Graham Connolly: The concept is kind of like, to rehumanise the dehumanised.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s what I’ve always tried to do.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: But the government is always trying to do the opposite. The government’s always trying to paint you as a monster!

 

Graham Connolly: Yes.

 

Blair Cottrell: And what’s concerning now is the threshold of political policing. As I’ve already mentioned, there’s nothing they won’t do to paint you as a monster! There’s nothing they won’t cook up.

 

Graham Connolly: That’s right.

 

Blair Cottrell: So it’s like I’ve had everything, almost everything under the sun thrown at me at this point.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: You know, but I’ve tried to keep my chin up and just take it all in my stride. The thing is, as long as you can always explain, as long as you have the ability to still communicate with your audience and explain your point of view then you’re generally okay. But that’s the problem with censorship. They shut down your ability to explain the full story.

 

Graham Connolly: And that kind of leads me, actually, to something I did want to ask you about, is that for a while, you seem to take a back step, or you took a step away a little bit, or maybe not a step away completely from fighting. You’re always been a fighter. From Tom’s approach, maybe, like, you might not necessarily agreed with his approach for a while and maybe took a back step or stepped away from it. Would that be a fair way of putting it, or?

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. It happened sort of especially as we moved into the pandemic and the Covid fiasco.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And it just seemed like there were new priorities at that time. It seemed like the whole public consciousness moved away from political ideology and was focused more on vaccine conspiracies and survival.

 

And so that’s kind of where I refocused myself for a while.

 

But then when all of that settled down and kind of people realised that it was all just smoke and mirrors, most of it, then the priority became politics once more, and it was mostly about that.

 

Also initially, I didn’t believe the ninja outfits. The black block.

 

Graham Connolly: Yes.

 

Blair Cottrell: I didn’t think owning the neo-Nazi label would work. I thought that people were potentially too Hoodwinked into associating Nazis with a certain bogeyman, with a certain evil, and that was so ingrained in the consciousness of people, I doubted they were able to ever accept Nazism as anything other than evil.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. And you’d never get past that first sentence, almost like you literally, it’s just cognitive dissonance kicks in straight away and you can’t break through that wall.

 

Blair Cottrell: Pretty much. And I spoke already about the government’s internal counterinsurgency efforts. Part of that is also to when they isolate groups like Tom’s group, groups like White Australia, National Socialist Network. When they isolate, they try to radicalise it further. So they try to push you into taking more radical position, doing more radical stuff, saying more radical things, because that, in their view, isolates you more from your resource base, which is the public.

 

And so I saw going down the trajectory, initially I thought taking on more radical position was giving the government what they wanted.

 

But what I wasn’t, or what I underestimated was the ability of Tom, of Jacob, Jack Eltis up in Sydney, their ability to still appear cool and stay popular even while being more radical. I underestimated that. I didn’t think that was really possible. But I should have, because you remember Ziz? Ziz was this Australian cultural phenomenon who was like super aesthetic. He gave birth to the bodybuilding aesthetics movement. His brother’s still alive.

 

But anyway, he said that if you look good enough, you can basically sell anything. You can get away with anything. And I was kind of trying to push that message for a while, too. I was trying to get the guys to be as healthy as possible, get fit, present themselves well.

 

Graham Connolly: Yep.

 

Blair Cottrell: Not only to present a more professional appearance, but to appear as something that was respectable to the public and it was a good way to sell any message is to look good. But I think by putting that out there and by Tom basically understanding that, in essence, he was able to incorporate that, and he’s almost made Nazism cool somehow. I didn’t think it was possible.

 

Graham Connolly: When I first started, I was still at the stage where I was calling myself National Socialist, but when somebody would call me a Nazi, I thought I was very clever. When I turned around and I’d say:

 

“Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! That’s just a derogatory name for a National Socialist. Like, you’re the type of person that doesn’t use derogatory language, I thought, but here you are, the media is calling me a Nazi. I’m a National Socialist. That’s just derogatory!”

 

And I said this to the boys, thinking I was all clever and all that. The boys, like:

 

“Nah! Just own it! Like literally just own it!”

 

[05:20]

 

Blair Cottrell: And I think there’s an effort to rebrand Nazism or to reclaim National Socialism as a genuinely popular counterculture to the current system. And there’s been real progress towards doing that. I initially, I was wrong. I initially didn’t think that was possible. And there is still a large part of me that isn’t sure if it’s possible in the long term.

 

If you look at what’s actually happened in response to the attempt to popularise National Socialism, there’s been, as I’ve explained, even a higher threshold of political policing.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Tom’s in jail now.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: The guys in his group are experiencing all sorts of legal problems. There’s charges left, right and centre. A lot of the charges are just cooked up out of nothing.

 

Graham Connolly: Absolutely!

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s vicious corruption and it’s going to probably go further.

 

Graham Connolly: Yep.

 

Blair Cottrell: But at the same time, I don’t think that’s a reason to give up because that would mean, well, every time the government cooks up a bunch of bullshit you’ve just got to give up. It doesn’t make sense.

 

Graham Connolly: So yeah, historically it that that sort of policing has its limits too.

 

Blair Cottrell: It does because they can’t. The problem, the government right now is walking a tightrope. They’re running the risk of delegitimizing their own system in order to take out a rising popular nationalist group. And there’s kind of, there’s arguably only so far they can go before it basically threatens the foundations of this so-called democracy. I’m under no illusions about living in a democracy. I don’t believe that the concept of a democracy is anything solid, anything like truly observable. It’s kind of like a catchphrase that people use to try to pretend that they’re representing freedom and air system of opinion or representative government. But what I’ve experienced since the beginning of my political activity is just nothing but discrimination, corruption, lies and just constant bullshit basically.

 

So I haven’t experienced any democracy.

 

Graham Connolly: No, you haven’t.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. No, but I don’t think there’s any limits, put it that way. The boys seem to think that the government has to work within a certain threshold of rules. They pretend they do,

 

Graham Connolly: They don’t.

 

Blair Cottrell: But I don’t think they actually do. I think they’ll just cook shit up at the end of the day.

 

Graham Connolly: I think that’s why you got to, in a way you got to stay the course because the longer you can stay the course like you have done, for example, the more chance there is for more eyeballs to see you and I think that boils down, down to. If you take, if you boil down National Socialism to what it really is, and that is you’re a working man, I’m a working man, right? We go out, we pay our taxes, we do this. I want my taxes to go to the benefit of my family, my extended family, my people, which is a socialism to an extent. I want to work. I want to work to help those less fortunate. I want to work to help women to stay at home and raise their children. I want to do these things. I want my taxes to go to that sort of thing. I don’t want my taxes to go to millions of Indians coming in to turn my people into a minority here, Ireland.

 

Blair Cottrell: No sensible person would want that.

 

Graham Connolly: Nope. So deep down, most people are not just White people, most people are National Socialists! Like, if you boil it down to what it actually is, most people are socialists for their own people. Like most people are nationalists. And then the most generous of those nationalists are National Socialists.

 

Blair Cottrell: You know, what does socialism mean to you?

 

Graham Connolly: Well, that’s what it means to me is basically that the strong, the healthy are willing to go. I’m willing to work and for the fruits of my labour to go towards my people, my family, my neighbour, my extended family, etc, but that’s who I want to benefit from it. Otherwise it’s slavery to me. Otherwise what I’m doing is slavery.

 

Blair Cottrell: But so what you’re saying is you’re happy to work for an extended community. As long as that community is yours.

 

Graham Connolly: As long as it’s mine. Yeah. And it starts with, I think like when you look at loyalties, how Right-wing loyalties go. So it starts with your immediate family, your extended family, your neighbour, your street, your neighbourhood, your town, your, etc, etc. It grows like that. But it starts with family and then grows out from there. I think that’s my hierarchy of loyalty. When it comes to the Left-wing, their hierarchy of loyalty is whatever the government tells them. Basically. They have no loyalty to their own family, they have no loyalty to their own tribe, their own people.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, they kind of represent an international socialism. What we call Leftists. I don’t like to use the phrase Leftists, but I do because it means something to standard viewers of podcasts like this. But really all a Leftist is someone who has been effectively conditioned by the system into buying into international socialism.

 

So they’re thinking along the similar lines we are in essence, but to them the group is all of mankind and all the races of mankind. So what they need to do is work for the benefit of other races before their own in order to create this global equality system, which in essence is going to destroy their race!

 

Graham Connolly: Exactly!

 

Blair Cottrell: But in their mind that’s a good thing because their race, … And it’s most exemplified by statements made by Australia’s Indian born race discrimination commissioner. He believes that you can’t be racist against White people. It’s not possible because White people have social power. Therefore racism isn’t possible. Like it’s not possible to ethnically discriminate against the power class of White people. Not only is it not possible to do it, but you still should do it because when you discriminate ethnically against White people it brings them down from their position of power and creates a more even playing field for all the other races to compete. So it’s not possible, but you should also do it at the same time. It’s good! [chuckling]

 

[11:24]

 

Graham Connolly: So based on that logic, Nazis can’t be racist because Nazis have the least amount of political power in the current system. Yes, we’re White.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s an interesting thought! [chuckling]

 

Graham Connolly: Yes, we’re White. Yes, we’re White. But as a group we have the least amount of political, …

 

Blair Cottrell: You can be racist because the only victims of racism is anyone who’s not White. That’s what he’s saying. It’s because you can only be a victim of racism according to far-Left theory, people like race discrimination Commissioner. You can only be a victim of ethnic discrimination or racism if you’re not White because you don’t have social power.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And this is coming from a guy who’s on almost half a million dollar salary paid by the government to sit in Parliament and say that. [chuckling] Yeah. So who has the social power?

 

Graham Connolly: But you could take the logical cs. I’d like to take that logic to him and say:

 

“So Nazis have no social power in the current climate!”

 

Blair Cottrell: No institutional support.

 

Graham Connolly: No institutional support. The least amount of support from anyone. Nobody’s going to help them out.

 

Blair Cottrell: Their bank accounts get shut down! So much power do they have? [chuckling]

 

Graham Connolly: So thank you! We can’t be racist! That’s bullshit though, because I’m racist as fuck!

 

Blair Cottrell: What is racism to you?

 

Graham Connolly: It’s just tribalism. It’s just another word like, everybody is tribal!

 

So I think it’s since the dawn of time, since the first villages. Would you protect your village from an approaching warring tribe?

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, you’d probably be kicked out of the village if you refused to. So there’d be certain incentives.

 

Graham Connolly: You’d be considered a coward!

 

Blair Cottrell: Or you need the village anyway, so you need to protect it. Because most people depend on a community network. There’s a saying that anyone who doesn’t need anyone else to survive is either a wild beast, or a God.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And none of us mortals down here are gods. So and there’s not many people that really qualify as wild beasts either. So we all depend on each other to some extent.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: Let’s say you’re an isolated tribe. Let’s say go back as far as you want to go. Like, put yourself in the mind of a caveman, and you’re in the first village. You haven’t even met any other villages, so you don’t even understand war. And then a warring tribe comes and starts to ransack your village or whatever.

 

Blair Cottrell: Obviously, you’re gonna fight.

 

Graham Connolly: Your instinct straight away is to protect your children, to protect your wife, to protect your neighbour, protect your, …

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s necessary in order for a village not to fight amongst., … In order for a tribe to actually maintain cohesion and not split apart, it’s necessary to have an outside enemy.

 

Graham Connolly: It is.

 

Blair Cottrell: Every civilisation, nation in history has had an enemy that has united people against that enemy.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Even our civilisation today, the global civilisation that we call this egalitarian multicultural society, it has an enemy which unites everyone against that enemy. And that enemy is White people!

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, White people.

 

Blair Cottrell: You see? So there always needs to be a collective opponent to any civilisation structure. And right now, the creepy thing is that you and I are sitting here, we are that enemy! The society considers us an enemy.

 

Graham Connolly: Well, you do The Joel and Blair Show, and Joel actually tried to introduce us to a book. Carl Schmitt. What was the name of the book? I’m forgetting, but it was basically the “friend and enemy distinction”. That’s what the whole book was about. It was exactly that. It was exactly that! Every group has an enemy.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, it almost needs it. That’s if you’re going to unite a series of different nations, it’s much better for them to have a common enemy than it is for them to have a common interest. Because humans are more easily motivated by their negative impulses rather than their good nature. Because humans are more bad than they are good. And the religions of the world understand that better than anyone. Because the way the religions organise people is if you don’t do this, we’re going to torture you. Or if you behave this way, you’re going to burn in hell for all eternity. So it’s fear and self interest which motivates humans. Like, let’s say you’re going to get a few different tribes together and you’re going to say:

 

“Oh, hey, if we all work together, then we’re going to be able to build a really nice civilisation on that next hill over there.”

 

People will be like:

 

“Yeah, okay.”

 

But then if you come and say:

 

“Let us all band together and destroy those evil bastards on the other side of that hill!”

 

Everyone’s there with bells on, you see!

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

[15:52]

 

Blair Cottrell: So it’s like, that’s just the way we’re geared. It’s human nature to be more motivated by your negative impulses.

 

However, when you’re aware of that, you can become more. Yeah, you can develop the self control. You can have developed the consciousness to not always give in to your negative impulses. Right. But that’s something for the individual to explore and, it’s in the realm of self mastery.

 

When we’re talking about collective politics, we’re kind of discussing methods where we can actually motivate large groups of people by appealing to their negative impulses, which is essentially what politics is. You’re trying to unite people against a common threat, whether real or imagined. The benefit we have is the threat that we face as a people in this country is a real one! And we don’t have to lie to people. The situation we’re in is a bad one. Our enemy is there. It’s real and it’s aggressive! It’s working against us. So all we have to do is tell the truth! That’s all I’ve ever done is tell the truth!

 

Graham Connolly: Exactly!

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: And then you don’t have to worry so much about being judged by the enemy either. Like the enemy who has all the power to judge you and to smear your name and to do all this sort of thing. All you have to do is use truth as your shield.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s as simple as that.

 

Graham Connolly: You asked about racism. What is racism? Racism to me is as well, just to come back to that, is that it’s in my interest to defend you.

 

Because if you lose, I lose kind of thing. If you get beaten. Like, if we’re no difference between on a night out, let’s say we’re on a night out, and you get jumped by three or four guys. It’s in my interest, and like, I’m with you. It’s in my interest to defend you, or else we both get bashed. If I defend you, we might lose. We also might win.

 

Blair Cottrell: Right.

 

Graham Connolly: And to me, it’s the same thing on a tribal level.

 

Blair Cottrell: So what the opposite of racism would be running away to save yourself.

 

Graham Connolly: Yes.

 

Blair Cottrell: What would you call that as opposed to racism? Individualism?

 

Graham Connolly: Individualism, I suppose.

 

Blair Cottrell: Nihilism?

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Not believing in anything but yourself.

 

Graham Connolly: There’s a cowardly aspect to it even. Not being racist there’s the cowardly aspect to it.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. It’s normal to be interested in self preservation.

 

Graham Connolly: And self preservation expands to the preservation of your tribe. It has to. Because if your tribe survives, you have a better chance of surviving. You know, you survive in numbers.

 

Blair Cottrell: Especially through the winter.

 

Graham Connolly: Especially through winter. And we’re Europeans.

 

Blair Cottrell: Have you seen, whose philosophy. Whose idea was it? It might have been David Duke. His idea was that the reason different races developed on the earth was mostly due to climate conditions.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, I agree with that. Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: You do agree with that?

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, 100%. Yeah. So we had to figure out how to survive winters. Do you know how dark it is in Ireland in the winter?

 

Blair Cottrell: And cold.

 

Graham Connolly: You can’t grow anything.

 

Blair Cottrell: You got to work together to stockpile food. You got to keep the food protected.

 

Graham Connolly: You got to figure out how to make that food not go off.

 

Blair Cottrell: You got to make weapons, you got to make shelters.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Whereas if you’re in the eternal summer where you can just pick berries all year round. [chuckling]

 

Graham Connolly: Exactly! Just open up your teepee and fucking shoot a deer on the way past.

 

Blair Cottrell: It makes sense. However, I don’t believe the different races of man are purely the result of climate conditions.

