Mark Collett: And welcome to Patriotic Weekly Review. It’s that time of the week again and we’re here for episode number 370! Can you believe we’re closing in on 400 episodes? I can’t! Time flies when you’re having fun and we’ve certainly had some fun over the years, but it’s been a long road. And we’ve still got a lot more distance to cover. And we’ve got some big things to discuss tonight. I’ve got an amazing guest here tonight and we’re gonna basically set the world to rights and discuss what the changing political dynamic in Britain is going to yield for the nationalist cause.

 

But before we do that, please do like and share the stream. We’re live on Rumble. We’re live on Odysee. Get the word out there because I’m the truth teller that’s banned on X. Elon Musk, he likes to tell people he’s all about truth and fairness. Not when it comes to the hard truth that I’m talking about. Please help me share the stream. Get the word out. Let’s get these viewing figures up and like the stream because this is going to be worth watching.

 

Secondly, I’ve got a lot of things coming up this week.

 

Firstly, I published a very long article, the longest I’ve written to date, six and a half thousand words called Why the Conservatives are Worse than Labour and Why They Must be Destroyed. This article is now up on my Substack. It’s free for everyone to read and it’s a historical piece that works up to the modern day here and now. And it discusses how it’s not the far-Left, it’s not the Labour Party, it’s not the Left at all that’s destroyed every single nationalist or anti-immigration movement this country’s had to offer. It’s actually the Conservative Party. They did it in 79, they did it in 2010, they did it in 2017, they did in 2019. It’s always the Conservative party!

 

David Clews: Can I just jump in there very quickly? Do you know what makes me think about. Tony Blair was basically a conservative as well in 97. In many ways that was what his famous thing was. So as you say, it’s all been conservative or conservative like policies that’s led to this. A hardcore Left-winger wouldn’t have opened the borders the way Blair did. So no, you’re 100% right.

 

Mark Collett: Well, this article is very important. It’s free for you to read on my Substack. It’s six and a half thousand words long, too long for many, I’m told! If you are one of those people who likes the deep dive, please, please go and give it a read. The links are for my Substack, are in the description. They’re also the pinned comment in the chat. And you can support me on Substack financially.

 

Secondly, I did a show with Patrick Slattery on Monday. I’m gonna do a show with David Duke tomorrow. I’ll be live on Friday, and on Sunday the Film Club returns. It was meant to be on Sunday but it was Father’s Day. But it returns for the review of the new Uwe Boll film which deals with the issue of a Right-wing vigilante dealing rather decisively with migrant rape gangs.

 

So you’re going to want to watch that. And we’ve got a very special guest. I’m not going to tell you who it is, but when you see, you will be shocked!

 

Anyway, that’s something for Sunday. So I’ve got loads of things coming up this week and I’ll also have another Substack out on Friday. At the moment I am writing up the harrowing case of the murder and sexual abuse of Preston Davy and how it was essentially given the green light by the system because Preston’s adopted parents were obviously a homosexual couple.

 

Lots to come. I’m working very hard. Please support me if you can financially, send Superchats, you can Superchat live via Rumble. All Superchats are gratefully received. Please consider giving something. Nothing I do goes behind the paywall. $3, $5, $10, whatever you can afford. If you can be more generous, please do remember it goes to a good cause. No one in Britain is pumping out the amount of material I am. I’ve got a very active Substack. If you can’t subscribe over here on Rumble, go over to Substack. Make a monthly contribution there. It really does help! I’m producing two long form articles a week. No one is producing that much content over on Substack. Go and subscribe. It’s free, anyone can read it, but help me there if you can. Also donate to me via Crypto. All the crypto links are in the description below.

 

And finally you can write to me at mark@thefallofwesternman.com. Please support me, please. Superchat. Please help us financially. We are the only ethno-nationalist group in Britain openly fighting for White rights. Help us. Support us. Show that you care.

 

Anyway, let’s get into the show. We’ve got David Clews with me tonight. And we’ve got David Clews with me for a reason. Not only is he a good friend of mine, not only does he have really good takes but he’s a guy who’s called things right. He’s one of the few people who stuck his neck out on the line and said the unpopular thing, made the unpopular takes and stuck with that and recently he’s been proved correct. He’s got an excellent channel and news network called the Unity News Network. They are now on Rumble as well. Please support him there. Please follow him. Please sub him. He deserves it. I was lucky enough to be on his show. Was it last night?

 

David Clews: Monday.

 

Mark Collett: Monday night and we had an excellent show. It’s very good. Very very hard hitting about the situation in Makerfield.

 

But David, how have you been my friend? Are you surviving this heat wave? My shirt is already stuck to me. I actually do feel relatively uncomfortable and people are lucky that they’ve got the camera feed tonight because I was thinking about basically doing this in my underwear with the camera off. It is oppressively hot! Are you surviving where you are?

 

[05:51]

 

David Clews: Yes. No. Absolutely fine! It’s not too terrible. So I had the milk in the freezer and the glass in the freezer, as. Well, that’s one thing always say about Spain is they really know how, … I’m not in Spain of course, but they know how to chill a drink. And if there’s one thing I don’t like it’s an unchilled drink. So I had my glass was being in the freezer. I had my milk in the freezer as well. So it’s cold and it is hitting well.

 

So yeah, all good, all good. And it was interesting you said this is show number 370. And I always liked a wee bit of gematria and I looked up and a famous 370. The number 370 is most famously associated with the Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 that went missing. And there is still no proper explanation of where it went. So there’s number 370. I hope Patriotic Weekly Review doesn’t go the way of that flight! [chuckling] But it’s an interesting one. You know I haven’t actually done a deep dive on. I’m sure many of my conspiratorial friends will have some theories on that but I mean it’s just incredible to think that an airline all those years ago just went missing and still nobody knows what happened.

 

Mark Collett: No, no. Do you know what? I was very interested in the case at the time. Did they ever find the aeroplane?

 

David Clews: Never! They’ve never found it and they’ve never given a proper explanation of what happened. 12 years.

 

Mark Collett: The problem is, and I am conspiratorially minded, but I’m also aware of how vast the Pacific Ocean [Indian Ocean] is. And I think where it crashed, wasn’t it in that sort of dead zone where effectively almost as far from land as you can be.

 

So there’s a apparently there’s a buoy in the Pacific Ocean. And if you end up coming, so if you’re in a plane and you crash and you’re like:

 

“Thank goodness there’s a buoy in the ocean. I’m going to hold on to it!”

 

That would actually be the worst thing ever because you would have crashed at the point where you are geographically further from any land as you would be anywhere else, you know, within the ocean.

 

You know, I think at that point you’re basically screwed!

 

But, yeah, when you’re over those kind of depths of ocean and that kind of sort of its almost like an oceanic wilderness, isn’t it? I wonder how it went down.

 

David Clews: As I said, there is literally no conclusive theory. It’s funny, a few people in the chat are saying it was full of highly skilled semiconductors scientists who were Chinese.

 

I mean, when you hear stuff like that, I mean, again, they could have just been there purely by accident and they were going to go work somewhere. But to lose an airline is really incredible! And as I said, there’s still no answer or anything definitive as to where it went. I remember watching a programme about it and it was like they said:

 

“Maybe the pilot. It was an elaborate suicide attempt.”

 

That was the kind of one they were going with, but just absolutely crazy! And one of these unexplained mysteries that I’m sure there’s a lot more to it than meets the eye.

 

Mark Collett: I do find these things really interesting. Somebody saying it’s wasn’t actually in the Pacific, apparently it was in the Indian Ocean.

 

So I don’t know. I thought it was over the Pacific. But very interesting what happened there. And it’s something that it captivated me at the time. I find things like this phenomenally interesting. But I also find it really odd that planes like that don’t have some kind of transponder.

 

[10:03]

 

David Clews: They do. It went missing or something turned off. I don’t know. I think that’s the whole point. It was, you shouldn’t be able to turn that off. It emanates like a signal that should be on at all times. A really odd one.

 

Mark Collett: Do you think they’ll ever find it? Because sometimes these things happen and there are sort of obviously conspiracy theories etc, but then years later somebody just stumbles upon something or comes up with a theory and checks something and it all sort of works out.

 

David Clews: There was, there was another one. I don’t know if you want. I do like my slop. See, because we watch, we deal with such high value things. There was one called the Disappearance of Amy Bradley. Have you seen that one at all or heard about that?

 

So this was this girl who was on a cruise ship with her family. It just disappeared, just disappeared off the face of the earth. Initially they thought that she’d fallen off the side, but then there was all these sightings of her. People say they saw her, that she was sold into sex slavery.

 

And again, just same as the McCanns, same as Madeleine McCann!

 

I mean, look, clearly there’s a lot of theories on Madeleine McCann, but there is still no like even official response to what happened. Just another mystery. The Amy Bradley one’s very good. It’s very good if you can watch that.

 

Mark Collett: I’ll look into that. I mean, one thing that gets me though, with some of these sightings, you wonder how mentally ill some people are today because there was a girl who claimed that she was Madeline McCann. And it turned out she was just a pure fantasist who had made it all up, very interesting.

 

But look, let’s get on to the issue of the day. I can tell that people will get, people will, chat annoyed that we’re not immediately talking about Andy Burnham. That’s the issue!

 

David Clews: It always reminds me, that situation of in the film the Wolf of Wall Street, when he goes to meet with the Swiss banker.

 

Mark Collett: I’ve not seen it.

 

David Clews: It’s quite a good film, very jewish. But he goes to meet the Swiss banker and the Swiss banker’s doing the chit chat and he’s like:

 

“Look, I don’t really want to do this, I just want to cut to the chase.”

 

And he’s like:

 

“Excuse me, you’re in Switzerland, you’re in Europe. We do chit chat for a minimum of 30 minutes before we get down to business.”

 

It is a very British thing as well, isn’t it? The obligatory chit chat.

 

Mark Collett: I’ve always thought about doing shows with certain guests. It wouldn’t work with all guests, but with certain guests where you just said:

 

“Right. Two hours of easy chat, Superchats when they’re relevant.”

 

So if somebody gives a relevant Superchat we interject with it. But some guests would be really good at that. You’re good at that. Devon Stack is very good at that. He’s very good at chatting. Very entertaining. And it is interesting when things, …

 

And I’m somebody who does like sort of murder mysteries. I do like real life crimes. So flight, you know, MH370 was something that did at the time really capture my imagination. But I suppose we may never know or the scary thing is somebody does know because it was planned and we’ll never know. But that’s another thing.

 

The one thing that, the one thing that is interesting do you know another thing that’s interesting, right? One thing that I find really incredible is the amount of dead people on Mount Everest. So all these people who aren’t really qualified to climb Mount Everest go up there, they die, their bodies freeze, never decompose.

 

And apparently the amount of people that now climb Mount Everest is sort of a recreational thing to say they’ve done it. Basically what you end up with is people walking up the mountain and some of the more famous dead bodies are now landmarks.

 

So they’re like what you turn specifically one called Green Boots, who’s a guy that died in these bright, luminous green boots. And people are:

 

“You turn right by Green Boots!”

 

So that’s how people know when they’re almost you almost at the Summit, turn right by Green Boots and it’s like:

 

“Wow!”

 

And apparently it’s also a place where people dump all their rubbish on the way up and on the way down to lighten their load. And it’s one of the most polluted places on the planet because obviously it never degrades, it never breaks down, the bodies never break down. And it’s covered in dead bodies and garbage! Which I find is pretty depressing actually, that this sort of amazing landmark, highest place on the planet and you go up there and it’s just covered in litter and corpses!

 

David Clews: Sounds a bit like [chuckling] sort of India and the subcontinent, doesn’t it! It’s kind of everywhere!

 

Mark Collett: In Glasgow. It’s just rubbish!

 

[14:51]

 

David Clews: That’s what it’s like. It’s funny. Today I watched a video of like India.

 

So for the next two hours my feed is just all videos of how awful India is. And you know when you see that and you see these countries, it’s just so horrific beyond words. I think people, they don’t understand what these countries are like. I’ve never been, but clearly it’s not like these are isolated videos. It shows you India, how dirty it is, the oppressed conditions, people that live in. It’s utterly awful!

 

I mean, I’ve been to Cairo and that’s the most awful place I’ve ever seen in my life! The poverty, the grindingness of it, the dirt on the roads! You know, I did a bit of traveling as well in Bulgaria. And for a European country, it’s dirt poor.

 

And it’s funny the gypsies who are Indians, it looks like India as well. And it’s just awful! And when you say that about Everest, which is the world’s highest mountain, which is, it’s so amazing and it’s just covered in filth!

 

Rockwell. I’ll do that just now. Actually, I’ve forgotten to do that. I’ll do that just now. Post it on X.

 

Mark Collett: You’ve not posted it on, ..! David!

 

David Clews: I’ve not. I know. I’ve been busy. I’ll do it right now!

 

Mark Collett: Now I’m sweating twice as much. I’ve got the general heat of the day. That’s the first thing I want to say though. David.

 

So everyone says, like, global warming isn’t a thing, but we are all melting. And I do wonder. I don’t think man made global warming is a thing, but I do think things are generally getting warmer. I remember when I was a kid, come Christmas, there would always be snow. I remember being snowed in and having days off from school. And it does seem to be getting more intolerable! Now, I don’t think this is down to man made global warming or any such crap! But I do think it is intolerable!

 

And as a White man, I wasn’t made for this! This isn’t northern European weather. Why do I have to put up with this? You know, I mean, and I can’t even open my window while I’m doing the show because I don’t want everyone in the street hearing me bellowing about these issues, trapped in this box of heat.

 

David Clews: I think the weather does change naturally. Like the Romans used to grow great vineyards in North Africa when they were there. North Africa was as fertile as the rest of the Mediterranean. So clearly the climate does shift and change. And I mean, in the 60s and 70s, the big theory was that we were about to enter a new Ice Age.

 

You know, I remember watching the video of like Leonard Nimoys talking about how we’re going to be freezing. But then they’ve moved to the global warming. I think temperatures probably are rising. Someone will know more than me about why. But the whole man made climate change is a scam! Because what it deliberately says is the more CO2 you’ve released as a nation, the more you’ve contributed to this greenhouse effect. And miraculously it manages to blame Britain and the rest of Europe for that and say:

 

“Well, your historical long term CO2 emissions are much higher than India and China.”

 

And the other thing it doesn’t actually take into account is just the pollution from all these countries. I think it is important for people like us to care for the environment and to look for green solutions. But I think man made climate change is a hoax! And I’m sure most would agree with that.

 

Mark Collett: No, I agree with that. I mean I also, the reason why I agree with it is because I know, I always notice the selective application.

 

So you go to places like China, India, Bangladesh that they’re polluting the world to an incredible degree. Their emissions are off the scale, but they’re never hit with the kind of restrictions that Western European countries are hit with.

 

And I’ve got to say, if there’s one thing that makes me proud of being a Western European is that we generally are very sort of, how can I say, environmentally minded. We do like animals, we do like nature, we do try to look after the world we live in. Whereas I think other races are far more:

 

“Well, if it moves, eat it. If it becomes extinct, so be it. Do what we have to do to survive, advance, take over, grow!”

 

Whereas I think we are more empathetic. And that often comes out in a bad way, but sometimes it comes out in a good way. You know, the amount of people I know that sort of save little animals. I mean I once stood on a snail and cracked its shell and I actually bought a special tank and nursed it back to health! Its shell was completely healed and put it back in the garden! You know, that’s the kind of people we are. But sometimes obviously that backfires, which is obviously one of the things we talk about.

 

But David, onto the issue of the day. Starmer’s gone! Burnham’s in!

 

Now, we both said this will have an incredibly positive effect on the Labour Party. And I think that’s true. I think that’s true, Labour are now bouncing. They’re a united party again. There isn’t the infighting.

