldn’t like work in like government or the media or any like sensitive position.

 

But if you were like 1/8 jewish or less, then you could be considered like a full German and you could do most things other than join the SS which had like 100% blood purity requirements. So like, is that what you’re asking? Like, I mean, I’m not going to criticise it. At the time it was probably a reasonable law. I would probably go about things a little bit differently today. And because the primary issue isn’t really like jewish mixing, it’s like other non-Whites who are, if jews are like mostly White with some admixture when they mix in, it’s a bit different than if someone’s like Asian or black or something because it’s more of a genetic divergence. So you have to be way more strict. Hazel Mango said:

 

“Why did you move to Sydney, Joel?”

 

I don’t really want to get into all the details of my personal life, but I’m from Sydney, so I kind of just like moved back. Oz88 said:

 

“Are there niggers in heaven?”

 

No! What do you think, Blair? Are there niggers in heaven?

 

[1:48:05]

 

Blair Cottrell: Are there black people in heaven? I’m sure there’s been some noble black people who have done some noble stuff. I think it’s pretty dismissive to say, …

 

Joel Davis: I’d say they’re not going to the same place we’re going.

 

Blair Cottrell: Like, I don’t know, man! I don’t know. Do you believe in heaven, Joel?

 

Joel Davis: Not really, no. But like let’s say you did. Like let’s just say like for argument’s sake, like we’re on board with that. Do you think? Are we going to be, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, considering that, …

 

Joel Davis: Like what’s up my nigger?

 

Blair Cottrell: Like considering that like having that racial admixture creates an earthly hell, I can’t imagine the most ideal, it’s not really living conditions, like an afterlife, the most pristine existence would be multi-ethnic. It’s probably going to be very orderly and homogeneous, you would think.

 

But some people believe that heaven is like your own version of perfect. It’s like a perfect time in your past that you envision. You just kind of keep living in that.

 

What would your version of heaven be? What would you like, do you want? Are you like one of those 72 virgins kind of guys? Or do you have like, …

 

Joel Davis: No, I’m not a fucking Muslim. No, I think that’s a meme idea. I mean I like the notion of Valhalla where it’s just like basically you just fight all day and then pretty much until everyone dies. And then you like respawn, have a big piss up, party all night and then wake up the next morning and fight the death again.

 

And then you like respawn, have a party and it just goes like that forever. That sounds pretty cool to me. It’s like playing video games. I was thinking you can just play like GTA like IRL every day with your mates. Like imagine if we could kill each other. But you don’t have to feel bad because like you’ll see me tomorrow. Like just respawn, like be funny as fuck! I’ll kill you all the time.

 

Blair Cottrell: You’re like laughing about it. You’re like, bro, your skull exploded yesterday! [chuckling]

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. [chuckling] But yeah. Do you have a dream of niggers? Because personally, in my dreams, everyone’s always White. I’m not just saying that to be edgy.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s a good point, actually. Well, I’ve never really had a close relationship with anyone who’s black. And so there’s not really effective, like memory data of interacting with someone who’s black.

 

So I suppose I don’t dream about it because there’s nothing for my brain to draw upon. Because I tend to dream about scenarios that I have experienced. But then there’s all this extra stuff like expansion content bolted on and it turns into something different. I’m sure if I knew a black guy that I probably would dream on occasion about a black guy, but I just, …

 

Joel Davis: You don’t dream about niggers! That’s!

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, do you?

 

Joel Davis: No!

 

Blair Cottrell: Why are we being asked these questions? What are these questions? Is this Superchats?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. Tollah the Gotcha Joel bro:

 

“When’s your next debate? Get it done. That wog faggot on TikTok who dodged you is a coward! Who else is on the horizon apart from Avi and others?”

 

I don’t know. I don’t really have. I mean, everyone. I don’t know. I got to change my approach because it seems like when I try to debate people, I must be intimidating them. I must be coming on too strong. And they keep running away. In the debate world. I’m like the, desperate incel, who the girl replies to my text and then I spam her with like 45 texts about how she’s the one.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, [chuckling] you got to control that man!