 

Graham Connolly: Probably not. I think it’s more IQ. I think IQ is probably, has climate as a big factor, I think.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, because I said earlier on in the show that I lean towards creationism, I think we all did stem not from the same organism. I Think we’ve stemmed from slightly different, either experiments or organisms.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, I agree with that as well. Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

So there’s a multitude of reasons why there’s different races on the world on the earth.

 

Graham Connolly: Like this out of Africa theory is complete nonsense!

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s already been debunked.

 

Graham Connolly: The out of Africa nonsense, absolute garbage!

 

Blair Cottrell: It was a lie from the start. It was just a lie to try to get everyone mixed race, basically. And why would, like, why do you think? Because we were talking about that before the show started, I remember. What’s this big urge to sell the mixed race person as like a desirable thing? What’s that about?

 

Graham Connolly: I think it’s the “ultimate goyim”.

 

Blair Cottrell: Why is that?

 

Graham Connolly: Because it’s the ultimate slave race. Because you end up having no tribal instincts. So there’s less opportunity for uprisings.

 

Blair Cottrell: No national loyalties.

 

[20:14]

 

Graham Connolly: No national loyalties. No racial loyalties. No tribal loyalties. Get rid of tribalism altogether. If everybody’s just the same shade of brown, then, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Everyone’s a number on screen.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. And I think you’re still going to have this ruling class of jews more than likely. Fake jews. And what they’re trying to do is they’re trying to create their promised goyim. Like they’re the ultimate slave, really isn’t it? Beasts in human form. That’s what I think it is. I think, the whole point is to create the goyim, like to create this biblical goyim.

 

Because right now White people don’t fit that they don’t fit into that. Like you can’t be sending rockets into space and shit and be considered a goyiom. [chuckling] You know what I mean? To be considered a beast in human form, we don’t fit the mould.

 

And so we need to be put in our place. We need to be downgraded. We need to be devolved into a goyim, like into a beast in human form. Into a slave to serve.

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s curious though, because in Judaic religious text it says that’s what non-jews are already.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: But it, as you said, it doesn’t really fit. That story doesn’t really add up at the moment. So there’s an urge to make that a reality.

 

Graham Connolly: That’s my theory. I think that’s right. I think they’re trying to fulfill that, like as if it’s a prophecy rather than what’s there at the moment.

 

Blair Cottrell: In Mein Kampf, Hitler writes on this subject that if there’s only one race on the earth which preserves its identity while all the others interbreed, the race which preserves itself must, with mathematical certainty, rise to become master of the Earth.

 

Graham Connolly: Absolutely! I agree with that. Yeah. And makes sense, doesn’t it?

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, Hitler was a big, I don’t want to say enthusiast. That’s not the right way to describe it, but he was big on encouraging people to read The Protocols of zion, which. Have you read those?

 

Graham Connolly: Parts of yeah, over the years. Usually in blog posts and stuff like this.

 

Blair Cottrell: And it’s of course called a forgery. They say that it’s not real. But what the Protocols are if you’re watching this and you have never heard of it, I’d be surprised if you haven’t. I mean, if you’ve arrived at the Offaly Offensive podcast, you don’t know what that is, I’d be surprised.

 

But for the odd viewer who doesn’t, it was said to be the written minutes of a meeting of jewish intellectuals who basically detail their methods and plans for taking over human society, or non-jewish human societies.

 

 

 

Graham Connolly: If it’s forgery, how is it so accurate? [chuckling]

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, that’s what was said by characters like, I believe, a US President, or perhaps it was even Henry Ford, but don’t quote me on that. Someone said they read it and they thought it was very informative. And he was critiqued for it by a journalist at the time saying:

 

“Oh, it’s a forgery. Didn’t you know it’s a forgery?”

 

And the way he [Henry Ford] responded was that he said:

 

“Well, even if it is a forgery, it seems to explain in precise detail exactly what’s happening in the world.”

 

Graham Connolly: Exactly what’s happening! Yeah, that’s what’s crazy! But forgery?

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. You can look it up online.

 

Graham Connolly: Who went to the effort of forging such a thing?

[See: Guide to Kulchur – The Protocols of the Elders of Zion – Andrew Joyce – Nov 22, 2020 — Transcript]

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, apparently it was stolen. The way it was explained to me, it was originally in, I believe, either in Hebrew or Russian, or it was translated into Russian from Hebrew by someone, and it was stolen by a Russian prostitute who was in cohorts or in contact with the people in the meeting somehow.

 

And then that prostitute ended up selling it to somebody else. And it eventually made its way through Europe and was translated into different European languages.

 

And that’s how it came into the hands of Adolf Hitler. And it’s curious because Hitler mentions the protocols specifically in his book Mein Kampf, and he says:

 

“Once The Protocols become the common possession of every German. (In his own words) the jewish menace will be considered as defeated.”

 

So he believed if he could get everyone a copy of the Protocols, to get them to read it and understand what it meant, then they would basically reject Judaism for a thousand years in Germany. They wouldn’t accept it again. They would understand the threat that the jewish people posed to the Germans.

 

Graham Connolly: Because it’s not good enough to just defeat the people. Their ideas have to be defeated.

 

Blair Cottrell: But what I’m saying is Hitler was influenced by the Protocols, big time. He believed them. He didn’t think they were a forgery. And that’s got to be one of the primary motivators which drove Hitler to take the action that he took. Which is pretty significant when you think about it. It’s arguable, but if Hitler never came into contact with the Protocols of zion and never believed it, then would he have been the man he ended up being? Who knows?

 

Graham Connolly: Interesting!

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. But the point is that that document has had an extraordinary impact on many men throughout history who have ended up being notable, whether it’s in American politics or European politics.

 

So if you haven’t browsed that document, I recommend you do! You don’t have to believe it’s real. Go into it with an open mind. Read it for yourself and see what you think.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, read that and read the Talmud. [chuckling] You don’t have to read the Talmud! I just mean that when you take the two of them together, though, it’s like, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Do you know what the Talmud is? It’s a series of books, like 13 different volumes.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. Wasn’t it written by rabbis? It’s much more recent than Bibles or anything like that.

 

[25:22]

 

Blair Cottrell: Certain classes of jewish rabbis basically believe that they’re gods in human form almost, that they argue with God and win, and that they have the most extensive wisdom and big jewish brains that no goyim could ever dream of containing within their small goy skulls. And they basically just write down laws and rules for jews to follow in order to keep them a separate people and make them believe they’re the master race of the world. And that over the last couple of thousand years or so has kind of collected over the time and different rabbis have added to it. Some rabbis have challenged other rabbis and been killed for it.

 

So they’ve really fought to try to keep this pure version of jewish law, which isn’t really pure at all! It’s just like a collection of arguments and claims made by different respected rabbis who had the power and influence to make those claims in their respective times. And it’s put all into these volumes, which is like, there’s like 13 different volumes. And there’s a lot of stuff in there. It’s very specific stuff. But if you want it all summarized in something readable there’s a book called The Talmud Unmasked*.

 

I can’t remember who authored it, but I know it was translated, I think, by a Roman Catholic priest who ended up being executed by the Bolsheviks during, …

 

[* “The Talmud Unmasked” is an 1892 work by Justinas Pranaitus. Generally regarded as anti-Semitic, it is a collection of quotes from the Talmud and Zohar that the author claims illustrate that Judaism promotes hatred towards non-Jews to the point of promoting murder. Contents include: “Justinas Pranaitis”, “Jesus Christ in the Talmud”, “The Christians”, “Christians Must Be Avoided”, and “Christians Must Be Exterminated”. Justinas Bonaventura Pranaitis (1861 – 1917) was a Lithuanian Catholic priest who worked as Master of Theology and Professor of Hebrew at the Imperial Ecclesiastical Academy of the Roman Catholic Church in Saint Petersburg, Russia. Available as PDF download: https://archive.org/details/talimud-unmasked-by-prenaitis-the-justinas-bonaventura-pranaitis]

 

Graham Connolly: The jews hate when the goyim know about the Talmud.

 

Blair Cottrell: You’re not supposed to, … Apparently communicating the secrets of the Talmud to the non-jews is akin to the murder of all jewish people. Because if the goyim knew what the jews taught about them, the goyim, then the goyim would just kill jews openly. That’s what they say in the Talmud!

 

So basically what that means is they’re desperate to keep their holy religious teachings secret.

 

But then there’s, … Look, it depends on who you believe, because some jews will tell you that the Talmud isn’t the most holy texts to Judaism, it’s the Torah.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: There’s Talmudic Judaism and then there’s the more Orthodox Judaism, which is the Torah. But apparently that’s what they do to lie. Because apparently the Talmud is revered as the most holy text among all their different sects. However, it depends on who you believe.

 

Graham Connolly: It does. Yeah. Because you do have these Orthodox ones that even seem to be against Israel and stuff.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. But you get that in every community, you’re always going to get offshoots. Like, we have plenty of White people who hate White people and want them to basically cease to exist.

 

Graham Connolly: It’s true, isn’t it?

 

Blair Cottrell: And they’re in government! [chuckling] So in every race, there’s people who don’t like their own race. But I think the norm for the jews, you know, 90, 98% of jews do believe that they’re a special and separate people and they want to remain that way. They’re a fascinating race, the jews.

 

Graham Connolly:

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: In fairness, you kind of almost have to take your hat off to them. Just done a good job at trying to achieve what they’re trying to achieve. Like, if you laid out a goal to literally eradicate their White race, like 100 years ago, it would have sounded like an impossible task. Like a fantasy! Like how could it possibly be achieved?

 

Blair Cottrell: A lot of the methods, if, …

 

Graham Connolly: Deception!

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, a lot of the methods used by jewish intellectuals to deceive European or European extension nations today have been repurposed from what’s been observed by British colonials and the French Revolution and empire.

 

And so even though there’s always been jewish intellectuals living through, or not always, but living throughout European society, for the last couple of thousand years, they’ve been able to watch and learn a great deal from the warlike nature of the Europeans. Because we are a race that conducts war in a way that’s very effective. The Anglo specifically. We’re good at war. And the jews have been living in our societies watching us be good at war.

 

Graham Connolly: And so the most effective thing they’ve done, though, is make us war against each other.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yes. If you want to put it down entirely to jewish influence. But there’s always. How should I describe “complicit individuals”?

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. Oh, yeah, absolutely!

 

Blair Cottrell: Who, like Churchill, for example.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Who are playing a very dirty role. And I don’t know if it’s for their own gain. I don’t know whether they’re in on it from the beginning. I do know that Churchill was critical of the jewish people early on in his political career, but ended up. I don’t know. I know that people, for reasons of tribalism, like we’ve discussed, to some degree, they can be easily pitted against each other as a result of that tribalism.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And I know that Churchill, at least at some point in his life, was an English patriot and he was worried about the expansion of the German empire. Right. He wasn’t pro-German at any point in his life.

 

Whereas the Prime Minister before Churchill, who was, … What was his name again?

 

Graham Connolly: No, I wouldn’t know. I’m, …

 

Blair Cottrell: He visited Germany and he was an admirer of Hitler. It was Chamberlain, I think.

 

Graham Connolly: He was admirer of Hitler?

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, he was. He visited Germany.

 

Graham Connolly: Well, I know that a lot of the English people at the time, like the version of history we get now that we think was always the case. Was not always the case. Apparently Hitler was pretty popular among the English people.

 

Blair Cottrell: He was Time magazine’s Man of the Year at one point. And this is before the war because he was considered a bit of a phenomenon before the war because he was able to turn Germany’s economic situation around.

 

[* Hitler as Man of the Year by TIME magazine, Jan. 2, 1939. From TIME magazine (https://time.com/5573720/hitler-world-influence/): “Hitler appeared on the cover of TIME on multiple occasions — most famously perhaps on Jan. 2, 1939, when he was named Man of the Year. That choice abided by the dictum of TIME founder Henry Luce, who decreed that the Man of the Year — now Person of the Year — was not an honor but instead should be a distinction applied to the newsmaker who most influenced world events for better or worse. In case that second criterion was lost on readers, the issue that named Hitler dispensed with the portrait treatment that cover subjects typically got. Instead he was depicted as a tiny figure with his back to the viewer, playing a massive organ with his murdered victims spinning on a St. Catherine’s wheel. Underneath the stark, black-and-white illustration was the caption, ‘From the unholy organist, a hymn of hate.’”]

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

[30:58]

 

Blair Cottrell: Which wasn’t an easy thing to do at the time because Germany was in peril before, when Hitler came to power. And one of the reasons Hitler came to power was because Germany was in such peril.

 

Graham Connolly: The Weimar Republic.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. And Hitler just actually beat the communists at their own game, because it seemed like the communists were capitalizing on Germany’s situation to try to take power at the time. But by observing how the communists were conducting themselves, Hitler basically repurposed their own methods, but for the cause of National Socialism. And he beat them at revolution. He did revolution better than the communists. But he learnt it from the communists at the same time.

 

But I think the communists were seen almost as a foreign force in Germany, maybe. And Hitler was a soldier. He was a proud German. He was a racialist. And the Germans at the time, especially with Hindenburg, who was considered a bit of an icon by Hitler. Hitler actually really respected Hindenburg. Hindenburg was a German ethnic nationalist, a racialist. I think that racialism really appealed to the Germans at the time, and they weren’t ready to accept communism for that reason. And that’s just evidence that having a strong ethnic consciousness, an understanding that you are an exclusive race and that is important, actually protects you against international subversive movements like communism. Which is another reason they probably want to destroy race. Right?

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: What do you think? Do you think they can achieve it? Like, I mean, they’ve obviously made great inroads in the last hundred years, but what do you think about these movements like Tom’s, like ours that’s grown here in Australia, growing world-wide? How do you think it’s going to go, going forward? Do you think we’ll. Do you think we’ll see a sort of a rebirth of nationalism coming back? You know, history to say is cyclical? Do you think we’ll start to make inroads? Do you think we’ll start to take bites out of this big communist apple that we’re fucking fighting against?

 

Blair Cottrell: There’s two immediate obstacles that I sense.

 

The first one is increased lawfare, so more police harassment being targeted with even worse accusations, that kind of thing. Basically trying to stay out of jail.

 

But the second, I don’t think anyone’s kind of safe from that either. You don’t necessarily have to be National Socialists, just have to be effectively critical of the government and feeding nationalism somehow.

 

Graham Connolly: Well, there’s a guy in Brisbane who’s not one of us at all who was charged for throwing Romans at the March for Australia.

 

Blair Cottrell: There you go.

 

Graham Connolly: And he hasn’t been charged with the state laws. He’s been charged at the federal level.

 

Blair Cottrell: They want to put him in jail.

 

Graham Connolly: One year minimum.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: The judge has to put him in jail for one year minimum.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s what they’re investigating me for. And they raided me on no evidence. They had no evidence! They just came up with the idea that I did it and they raided me. And I don’t know what they hoped to gain, but there’s that happening in the immediate future and that can take many ugly forms, because if they’re going to be raiding people on no evidence, that’s not much different from just inventing evidence to get you in the courts, to get you in jail, to screw with your reputation.

 

Then I sense that not too far away either is another crisis of some point of some sort.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: That will be imposed by the international system.

 

Graham Connolly: Yep.

 

Blair Cottrell: I think Covid will have been a warm up compared to what the next one will be.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, I think you’re probably right. Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: I think they will try another pandemic type situation, only this time it will be worse and there could actually be a virus which is worse. I do think they’re going to aim for a culling because there’s actually just too many people. There’s too many people to effectively manage at this point.

 

So the idea is to like just fill the Western nations with as many people as possible from around the world, create chaos, then impose this crisis. Use the crisis to significantly reduce the population and then impose a more totalitarian regime on the remaining people who survive. That seems to be the only mathematical way forward for the international system.

 

Graham Connolly: When you see the international system acting like they’re acting right now, do you also see an increase in the amount of people that are pushing back against it? Like as in people are starting to go, whoa, hold on now. So even people that were just completely blind to it, completely asleep to it all, completely just cognitive dissonance and all that sort of thing. Do you think that there’s a certain threshold where more and more people, even people you wouldn’t have normally expected, will start pushing back?

 

Blair Cottrell: Definitely!