 

But one thing that shocked me is not just how it’s reunited Labour, but how it’s also painted them in a better light. And even the Tory press seemed to be giving them a little bit, not total, but a little bit of a pat on the back.

 

[20:41]

 

This does seem to have rejuvenated them. I’m pretty good with my predictions, but I was actually shocked that Burnham took 55% of the vote. And it almost feels, … Sorry for the horrible turn of phrase, but I can’t think of any better way to say this, but as if there’s been a Great Reset, as if there’s been a situation where, because when you have a Prime minister come in with a giant majority like Starmer did, you tend to have a honeymoon period. Thatcher, Blair, both of them had long reigns with sizable honeymoons. For Starmer to come in as a new party taking power from a deeply unpopular party and to have completely fluffed it in just over 18 months is unprecedented! And I kind of feel like this has pushed the reset button and Burnham’s almost being Heralded as the guy that Starmer should have been back in July of 2024. It feels like Labour have effectively had a do over here.

 

David Clews: I think, as we’ve pointed out, and I’ve certainly been saying, it is amazing the way the wider British security state works. I mean, sometimes you just have to look at it, as Agent Smith says, have you ever looked at it and just marveled at it? And what they’ve done with Burnham is incredible! They’ve given him this Coronation, the train coming from Manchester, the crowds cheering him, [chuckling] and he’s now there and then all the MPs are there. And as you say, it’s just given this an entire new lease of life.

 

And the problem that you actually have is that with Burnham, and I’ve been thinking about this today, what’s our angle of attack going to be against them? You know, because he’s not Keir Starmer. He’s not like a robot, he’s not a system pig. He can actually sit and speak to people.

 

And again, people are going to cope about it. He’s very relatable. I’ve watched his stuff. I remember his Hillsborough speech and he came across well. Now he’s a career politician. He’s ZOGged up to his eyeballs. I get all these things, but from a normie’s perspective, he is like A-list material, Andy Burnham. And he doesn’t wear the suit either, he wears the T-shirt. And actually people are going to say:

 

“You two are loving him!”

 

And he actually looks really good for 56. He actually keeps himself in pretty good shape for someone who’s 56. And I mean, that is true. Politics is all about PR and image. And Burnham really has it. And listen what they’ve done, the media, they are roasting Farage.

 

I mean, I’ve been talking about this, I’ve seen that they all have decided they’re going to destroy Farage. And the Right-wing press built him up. The Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the Sun. And now they’re spitting them back out!:

 

“You took five million quid, you said you were a man of the people!”

 

And now all the Right-wing press, they’re basically Burnham is going to be like a Tony Blair figure that is going to unite all the factions in the regime behind them. And it’s ominous!

 

[24:25]

 

Mark Collett: I think it’s ominous. I can see us, … In my article and I’m pushing my Substack heavily, but I’ll tell you why.

 

Firstly, I like writing these long articles and I feel like I’m not bad at it either. I didn’t think I’d enjoy writing them as much as I do. But I like laying everything out in article format because I feel it’s in many ways easier to digest for people and to add notations, etc.

 

But also it’s good because you can go back and alter the article and I’m actually thinking of revising my recent one on demographics because more information has come to light of the last two weeks that actually says that what everything I was saying was correct, basically. And I’m going to add to it with notation saying this is new information. But it furthers my point.

 

But in my long article I published yesterday, I did say that there is a level of what you could call institutional Deep State power that both the Conservatives and Labour have, which is basically, it’s like, and I describe them as an iceberg. What you see above the waterline, the politicians, obscures this massive institutional power network beneath the waterline. And this was the exact analogy that I chose to make during that article. And because they have that vast network beneath the waterline, unless you completely destroy them as a Parliamentary presence, which would then cause the whole thing to crumble, they will always, as long as they maintain at the very least the position of being the opposition, they will always re-form.

 

And that’s what I said in my article. And essentially we’re in a situation here where for a very brief period it looked as if Reform were going to break both sides of that illusory political divide. They were going to completely crush the Tories, they were going to take almost every marginal seat. But on top of that, the White Red Wall, former sort of working class, sort of mining town seats were all, or secondary industry like your manufacturing seats. So Newcastle, Sunderland, Makerfield, these areas were all going to fall to Reform as well. And you’re going to finally see the two party system completely collapse in on itself.

 

But all of a sudden it seems to have resuscitated itself!

 

And one thing that really does amaze me and I’ve got to say this, and it is very critical of White people. But how much can we take? How much can we take? And that’s a genuine question because what have we seen? Unprecedented grooming, two tiered justice, the jailing of Right-wing anti-immigration political dissidents. We’ve seen mass murders on the streets, terrorist atrocities. You know, we’ve had the Manchester bombing, we’ve had Southport, we’ve had the Belfast beheading, we’ve had Valdo Calocane in Nottingham the Nottingham spree killer.

 

It happens again and again and again! And the more people speak out about it, the more we see the state clamp down on us, the more we see this rise of two tier justice. We’ve had fathers arrested for trying to free their daughters from the grooming gangs, and immigration has just carried on unabated to different levels. The demographic shift has always continued, maybe at slightly differing rates. We now around 70% of the population, but by the next general election we will be under 70% for sure. But people are still voting Labour! 55% of their people in Makerfield still voted for Andy Burnham and he’s just received the kind of Coronation that you would expect of an almost like Napoleonic character!

 

Like when Napoleon marched on Paris and every roadblock that was meant to prevent him from getting there sort of not only didn’t stop him, but the people at that roadblock fell at his feet, you know, declared him the Emperor and joined his march on Paris. That’s kind of what you’re seeing with Burnham. They’ve almost played him as a folk hero. You know, this trip down to Manchester, you said it so well on your show with me. The night they actually had helicopter footage of him arriving in Nottingham:

 

“The northern hero arrived to put the shit out of touch Starmer creature to death! And when he’s done this we will be free!”

 

But this was Sky News, this was BBC, this was ITV, this Daily Mail! They all did it!

 

[29:14]

 

David Clews: Here’s the thing that’s really crystallised for me over the last few months. And this is one of the reasons why I’ve been so aggressive against people like pushing Restore, saying that it’s going to solve all our problems or re-migration is going to solve all the problems. I’m not doing it because I’m being nasty. I’m just doing it because I’m being honest with people about the situation. And this was the real statistic that hit home for me. Well, there was actually two recently. The budget every year for the security services in this country, GCHQ, MI5, MI6 is £5 billion per annum. Five billion quid they spend on the security services! Just an incredible sum of money!

 

So that’s what they do. The City of London every single day turns over in currency trading alone, $5 trillion per day! 5 trillion, right! How many people in Britain have a house in the Cotswolds, a flat in London? How many people have a lifestyle where they’re jetting around the world, they’re going to conferences, they’re going to football matches, they’re going to Wimbledon. You just, and I don’t mean this to be nasty to you, but you don’t really have any comprehension of the life these people live. They will spend in a day and not even notice it what you will likely earn in a year. What I will likely earn in a year.

 

Okay, so if you take the Mafia, the people that say they run the coke trade in Britain, the Albanians, they’re prepared to kill and be ruthless in order to maintain their lifestyle. What do you think the people way above them that runs this country are going to do? They’re going to kill! They’re going to jail you and they’re going to use every single trick in the book to keep themselves in that lifestyle! And they’re just not giving up, they’re not going to give up the house in the Cotswolds. Because you know why it’s even more important for them now? Because the country is full of immigrants. [chuckling] They need to live in their White areas. They need to fly first class, they need like HS2 to get them quickly to their country retreats.

 

So you have an elite that is embedded into power and will use every single trick in the book that it has, and none more so than the mainstream media and the power and the might of the mainstream media. Like people always say:

 

“Oh, nobody listens to the news anymore!”

 

Nonsense! Millions and millions and millions of people still listen to the BBC and trust the BBC and Sky News and the Daily Mail and the Guardian and the Telegraph and LBC and talk TV, you know, need to go on?

 

Mark Collett: No, mate, I agree. I think one of the problems is. And bear with me here, guys, because I don’t want to seem like, I don’t want to annoy people. Look, when I say these things and I’m right. I don’t want to annoy people by being right. I’m not doing this to sort of be smug and pour like cold water on everyone’s fire. I’m doing it because I can see what’s going wrong because I’ve been involved in this bloody thing for 26 years! And I can see these things now.

 

Look, when I was initially involved in the BNP, back in the day, when I first got involved in politics, the bubble was what I called the “pub bubble”.

 

And I remember when I was first standing in elections, I would go into pubs and people would be like:

 

“Mark, surely. Oh, mate, I saw you on TV! I’m voting for you. We’re all voting for him, aren’t we, lads? Yeah, everyone down the pubs, right? Oh, we’re all voting for you, mate!”

 

And it was brilliant! You’d walk out of there feeling like:

 

“Yeah, we’re doing this!”

 

Because everyone in the pub was voting for you. Come election day you’d get 20%, you come second, but you weren’t winning. Now the issue is that pub nonsense, that was 20, 30 lads in the pub saying:

 

“We all vote for you!”

 

David Clews: On X now.

 

Mark Collett: No, it was a bubble. But now it’s on X. And it’s not 20, 30, lads. It’s 300, 400, maybe a thousand people building this national bubble that people think is like the real deal:

 

“Look, look, he’s just got 3,000 likes on his X post! Oh, my God, we’re gonna do it! Have you seen 300 retweets? Oh, my God! Look, we’ve ratioed him!”

 

And unfortunately, it’s just a national or even international sort of recreation of the:

 

“All me mates down the pub are voting for you.”

 

You’re winning, and they’re not. Or maybe they are, but maybe that tap room in that smoky pub isn’t representative of everyone in the council ward where you’re standing.

 

And what I’m saying is, fundamentally we’re in a situation, a weird one, where people surround themselves now with people who are like them, have the same feelings, the same opinions, the same desires. And it forms this feedback loop where they absolutely believe that they’re going to win because they’re not exposing themselves to the real world. And X isn’t the real world.

 

Okay, somebody in the chat just put that. Somebody’s put, X is not real life. That’s one of the things with the Restore. They thought it was. And look, David, you said something to me and I didn’t know how big it was. I did a stream the other night and I said:

 

“Look, Restore had a thousand people out in Makerfield, but they mismanaged it.”

 

And David actually got me the figures. Labour had 3,000 out in Makerfield. But the thing is, Labour didn’t arrange them in a park, take pictures, get a load of spergy influencers and auditors to film it all. Have them all wearing gaudy Union Jack outfits and turn it into a circus. They had 3,000 people who were highly trained people, …

 

David Clews: Every day! Every day!

 

[35:29]

 

Mark Collett: And flew it under the radar so the other parties didn’t know what they were up against. And the issue is this. When you see all of this on X and you convince yourself that Restore are gonna have to win because of the thousand people and they can’t lose and you know, all the influencers out there and the auditors are streaming it, you’re meant to think that so that on election day, when you get a poultry 6.8% and less than the BNP did in 2010, you’re heartbroken and demoralised. That’s the point of it! It was all mismanaged.

 

And what you’re seeing here is the reality of a highly powerful system that by design can, … Unless it is run out of those top two positions in Parliament, it will always re-form. And that’s what you’re seeing with Burnham. But worse still, and not many people are covering this:

 

“The Tories are dead, mate! They’re never coming back!”

 

David Clews: No one’s voting for an African. No one’s voting for an African.

 

Mark Collett: They won the Aberdeen South by-election on the same day as Makerfield. And all of a sudden you’re now seeing two by-elections on the same day and two winners. Who are the two winners, David? Labour and the Tories. Not Reform, not Restore, not the Greens! Boom!

 

David Clews: 26.1% swing in Aberdeen South for the Tories. 26.1%

 

Now, clearly there was local issues because Labour and the SNP have decimated the oil and gas industry. But again, who did the public turn to? Who did the public say:

 

“Well, I’m sick of the SNP and Labour. Who am I going to turn to?”

 

Well, funnily enough, there wasn’t a Restore candidate because Restore didn’t stand in Aberdeen South. Therefore, that meant the only option was Reform or the Tories. And what did people in that area say? They’re going to vote Tory! That party led by an African anchor baby!

 

Because here’s the thing, and I keep pointing this out to people, if you’re fucked and you’re out of a job and you’ve got a huge mortgage, you know, house price. Aberdeen’s a really good example. I remember going to Aberdeen, like 2010. There was Ferraris and Porsches everywhere. House prices are down 20 to 30% from the peak. People are really struggling. There was really well paid oil and gas jobs.

 

So these are people who maybe have a wife, kids. Do you think they really give a shit if the woman’s African or not? Is she going to get me back to work in the North Sea? Is she going to get me back so I can feed my kids? And whether people like it or not, they see the Tories, it doesn’t even matter about her. They just know that the Tories are against Net Zero and they want to open it up again. So they’re going to vote Tory. There is not a huge amount of thought going into it!

 

And this again is, we are spergs. We, I sperg, go over everything, but I’m not spergy enough. Let me be clear. I am spergy enough to know that not everybody thinks like that. Most people vote on a reasonably shallow basis as well, and simplify it.

 

And as I say, the number one issue out there right now is the economy is the cost of living! It doesn’t affect over 60s. Primarily people who own their own homes or people who are okay. Anyone under 60, you know this, Mark, you’re a father of two, I’m a father of two. Everyone sees it, like, even people who have money say:

 

“I just went out to the cinema and had a meal and it was 300 quid!”

 

And they’re like:

 

“Anybody affording anything now?”

 

It’s hitting home. And that’s what it’s the economy, stupid! It’s not that Charlie Downs was on the other day and he said:

 

“The number one issue that British people have is demographics!”

 

No, it isn’t that! That is just a straight up lie! The number one problem facing Britain is demographics, but that’s not what voters think. And you know what? The customer is always right! It’s like, hi, the customer comes into Charlie Downs, I’d like to order a margherita pizza. No, I don’t think you should have that. I think you should have a steak and I think you should have this. It’s much better for you. What’s he gonna do? The customer’s gonna get up, he’s gonna walk out and say:

 

“I’m not going to be patronised by you, I’m gonna go somewhere else and they’ll give me what I want!”

 

[39:59]

 

Mark Collett: Look, I agree fundamentally and worse still, and I’ve got to say this, I can hear people saying this. So this is going to be one of my little skits about the way the British people think. It’s not what I think, but I can hear people saying this:

 

“Look, I quite like what Nigel Farage has to say, but I’m a bit scared that my black friend will think I’m a racist if I vote for him. But that Kemi Badenoch, she’s saying the same thing. And if I vote for her, I can tell all my mates down the pub, Big John the black bouncer, what can he say? Cuz she’s black as well! I’m not a racist. And this proves it!”

 

You can hear people rationalizing it in this way. People in the Conservative Party voted her as their leader because they thought it would finally put to bed Left-wing accusations of racism. Because fundamentally people are far more concerned with the feelings of their non-White friend than they are about any notion of saving their own race! And this is the problem that we have.

 

And I’ve got to say this, I’m as sickened by this as I could be! I’m sat here, beads of sweat dripping down my brow. And I can tell you it annoys me more than anything to think that my fellow White Britons are more likely to vote for a black woman who describes herself as a first generation migrant than they are a White man who openly talks about demographics, because they’re so scared of the accusation of racism. It annoys me, it riles me, it sickens me, makes me want to puke my guts up! But the fact is its true! And that’s the sad thing.

 

I mean, you know this as well as I do, David, the Left know that because of the demographic shifts it’s very unlikely that a single anti-immigration party would now be able to get over 50% of the popular vote.

 

David Clews: Yeah.

 

Mark Collett: And in fact no party post Second World War has ever got over 50% of the popular vote.

 

So if you know, one party was to take now 50% of the White British vote, that would firstly be unprecedented, it would be an all time high.

 

But secondly it would only result in 35% of the vote share because what we’ve been reduced to, we’re in a bad place now! And part of it is this suicidal empathy, this cycle of self hate and shame that Whites are caught up in!

