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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[06:09]

 

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

 

Read out the specific part:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So either:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And then there is:

 

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

 

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

 

“Tough luck! Like, enjoy being banned!”

 

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

 

So:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[14:04]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Those offences are:

 

“Directing the activities of a prohibited hate group.”

 

Which can get you 15 years in jail.

 

“Membership of a prohibited hate group.”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So the conduct is:

 

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

 

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

 

[21:42]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[27:15]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Jonathan Duniam:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

He said:

 

“Just be the martyrs, bro!”

 

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

 

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

 

[35:20]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[41:19]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Gab Comments

top

(Comments as of = )

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Joel Davis: Welcome to the Nazi capital of Australia, Melbourne!

 

[loud applause]

 

Before I get into my speech, I would just quickly say, usually when we march in the street, we march about an issue. We march to draw attention to something or other in the political system or in popular discourse, whatever. This is the first time we marched just purely as a flex! [laughing] And this whole weekend has been a flex. This whole weekend has been such an upgrade for the organisation. Incredible weekend. Incredible! Just all three days, everything has been brilliant! I think the morale has never been this high. It really feels like we’re taking steps forward. And the way that this has been reported by the media is:

 

“Look how many Nazis there are! Look how big they are! The police were powerless to stop us. They bashed everyone that tried to stop them in the march!”

 

[laughing]

 

They got Nathan Bull flexing on the front page of The Age.

 

[laughing]

 

Like, these people are idiots! They think making us look strong is going to go against us? The only reason why we aren’t bigger yet is because people don’t believe or haven’t believed that this could actually take the next step and then the next step and the next step! But they’re just announcing to Australia that we’ve taken the next step and a lot more people are going to come with us now to take the step after this.

 

But anyway, my speech today is on, Why Individualism is Cowardice.

 

And the reason why I’m speaking about this is because it’s a common refrain that you get from conservatives, from libertarians who say:

 

“These Nazis they can’t get a girlfriend, they’re poor, they’re a bunch of losers. And so they have to blame the jews, blame the system, blame society for their ills because they can’t get it together in their personal lives!”

 

We’re all just a bunch of losers, apparently. And that’s why we have to cope and demand that the government, through some form of collectivism will come in and solve our problems. Because we have a victim mindset and we’re just like the Left, apparently. We just want Leftism but for White people or something.

 

And I want to deconstruct this with my speech today.

 

First of all, the kernel of the criticism is that because we can’t take responsibility for our personal lives, we can’t take personal responsibility. We’re apparently forced to engage in this movement, to engage in our politics. What’s quite incredible though is that to engage in this form of politics requires incredible sacrifice. We are the ones that are taking personal responsibility for the future of our nation! What these conservatives and libertarians, these individualists, their aspiration, ends, starts and ends in their own personal lives!

 

To me, that seems to suggest that you’re a loser. If your personal life is that hard to get together, if getting a wife and some money is that difficult, that you can’t even think about politics. You can’t even think beyond that. You’re a fucking loser!

 

But also, it goes a step deeper because when you think about it, what is politics? Politics is collectivism! There is no such thing as individualism in politics because politics, by definition is how you organise a society. Politics is how you organise the people that you stand with to then fight and defend your way of life against every and all threats to it. That’s what politics fundamentally is. There is no way to do individual politics. Once you become an individual, you’re no longer in the political. The political is collective.

 

And so what these people who criticise collectivism, these people who criticise wanting the government to do things that benefit you, what these people actually are advocating for is for you to exit political life, for you to not participate in political life, for you to become apolitical.

 

And then they wonder why the Right-wing loses! And loses! And loses because these losers perpetually tell us:

 

“To stop engaging in politics, because that’s collectivism! That’s just like the Left!”

 

Like the winners in the last however many decades of politics. Why? Because the Left make the personal, political. What do the Left say to their followers?:

 

“Hey! You know why your life sucks? Not because you’re a loser and you need to work harder and pull yourself up by your bootstraps and learn pickup artistry and work out and eat healthier, get rid of seed oils and become successful in business.”

 

No! They say:

 

“The reason why your life sucks is because of White supremacy! Is because of Patriarchy, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And the way that we’re going to fix it is we’re going to go and create a political movement to go and punish our enemies and defeat our enemies and elevate ourselves to a position of social and political dominance!”

 

It turns out that works pretty well, as we can see by the deplorable state of our country and our entire civilisation.

 

So why the hell aren’t we doing that?

 

What is good advice for someone on a personal level that:

 

“Hey, you should cut out the seed oils. Hey, you should use this or that technique to improve your personal life.”

 

That might help you on the personal level, but it does nothing on the political level. And the Right-wing is too fixated on trying to create personal solutions to political problems. We need political solutions to political problems! We need collective solutions to political problems. That’s the only scale that you can solve political problems at.

 

[06:09]

 

And so really what conservatives and libertarians are engaged in is they’re rationalizing their refusal to confront our enemies in the political arena as though it makes them superior to us when it actually, that’s a cope! It makes them weaker! It makes them more pathetic than us! Because they’re refusing to take the fight, they’re refusing to pay the cost. This movement exacts costs. It exacts big costs from you, because this is the movement that is the most controversial movement in our entire country. If you participate in our movement, you get a lot of enemies. There’s a lot of consequences, potentially. They’re trying to put us in jail! The powerful people go on television demanding that we be classified as “terrorists”, demanding that we be outlawed. Thousands and thousands of people on the political Left and in jewish groups working meticulously every day to dox every single person in this movement, destroy your career prospects and ruin your life as much as possible.

 

Who’s doing that to the libertarians? Who’s doing that to people in the Liberal Party? Nobody! Why? Because they’re fucking weak and pathetic and they present no threat!

 

Politics is a team sport. What conservatives and libertarians say is that we shouldn’t play as a team because:

 

“Not all ‘X’ are like that, right? Not all jews are like that, not all blacks are like that!”

 

But this is irrelevant. Even if there’s a nice jew, a friendly jew, a friendly black, whatever, it’s irrelevant because politics is a team sport! We have to play as a team, as White people, if we want to win! We have the best team, we have the best players, but they don’t play as a team.

 

It’s like imagine if you were a soccer team. You had all the best players, but then everyone in the team refused to wear the same uniforms. They refused to acknowledge that they were in a team or that they had a coach. Everyone was trying to be the Striker. There was no goalkeeper, no defenders, no other position. And also they didn’t even acknowledge which goal we were supposed to be shooting in! That is the state of the White race, politically. All we have to do is play as a team and we win!

 

So, yeah, the problem is that we’re just not playing.

 

Now, another aspect of this too, your nation, your race, is more important than you. When you try to figure out what is life about? What does it mean? You can’t actually answer that question. If you only look within the prism of your individual personal life, from your birth to your death. If you try to do that, you will find out that there’s actually not very much meaning in that. To actually understand what this is about, you have to understand that you are part of a history and that you are part of a destiny which is inherited collectively that is passed down from our ancestors to you and we will pass to our children and grandchildren and so on.

 

That is the only way that you can really understand what it is that you’re doing here, what it is that we’re doing here as a society. That’s what culture is! It is maintaining and perpetuating that inheritance. You take that away and what are you left with? You’re left with banal pleasures. You’re left with frivolous experiences, satiating yourself to not really think about deeper existential questions because you don’t have the answers.

 

Well, we have the answers! The answer is that we are Aryans! We are Australians, and that we could create on this continent an incredible civilisation! We can create a powerhouse! The potential of this continent to host one of the most powerful nations on the planet is actually there. We have an incredible glut of resources. We have an entire continent to ourselves, and we have incredible racial stock!

 

But that inheritance is being thrown away. Australia has been run like, horribly for decade after decade after decade, and it’s still one of the best places in the world to live. It’s still pretty good. It’s actually incredible that you could have a country run so bad that is still this good. And that’s because of how good the people are!

 

Imagine what would happen if we had a government that actually loved our people and put its interests first. What could be possible! That had vision, that understood what I was saying before about history and destiny and actually tried to take up that mantle. That is what we represent. To paraphrase the Great One:

 

“There is nothing on this planet more valuable than your people!”

 

And I’d rather be an average Joe in the ethno-state than be the big cheese in a decaying civilisation. There are many men in our society who have esteem, who have high rank, whether it be they’re wealthy, successful businessmen, they’re successful in their career in some dimension.

 

And this is why they are not helping the movement. Not because they can’t see the problems that we see, but because they don’t want to pay the personal sacrifice of potentially losing that status or losing that wealth, which could occur if they participated.

 

But the question is this, what is it for? You know, when you make a billion dollars, you can’t, you don’t spend it. You’re passing that down to your children and your grandchildren, right?

 

So what’s the point if they don’t have a country! I’d rather be an average guy with my own country than a rich guy with no country. There’s nothing more valuable than that.

 

Look at what the jews do. The jews have an incredibly large amount of money. They invest that money to ensure that they have a country, that they have political power! And look at the benefits that they accrue for that. Imagine if we played as a team like them. Imagine if White Australians put as much money into our community groups and into our form of politics that the jews put into theirs. We would completely mog them!

 

This idea that the jews are these all powerful, all knowing, like superhumans is just bullshit! It’s just that we’re not playing the fucking game!

 

[12:40]

 

But also, not only is there no point pursuing success if it comes at the cost of your country, but also, it’s not worth it today for young Australians to really work that hard and grind. Because you have to grind so hard to stay in the same place. Like the average house prices in Sydney or Melbourne are skyrocketing. You can become successful in your career, earn hundreds and hundreds of thousand dollars a year and you can barely service a mortgage in a shitty middle of the road neighbourhood surrounded by fucking Indians! What’s the point? There is no point! Because like, it’s not worth it. We’re all fucking slaves. This sucks!

 

In the Australia of our forefathers, the average working man was able to achieve a dignified existence. Own his own home. His missus didn’t have to work. He could send his kids off to uni when they finish school, no problem. He could raise three or four kids, no problem. Two cars in the driveway. That sounds like a paradise! It shouldn’t. That was not a paradise. That’s the bare minimum of what is possible with Australia. We should have gotten better, not worse in the time since.

 

So the question is, well, if it’s not worth it, how do we make it worth it?

 

The only way that we’re going to make it worth it is by taking power and redistributing wealth, redistributing the structure of our society so that young White families can actually aspire again.

 

And that’s why we need to have a Right-wing form of socialism, in my view. The reason why a lot of young people are voting for the Left isn’t because they’re all woke, or something. That’s true for some of them, of course. And a lot of them are brown and just vote for the Left because they’re brown. There’s a lot of young White people who aren’t woke, they aren’t brown, but they’re looking at the structure of this economic system and how it screws them. And they go:

 

“Well, the Left is kind of making more noises like it wants to help me out than the Right. What is the Right saying? We’re going to cut taxes and deregulate!”

 

And all of this kind of typical conservative libertarian bullshit! That’s not going to fly with Zoomers when they’re looking at the way that wealth is distributed between Boomers and asset holders, where if you don’t own stuff, if you’re just working, no matter how successful you are, you’re a slave in this system and you can’t liberate yourself. The middle class is being foreclosed to the younger generation.

 

So the message that is going to be powerful to them is solving these problems at the collective level. They’re waiting for someone on the right to bring them a socialist message.

 

Of course, like the socialism in National Socialism doesn’t mean it’s not a dirty word. It doesn’t mean the same thing that the Left means, which is just simply taking from the rich and giving to the poor. What it means is putting the nation before the individual. That’s what it actually means.

 

But in practical terms, what that means for Australia today is redistributing wealth from basically our enemies and giving it to our friends. The Left does that. The Left taxes White workers and then redistributes wealth to retards and immigrants and all these different, basically victim groups across our society. We should be redistributing that wealth back to young White families so that they can raise the next generation and we can continue having a country. That’s the message that we’re going to sell to them. Not this individualistic, cut taxes, get the government out of our lives bullshit! I don’t want to get the government out of our lives. I want to get the government under our control!

 

[applause]

 

But ultimately, what it comes down to is that conservatives and libertarians, they lack the virtue of sacrifice. They just want to be left alone. It’s an ideology of conflict avoidance. That’s what it is.

 

You know, they called us “cowards” for wearing masks. Personally, I didn’t want to wear a mask. It was for the sake of uniformity, but they call us cowards for wearing masks. They’re fucking cowards! The whole ideology is cowardice! The whole ideology is:

 

“Well, you know what if we come up with a political philosophy and an approach that offends no one? What if we don’t actually do anything about any of our enemies? What if we just try to keep things as they are right now and kind of slow down the Left’s agenda, slow down the growth of government or something? Then maybe we could breathe.”

 

It’s an attempt at negotiating with a hostile enemy and ultimately it’s capitulation to a hostile enemy. That’s what their ideology is.

 

And that’s why it always loses! And has always lost and will always lose. And it needs to die!

 

Our ideology is one of accepting the fact that this is war! To be or not to be! That’s the question that faces us. We choose to be!

 

Hail victory! Thanks everyone for coming. This has been fantastic!

 

[loud applause]

 

[18:25]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

XTwitter Comments

top

(Comments as of = )

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yes, Sunday morning. Yeah.

 

Greg Johnson: Okay.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So the first point that he makes is:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[07:17]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[13:19]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[20:10]

 

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

 

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

 

I started thinking, you know:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[26:52]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[33:24]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, of course.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[39:51]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Which historically is what nationalism generally means.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Okay, so what’s your critique of that?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: It’s imperialism. Right?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[47:24]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[53:49]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:00:10]

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:07:22]

 

Greg Johnson: What’s stopping us?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And that means that, …

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

But the point is that, …

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:15:07]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: They pose no threat!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:21:40]

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Will Germany and France fight it out?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

[1:27:09]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

That’s what politics is about.

 

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

 

[1:33:57]

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Absolutely! Absolutely!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

That’s fantastic!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:40:47]

 

 

Greg Johnson: Absolutely, yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:46:16]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Well, I would agree with that.

 

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

 

“We need to step over this.”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:53:28]

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yeah.

 

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

 

So that’s not a reasonable:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And right now our race is being genocided! Right?

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, yes and no.

 

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

 

[1:59:26]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Absolutely.