 

The problem is when people are left to their own devices and to try to figure things out on their own, they go down their own rabbit holes. And in order for people to effectively revolt, they need a sort of a centralised movement to follow. Yeah, people don’t revolt on their own if there’s not an organised or pre-planned system they can follow.

 

Everyone just ends up in their own head and thinking they have all the answers.

 

[36:10]

 

Graham Connolly: And I’ve noticed this with a lot of people that get to the Truther movements and the anti-establishment movements and the conspiracy movements, a lot of people know instinctively that something is not right. They’re not being told the truth on most things.

 

But then a lot of people don’t have what I would call “discernment”. And it’s almost like a superpower in these movements to have discernment. It’s so important to be able to discern between the disinformation that’s been fed to people in order discredit you. Because it’s so easy to discredit yourself these days, if you represent any position that is wrong, like if you tell the world that Blair Cottrell is Shane Warne’s son, cuckg for example, you lose your credibility. [chuckling] Right.

 

Blair Cottrell: You know, well, this is one of the reasons why United Patriots Front blew up in popularity, because there was already a lot of discontent in society surrounding immigration, specifically Islamic immigration, due to certain cultural factors and incidents.

 

But then I came along and said:

 

“Well, here’s our enemy. Here’s who we are for a start. We’re Australians, we’re patriots, and these people over there, they’re our enemy. Down with them! Let’s go!”

 

And so then everyone gets on board because someone comes along with a simple explanation that’s very hard to disagree with, …

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: That no one can really disagree with. And everyone’s preconceived ideas of what the problem is, it all fits into the broad space that I’ve left by making such a simple explanation.

 

So everyone feels represented and so everyone begins to move in the same direction.

 

So what you want to do as a revolutionary or as someone who wants to create a populist movement or can even just contribute to it in a small way, you’ll know you’re making success when you’ve got you can spot conspiracy theorists, your truthers, your Nativists, and then your nationalists and then your National Socialists. All these different groups which only have loose connections but are all going in their own direction and arguing. When all of those groups start to move together in the same direction, following one man’s message, then you’ve got a movement!

 

[issue with the audio]

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, we had a little sound problem there.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: But I think I was asking you if you see any similarities between the recent March for Australia on August 31 that we just had, and the UPF.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, March for Australia is much bigger. Much bigger! Much more sudden!

 

Graham Connolly: Because you were just talking about how bringing together all these different groups, the Nativists, the National Socialists, the truthers, conspiracy theorists, and it just made me think of that because it kind of felt like a little bit like that.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. It’s happened organically, which is interesting. It means that people are experiencing pain, social, financial pain, and they’re associating that pain with immigration.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Now the government is trying to gaslight people into believing it’s not the source of their pain. It’s all of these mathematical economic factors that just need to be fixed by crunching some numbers.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: No, it is immigration. And everyone knows it! And so that’s what’s driving this phenomena. So there’s opportunity there for anyone who wants it.

 

Graham Connolly: And no one can deny that almost every person at March for Australia was White!

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

I mean, there were some people who weren’t, but it’s almost like the people at March for Australia who weren’t White, it’s like they’re kind of spiritually White or something. They have the same mindset, and they’re kind of connected to the movement, regardless.

 

That’s probably because, I don’t know, there were some weird people I saw in other states, you know, celebrating their multicultural. How should I put this? I’ll rephrase that. Celebrating their foreign brothers. Did you see the picture of that old guy with his arms around the black people looking up to the sky with a smile on his face?:

 

“I’m such a good person!”

 

You know, the other day I was at the gym and I noticed something. There’s always that guy at the gym who talks really loudly to the black guy, as almost like a way of signaling that he’s a good person because he’s talking to the black or his friends with the black guy.

 

Graham Connolly: He needs everybody to hear him. He’s talking louder than he would normally speak.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. And he’s being, …

 

Graham Connolly: And he needs everybody around him to see him.

 

Blair Cottrell: That, and he’s being unnecessarily, unusually kind to the black guy, to the point where even the black guy is kind of like:

 

“What are you doing, bro?”

 

Graham Connolly: It’s really a feminine trait, I find.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. And I think I’ve inspired it sometimes because I think some guys in the gym might know who I am.

 

And so someone feels it’s necessary to go over there and have a really loud, friendly conversation with the black guy, in spite of me or something, as though I care! [chuckling]

 

Graham Connolly: Do your thing there!

 

Blair Cottrell: But anyway, weird people at March for Australia. Some weird people. But overall, it was a cultural phenomenon which is very similar to UPF. Funnily enough, it’s happened almost exactly 10 years afterwards.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And then 10 years prior to that was the Cronulla riots, which would have happened before you arrived in Australia, when I was still a young fella.

 

So it’s like every 10 years there’s some sort of organic cultural response to the foreign presence in Australia.

 

Graham Connolly: Do you have any thoughts on how we could keep it alive this time, not let it peter out and have to wait 10 more years for another? Sort of like how to capitalise on what’s just happened.

 

Blair Cottrell: Register a political party! Get everyone to support the political party.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

[41:46]

 

Blair Cottrell: Make it cool. Make it popular.

 

Graham Connolly: Like you were saying a few minutes ago, where it has to get be all these different groups coming together, but they have to be behind somebody. Like, they have to be led by, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Something legitimate, something tangible has to result. Something permanent has to come as a result of phenomena like this.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: If you’re just going to use it like I did with UPF to try to start this Facebook page which turns into a protest group, then it can kind of just be shut down.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Like all they did was censor me from social media, take me to court on Trumped up charges, close my bank accounts and that’s it! Its done.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And for the government, that’s not that hard. And they also learnt that they can shut down future protest groups the same way.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Which they will.

 

Graham Connolly: Well, a lot of these March for Australia people are all just online personalities. Like they’re not, they don’t have any structure or any organisation. We are the only ones that actually have some organisation, some structure, some community like events that we put together. A political party that we’re putting together.

 

Blair Cottrell: Sorry, I just like some nuts. So they’re all in my teeth.

 

Graham Connolly: Oh, [chuckling] that’s all right. Yeah. So we do have that structure this time. Or at least we’re almost there. You know, we’ve got the numbers for the political party. Almost. I’m sure if we pushed hard for it, we could get them pretty much.

 

Blair Cottrell: I do think the March of Australia should be leveraged to get a political party registered.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Because then there’s something tangible and permanent and official that has resulted from the phenomena. The problem you’re going to have though is the bureaucracy of the current government is basically set up to make sure you fail.

 

So they’re going to come up with reasons not to register your party, …

 

Graham Connolly: Absolutely!

 

Blair Cottrell: And you’re going to have to basically take them to court and you’re going to have to spend the time, money, labour in the courts, basically suing the hell out of them for discriminating against you. And that’s the mistake I made going into politics. I didn’t have any money when I started criticising the government. And it might sound superficial, but unfortunately, you can’t do anything without money.

 

So when the government closed my bank accounts, censored me, took me to court for hate speech, I couldn’t defend myself. I couldn’t sue the bank for closing my accounts. I couldn’t sue the government for discrimination. I couldn’t sue the social media companies to get me back up. And I couldn’t develop any sort of method because I had no money! Right. I needed a building of lawyers to sue the fuck out of everyone who was screwing with me!

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: To push back and create a precedent to say:

 

“You can’t do this again!”

 

Instead, I was just a poor guy. I was just a carpenter from the suburbs with a phone.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And so I was easy to squash. If I could have my time again, I would get rich first. Because I’ve actually figured out recently that’s quite easy to make money in the current system, with social media and the kind of technology we have, it’s not hard to make good money if you’re really focused.

 

Graham Connolly: I was actually going to ask you about that the cost of being you. Like and being a truth teller.

 

Blair Cottrell: You know, it’s cost me everything.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s cost me everything. But it’s forced me to learn how to make money through alternative. It’s forced me to be more entrepreneurial, you might say.

 

And so I’m using an online coaching service right now! I’m building an online coaching service, and already I’ve started making decent money through it. And I’m also providing a very valuable service to people that improves their lives as a result of it, too.

 

But I’m not going to plug that. I’m not here to plug that at the moment because it’s still in the works. It’s kind of operating behind the scenes. And it will be something that I’ll be plugging in the future once it’s completed and in full swing.

 

Graham Connolly: But your whole adult life has been you unfiltered, basically. No matter how much pressure to put on you stayed unfiltered. You stayed true. You stayed telling the truth! And you have suffered because of that.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s all I know how to do, though.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And life is suffering. If you don’t suffer, you get weak.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: So you have to go through some threshold of suffering in order to stay strong and sharp.

 

Graham Connolly: You and Tom have known each other a long, long time. You had the UPF days, You had the Lad Soc days. What sort of thoughts went through your mind when you were watching Tom give his speech from the steps of Parliament?

 

Blair Cottrell: I was proud of him.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: I was impressed by how far he’s come, by how steadfast he’s remained in what he believes, no matter. No matter what! No matter what’s comes, he’s just held his head up high and he has refused to stop believing in the victory of Australian nationalism for a single moment. He hasn’t spent a single moment thinking, this isn’t going to work.

 

Graham Connolly: No, no.

 

Blair Cottrell: He is completely dedicated to the goal of victory.

 

[46:21]

 

Graham Connolly: I was in Brisbane that day, and when I seen the video start coming through of Tom with the podium. With the speakers on the steps of Parliament with that crowd there, it was a surreal moment. I was like fuck!

 

[See: Thomas Sewell’s Speech at the March for Australia Rally in Melbourne – Aug 31, 2025 – Transcript]

 

Blair Cottrell: I was worried for him, I gotta be honest. I was thinking:

 

“Are the people ready for Tom Sewell? Are they gonna accept this?”

 

And I did give him some advice, prior, because he told me he was planning on giving a speech. And I said:

 

“Mate, I don’t know if it’s the right decision, to be honest.”

 

But he told me:

 

“I’m doing it. I don’t care!”

 

And I’m just like:

 

“Ahhh.”

 

And he said:

 

“No, I don’t care! I’m doing it!”

 

And I’m like:

 

“All right, do what you want.”

 

But I’m thinking:

 

“Fuck!”

 

I was so nervous seeing him walk up there, because I was thinking:

 

“Are people going to scream at him? Are they going to, …”

 

But then everyone cheered! Everyone loved it! And I was just like:

 

“Whoa, whoa. He did it!”

 

Graham Connolly: What a moment, man!

 

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. And it’s like I realised in that moment that I might have been wrong about everything. I might have been wrong about, as I already said, about National Socialism always being a demon to society. Maybe it won’t always be that way. And maybe things are already changing.

 

Graham Connolly: Maybe if the people that are representing that aren’t demons. Maybe if the people that are representing it are actually the ones fighting the demons! [chuckling]

 

Blair Cottrell: Correct. But that’s the thing. They’re going to take new measures to make us out as demons now.

 

Graham Connolly: Absolutely, they are!

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. And so that’s why we have to stick together, I guess. Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Anyway, it’s been a good night.

 

Graham Connolly: I was just about to say that sounds like a really good spot to end it. Yeah, that was awesome!

 

Blair Cottrell: It was. It’s gone really quick. And it was a very conversational podcast.

 

Graham Connolly: It was. Yeah, look, I thought a lot about this. I was going home. Like, do I do this really structured thing? Like, I went back and forth with different ideas and how I should do it.

 

But really, it’s because I was talking to a few other people and we’re kind of putting ideas in my head and stuff like that. But really all I want to do with this is talk to people.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: That’s the truth! I don’t know if you’ve ever, … You know, I had the idea the Offaly Offensive 20 years ago, man!

 

Blair Cottrell: Really? You just sat on it?

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. I just sat on it. Because this is before I was National Socialist, but I was like since 9/11 kind of thing, and after that and stuff like that, because trying to wake up your own family and it didn’t seem to be working. I was like:

 

“Maybe there’s a way to do good work like this and get the word out there to more people and stuff like that.”

 

But I just never seemed right or whatever.

 

And I remember recently, I don’t know if you ever heard of a guy on YouTube called The Leather Apron Club.

 

Blair Cottrell: No, I haven’t.

 

Graham Connolly: He does lots of videos, but he did one on Joe Rogan and he literally just data! He breaks down all. Every guest. Like, out of thousands of guests Joe Rogan has had on, actually, I think it’s thousands of episodes, but it works out to be about 900 guests because some of them are repeat guests. And not including MMA, not including, like action guys like mountain climbers, stuff like this, all the political guests, comedians and stuff like that, people who comment, who have basically an influence on how the world thinks 48% of them or 46% of them or something are jewish!

 

Blair Cottrell: Really?

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: I didn’t know.

 

Graham Connolly: And he goes through all the data. He goes:

 

“Look, I’m not going to draw any conclusions. I’m gonna leave that to you guys. I’m just going to present the data.”

 

It’s called The Leather Apron Club. Really, really great video. Brilliant video.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, what conclusion do you draw from that?

 

[See: Nobody knows that HALF of Joe Rogan’s Guests have THIS in common.]

 

Graham Connolly: Well, he’s [Joe Rogan] not really alt-media. Like, he’s, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Or maybe the people who are influential in society a lot of them are jewish.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: So they’re the people who you would bring onto a podcast.

 

Graham Connolly: Maybe. Maybe. Yes. But yes, true, true. But there are 2% of the population, 46% of the influential guests?

 

Blair Cottrell: Like there’s probably a similar threshold in the ruling class.

 

Graham Connolly: The guy actually draws a good comparison. He goes:

 

“You might not think much of that. But let’s do a comparison here. The Native American population are also 2% of the population. If 48% of the political guests of the Joe Rogan podcast were Native American, you would ask the question. You’ll be like, Jesus! Like, it seems like a lot of these guys are Native Americans.”

 

Blair Cottrell: You got to admit, though, like, jews are more interesting to listen to than Native Americans.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And that’s it. They’re just like, they’re usually more influential, more powerful, more wealthy, or they’re at least interesting to listen to because they know how to turn a phrase. They’re mercantile people, the jews. And part of being mercantile is being able to speak well.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: To sell.

 

[50:49]

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, true, true. But I still think there’s more to it than that.

 

And also then he does not just Joe Rogan, he does Russell Brand. He does all these top podcasters. All of them. And every one of them is the same story across the board.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: And I remember when I seen that, and that’s a few years old now, but when I seen that, it was kind of like another inspiration to do it.

 

And part of the inspiration was to only have people on my podcast that Joe Rogan wouldn’t have on his.

 

Blair Cottrell: So the 2% of the population were Nazis. You’re going to interview all them? [chuckling]

 

Graham Connolly: I’m going to interview people that Joe Rogan would never interview!

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, fair.

 

Graham Connolly: And I don’t think Joe Rogan would interview you, for example. He might because, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Because I’m not like, big enough, I don’t think.

 

Graham Connolly: No, but even if you, … I don’t know, man, but even if you were, I don’t think he won’t interview Tom. He’s not going to interview. Like, Tom could get as big as he wants. Maybe by the time Tom is that big, it would be more acceptable to interview him. But I can’t see it happening. Like, there’s a lot of well known nationalist people that he’d never have on.

 

Blair Cottrell: You know, the truth is I know how to build a YouTube channel. I know how to make videos that’ll get a lot of views.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: I know how to do it.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And I could do it pretty much anytime I want to do it.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And sometimes I do dabble in it a little bit. Sometimes I’ll make a little clip.

 

Graham Connolly: You’ve made some really good videos recently.

 

Blair Cottrell: But there’s something holding me back, and it’s the concern of where the culture’s at right now! And I feel like I’m just a sitting duck basically because I don’t have any money. So the idea is that before I build that platform and before I make the videos I want to make, I want to be able to protect myself legally.

 

Graham Connolly: The truth is, I think that was partly what was holding me back for ages as well. And I’ve done the same thing. I was like:

 

“I want to get myself financial freedom, this, that neuter and blah, blah, blah, blah.”

 

And I think eventually, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Maybe it was excuses? For me it’s not an excuse though. Like for me, I’m genuinely focused on making money right now! Like that’s what’s taken up most of my consciousness.

 

Graham Connolly: About 10 years ago, I got to a point where for the first time in my life, I wasn’t what I would consider a broke person. I was like:

 

“I had money. I wasn’t worrying about bills.”

 

I got to that first stage of wealth is what they call. The first stage is where your bills come in and you just pay them.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: And I ain’t there anymore! [chuckling] Since Covid things have taken a downturn.