 

David Clews: But there are positives from it. And I know this is going to be a bitter pill to swallow. This is the other thing and I’ve really come to this. We can’t hitch our bandwagon to talk TV, GB News, the Sun, etc. Because they are taking us up a dead end.

 

The reality is, with the growth of like extreme Leftism, there actually comes opportunities for us. And the one I’m going to give you is Mamdani in New York. Now clearly I don’t like Zoran Mamdani, I don’t like his politics.

 

However, he is anti-zionist! He’s not anti-jewish, but he’s anti-zionist. He calls out big business and wealth inequality. And you know what? He got all his three candidates in the elections to be the candidates through. And that is a huge winning formula. And [Nick] Fuentes, I listen to Fuente’s speech and again I know there’s a lot of problems with Fuentes, but he made a brilliant point. He sees a Left-wing populist coalition emerging in America because people just want to stick it to the man, they’re sick of it! They’re sick of seeing these billionaires, they’re sick of seeing the fact that they’re struggling.

 

I mean I read a thing Warren Balogh posted that millions and millions of Americans have now lost their SNAP payments. SNAP is a system that gives you money towards food vouchers. And it’s particularly White Americans that have lost their SNAP programs. So there’s millions of Americans out there who are White have lost their programme that helped them pay towards their bills while they’re struggling. And that’s gone. And this is where there really is this cataclysm coming because from a demographic and an open borders thing, the worst thing that could happen is these people come in.

 

But on the other hand it’s a good thing because they’re challenging international capital, international finance. Because the fundamental is, if you look at our perhaps politics as a mixture of elements of nationalism, elements of socialism. Did I say it? It is a Third Position. And you recognise that without a system that cares for its people and looks after its people, they’re going to be led like lambs to the slaughter.

 

And I just wonder with a lot of people when it comes to voting, they’ll be like:

 

“Look, I know the country’s fucked! I know there’s darkies everywhere, but you know what? See if I can have a few Bob in my pocket, at least I can jump on that plane. I can get on the cheap, I can get to Luton and get over to Benidorm, or I can go and I can still live my life.”

 

And I think that is the other problem is, especially with re-migration and putting the country first. People are selfish and narcissistic. As you pointed out. It’s horrible, but it isn’t really their fault. That’s the system. They’ve been told to be selfish, narcissistic, to look after themselves first! That’s a tough sell to them, that they’re going to get poorer, but the country’s going to be better,

 

[46:08]

 

Mark Collett: I think as well. Like you just said, there is this issue, isn’t there, that fundamentally people are also selfish. They’re cowardly, they’re selfish and when it comes down to it, they gravitate back to what they know. They want stability, they don’t want to rock the boat. Fundamentally, British people don’t like rocking the boat!

 

David Clews: They’re very conservative! That’s the thing. See, this is the thing people don’t realise. They go on about how women, White liberal women, they’re just voting to maintain the system. They’re showing the true innate conservatism. The system is open borders, love of foreigners. Women are just doing what the system tells them to do!

 

And that’s the thing, it does show an innate conservativeness that exists in Britain. It’s like people get annoyed when they say:

 

“Yeah, my granddad voted Labour, my dad voted Labour and I voted Labour!”

 

That’s actually quite, in some ways it’s so annoying, but it’s also like there is also something wholesome about that they’re carrying on that family tradition. Mark, just to say one thing, I’ve got a clip there that you might want to play. It’s with Rupert Lowe.

 

Mark Collett: It doesn’t have any [word unclear] or swearing?

 

David Clews: No. Do you want to put it on and I’ll play it so this is Rupert Lowe and his latest podcast, Patrick Bet-David.

 

Now, again, let me just clarify a few things about Lowe. Lowe went on a podcast with Eric Weinstein, whose brother is Bret Weinstein, the guy who gave the middle finger to the Arch of Titus, because he’s jewish and they hated what [chuckling] was done 2,000 years ago! Rupert Lowe’s now on with Patrick Bet-David. Patrick Bet-David is an Iranian exilist. Massive ZOG shill! Pushes, crypto scams.

 

Anyway, this is a statement Rupert Lowe’s made. He said in the previous podcast with Bret Weinstein that he detested ethno-nationalism. This is his latest:

 

“Lowe: Has Muslim worship at Windsor and things. I mean, he’s certainly very keen to propagate a multicultural society, which again, I have no problem with if people integrate. And they accept the prevailing laws and culture of the people they come and live amongst.”

 

David Clews: ‘I have no problem with a multicultural society as long as they integrate’.

 

Mark Collett: Do you know what, David, I gotta say this. I’m starting to feel that there’s two different Rupert Lowes. There’s Rupert Lowe, who is the real Rupert Lowe, and then there is somebody operating Rupert Lowe’s Twitter pretending to be Rupert Lowe.

 

And I think we’ve got somebody operating that Twitter who puts together snappily written, almost ethno-nationalist tweets as kind of rage bait, you know, Right-wing air punching slop. And then effectively Rupert doesn’t actually know what’s going up there. Because everything that Rupert says when he’s in an interview, whether it’s with Eric Weinstein, whether it’s with Michael Gove, it doesn’t matter. He says something which is very different to what his Twitter account would have you believe, he thinks.

 

So on one hand you have him saying:

 

“There’s far more to being British than just a passport!”

 

And everyone goes berserk.

 

But then he’ll start talking about the need for a meritocracy, the need for colour-blind immigration, the need for skilled migrants abroad, or he’ll start talking about his pride in the fact that his son has married a North African Muslim. And it’s kind of strange because you see these ethno-nationalists on Twitter sort of cheering him on. But they’re the same people that would be saying that his son’s spouse should be deported!

 

[50:20]

 

David Clews: Well, [chuckling] they were very quiet. Well, I can actually tell you who runs his Twitter account. It’s a guy actually called Alistair Harrison. And I need to do a bit more digging into him, but he runs, it’s called a communication company called Alistair Harrison Communications.

 

So there’s been a few people that have talked about him. Apparently he’s been involved in business with Rupert Lowe for quite some time. He’s helped him with PR. Obviously, this guy has a very, … He was the guy., … I don’t know if you saw the clip where the Restore candidate, the Telegraph, asked if they could have an interview with him. And he said no. He’s basically Rupert Lowe’s handler. And this guy clearly is a very effective communicator. He has certainly done it.

 

But more and more people are actually, … And this was always my point. Rupert Lowe is a neo-liberal, Thatcherite, Tory! I mean, his age will make him like that, his background will make him like that’s just who he is.

 

And I think that the thing that bugged me the most about it was if people had just said:

 

“Look, clearly we’re not going to do anything with Reform. Let’s just see what we can do with Restore. Let’s get our people in. Let’s see what we can do.”

 

I would have been all right with that. The thing that got my back up was people saying that:

 

“Rupert is our leader. Don’t you dare counter signal them. This is it. This is our last chance!”

 

And that’s why I think I’ve been so aggressive over the last few weeks and months against people, is the way in which it was artificially implanted into people’s minds about Restore.

 

And again, I use the relationship analogy. If you meet a girl on a night out and you go back home with her and you have amazing, like, you know what happens and it’s all great. But then a few weeks later, you’ll be like:

 

“She does that [chuckling] on the first date? She does that?”

 

You know what I mean? And then:

 

“All right, okay, she’s want to go out with her friends!”

 

It’s the same scenario. Good relationships, like our relationship, you know, at the start, we were actually quite prickly with each other and were quite combative. But then a friendship developed, and that is a much more strong grounding for something, rather than just immediately going all in. Because I use the analogy with Restore. It’s like a crypto pump and dump! It went straight up, it boomed! And the problem is, see, when you go vertical like that, what goes up must come down.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah. I mean, at this point, I think people need to really assess what’s going on here. And I think people really need to look at this and ask, honestly, if any other politician was saying these two different things. If their Twitter was saying one thing, but every interview they said another, would they be trusting them?

 

David Clews: No!

 

Mark Collett: Look, I want to move on to something slightly different now and I’ve had numerous takes on this and I want to play this. I’m going to play a little video file here. And I want to see what people think, because a lot of people agreed with me on this, but some people didn’t. And it’s a group of girls, I believe, in Rotherham, of all places, being attacked by the police. So I’m going to play this.

 

[Start of clip]

Yo, yo, yo! What’s he doing? Yo, was he mad? Why is she squaring up to him? Yo, he’s got the baton!

 

Yo! What they doing?

 

[End of clip]

 

[54:27]

 

So this was during the rounds of the day and I’ve posted this. Now, I want to give my initial impression on this. So it’s clear there that these girls were getting mouthy and the girls are about 14 or 15. They look maybe a bit older. I think actually there might be around 16. And I say that because I’ve been told it’s a school leavers event, that they’ve done the GCSEs or they’ve got to the end of the year and it was a school prom or leavers event.

 

Now, I watched that twice. And I noticed two things. First was the girls may have been mouthy, but the police officer, the primary officer there, was the first person to make physical contact. He started pushing the girls. He then drew his baton and struck at least one girl with the baton. Several of the girls were bundled onto the floor and the officer that backed him up then drew a Taser and started pointing it at people.

 

Now, the first thing I’ve got to ask, or state, and this disgusted me because there was a number of people in my chat saying:

 

“The girls somehow deserved it because they weren’t dressed traditionally and they were being too mouthy to men in authority.”

 

And to people who think like that, if I met you in real life, I’d be a lot ruder to you than I would be on this stream, because I keep the stream pretty PG. But what I saw there was the police treating White girls in a way that they wouldn’t treat any other ethnic group.

 

Now, if they were black girls doing that, firstly, do you think the police would have started by throwing the first punch?

 

Secondly, do you think the police would have got the batons out?

 

Thirdly, do you think the girls would have been [word unclear] and would have been bundled over on the floor?

 

And finally, do you think a police officer would have dared to draw a Taser and threaten them? The answers are no, no, no, and no!

 

And finally, do you think the mainstream media would have ignored this case? If this had been black girls, this would have been the front page of every paper. It would have been on every news channel. Starmer’s final act as Prime Minister would have been to take the knee. And the country wouldn’t just be hot because it was unseasonally warm. Britain would be on fire right now if White police officers had done that to black girls. And I can’t understand why anybody who calls themselves a nationalist would turn around and say:

 

“Well, the police did the right thing, mate. They gave those rowdy girls a slap!”

 

If you think that basically F off! Simply, I don’t really want, … I don’t understand how we can be a hundred thousand girls deep into a Pakistani Muslim grooming scandal that the police covered up, and now we’re shilling for the police beating White girls!

 

David Clews: I agree, I agree, I agree!

 

I mean, look, the first thing I looked at is, you see these young girls, they’re young, should they be dressed like that? No, but they are. You know, that’s just at the end of the day we don’t have a morality police, yet. So it is what it is.

 

But again, when I see young girls dress like that or being like that and they’re drunk, they can get away with that in a homogenous society. Not now. And fathers, uncles, grandparents have a duty to speak to young girls and say:

 

“Look, girls, it’s not safe for you out there. There’s a lot of horrible, nasty people!”

 

But I agree entirely. The police were disgusting in that instance! They had no right to attack those girls the way they did. And it’s just utterly, utterly filthy!

 

But that is the police now, and that’s the way they are with Whites. And they behave like that and they’re disgusting! And it could have been de-escalated. But the cops never want to de-escalate that. I mean, they’re just thugs a lot of the time.

 

Mark Collett: And it’s not just that, David. Like, so, right, You’re a big guy. You’re a lot taller than me, aren’t you?

 

David Clews: Reasonably. I don’t know. What height are you?

 

Mark Collett: I’m 5’ 10. What are you?

 

David Clews: 6’ 1.

 

Mark Collett: So like if you squared up to me and you’d had a few beers and you started shouting in my face and I held both my palms out and pushed you back to create distance. I don’t think that would be an unfair response if somebody of your size was acting in a threatening way to somebody of my size after having a few beers. Now, if I saw a 15 or 16 year old girl in a mini dress out for a school leavers prom and she shouted something at me like:

 

“Oh! Aren’t you that old racist guy that used to be in the BNP?”

 

And I ran across the street and palmed her in the chest and knocked her flying, that’d be a ridiculous response because they’re girls. And I kind of, I’m not this sort of like White knight guy that thinks that women should never get their comeuppance if they’re acting horrendously.

 

But I don’t think I could go up to a girl like that and floor her for just being a little bit mouthy. I’d be like:

 

“Come on girls, calm it down a little bit. I know it’s a big night for you but you know there are sort of ways you’ve got to behave.”

 

But there was no de-escalation, was there? The police were so happy to beat White girls!

 

And I always remember the sight of those disgusting pigs down Westminster taking the knee for Black Lives Matter after George Fentanyl Floyd died.

 

And I think to myself:

 

“They’d take the knee for the blacks. But if it’s White girls enjoying a leavers prom, …”

 

I don’t care what the girls are wearing. Look, the problem is if these were outliers, if 90% of White girls were wearing your trad dresses and these were the outliers and they were behaving in a particularly awful way. I could maybe say:

 

“Well, maybe they did deserve being treated a little bit harsher.”

 

But this is, unfortunately it’s the norm now. Now those kind of dresses, those kind of things for working class British girls are the norm.

 

[1:01:08]

 

But again they’re dressing what they see on the television. I mean again they watch Love Island, they watch TikTok, that’s all. I mean again we could have them in nice long dresses and a nice crisp white shirt with an armband on within a few weeks if you control the mainstream media, if you control the methods of communication. [chuckling] But and a lot of the time it is just quite harmless. I understand where people are coming from, but I don’t think when they get dressed like that as well:

 

“I’m going to push back against the Patriarchy!”

 

What’s her name? Who’s that? Tommy Fury married to the girl. I can’t even remember her name. Annie May or whatever she is, she wears that.

 

Mark Collett: Molly-Mae Hague.

 

David Clews: Molly-Mae Hague wears that outfit. So I’m going like Molly-Mae Hague. That’s it! Just there’s a lot of shallowness out there.

 

And again though, it is still this one though, like this isn’t a famous thing. You know my critique of girls when they go out is getting excessively drunk and going to places where there is ethnic minorities and letting your guard down. That’s my critique. And men, and also fathers and families allowing that. Because again, let me give you an example. Or you know, in like Europe you have like nude spas and stuff like that. Are men out raping the girls there? No, of course not. Because it’s a high trust White society. What you wear and what you have on, … You imagine like naked girls around Africans, what they would be doing.

 

There was a video earlier like an African wanking himself off on the beach. These people have IQs of like 60 or 70! They’re like a dog on heat. And that’s what I think you need to get across to people is:

 

“Look, girls, you can’t be like that in this society with these animals. And you need to not let your guard down with them because they’re scum and they’ll take advantage of you!”

 

And that’s the only thing I think we should really be pushing at this time.

 

Mark Collett: Well, the other thing is I’ve got to say this as well. Those girls, I understand the:

 

“Oh, they’re wearing these dresses, it’s scandalous!”

 

But I’ll tell you something, they’re the kind of working class girls who will all have three kids by the age of 24!

 

David Clews: Yeah, true.

 

Mark Collett: I can tell you this now. I’ve seen a number of these kind of like more middle class, more traditional looking women and they’re the ones, one kid at most! Don’t knock those girls don’t knock White working class girls. I live in a very working class former mining area and there are working class women in my area that have got over 10 White children! Now they might not be able to articulate themselves as well as the middle class girls, but their genetics will carry on. [chuckling] That’s something that we need to talk about.

 

David Clews: Yeah, I mean one of the things as well, like I think, and it isn’t a conversation for today, but in the long term, I think the way in which men and women have been, … I mean I don’t actually think in general, I think men and women should be educated separately. I do believe that, …

 

Mark Collett: I was! I went to an all boys school.