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, I gotta play hard to get.

 

Blair Cottrell: Too keen. This young axe is too keen. That’s his problem.

 

Joel Davis: Treat ‘em mean, keep ‘em keen. Or something. But it’s like the opposite. I’m like, too mean!

 

[1:52:24]

 

 

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

 

 

[2:45:15]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 11/9/2025 = 43, latest comments at top)

PongTheBoy
9 hours ago
you fuckinf idiots are single handedly destroying the end immigration movement your gay little marches don’t do anything but scare normies and empower the left and j’s.. fuck both of you retards hopefully you get locked up so us with a brain are able to take over the movement
0 likes

AndrewGalvin
1 day ago
What’s been up with Blair recently, it’s like he has no vril and spirit anymore. He started playing video games on stream and doesn’t seem to care as much.
3 likes

AndrewGalvin
1 day ago
Can we get Jacob on
1 like

CH484D_60Y1M
1 day ago
PATRIOTS organize – DIGITAL ID! TEXAS! Show of force as a protest is a must, Urgent Constitutionally legal show of force, armed assembly ! https://rumble.com/v71d4ei-patriots-organize-digital-id-texas-show-of-force-is-a-must.html
1 like

AussiePermaculture
1 day ago
My intuition is telling me things are going to get really good unexpectedly.
1 like

TheShowgun
VerifiedSupporter+
2 days ago
Literally laughed very loudly at Blair’s complete ignorance of JD Vance
0 likes

okkkkkk4
2 days ago
Best podcast in the world. Free tom. Blair says things that may happen and Joel says why they won’t lol
0 likes

ProvingNihil
2 days ago
Nice Joy Division shirt Joel!
1 like

jonottawa
2 days ago
It’s time to cut Blair loose. Every answer, every take, sets off alarm bells. Watch through the show again and tell me I’m wrong. He’s either a fed or his heart is no longer in it.
-1 like

‹ Hide 1 reply
HeronNow
Supporter+
13 hours ago
YOU’RE WRONG
0 likes

Girnigoe
2 days ago
I don’t think Blair is ever being negative. Someone must play ‘devil’s advocate. As to what ZOG will do to you, look what they’ve done to everyone else who has opposed them. Get a Ouija Board and ask Julius Stretcher or Alfred Rosenberg.
2 likes

Restlessdreams88
3 days ago
Basic joy division shirt
1 like

imSofaKingRayZest
3 days ago
just a few important points for the white australia parties policies off the top of my head, ending australias un treaties is a must at the start as it legally underpins most of the un-australian laws in place, lima declaration, who health policies, climate change mandates, etc. free speech is also a must, as a org commented to truth, lies can always be defeated by truth, the holocost could never be pushed if truth was honored. a comprehensive policy on technology and its use is also essential with the neural/social distortion capacity, coming dominance of ai and agi and the robotic transition. a massive re education program for both women and men toward a more natural order.
1 like

imSofaKingRayZest
3 days ago
afp have the power to legally hack into your devices and plant illegal material on it then raid you and charge you for having said material. think about that for 58 seconds while another non white immigrant legally becomes australian, cobber.
0 likes

imSofaKingRayZest
3 days ago
so abbos calling for “their” land back and an end of australia or importing infinity turd world filth is not seen as racially divisive or threatening social cohesion but white aussies wanting a white australia like it used to be is when we are all suppose to be equal?
0 likes

Keane55
VerifiedSupporter
3 days ago
Also important to remember that Winston Churchill was responsible for the Galipolli disaster, of which the ANZACs were a massive percentage of the casualties.
0 likes

palacepony
Supporter
3 days ago
Yeah this DISRUPT LAW shit.. where is the line drawn here? Rape your wife? Kill your dog? Burn your car? Blair is great to expose the frailty of these stooges and their ‘disrupt law’.
1 like

BradC1988
3 days ago
The WAR film is fucking epic and inspirational. AUSTRALIA FOR THE WHITE MAN! THE REST MUST GO!
1 like