 

Blair Cottrell: Wasn’t it disappointing. Like I lost pretty much everything of the small amount of stuff I owned. I just like sold most of the stuff to keep surviving.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Because I worked for myself. I didn’t qualify for any sort of like jobkeeper that everyone else was getting. I didn’t take anything from the government during Covid I just sold stuff. Then I started a personal training business because I was thinking to myself:

 

“Well, everyone’s sitting at home getting fat. So everyone’s allowed out an hour a day. I’ll offer people 45 minute training sessions. We’ll go out into parks and do group sessions. I’ll make some money that way. Everyone’s being paid money by the government to sit at home and do nothing and get fat.”

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: So I’ll offer them something where I can make some of that money for myself and in return give them something to do.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s how I started my personal training business.

 

Graham Connolly: Wow!

 

Blair Cottrell: And so that’s how I built my first clientele. But I’m glad it happened in a way because it got me away from construction. Even though my family’s pretty big into construction, it was never that interesting to me. I was always more interested in people and working with people.

 

Graham Connolly: It seems like a natural draw for you.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: All right, Blair, well, thanks many for coming in.

 

Blair Cottrell: Good on you, mate. Well, thanks for inviting me. It’s a wonderful setup you’ve got here. Really impressive that you’re getting it started and I hope it goes well for you.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, thank you very much. Thank you very much. Any idea who I should have on next time?

 

Blair Cottrell: I’ve had a think and I think maybe Matt Trihey. He might be a good one.

 

Graham Connolly: Yep, he might be great to have on.

 

Blair Cottrell: Matt Trihey is an influential guy in the March for Australia movement.

 

Graham Connolly: Yep.

 

Blair Cottrell: He definitely has some sway there.

 

Graham Connolly: He’s interesting as well.

 

Blair Cottrell: He is. And I’d love to see. I don’t know if you’ll do it, but I’d love to see the Damien Richardson. I’d love to see him jump on and hear his side of the story.

 

Graham Connolly: I love to interview Damian Richardson.

 

[54:51]

 

Blair Cottrell: He’s got that Nazi salute charge going on and I haven’t heard his side of the story. I know why he was charged and what it was for. And it was really unfair.

 

Graham Connolly: Really unfair.

 

Blair Cottrell: Bullshit!

 

Graham Connolly: Unbelievable, man!

 

Blair Cottrell: And he needs some support.

 

Graham Connolly: He does.

 

Blair Cottrell: And I think the lawyers are going to tell him:

 

“No, no, no, don’t talk about it!”

 

But it’s after the fact, so it doesn’t matter what you’re saying.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. I think he’s been keeping his head down for that reason probably too. And I feel bad for the guy, man! It’s fucking, …

 

Blair Cottrell: He’s a good bloke.

 

Graham Connolly: He’s a really good bloke, man! Yeah, just a down to earth, honest. Honest to God. True blue Aussie. A good bloke. Yeah, I’d love to have him on. I might try and contact him and see if he do it.

 

But look, if he wouldn’t, maybe he do it in the future. But he’s definitely one I’d love to have on.

 

Blair Cottrell: Once he gets going he’s the kind of guy who’s, this is my opinion. He’s the kind of bloke, he’s like:

 

“Oh, you know, …”

 

But then once he gets going there’s a fire in him! There’s a passion and he just goes crazy! He just goes off! And that’s what I love to see. I want to bring that out of him more. So yeah, we’ll see.

 

Graham Connolly: Awesome! Awesome!

 

All right, man! Thanks a million! Thanks for coming in.

 

Blair Cottrell: Good on you, Graham.

 

Graham Connolly: Cheers.

 

Blair Cottrell: Cheers mate!

 

[55:52]

 

[Outro video]

 

[56:12]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 10/25/2025 = 25)

katana17
just now
[The Offaly Offensive – Blair Cottrell – Part 1 – Oct 12, 2025 – Transcript] https://katana17.com/2025/10/19/the-offaly-offensive-blair-cottrell-part-1-oct-12-2025-transcript/ [In this video Australian pro-White activist Blair Cottrell joins Graham Conolly on his The Offaly Offensive channel for an in-depth discussion about the cost of right wing activism in Australia. Items discussed include:
1. The host introduces Blair Cottrell as “one of the most notorious and scrutinised figures in Australian activism” for a discussion about his decade in public activism.
2. The conversation begins with confusion over Blair being mistakenly identified as “Shane Warne’s son” during Covid-19 discussions about vaccine theories.
3. Graham reveals he recently had his first child, born at home without midwives: “We had her here in this very living room. Just me and Katie. No midwives even.”
4. They discuss unvaccinated children, with Blair noting: “I have noticed that the kids that don’t get vaccinated and so forth, they don’t seem to have many problems.”
5. Graham explains his background: “I grew up in Ireland. Moved here when I was like 23”, and describes his Catholic upbringing.
6. He describes sectarian divisions in Ireland as cultural rather than serious: “It was light hearted… You still snipe at each other… It’s a tribal thing.”
7. Graham discusses getting a dog during Covid and the responsibility it entailed: “When the novelty wears off a dog, that’s when you find out who you are.”
8. They explore the unnaturalness of suburban life for both humans and dogs, with Graham noting dogs on medication for anxiety in Western suburbs.
9. Blair traces his awareness of pharmaceutical manipulation back to 2008, observing depression advertising: “Are you feeling down today? It could be depression. Call this number… Trying to convince everyone they were depressed.”
And more, …

Delete
Snow_Whitee
14 hours ago
I think the Offaley offensive is a great name too by the way and love the intro to this podcast!!
1 like

Snow_Whitee
14 hours ago
I unfortunately still feel like that most people wouldn’t be able to accept Nazism as anything but evil. I think the black bloc is really effective though. In my opinion those boys look exceptional, gives a vibe of strength, discipline and organisation. Solid
1 like

TTFOLEY1914
3 days ago
Most interesting convo heard in years
1 like

JillKews8841
4 days ago
Fantastic content, thanks to both of you.
1 like

Gailmaree
4 days ago
It was a pleasure meeting you on Sunday and look forward to your next interview
1 like

‹ Hide 1 reply
KineticKelticKlansman
Admin
3 days ago
Lovely meeting you too. And your little puppy.
0 likes

ThomasB1986
5 days ago
Great interview. The mic volume was much better this time. Can’t wait for the next one.
1 like

TheQueensGuard
Supporter
5 days ago
30:26 why does blair pronounce it chamber “lane”
1 like

Anaximander1488
Verified
5 days ago
it’s great to listen to Blair, always filled intellectual curiosity
1 like

Jenny3819
Supporter
6 days ago
Another great show guys!!! Thanks for properly entertaining me. I do appreciate it.
2 likes

StonePony88
Supporter
6 days ago
Pretty good so far. Thanks.
2 likes

Angelalee0
6 days ago
What great chat. Blair is just a wealth of knowledge, could listen all day. Blair starting the ball rolling 10 years ago and Tom has taken the ball and ran with it. I hope NSN takes off and continues to gain traction. Australia needs it.
3 likes

somethingforthisbox
1 week ago
Forgery, like a painting as close to an exact copy of the original
2 likes

Dimma1313
Supporter
1 week ago
Hey my man! Fine tuning the flow as you go! Loved it. Could have listened to 3 hours of this! Great work buddy!
5 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
KineticKelticKlansman
Admin
1 week ago
Thank you brother. I appreciate that very much.
1 like

mrwordsworth
1 week ago
this was the coziest chat with some of my favorite racists. thanks fellas
10 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
CountFrogDeFroggyFrog9000
1 week ago
Fake Punch? https://youtu.be/gYQXawHJLCg?si=Pg_hZUr1-vp54tmT
0 likes

MonThirteen
1 week ago
I have a huge problem with this discussion….. it just didn’t go long enough. I could have listened for hours and hours. Can’t wait to see who your next guest will be.
16 likes

‹ Hide 3 replies
GigaChud7
1 week ago
I hope Rob Rundo
2 likes

SirChrisWilson
5 days ago
Exactly. I was just settling down into the “groove” of the conversation. Oh well, I have some new stuff for the reading list
1 like

Gailmaree
6 days ago
I would Matt to be interviewed.
0 likes

KINGMAGNUSMUISC
1 week ago
HEIL GRAHAM
3 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
KINGMAGNUSMUISC
1 week ago
Punchin’ darts with Jimbo and Graham at the Pig n Whistle watching the vid of Tom’s speech at parliament was a night to remember!
3 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
KineticKelticKlansman
Admin
1 week ago
Wasn’t it just brother. Magic. Thanks for watching. Looking forward to catching up again soon.
0 likes

wilson75590
1 week ago
I recently watched two of your videos and really enjoyed them great job! If you’d like to grow your channel, increase views
, and attract sponsorships, I can help using my experience on Rumble; I’m a bit busy with office work now, but please share your channel link via my email (wilsonchris4632@gmail.com) or Telegram (https://t.me/Wilson1336) so I can review it and guide you on what to improve.
0 likes

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Endeavour: Hello. Endeavour here. So tonight I’m here with a special guest. He has a great YouTube channel. He’s a very astute commentator, and I’ve been enjoying a lot of his recent work. So I’m here with Leather Apron Club, or Alex, as he goes by on the Internet. How are you doing tonight, Alex?

 

Alex: Doing real good. Yeah. Thanks for having me on, man. I think it’ll be fun.

 

Endeavour: Yeah, thanks for coming on. So for anyone who hasn’t heard of you, what do you do on your channel?

 

Alex: It started off as kind of a more philosophy based sort of thing, and that’s when I was getting ten views, a video or whatever. And I guess it’s shifted now to people probably would know me for sort of like this representation series. I examine jewish representation in particular on a lot of mainstream platforms. And I guess in the past few months, I’ve kind of focused on examining historical narratives and political narratives and debunking, even though debunking sort of, like, has a bad name these days.

 

But basically that’s kind of what I’ve been doing. Yeah. Sort of political, sort of philosophical commentator, I guess, these days. I don’t know what you’d call it.

 

Endeavour: All right. Yeah. So what I do like about your channel is that you focus on kind of some a lot of your videos are focused on some kind of detail, some kind of thing, which a lot of people either a misconception in our culture or something that we hear very regularly or something you’ll hear on the news. And it’s oftentimes something that people don’t really think about. They just kind of accept it as true. And you’ve done these deep dives into why these are misconceptions and kind of from there, extrapolated. Well, what does this kind of misconception really say about our culture? Why is it in there?

 

The first video that I saw of yours, which I really appreciated, was the one about homosexuality in ancient Greece. So for anyone who hasn’t seen it, what’s that video about?

 

Homosexuality in Ancient Greece

top

 

Alex: Yeah, it’s basically an examination of that claim that you hear repeated so often, that ancient Greece was this homosexual paradise. You know, I could sum it up by saying, obviously it’s a lot more complicated. But I think basically the consensus of people at the time, insofar as we can even extract something like that, was that it was a problematic thing. It wasn’t something that was universally appreciated by all Greeks. There’s just so many levels of nuance, even to a question like that. What city states are we discussing? At what period of time? Obviously, these opinions are going to differ drastically over time.

 

[03:00]

 

So what I’m trying to do with a video like that is just examine it and break down all of its aspects and then basically tell you why I think it’s more reasonable to conclude at the end of the day that they really didn’t practice homosexuality in this instance. You find that a lot of these opinions that people have, they get them from these kind of weird places and they end up being planted in their mind in such a way that’s, like very, I guess, without a foundation, without a strong reasoning as to why I exist there. Like:

 

“The ancient Greeks were gay thing!”

 

How many people have heard that repeated as a joke? That’s been the punchline for probably decades now. That’s been popular since that sort of idea has been moving around in popular culture.

 

So people, they have these ideas that I think ultimately are unexamined just because it’s just something that’s reinforced. They don’t really understand the reason why they think these things. So I view that as a really sort of good area that I can go in and actually do a deep dive on and then actually present people the facts in “easy enough” to digest sort of format. That is a YouTube video. I know a 45 minutes YouTube video isn’t like everyone’s cup of tea. But it does a lot in order to make it accessible, like putting it on a platform like YouTube rather than writing a book about it or something.

 

So, yeah, I think that’s kind of been my MO a little bit with the past few videos I’ve done on my channel. It’s like honing in on those things that people don’t really understand why they think is true, but it’s just sort of like universally accepted as true in our culture.

 

Endeavour: Yeah. And I did find the video really fascinating. Now I know a little bit about ancient Greece, but I certainly am no expert on it. I don’t have a very detailed knowledge, but I’ve read a couple of things. I have a very rudimentary knowledge on a couple of aspects of ancient Greece. But I obviously, like, pretty much everyone had heard this often repeated misconception that:

 

“Well, in ancient Greece everyone was gay.”

 

Or that that was just like homosexuality was just like a totally normal thing.

 

Now, it certainly did exist, as you pointed out in the video, it existed. But to say that it simply existed is not to say that it was normal, nor is it to say that it was even something that was widely accepted. So as I understand it, this kind of misconception was taken from the practice of pederasty, which was mentorship. It was mentorship of an older man, of a young twelve year old, 13 year old boy. But this thing was educational, it was not a sexual relationship, typically. But there were instances where the older man had taken advantage of the younger boy sexually. And this is where most of our knowledge of homosexuality in ancient Greece comes from.

 

But it’s kind of like this one detail which has kind of been blown out of proportion to say that:

 

“Well, everyone in ancient Greece is gay.”

 

That’s kind of the gist of the video, right?

 

[05:20]

 

Alex: Yeah, more or less. It’s not to discount that did happen. But it’s to first put that in its proper context and say this was a contentious thing even at the time. Most pederastic relationships were not sexual. And this was a point that after you release a video, you kind of think, like, oh, I should have stressed that more. Or like, oh, I thought of this thing. I didn’t even think of till right now. But I should have stressed this more in the video, that even if there are these men that are engaging in these essentially statutory rape of these young boys, these aren’t the men for which we remember ancient Greece. These aren’t the philosophers and the Statesmen and the warriors that we revere. These guys are the reason that when we think of ancient Greece, we think of it as a great culture. It’s not these random people that were taking advantage of little boys.

 

The Prominent People of Ancient Greece Were Against It

top

 

So even to the extent that they did exist, which was something like that, it’s pretty much impossible to say, like, okay, yeah, this percentage of people. But even though we can reasonably say that, yeah, there was a small percentage of people that were engaged in these relationships, and people didn’t like them. All of the reasons that we venerate, all of the people that we associate with ancient Greece and associate with the glory and the goodness of ancient Greece, they were against it!

 

If you look at the Plato’s, you look at the Aristotles, you look at the great rulers like Croesus, for instance, insofar as he’s even a real guy, these people all come out strongly against homosexuality. I guess there’s another point I just kind of wanted to throw in there. It doesn’t even matter if 2% of the population was gay and there were 10% of the population, that was kind of okay with it. None of these people were great men.

 

I guess these are all the levels at which these things need to be examined. That’s kind of how I’d like to break down these topics. I don’t know if it’s sort of like a Platonic method or whatever, but go through and approach it and ask questions from different angles, sort of like that.

 

Endeavour: But it’s also incorrect to say that, well, because this took place, it means that it was normal. Thankfully, at least for now, who knows, based on the way that things are going, this might not be the case forever. But in the West today, something like pedophilia is obviously considered a heinous crime. Now it still exists, but it’s very frowned upon. It’s kind of like saying that because there are some baseball coaches who abuse their position and their access to young men, it’s like saying that:

 

“Well, our culture endorses that because there are instances where that happens.”

 

[09:21]

 

Alex: Right. It is fair to say that all of the elites of our culture are, many of them, I should say, are engaged in questionable practices such as that, and yet they have faced very little in terms of legal repercussions. So it’s entirely possible that someone 2000 years from now could argue that we have an acceptance of pedophilia.

 

Endeavour: Yeah, which is clearly not true when you consider the overall culture. Let’s pray that it stays that way!

 

Alex: We would just have no way to know that though. Imagine everyone as it was back then, everyone that wasn’t part of the elite is illiterate and nothing was ever written about them. Even though it’s obviously the general consensus that it’s heinous, we would never know that.