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: I absolutely agree with that.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And there’s no way of doing that!

 

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

 

[2:06:39]

 

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

 

[2:50:10]

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

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

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

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

18
0
Hide replies

@v0lum3
6 months ago
Hitler dindu nuffin

2
1
Show reply

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

Hide replies

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

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

Continue Thread

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

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

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

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

16
2
Hide replies

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

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

4
1

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

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

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

9
1
Hide replies

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

4
0
Earthling Carl
6 months ago
Easy Joel W.

10
3

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

9
2

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

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

10
3
Hide replies

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

7
0
Hide replies
ThinRedLine
6 months ago
it does

5
0

@Arilando
6 months ago
Of course you can.

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

2
0

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

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

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

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

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

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

6
2
Hide replies

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

2
1
ThinRedLine
6 months ago
Hail Joel

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

5
3

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

2
0

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

5
3
Hide replies

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

Hide replies

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

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

Hide replies

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

2
0

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

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

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

4
3

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

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

1
2

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

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

6
0

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

2
3

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Graham Connolly: Welcome back to The Offally Offensive.

 

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

 

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

 

Blair Cottrell: I’m not that important.

 

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

 

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

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

Blair Cottrell: Really?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“This is Shane Warren’s son.”

 

And everyone believed it.

 

 

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

 

“It’s not Shane Warne’s son!”

 

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

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: I won’t take credit.

 

Blair Cottrell: Oh, is it the first one?

 

Graham Connolly: First one, yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Congratulations mate.

 

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

 

Blair Cottrell: Home birth?

 

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

 

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

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

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

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

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

 

Graham Connolly: Wow!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Graham Connolly: I think they still are, yeah.

 

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

 

[04:54]

 

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

 

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

 

Graham Connolly: Maybe.

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Blair Cottrell: Unfortunately, that’s true.

 

Graham Connolly: It is true.

 

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

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Graham Connolly: Ireland.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

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

 

Blair Cottrell: Yep.

 

Graham Connolly: And the rest are in Ireland.

 

Blair Cottrell: So you grew up in Ireland?

 

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

 

Blair Cottrell: Southern. Northern?

 

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

 

Blair Cottrell: That would make you Catholic?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Blair Cottrell: What year would that have been?

 

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

 

Blair Cottrell: Right.

 

Graham Connolly: 88, 89.

 

Blair Cottrell: I was born 89.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

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

 

 

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

 

Blair Cottrell: Right.

 

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

 

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

 

[09:06]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s a big dog.

 

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

 

Blair Cottrell: It nails you down sometimes, …

 

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

 

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

 

Blair Cottrell: Correct.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“Fuck doing it!”

 

Like almost that period of regret.

 

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

 

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

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

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

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. It can be.

 

Blair Cottrell: Because they can smell and hear everything.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And they’re not typically raised or bred to be around that much constant stimulation.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: So it can be very stressful for them. They’re supposed to guard livestock. They’re supposed to have a lot of land to run around on. They’ve got a job to do and they’re proud of their job. They understand their job. Whereas in suburbia they’re sort of just suffering alongside you.

 

Graham Connolly: I’ve noticed even with my two, there’s a couple of dogs down the way and I think they be left out or whatever. It’s like one of those things where people got dogs and then they just can ignore them. They basically probably get a bowl of food every day and they’re just ignored.

 

And sometimes you hear them whimpering and whinging and crying and giving out, and it affects my dogs! You can hear it, because they can hear these dogs suffering, like I’m telling you, I agree, I think that you’re right.

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s misery loves company man. Humans, they’re suffering here in suburbia in this unnatural environment where we develop cancers from all the radiation through the air and the Wi-Fi and so forth. And that’s why the dogs get cancers as well. Because it’s an unnatural environment.

 

Graham Connolly: Exactly!

 

Blair Cottrell: And we have to subject the poor beasts to the same suffering that we’re in. We can’t do it ourselves!

 

Graham Connolly: And that’s why in the West, we have dogs that have behavioural problems. It’s weird, right? Because if you go to places like Mexico or India where these dogs are just roaming the street.

 

Blair Cottrell: What do you mean behavioural problems?

 

Graham Connolly: Like dogs getting anxiety and shit!

 

Blair Cottrell: Are they on medication?

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, on medication! [chuckling] Like people give their dogs medication in suburbia.

 

Blair Cottrell: I think my dog’s got ADHD!

 

Graham Connolly: Mine get to go chase rabbits and stuff like that every day. So they seem pretty good. But a lot of people have their dogs on medication for anxiety.

 

Blair Cottrell: I’ve known cats that are on that kind of thing. I’ve known diabetic cats that have to have their insulin shots.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, right. And even there’s a guy, I don’t know if you ever seen Caesar Milan. The Dog Whisperer like on YouTube. He’s pretty bloody good to watch sometimes, like his videos and stuff like that. But he turns up and it’s always these Western dogs basically like suburban dogs that just have serious behavioural problems like their barking and just like biting other dogs, fighting other dogs, all kinds of carry on. And he always makes the comparison that if you see these street dogs in India that have like three legs and like their tails off and like these dogs have gone through the wars.

 

Blair Cottrell: I don’t want to imagine what happens to dogs in India. The poor basterds!

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, yeah.

 

[13:09]

 

Blair Cottrell: But dogs on medication is interesting. Medication is a double edged sword though. Isn’t it? It can prolong life, but what quality of life is it prolonging at the end of the day?

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And I’m alive now because of medication, I can tell you that.

 

Graham Connolly: Really?

 

Blair Cottrell: Well think about it. Like you could possibly say the same for yourself. You had a bad infection.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, 100% actually.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. We would typically die of, …

 

Graham Connolly: I had my appendix out when I was a kid.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, there you go. Often without antibiotics, deep tissue infections or even just sinus infections. They were a common killer of men for a long time. Did I looked up recently the average life expectancy for the standard human in 1900 was 32! 32 years old was the average life expectancy* for you and me in 1900.

 

[This figure is misleading as it was due to a high death rate for new borns and young children, etc.]

 

And now it’s gone up to about 76 or something.

 

Graham Connolly: I didn’t have my first baby till 42.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, there you go.

 

Graham Connolly: You know when you put it like that.

 

Blair Cottrell: And it makes sense because when you walk through., … Because I went to England last year, October last year. And when you walk through the graveyards on a lot of the stones there’s this guy’s dead 22, this guy’s dead 28. And you’re thinking, why so young? And it’s disease, infections, things that they didn’t have medicine for 100 years.

Graham Connolly: Yeah. But it became corrupt, didn’t it?

 

Blair Cottrell: Like I said, double edged sword.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, it’s a double edged sword. So like they discover these things like penicillin and discover these things that save a lot of lives and yeah. Like fighting against disease and fight against this and fight against that. Fight against infection.

 

Blair Cottrell: Pharmacology. Well, the Greek word for witchcraft is “pharmakia”. It’s pharma.

 

So the Greeks understood witchcraft as a form of potion making or drug brewing, you might say. And just like in traditional European folklore, there’s good witches and bad witches. And so Medicine can be used for good or bad, but there’s a whole industry. I don’t know if we’ll get started on it, but the first time I considered the lucrative and ruthless exploits of pharmacology was 18 years old. I was working in the city Melbourne. Would have been roughly when you arrived in Ireland [Australia], I reckon, 2008. And I saw on the ceiling or the roof of Southern Cross Station, huge banners! Huge, big banners saying:

 

“Are you feeling down today? It could be depression. Call this number.”

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Trying to convince everyone they were depressed. And I thought. I didn’t think, maybe I’m depressed. Maybe that’s what everyone else was thinking. I was thinking:

 

“Why are they putting so much effort into trying to make people feel like they’re depressed?”

 

And then I looked into the number on the bottom and I did some research and I found out in certain states in America, you’re allowed to advertise prescription drugs like Prozac antidepressants, directly to the public.

 

Graham Connolly: Wow!

 

Blair Cottrell: Just on TV:

 

“Prozac. Make your life better. Come and buy it from your local pharmacist!”

 

Or go get a prescription for it first, whatever. In Australia, you’re not allowed to do that. You’re not allowed to advertise the drug. So instead they advertise the symptoms.

 

Graham Connolly: It’s a way around it, isn’t it?

 

Blair Cottrell: And then you call Beyond Blue, or you call your psychologist, and then you end up with a psychiatrist. You get the prescription, you’re on the drug.

 

Graham Connolly: Everybody’s on it! Everybody’s on it. Fucking crazy!

 

Blair Cottrell: Something like a third of all people are on some sort of prescription medication for their mood. It makes you realise the kind of things that humans have been through in history, but now the stress of your mortgage or something is too much.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: It doesn’t really make sense to me.

 

Graham Connolly: No, it’s crazy, isn’t it? Yeah. It just goes to show what we’re not made for, though. We’re not made for that stress and trying to pay a bloody Bill or something. I think we’re made for war! [chuckling]

 

Blair Cottrell: Some of us.

 

Graham Connolly: Yes. Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: There’s different castes of men.

 

Graham Connolly: There is, yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, have you heard of the caste system? The warrior, the merchant?

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, a little bit. Tell me more.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, what do you think you belong to?

 

Graham Connolly: Oh, warrior caste, I reckon, because if I look at my name, the Connolly name, it goes back a thousand years. Thousands of years, actually.

 

Blair Cottrell: Where does it come from?

 

Graham Connolly: Ireland. Well, the Celtics.

 

Blair Cottrell: What does it mean, Connolly?

 

Graham Connolly: It means “fierce as a hound”.

 

Blair Cottrell: Ah.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. So it’s got to be war! And Ben did a lot of research recently. You know Ben, our man Ben?

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: Ben did a lot of research recently. And it’s funny that his mother’s side of his family and my family name have mad connections back in the day.

 

Blair Cottrell: Like how was that?

 

[17:06]

 

Graham Connolly: His family were like farmer caste in Ireland and ours were warrior caste and apparently like we used to work together, like we defend their farms and shit, way back when. So the mother side of his family.

 

But I want to talk to him more about. Because we just talked a little bit about over text like. What’s the name? I’m trying to remember it. Because his mother’s family name changed their name. It seems like they left and then came back like hundreds of years later to Ireland and then took back their Celtic name or whatever. So they left their Celtic name behind, went to France or somewhere like that. And then they came back hundreds of years later and took back their Celtic name. And then there’s this connection to the Connolly clans in Ireland.

 

So the Connolly clan in Ireland as well you can trace back to the what’s called the four tribes of Tara [sp] of the Hillitara [sp]. So it’s like four very prominent tribes way back when, … And then even before that.

 

Blair Cottrell: Prominent for what purpose?

 

Graham Connolly: Like basically they ruled over Ireland. Like these four tribes of Tara

 

Blair Cottrell: Landowners?

 

Graham Connolly: Landowners and yeah, like hikings [sp] and stuff like that that’s what they were called. Like there’s this regional kings.

 

Blair Cottrell: I’ve known a few Connolly’s.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And what that indicates is a lot of people survived from the Connolly line.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Meaning usually that indicates that there was money there or there was power there.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. Well, no, not when I was growing up, mind you! [chuckling]

 

Blair Cottrell: Right. Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: But hey, things change, I guess.

 

Blair Cottrell: What did your family when you were growing up have a stake in a certain enterprise? What were they doing for a job?

 

Graham Connolly: No, not really. Not really. No.

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s easy to lose.

 

Graham Connolly: I think that’s what happened as well. Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: They just lost themselves, I reckon over the years, you know, under English rule really is what happened. You become peasants, like.

 

Blair Cottrell: Oh, it’s the English’s fault!

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. [chuckling]

 

Blair Cottrell: If it wasn’t for the poms Graham here would be rich and famous! Those poms have robbed him of his fate, his future! [Graham laughing] Yeah. But my family comes from just dairy farmers.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, right. Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: They had a fair bit of land, but they were just workers. They were cold, hard bastards!

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And they disagreed with each other, and the family kind of split apart, and we all ended up with nothing. And that’s what happens.

 

Graham Connolly: It is what happens. Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: But families who stay together, let me tell you, mate, they make money!

 

Graham Connolly: They do.

 

Blair Cottrell: And these days, families atomizing from each other. By atomizing, I mean every individual in the family going their separate ways, which tends to happen more and more in the modern day.

 

Graham Connolly: It’s kind of become what we do in the West, and it’s wrong. We grew up with this. I don’t know if you grew up with it here, but we grew up with it back home in Ireland, where you don’t talk about politics, you don’t talk about money, you don’t talk about religion. This was like the three things you’re not supposed to talk about because for an easy life, or a comfortable life, but it’s the three things you should be talking about! It’s the three things that rule your life! [chuckling]

 

Blair Cottrell: Three things that matter.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, it’s the three things that matter! You should be sitting around the dinner table discussing this stuff, educating your children and stuff. But that’s not what happened back then. It was like:

 

“No, don’t talk about that, because it’ll lead to conflict in the family. Don’t talk about that!”

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. There was never the conflict along those lines in my family, though. It’s not like anyone ever disagreed over politics or religion. People just in the family gradually began to see each other less and less. I mean, we used to get together when I was a kid and have Christmas together. I used to see my aunties and uncles. We used to go and see my grandmother and grandfather.

 

Graham Connolly: Where did you grow up?

 

Blair Cottrell: In Southeast Melbourne.

 

Graham Connolly: So where you are now?

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, I’ve always lived in the same spot, and my family was kind of all around there. My family was originally from the bottom of Falls Creek at a town called Mount Beauty. A lot of dairy farming land around there. My uncle recently went back there and bought some property. He’s done quite well for himself.

 

Graham Connolly: Beautiful up there, man!

 

Blair Cottrell: It is nice.

 

Graham Connolly: Real nice.

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s cold in the winter.

 

Graham Connolly: It gets very cold!

 

Blair Cottrell: But I don’t mind that. Yeah, I don’t mind it. I’m always running hot.

 

But what I’m saying is, as time has gone on, I think there’s a certain pressure or influence in society that has caused us all to split off into our own little individual cliques. And so we only spent time with our immediate family. And then it got even worse than that, where now even I don’t even really have that much time to speak to my sisters anymore because I’m so busy. They’re living their own lives. Everyone’s got their own rent or mortgage and car loans and Netflix subscriptions.