 

[1:04:50]

 

David Clews: So did I think the sexes should be separated from a young age.

 

And I also do believe that boys should do boy things and ghetto should do ghetto things because they actually rub off badly on each other. Men become more feminised and women become more sexualised and masculinised when they’re around men. And that was the thing as well, even in the workplace as well. Just a culture of it. Feminism is clearly a policy that has been pushed. And the society in its true essence of itself is Patriarchal. And you do need to get back to that.

 

And again, you look at an incident like that, the police are scum, but these are wider symptoms of societal breakdown. And it was the same with the rape gangs as well, is that you have to talk about the way in which families broke down. The way in which again, if this would happen. Well, it did start happening. But if you think about 100 years ago, a foreigner came into an area and started bribing young girls. A group of lads, a group of men would have got together and they would have gone and they would have got them and they would have dealt with them. It just wouldn’t have happened! They wouldn’t have got away with it.

 

And the rape gangs have happened in that absence of masculinity that you don’t have men and you don’t have organised men in areas that are able to come together and fight. That’s the biggest problem we have is we are so atomized in our existences. There just, there isn’t that togetherness that we once had in areas.

 

Mark Collett: I completely agree! I completely agree! Now we are in the second half of the show now and we’re going to do the Superchats in a minute.

 

So if you want a Superchat, please do help me as much as you can. Please do consider making some kind of contribution to the show. It’d be very much appreciated. I would very much appreciate it. So if you can, please do help.

 

Now, there is one brief thing I wanted to talk about because people have been mentioning it in the chat and I was gonna schedule this. If the Starmer-Burnham thing hadn’t happened, I was gonna put a big picture of a crocodile on the thumbnail because there’s been a lot of people talking about the fact that a young boy was thrown in a crocodile pit at a zoo. And people in the chat are saying:

 

“Have we seen the perpetrator yet? Who was the perpetrator?”

 

Well, the BBC have revealed that he was White. Now, what the BBC have also revealed is that he’s heavily disabled, extremely strong, and was able to break away from his two carers, physically overpower people in the zoo, pick up a child and hurl this child into the crocodile pit. And you’ve also got to ask. I mean, I know this isn’t really somewhere where we go, but what a horrific thing to happen!

 

And this is all, again, down to liberalisation. Care in the community. Every single institution that existed to corral and institutionalise these dangerous, for want of a better word, retards has now been closed down. These people now live among us. There is this thing called “care in the community”. They go to the same schools as our children. And this isn’t an isolated thing. It wasn’t long ago. I can’t remember which particular art gallery it was.

 

David Clews: The Tate Modern, down in London. Another, he threw the kid off the, …

 

Mark Collett: Another retard picked up a kid and hurled him off the roof!

 

David Clews: It was a French kid.

 

Mark Collett: You’ve got these fully grown men that seem to have this unnatural strength, but they’ve got the brain, …

 

David Clews: Yeah.

 

Mark Collett: They’ve got the brain of a child and the impulse control of I don’t know, a drunken animal. And basically, this is incredibly dangerous! ! And I don’t know, I was talking to a few people about this and I was saying, it just seems like everything is sort of coming to a head from every level. And if you’ve got kids, it’s not just the Pakistani rape gangs, it’s not just your low IQ, African migrants who can’t control their urges. It’s also the fact that. [chuckling] Sorry, somebody in the chat has just said something so funny. Sorry, I couldn’t, … I’m usually gonna put in the chat. “Mongo strength”. That’s what they’ve said.

 

David Clews: But again, though, these people do have extraordinary, … The guy, see, if you actually look at the guy that did it. It was a guy called John Bravery was his name. And the guy has got a neck like a fucking wrestler! Like in the Mongol neck and he’s like, …

 

Mark Collett: He’s like Brock Lesnar, but with a tenth of the IQ and you’re in real trouble!

 

David Clews: But the thing is, as well, like, again, though, here is the thing now, if you saw a child like that and screaming there or anything, and he had a history of violent behaviour, this guy. He had a history of doing these things before, John Bravery. And it didn’t actually come as a shock, and he deliberately targeted that child. But, this is the thing. You’re constantly told that everyone is good at heart. That’s just not true! You should be racially profiling. You should be [chuckling] profiling everyone and trying to understand that. Someone makes a good point as well. Who were the carers?

 

So that’s the other thing is, as well. How many Africans do you see as the carer? And it’s some big fat African woman, and she’s on her fucking phone or she’s got a melon on her head. You know, that’s what all these carers are like now. There he is.

 

 

Mark Collett: I mean, his neck is as wide as his head! [chuckling] I mean, that’s not from training or steroids!

 

[1:11:06]

 

David Clews: He would kick the shit out of you and me with one hand at the same time!

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, he’d be eating his goyslop, one hand full of goyslop, gobbling away as he literally beat both of us down into the curb!

 

David Clews: But that’s the other thing is, as well. Like, you see with a lot of kids who have mental health problems, they give them so many sugary drinks. They give them utterly shite food! They have them on, like, iPads all the time. Honestly, it’s absolutely horrific! It is just a horrific culture. And again, it’s Africans!

 

I mean, that’s the thing. I hate seeing, like, these Africans out. And that’s such an awful thing! Mark, I’m just gonna go top up my milk, if that’s all right?

 

Mark Collett: You can do that. I mean, really, from my point of view as a dad, hearing about these things actually does scare me! And I’ve got to say somebody of that physical strength and development, you know, allowed to walk amongst children, allowed off the leash by his carers. I mean, it is terrifying!

 

And I just think if that was my son that had been yoinked up and hurled into the crocodile enclosure as some low IQ, one of a better word, retard, was howling and making guttural noises, thinking it was all a game, you know, who could you blame but you? You know what’s going to happen. You know what’s going to happen, don’t you?

 

The response to this won’t be that these people need to be sectioned or they need to be kept away from children. The response will be:

 

“Why weren’t the crocodiles in a glass enclosure? Why wasn’t the wall too high for the mong to hurl the child over? Why wasn’t there more adequate barricades?”

 

There’s not going to be a change, a positive change. Somehow safeguarding and the height of the walls at the zoo will be to blame.

 

And I’ve got to say I think there’s going to be more of this. I think this is a frightening development. This is a genuine political point. I think there’s going to be more of this as well. I think this is going to be another problem that’s going to get worse as this country slides into this dysgenic whirlpool of slop nonsense and ill breeding!

 

David Clews: Backs to the wall in the underground. See if I’m ever anywhere with my kids and it’s like the train or anything like that, stand next to the wall and keep them away. I’ve seen loads of videos, especially foreigners that just, … See the thing is its like we all have crazy thoughts. You know, I’m sure everyone listening to this, you have these daft thoughts about doing daft things. But they actually say that it comes from when we were hunter gatherers, you had these crazy thoughts so that you were always on alert in case like a bear ran out and tore you apart. So sometimes you have these crazy thoughts.

 

Low IQ people especially like low IQ Africans are Indians. They will act on that thought that comes into their head! And there’s been numerous instances of them pushing people onto train tracks, pushing them! This like never relax, never ever relax around blacks! You know, the phrase exists for a reason.

 

 

[1:14:47]

 

Mark Collett: Look, when I’m out with the kids and we’re out in a park, or a play place, or a soft play or something like that, and you see one of those big sort of like 14, 15 years old and he’s wearing a nappy and he’s wheeled in there by his two carers and he’s going wild on the soft play equipment near your sort of 15 month old and 6 year old! I’m the dad that’s like:

 

“We’re gonna have our snacks now or we’re going to the slide at the very other end of the play place because it is a worry.”

 

And the worst thing is when they come and start petting other children or touching other children. The social pressure now is to interact and let it go on and not say anything because if you say:

 

“I don’t want this strange, weird looking, you know much bigger and stronger kid touching my kid!”

 

You’re the bad guy because you’re not understanding it. It’s awful!

 

David Clews: Remember Emily Jones? Remember the wee girl, seven years old and she was out and she was on her scooter, some absolute lunatic. Let me try and remember her name. It was Albanian [word unclear] She was just a nut job. She was a psychopath. She nearly took the head off that wee girl. She’s scootering. She got a wee bit further away. This lunatic just appears and slits her throat and nearly takes her head off.

 

I mean, again, statistically, the chances of that happening, but you know, it’s just awful! Awful because there are a lot of nut jobs out there.

 

Mark Collett: There are. And I think it’s only going to get worse. I think that again, the societal pressure is clear. If you sidestep the migrant gang, if you sidestep the mad black guy shouting wildly in the street, if you tell your kids, don’t go near that big guy who’s making those really guttural weird roars as he punches the soft play equipment.

 

There is this pressure from these horrible liberal Whites:

 

“What are you doing? Why wouldn’t you let your kid go near John? What’s wrong with you? This is the rainbow play!”

 

And you’re like:

 

“What? No, no!”

 

You know, it’s like with these two horrible homosexuals. Jamie Varley and McGowan Zachary who murdered that wonderful baby, Preston Davy. And you’ve got people all over. I’m not on social media, but the wife told me, she said:

 

“That case is all over Instagram and all these influencers are saying, ‘Why are you saying that gays shouldn’t look after children?’”

 

Well, the first gay couple, the first, literally the very first as well, that were allowed to adopt in Britain, sexually abused their child! The first, not the second! Not one couple within the top 10, not a couple within the first hundred. Literally the first couple! The first couple that were hand picked to be the poster couple for adopting babies as a homosexual partnership chose a child so they could specifically abuse it. The first!

 

Anyway, let’s do the Superchats.

 

David Clews: Just a quick one on that. And it is so important everyone listening to this show. Look, we can’t provide you with a solution to these problems, okay? Because we’re not able to do that right now! But you are in control of yourself and you are in control of your families. And, just maybe thinking the worst is sometimes the best thing to do in these situations. Maybe just, you know what, cross to the other side of the fucking street! Like Irina Zatuska sitting on the train. And the next minute the animal, the Carmelo Anthony as well, the animal comes up and stabs! Just do what you need to do and think how you need to think. Just don’t put yourself in that situation and don’t be, please, naive.

 

And it’s the same with, if you’re dealing with the state or you’re dealing with the police, don’t think for a second, … Just always think the worst! And then if good things come out of it, then it’s a good place to be.

 

Mark Collett: And look, think of it like this. Imagine gambling your precious child’s life in order to make a liberal statement to others around you. Because that’s what it is! You are gambling the life of one of the most precious people to you in the world. The most precious if it’s an only child! And you’re gambling that to virtue signal to people around you that you will never see again. And that don’t mean anything to you know, imagine saying:

 

“Well, I didn’t pull my daughter back from the screaming black man on the train platform because I didn’t want the White London commuters to think I was racist. Now my daughter’s dead.”

 

And again, this goes back to the Burnham Badenoch, why Reform and Restore won’t win. It’s because Whites are this way programmed. White mothers would now rather virtue signal than priorit. Not all, but around 50% of White mums would rather virtue signal to people they don’t know, than they would ensure and prioritize the safety of their children. They would leave their children with a homosexual, with predatory homosexuals to prove to people on social media that they’re progressive and open minded! That’s how people are. Remember this, guys! And it’s people saying it’s women. It’s not just women. It’s men as well!

 

[1:21:01]

 

David Clews: Centrist dad. Centrist dads. There’s loads of centrist dads out there.

 

Mark Collett: You know, men are afflicted with this as much as women. I’ve made comments before and I’ve had men turn around and you’re like:

 

“You agree, right, mate? You can’t say that. What gives you the right to say that in a public place?”

 

David Clews: What?

 

Mark Collett: What are you talking to? But they will, they’ll. Men will square up to you over this in public.

 

David Clews: They will, they will. So just keep this, …

 

Mark Collett: There is a solution, David, and there’s only one solution. And it is that we get on the lifeboats and we separate ourselves from the toxic sludge that many Whites have become!

 

But look, we’ve got to do the Superchats because we’re running 20 minutes late. And look, I love running late on this show. It looks like I’m fully buttoned up, but I think there’s only about two buttons maintaining my modesty because I am sitting in a pool of, … I’ve got one of those cool pads. The wife bought me a cool pad and the cool pad is now about 32 degrees. It’s covered in sweat!

 

I mean, I would take T-shirt off, but it would be indecent.

 

And I’m not stripping for money. So there you go, guys.

 

Well, then again, maybe I would. Maybe for the right Superchat. If the Superchats total over a thousand dollars, I’ll take that. I’m only joking. I’m only joking.

 

Right, here are the Superchats and we’ve got an extreme, extremely generous Superchat to kick off with. It’s a guy called Nocasa Worries and he gave $300! Thank you so much for such a generous Superchat. He said:

 

“I always enjoy the “Mark was right” dance. Election analysis is our underrated stream. It takes guts to make big predictions publicly.”

 

Well, look, thank you so much for such a generous Superchat. That’s incredibly generous and thank you.

 

And also I want to say that I haven’t done the “I was right dance”. So I didn’t go too far. I wasn’t sort of I told you so too much. But thank you for pointing out it does take a lot. Look, I could have made very recently, I could have made a lot more money and a lot more social capital going to make a field, blogging it, shaking hands with everyone, having a picture with Rupert Lowe and riding the train. There was a lot of money to be made.

 

You know, the young Bobs of this world were out with their camera on a gimbal, monetizing every second of it. Every selfie that was there to be taken, every stunt to be partaken in, they were on board. I’m not that guy. If I think that something’s going to go wrong, I will say that and I’ll nail my colours to the mast! So thank you for such a generous, generous, Superchat.

 

But I’ve got to say this as well. Look, David’s the same. Me and David have both been hung out to dry over this. People were saying that we were clowns, we were talking rubbish! I had a guy and look, he’s a good guy. This guy’s a good guy. He’s in my chat, he supported me in the past and he was saying:

 

“What are you gonna say to me when Restore winning Makerfield?”

 

And it wasn’t. But we’re laughing. It wasn’t his fault.

 

David Clews: No!

 

Mark Collett: And I’ll tell you why it’s not his fault. Rupert was saying on the Saturday before:

 

“I honestly believe we’re gonna win this. People were built up to be knocked down.”

 

And I’ll tell you this, one of the most dangerous things you can do is predict victory on the eve of defeat. Because not only do you suffer the loss, but you suffer something far worse than a loss. Because a loss isn’t the end of the world.

 

[1:24:42]

 

David Clews: This is the point I tried to make. All these people who just went all in, I mean, they went all in. They basically, like think of it as a game of poker. They went all in on Restore. They’ve basically fucked themselves over! Because, see, when it all implodes, which it is going, … I mean, it’s even happening quicker than we, many of us thought.

 

And I don’t know if you saw yesterday, like Lotus Eaters did this Makerfield review and it was Benjamin sitting in a chair, it was a big leather thing and it was Charlie Downs and Connor Tomlinson. And I tweeted out about. I went pretty hard on it and then.

 

But the thing is, see, the comments, people were like genuinely, excuse my language, like:

 

“You fucking cunts! You were telling us they’re going to win that election and get 20% of the vote and they’re nowhere near it. And you’re sitting there and you’re just moaning!”

 

And this is what I actually said to people is:

 

“Look, see, if you go all in on this, you’re out there in the middle of the ocean on a life raft and there’s no one coming to rescue you. So just hedge your bet!”

 

Like that’s the sensible thing to do. Hedge your bet. Don’t get too taken in. And honestly, see the viciousness that Benjamin and these other people were getting. It was really ruthless because as I said, nobody likes to feel they’ve been conned. It’s that sinking feeling that you got.

 

And this is the other thing about emotions, the pendulum of an emotion. If you have a really intense emotion one way, which is joy and happiness, that emotion can then go the very far way. And it’s anger and rage! There’s no middle ground. And that’s what people are going to have towards all the influencers and everyone else who have, … I’ve really called this disgracefully wrong and used as an opportunity. That’s the thing as well. I see people now that the abuse that they’re getting and some of its pretty harsh, but they’re saying:

 

“You’re just up there and you’re getting your fucking photo taken and you’ve got your ‘buy me a coffee’ and everything.”