 

Endeavour: And then the other aspect is that with this kind of detail, so from these instances where it occurred during pederasty, they’ve kind of projected that onto other aspects of Greek culture.

 

Like for example, I think on Wikipedia, … Now, I’m not someone who’s like an expert in Greek mythology or anything like that, but it lists Hercules as being like a LGBT figure in, … It’s just ridiculous! [chuckling] What they’ll do is they’ll then take that kind of detail and then project that onto almost any kind of instance where there was two men who had some kind of fraternal relationship. I think there are the examples of Alexander the Great, or what’s his name, Achilles in the Odysee, where they had like a close male companion.

 

And then in the modern day, people have interpreted, based on this kind of misconception, they’ve interpreted that as meaning that they were gay.

 

Whereas one thing you pointed out in the video is that never one says that they’re actually gay. When it says that they’re “lovers”. It means that they just have a strong fraternal bond. But it wouldn’t make sense if they were gay because we hear about them having sex with women, but you never hear in the entire myth about them having a sexual relationship with each other.

 

So it’s something that’s just pure projection, that’s been put onto them.

 

Alex: It’s just been put onto this claim about I didn’t go into this in the video, but that claim about Achilles and Patroclus in particular, it has some historical precedence in that it was this idea that was kind of bandied about in classical Athens that maybe they were in a pederastic relationship. It was sort of like a reframing of the Homeric tale, which had obviously no mentions of them as lovers in the modern sense, and no mentions of them even as being in sort of a pederastic relationship, because pederasty didn’t really exist at the time. But there was this idea in classical Athens where they’re like, yeah, maybe they were. And then some people would say that Achilles was the lover and Patroclus is the beloved, or vice versa. And that was kind of an argument that they were having at the time.

 

[12:35]

 

But even in that sort of instance it’s difficult to understand exactly the context in which they meant “lover”. Again, pederasty was something that was stated time and time again that ideally it did not become sexual because that would be just obviously that would be statutory rape, essentially. And they weren’t dumb. They understood this was awful. So even in this instance, which is a reinterpretation of the tale 300 years after it was initially written by Homer, we don’t know that it was something that they were thinking of as explicitly sexual.

 

Endeavour: Yeah, it’s just like a massive stretch to suggest that it was actually a homosexual relationship.

 

But what’s interesting about that, though, is that kind of this detail in the culture, it’s just something that you mentioned, people would joke about it. You hear it in some show like Family Guy. They’ll make a joke. A lot of times when you talk to somebody and say something about Greece, they’ll bring up homosexuality or something like that.

 

So it is a misconception. But a lot of the narratives that we live under currently are backed up by this kind of misconception. And it matters not just for a historical purpose, but also kind of what it says about this particular issue today. So one argument I remember hearing ten years ago during the debates over gay marriage, one argument that people would make is that they said that:

 

“Oh, well, this predates Christian conceptions of marriage.”

 

They would say:

 

“Oh, well, in ancient Greece, people were, …”

 

And the idea was the narrative that kind of this misconception backs up is that, well, this was something that was just normal. So homosexuality was something that was always accepted, and until Christianity or Abrahamic religions, they were the ones that made this taboo, whereas otherwise if it weren’t for this kind of socially constructed aversion, we have to homosexuality, would be something that would be totally normal. Which I don’t think is the case at all! Because I think that it differs from one time in history, one civilization to another. But it seems pretty clear that the vast majority of civilization societies have not had a very positive view towards homosexuality. And almost none of them had have considered it to be like, almost none of them have considered it to be the way that we have in the modern world, that it’s basically considered to just be no different than heterosexual relationships.

 

Alex: And that’s sort of the most defensible position of it. Sort of the crux of the whole thing is like, even if you after hearing all the arguments on both sides, you still go:

 

“Yeah, I think it’s still fair to say that they were pretty gay in ancient Greece.”

 

It’s irrelevant because their form know, you can’t even really use the word “homosexuality”. But for lack of a better term, their form of that thing has nothing to do with the modern form of the LGBT stuff.

 

[15:50]

 

Male on Male Marriage was Never Allowed

top

 

Even on the gay marriage front, for as supposedly accepting as they were, they never allowed. In fact, all male on male adult relationships were looked down upon. Like they were considered less than women, which is a huge insult for the ancient Greeks.

 

It’s so weird. I don’t know just the way they approach these things and the way they make these arguments and kind of twist the logic of them. I don’t know! It doesn’t even make sense. But the difficulty is that they have a much better way of spreading this stuff. They can make a joke. It’s always funny if you’re talking to a Greek guy to be like:

 

“Yeah, well, how you’re gay?”

 

They have the stand up comedians. They have the cartoons that they put on TV, the Family Guy or whatever. These are much more appealing sort of ways to spread these ideas, spread these tropes to people.

 

And unfortunately, I don’t know a better way to fight back against it, but I put out a 45 minutes, frankly, kind of dry video, kind of doing my best to combat it. But that’s sort of what I think we need. I think we need a way to make our ideas, make what we’re broadcasting more appealing. Some people do that in a way, but I don’t know, I feel like the Right, whatever you want to call us just doesn’t really have that unlock. We kind of need to be more “entertaining”, for lack of a better term.

 

If You Own the Media, You Can Create the Truth

top

 

Endeavour: Well, yeah, one thing you point to is that even if you have the facts, then well, there sure are a lot of examples of this. If you own the media, you can create the truth!

 

One thing I learned a couple of years ago was that having power is much more important than having truth on your side because you can have the facts. But if you don’t control the media and someone’s out there broadcasting falsehoods, that’s always going to have much greater reach. And you can point almost any kind of issue.

 

Did Thomas Jefferson Have Children with His Slaves?

top

 

The other video, I think it was your most recent one, which is kind of along the same lines, which I also thought was interesting, it’s also a historical one, is about Thomas Jefferson. This was something that I just had accepted. I had heard this and I just accepted as that it was true.

 

I mean, I’ve read a bit about the American War for independence, the American Revolution and that era, but I’m by no means an expert on so according to your video, it’s almost certainly not true that Thomas Jefferson had children with his slaves.

 

[18:32]

 

Alex: That is my opinion on the thing. Yeah. At the very least, it is something, this is how the Scholars Commission, who they disagreed that Sally Hemmings had children with Thomas Jefferson. This is how they put it. It is something that honorable people can disagree on.

 

My main qualm with the way it’s been presented is just how everything is presented these days. It’s almost like of a necessity when you are spreading something to the masses it needs to be kind of boiled down to its simplest form. When it’s political, it’s usually boiled down to its most outrageous form, the form that will induce the most outrage. So you get this simplified narrative of, like, he absolutely this is, by the way, what the Monticello Association that maintains Monticello and does the tours there. This is what they say:

 

“That he absolutely did have the children with Sally Hemings.”

 

And at the very least, it is certainly up for debate, in my opinion.

 

I would lean more on the side of that it is extremely unlikely that he even really cared much for Sally Hemings as a person. I think she wouldn’t have been given much more special consideration than any of the other 600 slaves that Thomas Jefferson owned throughout his life. Perhaps a little bit more because she was his wife’s half sister, very likely. But that and her and her children were all very White.

 

Her children would have all been 7/8ths White. And Thomas Jefferson was in the practice of if he had slaves that were White passing enough, he would let them run away, having given them a lot of training so that they can support themselves once they run away, and a lot of money to usually run away with. But besides that, she was just a slave. She was another person that he owned.

 

And all of the evidence, I think, points overwhelmingly towards this. And yet again, it’s something that through the reinforcement of these jokes, through just these out of these things that they’re constantly putting out there, this is a thing that most people just unquestionably believe.

 

And I had a lot of, I guess, personal desire to put out that video, because I always admire Thomas Jefferson as a man. I think he’s one of the greatest founding fathers. So it’s essentially doing the same thing as a lot of the other videos I put out. It’s just trying to take down that one brick from this facade that they’ve been putting up with, I guess just the whole sort of, like, modernist thing we find ourselves in.

 

What’s the Relevance is of Whether or Not Thomas Jefferson Had Children with His Slaves?

top

 

Endeavour: So what do you think the relevance is of whether or not Thomas Jefferson had children with his slaves? Because, as you said, it’s possible one way or the other. But you think that it’s most likely that he didn’t. Why do you think this is an idea which has been put into the culture and it’s so often repeated?

 

[21:36]

 

Alex: Yeah. I think we all kind of know the score, at least yourself and me, and probably everyone watching this. We know why they want to try to put out these things. It’s operating on a few different levels. For me, as an American, I think it’s an attack on the founding stock. Well, it’s attack on first the founding ideas of America, all the things that it stood for at its creation, at its time of rebellion.

 

But of course, it’s also an attack on the founding stock, because the issue of slavery in America is just inextricably linked up with the White-black racial struggle thing. Mean, maybe there’s a few other small issues but I think those are the primary issues.

 

Certainly if you listen to what the people who are pushing this idea that Sally Hemings had Thomas Jefferson’s children, if you listen to what they say, it is very much a racial issue for them. And it’s just like any other racial issue. It’s just like the Black Lives Matter movement and anything it’s just another brick in that whole movement, in that facade.

 

Endeavour: It’s kind of like a way of deconstructing the American mythos. It’s kind of a way of tearing down one of the major figures.

 

Alex: Yeah, I think it’s a way to destabilize people’s sense of belonging, and then of course a deracinated people is easily moved around, easily pushed about. I think that’s ultimately the goal.

 

Endeavour: Yeah.

 

And you see that a lot of historical figures kind of get that kind of treatment. I mean funny enough, speaking of the ancient Greece thing, with a lot of Canada’s prime ministers, with a prime minister who I really admire from our history, William Lyon Mackenzie King. I remember that there was an article because he never got married. There was this article in National Post from a few years ago that was saying:

 

“Was he secretly gay?”

 

When there’s literally no evidence at all that he was gay, it’s just that he simply wasn’t married. So then from that they project that well he actually is gay. From that they project that onto it., you know, I do find that this stuff kind of goes a lot deeper.

 

So I do think of things of people like Sigmund Freud. And before anyone posts in the Chat, look, both Alex and I know what Sigmund Freud’s ethnic background was just to get that out there or else the chat is going to go wild when I mention that.

 

Pathologizing What is Normal and Venerating What is Abnormal

top

 

So it’s pathologizing what is normal and venerating what is abnormal. So it’s this idea that:

 

“Well, the wholesome heterosexual family, …”

 

And you even see these memes that Leftists post on Twitter. Every now and then they’ll post a picture from the 1950s, one of those drawings of a family.

 

And then they’ll say:

 

“Oh, well, the dad was actually a transvestite and the young girl was beaten and she wasn’t allowed to wear pants, and she couldn’t even go to school! And the boy, he’s going to die of polio!”

 

They look at an image, … Now look, I know some of these images from the 50s they are a bit sappy, they might be a bit too wholesome, but nonetheless, …

 

[25:18]

 

Alex: Sounds great to me! I don’t know man!

 

Endeavour: Yeah, it does! But I mean, sure it’s an idealized image of it. But they can look at its kind of been put into the culture that just by looking at that you’re supposed to think that there must be something wrong with this family.

 

So you see the happy, heterosexual, White, nuclear family with a few kids, house in the suburbs. Well, there must actually be some like the wife must be oppressed, the children must be getting abused. The husband must be a total piece of shit!

 

But then when you flip that over to what is abnormal, and unusual. If somebody brings up things like what could be some of the drawbacks of something like homosexuality or well, even transgenderism, I mean it’s just even way worse.

 

But then they’ll play this kind of defense. They’ll say:

 

“Well, you don’t know that! Well, you can’t judge!”

 

And you see what I’m getting at here. It kind of all comes from its kind of this trope which I think dates back to Freud. But someone else could possibly correct me on that, where our culture seems to pathologize what is healthy but then venerate what is unhealthy. Do you notice that?

 

The (((Jerry Springer))) Show Venerating the Weirdos and the Freaks

top

 

Alex: Oh yeah. There’s a guy on YouTube, the channel name is, “Wyatt Stag”. I don’t know if you heard of that guy.

 

But he did a video kind of recently which kind of presented that. I for some reason I never thought about it that way, even though it’s kind of obvious. But he did a video on The (((Jerry Springer))) Show and it was basically just this whole thing about kind of what you’re talking about. It’s like they venerate the weirdos and the freaks and the people that will fight on stage.

 

And when they couldn’t find that apparently I don’t know if this is true, but this is what he said in the video. When they couldn’t find actual people that were trashy enough to be on that show, they would just hire actors. And yeah, the whole thing was just that.

 

It was like we have to recognize, of course, that there are always going to be, I don’t know what you want to call them, degenerates in society, people who are not reflective of our best qualities. But a healthy society doesn’t put these people in the limelight. They kind of shun them. They recognize that they have behaviors that we don’t want to emulate as a society and that we don’t want to venerate.

 

But of course Jerry Springer does the exact opposite. So I’d recommend anyone to check out that guy’s YouTube channel, Wyatt Stagg. He’s super good.

 

 

Wyatt Stagg – Jerry Springer – Ringmaster of Civilization’s End – Jul 15, 2023 – Transcript

 

[28:01]

 

Whites Considered to Be Bad, While Non-Whites Are Venerated

top

 

Endeavour: Okay, I haven’t heard of that one. I’ll have to check that one out.

 

And the other thing is also about not only venerating, so in terms of things like in terms of issues like relationships and families and stuff, they venerate that which is unhealthy and out of the ordinary. But then it’s kind of this pathologization of that which is normal.

 

You also see this with the issue of ethnicity and of race as well. More fundamentally that what is foreign is venerated whereas what is considered to be at the most fundamental what is considered to be White is considered to be bad. Whereas non-White is often venerated.

 

So you had a video which I thought was pretty interesting because I actually had people do this to me before as well. That it was about the Vietnamese noodles “Pho”. I think the video is titled, like, “Are Noodles Political” [Is Soup Political?], or something like that.

 

So what was the gist of that video?

 

Is Soup Political?

top

 

Alex: Yeah, such a stupid title. I’m terrible at coming up with titles for these videos.

 

Endeavour: It was intriguing. I got me to click on it!

 

Alex: Yeah, thanks, man. Yeah, basically the idea it’s kind of like a stupid sort of thesis to get you kind of thinking about it.

 

But the idea is that if you’re going to eat Pho, people, you’ll always have that person who wants to correct you and say it’s pronounced “Pha”, which it doesn’t really matter which way you pronounce it. But the whole point was that I think people are essentially just doing this, they’re making sure to correct you on how you pronounce these noodles, even though they know what you’re talking about, everyone knows what you’re talking about.

 

They do it to, I don’t know, distance themselves in a way from their own culture, from feeling White, I suppose, in a way. And they want to feel some sort of connection to this other culture which our society has sort of artificially elevated and put on a platform, like put on platform that is higher and better.

 

So if they can attach themselves to that, they get some clout in some ways.

 

And I think this is just like a kind of silly, kind of trivial manifestation of that larger issue. You can see it in much more impactful walks of life. But the language thing was just kind of like a funny example that I think everyone’s kind of experienced and I have some interest in languages and linguistics. It’s something as trivial as that. You’re seeing that exact same movement to downplay and denigrate the White aspects of society, of culture. To the point, obviously, that many people say that White people don’t even have a culture, which is just like the most nonsensical statement ever.

 

[30:49]

 

You’re White, You Don’t Have a Culture!

top

 

Endeavour: Yeah, there’s that famous video of that.

 

I can’t remember some bug man, I don’t know whether he was White or not, but I think he even claimed he wasn’t. You know the one where he screams like:

 

“You’re White, you don’t have a culture!”

 

Do, you know, that?

 

Alex: Yeah.

 

Endeavour: But I mean, it’s just like an absolutely ridiculous idea, because you even look at all these so-called someone like him who considers that, well, I don’t know, black people have a culture or Asian people have a culture.

 

Well, I mean, they’re all speaking the White man’s language. They’re all using the technology he created. They’re all wearing clothes that were created by White people. Andrew Joyce put this well, that he basically said:

 

“When they say this, it’s like a fish in water who doesn’t now what water is because he’s constantly swimming and he spends his entire life in water, so he can’t recognize what water is.”

 

But I like this video because I actually had somebody say this to me at one time that I said:

 

“Oh yeah, I tried Pho.”