 

Whereas if we could all come together and reclaim a stake in a certain enterprise, even if it was just like soap making or carpet laying or something, you know what I mean? Then you can really start to like establish a bit more for our wealth.

 

Graham Connolly: Well, you actually see, is it the Mormons or something over here? I’ve noticed that. So in my job we have a factory off the office that like manufactures steel products and stuff like that for jump farms and all that sort of thing. But a lot of welding and stuff goes on.

 

Blair Cottrell: Who has that?

 

Graham Connolly: Just the company I work for.

 

Blair Cottrell: Right.

 

[21:42]

 

Graham Connolly: And it’s got like:

 

“We need an air supply.”

 

And I’ve noticed that all the companies that supply air are all Mormons. All of them! Every company!

 

So if you try to play one company off the other, for example, for quotes and stuff like that, they’re actually they’re in cahoots with each other. Like you notice it because they’ll send you an invoice and it actually looks the same as the invoice from the other company. All the companies are sewn up by the same families, like in, same extended family. It’s almost like the Amish.

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s a shame. It comes down to it, the way I see it, you’re either working with your own family or you’re working for someone else’s.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: If you’re not working with your own family, in a family owned factory, a family owned business, if you’re going out on your own, which is supposed to be something that’s almost encouraged and admired, isn’t it?:

 

“Oh, he’s out of his own! Good on him! Good on him!”

 

No, you’re just working for someone else’s family interests.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. So what’s your grandfather work at?

 

Blair Cottrell: He was a dairy farmer.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. Over here?

 

Blair Cottrell: Up in Mount Beauty.

 

Graham Connolly: Up in Mount Beauty, yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: But then he married my grandmother and they came down and bought some property in Pearcedale, which is a bit inland from Frankston but in the same general region. And he built his own greyhound training facility. So he built a big greyhound track at the front of his property. Had about 30 acres. He built a run, a bull ring and had about 100 kennels. And people would come from all over the country to have their greyhounds trained for racing at my grandfather’s facility. He welded all that shit together himself. An entire lure. And you know the lure that the fake rabbit runs on?

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: He got this metal sheet work and built a track, built a big fence around it and somehow engineered the lure. He’s not qualified to do any of that.

 

Graham Connolly: They were so good! Those men, …

 

Blair Cottrell: The sheds, the hundred kennels, the hundred steel kennels with steel Gates. My grandfather somehow welded all that together himself over a period of years. And made a business that made a lot of money. I remember I went to see him just before he sold the property. He recently sold it. And he told me he was making so much money he felt like Santa Claus. I didn’t really know what he meant by that. [chuckling] He wasn’t always that great with his words.

 

 

Graham Connolly: He was probably just able to be generous with it, I guess.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, but he’s in comfortable retirement now.

 

Graham Connolly: Do you reckon those men, I know, …

 

Blair Cottrell: They’re a different breed.

 

Graham Connolly: They seem to have so much more time in their day and I don’t know, …

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s because they’re working on their own property.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. They don’t have their phone, they don’t have the bloody television, they don’t have the laptop. They don’t have any distractions really.

 

Blair Cottrell: Give me 20 acres and I won’t need any sort of social media. I won’t need anything. 20 acres with plenty of work to do and an idea in my head and I’ll get up 5 AM every morning, I’ll work on it till dark. And that’s what my grandfather did.

 

Graham Connolly: And then they had community as well. So if they were busy, if they needed a tool that they didn’t have, didn’t have to have the money to go and buy that tool, they could borrow it from the neighbour.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: You know, until they get going.

 

Blair Cottrell: And my old man, I remember my dad’s got three brothers and my dad and his brothers would go over there and give him a hand every now and then when he was still building it up. I remember going as a kid and helping dig holes, post holes that were going to be the fence around the greyhound track in the front paddock. And so yeah, it was all kind of a family made business but everyone’s kind of gone their separate ways, as I said. And I’m not really sure where the wealth’s going to end up.

 

Graham Connolly: So your dad didn’t have any interest in the greyhounds?

 

Blair Cottrell: Not necessarily. My dad was, … Greyhound training it’s a brutal business.

 

Graham Connolly: It is, yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: If a dog breaks a leg, it gets shot!

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. I’ve got cousins that are into a back home in Ireland.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: Not to that sort of scale, though.

 

Blair Cottrell: Right. So you saw how it happens.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, exactly! They love it, though. Like, the people really get into it, don’t they?

 

Blair Cottrell: There’s a lot of money in it.

 

Graham Connolly: And it’s like, we love our dogs. And then you add another aspect to your dog. Like you said before, now you got a useful dog, a dog that has a job to do, a dog that, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Still, I gotta say, if you loved dogs, you probably wouldn’t want to be in greyhound training!

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, probably not.

 

Blair Cottrell: I wouldn’t go as far as saying it’s cruel, but they all live in tight little kennels. They exist only to run and make money for their owners.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And as soon as they can’t do that anymore, they generally get shot.

 

[25:41]

 

Graham Connolly: Have you noticed a lot of people now are adopting greyhounds?

 

Blair Cottrell: I’ve noticed that.

 

Graham Connolly: You know what?

 

Blair Cottrell: I think it’s a good thing.

 

Graham Connolly: It is good. But you know what’s funny about it? Greyhounds in Victoria are not allowed off leash at all! Even in off leash parks.

 

Blair Cottrell: Why is that?

 

Graham Connolly: I think it’s because they have that drive to chase, rabbits, the lure, and, …

 

Blair Cottrell: They’ll run over a kid or something?

 

Graham Connolly: Maybe. I think it’s a bit unfair because they’re the most well trained, disciplined dogs that there is.

 

Blair Cottrell: They’ve got a great nature.

 

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. And they’re so well trained because it’s pretty cruel, like. And it’s strict to train. So you see people nowadays with a greyhound. If you see people walking a greyhound on a leash, the greyhound is perfect.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: A greyhound walks perfect on a leash. But it can be deceiving. Because the person that’s walking that greyhound might not be very experienced with dogs at all!

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: But they look like they are. But if something goes, like, if another dog runs up on them. It happened here. One of my dogs got out. And this is when I first had this thought. One of my dogs got, …

 

Blair Cottrell: With a greyhound?

 

Graham Connolly: So, yeah, it was a woman walking past here with a greyhound.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: And I think I was in the shower or something and the door wasn’t closed properly and the dog, but he’s a good dog, so he’s fine. So he ran over. He didn’t do anything. He just ran over and the woman starts screaming!

 

Blair Cottrell: But that’s what makes the dog act radically.

 

Graham Connolly: But the dog didn’t because it’s a greyhound!

 

Blair Cottrell: Right.

 

Graham Connolly: Because the greyhound is so well trained. The greyhound just knew it was not, … Because as soon as I seen it, by the time I went out, my dog was just sitting because he just went:

 

“Oh shit, what have I done?”

 

So he’s sitting, the greyhound is chill as and the woman is screaming to me:

 

“Get him away! Get him away! Get him away!”

 

Blair Cottrell: You notice women don’t understand dogs.

 

Graham Connolly: No, they don’t!

 

Blair Cottrell: Like they give dogs incessant constant commands. They stress and they scream at the dog and the poor beast doesn’t know what the hell to do. And usually if the dog isn’t well trained, fortunately that greyhound was.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, it was, the greyhound.

 

Blair Cottrell: Because the woman’s screaming and carrying on, the dog freaks out and ends up behaving worse than it otherwise would.

 

Graham Connolly: They can go into protective mode. The thing is that greyhound was just so chill, that he knew that my dog wasn’t aggressive either. Like so the greyhound had more sense than the woman.

 

Blair Cottrell: For me, dogs are easy. They respect strength.

 

Graham Connolly: They do.

 

Blair Cottrell: And to a dog, strength is self control, containment.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: You stay calm, you don’t give the dog a command unless it’s necessary. And you say as little as possible and if he doesn’t listen, you give him a foot in the ass. That’s really simple.

 

Graham Connolly: Me and Kate takes two dogs for a walk every morning down to Point Henry, right down to the beach to chase rabbits and stuff like that. But every morning the greyhound gets, he gets, … The Dane gets really excited! Really excited!

 

Blair Cottrell: Your Dane?

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, the Dane. And normally I don’t have time. Normally you just wait for five minutes or whatever till the excitement goes out of the dog. Then you go. But what we do is we put the dogs into the back of the van. We got the baby in the seat, one of us is in the back. We just don’t even look at the dog. So the dog’s like excited. Like you don’t even, you don’t say sit down. You don’t. You’re quiet, nothing. And you don’t start the car or else you will start it sometimes, but you don’t move it.

 

So we will just sit there, sit there, sit there. And after about 30 seconds, or a minute, the dog will do a yawn. And that’s where I’ve seen this, like on the dog training videos. That’s where something, a switch happens in the brain.

 

Blair Cottrell: They get bored. Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: They does this big yawn and then we’ll drive off. And he’s calm.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, right.

 

Graham Connolly: It’s crazy!

 

Blair Cottrell: I have to remember that.

 

Graham Connolly: You have to wait for the yawn.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, right.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And then they’re ready to go.

 

Graham Connolly: And then they’re chill.

 

[29:08]

 

 

Blair Cottrell: So what first got you into the, … Would you consider yourself, like, politically. We’ll talk about politics now a little bit.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, why not?

 

Blair Cottrell: You ready for that?

 

Graham Connolly: Yep.

 

Blair Cottrell: Is that allowed?

 

Graham Connolly: That is allowed.

 

Blair Cottrell: All right.

 

Graham Connolly: This is called the Offaly Offensive, after all.

 

Blair Cottrell: All right, well, we’ll keep it in the realm of offensive. What you would describe yourself as? Nationalists? National Socialist?

 

Graham Connolly: I would describe myself as a National Socialist, yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Right. So to a lot of people, that’s very heavy. And what’s your understanding of National Socialism?

 

Graham Connolly: Well, to be honest with you, I’ll tell you how I came to it is that I suppose growing up, I’m the sort of person that always, I didn’t necessarily read too many books. I didn’t necessarily read into all these different ideologies or anything. I just always went with my gut, what I feel is right.

 

Blair Cottrell: Instinct.

 

Graham Connolly: Instinct rather than, … And I always even when there was social pressure to say that this is okay or, later in life, it was the gender stuff. Now, that’s radical. But even earlier on, like, I can’t think of any examples off the top of my head, but anything that was sort of been put to me as the socially accepted thing, if it didn’t seem right to me, I would go against it. I was like:

 

“No, I don’t accept that’s wrong! That’s completely wrong!”

 

But I didn’t know I was a National Socialist until sort of years later. So for years I just found that I was going more and more and more and more against the grain of society, against what has been sold to me as, this is right. It’s not right!

 

Blair Cottrell: Like, was there a triggering moment for you, that you remember?

 

Graham Connolly: Well, eventually I read Mein Kampf. But the reason I read Mein Kampf eventually was because I was being called Nazi so much online and I was defending myself so much. [chuckling] I, like, we all probably went through it. Like, we’re gone through it. I thought I was real clever by going:

 

“How can I be a Nazi? I’m not a socialist!”

 

Like, that was my stupid answer. Like, do you know what I mean? I’m not an Nazi. I’m not. This was back when I was denying being a Nazi. I’m still under:

 

“I’m not a Nazi. Like, this is just what I believe.”

 

But then it happens so much because what I was doing, I spent an awful lot of years just bickering with people, wasting time online, bickering with people and trying to change people’s mind. Trying to red pill people, as they say.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: But still not calling myself a National Socialist.

 

But in hindsight, I always was a National Socialist. I think I was a National Socialist from birth basically. Like just born! Natural law. That’s what I believe in. Like, almost all our things I believe in is natural law, you know, strength, the right of conquest. Like, it all seems obvious to me. When I say “the right of conquest”. Have you ever heard of the right of conquest?

 

Blair Cottrell: Of course. Yeah. Might is right.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, kind of to an extent. Yeah. The right conquest. The best way I can understand the right of conquest is kind of like similar to how when big ships, like Cook’s fleet arrived in Australia. That would be, I think, the only equivalent nowadays to, … Because people don’t seem to be able to, … They like to look back and try to judge that through today’s eyes. And you can’t do it.

 

So I think the only way you can really judge that is if you can imagine a spaceship of space aliens that have arrived from bloody the other side of the galaxy or something, and have been traveling for 10,000 years and they are all of a sudden like Independence Day type shit, they just arrive through the fucking clouds.

 

Blair Cottrell: What are they supposed to do, go:

 

“Oh, there’s already people here. We’ll just go!”

 

[chuckling]

 

Graham Connolly: Exactly! [chuckling] So they arrive all right. What if they’re so far advanced that we’re ants, basically.

 

Blair Cottrell: If they manage to get here, chances are they would be.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, they’re so far advanced that we’re ants. So, like, it’d be like an ant trying to communicate with me not to walk on his nest, eh?

 

Blair Cottrell: Right. That’s actually why Stephen. I think it was Stephen Hawking. I won’t attribute it to Stephen Hawking because I’m not really sure, but it was someone of that category of super smart individual. He was against sending radio signals out into space, …

 

Graham Connolly: For that reason!

 

Blair Cottrell: For that reason. Because he said:

 

“Any potential alien civilisation that is advanced enough to receive, interpret and trace those signals back is going to do the same thing to Earth that every European colonist did to every other country.”

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, exactly!

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s the mathematical thing to consider. Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: So like I always try to put myself into the mind of a person in that scenario. All right. And you’re here going:

 

“Well let’s say we tried to communicate with them.”

 

We tried to go:

 

“Hey, yeah!”

 

Like basically like an ant waving at me:

 

“We’re here! We’re here! What the fuck are you doing?”

 

Like you know, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Magnifying glass.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, but maybe they might not even have any malice towards us, because I don’t have any malice towards the ant nest.

 

Blair Cottrell: No, you don’t.

 

Graham Connolly: No malice.