 

And again, I’m not against people. We ask for money on the Internet, but we do it from a position of reasonable honesty and principle. Like we’re not selling a turd wrapped in gold paper! Which is what these people are doing. If they’d have just played a bit more cool. And again I love my analogies. It’s like the ugly guy getting the stunner. It is! And you know what? We’re the ugly guys! The stunner, I mean, this is, in a political sense, the stunner shouldn’t be wanting anything to do with us. The only reason the stunner wants him to do with us is she wants something off of us. She wants her clout or she wants our money!

 

That’s what people need to realise that we are [chuckling] the scum of the Internet! You know, we are the dreaded far-Right! The dissidents! And frankly, we need to stay that way and remain pure from these people.

 

Mark Collett: Look, I want to say this as well. So Sagon, Carl Benjamin. I’m not saying. Well, I am. He’s thick! And the problem is he’s an idiot! 20% in a Parliamentary by-election would be huge for any party.

 

David Clews: Yep.

 

Mark Collett: But to predict that, when you’re up against Reform and you’re going in at what was looking like it was going to be a 45-45 split initially between Reform and Labour before Restore on the ballot paper is an idiotic thing! But this is because he’s never been in politics. The problem is, okay, and everyone says I’m a know it all, and I am.

 

But do you know the trick to being a know it all, David?

 

David Clews: Experience?

 

[1:29:00]

 

Mark Collett: No, you only ever! Yeah, you only ever talk about the things you know about!

 

So if you get me on a show and you ask me about nationalist politics, electoral strategy, Nintendo, how good giant cans of energy drink taste, maybe real life crime or American serial killers or things that I’ve taken an interest in, I will talk about them because I know about it, because it’s something I’m interested in. Or maybe if somebody invites me on a show and I’ve just watched a weird documentary on WWF Wrestling in the 90s or how Transformers dominated the toy market in the late 1980s, I’m like:

 

“Oh, that looks interesting. I’ll watch that.”

 

I might drop something in about something I’ve just watched. It’s because I know about it. But if you invited me on and started to talk to me about the economics of ballet during the 1800s, I wouldn’t say a word, because I don’t know anything about it.

 

And the problem with Carl is he talks about a lot of things that he knows nothing about, but he talks about it with an authoritative tone, as if these are like the big brain takes!

 

And I think the problem that he’s got is him and his gang of Lotus Eaters*. I didn’t even know what a lotus eater is, by the way! It’s the stupidest name for a podcast ever! You do better off calling yourself, you know, “four tits on a couch”. You know, it means nothing. It means nothing!

 

[* Lotus-Eater, in Greek mythology, one of a tribe encountered by the Greek hero Odysseus during his return to Ithaca from Troy, where the Greeks had been victorious in the Trojan War. Odysseus arrived in an unfamiliar land after a north wind had driven him and his men from Cape Malea (Homer, Odysee; Book IX). The local inhabitants, whose distinctive practice is indicated by their name, invited Odysseus’ scouts to eat of the mysterious plant. Those who did so were overcome by a blissful forgetfulness; they had to be dragged back to their ships and chained to the rowing-benches, or they would never have returned to their duties. Odysseus and his crew then sailed on to their next stop: The land of the Cyclopes, where they encountered Polyphemus. The 5th-century-BC historian Herodotus located the Lotus-Eaters on the Libyan coast. The ancient Greeks applied the name “Libya” generally to North Africa and the Tunisian island of Djerba is commonly identified as the land of the Lotus-Eaters. Alfred, Lord Tennyson brought the story to the modern world in his poem “The Lotos-Eaters” (1832). Source: https:// www.britannica.com/topic/Lotus-Eater]

 

But the fact is he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

 

David Clews: No!

 

Mark Collett: That doesn’t mean he doesn’t know what he’s talking about at anything. But if you’re going in to talk about a small specialist topic, whether that be as I said:

 

“How transformers took over the toy market in the 1980s.”

 

And people make documentaries on these things, or whether you’re talking about the rise of nationalism in the late 1970s, you’ve got to be an expert. You can’t just fire from the hip. And Sargon’s just like:

 

“This is our time. Rupert Lowe is the first politician to engage with me since I killed, …”

 

David Clews: Gerard Batton’s career.

 

Mark Collett: Gerard Batton’s career!:

 

“So I better double down and tell everyone he’s gonna win! And look I was at UTK and I’m on X and everyone retweets me!”

 

But he’s just realised that that’s not actually what makes you a winner.

 

Now, unfortunately for Sargon and for a lot of people, I am the only person in Britain that was heavily involved in the three biggest power winning nationalist campaigns in history, Barking and Dagenham. 2006, I did the leaflets, I did the reminders, I worked on the campaign, GLA 2008, I did the booklet insert, I did the additional leaflets, I handed the leaflets out. And European Parliament 2008, I did every bit of publicity for that campaign. No one else can say that!

 

So that’s like my thing! But no one will talk to me because I’m the bad guy. But because it’s my thing, I predicted it. Carl’s never done it. Carl’s never done it. And that’s why he’s come unstuck.

 

David Clews: No, no. And again, when they were doing their canvassing, they said they primarily knocked on doors that had a Reform poster on them. And see, because people went there and they travelled from all around the UK, they weren’t actually canvassing properly. They were engaging in, … That’s what Hopium does. Hopium says that, …

 

Mark Collett: Engaging in a big circle jerk of confirmation bias!

 

David Clews: Correct, Correct! And they got it completely wrong.

 

And what’s going to happen to them in this Manchester election? They’re going to get absolutely slaughtered! And if they get less than 5% in that, which is a distinct possibility, or they get maybe between 5 and 10%, a lot of people are just going to turn around and say:

 

“What is happening here? What have you sold us?”

 

Mark Collett: If Restore were to get under 5%, it would be seen as catastrophically bad, for two reasons.

 

Firstly, they have a sitting MP. And secondly, they have a million pound war chest.

 

David Clews: More than that they have four or five million quid! So they raised about four or five, plus, you don’t know how much Musk might have given them.

 

Mark Collett: No, exactly!

 

Well, look, we’ll move on from this. Point gave $25 and said:

 

“Donation.”

 

Thank you so much! Gassings Never Happened, gave $14. Thank you so much! And said:

 

“Please, could David Showcase his talents and perform his lucky Larry Silverstein impression?”

 

David Clews: Well, [chuckling] yeah, you have to watch UNN for a Larry Silverstein impression, I’m afraid. That’s something that’s paywalled. I’m afraid on UNN to get a Lucky Larry. So it’s funny, I was thinking about Lucky Larry today. It just popped into my head. There’s an individual like that in the world. Just always makes me laugh, now cry as well.

 

But, yeah, he got very lucky, let’s just put it that way. [chuckling]

 

[Enter an IMAGE here]

 

[1:34:25]

 

Mark Collett: It Was Made Up gave $10. Thank you so much, and said:

 

“So how long do you give Burnham if he becomes PM? Can the country even be governed at this point? Seven leaders in a, seven prime ministers in a decade.”

 

Now you say, can it be governed? Of course it can. Labour have got a massive majority. They’ve got a larger mandate for ruling than the Conservatives ever did over their 14 year tenure. You have to remember that.

 

So it can absolutely be governed. And this slop that the Daily Mail pumps out that if you change leader, you have to call a general election. Well, the Tories didn’t call a general election every time they changed leader. You know, they had Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak. It was a disaster!

 

Now, I’ll say this. Fundamentally, we are in a situation now where things are looking pretty grim from our point of view. But from a Parliamentary point of view, Labour have this unbelievable majority and that gives them a mandate.

 

And what’s more, they have a mandate because the press have given them a mandate. The media have talked up Burnham as the liberator, the King, the man of the north, coming down to free the people. They can’t do that and then say:

 

“Oh, but you have to hold a general election, mate!”

 

And people saying:

 

“We need a general election!”

 

You might be sorry about that! Because with the momentum Labour has at the moment, with Burnham coming back, if there was a general election tomorrow, let me tell you how it would work out. Labour would win, possibly a similar majority, the Tories would see a slight comeback and Restore and Reform would cancel each other out. And the First Past the Post system would effectively ensure that Restore and Reform probably wouldn’t win more than 10 seats in total together. The SNP would easily win in Scotland, Plaid would win in Wales and the Greens would probably gain a few extra seats. And you’d actually see a situation that could be worse than what we’ve got now.

 

Because if Labour did slide, it wouldn’t slide to the point where it didn’t hold power. It would slide to the point where it was the dominant force in a far-Left coalition where the concessions wouldn’t be made to a Restore or Reform. The concessions would be made to Zach Polanski or Jeremy Corbyn and Zara Sultana.

 

David Clews: Yeah, I think it will depend on what happens once Burnham takes over. I think if they see a bit of a boost in the polls, I wouldn’t be surprised if he did call a general election. He might not. He can wait.

 

I mean, that’s the thing. There is no constitutional requirement of a general election till 2029. None at all! He can come in, he can do the three years, years. But I think if they get a sniff that the polls have reversed, … Because this is the other thing that people have to realise, a poll is meaningless!

 

The only thing that matters is how you vote on the day. And the problem is that is Reform have lost two by-elections that they had to win if they were going to be able to form a government in the next general election. They got routed in Gorton and Denton and routed in Makerfield as well. And like the swingometer required for Reform to take all these seats off Labour, it’s incredible what would need to happen in order to do that.

 

And the other thing that people underestimate again is you have a huge payroll vote in Britain that relies on the NHS, the public sector, the trade union movement. You also you’ve got loads of liberals, you’ve got a lot of very liberal areas. These people will come together to destroy Nigel Farage. I mean, they think Nigel Farage is a Nazi! They think Nigel Farages is far-Right.

 

So this is the other problem for us. We all know Farage isn’t. They think he’s the nemesis. And you might, you find that in civic society, … The other bellwether I use is, I use like the John Sopel, Emily Maitland test. Now they’re like North London jews, they hate Nigel Farage! They can’t stand anything Nigel Farage represents because they understand that that Farage could be a stepping stone to something more dangerous. He could end up being like a Hindenburg figure. So they and the media will go out of their way to destroy Farage. And you got a taste of that over the 5 million donation. They will pump that into all the TV screens if there is a general election.

 

Mark Collett: And look, I’ve got a slight disagreement with you on this, mate, only minor. I don’t think Gorton and Denton was too bad for Reform and I’ll tell you why. The king makers there were the Pakistani Muslims. And we know that when they come out and vote, I think that they were about 22% of the constituency. So we know they were gonna basically at a 50% turnout. If all of them turned out, they get 44% off the bat and you know how much that changes things.

 

But I think the Makerfield one was the breaking point and I’ll tell you why. They’d won every seat in Makerfield.

 

David Clews: That’s true, that’s true.

 

[1:40:24]

 

Mark Collett: And that was failing to win! Failing to win a place with a sizable motivated ethnic minority, you know, sectarian voting group is not the worst thing ever! Failing to win that is not the worst thing ever! Failing to win possibly the most ethnically homogeneous seat in the working class part of the northwest, that’s pretty grim!

 

But anyway, look, we’ve got to move on because we want to get these done before we all melt. Snazzy candidate gave $8. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Hi, David and Mark. We must remember invisibility of goodness. People always work hard to fight against a big evil. In this case, Keir Starmer, the public sighed relief. But ubiquity of the corrupt media disorganises them again.”

 

Well, thank you so much! The Resident Baker gave $5. Thank you so much! And said:

 

“Evening, Mark and David. A Collett and Clews double header is always great. Very salient point about the current environment for our daughters. We shouldn’t have to live this.”

 

Well, we both echo that. Autism is Unstoppable gave $10. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Evening, Mark and David. I think one of the reasons relations between men and women have broken down in the last, 200 years is due to the lack of community preventing men and women from meeting naturally.”

 

David Clews: Yes, yes, yes!

 

Mark Collett: Well, I think there’s a lot of things. I think that’s true.

 

But I also think there’s feminism, there’s the divorce court and I think there’s a social pressure. At one point, like back in my parents day, having a divorce was so stigmatized it was unthinkable. Now having a divorce is what all the girls do when they want to reboot their lives because they think it’s trendy. You know, you have these people who’ve got three, four kids and they have a minor fallout over something and it’s “irreconcilable differences”. I think there’s a lot of reasons. But I do agree the normal natural community of going to the working men’s club on a Friday night for a dance and meeting somebody that going, has definitely hurt people.

 

David Clews: Yeah, it is. Internet dating, Tinder bars, all absolutely horrific! I always had really good relationships with ghettos I met at the gym. I always think the gym is the best place to meet women and I’ll tell you why. Because chances are they live geographically near you. Like long distance relationships really don’t work. I mean they sometimes do, but by and large you want to be seeing them.

 

Go to a gym and look, here’s a wee life hack. Go to yoga classes or go to things that are actually predominantly. There’s lots of women, you know, do your numbers. If you go to a class where there’s like 20 women and there’s only two guys and one of them is like a fag, you’ve got a much better chance, [chuckling] you know, than everyone else. And you know there are still good women out there. I mean, don’t be unsure about that there are still a lot of normal women out there and looking for nice guys. I always think go to the gym and meet them face to face. Online dating is just, it’s horrific because the problem is if she’s messaging you, there’s another hundred guys fucking liking her profile and ready to take you out.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, agreed mate, agreed. Greeny from Oz97 gave two. Thanks so much, and he said:

 

“A lot of my dad’s Boomer friends have been getting behind Tommy recently and after listening to yourself I know he’s not genuine. What’s the best straightforward way to explain his cuckery?”

 

Well, simply explain to them that he is behind multiculturalism, just not Islam. And fundamentally he was supporting the very Sikh community that have supported Henry Novak’s killer! You know, the people up on stage, the Sikhs up on stage at Unite the Kingdom that Tommy endorsed went on stream and said that:

 

“They would defecate on Henry Novak’s grave.”

 

That tells you that Tommy is pushing the wrong people. He’s not pro-White, he’s just anti-Islam. He’s totally up for multiculturalism as long as it doesn’t include Islam. I don’t know what you’ve got to add to that, mate, but I think supporting the people who supported Henry Novak’s killer is just, …

 

David Clews: The thing is with Tommy Robinson is pure slop. Like, why do people go and eat food at McDonald’s? They know it’s shite for them, but they still do it. Why do people order a Deliveroo? They know it’s shite, but they still do it. I think in these situations you can’t waterboard them like as much as you want to! [chuckling] So you want to give them a slap. You just need to probably sow a few seeds of doubt. I mean, one of the ones would be as well, I mean, Tommy Robinson’s been doing this for 15 years. Has he ever achieved anything? He’s always going on about Israel and did you see what they did?

 

My advice in these situations is just plant seeds. And then, because usually when you argue with someone, if you tell them they’re a sicko and it gets their backup. Like say to them:

 

“Yeah, well, it’s good, they’re actually waking up to what’s going wrong.”

 

[1:45:48]

 

But I’ve got my concerns about Tommy. Just plant a few seeds.

 

Mark Collett: And do it in a pleasant way. Don’t belittle them too much. Say:

 

“Oh, but have you heard this?”

 

Anyway. Hazelnut 3000, gave $10. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Thank you, Mark and David.”

 

Well, thank you to you. Baba2 gave $50. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Intentionally White communities, that’s our future. Thank you for not stripping. My community is very White, higher income and safe. No apologies. Thank you so much!”

 

Dodzy04 gave $5. Thank you very much and said:

 

“Top lads. Mark, could you sell joining PA from the Steel City mate? I’m on the fence.”

 

Look, join PA if you want. If you want to be part of a pro-White community that is a community, advocates for our rights and takes part in activism, join PA! If that’s not your bag, don’t join PA.