 

And this person actually, I don’t know whether she was Chinese or Vietnamese or whatever, but she said:

 

“It’s actually pronounced Pha. It’s not pronounced Pho. It’s pronounced Pha.”

 

The insinuation is that:

 

“Oh, you’re this ignorant American!”

 

I’m not American, but, you know what I mean when I say that, though. It’s like:

 

“You’re just this ignorant, uncultured American who has no idea of the vibrance of Vietnam!”

 

Or whatever it is.

 

But it is like really kind of you pointed this out in the video. It’s just a really stupid way of actually thinking about language. Because as you point out, the actual way that people in Vietnam would pronounce Pho or Pha, whatever you want to call it, the way they would pronounce Pha, even a native English speaker probably wouldn’t even be able to say this word.

 

Alex: Yeah, you had to go on Google Translate and type in the word. It’s a strange sound. I’m not even going to try to reproduce.

 

Endeavour: Yeah. And it’s ridiculous to assume that because it’s that way in that language. Well, we need to have it that way in our language.

 

Another example of this would be, and nobody does this because they typically don’t care if it’s like another language that they consider to be like a White language, for example. Nobody says that the city Moscow should be called “Moskva” because that’s how it’s said in Russian. Nobody’s going to go around saying, well, Moskva. No in English it’s Moscow. Or nobody’s going to start saying:

 

“Oh, I’m going on vacation to Furaance.”

 

No, you’re going on vacation to France.

 

And it’s just kind of ridiculous to think that because something’s said in one language, you’re denigrating that kind of thing if you’re not saying it in a different language in that way. I hope people get what I’m trying to get at here.

 

[33:57]

 

Kiev vs Keave?

top

 

But someone put in the chat a good example of this was, now this isn’t necessarily as much of a one doesn’t really have as much racial undertones as it does political, but we saw last year with the way that the media all of a sudden started pronouncing Kiev, “Keave”, you remember that?

 

Alex: Right, right.

 

Endeavour: So they started saying that well, because in Ukrainian it’s pronounced “Keave”, not Kiev, then we’re going to now start calling it that way. It’s a lot more obvious why this is political. This was the news story which was capturing the world at the time. This was the big event.

 

But it’s just kind of ridiculous because, like I mentioned, are we going to now start calling Moscow, “Moskva”? Well, no! So why does it matter if in English Pho. Saying Pho and not saying Pha, they seem to think that that has this kind of either uncultured, or some kind of bigoted undertones. That’s just like something that’s just in the culture, which people don’t think about, but it’s there, and everybody kind of is aware of it. You know what I mean?

 

Alex: Yeah. I think, number one, it’s just a really easy way for dumb people to feel that connection. Rather than reading a book about Vietnamese history or something, developing an actual tangible connection to that country. If you feel that it’s so great, this is something that they can learn in half a second and then get that little smug sense of satisfaction when they correct someone.

 

Also, I think just continuing on the linguistics thing, obviously, people’s accents and how they pronounce things are like an extremely strong in-group preference or in-group indicator, I guess. I think it’s something we understand, even at a subconscious level, that is what separates people. That is what makes people Scottish. To the point that if you have an accent and you talk differently around your family not using your family’s accent, they’ll call you out on it. It’ll seem very weird to them.

 

So, yeah, it’s just a way to identify with other cultures, other ideally non-White cultures, because, like you said, no one does this for other White cultures.

 

Endeavour: Yeah. And it’s not even like saying, if somebody said, for example, I’m going to the “boulet” instead of going to the ballet, I mean, that would be wrong. I know that ballet is a French word, but in English it’s pronounced ballet. But this one’s like just changing the actual base pronunciation for it.

 

And this is something that it goes much further than that because this is just one example, but you kind of see in the entire culture that you’re considered to be a more moral person if you’re connected to something that’s not White. And then you’re considered to be either a backward, or a bigoted person or someone who’s uncultured if you’re considered to have a preference, or you default towards something that is, at its root, considered to be White.

 

[37:21]

 

Look ! I’m 5% Native American!

top

 

So you also see that with a lot of these DNA tests. I don’t know if this is so much of a thing anymore, but you used to see a couple of maybe a decade or two ago, you’d see somebody who had 95% European ancestry, and they would say, wow, look at this 5% I have from, I don’t know, China, or this 5% Native American that I have. And wow! It’s just like this kind of 5% that they have. That’s kind of like their way of saying:

 

“Under the current culture that I’m somebody who has some kind of richness to me!”

 

Whereas that 95% the message in the culture is:

 

“Well, that isn’t rich, that’s boring. It’s something that’s uninteresting.”

 

People “Finding Themselves” by Going to Asia

top

 

You’d also see this with the thing of now, thankfully, I don’t think this is as much of a thing anymore. But you’d see with maybe Gen Xers, Millennials that they’d go off to India to, quote, unquote:

 

“Find themselves.”

 

You ever heard of that kind of trend?

 

Alex: Yeah, yeah. Kind of think Steve Jobs did that.

 

Endeavour: [chuckling] So they have this trip. They’d take this trip to, it was usually India or somewhere in Asia, and they’d go there to, quote, unquote:

 

“Find themselves.”

 

And I’ve heard a few people talking about this before. My buddy Morgoth has brought it up, and it seems like it’s something that because our culture has been deconstructed to such an extent, everything that traditionally was held sacred within Western society, be it religion, Christianity, the nation, the family, race, all of that stuff, which things which once mattered to people, that’s all been deconstructed.

 

So you have these people today who most likely would be White, going off to Asia because they want to find something “authentic”. They want to find anything out there that actually hasn’t been deconstructed by this kind of messaging. And they find that in was it was interesting because Morgoth, a few years ago, he also made a video on this. I think it was a movie by Quentin Tarantino, a horrible director, horribly, awful, hateful person!

 

But I think that he had been criticized because he had mocked Bruce Lee or something like that in a movie? And it was interesting because people had this reaction to something Eastern, something from Asia being like something that was considered sacred, being mocked, whereas the traditional culture of the West, you’re allowed to mock that that’s already been mocked and deconstructed and ridiculed into oblivion!

 

But then when it’s projected onto another culture, then that’s seen as being like this great crime, right?

 

[40:35]

 

What Do We Actually Do About the Agenda?

top

 

Alex: Yeah, there’s a TV show starring the devil, I think, Lucifer. But yeah, I think generally speaking. Maybe it’s not true, but I think over the past few years, the messaging about all this stuff has really gotten out there. And people understand. They know the score. They know even to a certain extent, even if they don’t understand the full scope of the issue, they know kind of what’s going on, what the agenda is.

 

So I think the real question is, though, what do we do? What do we actually do about this? We have the messaging. I think there’s enough people kind of putting out this stuff, and we’re even getting help from a lot of the more traditional conservative influencers people on YouTube or whatever. They’re talking about some of this stuff. I mean, even Elon Musk tweeted out today about explicit White genocide in South Africa. These are talking points that are becoming more and more common.

 

Bickering Within Our Movement

top

 

But I don’t see anything coalescing into a definitive political movement. We don’t have a leader to come to us to actually put all these ideas into effect. And I just see constantly bickering between all these people. Okay, here’s an example. We don’t even know what do we call ourselves? Do we call ourselves Alt-Right? Do we call ourselves, I don’t know, certainly not conservative. There’s not even agreed upon term is what this is. Everyone, when they’re talking about it, they have to prefix it with like:

 

“Oh, the Alt-Right or whatever we are.”

 

Or the “movement”. And I see constantly all the people in these different groups just bickering with each other. People in our circles that are trying to start e-celeb drama between each other. And I just see it all as pathetic! I really hate that stuff that! I try to completely disengage with, … Even if someone makes a response to me that’s kind of mean, I don’t really mind at all. I’m not going to start mud flinging with them. It’s silly, it’s a waste! I don’t know. Do you have any thoughts about this? Any 5, 10 year plan? I’ve yet to hear anything that’s really going to well, in your ideal world, what do we do?

 

Endeavour: [chuckling] Well, I’d say that pretty much you need elite support. You’d need some people with money and resources to actually put it into organizing.

 

So the biggest problem that we’ve had is that we haven’t been able to organize any concrete political action based on these ideas. Because I don’t know if I would go so far as to say the ideas are something that everyone gets, because there are a lot of people who don’t get it.

 

But it’s certainly a lot more than it was. So there are a lot more people who are talking about the various issues that we are. There are a lot more people talking about this today than there would have been ten years ago, five years ago. I think even, especially since 2020. I think that the last three years have woken a lot of people up to the fact that we are dealing with these very malignant forces in society.

 

[44:03]

 

But I think that the biggest problem we’ve had is that we just haven’t been able to actually, we haven’t been able to organize anything. I think that ultimately for things to actually get going you would need somebody, some some people with money and influence to actually step in and start it and put resources towards towards that.

 

I think that the best that people like you and I can do is that we can get the message out and network with other people. And hopefully I think that some people have done some good organizing in terms of getting some kind of groups together.

 

But yeah, I do think that you do need elite support if you want a movement to go anywhere. Even though, to be honest, it’s not exactly the topic of the theme of the stream tonight because it’s like a whole other can of worms which unfortunately I don’t think that either of us really have the solution to.

 

Alex: Okay.

 

Endeavour: But yeah, it’s definitely a big question. It’s something that I hope we can answer within within the coming years.

 

Anyway, sorry, one second. Just wanted to get back to. Sorry. [chuckling] I had a thought but then I got a bit side-tracked by that, by the last question.

 

Alex: Yeah, sorry. It’s just what I keep kind of going back to with all this stuff.

 

Endeavour: Yeah.

 

Alex: It’s nice to do the messaging, I guess, the sort of things you and I do, but it just feels so indirect sometimes. Like I kind of want more concrete action.

 

Endeavour: Yeah, I do as well, but I don’t think that we can solve that. I don’t think you and I have the ability to solve that, unfortunately.

 

But the other thing. So you’ve done this other series. Now I think most people watching this will probably be aware of this issue already about this media representation of various popular streamers. So what did you do with that series?

 

Jewish Representation of Various Popular Streamers

top

 

Alex: Yeah, I mean that is simple as simple can be. I made spreadsheets looking at a few different popular podcasts. Joe Rogan’s, Lex Friedman’s, Tim Poole’s, a couple others, Jordan Peterson, and just kind of noted that in all these popular entertainment platforms there is a super abundant over-representation of jewish guests. You know, looking at someone like Lex Friedman. If you examine just his political guests, which I think by the way, is necessary, because he has on like MMA people, he has on a lot of people from these kind of random walks of life.

 

But if you look at just the political guests, that is people that are known as political figures online talking like Eric Weinstein, I guess his brother Ben Shapiro, people like that, then 70% of all the people that he talks to are jewish. And that was kind of on the more like ridiculous end. For Joe Rogan that figure is 42. Tim Poole, it’s lower, it’s closer to like a quarter of all people.

 

[47:27]

 

Strategy of Reaching Centrists or the Left

top

 

And yeah, it’s very simple. In the videos I refrained from kind of extrapolating it all from drawing my own conclusions about this data. Because I thought that basically what that would do is just like as soon as somebody could put a label on me, say someone who is kind of maybe they’re living in a city, they’re kind of Left leaning. They mostly don’t engage with politics, but they have sort of those default American ideas that are promulgated by the popular media. If they were able to say that:

 

“Okay, this guy, he said this thing, therefore he is clearly a ‘neon yahtzee’ or whatever, I don’t have to listen to anything he has to say and I will completely disregard this fact that he’s putting out. In fact, it’s probably not even true. The data is probably wrong.”

 

So I just didn’t talk at all about what this means. I didn’t talk at all about my opinions on it. I just said this is the data, look at the spreadsheet. I made, it intentionally boring.

 

And I think that is the way that it can best serve as a conversation starter. I wanted them to basically get out to people that are kind of like centrist or politically Left and just make them question these things. Like give them a different perspective on the world that most of us see. Or most of us. I guess in these circles, not most people generally, right? But just get them to have this idea in their head, understand that it’s true.

 

And then in a way, it sort of forces you, if you’re an honest person, to have to reckon with these facts too. And I guess in certain ways it’ll subtly change your perspective over time as you now have to square all of these ideas in your head with this new information. So that’s what that was.

 

I don’t know if you have anything else in particular you want to ask on that. I have some extended, I guess, work related to that I can kind of talk about.

 

Endeavour: Sure.

 

But I think most people watching this video are probably already aware of this issue.

 

But I think the big problem though is that as you probably know, that any discussion of this issue automatically gets people to think about World War II, the National Socialists, the big bad mustache man.

 

And I think that it’s kind of something which we’ve had a very difficult time people who are aware of this kind of issue and see it in the way that you and I might. We’ve had a very difficult time really communicating this to the broader political discourse because of these kind of boogeymen which have been associated with this one issue.

 

What I really liked was kind of that the videos were really just saying:

 

“Well, this is who’s on these podcasts. And make of that what you might.”

 

I think that that is a very effective messaging because I think it’s something that unfortunately a lot of people get, I think in our sphere get a bit too carried away with this one issue.

 

[50:47]

 

But it’s something that is very important to understanding the way that countries like America work, or in particular America, but it also is very impactful on the broader Western world. I would say that many of the things that we were talking about earlier, things like the issue of why is it that having the correct, even though it’s not correct pronunciation of Vietnamese noodles makes somebody more cultured than if they just called the noodles Pha, or Pho. If they just call the noodles Pha why does it make them more cultured? I think that ultimately it is because a lot of the discourse over the past couple of decades in a country like America has been dominated by well, kind of has been dominated kind of by this foreign group.

 

Tropes Put into the Culture for Nefarious Reasons

top

 

And to understand kind of why the culture is as anti-White as it has become, you have to understand that a lot of the perspectives, the perspective that has really dominated is one that is at best is quite alien to the way that most White people would see themselves or in many ways hostile to that.

 

And I think that’s kind of where you’d have to go with that issue. It’s about getting people to understand that a lot of these tropes that we’ve been discussing, they’ve kind of been put into the culture for nefarious reasons. And it isn’t really just a matter of this is being something which arose naturally, it’s kind of been something that’s been put into the culture.

 

The Importance of Earning the Viewers’ Trust

top

 

Alex: Right.

 

And I think in a way, that not that everyone’s going to come to this conclusion, but I think many people will come to that same conclusion if you can only get them to at first engage with the ideas, which is what the idea of just putting out spreadsheets with that much else information is doing. It’s hopefully getting them to engage with those ideas.

 

And I know I said earlier that I hope that centrist and Left-wing people watch my videos mostly. I know that’s not the case, I know it’s probably like 95% the boys, but if I can reach out to even like a few thousand of those people and just get across the idea that I’m a rational person, you can trust me. Put out that aura into the world, show that I’m never going to just jump to conclusions, make statements that are wildly extrapolatory, I’m never going to betray your trust, I’m always going to cite sources just like even doing simple things like that. I will strive always to earn your trust as someone who is viewing me, I think that’s one of the most important things we can do for messaging.

 

[54:40]

 

Endeavour: Yeah. And you said you had something deeper about that project or something like that.

 

Media Representation Project

top

 

Alex: Yeah, I don’t know how much I should go into it. I’m working on this thing with other people.

 

But yeah, basically as part of the Media Representation series, I won’t drop the name or anything, but basically we’ve done an expanded project, the scope of which is going to go into the hundreds of thousands of entries. I’ve taken the Media Representation Project, and me and a small team have just drastically increased it’s scope with the idea of eventually putting this thing up on a website.

 

And essentially the pitch is something like we will examine, as I’ve done with the past videos on the channel, we’ll examine individual groups, individual walks of life, like all the guests on Joe Rogan’s podcast, for instance. We will do things like that, but we will also, for each of those guests, generate a unique entry within the website and associate with it as many as dozens or however many tags essentially we can get, basically associate these tags. These are going to be things like organizational relationships, maybe if they’re an actor, like a show they’ve been on, essentially any organization, anything whatsoever, that these people are associated with, we’ll be able to tag them with that thing.