Bolzenschleuder
3 days ago
Joel serving up some sweet emo aesthetics tonight
0 likes

Seanybruv
4 days ago
2:22:00 slurs only exist for inferior people and inferior things. It’s why there are no proper slurs for White people, at least none that actually work in the same way they do for other races.
0 likes

SALAustNZ
4 days ago
No. There are no groups in heaven.
1 like

Seanybruv
4 days ago
I can’t believe you didn’t talk about the White Australia Rising documentary. I see it’s been taken off youtube already, it’s criminally underviewed on Rumble
1 like

Scovell7
Supporter
4 days ago
Blair’s blackpilling seems to increase with each episode. It really contrasts with what appears to be the mood of the NSN at the moment.
6 likes

› Show 2 replies
3010phil
4 days ago
They should look at how many from the AFD party in Germany have recently died . Way too many for coincidence
4 likes

fdgrdfg
4 days ago
1:25:50 Blair’s response was goated ahaha
0 likes

DJTriumph
Supporter
4 days ago
If there was a White Britain Party I would vote for the first time in my life
4 likes

TripleGas
VerifiedSupporter
4 days ago
Erika Kirk (née Frantze) is a yenta.
3 likes

TripleGas
VerifiedSupporter
4 days ago
this whole “nigggers are going to heaven” shit is so fucking retarded and is always pushed by fedora fags and Satanists as some kind of own. They don’t even believe in heaven but try concern troll Christians. Pathetic bunch they are.
-2 likes

AltKuyperian
Supporter+
4 days ago
Sad I keep missing these. Show is over before I get out of bed in the morning lol
3 likes

Dissident_Loner
Supporter
4 days ago
I had hoped that Blair would go off on an uplifting rant and he didn’t disappoint.
2 likes

LachlanMD
4 days ago
these ads before the show are getting ridiculous
7 likes

‹ Hide 5 replies
Seanybruv
4 days ago
watch on Brave browser, no ads
6 likes

MajesticCasual
4 days ago
Brave browser, or Adblock Plug in on FireFox, etc I probably haven’t seen an ad since 2008 or so. Ads become obsolete and why on YoudenTube they have people manually read ads.
1 like

AltKuyperian
Supporter+
4 days ago
Unfortunately, it’s due to the large presence of easily fooled boomers on the app.
0 likes

BradC1988
3 days ago
Brave browser solved that problem for me
0 likes

Strueth
3 days ago
p l l
0 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
Strueth
2 days ago
oops sorry,, I had my phone in my pocket gardening and just noticed this weird pocket message…
0 likes

katana17
5 days ago
[Joel Davis – NSN Conference Speech – Aug 10, 2025 – Transcript] https://katana17.com/2025/11/03/joel-davis-nsn-conference-speech-aug-10-2025-transcript/ [In this speech given at a National Socialism Network conference in August 2025, Aussie nationalist activist Joel Davis talks on “Why Individualism is Cowardice”, and how to be effective Whites need to see politics as a team sport, just like our enemies, organized jewry and other groups, and work together. Key points: Organisational strength and media coverage: “This whole weekend has been such an upgrade for the organisation… They think making us look strong is going to go against us.” Critique of individualist accusations: “These Nazis they can’t get a girlfriend, they’re poor, they’re a bunch of losers… And so they have to blame the jews, blame the system, blame society for their ills.” Political sacrifice as responsibility: “To engage in this form of politics requires incredible sacrifice. We are the ones that are taking personal responsibility for the future of Our nation.” Politics as inherently collective: “There is no such thing as individualism in politics because politics, by definition is how you organise a society.” Criticism of conservative withdrawal: “What these people actually are advocating for is for you to exit political life, for you to not participate in political life, to become apolitical.” Learning from Left-wing tactics: “The Left make the personal political… The reason why your life sucks is because of White supremacy, is because of Patriarchy… And the way that we’re going to fix it is we’re going to go and create a political movement.” Movement costs and commitment: “This movement exacts costs… If you participate in our movement, you get a lot of enemies… They’re trying to put us in jail.” Racial politics as team sport: “Politics is a team sport… We have to play as a team, as White people, if we want to win!” And more, ….
1 like

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

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

Graham Connolly: Welcome back to The Offally Offensive.