 

Blair Cottrell: You’ll stand on it because you’re bigger.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, it’s just insignificant to me. It just doesn’t even matter, you know what I mean? So there we’re here going basically trying to get their attention. Yeah, but what if they’re so much more powerful they don’t even hear us. Like they’re not even, …

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s very naive.

 

Graham Connolly: So now we have a choice, don’t we? We have a choice that we can either., … What are you gonna bloody roll over and die? Are you gonna just survive in this new reality?

 

Blair Cottrell: Do you believe in aliens? Do you think they real?

 

[34:08]

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, I do.

 

Blair Cottrell: What kind of aliens do you believe in?

 

Graham Connolly: All kinds, I think because it’s just like, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Do you think they have influence over Earth now or?

 

Graham Connolly: Oh, let’s see, that’s a real, … That’s an interesting question.

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s something that I’ve thought about but I haven’t been able to draw a conclusion.

 

Graham Connolly: I won’t be able to draw a conclusion, either.

 

Blair Cottrell: It feels like it would make sense if you consider that every different species of humanity is being pitted against each other.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: With a common enemy.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And we as a species will actually tear each other apart and downgrade ourselves in the process.

 

Graham Connolly: It’s almost like “zoo hypothesis” they call it.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well before an enemy, before an invader comes into a foreign territory, it’s in the invaders interests to weaken that territory. Military structure, government, as much as possible, have it as divided as possible so it’s ready to be conquered easily. And it almost feels like that’s what’s happening here on Earth, doesn’t it?

 

Graham Connolly: Well, like South Park did a, I think it was South Park. Maybe it was one of these ones did a episode which basically like Earth was like a zoo.

 

And it was just like a TV show. Like, so there’s aliens up there watching like the Truman Show. And it’s just like they just put all these different species, like, so lions are from a planet, tigers are from a planet.

 

Blair Cottrell: They just put them all and they, …

 

Graham Connolly: Just like took them all and just dumped them here!

 

Blair Cottrell: Every time there’s a major crisis, or a war, more unidentified flying objects are apparently reported. And that could be the camera crews, you know, … [chuckling]

 

Graham Connolly: Literally. [chuckling] Who knows? Like, honestly, it could be this whole scenario of like, we’re just ants, like, what do we know? But I don’t know. Like, there is the other flip of the kind in the fact that the size of the universe is almost like that. Like, let’s say we had a telescope that could look sort of anywhere within our own galaxy, never even mind all the other galaxies, because it’s just, even, that is just so vast and big to try and imagine it.

 

But let’s say we could like zoom in on every, like zoom in properly and actually focus and see what’s going on there. Let’s say you look halfway to the other side of the galaxy. I forget what size the Milky Way is, but it’s bloody, …

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s probably unfathomable anyways.

 

Graham Connolly: Well, by the time you zoom in there, the light from that place could have taken a million years to travel here.

 

Blair Cottrell: All right, so you could see the past.

 

Graham Connolly: So what you’re seeing is a million years in the past. So even if there was, it’s just the timing is, it’s mind boggling!

 

Blair Cottrell: I was about to say the same phrase, mind boggling! It’s too much for any one man to even consider or think about really. The universe!

 

Graham Connolly: It is fun to think about though, but it’s mind boggling! It’s hard to know. So to think about only 20 or 30 years ago, like, we’d look up at an Andromeda, which is the next closest galaxy to us, and it was just another star in the sky. And then one day we were able, we had a telescope that was able to resolve that and realise, oh shit!

 

Blair Cottrell: But even our own planet is a mystery. Have you heard about the inner Earth?

 

Graham Connolly: I have, yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: What do you think about that? Are you sold on it or not really?

 

Graham Connolly: No, [chuckling] I’m not sold on it. I’m definitely not sold on the inner Earth!

 

Blair Cottrell: But on the Agatha, like?

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. Your man Bird, isn’t it? Is. Wasn’t that his name?

 

Blair Cottrell: Admirable Bird.

 

Graham Connolly: Admiral Bird.

 

Blair Cottrell: This is the guy who flew over the North Pole and apparently went inside the Earth.

 

Graham Connolly: That is interesting. It is interesting.

 

Blair Cottrell: There’s been some people who have, how do you say, debunked that they reckon that he didn’t actually write that in his diary.

 

Graham Connolly: Ah!

 

Blair Cottrell: Someone said he wrote it in his diary, or someone said he told the story and then it became he wrote it in his diary. But he didn’t. But I’m not sure. Don’t quote me on that.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. No, I don’t think I buy that one, to be honest. I, …

 

Blair Cottrell: There’s still a lot going on about Earth that doesn’t necessarily make sense. Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: I’m a bit of a Simulation Theory advocate, to be honest.

 

Blair Cottrell: What do you mean by that?

 

Graham Connolly: We’re in a simulation.

 

Blair Cottrell: Oh, the “simulation”. I thought you said “assimilation”. I thought you were against assimilation! [chuckling]

 

Graham Connolly: Definitely! [chuckling] No, I think there’s good possibility it’s a simulation, I think.

 

Blair Cottrell: What makes you think that? And if the audience doesn’t know simulation theory, most people probably would know is the theory that we’re living in a computer simulation. That this is not real life, so to speak. It’s real to us as far as we understand what real is.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. And it doesn’t even matter if it is a simulation because you’ve got to live by the rules of the simulation anyway. So you still got to go and live your life!

 

[38:29]

 

Blair Cottrell: Do you think it’s possible to bend the rules like Neo in the Matrix?

 

Graham Connolly: I think to an extent it probably is. And that’s where you know how people talk about manifestation and the laws of attraction and stuff like that. I think that’s the kind of thing. For example, the more you victimize yourself, the more of a victim you will be, sort of thing.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, you make it a reality by thinking about it.

 

Graham Connolly: You make your reality by thinking about it.

 

Blair Cottrell: Don’t you think that that could just be the power of the mind though? Like, naturally, for example, I’m gonna think all day about a bowl of nuts that I want to eat. Then on the way home from the shop, I’m probably going to pull in to buy some nuts and then when I get home, I’m going to pull a bowl out and then I’m going to put the nuts in the bowl, I’m going to eat them. That’s because I’ve thought about it all day. So it’s more that you’re motivating yourself to it.

 

 

Graham Connolly: You could that you’ve programmed it into the simulation. [chuckling]

 

Blair Cottrell: Right, right, right.

 

Graham Connolly: But I don’t know. Yeah, look, it’s a, there’s an awful lot going on that we don’t know. I think that’s what wisdom is though, is knowing how little we actually know.

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s also being able to entertain the possibility of something without accepting it. And I think that’s an important thing.

 

A lot of people don’t seem to be able to do that, interestingly. Which I really like to wonder about things like, what if this is true and what if that is true?

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And being able to, with a sober mind, just observe what’s in front of you and consider the possibilities without falling too much into belief.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. What do you think? Do you believe in aliens?

 

Blair Cottrell: I just don’t know.

 

Graham Connolly: You don’t know either.

 

Blair Cottrell: For all I know, we could be the aliens.

 

Graham Connolly: Definitely could be. Have you heard the theory that, what is it, is it? I don’t know which one it is. There’s so many theories out there. But one of the theories is that an alien species came down and they took basically the most advanced primate on the planet. So let’s say we were monkeys basically at the time. Well, or great apes, similar to chimpanzees, but a little bit more smarter than chimpanzees, higher IQ than chimpanzees. And they took us and then they just kick started our evolution by like 2 million years or something.

 

Blair Cottrell: I’ve heard it. And it does, it makes sense that we’re a somewhat bastardized species because we break down pretty early, we wear out, we probably should live longer. And there’s some evidence that we did used to live a lot longer and grow a lot taller. And so we could be a bastardized version of what we were once created to be.

 

I do tend to lean towards creationism. Meaning it seems like something made us.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: For a specific purpose perhaps. Or maybe just because it could

 

Graham Connolly: Well I tend to lean towards creationism when it comes to the entire simulation, let’s say. But that’s kind of what this comes back to. Simulation Theory, comes back to for me as well. Is the whole thing created?

 

Blair Cottrell: Genetically though, it doesn’t make sense that we’re from this planet.

 

Graham Connolly: I agree. Why do you think that?

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, there’s multiple reasons. I’m driving down the street and the sun’s in my face and I can’t see! I need to put specially made glasses with polarisation lenses so I can see properly. And even then it’s kind of hard. And I’m thinking:

 

“If we developed on this planet, shouldn’t I be able to stand the sun glare?”

 

 

No, I can’t! I cant’t even walk outside on this planet without specially designed protective footwear. Yeah, we need specially built shelters with temperature control so we don’t freeze to death or get too hot and die of heat stroke.

 

[Hmm, abos manage without shoes, sunnies, clothes, etc.]

 

Graham Connolly: And then you take my dogs. Yeah, I can bring them out to the outback. I can bring them up to the snow. I can bring them to, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Every species on this planet has thick hide, fur, scales, feathers, and we’ve just got this fragile pink skin. If we stay out too long in the elements, we die!

 

Graham Connolly: We can’t deal with the cold, we can’t deal with the heat.

 

Blair Cottrell: But we evolved here and adapted to the environment? Doesn’t seem like we did! [chuckling]

 

Graham Connolly: Strange.

 

Blair Cottrell: So where are we? I think we’re from somewhere further out from the sun, possibly a bit cooler and not as harsh. Possibly somewhere with less gravity too. A smaller planet.

 

Graham Connolly: But then in a funny way, we can’t deal with the cold either.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, that’s right. Oh, well, we, …

 

Graham Connolly: So maybe it was similar, that was, …

 

Blair Cottrell: We can deal with it. We could deal with a bit colder. It depends on where you are on the planet. Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: Except if you take away your claws and your ability to heat.

 

Blair Cottrell: Oh, it might be that this particular solar system and this sun is just kind of extreme.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, it could be, yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: But also the gravity is, …

 

[42:43]

 

 

Graham Connolly: There were Red Dwarf suns that would give off less heat and stuff like that, but then the flare more, so they sterilise their systems. So but yeah, who knows, man?

 

Blair Cottrell: I still believe obviously in a form of ethnic nationalism though, where despite the potential bastardisation of our species, I think we still do have to preserve and elevate ourselves the best of us. I think the greatest purpose in life, despite what you might believe, is to produce children that are smarter and healthier than you are.

 

Graham Connolly: I agree with that.

 

Blair Cottrell: I don’t really see any., … For us mortals as individuals, I don’t think there’s a greater purpose in life than that.

 

Graham Connolly: Well, why do we do it with horses?

 

Blair Cottrell: And that’s right. Hitler writes about that inMein Kampf. You might have read it. He said:

 

“We’ll put all this effort and finance into breeding the best racehorses, genetically speaking. But then we bastardize our own species because any form of genetic consideration would be inhuman.”

 

It doesn’t make any sense!

 

Graham Connolly: Doesn’t make any sense.

 

Blair Cottrell: You think would put more thought into breeding better humans rather than better racehorses. But we don’t do that. Because that’s offensive. [chuckling] I don’t see why that’s offensive. I’ve never understood.

 

Graham Connolly: I don’t, either. No. What do they call it? Eugenics.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. I suppose it’s a form of eugenics to consider, but.

 

Graham Connolly: So why is that inherently evil though?

 

Blair Cottrell: But people do it anyway without realizing it.

 

Graham Connolly: Of course they do!

 

Blair Cottrell: Women especially women are very selective about who they are going to breed with. Because they’re trying to breed up even if they don’t realise it.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And they’ll sometimes make a decision based on [word unclear]

 

Graham Connolly: But nowadays, do you think that’s changed a bit in that they’re breeding for like, the ability for men to have money can skew that. Can skew that genetic, …

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s confused the situation for women. It’s unusual that you’ll find a man that has a lot of money but is also playing the standard role of protector slash predator that they’re so interested in.

 

And so this is why it’s so often the case that women who settle down or marry very wealthy men who are goody, goody two shoes, do as they’re told. If that’s the way you want to see wealthy men. Not all wealthy men are like that. But let’s say for argument’s sake, more often than not a guy who’s making a lot of money is going to be, he’s gone to university. He’s thinking a lot about money. He’s thinking a lot about staying within the system as a reputable man. So often women will cheat on men like that, even if they’re married to them with criminals. They’ll go down the hill and have their fun and then go back to their husbands and they won’t talk about it. I think there’s a confusion there as a result of wealth, a great deal of wealth producing higher status men who otherwise wouldn’t have status without wealth.

 

Graham Connolly: Higher status. Yeah. They’re higher status for not genetic reasons.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, women are primarily, as far as I understand, more attracted to status than anything else.

 

Because even if you consider that the woman is going to go for the strong man or the warrior who’s going to be able to protect her and her family, the man of higher status who has influence over potentially a hundred fighting men is safer to be with for that reason. Right.

 

Graham Connolly: Yes.

 

Blair Cottrell: And women are primarily geared to live a safe life and they’re going to be safer with not only the warrior or the fighter, but the man who has influence over a small army.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Right. So that’s why women like status. But they’re confused now, as I said, because of the money situation, providing status to men who otherwise wouldn’t have it.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. So back into there, a man earned status by beating other men in battle or, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Not just that, but by being respected by other men, followed and admired by other men. Not just for his mercantile skills and money making skills, because he was actually a respectable, dutiful, honourable man.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Who would give people the chance. But if they wronged him, he would be brutal in response. Right. And men respected him for that reason. They followed him and he’d build a hold fast. And suddenly you’ve got this lord and landowner who has a choice of spouses. And I think that’s the way it went for thousands of years.

 

Graham Connolly: What? That’s actually an interesting point that you make about how there used to be repercussions for wronging another man, even just in a even just in a very slight way.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, there’s dueling. Like if you didn’t like what someone said about you could challenge them to a duel. And if you wanted to stay or maintain your reputation in society, you had to accept the jewel and someone was going to die. So that actually kept men in check.

 

There’s a saying that civilised men are more rude to each other. I don’t know how the wording of the phrase goes exactly, but savages are more dignified in the way they talk to each other because they know they’re risking having their skulls split if they’re not polite!