 

So the goal eventually is that we’ll be able to not only look up those groups that we have explicitly put on in order to find out. For instance, I could run data on all Supreme Court justices, past and present, right? And you could look that up and you could do much as I have done with my previous videos. You could look at the racial makeup, among other things, of that group, but you could also, this is a stupid example, but I keep going back to it in my mind. If there’s an actor, or a director, for instance, that was associated with the making of Shrek Two, and you want to know how jewish was Shrek Two? Well, you could find that out with this website because they essentially will be cross referenced, and that is a category that you could find. There’s a lot more detail.

 

I’m going to probably sometime within the next few months, I don’t know the exact timeline, going to probably put out a video, once it’s up, detailing it, going through it, and yeah, that’ll be coming.

 

But it’s basically just the final [solution? – k], … I don’t know how to put it. It’s basically just conclusively showing that this issue of representation that I’ve observed in sort of the trivial walk of life that is podcast guests exists everywhere, broadly. Of course not in all walks of life. There are going to be some walks of life, some areas in which we don’t see this phenomenon, but in many, it is the case that it’s there, and we’re essentially trying to create a tool that will let people figure that out for themselves.

 

[57:15]

 

And yeah, it’s a big undertaking. We’re using AI for some of it to help us gather some of this data.

 

But yeah, I think that’s enough of maybe like a teaser on kind of what we’re working on with that.

 

So I haven’t given up on doing the media representation stuff. It’s just that it would get really boring if I would just occasionally drop another video on like:

 

“Oh my gosh! Did, you know, the racial makeup of the guests on Ben Shapiro show? You’ll never guess!”

 

It obviously just becomes like way too pedantic, way too, … No one would watch that it’s just stupid, it’s boring. So, yeah, I don’t know if I gave you a good enough explanation as to kind of understand.

 

Mass Media as an Echo Chamber

top

 

Endeavour: All right, so it’s kind of like a database on it. Yeah, I think that’d be useful. First reason is because it kind of is just something that’s there where people can look it up. I think the broader point is that we use the phrase “the echo chamber”. That’s true about a lot of people in our sphere. It’s not like we’re immune to being in an echo chamber, but kind of the entire media complex is an echo chamber in itself. In the same way that some discord server is an echo chamber, the mainstream media is in many ways an echo chamber as well.

 

One thing that really struck me this past week is that you’ll see these big media names like Tucker Carlson, some people in The Daily Wire I think it was Candace Owens. Does she work for the Daily Wire? I think she does, yeah. I don’t know exactly, but they’re all interviewing Andrew Tate now.

 

So some guy who’s like a self confessed, romance scam artist who’s facing very serious charges, they’re okay with having that kind of person on their show. This isn’t the Left. This is like what is supposed to be nominally the Right. They’re okay with having someone like that on their show who’s legitimately a despicable person, but then they will never, ever engage with someone like, let’s say, Jared Taylor, or Kevin MacDonald, or Mark Weber. They would never in a hundred years have that kind of person on their show!

 

And it kind of just shows where the boundaries are for what is kind of considered to be acceptable discourse. And the things that your database would show, I think that that kind of says a lot about why these boundaries have been placed where they have.

 

The Fauci Dog Experiments

top

 

And then, I guess, one more video that you made that I thought was interesting, and this one kind of takes a different path. It was the one about the Fauci dog experiments. Because I really found that that’s something I heard of in the media. I heard about it for a couple of weeks, and then it kind of just disappeared. And it was an interesting turn because this is one that’s kind of a trope, or not really a trope. This was kind of a narrative that was pushed by the Right. But what did you say in the video on why you felt that this was kind of something that was made a media narrative of the Right where it really didn’t make sense?

 

Alex: Yeah, man, I’ve made that long enough ago that I don’t even totally remember the points. I know essentially it was this big thing because conservative media really disliked Anthony Fauci at the time, and they were constantly doing hit pieces about him. And yeah, the big one was that what was it? I can’t even remember.

 

Endeavour: Experiments for allergies on dogs or something like that? And the dogs died.

 

Alex: Yeah, they had a number of Beagles who they essentially put this very cruel experiment that involved these fleas biting them and I think, like, laying eggs inside them. Again, the details are fuzzy for me. But essentially what it boiled down to is that Fauci really had no direct oversight into this thing. He was very tangentially related. It was just something, it was just a hit piece that they could conduct against him. And I don’t know, I guess I just put it out there without even a particular political bent. I don’t know, maybe it was a bit to just show that I certainly don’t align myself with conservatism, mainstream conservatism or things like that.

 

Endeavour: Well, I think wasn’t the point of the video that it wasn’t like a defense of Anthony Fauci. But at least this is what I got from it that was that it was kind of more of a commentary on kind of how juvenile the discourse has really become.

 

Whereas he had actually done things like possibly committed perjury, but people weren’t interested in that story. But then they kind of had to run with this kind of played up dog story.

 

Alex: Right. Yeah. And of course you had the element of that it is dogs. So they were just trying to elicit an emotional reaction. And it’s something that you can also explain to someone in 5 seconds and then get that emotional reaction if they are a conservative. I never know to what extent the mainstream media can actually be said to just be serving their financial interests, I’m always kind of skeptical of that. I think they have larger agendas that are completely detached from their financial interests. I think they’ll lose money if they have to.

 

But insofar as I guess maybe that is true, it’s just something that they were doing to get views. I don’t know. Or maybe if it is serving their agenda it was to further polarize people and that was somehow serving of a benefit to them. I don’t know. Yeah, I don’t know. It was an interesting case study in how the media acts, how it actually reports on these things. And it’s just ridiculous! It’s in no way like seeking truth or seeking to actually inform people.

 

[1:03:34]

 

On Eating Bugs

top

 

Endeavour: Yeah, I don’t know.

 

And then there was the one about eating the bugs which I also found that one interesting. The thing I actually kind of disagreed with the video. So your argument was that eating bugs is not going to happen in the future because it’s really first of all, it’s disgusting!

 

But not only that, it’s really not something which is really as feasible as they’re claiming. That’s pretty much the gist of it.

 

Alex: Yeah, pretty much that.

 

Endeavour: Would you say though, that the thing of eating bugs, … Because the thing is I don’t necessarily think it’s about and this also speaks more like to what kind of regime this really is. But I don’t really think it’s as much about the environment, as much as it is just about sadism and kind of just tormenting people and reducing the masses to kind of just like these battery hens.

 

So it doesn’t seem as much like actually about because it’s efficient. I kind of thought that when I saw this video I thought it seems like it’s more something that they’re going to do because they’re sadists and they basically just hate the people that they rule over. Not necessarily because it’s actually efficient.

 

Alex: I mean, that very well could be the case. I didn’t want to come across as naive in the video, but the reason I didn’t take that tact is because that’s a much more difficult thing to prove. How are we going to prove the intentions of these people twirling their mustaches in smoke filled rooms? Rather, the only thing we can do is assume they’re talking in good faith. I have no reason to believe or disbelieve that. Whatever. I’m just taking their claims at face value and examining them, see if they make sense.

 

Obviously, the main one is that if we were all to switch to eating bugs, then it would be better for the environment. Well, if you examine this, actually a lot of what I did is just look at what other scientists have done in the area.

 

And if you look at all their work and then do whatever else, whatever other reading I did on that video, there’s something like 40 some odd sources that you can look at if you go to that video. But really the claim just doesn’t even add up. I guess it’s impossible to know how effective of a strategy that is.

 

[1:05:55]

 

But that was my thinking. It’s just like:

 

“Okay, take them at face value. And then if it comes out that what they’re saying about them being environmentally friendly really isn’t true, then we’re forced to go on to the further question of like, well, why are they pushing these things? Is it because they’re simply ignorant.”

 

Probably not. Probably not most of them. I think people, the elites in power generally are going to be pretty intelligent.

 

As much as people don’t like to think that they like to think our government officials are imbeciles. That may be the case for some of them, but generally speaking, they’re pretty intelligent. And especially those people who are actually pulling the strings from the background, they’re going to be even more so intelligent.

 

It was essentially to get people to where I’m at in thinking on that issue. It’s just like it can’t possibly be because of the environmental thing. We could all just eat chickens. And even the cow question, even though they produce methane, and by certain metrics they are worse for the environment. It’s a much more complicated question than just examining CO2 and methane. Right?

 

I guess we’re left to speculate essentially on a few different things. Either it is that they’re ignorant, probably unlikely.

 

It could be, and I think this is a pretty viable and kind of mundane explanation that no one really considers with the whole bug thing. People generally right now, especially with recently, with inflation being what it is, investors will put their money into stuff that they’re really taking a fairly big risk on. Because to not invest would just be essentially to sit on that money and have it wither away to inflation.

 

So it’s best to keep your money in things, even if most of them are going to be losers in the long term. If you bet on something getting on the ground floor and it becomes the next big thing, well, then it’ll be a worthwhile investment. You see this all the time. Some really stupid things can just survive for as long as a decade on just marketing hype. So literally, it could be as mundane as that. [chuckling] They’re getting investors, they’re putting a lot of money into marketing these things, and it’s fairly easy to get investment money.

 

Now, it sounds kind of mundane, but that’s a legitimate explanation. We should generally edge towards the mundane explanations. It could also be that they hate us and they want to see us reduced to cattle. But I have no way to prove that. I have no idea!

 

Endeavour: Yeah, I tend to think it is a lot more malignant, the driving force behind that. I’ve even looked back and I’ve seen this eating the bugs argument. It’s not something that only came about in the last three, four years. It’s something that has been talked about a lot more in the last couple of years. But I even look back in some of these old textbooks that I had. They even had an article in the textbooks from like, … And these were maybe six, seven, eight years old. The textbooks have this article in them. More than one of them have an article about eating bugs.

 

[1:09:16]

 

And I even remember in university there was some kid who thought he was being intelligent by giving a presentation on why people should eat crickets. Yeah, he didn’t win me over on that one.

 

And you’d even see the same kind of arguments being used, kind of like what we were talking about earlier, that something being considered to be White means it’s considered bad, whereas something that’s non-White is considered to be good.

 

You’ll hear this argument regularly that they’ll say:

 

“Well, you know, in Africa or in Southeast Asia well, this is just really a common part of people’s diet! You know, it’s really just kind of these prejudices of Euro-centrism really which has this disgust for eating bugs. And it’s really something that is normal for everyone else in the world!”

 

They take this same approach.

 

Whether or Not the Elites Are Machiavellian?

top

 

So where would you say you stand on the question of whether or not the elites kind of are Machiavellian and they use this stuff to advance some kind of agenda which they have planned out, and it’s all about power for them. They’re just kind of power hungry and they want to reduce the population to cattle and have a system where they have control over?

 

Or do you think it’s something that’s kind of a lot more ideologically driven that there are people who have this kind of vision of this kind of technocratic egalitarian futurist utopia and nothing will get in the way of their vision? Do you tend towards it being more of the Machiavellianism or more of the ideological idealism?

 

Alex: Right. I think definitely more the second. It’s not to say that there isn’t hatred, I guess. I think that can definitely exist. But for me, if I were to examine it on an individual level, if I were to go to one of these people that I would consider to be in the elite, I think, generally speaking, they drink the Koolaid on this stuff. They genuinely believe in mass migration. They genuinely believe in something as stupid as eating the bugs. They’ve been told they don’t really have an educated reason why they believe these things, but they just like everyone else.

 

I mean, they consume the same media. I think they’re getting a lot of the same ideas. There’s always the temptation to sort of go one level beyond it’s. Like okay, yeah, that guy is a billionaire, but he’s just a businessman. The fact that he is sort of milk toast conservative who’s kind of like lukewarm, kind of okay with the idea of transgenders as long as they’re not shoving it down my throat. The fact that he’s like that.

 

But that doesn’t explain the real elite. There is a real cabal, just one level deeper that they operate in the shadows. They’re Masons or whatever you want to say they are. I don’t know.

 

It’s difficult because at a certain level, there is circumstantial evidence to say stuff like that exists. And I’m certainly not totally discounting it. I’ve done a lot of reading in that sort of realm, and I get where they’re coming from. But it’s like so often people will just like I don’t know, they conjure this thing in order to explain the way the universe works.

 

[1:12:56]

 

It’s like, this happens this way. Therefore, this would make sense if there was some elite cabal behind the scenes pulling the strings like this. I think that’s all too tempting of an idea that people always try to pull. But generally speaking, not all the time, but like 90% of the time, you can explain away most behaviors with mundane explanations, which I think we should all, … Again, it’s not to say that there aren’t these deeper cabals. It’s just that we should always emphasize, is there a simpler explanation? Could it just be like:

 

“Okay, yeah, that guy’s a hedge fund manager, but maybe he just watches CNN and that’s kind of where he’s getting these ideas.”

 

Or he uses TikTok and the algorithm is such that he gets these sort of mainstream, somewhat Left leaning political takes that are popular in America and that influences the decision that he makes at his company. I don’t know. It’s a very fine line between reasonable speculation and full on tinfoil hat!

 

I Think the System is More About Control Than Money

top

 

Endeavour: Yeah. One thing, the explanation I had a couple of years ago was my theory was that it was kind of all about money, that they were doing it because it would make them more money. I’ve since abandoned that theory. My argument back then was that, well, they were trying to create a system which is the most profitable for them. But I’ve since changed that view. I think the system is more about control.

 

On the question of whether they’re Machiavellian or they’re true believers, I think that there are a bit of both. You know, someone like, let’s say, Joe Biden, for example. I don’t think he truly believes in diversity. I don’t think that he actually genuinely cares, uh, black female representation in the Supreme Court or whatever it is. I don’t believe that Joe Biden actually cares about that because he’s gone back and forth his entire career and you’ve always seen he’s gone where power has been. And these days he probably doesn’t even believe anything because he doesn’t have the mental capacity to anymore.

 

But then you also see other characters who do seem to be genuine believers. I’m trying to think of someone who off the top of my head who actually would be that. Just trying to think of one really good example. Maybe you could argue someone like maybe Justin Trudeau could be seen as like a true believer.

 

But I feel that kind of the malignant Machiavellianism and the true believer idealism really kind of play off of each other. So someone can go into it being all about, well, what do I do to get ahead? How can I gain power? What will raise my standing in this system?

 

[1:16:08]

 

So then they start repeating the lines about diversity and about climate change and about all that stuff, and then they begin to believe it later on.

 

Whereas the true believers, oftentimes they come into it as these idealists. But then once they’re given the taste of power, they kind of become this ruthless Machiavellian. Because it’s a hard question to answer, because I look at a lot of things and I just think that, well, they must just totally be mad with things like mass immigration and all this stuff. It does seem like this is coming from this true belief in things like diversity.

 

But then on the flip side, you’d think that if it really was all just about belief, and not about kind of this Machiavellianism, you’d think they would have made a lot more mistakes. But it always seems like it’s extremely rare for them to make a mistake out of incompetence, which reduces the amount of power that the system has. Do you see what I mean by that?

 

Alex: Maybe. Can you, …

 

Endeavour: Yeah. If someone’s a true believer and they’re just totally died in the wool devoted to an ideology, they’d make a lot more mistakes, which would basically harm their position.

 

An argument that had been made a while ago was whether it was malice or whether it was incompetence. And I definitely think that the answer can’t be incompetence. But a true believe, I think would be open to making mistakes out of incompetence a lot more than they would be if they’re really just like strong Machiavellian.

 

There is a Racial Animus in the Elite

top

 

Alex: Yeah, it’s so difficult just to pinpoint the exact percentages of what percent of the elite just true believers, versus dimwits with actual malice? I don’t know, man! It’s a real tough question.

 

Certainly at a certain level. I’ll just say I believe there is a racial animus of the elite involved in this. And it’s not simply that they are parroting ideas, but that they, I guess I’d have to question even where their ideas came from.

 

But I do think that people driven by this racial animus see it as an imperative that, for instance, the mass immigration thing happens. But where do we draw the line there between, … If they genuinely believe that let’s just say they think they’re chosen to do this right, if they genuinely believe that that is what they’re put on Earth to do, and that this is a good that they’re ultimately serving. In what sense? It’s just like a matter of defining terms.

 

[1:19:19]

 

Like if you say they’re acting out of malice or not, if they’re Machiavellian or just a true believer in whatever power they believe in. It’s kind of splitting hairs. Honestly. I think that is their motivation. And probably the vast majority of people are just following what is preached. They’re following the mainstream narrative that has been promulgated to them. But there certainly is a subset of those in power that are driven by cultural, social, or religious animus.