 

But look, there’s only one group in Britain that has consistently raised money, openly and transparently, then given away 100% of the money after payment processing fees to the families of political prisoners. That’s PA!

 

Now, the thing is that annoys me and this does annoy me. I’m not saying it annoys me with you specifically, but it does annoy me that people say:

 

“Why isn’t anyone backing the political prisoners?”

 

Well, we are and we’re giving their families money.

 

But when we do that, people then still don’t join. You know, if you want an advocacy group, join us. If you want a political party, go elsewhere. You know, there are lots of groups out there. But if advocacy and community building is your thing and specifically if helping the families of anti-White two tier justice is high on your agenda, there’s only PA that does that.

 

David Clews: I think if you’re a young White man, you do have to hang about with other White men. I’ve managed to get to a PA conference and it was good people. And if you’re meeting up locally, you want to be involved with people who you think like. Just don’t be ashamed of it. You are who you are. You have the worldview that you have. Just be with people that you can get on with and you’ll feel better for it. It’s a bit like hanging around with White people or people that are like you. It just natural. Just do what is natural.

 

Mark Collett: Agreed. Jez9999 gave a dollar. Thank you so much, and said:

 

“Sorry if this seems like a basic question but if Lowe hates ethno-nationalism, what’s the point of him? He wants people to integrate but so do Reform. Should we just vote Reform or ignore British politics altogether?”

 

Look, if you read my article, and it’s free on Substack, I’ve got a massive Substack now please go and read my latest article on why the Conservatives are worse than Labour and why they must be destroyed. It’s up there, it’s free, it’s linked in the chat. Please go and support my Substack. You don’t have to give me a financial contribution like many people ask for. It’s all free. But if you want to, that does help.

 

But my latest article it’s explains the only organisation to have ever defeated anti-immigration parties in the UK is the Conservatives. It’s never been the far-Left, it’s never been Hope Not Hate, it’s never been Labour, it’s always been Thatcher, Cameron, Johnson. The Conservative Party is the one that we have to destroy! And I’ll always say this, if there is a better way to beat the Conservatives, tell me. But at the moment the only party that has managed to effectively beat them is Reform. And nowRestore are causing a split that makes that less likely. I’m not endorsing Reform as an end, but I’m endorsing them as a wrecking ball that could be a means to an end. I’ve explained this to you personally, my friend, because I know who you are and we spend time together in the real world. But that’s the only way for forward.

 

[1:49:56]

 

David Clews: I keep saying that people say to me that I shill for Reform. There’s actually been, I was calling out Reform years ago, talking about their funding, talking about like Nick Candy and all these people, Zia Yosuf. But look, you have to be realistic if you believe in a political solution.

 

I mean, I don’t believe in a political solution, but if you do believe in your vote and you want to vote, they are the only show in town. The problem, what was happened now with Restore, they’ve poisoned the well. The well is poisoned! And with Burnham coming back and the full force of the media behind them like it’s bleak now! There is not really a vehicle now for us to attack either Labour or the Tories. And in some ways it will be good because there will be a purge and we will go back to our natural state of being dissidents against the system in its entirety.

 

So there are positives potentially here.

 

Mark Collett: Agreed. Greenie from Oz97 gave another five. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Would love to see you guys review Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia as a movie review? Some awesome British Empire history as an Aussie, it’s cool to see the motherland when it was at the peak of its might.”

 

Look, we’ve done a few of these. We’ve done Zulu and Zulu Dawn. I’d be happy to review these for you. No problem. We’re reviewing Citizen Vigilante on Sunday. Iggs 22 gave $5. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Mark and David. Prisoners cost around 800 pounds per week. Now thoughts on bringing back hard labour, certain agricultural jobs and digging trenches for power lines or whatever.”

 

Look, when it comes down to it, I was watching something the other day about a convicted child killer in Wakefield Prison and three people walked into his cell and stabbed him to death. And at first I was like:

 

“Well, why are people celebrating this?”

 

Surely, yeah, a child killer has been killed. But one of the guys that killed the child killer killed a 24 year old woman and he’s hidden her body and he’s refusing to tell her parents where the body’s hidden.

 

Yet people are now praising him online. Like, okay, the child killer might be marginally worse in the prison hierarchy, but killing a 24 old woman and not giving her parents the closure of being able to bury her remains is not far off. And I was thinking about this and thinking, well they’ve all got these full life tariffs. On one hand I do think it’s probably more of a punishment to keep them in jail for the rest of their lives.

 

But on the other hand some of them clearly enjoy being in jail! Form a community and you know, roll with it as if they’re heroes in there because they’re notorious. They’re stabbing people they don’t like. They going to the gym, they’re still out exercising, they don’t have to worry about paying the bills and keeping the heating on. I did think to myself, with all these people on full life tariffs, why not just take them out? Bit of scrub land, firing squad, it’s over and done with. It would save us an awful lot of money, hassle. And let’s face it, if you have murdered children, if you have abused babies, if you have murdered young women and hidden their bodies and refused to tell the parents, what real service do you give to society?

 

David Clews: I was just doing a wee look there about the what the number of prisoners are. They’re currently 86,000 people in prison in England and Wales.

 

Mark Collett: That’s bigger than the army!

 

David Clews: Yeah.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah. That’s bigger.

 

David Clews: 34% are because of violence against someone. Sexual offence is 23%, drug offence is 13% theft 10 to 12% robbery 7% possession of weapons 7%, criminal damage, public order.

 

So it’s like on a statistical basis the amount of people in prison for murder is probably tiny, maybe like a few hundred people Max over it. Well it’ll be thousands over the years.

 

So the thing is as well there is a problem with habitual drug offenders and then see all the people that are in for violence, it’ll all be drinking, drug related violence as well. So these people, a lot of them, they are just a product of the culture of the system, which is goyslop! And [chuckling] which is liberalism.

 

And this is where I’m actually a wee bit different. Like I don’t go for the whole hang them and flog them. These are people who are probably victims of the system. Who if the system was better and say you had traditional industry like steel works or manufacturing, they probably wouldn’t have turned to life a crime and drugs. That’s where if we could get things together. But again if you kill a child, rape a child, rape someone, like those gays, they should just be taken into the public square and be burned to death. There is no rehabilitation for people that have done that.

 

But I do think there is a wider argument to be had about why men are doing that and if there is something that could be done to rehabilitate them and get them back on, rather than just shoving them in prison because then they meet fellow criminals. How many men have gone to prison and then their girlfriends left them or their wife’s left them and their life’s ruined after that and then they turn to more crime. There needs to be, I think there needs to be a fundamental analysis of how we can get people back living full, healthy, happy lives and not just the whole “they’re scum!” They’re just people that have gone the wrong way in life.

 

[1:55:57]

 

Mark Collett: Interesting perspective. I look, I think some people can be helped but I think your full life tariff people might as well just be, …

 

David Clews: Yeah they should. You just need to deal with them. A firing squad would be sufficient.

 

Mark Collett: DodZ04 gave $5. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Another five for the solid answer about joining PA mate. Will join over the weekend.”

 

Well thank you so much! Would be good to see you at events. And Hedgehogs 82 gave $5. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Mark, why did you fall out with Alec Yerbury?”

 

We’re not getting back into Alec Yerbury! [David laughing] If it’s anyone’s fault, it’s David’s because David arranged a debate and the debate was more than humiliating for Alec, and ever since then he has probably rightfully so hated me with all his might, with all his little might.

 

But it’s basically I don’t hate the guy, I just think he’s a clown because he’s wasting his own time and everyone else’s.

 

David Clews: You know I think deep down Alex still really likes you and has a lot of respect for you deep down, and he won’t admit that but I think he still does. I like Alec. And I mean I know a lot of people don’t. But his analysis of the problems are correct but his solution is wrong as well. And clearly the NRP are providing a genuine third party and there’s good people involved in it but you know, will it go? I mean Alec thinks it’s going to take power. I disagree with that, I disagree with Alex analysis. But I think again he is a character. But I think he likes you deep down, Mark! And I think he probably feels bad about falling out with you.

 

Mark Collett: Maybe. Maybe. Look, like one thing about Alec that I’ve got to say, that really kind of disappoints me.

 

But it’s a disappointment with the movement. It’s a disappointment with the movement. And it’s that fundamentally we have a situation where people want to reinvent the wheel.

 

And I think one of Alex’s biggest problem problems is he thinks that if he comes into nationalism and tries to work it out all for himself and provide the answers, ultimately he’s going to do that, which he isn’t. And that’s not to be nasty. No one is. Nationalism has a long and complicated history.

 

And if you decide that you’re going to try and redo it all yourself and learn it all yourself and reinterpret it all yourself, you’re probably gonna come unstuck, which he has. I remember sitting at a meeting with him once, all around the big table, and he gave a very impassioned speech. And I’m gonna give him that. It was a very impassioned speech. He said:

 

“Look, we’re gonna do something no one’s ever done before. We’re gonna go to town after town, city after city. We’re gonna take a hundred men the first week, and a month down the line, it’ll be 300 men, and the public will see us. We will march through these places and our name will spread and we will grow. And we will build a large, dynamic political movement! And no one’s ever done this before. We are going to march and grow, he said, and I’m not going to have anything to do with any of you. I’m going to prove you’re wrong!”

 

And he collected his things and he stormed out of that meeting. And everyone looked at each other very uncomfortably. And a guy who was sat there, who was older than me and has been involved in this longer than me, turned to everyone and broke the silence by saying:

 

“Did he just describe the 1970s National Front March and Grow strategy?”

 

And everyone burst into laughter! Because his grand scheme had been tried and failed. And this is where if you’re gonna do something, do something new!

 

Now, no one has done what PA did, which is to be a community advocacy group.

 

Now, the Left have always had them, but the Right haven’t. Everyone’s tried March and Grow. Everyone’s tried another political party, and it’s why we do things differently.

 

But he didn’t want to accept that. And I think he’s gonna have to go through every phase of nationalism before he comes to the conclusion that they all were tried and failed for different reasons. And it’s sad.

 

[2:00:33]

 

David Clews: I would have had more respect for him if it was a Godfather 3 style situation. Remember when Joey Zaza, remember they have a meeting of all the, …

 

Mark Collett: I’ve never seen it. I’ve not seen number three.

 

David Clews: So that Joey Zaza comes in and he falls out with Michael and he leaves. The next thing, a helicopter appears with a machine gun and everybody gets shot.

 

I mean, if Yerbury was really serious, that’s what would have happened. All the nationalists would have been taken out at that point. He would have reigned supreme! [chuckling]

 

Mark Collett: Gosh, that’s a grim thought, isn’t it, that he could have taken care of business. Green from Oz97 gave another $2. Thank you so much! And said:

 

“I felt embarrassed seeing Keir’s resignation speech. Seeing a leader of a Western nation crying publicly on TV’s weak, gay and retarded!”

 

And there is something to be said for Western stoicism. Control your emotions, channel them and use them as a power source. Never let your emotions become your master! There’s a good bit of advice from Marky C.

 

And finally, Baba2 gave a $20 donation. Very generous tonight. Thank you so much! And said:

 

“That’s for you to buy some raw milk to keep up with David. Really, I just love supporting you and your work.”

 

Thank you so much! I’m on the Jersey Gold Top. I love that plug of cream that you get when you pop it open. Can’t get enough of it and I’m forcing it among the kids every morning at breakfast time. Here’s to a stronger next generation.

 

But that brings us to the end of the show. It’s been sticky, it’s been hot, but it’s been very good. We are in the very top tier of streams on Rumble tonight. David, I’ve been watching it as we’ve gone on and where it shows Rumble live. I don’t know if you’ve seen, but we’ve been beating out some much bigger names and it’s largely thanks to you.

 

So thank you so much for that. I’ve got to say, you brought the fire tonight. And yeah, we’re in the, if you look at it, I think we’re 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. We’re in the top 20 streams on the whole of Rumble! We easily beat out George Galloway tonight, almost doubling his numbers. Beat Tim Pool. Beats plenty of big names, in fact. And we’re even closing in on Dr. Disrespect. So a good night all in.

 

So thank you for being here, David. Thank you for making such a good stream. Have the last word before we go and jump in the shower. Individually, not together. We’re not getting into the shower together!

 

David Clews: Vibes. [chuckling] Yeah, well, it’s just nice to see a lot of UNNers there in the chat as well. And Joey’s up. Joey always does this. Joey seems to know when the show is coming to an end, don’t you, Joey? I don’t know. Why is that switched to my background there? Did I just do that?

 

Mark Collett: We’ve not showering together, are we, David?

 

David Clews: No, we’re in the UNN. We’re actually together in the UNN studios.

 

Mark Collett: So I just did that as a joke. Because I made it as a joke.

 

David Clews: We’re together. Sorry, Wait, Joey, come here. Look, come here. Let everyone see you. Look. [his dog] So this is Joey. Joey, come on, show everyone. There he is. Don’t even see his wee head popping and you won’t be able to see it. There he’s at the bottom. He always seems to know when the show is coming to an end and he wants us out to the bathroom.

 

Brilliant numbers. Great to see the UNNers over and thanks to everyone that donated to Mark as well and keep us going because it all adds up. We’ve not got snake oil to sell you and we just want to keep doing what we’re doing because I think there is a gap. Again, there is actually a gap in the market for a wee bit of honesty. And I said after the Covid scam to people:

 

“Look, I’m not going to bullshit you. I’m going to be as honest as I can.”

 

And I think we’ve done that and people want to hear that. And I think the clear thing is look out for yourself like people.

 

That’s not to say you go and become a selfish narcissist, but look out for yourself and look out for your families. And be with people of a like mind and take positive steps, you know, do self improvement and do these things and we’ll all get better. Won’t we, Joey? We’re gonna go a walk. People call him “Jewy” because he tries to get me to stop my shows. [chuckling] Right, cheers, everyone.

 

Mark Collett: It has been a great show tonight and great numbers. I just want to thank Dave for being here. I want to thank everybody who donated so generously. I want to thank everyone who’s live in the chat. Amazing numbers across all platforms. Across all platforms. Over 700 people! So thank you so much!

 

And I want to say go and check out my Substack. It’s all free. Go and have a look over there. It’s really good!

 

I’ll be back on Friday for a stream. I’ll be back on Sunday for a review of Citizen Vigilante.

 

And again, just a huge thank you to David. Thank you to everyone who donated so generously. Thank you to everyone who tuned in. You know, I love you all. Thank you. I’m pleased you survived this show and I’m pleased we didn’t melt.

 

And I’ll be back next week for another episode of Patriotic Weekly Review. Thank you. I love you all. Stay strong. Keep fighting. Good night.

 

[2:05:46]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

(Comments as of 6/28/2026 = 198)

Mark Collett
3 days ago
Pinned by @MarkCollett
You can now subscribe to me and support my work on SubStack:
https://markacollett.substack.com/

3
0
Green
3 days ago
David is always such a great guest. Cheers, and a big thank-you to both of you gents.

8
1
0KT0BER
3 days ago
“I have no problem with multi-culturalism as long as they integrate.” Tommy Robinson. oh no sorry I meant Rupert lowest

4
1
Luther Sloan
3 days ago
Later good people o/ 14

3
1
Luther Sloan
3 days ago
Sargon smugly chuckling as he grifts you with talking points from a decade ago.

3
0
makersnameplate
1 day ago
Lotus eater =
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus-eaters

1
0
Hide replies
Mark Collett
9 hours ago
Figuratively, ‘lotus-eaters’ denotes “people who spend their time indulging in pleasure and luxury rather than dealing with practical concerns”.

1
1
Mr
2 days ago
Only Nationalists care about their countries. The rest of the globalist anywhere types treat our countries like they are “the commons” and will strip it bare.