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

[47:05]

 

Blair Cottrell: Whereas civilised men, who are more pacifists, are going to be absolutely ruthless, stabbing each other in the back, stealing from each other and doing everything they can to crawl over the top of each other because they feel like there’s no physical consequence.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. Have you heard, I don’t know if it’s a theory, but basically that the whole point of police and the justice system is to take away your obligation to seek revenge.

 

So, for example, if somebody was to wrong you by hurting your wife or your mother or something like that. Right. Normally back in the day, you would seek revenge, and then their family might seek revenge on you, and you get this tit for tat, tit for tat going on. And the whole point, the justice system is supposed to take that obligation from you. This was supposed to do. It’s supposed to take the obligation from you so that you can punish that person. And it stops there. Boom! That’s the idea behind it.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, it has other obligations now.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. But that obligation seems to be gone now.

 

Blair Cottrell: More or less. Like I sought revenge in a relationship that went wrong when I was young, which landed me in jail, and the justice system intervened and sort of kind of showed me a better way.

 

So it was good to me in that regard. But I gotta tell you, ever since I got involved in politics, I haven’t really seen much justice after that. I mean, you might know I headed up United Patriots Front.

 

Graham Connolly: Yes.

 

Blair Cottrell: And I started that up with a bunch of other guys in 2015.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And that was a new phenomenon at the time.

 

Graham Connolly: That grew fast!

 

Blair Cottrell: It was huge!

 

Graham Connolly: Why do you think that grew so fast?

 

Blair Cottrell: I think it’s because social media at the time hadn’t really been used to promote a populist protest group that was nationalistic in essence, or patriotic in its foundations.

 

And also because I think I was relatable, I think the average Australian was able to resonate with me. And the amount of views we used to get on Facebook, I can see why certain elements of society, you know, government, police, were very nervous. Because I could hold my phone up to my face and film myself talking about a Muslim migrant who just shot someone in Parramatta [Sydney suburb/subcity] and this is why we need to stop Islamic immigration, for example. And that video would get millions of views! Millions of views! Amazing amount of reach! More reach than Channel 9, 7 and 10 would get on social media put together.

 

Graham Connolly: You moved so fast that time that they almost couldn’t ban you quick enough! The likes of Facebook and that you survived long enough on Facebook to get these millions and millions of views.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, if you want to ask the question, like, what was that actually put a stop to the United Patriots Front? How was it?

 

Graham Connolly: That was actually where I was coming at next. Yes.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: Like, how did it? The rise of UPF, though, was crazy to me. Like, why do you think it was so successful? Like, why do you think, …

 

Blair Cottrell: It was new. It was right place, right time. I was involved in it. I knew what I was doing.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: I was always a bit of an ideologue, propagandist.

 

Graham Connolly: Did you do anything before UPF?

 

Blair Cottrell: No.

 

Graham Connolly: How did you know what you were doing? I guess is the, …

 

Blair Cottrell: It was a combination of intuition and reading about people. I’ve always been interested in people, since I was young. Spent a lot of time in my own head thinking about how people, what makes people tick and how to speak to them. And I learnt how to communicate, not necessarily complex, but multifaceted politics to people in a way they would understand it. Right. I knew that people needed to, … People can always be told the truth! They just need to be told in a way they can understand. It needs to be simplified for them. Right. It’s not necessarily because people are stupid. They’re just mentally lazy. So they need someone to do the explaining for them. They need someone to do the research for them and then lay it out on the table in a way that’s easy to understand.

 

Graham Connolly: Do you think they also have to feel like it’s okay to accept the truth, that you’re representing them?

 

Blair Cottrell: Of course. But I think that’s why I was a good person to communicate the truth to people back in the days of UPF. Because I was a regular worker. I was carpenter. I was one of the people. I was working class. And there was really nothing about me that set me apart from the standard Aussie.

 

Graham Connolly: So you were a carpenter?

 

Blair Cottrell: I did an apprenticeship with my uncle when I started when I was 15. Finished when I was 19. Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: What sort of carpentry work did you do at the time?

 

Blair Cottrell: All kinds. My uncle was a builder, residential builder. So I did house frames, lockups, fixes.

 

Graham Connolly: Yep.

 

[51:44]

 

Blair Cottrell: Small extensions and new homes, all sorts of stuff. But because he was a builder, he really used to push us. We would do a bit of bricklaying, we do a bit of plastering. We’d do a lot of overtime, bit of unpaid overtime for character building! You would call it. [chuckling] Because I was young when I started my apprenticeship, I used to ask my uncle:

 

“How am I getting home tonight?”

 

Because I couldn’t drive. I was too young to legally drive home.

 

Graham Connolly: Well you started when you’re 16 or something?

 

Blair Cottrell: 15 I started. 15, yeah. And he was going in the opposite direction so I’d ask him how I’m getting home. He’d say:

 

“You can piss in the gutter and swim!”

 

[Graham laughs]

 

So I used to throw my nail bag over my shoulder and do two hour walk home from the job site. Wouldn’t get home until, you know, 8 o’ clock at night sometimes, and I’d still go to the gym. My teenage years were very difficult but I’m grateful for it because it gave me perspective. It sort of worked the weakness out of me because I was a sook of a kid until I started work.

 

Graham Connolly: Really?

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. I was really over sensitive and I loved my mother a bit too much and used to spend a lot of time around mum. Dad was always at work and mum was very good to me. So I was probably over sensitive until I had that worked out of me from the age of 15.

 

Graham Connolly: What did your dad work at?

 

Blair Cottrell: My dad was a supervisor for a construction company in the city.

 

Graham Connolly: Right.

 

Blair Cottrell: But he used to do, …

 

Graham Connolly: Did he have a trade himself?

 

Blair Cottrell: I don’t think he did. But because he started with the company young and he stayed with the same company for over 40 years, he did quite well.

 

Graham Connolly: Man. Being the son of a, … Because I see it nowadays, even the guys who work trade. Trade guys work six days a week, man! Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s a full-time job. It’s a lifestyle.

 

Graham Connolly: It is a lifestyle. Exactly!

 

Blair Cottrell: Your car becomes like a mobile business. You live out of it, you eat out of it.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Everything in the back.

 

Graham Connolly: And I mean they probably didn’t even get RDOs back, … Like they get RDOs now which is like, …

 

Blair Cottrell: You’re working in the city on a union job, you get an RDO*.

 

[* RDO stands for ‘rostered day off’. It is a scheduled day off that employees earn by working extra hours over their standard work hours. They are often accumulated through extended shifts or by working additional hours over a set period, such as a fortnight, or a month. RDOs are part of flexible work arrangements that allow employees to take a day off in exchange for working additional hours over a certain period.]

 

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And we’ll talk about unions a little bit.

 

Graham Connolly: I was going to get to that later as well. Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: But going back to UPF and to answer your question, the original question you asked, why I think it took off was just because it was new and right place, right time.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. Because you did just mentioned unions. Did you have troubles with the unions? Or did you seen how the unions operated, lead to UPF or lead to an awakening for you? What led you to want to start the UPF, or to want to do this?

 

Blair Cottrell: The unions didn’t have much to do with my ideology, really. And I wasn’t necessarily motivated so much by ideology as I was, by results. I wanted to create a popular counterculture against this whole mass immigration multicultural project.

 

And once the government or elements of government worked out that I knew what I was doing, and that I was against them, they took the necessary steps to shut the UPF down! And how they did that is interesting. Right. Have you heard of counterinsurgency?

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: You have? If the viewer doesn’t know what that is, it’s almost a method of warfare that was developed by US Army primarily, initially, to deal with insurgent groups, which were rebel Muslim groups in Iraq and Afghanistan during the War on Terror.

 

The primary purpose of counterinsurgency is to “isolate and disrupt”. Okay. Because the army figured out if they just killed these Muslim groups, members of people who were suspected of being members of rebel terror groups in Afghanistan, for example, if they just killed them, more members of the public would actually start joining the oppressed Muslims or the terrorists because they got angry at how the army was actually treating them.

 

And so they realised they had to create a different strategy. And they created counterinsurgency. Isolate and disrupt! Right. And nothing the government does these days is really new. Because the people in government right now, they’re not very creative or thoughtful. They just basically repurpose solutions that have worked well on other problems through recent history. Like, if you think about Hollywood, no one’s coming up with new ideas these days. They’re just repurposing and recycling old ideas to try to get the same result they used to get.

 

And the government’s doing the same thing with political dissidents, both individuals and groups in Australia. And it began with me. Okay. I was the first person in Australia to have my bank accounts disappear. I was the first person in Australia to be charged with what was essentially a thought crime for a Facebook post. I was in court for almost three years fighting a charge for “intent to incite ridicule” in a Facebook post.

 

Graham Connolly: Crazy, isn’t it?

 

Blair Cottrell: I was the first person to, …

 

Graham Connolly: Could I go back a step?

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: How did you get red pilled? How did you get to this stage?

 

Blair Cottrell: I’ll get to that. Let me finish, this is a good point.

 

Graham Connolly: Okay.

 

[56:22]

 

Blair Cottrell: So my motivations, I’ll explain after this. But I was also the first person to be blacklisted from all social media. To this day, try to type my name into Facebook or Instagram. You’ll get a warning:

 

“This is a dangerous individual. Are you sure you want to continue?”

 

And you used to not get the option to continue a few years ago. They only added that recently. Right.

 

So this is all an example of repurposed counterinsurgency, which operates within the Australian government right now! This isn’t a conspiracy. They’re called Countering Violent Extremism, or CVE. And their job is to create this layer of plausible deniability for isolating and disrupting dissidents and critics of the Australian government and its policies.

 

What do I mean by that? Well, this is what the American government did to deal with, or the American army, rather, the US Army, to deal with the terror groups overseas. They had to make it look like the people were turning against the terror groups and they had to make it look like it was happening organically, that they weren’t actually responsible for it. Because for any insurgent group. When I say “isolate and disrupt”, well, what does that, what does that mean for you guys?

 

For example, you’re a member of a far-Right group, nationalist group in Australia. Your primary resource is not weapons, it’s not information, intelligence. Your primary resource is the people of Australia.

 

Graham Connolly: Correct.

 

Blair Cottrell: Right.

 

So the job of Countering Violent Extremism is to cut you off from the people of Australia! To stop you communicating with them. Internet censorship! And to stop you raising money from them. Bank account closures! To isolate you from the people, because the people provide you with manpower, financial resources and other resources that are essential to you as a dissident group.

 

So there are elements in the Australian government right now designed to cut you off from that, but they can deny that they’re doing it. Social media is censoring you:

 

“Oh, that’s the social media companies. It’s not us!”

 

It’s the CVE department, Countering Violent Extremism department within the government that’s directing the social media companies to ban you guys. And me too, still. Yeah, but they’ll say:

 

“Oh, it’s out of our hands. That’s a social media thing. Community guidelines.”

 

Something like that. Bank accounts getting closed:

 

“That’s a banking issue. Contact your bank. That’s not us.”

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, exactly!

 

Blair Cottrell: What else was the other thing?

 

Graham Connolly: They just decide to close your account, you know?

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, that’s right. The police are setting you up for charges. They’re raiding you on no evidence. They’re trying to put you in jail:

 

“That’s a police matter. That’s not us.”

 

Graham Connolly: They use some sort of like money laundering, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Like, it makes it look like all of these independent agencies are turning against you on their own. They’re not! The Government’s directing them to do it!

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s vicious corruption! It is what I’m saying in essence, and I’ll finish my point with this, because I know I’ve been talking about it for a while now, is., …

 

Graham Connolly: Take your time, keep going.

 

Blair Cottrell: There’s a government department which is repurposed counterinsurgency, which is treating critics of the government, both individuals and groups, especially organised groups, treating them as insurgents or terrorists! Right. So their job is to isolate and disrupt! And they’ll do anything to achieve their goals!

 

Graham Connolly: So I’m an insurgent? From the different perspective of this group?

 

Blair Cottrell: You are. And you’re being targeted, myself as well, we’re being targeted by organised counterinsurgency. They’re called Countering Violent Extremism. But they’re just the counterinsurgency department in the government, which exists purely to isolate and disrupt dissidents.

 

Graham Connolly: Crazy, isn’t it?

 

Blair Cottrell: Crazy! But it’s happening.

 

Graham Connolly: Like, I mean, there’s plenty of violent extremism on the Left. In fact, it’s almost the only place that there’s violent extremism. But they’re not countering that.

 

Blair Cottrell: There’s probably certain departments that supervise them or oversee what the Leftists are doing to try to make it look like it’s even, but it’s not.

 

Graham Connolly: Absolutely!

 

Blair Cottrell: I don’t think I’ve seen any Leftist groups experience the same sort of government intervention.

 

Graham Connolly: And Tim [Lutze] made this point. Not unless they are protesting the gun shows or the Gun Experts Expo or something like that. And then they go hard on them.

 

Blair Cottrell: Maybe a little bit.

 

Graham Connolly: That’s it!

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s still not as hard as what we, …

 

But to answer your question about what actually shut down the UPF. It’s what I just explained.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: The counterinsurgency department within the Australian government called CVE, that was basically developed in response to me and the UPF.

 

Graham Connolly: That was like such a grassroots movement, wasn’t it? Like, you didn’t really have structures in place. So what Tom is trying to build now is kind of, I would say, on the back of what lessons he may have learnt from what you did there with the UPF and stuff.

 

Blair Cottrell: Very much.

 

Graham Connolly: Like, it just goes to show that you laid the foundation back then, that has led to almost everything we see today with us on the steps of Parliament dressed in black and stuff like that. Like, literally, you laid the foundation for it back then.

 

Blair Cottrell: Tom’s a very observant, smart guy. And he’s prophetic in a lot of ways.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: But what he’s dealing with, what we’re all still dealing with, but especially him, is a different threshold of political policing.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: One that I haven’t seen before.

 

Graham Connolly: I don’t think anything that happens with Tom is an accident from. Even from his own perspective. Like you say, he’s so intuitive. I don’t think anything’s as rash as it might seem sometimes. Everything seems well planned out to me.

 

Blair Cottrell: There’s maybe one or two rash things here and there.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. Here and there. But in general, the greater, he sees the big picture.

 

Blair Cottrell: He makes it work for him.