 

My guest today is one of the most notorious and scrutinised figures in Australian activism, Blair Cottrell. For over two and a half hours, we dissected his decade in the public eye, focusing on his successes, his failures, and the controversies that have defined his time in activism. We talk about the rapid rise and the complex collapse of major movements like the United Patriots Front and Lads Society, why he briefly stepped away from the movement, and the reasons he felt compelled to return. Throughout this episode, we explore a powerful question. What is the true cost of being unfiltered? It’s a genuine organic two and a half hour chat. Let’s get straight into it.

 

I should probably say that I’m here with this important guest that I have today. It’s Shane Warne’s son, Blair Cottrell! [chuckling]

 

Blair Cottrell: I’m not that important.

 

Graham Connolly: Why did I call you Shane Warne’s son? [chuckling]

 

Blair Cottrell: There was a bit of a fiasco back in the Covid days where I heard a rumour. I heard a rumour that Shane Warne had gone overseas to try to save himself from vaccine poisoning or something and that’s why he died.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And so I shared that rumour with some people and I heard that through family, friends.

 

Graham Connolly: What was funny was, is that that was the first time I ever seen you.

 

Blair Cottrell: Really?

 

Graham Connolly: So you got me like, you got me with that! And at the time, I was of course, anti-Covid, anti-vaccine. I was sending that to my friends in Ireland going:

 

“Look at Shane Warne son’s come out and said this….”

 

And then like literally, like 12 hours later, I found out that I was:

 

“Oh, it’s this guy called Blair Cottrell.”

 

Blair Cottrell: If you watch the video. I never claimed to be Shane Warne’s son.

 

Graham Connolly: No. But I only seen like a little snippet.

 

Blair Cottrell: Someone, some international news, including Indian news. I think cthey shared it saying:

 

“This is Shane Warren’s son.”

 

And everyone believed it.

 

 

Graham Connolly: I believed it. I had to literally 12 hours later, I’m like frantically typing to my mates going:

 

“It’s not Shane Warne’s son!”

 

Because your credibility is important to you when you’re sort of Right-wing, you’re anti-establishment.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: You got to protect your credibility. So straight away, I had to correct the record. [chuckling]

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, well, I didn’t even know about that. Tom Sewell sent it to me with a crying, laughing faces.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Because he saw it going viral. I was late to the party. I was at work, at home. I hadn’t even seen it yet.

 

And then apparently. Yeah, but I’m not Shane Warne’s son. My name is Blair Cottrell.

 

Graham Connolly: This is Blair. Yeah, thanks for coming in, Blair.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, no worries, mate. It was a bit of a trip out here to Geelong.

 

Graham Connolly: It is from Frankston. It’s like two hours. It’s all the way around there.

 

Blair Cottrell: Last time I came to Geelong. [Graham goes off camera for something] Yeah, no worries, mate. Yeah, I noticed.

 

Graham Connolly: There’s still a learning experience for me here.

 

Blair Cottrell: So you’ve recently had a baby?

 

Graham Connolly: I’ve had a baby recently, yeah. Well, Katie had the baby.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: I won’t take credit.

 

Blair Cottrell: Oh, is it the first one?

 

Graham Connolly: First one, yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Congratulations mate.

 

Graham Connolly: Thank you very much. Yeah. It’s three months old now. We had her here in this very living room. Had her, just me and Katie.

 

Blair Cottrell: Home birth?

 

Graham Connolly: No midwives even. We didn’t even have, like, normally you’d have a midwife, you have midwives from the hospital or whatever. But we didn’t have any with midwives or anything. So kate did very well.

 

Blair Cottrell: I’ve heard a lot of that going around lately.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Especially since that pandemic fiasco. There’s a lot less trust in the official medical institutions and people are just kind of going natural.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And interestingly, my sister did the same thing. She’s got two young boys now. She was told she would never have kids. She had endometriosis and there was problems with her reproductive system. But she focused herself on healing and she had two boys, naturally. Home births.