1
0
Mr
2 days ago
Multicultural is not the same as multiracial. Multicultural is by definition NOT integrated. Someone please tell Rupert.

1
0
Cone of Silence
2 days ago
Freinds indeed

1
0
Luther Sloan
3 days ago
Thanks for the show, David is always a great guest.

1
0
MilosM.
3 days ago
But Mark, he will become the Britain’s first unelected PM.

0
1
Hide replies
makersnameplate
1 day ago
Who will? I can offer you John Major, Gordon Brown, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak, and that’s off the top of my head.

MilosM.
3 days ago
Death penalty for the worst crimes.

1
0
Luther Sloan
3 days ago
I don’t think we should imprison people at all. Either fines, flogging, forced labor or execution.

1
0
Hide replies
Green
3 days ago
Here, here.

1
0
MilosM.
3 days ago
Public hanging for the creeps.

1
0
MilosM.
3 days ago
No fault divorce should be banned

1
0

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
the bible says the devil sowed tares in among the wheat

1
0
Secure the future of our people
3 days ago
Mongo

1
0
Secure the future of our people
3 days ago
o/ Christ refused to sit and eat with tax collectors and Toll’s men

1
0
Prison Ships
3 days ago

@ CriticalThinker2026 Anti•Satanism is unstoppable.

1
0
pa
2 days ago
this will have to be my last watch of PWR im afraid as i think those lasses deserved what they got from the police , and of course any donations go with me

0
2
Hide replies
Achille Fontanelli
1 day ago
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

makersnameplate
1 day ago
Sure, they were misbehaving, but it’s all about proportionality.
If you think the police acted proportionately and reasonably, then there’s no then I can’t help you.
They were being a bit mouthy, not violent, and they are young girls , not beefed up blokes.

Kevin
5 hours ago
It is discrediting to yourself to have this complete moron and conspiracy theorist on. He is dumber than Patriart who thought to moon landings didn’t happen

makersnameplate
1 day ago
Candygram for Mungo. Mungo like candy.

Just stuff
1 day ago
Some manner of a far left-right alliance indeed appears as the only way forward at this point. I fact, almost anything which brings about the collapse of the system works and then we attempt to fish in the muddy waters when it does. Like them commies in Russia and China and elsewhere did. Sure, I know that this is not what Uncle taught us, but he effectively lived in a post-collapse environment. Much like that of Russia post the spring 1917 Revolution – not even the 1905 one.

Just stuff
1 day ago
The pigs – there is something really systemically wrong with them. They have too much of an engrained feeling of invincibility/impunity over their actions. I think it is a more general thing… not like these pigs wake up in the morning thinking “oh, what a fine day it is today to kick and oppress some whitey!”.

Just stuff
1 day ago
Why not push for total Abolition and the review of old property structures and laws that entrench the elites. I mean, e.g. so many live (and work) in leasehold properties. Why not check out who is the freeholder there owning it all and how that came to be?

@filled_soda
2 days ago
David is unfathomably based.

@popovacianen
2 days ago
ffs mark buy an ac im from croatia we all have those there aint no way english cant have one

Hide replies

@UKrobm
1 day ago
we can have AC in the UK but we also have what is possibly, probably, the most expensive electricity in the world, so AC is very expensive for us.

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago
crap catbox doesnt work

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@MilosM.
ooh. Only Alek I do know

MilosM.
3 days ago

@utopia148800:6 Yerbury.

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@MilosM.:9 who is Alek?

MilosM.
3 days ago
David should arrange another debate between Mark and Alek.

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@MilosM.:9 He will. Or worse people realize how much he stole and hollowed out the country when he is out of power and moved to another country.

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
its probably about 50% crime related to drugs and 50% genetically predisposed to crime

@Philip.Kollberg
3 days ago
Amen

Kultur_Rebell
3 days ago
Some people should be tortured every day

@theicebergmelts
3 days ago
Scotland’s just spent one billion pounds building a new prison

MilosM.
3 days ago

@utopia148800:6 Eh yeah but you never where his prime minister tenure would be after 4 years. If he sells Hungary and makes it even in worse state than under Orban, then that’s very bad indeed.

MilosM.
3 days ago
Bridge on River Kwai is pretty great

MilosM.
3 days ago
But Restore’s results are not actively undermining the Conservative demise. The best and most likely outcome is Labour and Conservatives eventually eating each other out.

Hide replies

@Germanicus
2 days ago
While it’d be hilarious to see the century-old political duopoly collapse in countries like the UK and US, people should realise, it doesn’t actually mean the elites have neen replaced or realigned (which is the only real mechanism of political change)

@theicebergmelts
3 days ago
One of them was missing an eye

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
Lawrence of Arabia is pretty good.

@theicebergmelts
3 days ago
Both made by the great David Lean

MilosM.
3 days ago
So far, the best option is to support the best one atm

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@MilosM.:9 No I can judge him already. He is a traitor. If he wasn’t he wouldn’t be in power. Jews would kill anyone taking power that would endanger jewish power and influence.

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
Shills can’t alienate their audience completely, which is why they will do those things, especially if it is just signaling that can be disavowed.

MilosM.
3 days ago
Unfortunately, there won’t ever be a viable political leader or a leader of a nationalist group who would be given some massive, mainstream platform to say all the right things. Some compromises will have to be made.

MilosM.
3 days ago
And once Tommy stood behind Sam Melia when the latter got arrested. But he wasn’t that of a shill then much.

MilosM.
3 days ago

@utopia148800:6 Yes sadly though the new is still pretty early to be judged. And Orban indeed did some based things.

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@MilosM.:9 things like removing lgb flags are a brave thing because of the gov and it shows defiance but in the end the gov is the one that needs to be removed not just the flags. And Orban is the same as the new shabbos goy.

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@MilosM.:9 I rarely use telegram Lord Bebo has a large twitter account. So I mostly see it on twitter.

MilosM.
3 days ago

@utopia148800:6 idk but if you have Telegram, I saw it on Lord Bebo channel

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago
Lánchíd

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@MilosM.:9 Nop I did see that they put the Lgb flags up on the Lanchid.

MilosM.
3 days ago
Carl is classical liberal who is pretty shy of questioning mainstream politics.

MilosM.
3 days ago

@utopia148800:6 Ah cool. Hey have you seen that some folks in Budapest hung Hungarian flags in place where lgbt flags, I believe on a bridge?

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago
https://i.postimg.cc/kgmndh25/Uluru-Astro-Tour.jpg

EmptyLife
3 days ago
It’s an even stupider name when you do know what it means.

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@MilosM.:9 no In real life it is even more beautiful. I have seen it myself. It’s very different in real life. You have to do it at least once in your life. I have been camping in the bushland near Alice springs.

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@MilosM.:9 It’s the most beautiful country in the world. Wit real wild life. I had wild Cassowarys come up to me. Had dove with fish bigger than me and had seen sea snakes with the rings in real life.

MilosM.
3 days ago

@utopia148800:6 Very nice but is the photo legit?

MilosM.
3 days ago

@0KT0BER:9 More like embarrassing himself.

@theicebergmelts
3 days ago
The Merchant of Swindon will get his pound of flesh regardless

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@MilosM.
This image does no justice to how beautiful is this in real life.
https://i.postimg.cc/GmhkzzbT/468419420-10160535857772671-4749960011641070774-n.jpg

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
hes a lot more switched on than i was at 16

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
hes only 16 and he got quite badly beaten up the other day for doing public debates

MilosM.
3 days ago

@utopia148800:6 Have you traveled there? idk, desert sounds as pretty messed up place to me. Especially after watching some Ozzie mad pig killer film

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
i think people are being a bit harsh on young bob

0KT0BER
3 days ago
David’s been great holding out on X on the restore ziobots.

Kultur_Rebell
3 days ago
black shirt

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@MilosM.:9 Dudee!You have to go to Australia at least once. The desert sky is the most beautiful thing you will ever see. You can see galaxies.

MilosM.
3 days ago
Sick scumbags.

@Philip.Kollberg
3 days ago
why does Mark always wear black?

Hide replies
makersnameplate
1 day ago
Have a guess.

@theicebergmelts
3 days ago
A lot of parents have transsed their kids

New124
3 days ago
BTw it isnt even safe just out on the streets of britain nowadays. Be careful out there people. its now Riot Season, previously known as Summer.

MilosM.
3 days ago

@utopia148800:6 This one guy won some boxing event. I would rather not travel to Australia. Expensive trip that goes for too long.

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

Repost and like the Twitter if you can please!
https://x.com/UnityNewsNet/status/2069847230928785432

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago
or they used to they are not allowed to associate.

ChuckGerety
3 days ago
They are risking lives just so they get their feel good giddies

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@MilosM.:9 They should invite you to one of the punchups. They do MMA matches constantly. maybe kickboxing as well.

New124
3 days ago
Jonty

MilosM.
3 days ago
Bears are less dangerous than some people.

MilosM.
3 days ago

@utopia148800:6 Hahahaha, I already did to one of them.But we are friendly to one another so harsh feelings.

Obscure Truth
3 days ago
Unbelievable!

Kultur_Rebell
3 days ago
I was watching a documentary from the 70s inside strangeways. It is safer in there in the 70s than out here in 2026

New124
3 days ago
this is your brain on Leftism. they think everyoens the same. different races, even disableds.

ChuckGerety
3 days ago
Society must accept that there’s some who are unfit for civilized society

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
Even in a proper humongous society you would still have anti-socials, but they would either be put into a work camp or an institution if they are too far gone.

ChuckGerety
3 days ago
A guy like that needs to have a shock collar

@WASP_Supremacist
3 days ago
Police are coming to kill Mark because he said “retard” and his gues keeps saying “low IQ Africans.” RIP

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@MilosM.
hahaha. Better not the NSN guys hear that! :joy:

New124
3 days ago

@MarkCollett:6 Mark, they also have a policy of rehousing these mental cases in rural areas. The Scottish islands are now honestly like ¼ loony bin. they think itd better for them etc and it actually just drags these sm all communities down. the carers are all grifter losers too

ChuckGerety
3 days ago
He looks dangerously unevolved

MilosM.
3 days ago

@utopia148800:6 I thought that’s insult for Australians lol

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

Repost and like the Twitter if you can please!
https://x.com/UnityNewsNet/status/2069847230928785432

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
there are a lot of devils at heart

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago
crap

MilosM.
3 days ago

@Kultur_Rebell
You’d be in more luck to try kebab instead.

MilosM.
3 days ago
Girls and women, but especially girls, are wired to buy into feminist bs and that’s not only okay but as something to act and dress like men. I never understood the appeal of tomboys.

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
autist threw a kid off

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
tate gallery

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
they closed the mental institutions in the eighties and said wed have to live with them instead

Kultur_Rebell
3 days ago
I don’t I just want you to shut up

@theicebergmelts
3 days ago
It was a 20 foot drop too apparently

MilosM.
3 days ago

@Kultur_Rebell
Why do you want kebab?

MilosM.
3 days ago

@0KT0BER:9 I don’t think so. it would make plenty of white nattionalists zog influenced
also Rupert says nothing malicious in that clip.

New124
3 days ago
gotta say tho i feel sorry for parents of daughters. esp the fathers. No thanks.

@theicebergmelts
3 days ago
It would have been called a pogrom back then

Luther Sloan
3 days ago

@New124:3 Exactly.

Kultur_Rebell
3 days ago
I’m English. Onion and garlic sauce please.

New124
3 days ago
it was in ROTHERHAM too! the cops have let down the poor girls of rotherham before!

0KT0BER
3 days ago

@MilosM.:9 Flat Earth originates with the judaic view of the world, the Talmud specifically

Kultur_Rebell
3 days ago
Are you a Tommy tard?

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@Kultur_Rebell
they make kebab from horrible offal in the UK

MilosM.
3 days ago

@Kultur_Rebell
you a muslim?

New124
3 days ago
Lets not get hung up on the dress choise. it is the height of summer as well btw. f
the police are evil.

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

Repost and like the Twitter if you can please!
https://x.com/UnityNewsNet/status/2069847230928785432

MilosM.
3 days ago

@0KT0BER:9 And you would believe in that Earth is flat if someone shows you the picture that Earth is flat.

Kultur_Rebell
3 days ago
Shut it and make me a kebab

0KT0BER
3 days ago

@MilosM.:9 you’re as thick as pigshit

MilosM.
3 days ago

@Kultur_Rebell
Rupert and Nigel? definitely not. Though Nigel is in his own category of politician.

MilosM.
3 days ago

@0KT0BER:9 No I won’t because I saw enough of his bs to call it a bs in advance.

0KT0BER
3 days ago

@MilosM.
heres another
https://xcancel.com/SB_B99/status/2069778242790162667

Kultur_Rebell
3 days ago
So? Both ZOG cretins

MilosM.
3 days ago

@0KT0BER:9 David talks a lot on Rupert and Nigel without some empirical evidence to back up his criticisms if them.

0KT0BER
3 days ago

@MilosM.:9 watch the clip shitstain

Kultur_Rebell
3 days ago
So?

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
Indeed

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
it was the police that escalated it

Kultur_Rebell
3 days ago
Pathetic coward pigs. Little men.

0KT0BER
3 days ago

@MilosM.
David (UNN) has just posted another clip, but this one says it all
https://xcancel.com/FSnype_gore/status/2069128179046842534

MilosM.
3 days ago
Girls were tw*ts here. But political consequences of this is something else.

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
the police treated it like it was a violent confrontation when it was just school girls

MilosM.
3 days ago

@0KT0BER:9 How? They are doing quite well. For a minor political party.

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
It is a handful of unruly girls, the police should be able to control the situation just by being there, but that is not how those officers see themselves or the girls for that matter.

MilosM.
3 days ago
Wait, girls didn’t mess up? I thought this is on them.

@theicebergmelts
3 days ago
There was a recent video in Scotland of the police arresting a black guy who was resisting arrest by kicking and spitting on them and the police were dealing with the thing in the most gentle way

0KT0BER
3 days ago
Milos rupert and restore are a complete bust

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@MilosM.:9 Zdravo gospodine!

MilosM.
3 days ago
I heard that Rupert’s views
on X are not his own actually

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

Repost and like the Twitter if you can please!
https://x.com/UnityNewsNet/status/2069847230928785432

MilosM.
3 days ago
Rupert did indeed espouse some white supremacist views

0KT0BER
3 days ago
brave thin blue line

Karvakake
3 days ago
holy f

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
It is basically the Trump playbook, using the online radicals who are eager to embrace anyone who signals a little bit like them.

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
he might have a lot of positions that coincide with ours, but he doesnt see those as ethnat positions, just common sense positions

MilosM.
3 days ago
Multicultural society btw can be a totally European.

@theicebergmelts
3 days ago
Rupert Lowe thinks Javier Milei has been terrific for Argentina…

MilosM.
3 days ago

@SvenLongshanks:9 He definitely has to. He doesn’t want to rock too many boats.

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
i havent seen him contradict himself, hes just diplomatic with his wording on big interviews

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
he says people who dont speak english will be deported and if you dont work, you will be removed from council housing and that is the same as saying if people dont integrate, they shouldnt be here

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
And the important thing is, those who like this online personality will keep supporting him even as he disavows them.

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
i think rupert has to be careful with his wording

@Bobbie
3 days ago
Restore is done.

Karvakake
3 days ago
Does UNN stream anywhere else than Rumble? I used to watch them on dlive

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
The “left” isn’t getting what it wants either, they marry unpopular stances with the good things.

MilosM.
3 days ago

@LutherSloan:2 Socialism is for fools

0KT0BER
3 days ago
up a khyber

@Theos19
3 days ago
most people are simple and easy to control by propaganda and narrative. We do not have control of the narrative, we will never rule until we do.

MilosM.
3 days ago

@utopia148800:6 Szia bro

Karvakake
3 days ago
hello o/

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
Nationalism goes hand in hand with Socialism.