 

[1:01:41]

 

 

Graham Connolly: He does. Yeah, he does.

 

And I think he learnt a lot of lessons from you. And that’s why he’s started trying to create these structures. Like, you see a lot of the stuff we do nowadays with our nationals events. Like we basically have a calendar now. It’s almost like a whole new culture that he’s trying to build, but with structures in place, with leaders in place, with all these things, anti-fragility kind of, …

 

Blair Cottrell: He’s more organised than I ever was.

 

Graham Connolly: That’s because that was just a pop up, almost.

 

Blair Cottrell: What he learnt from me was to just never give up and to keep your chin up no matter what! No matter what they throw at you, no matter what they do, no matter what they say, just keep moving forward.

 

Graham Connolly: You released a video recently where it was like. I would call it a tribute to Tom, basically, where you talked about Tom and who he is and how what you know about him.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s only scratching the surface. There’s so much more.

 

Graham Connolly: Right. That’s because I mentioned it to you and you were like:

 

“Fuck, I actually forgot loads of things and all!”

 

But I actually thought the video was perfect. It was perfect lens. It was perfect. And it just really hit the nail in the head about Tom, the kind of person that he is.

 

But if you want, do you want to say anything that you think you missed in that video that you wish you had said?

 

Blair Cottrell: Oh, about Tom Sewell. Tom and I have spent years together as good mates.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: He was the first person I met when I began speaking publicly, you know, giving my speeches about government corruption, the Leftists, all that kind of stuff. He filmed my first ever speech. I think it was in April of 2015.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Federation Square. And from then on, I never met anyone who was more of a soldier for nationalism. I mean, this guy just showed up to everything. And for the first couple of years, he didn’t say much. Funnily enough he says a lot now.

 

But for the first couple of years, Tom was just watching. And I didn’t realise back then, but now that I think about it now, in hindsight, he was just a sponge. He was listening to everything I was saying, he was watching everything we were doing, and he was just absorbing all of it!

 

Graham Connolly: It’s almost like lurking. Have you heard there’s a phrase on, like the online Right-wing sphere. There was a phrase that was always like, so saying a new guy come into like a forum or something, and he talked too much and he’d say the wrong things and he’d talk shit, like, say the wrong things, whatever. And the phrase was “lurk more faggot!” And it became a meme. [chuckling]

 

Blair Cottrell: If you lurk, you learn.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, like, and then it became a meme, like, I was on one of these forums and I didn’t say anything for months, not a single thing. And next thing I said my first comment and I was like:

 

“Look, I haven’t talked much and blah, blah!”

 

And the first comment back to me was:

 

“There’s honour in lurk more faggot!”

 

Like, [chuckling] so it was like literally complimenting me for having lurked. Like, that was the first time I got introduced to this word, this phrase, lurk more faggot! So Tom was basically lurk more faggot in real life! [chuckling]

 

Blair Cottrell: To an extent he was still dedicated. He was still a bit of an ideas man. I mean, we used to have long talks. We used to drive up to Sydney together to attend, and Canberra, to attend some of our protests that we hosted up there. And we had long chats. Thinking back to it, I think it was mostly me talking. Whereas these days it’s the opposite. If we’re going for a long drive now, he’s the one I’m learning from him. [chuckling] It’s so funny how he’s developed into a person who was once kind of a protege of mine, maybe, and now I’m the one seemingly learning from him. It’s like he’s evolved into this different sort of threshold of understanding. And yeah, I’m really proud that, … I’m just proud to know the guy. And it’s rough that he’s in jail.

 

 

Graham Connolly: You said to me, we talked a couple of weeks ago and you said to me they had like a little bit of guilt or something. You almost felt some guilt in that he’s in jail and that maybe if he’d never met me, or maybe that’s not the words you use, but it was, …

 

Blair Cottrell: I do think that.

 

Graham Connolly: Something along those lines.

 

Blair Cottrell: It might just be a cynical thought process.

 

Graham Connolly: Of course it is. And we all have it. It’s a natural. I think it’s a natural thing. I thought about it after, and I think it is a natural thing.

 

But also, he’s Tom Sewell!

 

[1:05:51]

 

 

Blair Cottrell: I think he would have gone for nationalism if we didn’t meet, like, whether we met or not, I think he would have ended up on that trajectory anyway, because he was already networking with people online, and that’s how he first met me. He just saw me posting on Facebook about going to this rally.

 

Graham Connolly: I think there’s so many people in the world, though, that never become who they’re meant to be. And I don’t think he can say that about Tom. If you look at Tom as a whole and look at what he does and look at, …

 

Blair Cottrell: But he tried, all he wanted to do, and this was the point I was making with the video that you’re talking about, where I spoke a little bit about Tom’s history. All he’s ever wanted to do is help people.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s all he’s tried to do! He was good at helping people in the army. He figured that out. And so he left the army to help his old man out. Not even because he wanted to, really. And then once his old man was all good, he wanted to become a fire-fighter. You know, they told him, no. Everything I said in the video was true. Then he ends up working with disadvantaged children, but they kick him out because he’s got the wrong views.

 

And then he sets up a men’s club. He literally, with the payout he got. Because he got a discrimination payout after he was kicked out of whatever department he was working for when he was looking after kids and that. He got a 10 or $15,000 payout for discrimination. He spent it all on renting out a facility and filling it full of gym equipment and setting up a space to provide for other men who would experience similar discrimination. And that became Lads Society.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And it got attacked! It was in the newspapers. I was a member of that for a while as well. And then out of that, he developed a National Socialist group because he saw that was his only choice as a result of all the harassment and targeted, you know, discrimination that he was still experiencing. And all he was doing, all he was trying to do from the start was help young guys out.

 

Graham Connolly: The man had so much integrity that the path was almost inevitable. You keep pushing a man like that, he’s not going to bend on his morals or his honour or his integrity. He’s just not going to do it. So you keep pushing another step, another step, another step and he’s just going to keep reacting to what they’re doing to him.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, that’s not always a good thing, but there is still honour in the personage of Tom Sewell and how he handles things.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: I’m just concerned, as you are too, I’m sure, about the threshold of political policing right now! I haven’t seen anything like it. I mean, people getting raided on no evidence for stuff they obviously haven’t done, set up on charges, just either put them in jail or to get them on bail conditions where they can’t protest. They can’t associate. The political policing in Australia right now is really hectic and, yeah, it’s concerning.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. I’m not really sure what to do about it, [chuckling] to be honest.

 

Graham Connolly: I joked recently because Jacob [Hersant] gave an interview outside court. They actually refused to let us in, we were in supporting Tom in court. And then we went for lunch, broke for lunch and we went down to the local cafe, had some coffee and on the way back up they blocked us all, wouldn’t let us into the courtroom.

 

Blair Cottrell: Right.

 

Graham Connolly: To support them, like, it’s, …

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s been happening more and more now.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Because I don’t think they want it to be known that that much support is behind someone that they’re trying to set up and put in jail.

 

Graham Connolly: They’re trying to isolate him and it’s despicable to me! But Jacob was giving an interview to the media and I was like:

 

“You should say., …”

 

But I didn’t think of it afterwards. I was like:

 

“The next time you’re giving an interview, you should say, ‘I can’t give a Roman salute, so you’re just going to have to imagine it.’”

 

Blair Cottrell: [laughing]

 

Graham Connolly: Would they do you for that, though? Just imagine me Roman saluting! [chuckling]

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. You’re guilty of inciting, you know, offensive thoughts or images. [chuckling]

 

Graham Connolly: In [chuckling] somebody’s imagination. Yeah. You incited a Roman salute in somebody’s imagination!

 

But it’s getting there though, isn’t it?

 

Blair Cottrell: Oh, mate. It’s at the point now where I don’t want to be too much of a black pill, so I won’t explore it too much. But the sensation I’m getting is that we’re moving into very difficult times, Very difficult times in Australia for dissidents, for nationalists, and we have to stick with each other and stick by each other, because each other is all we’re going to have.

 

But you asked what red pilled me. What red pilled you was at Mein Kampff reading Mine Kampf?

 

Graham Connolly: To be honest, the first, … Because I think red-pill is actually a series of red pills, similar to Hitler’s story.

 

Blair Cottrell: Like, there’s no single one.

 

Graham Connolly: No, I think similar to the Hitler stuff. When you read Mein Kampf, I was blown away because I was like it’s such a similar journey, because, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Which translation did you read?

 

Graham Connolly: Dalton, I think.

 

[See: Rethinking Mein Kampf — by Thomas Dalton]

 

Blair Cottrell: What was that? What’s his name again? Dalton. I can’t remember. Not Tom Dalton. I know which translation you mean. I haven’t read that one, though. So I did. Ralph Mannheim.

 

[1:10:22]

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. No, I didn’t do Mannheim. But I think we might have got, do we have Mannheim? No.

 

But 9/11 was my first one.

 

Blair Cottrell: 9/11. What about it? Specifically, the conspiracies?

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, I was studying.

 

Blair Cottrell: Did you see Loose Change?

 

Graham Connolly: I was studying architecture at the time.

 

Blair Cottrell: Right.

 

Graham Connolly: And like, you do a little bit of engineering in that as well.

 

Blair Cottrell: And you’re like:

 

“No way!”

 

Graham Connolly: So from day one, I was like:

 

“What? No way!”

 

Blair Cottrell: Are you saying that jet fuel can’t melt steel Beams? Are you anti-semitic?

 

Graham Connolly: Yes! [chuckling] I could get arrested for that! [chuckling] it’s getting that bad, isn’t it?

 

But, yeah, absolutely I am! Which am I? The first question or the second question? That’s the question here.

 

Blair Cottrell: Do you remember Loose Change documentary?

 

Graham Connolly: I don’t think I’ve seen Loose Change.

 

Blair Cottrell: It was one that kind of exposed a lot of the inconsistencies with the 9/11 story.

 

Graham Connolly: Right.

 

Blair Cottrell: Right down to the alleged plane pilots and everything. Yeah. How they weren’t really experienced. I won’t get into all the details, but I remember someone dropped a Loose Change, second edition, the DVD. I think it was around, 2003 or 2004. They dropped it in my letterbox. So some conspiracy theorist was going around, …

 

Graham Connolly: Wow!

 

Blair Cottrell: Burning DVDs and just handing them out to people. And I saw it in my letterbox and I thought:

 

“Yeah, I’ll give this a go.”

 

And I was like:

 

“Whoa!”

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. Whoa! That was probably my first time where I was like. Because straight away I was like:

 

“There’s something wrong here!”

 

And I started searching. That was my first entry into the alternative. And then I realised there’s all this information out there. So it was my first introduction to conspiracy theories.

 

Blair Cottrell: You would have been about, what, 17, 18?

 

Graham Connolly: No, I was a little bit older. Yeah, I probably was 18.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, I was a kid.

 

Graham Connolly: I think I was 19.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, I think I was 11. I got up that morning and I wanted to watch my cartoons. And same thing was on every channel. It was just news. And these buildings.

 

Graham Connolly: When was it? What year was 2001, wasn’t it?

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, sorry, yeah, 2001. Yeah. I would have been 11.

 

[See 911 links below in See Also]

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, I was 18. So, yeah, I remember I was in London at the time when I happened. I was in university over in England.

 

Blair Cottrell: And what were you studying in uni?

 

Graham Connolly: Architecture.

 

Blair Cottrell: Right, that’s right. And so that was the first one that got you into it.

 

Graham Connolly: That was the one that made me realise that there was this whole world of conspiracy theories.

 

Blair Cottrell: Right.

 

Graham Connolly: Like, that was my first introduction to it, but it was me just searching, going, …

 

Blair Cottrell: I think it’s the same for a lot. It was the same for me, too. The first real conspiracy theory I got into was 9/11.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. It didn’t start because somebody introduced me to the conspiracy theory. It was the other way around. I just started searching, going:

 

“This can’t be right. Surely there’s people out there, like me who don’t think that the official story makes sense!”

 

But what really got me on that was these engineering tutors, these engineers.

 

Blair Cottrell: Reporting the story, …

 

Graham Connolly: For years later, even, like for years, years later.

 

Blair Cottrell: It just wasn’t mathematically logical.

 

Graham Connolly: Some of the best engineers in the world. Like, I’d be talking to them and I bring it up in the conversation, and you could see them just get visibly uncomfortable, but just completely, what’s the word, cognitive dissonance?

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s still developing. I think the dancing Israelis thing only came out a couple of years ago. That was a big meme. So people are still uncovering more and more facts about how ridiculous the original story was.

 

Graham Connolly: The Building Seven things.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: You know, the third building that just fell into its own footprint for no reason.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. And they just happened to move the gold out of it just in time.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. Just absolutely insanity! So that was my first thing. Right. But that didn’t lead me anywhere, really. That was it. It was just like a, …

 

Blair Cottrell: It opened the possibility in your mind, though, that there’s this whole other world of possibility.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. And I just didn’t end up stuck in that other world, if you know what I mean. I came back, like that’s what I was going to compare it to, Mein Kampf. So with Hitler, he did the same thing. Like he’d take a red pill or whatever and then after a while, he’d kind of gaslight himself.

 

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: And go back to being in the army for a little while. And then something else happens.

 

Blair Cottrell: You relapse. Every time you relapse, you relapse for a smaller amount of time.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. And something else happens then. And it’s the same bloody thing.

 

Blair Cottrell: You can pause for a second.

 

[1:14:38]

 

 

Graham Connolly: I can’t read it. Oh, okay. That’s all right.

 

Blair Cottrell: Is that how far in we are? Yeah. It’s all right.

 

Graham Connolly: That’s all right.

 

Blair Cottrell: It seems to have gone pretty quick. How long did you go with Tim?

 

Graham Connolly: Three hours all together.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, Right.

 

Graham Connolly: But like we stopped for coffee and stuff like that and had a little break and then we just went back and but we did three hours all up.

 

So the first one was an hour and 15, and the second part was like an hour and 45. But I hadn’t even decided if we’d break this into two parts. If we just chat away and just whatever.

 

Blair Cottrell: I don’t know. How you feeling?

 

Graham Connolly: I don’t mind. Do you want a cup of coffee or anything?