 

But it’s just difficult to say whether or not that constitutes true malice or not, I guess is what I’m getting at.

 

Any Projects You’re Working On?

top

 

Endeavour: Yeah.

 

Anyway, I think we probably can wind down soon to finish off. Are there any other projects that you’re working on or anything yet other than the one that you already mentioned?

 

So the database? So other than that, any projects you’re working on that you’d like people to be aware of?

 

Alex: I guess I can talk briefly. I’m working on videos constantly. I think the one right now that it’s going to be just like a massive project is just pretty much kind of as a follow up to the ancient Greek homosexuality one, but just a large video on ancient Roman homosexuality.

 

And again, breaking down what I think has just been like a way too simplified narrative about what was going on there. And then even there’s sort of philosophical dimensions to it of how can we attain knowledge? What knowledge truly can we attain from this? How much of this is it possible even to know that this is true?

 

So there’s a lot more so than with the ancient Greek one, which is dealing with a smaller subset of people in a smaller time period. The ancient Roman homosexuality question, you’re dealing with at a minimum from like 200 BC to 200 AD. And in a much more complicated society, the politics are totally different. It’s difficult to even understand a lot of how their society functions.

 

So how can we get down to that? The minute details of their sexual life when, generally speaking, they didn’t even write about sexuality explicitly. It was just something that this guy might have mentioned in a book talking about something totally different.

 

So it’s like, how do we even begin to answer these questions? And with what degree of certainty can we actually say that come to this grand conclusion that ancient Rome was gay? It’s becoming like, a big undertaking. I’ve been doing a lot of reading on that for the past few months even. But I hope to kind of do that question justice and show what people mean when they say:

 

“Ancient Rome was gay.”

 

Of course, it’s not that I was always going to come to this conclusion. I’m leaning a lot more towards like they tended to disdain homosexuality. In what form it did exist? It was entirely different from what we have today. But I would also argue that it’s generally not a good thing in their society. Even limited though it was, it was usually either viewed as a negative explicitly by people or had clearly negative outcomes.

 

So, I hope to get into all that in the video. I’m always working on a number of videos, and usually once I get enough work done on a particular video, I’ll actually finish the whole script and actually make it and spend a couple of weeks exclusively on that. But until that time, I’m usually doing a couple of different ones in parallel, just, I don’t know, kind of keep it interesting.

 

Endeavour: All right, well, good!

 

So I think that we’re ready to finish then. Thanks for coming on, Alex. And definitely, everyone check out his channel if you haven’t seen his work already. It’s linked down below and he has a lot of great work. So thanks for coming on tonight.

 

Alex: Yeah, man, thanks for having me.

 

Endeavour: All right, talk to you all later. Bye.

 

[1:23:25]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Youtube Comments

top

(Comments as of 8/2/2023 = 54)

@niciassmith1204
1 day ago
Video suggestion:
Demographic representation at Ivy League schools. I read Harvard is 40% white but it’s really only 15%. A certain group is lumped into the white category.
75

3 replies

@SlurMaster9000
19 hours ago
IIRC that was based on an estimate that used students’ last names. So it would undercount students that are half-Jewish via maternal lineage (which is what matters in Judaism).
6

@watariovids1645
16 hours ago
I believe Ron Unz put out some numbers on that but i don’t have a link.
2

@Th3BigBoy
20 hours ago
Alex’s philosophy videos are the best.
8

@omgjimmyboy
1 day ago
Yeah I remember hearing in school that Alexander the Great was gay, I remember just being so dissapointed and couldn’t respect him, now it makes sense how this was purposefully done
78
Endeavour

11 replies

@substantivalism6787
1 day ago
You heard he was gay. . . and then you were disappointed and couldn’t respect him. . . I’m not seeing the connection. . .

@omgjimmyboy
1 day ago (edited)
@substantivalism6787 like they say in the video it’s a deconstruction, obviously I’m not a fan of the lgbtq nonsense, hearing that a great man such as Alexander is gay is like a punch to the gut.
3

@substantivalism6787
1 day ago (edited)
@omgjimmyboy Is it a punch to your gut. . . not because they manipulated a historical narrative. . . but because he was accepted at first sight by you as gay, right? I get the being mad at liberal manipulation angle here but that isn’t the reason. . . right. . . its that he was proclaimed as gay and that ‘tainted’ his image? Or am I wrong?

@nobobonobo
1 day ago
@substantivalism6787 who could possibly respect a gay?
5

@niciassmith1204
1 day ago
Another white pill is that Michaelangelo was anti gay and accosted DaVinci in the street
29

@aaronwilkinson8963
1 day ago
He wasn’t gay but his father did have male lover’s.

@omgjimmyboy
1 day ago
@substantivalism6787 I don’t like bundles of sticks
21

@substantivalism6787
1 day ago
@omgjimmyboy I get it that you feel left out if its just a bundle and not a triple. You can still be in the corner watching, .

@user-pt7kz1ng4q
19 hours ago
@substantivalism6787 anime, star wars and buggery. now thats a triple

@Vingul
10 hours ago
​ @omgjimmyboy I do like bundles of sticks…. ie fasces.
3

@wiggawithattitude
20 hours ago
‘out of africa’ is another thing that is just stated as fact, with any questioning of it drawing bemused glances from people who have never even thought about the issue, let alone examined it critically.
24

3 replies

@whoever79
16 hours ago
It is this phenomenon that we fight
4

@niciassmith1204
11 hours ago
I would follow Robert Sepher if you don’t already

@Cronoo
7 hours ago
Look forward to this ‘early life’ tool. It will be a very effective method of showcasing this data to the uninitiated.
3

@michipichi0
22 hours ago
Appreciate that Alex had his camera on for this talk
7

1 reply

@lordnelsonmc.billionberg9166
15 hours ago
I actually don’t care, because I always only listen to the audio, anyways .
1

@iMakz07
18 hours ago
Great discussion
5

@jimeyhat
12 hours ago
When the ancient world finally beats the gay allegations
10
Endeavour

@Kevin.A.S
22 hours ago
Wow, great crossover!
4

@FRANKMUSIKOFFICIAL
1 day ago
The cross over I was hoping for
7

@DeadSabbath806
7 hours ago
About to start, but random: Joseph Bronski made quite some noble efforts to debunk Leather Apron about things such as Ancient Greeks being gay, tho I’ve yet to watch the Bronski deboonking vids

2 replies

@stevecastillo3011
2 hours ago
He isn’t. However, his ego is getting the best of him. I completely dropped him when his response to Keith Wood’s criticism of democracy was in very philistine and in bad faith to the point where he doesn’t even address the points Keith make by the end.

@arbendit4348
13 hours ago (edited)
Well to suggest that Homosexuality in Greece was treated like the 1950s isn’t fair either. Homosexuality in Greece was socially acceptable. It may have been frowned upon by some, but just as much it was accepted by others.
Also to say that just because someone had a heterosexual relationship they were not also engaging in homosexuality is not fair since the differentiation wasn’t very clear back then. Even if you liked women that doesnt change the fact that you could also like young boys. For example young Eunuchs were commonly used for homosexual relationships, even though that was mostly because they are much more feminine than most men.
And you also have to consider the fact that many Greeks had a clearly negative view of women which made them believe that men should only have sex with other men, Because women are not worth enough to have sex with.
Finally you have to consider that to a large degree Christianity was legalised and officialized within the Roman Empire as a moralising force. Many Romans saw the debauchery and lechery that was prevalent during the final epoch of the Empire as complacency and self indulgence became the norm. This is important because to state that an extreme aversion to homosexuality is the norm within all societies, that removes the very important role that Christianity had to play for the moral revival and strengthening of Europe.
2

Endeavour
·
8 replies

@endeavour8273
12 hours ago
I disagree. While Greek society was very male-centric, that does not mean the men desired to have sex with each other in any significant number. While homosexuality existed in Ancient Greece, it was not any more accepted than it would’ve been in Europe or America before the mid 20th century.
Acceptance of homosexuality differed between various civilizations and eras, but it is certainly the norm that people have had an aversion to it across civilizations and eras. I do think Christianity brought some benefits to Europe, to say the Ancient Greeks before Christianity were “gayer” is incorrect.
8

@arbendit4348
11 hours ago (edited)
​​ @endeavour8273 But if that was the case homosexuality would have been illegal. But it obviously wasn’t, taboo maybe, but it is taboo among men even today.
Also don’t you think that if Ancient Greeks viewed homosexuality in the same way as we did in the mid 20th century they would not have written about it so much in a neutral or even positive manner? Why did they have plays or myths about it? A very simple example is of the god Apollo’s beloved Hyacinth who was killed when a jealous lover, the wind-god Zephyrus, diverted a discus into the skull of the young man. Apollo himself had many homosexual relationships that were written about. Why did a society that supposedly opposed homosexuality as clearly as in the 1950s create such myths?
The problem here is that you assume Ancient Greeks must have seen homosexuality or pedophilia as a bad thing, because it is obviously a negative for us, when our morality clearly originates from Christianity and theirs from a completely different context. There was no issue regarding consent. Girls as young as 12 commonly married men in their 50s and 60s. This was seen as a non issue.
The reason why Ancient Greeks opposed homosexuality between adult males much more than between a boy and an a man, is because of the nature of the relationship. A homosexual relationship has a dominant and a submissive partner. And to be submissive to a man as an adult was seen as effeminate. It was seen as the role of women to submit to men. Therefore a submissive male partner was not respected by fellow men. It also was not seen as morally good to sexually dominate a fellow adult man since all men needed to respect one another and retain their strength and masculinity.
So you see, it is not the act of having sex with a man that was disliked by Greeks (although no doubt not everyone engaged in it) but it was the consequences of such an act that were the problem.
1

@arbendit4348
11 hours ago (edited)
​​​​​ @endeavour8273 Also it obviously differed between city states as Alex said. Athens was much more strict regarding homosexuality than Sparta which didn’t have any laws against it. In Athens however if a man was found out to have sex with another adult man both were forbidden to Vote in Athenian elections or to hold any public office.
So do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that there is not a natural aversion to certain phenomena that exists within society, but rather that the aversion is expressed in different ways for different reasons.
The reason even today that men who accept homosexuality and gay marriage will beat you up if you call them gay is the same reason Ancient Greeks opposed homosexuality thousands of years go. Because it makes you less of a men. It emasculates you, so to speak. This is an obvious example of a natural aversion that doesn’t go away regardless of the amount of acceptance towards homosexuality.
I hope this explanation is reasonable to you, but let me know if you still disagree.

@MaximilianAgrippa
9 hours ago
​ @arbendit4348 everything is explained in the video Leather Apron made, go check that one
3

@arbendit4348
9 hours ago
@MaximilianAgrippa I know about his video. I am criticising what was said here. And as someone who has researched this particular topic extensively, I believe I have some things to say about it.

@greglyhoblit
5 hours ago
​@arbendit4348 you are homosexual ?
1

@arbendit4348
5 hours ago
@greglyhoblit No. Hetero, but a historical realist. I oppose incorrect interpretations of history wherever they may come from. Recently I have been arguing a lot with Africa-centrists regarding their stupid beliefs, but ultimately even here where I agree with a lot of things these guys are saying none of them are above criticism.

@andrearaujo4038
1 day ago
The gay greeks video was how I got into him.
34

5 replies

@zircconium2680
1 day ago
Or lack thereof
5

@omikhlephonon
18 hours ago
Sexually and politically

@FirefoxisredExplorerisblueGoog
15 hours ago
Same, great video.

@lordnelsonmc.billionberg9166
15 hours ago
Now get J woke !
3

@mtra5812
17 hours ago
great interview
3

@GerNiels
6 hours ago
What was that youtube-channel Alex recommended?

@marocat4749
19 hours ago (edited)
I disagre it deproves. that that being gay wasnt acceted,because it was apearently conditional. And existed. Also that pedestry isnt would be a lie, and i hope they dwere considered , ok i avoid that ., that just shows it was just still conditional. like the ottom shaming.
Hell even now peope say its not gay if “yada yada ative and toppart stuff, … And i hope its, yyeah still a gay thing . That is no different.
Hell even now things tat definitly gay arnt callthat. No way grece wasnt doing that and maybe deragatory ut very much doing it and acceptig conditional.
like with slaves, yeah its more about status apearently than anything else.
besides they didnt have a concept of gay as known now, why would it be called tt like moder context?! probably default i or something ot at least have a child
also i highly disagre why they werent shown in the act, it might be to never ask or bring up who was the bottom there. Not ringing that upwouldnt bring up that controvercy

1 reply

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

See Also

top

Morgoth’s Review – The Dover Crisis and the Great Serco Grift – Nov 2, 2022 – Transcript

 

 

Morgoth’s Review – The Morgcast 13 – Resist the Lobster Pot – Nov 22, 2021 — Transcript

 

 

 

Millennium Woes with Morgoth on Brexit — TRANSCRIPT

Millennial Woes’ Millenniyule 2017 No. 66 – Morgoth — TRANSCRIPT

Morgoth’s Review – YouTube Hangout 01 – Skeptics and Cucks — TRANSCRIPT

Morgoth’s Review – YouTube Hangout 02 – Merry Holocaustmas — TRANSCRIPT

Morgoth’s Review — Discussing the Government’s Anti-Extremism Agency ”Prevent” With Based British — TRANSCRIPT

Morgoth’s Review — Hate-Reading The Guardian – Hirsch, Critical Theory & Nihilism, Jan 2019 — TRANSCRIPT

Morgoth’s Review — The Psychotic Left, Feb 2019 — TRANSCRIPT

Morgoth’s Review – Fishing For White Pills, Feb 2019 — TRANSCRIPT

Morgoth’s Review – Hope Not Hate and the State of Play, Feb 2019 — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

Morgoth’s Review – A Conversation with Jacktion, Mar 2019 — TRANSCRIPT

Morgoth’s Review – YouTube Hangout 01 – Skeptics and Cucks — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice TV – Extinction Rebellion, Our Future of Bugs and Pods – Morgoth’s Review – Oct 10, 2019 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – Against The Controlled Warmongers of The Right – Jan 3, 2020 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – Turbocharged Atomization – May 15, 2020 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – Free Falling – Jun 1, 2020 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – ”Cracka” Is Anti-White Filth – Jun 29, 2020 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – Edward Bernays – The Group and The Herd – Jul 1, 2020 — Transcript

 

 

Morgoth’s Review – Why The Conservative Party Conserves Nothing – Jul 16, 2020 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – The Telegraph vs The Guardian – Or How To Lose A Culture War – Jul 31, 2020 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – On Liberal Blindness To The Jewish Question – Aug 4, 2020 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – Notes On Machiavelli – Aug 14, 2020 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – Neo-Liberalism & the Ballad of Terry Bell – Sep 15, 2020 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – Morgoth & Endeavour’s Classic Movies 1 – Lawrence of Arabia – Oct 10, 2020 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – Systems of Control – China’s Social Credit vs Western Political Correctness – Oct 16, 2020 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – The Deep Breath Before the Plunge – Nov 3, 2020 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – The Twitterfication of Everything – Nov 17, 2020 — Transcript

 

Morgoth’s Review – My Image of 2020 – An Analysis – Dec 7, 2020 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – London’s New Year’s Firewoke Display – Jan 1, 2021 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – Winter is Here – Jan 9, 2021 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – Reading ”American Extremist” by Josh Neal – Feb 6, 2021 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – The Frozen North & Frozen Thinking – Feb 10, 2021 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – The Equation That Destroyed Our World – Feb 14, 2021 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – The Last of Us – Feb 24, 2021 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – How Piers Morgan Shapes the Discourse – Mar 3, 2021 — Transcript

 

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

PDF Download

top

Total words in transcript = 13140

• Total words in post = xxx
• Total images = xx
• Total A4 pages = xxx

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB): (Available later)

 

Version History

top

Version 5:

Version 4:

Version 3:

Version 2: Wed, Aug 2, 2023 — Completed rest of transcript. Youtube comments updated (54).

Version 1: Tue, Aug 1, 2023 — Published post. First 47/87 mins of transcript. Includes Youtube comments (25).