 

Graham Connolly: Wow!

 

Blair Cottrell: And there’s nothing wrong with them. They’ve had no vaccines and they’re the biggest, strongest, healthiest boys you’ll ever see.

 

Graham Connolly: You notice it with the kids, don’t you? The ones that are not vaccinated?

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. Oh, well, I don’t know. I’ve got nothing to compare it to because I haven’t seen that many different babies. But I have noticed that the kids that don’t get vaccinated and so forth, they don’t seem to have many problems.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, no, I’ve noticed this. We had a couple that used to play a game called Vaccinate or Not. So like every child that we’d meet we literally have a little game with them. It seems like a bit more. But where the game, they’d guess, was the child vaccinated or not? And the funny thing about it is you’d always find out because the parents of vaccinated children are always very fast to brag about it. They’re very proud of themselves.

 

Blair Cottrell: Still these days. You think they would be?

 

Graham Connolly: I think they still are, yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: What do you think that’s about?

 

[04:54]

 

Graham Connolly: Being accepted, socially, I think. Comes back to, especially women. I think women have always needed to be part of the tribe socially, haven’t they?

 

Blair Cottrell: Maybe also it’s a way to cope with the guilt that perhaps they were wrong.

 

Graham Connolly: Maybe.

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s:

 

“Well, I did the right thing. I vaccinated my child. I’m a good person.”

 

Maybe trying to block out the possibility that maybe that wasn’t the right choice.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. There’s the old saying, it’s easier to fool a man than to convince a man he has been fooled!

 

Blair Cottrell: Unfortunately, that’s true.

 

Graham Connolly: It is true.

 

Blair Cottrell: One of the ways I got started in public commentary, activism, was to try to convince Leftists that the whole world view they’d been sold was just kind of a modern communist propaganda trope. And I was convinced I could do it.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: I angered a lot of them. I don’t know if I converted any, but that’s the way I first got started, with a whiteboard in my bedroom. That was back in probably 2015, early 2015, I think.

 

Graham Connolly: Well, I think before I ever got involved in real life doing anything, what I was trying to do was I had this thing in my head where if I can wake up my family and my loved ones and you can wake up your family and your loved ones to “wake up” then we’ll reach critical mass and everybody will wake up!

 

But it’s not as easy as you think it is! Even just to wake up to people that you think are going to be receptive to it.

 

Blair Cottrell: Your family, are they here in Australia? Ireland?

 

Graham Connolly: Ireland.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: I’ve got a brother in Canada.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yep.

 

Graham Connolly: And the rest are in Ireland.

 

Blair Cottrell: So you grew up in Ireland?

 

Graham Connolly: I grew up in Ireland. Moved here when I was like 23. Came here for a holiday.

 

Blair Cottrell: Southern. Northern?

 

Graham Connolly: Southern. Right in the middle, little place called County Offley.

 

Blair Cottrell: That would make you Catholic?

 

Graham Connolly: That would make me Catholic, yeah. Grow up in a Catholic school, all that sort of thing. Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Interesting! That would have been very, …

 

Graham Connolly: It’s actually insane! You, like, you don’t realise it comparison, but it was like the Catholic Church had a real grip on the school system in Ireland back that time.

 

Blair Cottrell: What year would that have been?

 

Graham Connolly: I would have started school probably around 89.

 

Blair Cottrell: Right.

 

Graham Connolly: 88, 89.

 

Blair Cottrell: I was born 89.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. Right. So I was probably starting school around then. Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yep. Was there much. I suppose there was a lot of that sort of Catholic nationalism going on, Irish nationalism. But if that’s how you would describe it. Was there much conflict between the Catholics and the Protestants around that era?

 

Graham Connolly: There was in a, but it was light hearted. So where I’m from, I never actually thought much about it. But we had our own church. They had their own church. But there was a small population of Protestants where I was from. They had their own schools, their own churches.

 

Blair Cottrell: But they still lived in the same region.