 

Blair Cottrell: Glass of water might be nice.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. Just sparking water there as well, if you want.

 

Blair Cottrell: Or just straight water. Be all right. As long as it’s not tap water. If you have milk. I’ll have milk.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, Milk there. So that was my red pill journey, though. That was the start of it, was a 9/11.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: To be honest, I don’t remember then what the next one was or what the next. You know, it was just a gradual. I think it was the wars, the likes of the war in Iraq. Just not being what it seems. Then it was definitely the wars in Syria, the wars in Libya, all these wars that were, … I used to watch, I ended up on this website and it was called truthseeker.com. Literally I used to just go, anytime anything was going on, like there was a war in Syria, I literally just go to Google, the truth about Syria. And then you’d get all this shit and you go, the truth about Libya.

 

Blair Cottrell: You won’t get that on Google now.

 

Graham Connolly: Not anymore. No, not really. No. You got to know exactly where to go now.

 

Blair Cottrell: The original search engines in YouTube were awesome! That was kind of I remember I saw some of my first dramatized Hitler speeches on the original YouTube, back in the day. There was an editor called Norse Wolf. He used to put speeches by both Hitler and William Luther Pierce and even Mosley on occasion. He edited sort of a aesthetic kind of we have our edits these days, the boys make. These were some of the original edits and they were all out on YouTube. But all this stuff kind of disappeared around, 2016, I think. Maybe around, 2016, 2017, there was a big ban that came through. Maybe it was even before then. I just know that you used to be able to get as much Hitler as you wanted on YouTube. Pro Hitler content up until around, 2016, 2017. Then suddenly everything got banned.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. The old Internet was brilliant! [chuckling]

 

Blair Cottrell: For me, it’s not, I think the most, the point of awakening, if you want to say, you want to call it that. I don’t see my life as this great, you know, dramatic thing where I’m super important and I was awakened! I don’t think of it that way. I just came across Mein Kampf and I thought:

 

“Oh, that’s Adolf Hitler’s book. Adolf Hitler wrote a book. No one told me that!”

 

They talked about Hitler a lot in history class in high school, but no one ever mentioned that he wrote his own book. Like:

 

“Oh, that’s weird! Why didn’t anyone tell me?”

 

I thought:

 

“Well, this is the evil genius that almost took over the world and gassed all those people. And he wanted to create the blonde haired, blue eyed master race!”

 

Graham Connolly: Should be interesting.

 

Blair Cottrell: Interesting book! Like why isn’t everyone reading this? Like so couldn’t pass up the opportunity. When I saw it on a bookshelf in Fitzroy in northern part of, it’s like the lesbian capital of Melbourne. I was working on an apartment job out there when I was 18 for this building company. Started reading it and to be honest, at first I was disappointed. I was like:

 

“This isn’t the book of an evil genius murderer!”

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. Tim actually said the same thing. He was underwhelmed, like.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, I was like:

 

“What?”

 

I was like, he was a soldier first. He was homeless. You know, he lost his mum early in life and he’s trying to be an artist, then he’s a soldier. His chapter about propaganda is good. And the communists. He knew what the communists were doing. Oh, yeah. His ideas about race. The German people need to have their own space, their own country. Makes sense for Germans. I’m thinking:

 

“Where’s the gas chambers? Where’s the evil takeover the world part? It’s not in here!”

 

Graham Connolly: Doesn’t exist.

 

Blair Cottrell: And [chuckling] I’m thinking:

 

“Not only is this not a crazy evil maniac, this makes a lot of sense!”

 

Graham Connolly: No wonder to talk so much about him in school, but never asked me to read his book.

 

[1:18:53]

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, well, they didn’t even tell me he had a book. You know what I mean? They told me that he constructed. Well, I remember in school because I’ve always been fascinated by engineering. I’m not much of an engineer, naturally, but I like really big structures and I really like to see how they put together. And as an architect and someone who studied it, you might share the passion.

 

And so when I heard about the amount of people that got gassed in homicidal gas chambers, I thought:

 

“Wow, those must be some hectic facilities. The Germans are incredible! I thought, I’d love to see those!”

 

Just like to see the complexity and the amount of information like engineering that went into something like that. To gas that many people and burn them all before anyone could see the bodies. I thought:

 

“That must have taken ages to build and how did they do it?”

 

And then they show me these little broken down shower cubicles with wooden doors and say:

 

“Well, this is where it happened.”

 

And I’m like:

 

“What!”

 

I always thought to myself in school, I thought:

 

“I’ll have to look that up later, like on the Internet or something, because there must be more to it. This couldn’t have been where it happened.”

 

And I still believed it because it was in the history books and they were telling me.

 

But then as I looked more and more into it, I couldn’t find the facilities that I was envisioning in my mind that could actually be possible of achieving that.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And I was just like:

 

“This doesn’t make any sense!”

 

Graham Connolly: Eventually you end up, I suppose you ended up consuming The David Irving stuff?

 

Blair Cottrell: Not really. I just put two and two together. Because in Mein Kampf Hitler writes that:

 

“The great masses of the people will more easily be fooled by big lies than small ones, because big lies seem incomprehensible, that someone would put that much effort into a lie.”

 

Graham Connolly: My dog going mad there. [dog barking]

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. He’s obviously hearing some intrusions, trying to get some attention for some reason. But Hitler explains the nature of big lies or big deceptions for the purposes of propaganda or to serve the interests of a specific group. But he explains it well in Mein Kampf. He uses, he says that most people tell lies in small matters like, “boss, I’m sick, I can’t come into work today”. Yeah, right. They don’t put a shitload into it. They don’t write books about it. They don’t go into universities and lecture about it. They don’t build whole institutions that are profiting billions of dollars around the world from it. Most normal people don’t do that!

 

And so when people see an institution, a whole industry that’s based on historical “fact”, well, they don’t suppose it would be a lie because there’s an entire-industry built around it! But what most people don’t realise, Hitler says, is:

 

“There are (((some people))) out there who do put that much effort into a lie and they do profit that much from it.”

 

It does work to their advantage to that extent.

 

Graham Connolly: Do you know what we don’t take into account, I think or we forget. And I certainly in Ireland and maybe it wasn’t as bad here, but my parents generation were naive! So they didn’t have the Internet. They would believe anything. They were superstitious. It’s not that long ago that people were very superstitious.

 

Blair Cottrell: You got to go easy on them though, because, …

 

Graham Connolly: 100%, I agree.

 

Blair Cottrell: We are just as naive. We just have access to more information.

 

Graham Connolly: That’s exactly right! Yeah. Because I just mean that like it’s not that long ago where the TV was invented, lights were invented. It’s not actually that long ago.

 

Blair Cottrell: Historically it’s a blip on the screen.

 

Graham Connolly: It blip on the screen, and people were superstitious even. Do you know what I mean? But like to believe all sorts of like don’t break the glass or the Mirror and, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Don’t walk under a ladder.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, oh, they literally believe, like my mother was superstitious. You know what I mean?

 

Blair Cottrell: I’ve heard Irish people are very superstitious.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. Again, not as much anymore. Because of the access.

 

Blair Cottrell: The world’s been revealed.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, exactly! The world’s been revealed. But back that time, the world was a bigger place. Like, you didn’t often travel further than the closest town.

 

Blair Cottrell: You felt like a tourist in the next town.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: You’d even go to the next town and people there would talk and act strange because everything’s so interconnected now. You see someone on TikTok, all the kids are watching someone on TikTok and then they all start acting and talking like that person on TikTok. And so all the kids from every suburb are dressing, acting the same.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Whereas back in the day, before the Internet, before social media, you go to the next suburb over, as I said, and everyone was kind of weird there.

 

Graham Connolly: It’s funny you bring that up because, where I grew up in Ireland, every little town and village had their own culture.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: Like, so where I grew up, it was very, I said it even earlier, with soccer and football were the two, were the thing. They were big into sport, but everyone had to be funny. Everyone had to be able to take the piss out of each other. Like, that was kind of it just, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Australia’s like that.

 

Graham Connolly: Drabs and quick wit was our thing.

 

Blair Cottrell: I think we’re like that because of the Irish influence.

 

Graham Connolly: If you enter the town up the road, they’re all into motor bikes. Like, so many kids, like, died on motor bikes. Literally had that many people die on motor bikes because that was their culture. Their culture was motorbikes and hunting.

 

[1:23:36]

 

Blair Cottrell: You know what it was? It’ll be one or two people in that town who were really cool and charismatic and they did motorbikes.

 

So everyone does motorbikes!

 

Graham Connolly: Everyone got motorbikes. The culture of that whole town like there was another town, the culture was literally affairs! [Blair bursts out laughing] Like, [chuckling] they’re known for having affairs and stuff. Like, it just becomes the culture of the town. Like you said, there was such a degree of separation between these places.

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s like almost every town back then had its idols.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: People that were idolised by everyone else in the town who influenced everyone.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: But now the idols exist on the screens.

 

Graham Connolly: Exactly!

 

Blair Cottrell: And so now everything’s more universal.

 

Graham Connolly: Which has made the world a much smaller place.

 

Blair Cottrell: It feels smaller.

 

Graham Connolly: It does feel smaller.

 

Blair Cottrell: As I said, I used to feel like more of a tourist even in the next town over. But now it’s like every suburb, every precinct almost feels like the same as the one I just came out of even when you go across the other side of the world. Went to England last year, already mentioned that earlier on. And it was different, but it wasn’t as different as I expected.

 

Graham Connolly: No. And you can get there even though it’s a long flight. Yeah, it’s a long flight to England. It’s a tough journey.

 

Blair Cottrell: It was tough, yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: But part of I think part of what makes things tough nowadays is everything’s rushed. So even though you’re flying there, it’s a rushed thing.

 

Blair Cottrell: It was the first international flight I took and I took one of the longest ones you can.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: I can’t sleep when I’m surrounded by strangers I don’t know, because my nervous system’s firing. How am I supposed to relax and go to sleep when I’m surrounded by Ahmed and Hajib and whoever else is around me on this, because I’m on an Arab flight as well. I think I went with Emirates.

 

Graham Connolly: You fly through Dubai?

 

Blair Cottrell: We went through, was it Dubai?

 

Graham Connolly: Abu Dhabi.

 

Blair Cottrell: Abu Dhabi! Yeah. God, what an experience that was! It smells like. What is it? It smells like spicy hot sand! Exactly how you’d imagine it smells. And there’s proper Muslims in Abu Dhabi airport. Like, they’re looking at you, like they’re going to cut your head off sort of thing.

 

So that might be presumptuous of me to say, but that’s what my instinct was telling me, the way they were looking at me.

 

Graham Connolly: Infidel!

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, right. But hey, I’m in an international airport. What do you expect, mate. And you know what I did when I got to Abu Dhabi airport, I thought:

 

“I’m gonna get a kebab! I’m in an Arab airport, an Arab country. I’m probably gonna have the best kebab I’ve ever had! Right? They’ve got to do good kebabs here, at least.”

 

So I found a kebab store at the airport. What a piece of shit it was! The meat was dry and crap. The bread was crap. We do better kebabs here in Australia than they do in the Arab airports. Well, maybe there’s some Arab street food you can get once you actually get out into the country. But I gotta say, I was really disappointed by the kebabs at Abu Dhabi Airport.

 

But anyway, …

 

Graham Connolly: The kebabs in England are probably better.

 

Blair Cottrell: Maybe. Hey, have you ever had., … You’ve had McDonald’s in England, all that sort of stuff. How do you rate the food in England compared to Australia? Much different? I think the dairy’s better. They got better Greener pastures there.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, definitely have Greener pastures. Definitely! We got more water as well.

 

Blair Cottrell: You know, the dairy’s noticeably better.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. We can hold a lot more head of cattle on the smaller acreage back in Ireland and England than here. I noticed that. In certain parts of Australia, I think, like at Gippsland, that’s pretty lush down there.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, it depends on where you go. Australia is overall a much drier land.

 

Graham Connolly: That’s why, I guess when you get into like Gippsland, you do start to see cattle in the fields.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s right.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. Because they got the pastures.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, that’s true.

 

Graham Connolly: Well, a lot of Australia doesn’t have it. No.

 

Blair Cottrell: Had a Big Mac in England. They don’t peel their potatoes at KFC in England.

 

Graham Connolly: Don’t they?

 

Blair Cottrell: No, English don’t like peeling their potatoes. So you get the potato peel in the chips, which I thought was weird because we don’t have that in Australia. The Big Mac I had was awful! I couldn’t even, … And that’s saying something for me, not to finish a piece of food!

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Because I’ll eat anything! I’ve got no dietary limitations. I’ll eat anything. And the beef was so stale and dry in the Big Mac in England, I had to throw it away.

 

Graham Connolly: In Ireland, I used to prefer Burger King, which is your Hungry Jacks.

 

Blair Cottrell: I never tried it there.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, Burger King is really good! It’s much better at home than it is here, I think.

 

Blair Cottrell: You know, we did try, that chicken place. What’s that chicken place? It’s famous for some reason. Was it Popeyes?

 

Graham Connolly: In England?

 

[1:27:53]

 

Blair Cottrell: Maybe it was Popeyes.

 

Graham Connolly: I don’t know.

 

Blair Cottrell: Popeyes Chicken. Maybe it is. I don’t know.

 

Graham Connolly: Could be. I don’t know. I know England has a lot more different places than Ireland, even.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, okay.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Did you spend much time in London?

 

Graham Connolly: No.

 

Blair Cottrell: Okay.

 

Graham Connolly: When I was there, I was in Wolverhampton, but I had relations in London, so I spent like a weekend or four days up in London. And that was when 9/11 happened.

 

Blair Cottrell: Oh, yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: I was only up there visiting relations for a few days.

 

Blair Cottrell: Okay.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. So no, I’ve been to London a few times, but haven’t spent much time there, though.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: Wolverhampton, though, man! Fuck!

 

Blair Cottrell: What about it?

 

Graham Connolly: It’s like its own city, but it’s kind of like a suburb of Birmingham. It’s real close to Birmingham and it’s just rough! It is!

 

Blair Cottrell: In what way?

 

Graham Connolly: Just blacks!