 

Graham Connolly: They still lived in the same villages. We had a handful, like, I’m from a village of like 300 people and there was like a handful of families in that village that were Protestant. But they usually lived on the outskirts of the villages, nicer houses [chuckling] and a little bit of land and stuff like that. But it was funny because even as kids we didn’t understand what the difference was between Catholics and Protestants. But you still snipe at each other, you know?

 

Blair Cottrell: Is that because it’s a cultural thing?

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, it’s a cultural thing, I think it’s no different than you snipe at the Travelers. The Travelers snipe at the settled people. You just always have conflict, I think, between people.

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s a tribal thing, though, isn’t it?

 

Graham Connolly: It’s a tribal thing, yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: I think people almost need to feel like they belong to an in-group and they also need an enemy. Even if everyone is the same, they’ll find a way to make an enemy out of the people over the next hill.

 

Graham Connolly: But it was funny, like in that, where I was from, in the village I was from slagging matches were to go. Everybody loved to slag each other. It was like quick wit and just slagging off each other, whatever you could think of to make each other. But it was no real hard feelings involved in it. It was just people trying to be funny towards each other, taking the piss out of each other. It’s just an Irish thing.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: And it was the same. The Protestant would just give you one extra thing that you could slag them over and the same in reverse. But they still came down and played soccer with us, like played football in the park. Do you know what I mean?

 

 

So it was like this weird divide that was there, but it wasn’t actually there. You didn’t go to the same schools, you didn’t go to the same church, but you played football together, you still hung out together.

 

Blair Cottrell: Right.

 

Graham Connolly: You know, you still went trick or treating on Halloween together and stuff like that.

 

Blair Cottrell: Is this just because maybe your village was low population and it wasn’t particularly vicious, the division?

 

[09:06]

 

Graham Connolly: Well, I think in the Republic of Ireland there wasn’t much division anyway by the time we were growing up. It was like almost as if., … And the Northern Irish people would often say that they were abandoned by the Republican Irish people like that once we got our independence, it was like:

 

“Whoa, we got our independence. Turn their back on them, kind of thing!”

 

That can be debated because there’s an awful lot of people in the Republic that still don’t accept that it’s not a united Ireland. So but there is still that little bit of jabbing that goes on there.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. When did you last go back? Have you been back for a visit?

 

Graham Connolly: I used to go back once, basically every year. But when Covid happened I haven’t been back since. I got a dog. Well, you probably heard howling there a second ago. [chuckling] I got a dog.

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s a big dog.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, I got a dog when Covid happened.

 

Blair Cottrell: It nails you down sometimes, …

 

Graham Connolly: Sometimes you don’t like, think through everything about like, I love the dog. The dog got me back out and about, got me back training. Because you have to start walking the dog.

 

And when I start walking the dog, I had become a little bit of a bloody couch potato to be honest with you, I’ve been working the same job for 10 years and it was an office job and stuff like that. So then I got the dog. And it’s when the novelty wears off a dog, that’s when you find out who you are, I’ll tell you that now. You get a dog and like you’re., … Because, it’s the fairy tale again. You think of how nice to have a friend there, have it out there. And for the first three weeks it’s new, it’s fun! But then it’s a chore. You know what I mean?

 

Blair Cottrell: Correct.

 

Graham Connolly: Like, are you going to keep walking this dog every day and the novelty’s worn off? Like the new car novelty. Once the new car smell has worn off, [chuckling] worn off the dog, are you going to keep bringing it for a walk every day?

 

Blair Cottrell: It becomes a time and money pit, doesn’t it?

 

Graham Connolly: Time and money pit! And then it’s like, now you have to get through that period of:

 

“Fuck doing it!”

 

Like almost that period of regret.

 

And if you do, because you have to then, because it’s a responsibility, then you come out the other end loving the dog.

 

Blair Cottrell: I’ve got a love hate relationship with dogs myself.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: I think suburbia in particular can be a cruel place to have a dog.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. It can be.

 

Blair Cottrell: Because they can smell and hear everything.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.