 

Blair Cottrell: Oh. Even back then?

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. It was so bad, when I went to uni there, me and like seven other people from Ireland went from college in Ireland and went over there and so we stayed in the halls around. Probably should have rented a house or something like that.

 

But anyway, we stayed in the what they call the “halls of residence”, like, so it was kind of fun and all that sort of thing. But we were on the ground floor and you’d have like, say, eight rooms, so you’d have a corridor. You can go in the main door and then you’d have one corridor this way, one corridor this one. You’d have like six or eight rooms in each one each side of the corridor. And you’d have a main kitchen that you share. You could not leave your room with the window open for five minutes!

 

Blair Cottrell: They climb in the window?

 

Graham Connolly: They’d climb in the window and be gone with your laptop. And they did not care if you came back while they were in the room.

 

Blair Cottrell: So you have to fight him if you wanted it.

 

Graham Connolly: They just stab you!

 

Blair Cottrell: Oh.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. So rough, man!

 

So, like, you just wanted to go for a piss, close your window! Go for a piss, come back up, open your window.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well!

 

Graham Connolly: Fucking shit man! The only good thing about the whole time there was Wolverhampton had got it into the Premier League at the time. They just got promoted the year that we went there.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yep.

 

Graham Connolly: And so every weekend on match day, you could open your window and you could hear the atmosphere from the stadium. That was literally just around the corner. And that was kind of cool. I don’t know why I remember that, but that’s one of my best memories from Wolverhampton.

 

Blair Cottrell: I noticed a fair more black people in London than there are pretty much anywhere in Australia that I know of, …

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. Birmingham, Wolverhampton, man!

 

Blair Cottrell: Okay.

 

Graham Connolly: That’s all there is. Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: I don’t think I ever went there. I went to Kennington. We stayed a couple of nights in Kennington, I think. But black people smoking marijuana in public, that was pretty common.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Around that region. And just very loud, obnoxious, you know, screaming at bus drivers and kicking doors because they weren’t opening quick enough! Just stuff like they don’t just, … I don’t know how to summarize it.

 

All I can say is the black people in England don’t seem to appreciate being in England very much.

 

Graham Connolly: No. They’re the same everywhere, I think.

 

Blair Cottrell: Is it in their nature to appreciate anything or do they just take advantage?

 

Graham Connolly: No, I don’t think it is. No, no, it’s a sense of entitlement, ungratefulness.

 

Blair Cottrell: What’s the main ethnic group you notice in Australia, and that’s not White? You know is in Australia that’s not White, the main ethnic group out here? Out here in your way anyway, where you live?

 

Graham Connolly: So here’s still pretty good. Yeah, just here now. When I first got to Geelong, all of Geelong was still White.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yep.

 

Graham Connolly: You know, you head down to the waterfront, White people!

 

Blair Cottrell: I know some Indians down there today.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, that’s what I was about to say.

 

Blair Cottrell: Mostly Indians.

 

Graham Connolly: Indians and Muslims now down there.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yep, yep.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, you get on there now and like, they’re playing their own music. So it’s like being in a foreign country. You know, you got all the barbecues down by the waterfront. It used to be always just White people down there.

 

Blair Cottrell: They love the waterfront.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, they love the waterfront. Now you go down on a nice, as soon as it’s a warm day, just flock to there. Take over all the barbecues, have their own music. And it’s the ding, ding, ding, ding! All this fucking shit music!

 

Blair Cottrell: You think if you’re in a country that wasn’t, you’re in a country that was built by another ethnic group and you were a guest, you’d think you wouldn’t be so loud and obnoxious. I mean, that’s how we are when we go to other countries, isn’t it?

 

Graham Connolly: 100%.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

[1:31:58]

 

Graham Connolly: I’ve travelled a lot and you’ve got a lot of respect when you’re in somebody else’s country, like Japan or something. You look around. These are not your buildings. The buildings do not invoke your blood memory, for example. Like, you know that you’re a visitor in these places. I can’t understand, like, even here, even though, like, I kind of mentioned it earlier, too, we were talking that all the towns, villages, the city, you go into the city, all the old buildings, they’re all Anglo-Celtic buildings. You know what I mean? It’s you know, they were built by your people. Even though I’m from Ireland, I come here. I walk the streets here. These buildings are built by my people, by the same blood that runs through my veins.

 

I couldn’t go to India and walk through Calcutta and, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Feel the same way.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, and feel the same. And I don’t understand how they can do it. Like, I come here and I’ll never., … Like, I’m always going to consider myself Irish because I am Irish. I can’t just come here and then suddenly be Australian. Like, I came here when I was 23. I grew up in Ireland. I talked to Tim about this a little bit. I grew up in Ireland. I went to school in Ireland. Like, I said this to Tim, like, my daughter can be Australian. She’ll grow up here. She’s of the same blood as the founding stock. Her mother is Australian and I’m of the same blood as the founding stock. Even though I wasn’t born here. But my child will be. But I would never say I’m Australian. I’ve been here 15 years now, but I was here like 12 years before I even got the citizenship, before I even applied for the citizenship.

 

Blair Cottrell: So you are a citizen?

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: I was gonna say, well, you could just say I’m an Australian citizen, but I’m Irish.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, exactly! Yeah, exactly! Which I am. That’s really accurate way of saying it. Right. But these Indians and stuff come over and they’re calling themselves Australian!

 

Blair Cottrell: You’d have to be really ashamed of where you come from.

 

Graham Connolly: And they are! That’s what it is!

 

Blair Cottrell: I think it’s also a sub 80 IQ affliction, meaning people who are a little bit less intelligent, they don’t have the humility to acknowledge that they may come from a lesser developed culture. And so they cope instead by demanding equality amongst people who are clearly better than them, rather than acknowledging that those people are better and just appreciating their position as a guest in that country. Instead, it’s a cope, a coping mechanism.

 

Graham Connolly: It’s crazy!

 

Blair Cottrell: Because they actually think they’re better than you a lot of the time.

 

Graham Connolly: They do the same thing no matter where to go, though, then they’re Irish, they go to Ireland and they’re Irish!

 

Blair Cottrell: I almost think it must be an in-joke amongst themselves. They must go home afterwards and laugh at the fact that other Irishmen or Australians or Englishmen actually don’t say anything:

 

“We say that we’re English. We say we’re Australian. And they don’t say anything, those idiots!”

 

Graham Connolly: I think you’re right a minute ago. I don’t think they have the capacity for it.

 

Blair Cottrell: The smarter ones would.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: But the majority of them, I do think it’s a sub 80 IQ. Because you need to be cleverer than average at least to have the humility to acknowledge when someone else is actually better than you and not hate them for it. Right. So there’s two ways you can look at someone.

 

Graham Connolly: Jeez, the dogs are going off, after me. [dogs making a noise]

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. There’s two different ways. There’s the common way of responding or reacting to someone who’s better than you in a certain field. And the common way is to develop copes to try to explain it away:

 

“Oh, he had a better upbringing. He had help from other people. There’s reasons why he’s better than me that make it not fair on me somehow and down with him. Poor me!”

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: The other way, the less common way is to learn as much as you can from the person who’s doing better than you in a certain field. So:

 

“All right, this guy’s doing really well. His strategy, his methods, they must work. What can I learn from this guy? I need to talk to this guy!”

 

Especially if it’s in a field that you’re interested in developing in yourself.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: So like the most people, most lower IQ people and most people are of lower IQ, they’ll just resent someone for being better. And I suppose that’s what most Indians do when they come to Australia. But cleverer folks will learn as much as they can.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, exactly! Yeah. Do you want to take a five minute?

 

Blair Cottrell: Sure.

 

Graham Connolly: So I can feed these bloody dogs.

 

Blair Cottrell: I thought you fed them already?

 

Graham Connolly: No, I did, but I only give them a little bit. They’re big dogs, the dog will eat three kilos a day.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. Really? The big one? That’s expensive dog!

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. [chuckling] We can just leave that going and I’ll just cut it out when everything’s going. Do you want a coffee or anything like that?

 

Blair Cottrell: One more might help. Graham, if you can get it working. I might just stretch my legs.

 

[1:36:30]

 

Graham Connolly: That brings us to the end of part one. A huge thanks again to Blair for making the trip. Part one has covered a lot of ground, but this episode is not finished yet. In part two, we dive deeper into the real world cost of Right-wing activism. If you value these discussions, please like this video, share and subscribe to the awfully offensive. Thank you all for watching. Your support is what makes this uncensored content worthwhile. We’ll see you soon for part two.

 

[1:36:58]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 10/19/2025 = 32)

[Newest at top]

greenyfromoz97
1 day ago
Upload this on YouTube brother! These is nothing about this against community standards at all! This it the best best pod cast I’ve listened to in years
1 like

‹ Hide 1 reply
KineticKelticKlansman
Admin
1 day ago
Thanks brother. Yea we’re going to set up a YouTube and see how it goes. Thanks for watching and Thanks for the vote of confidence.
1 likes

greenyfromoz97
1 day ago
Loving it, send my love back mate! Awesome podcast !!
1 like

JohlForbes
4 days ago
Very entertaining and nostalgic interview. Like two mates having a chat, good vibes, enjoyed it.
1 like

Girnigoe
5 days ago
Outstanding! An American, here. You men in Australia are at the “cutting edge” of White Nationalism, National Socialism, and activism in general, though a new generation has also risen / is rising in America, it appears. Quite a change from back 20-25 years ago, and here’s to that! Maybe it’s that Australia is smaller, with mostly a more homogenous population, thus less distraction and gate-keeping fake conned-servatives about. Whatever the case, never slacking and don’t give up the ship! More folks than you might imagine have their eyes upon you world-wide. Hail victory and down with ZOG!
2 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
KineticKelticKlansman
Admin
5 days ago
Thanks for watching brother. Our fight is worldwide. The White man must rise up everywhere. And we will.
1 like

TTFOLEY1914
5 days ago
Nandos chicken I reckon
0 likes

Sieger88
Supporter
5 days ago
A lot of the things Blair complains about is simply due to the fact that our race developed in Northern Europe, we weren’t really meant to live anywhere else.
1 like

akdjfhgpjksdnkjnsdfg
6 days ago
I didn’t think you guys would eat a Big Mac. How about the Finkelstein interview about the Big Macs: https://archive.org/details/InterviewWithRabbiAbrahamFinkelstein/Interview+with+rabbi+Abraham+Finkelstein.mp4
1 like

‹ Hide 1 reply
KineticKelticKlansman
Admin
6 days ago
Yea i don’t eat Maccas these days. I doubt Blair would very often either.
1 like

whatthehehe
6 days ago
PATRIOTS!
3 likes

WhiteBitchTripleSix
Supporter+
6 days ago
“Are you anti-semetic?” YES
3 likes

GigaChud7
6 days ago
You should do a series on the sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland, I’d love to hear the perspective from an Irishman who has our beliefs.
3 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
TimLutze
6 days ago
I agree. Could invite Justin Barrett on for it.
3 likes

Jenny3819
Supporter
6 days ago
Great conversation.
2 likes

SpeedMaker
6 days ago
South Park did an episode of earth being a tv show. Aliens the “Jewzians” controlled all the media in the galaxy. They we’re going to cancel earth. The boys used sexual blackmail to save the planet. I’m not kidding. The episode is called “canceled and is almost 20 yrs old.
2 likes

Chucktt
6 days ago
I didn’t know Blair liked Metallica. Would he like the Load era?
1 like

birdhouse456
6 days ago
Blair’s grandfather reminds me if my uncle. Farmers are used to doing everything by themselves. If they waited for help it would never get done, and they’d be broke.
3 likes

Seanybruv
6 days ago
54:34 – 59:45 this was such a good point
2 likes

Seanybruv
6 days ago
41:30 no animal can directly look at the sun without serious eye damage, there’s no evolutionary adaptive advantage in looking at the sun, the benefit from the sun is light in general, for instance you don’t need to stare into a ceiling light to get the benefit of the light it gives, any animal that tried to stare at the sun would go blind and not pass on their genes. It is the driving on straight roads that is the unnatural thing in that scenario you gave, not the inability to look at the sun. Our early Human ancestors became hairless in tropical climates as a way to regulate body temperature through sweat while endurance hunting and travelling. Most humans have a lot of melanin to protect skin from UV damage as they stayed near the equator. By the time humans or our early human ancestors got to Europe they had already lost their hair, but eventually lost the melanin producing genes because that far north and in a cold climate the UV exposure is a lot less, so we needed light skin to get get adequate vitamin D. It was too fast of a shift in environment to just start growing fur again, so we needed to be innovative to survive in the cold, only those who were smart enough to survive would pass on their genes, part of the reason why Europeans are the most intelligent and innovative species.
3 likes

dailydose_meat
6 days ago
Great show! Blair has to be a regular on the show!
2 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
birdhouse456
6 days ago
he always muses on the most interesting topics.
0 likes

MonThirteen
6 days ago
Here I was thinking I was going to learn things I didn’t know about Blair but it’s awesome I got to learn alot about you too Mr Connolly. Both very interesting men. Love the fireside chats.
3 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
KineticKelticKlansman
Admin
6 days ago
Thank you I appreciate that. You can tell Blair is a kind and humble man and he’s naturally interested in other people. He was interviewing me as much as I was him and it made for a fun chin wag by the fire.
5 likes

heman1488
Supporter
6 days ago
Awesome podcast! Blair is an Australian icon and patriot.
8 likes

Angelalee0
6 days ago
UPF grew so fast because of you Blair. Your passion and charisma was something unlike anything I’ve seen. Your speeches and your presence made people come together. Those years were some of the best.
8 likes

Dimma1313
Supporter
6 days ago
Great show. Tag teaming questions….love the coexistence between Irish Catholics and Protestants in the Republic.
5 likes

mike33t
6 days ago
Soo good
1 like

esolily
6 days ago
Hail the Connolly clan
8 likes

TTFOLEY1914
1 week ago
Wow ,loved this.amazing chat best I’ve enjoyed in years.offaly was gd with the zoo theory stuff too.interesting shit
11 likes

Laker2103
1 week ago
Great video lads
4 likes

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

See Also

top

 

 

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