New124
3 days ago
hope that UNN studio is air conditioned David

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
What does Restore and Reform offer people other than their mealy mouth stance on mass-migration?

Eldergoduk
3 days ago

@utopia148800
Only my basic tax :smile_1:

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@Eldergoduk:6 Hello taxpayer!

Eldergoduk
3 days ago
Evening citizens

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
It is why they would much prefer to keep up the charade and just use soft power, but that is no longer possible.

@theicebergmelts
3 days ago
It’s like that socialite who said if you’re not named in the Epstein Files then you’re a loser

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
Look at Egypt and other zogged up ME countries, they control their populations through hard power. It works, but it is a whole lot more unstable on a long enough timeline.

Criticalthinker2026
3 days ago

@VesselofGrace:b cheers mate

@noreplacement
3 days ago
Like Uncle strolling into Austria

Criticalthinker2026
3 days ago

@VesselofGrace:b I’ve had that for decades…i got a 666 tattooed on me chest

Prison Ships
3 days ago
Digital id is the brand of TheBeastSystem.

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
The reality of the worsening conditions hasn’t changed, so it will be hard to keep this going.

Kultur_Rebell
3 days ago
It is 100% a hoax based on an inversion of basic reality. Like everything else they do.

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

Repost and like the Twitter if you can please!
https://x.com/UnityNewsNet/status/2069847230928785432

0KT0BER
3 days ago
roman vineyards at York too

@theicebergmelts
3 days ago
Rivers full of plastic bottles

Kultur_Rebell
3 days ago
Clewsy I wish you would use this platform and not crappy Rumble

MilosM.
3 days ago
Greetings all

@theicebergmelts
3 days ago
A few months later a Malaysian Airlines was shot down flying over Ukraine

Obscure Truth
3 days ago
I think they found the tail of the plane if I’m not mistaken.

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
I remember that one, quite odd, but the ocean is a big place.

0KT0BER
3 days ago
they’re adding a good 4-5 degrees to the temp on the most trusted news

Illustr8r
3 days ago
Also on Odysee

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
o/

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
hello everyone

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
‘ello

0
0

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Germar Rudolf: Thank you. I need to get my instruments ready here. Now they fall apart. There was a cap to it and somehow that fell off. I apologize for this. All right.

 

I have something positive to say about this country to just attach right to the speech you just heard. And that is the fact that we can do what we do right now in this country. Because in many countries where our ancestors came from, we would not be able to do this! So there’s freedom of speech and freedom of assembly in this country. So there’s something good to say.

 

Also, what I wanted to mention is when it comes to the war against Iran, the Iranians are an Indo-European people. The language is closer to English and German than it is to Arabic. And when we should talk about the victims that this war causes, we should talk about the thousands and thousands of people of Indo-Europeans of Iranian ancestry that are being murdered.

 

Now, my topic today, as you would probably guess, is on Holocaust, because that’s what I’m known for and that’s what I’m good at. Before I do it, I give a little bit of an introduction of who I am. I would assume most of you know, but probably not all.

 

I am a German citizen. I grew up, born in the mid-1960s, grew up in West Germany, had a normal lower middle class upbringing, went to a normal public school, eventually studied chemistry, graduated. And in the process of graduating, I stumbled over that topic, research that had been done here in the United States by an expert in execution technologies who was looking into the gas chamber question and had some chemical arguments which caught my attention. And as a chemist, I couldn’t look away down the rabbit hole I went and never came back.

 

Now, the persecution that has resulted from my activity, because Germany is not a country where free speech and freedom of science, freedom of assembly has led me ultimately to this country. And there’s another good thing. The government has tried hard to keep me out. They actually arrested me. I was married to a US citizen. I had a granted immigrant visa. They arrested and deported me anyhow, with the reason given “no criminal case”. So in violation of that, I ended up in Germany. And Germany, I was put on trial for the research that I had published over the past five years while in exile. And they sentenced me to 44 months in total. And I had to spend that time.

 

Now, I’m not a singular case and I’m not the worst case of what’s going on in Europe.

 

Anyway. I fought my way back. I won in court. What they’d done to me was wrong. It was remedied as much as you can remedy losing five years of your life in prison. Was reunited with my family and I got the status of a permanent legal resident now in this country.

 

So 35 years of research on that topic have a number of years ago raised the question to me, how do I get the message out to the masses? The first 30 years, I would say I was looking for answers myself. I wasn’t sure whether I understood everything and whether I really got this story straight.

 

And then at the end of the 30 year mark, I was pretty sure. And then the idea came up of how do I get the message out now? One way is of course writing something that makes the information accessible. A lot of you actually bought it today from me. So I wrote an encyclopedia because that’s what scholars do all the time.

 

Actually, no, they don’t!

 

But I was in the unique situation that I had this knowledge. 35 years of sitting at the helm at the core of this skeptical, scrutinizing research. And I decided it needs to be done. And in lack of support from others and due to a cataclysmic development in my private life, I had the time to do it and I pulled it off.

 

So we have the knowledge published, we have it concisely presented and made accessible. There is still a step of how do I get people to listen? Because we’re talking about a taboo topic and people don’t want to hear it.

 

You, most of you probably are open minded. Some of you are, almost many I don’t know are convinced already that the mainstream narrative is phony. But we want to reach those who sit on the fence or even on the other side of it. How do we do that? And I want to give you a little bit of a instruction by example of the best approach.

 

[05:23]

 

 

And the best approach you already have seen. Some of you coming by our book stand there seeing those signs here and marveling over these graphics and the information that’s on there.

 

The best approach for the normies into this topic is not talking about lies that they’ve made up like jewish soap. They all have admitted it didn’t happen or lampshades or what. No! What you want to talk to them about is massive violation of civil rights! It’s free speech, is freedom of assembly that doesn’t exist over there. And make them see in concrete examples what that means!

 

When we’re talking about this topic here, people need to realize, every person needs to realize that every historian on this planet to one degree or another, if he wants to write Holocaust historiography or talk about it or write about it, he is doing history at gunpoint.!

 

That’s the only topic in the world right now, more or less on a global scale, where historians are threatened with at least destruction of their career, if not outright prosecution and imprisonment.

 

 

Scholars, not just historians, scholars you can do physics, you can do psychology, you can do any science and you will not get in trouble if you say something that’s controversial. It’s only this one! This particular part in history that gets people in trouble! Even in this country we have free speech. But any historian who touches that is a third rail topic, he will find his career ended.

 

 

This is the map of Europe. You see in red the countries that have outlawed Holocaust skepticism, that have outlawed doubt! Doubt is the core feature of us human beings, that sets us apart from animals who cannot doubt their central input. We can doubt what we see. We can systematically look for the truth and communicate with our fellow humans what the truth is or what we think the truth is, and can even make it independent of ourselves by putting it down encoded so that everyone can see it. That is what sets us apart!

 

And a government that outlaws doubt, outlaws search for truth, outlaws communicating the truth with others, is outlawing humanity! These countries have outlawed humanity! Stalinist Russia, as bad as it was, had no laws that would proscribe the result of any scholarly research in any field by penal law. This is the first in mankind history that we have that the European Union forces members who have not yet passed laws in the European Union to do it or they are threatened with sanctions. Finland just passed earlier this year, the last one, because they said we’re threatened by the EU by some kind of sanctions or measures. And that’s why we introduced that law.

 

 

Now what does that mean? I’ve told you about my 44 months for the research. You can see that there are two books, Chemistry for Auschwitz, if you want to look at it. It’s my original forensic research and lectures on the Holocaust.

 

 

 

Having done what I’m doing right now here to academic audiences in Germany, talking about my research in the calm and academic style led to being sentenced. There were worse cases.

 

 

I want to focus here on Austria. Some of you have looked through a list of all the countries and some are not on this map. Actually, of course, Canada has introduced a law north of us and Australia uses a backdoor way of doing it. And Israel, of course, is the first country that has outlawed skepticism. And there are other countries who use other laws. They twist and tweak in order to send people to prison.

 

[09:23]

 

And in the Arabic world, unfortunately, we should think there should be an open mind there. A lot of governments in the Arabic world are bought by Europe and America and they prosecute dissidents on that topic with extra legal means. They are not democracies under the rule of law, whatever that means. Because in some aspects we are not anymore either. But for them it’s pure arbitrariness.

 

So this is a global thing, a global problem. We just had a censorship hit us, a company in China. We wanted to have merchandise produced with certain slogans on it on Holocaust skepticism. And they pulled a plug. Not even in China they want to do it anymore!

 

 

Austria, the worst case, 20 years! You can go up to 20 years in prison. If you combine it, the skepticism, quote, unquote, “denial” with statements that they interpret as re-engaging in National Socialist activities. If you were, for instance, to argue that the Austrians are just one tribe of the Germans and they should live together with other Germans in Germany, which was a normal thought up to 1945. In the 17th century, 18th century, 19th century, in the 20th century, as the people of Austria always felt. And they were for the longest time the core in the center of Germany. And they got kind of pushed out with Prussia taken over in the late 19th century. And then after the collapse of Prussian Germany and Austria, the Austrian Empire after the First World War, they said:

 

“Okay, we had it, now let’s get reunified.”

 

That was the idea of the Wilson 14 points for the truce to have everyone self-determination. And the Austrians got it denied. And after the war, Second World War, they had special laws enacted if you violate them, up to 20 years. Denial combined with demands for self-determination.

 

 

To put a face to it, Austrian engineer Wolfgang Fröhlich was arrested in the early 2000s for a paper he had written. He’s an expert for disinfestation technology and disinfestation gas chambers. So he knows the technique and compared it to what was said to have been going on in German extermination camp during the war. And said:

 

“That’s technical nonsense, it can’t be!”

 

And he got eventually indicted and put in prison. And he was upset about what they did to him. And he kept writing letters and arguments from within prison, got more and more indictments and got sentenced over and over again! At the end of the day, he spent 16 years in prison for his engineering arguments. And he came out just around Covid, caught Covid and died shortly afterwards.

 

Western politicians complain about Iran or China putting dissidents for four, five, seven years in prison. At the same time they put them for 16 years in prison! That’s the worst case.

 

 

This graph here shows you the initiation of criminal investigation for thought crimes in Germany. Since 1994 some 4, 500, up to the most recent data for, … The year 2025 comes out maybe next month. Getting a little bit of a feedback here. [humming sound] The blue one is Right-wing thought crimes. That’s what we are committing here right now! Okay? Then you have the Left-wing ones. These are usually Antifa communists who make some radical statements about blowing up Parliament or having a communist revolution. And then you have the green ones, foreign religious, that usually means Muslim, Muslim radicals who want to introduce Sharia law or something like that. So for these two cases you really have to make aggressive statements that are not peaceful anymore.

 

Whereas in these cases if you’re just against mass immigration, you say anything critical about the jews, any dissent on the Holocaust, or more recently anything critical about Israel’s policy in Gaza. This is the Gaza escalation that you see.

 

 

Germany has extended their law that they outlaw more and more both by case law and by actually written code. And now this past data we were up to 40,000, 35,000 of them. Stuff that people like we do, like what we argue and talk about. 35,000 initiated criminal investigations does not result in 35,000 people sitting in prison. I want to make that clear. Most people never get caught for the slogan they have sprayed on some wall or sticker they left somewhere. And if for first time offenders, usually it ends up with slap on the wrist. It may just be a summary offense with a fine that has to be paid. And for first time offenders it rarely ends with prison. But then you have the 1 or 2% of these cases that end up actually with prison cases.

 

[14:50]

 

Only minority of that is Holocaust skepticism. And I have no numbers, they don’t in their paperwork. This is data based actually on what the German government releases. And they are put proud of it! Because they call themselves a combative, defensive democracy! Okay?

 

So they defend themselves in combating anyone they consider to be an enemy. But they are actually the biggest enemy of democracy. I wouldn’t even call it democracy, but a state under the rule of law that respects human rights that they never get a mirror held against them to look into it because that’s the enemy that caused this kind of persecution.

 

Back to history. This kind of an atmosphere that you have in Europe, in most countries and even in this country where historians don’t go to prison, but immigrants like me, I’m currently constantly on an ejector seat and I can get thrown out any minute if the Trump government so decides, because they don’t respect the law either.

 

 

What effect does it have, actually concrete, on historians? Here you see the lovely face of Wacław Długoborski, Auschwitz survivor who was put in charge, as I say, the Billy goat that was put in charge of the garden. He was put in charge of the Auschwitz Museum’s historical research center. And for many decades he has been that boss. And under his auspices, the lie that 4 million people died at Auschwitz was maintained until the Soviet Union collapsed.

 

Then it did collapse, and they suddenly reduced the number from 4 million to 1 million and said:

 

“Well, we have known it all along.”

 

And then in an interview in 1998, this historian was asked:

 

“Well, why did you lie? Why did you make that up if you knew all along that it was wrong? Why didn’t you correct the number earlier when you knew that it was wrong?”

 

And he basically said:

 

“Well, there was a prohibition in place in the Eastern Bloc in the communist countries that historians who would not toe the party line could be facing.”

 

How he expressed it, “disciplinary measures”.

 

 

What does that mean? You lose your job, you’re getting demoted, you have to become a street sweeper, or a janitor. That’s what that means in these communist planned economies.

 

Ironically, 1998, that’s when he gave the interview. That was the same year Poland, pressured by the European Union, in particular Germany, introduced a law, 1998, that made Holocaust skepticism a crime punishable with up to three years in prison.

 

 

So from communist “disciplinary measures” to Democratic “three years in prison”. What’s worse? I’d take disciplinary measures anytime over prison term. So he said that:

 

“Now we can tell the truth! Back then we couldn’t because we had disciplinary measures. We’ve corrected. Now it’s 1 million. Because you need to believe us, because now we are only threatened with three years!”

 

Any mainstream person who thinks everything is kosher with the Holocaust narrative that we fed now must realize:

 

“Yeah, kosher it may be, it means the jews like it!”

 

But it most certainly doesn’t mean authentic and reliable, because historians who are threatened at gunpoint to write history cannot be trusted! He admits:

 

“We couldn’t be trusted! We have been lying. We knew we were lying. We did it intentionally, but we did so because we were threatened with getting demoted or losing our job!”

 

And now we should believe you when you are threatened with three years, with five years, with six years, with, 20 years! How much more do you need to teach people, to tell people, to realize you can’t trust these people! History at gunpoint does not give you the truth in no section of society!

 

 

So once you have opened up people’s mind and that they realize the dimension of persecution, of suppression, of oppression and the unique nature the Holocaust is unique in terms of the length governments go to and societies go to suppress dissent, to keep complete control over the narrative! Nowhere else in society will you find it. That shows you who is the main beneficiary usually is also the one who pushes most. And it shows you that this is for them the most important topic to keep total control over!

 

Once you have opened people mind:

 

“Something is fishy here! You can’t trust those historians because they have admitted they have lied when they were threatened even less than they are threatened today!”

 

Then we go to the pith, the center of the story. Now I handed it out to you guys, free of charge, a little brochure and I want to go through a few things here that you find actually in the brochure. If this thing is too far away from you, I apologize. But you’ll find some of this in this brochure.

 

[20:08]

 

 

And the first one I’m going to is actually on the last page, the back cover if you wish. You know that thing technically speaking has no back cover. You see a graph there, a bar chart that shows claims of death tolls for the Majdanek camp. Now I would assume that most of you, at least most of normal populace have not heard about the Majdanek! Camp. It’s not anymore a major player in the bigger picture of the Holocaust in terms of mass extermination. It used to be completely different. The Majdanek camp actually was officially called the Lublin camp in central Poland was overrun by the Red Army in July of 1944.

 

So it was first major camp that the Soviets overran. And in a press conference right after the conquest of the camp, and I say “conquest”, the Red Army never liberated anyone! So you will not hear the word “liberation” when it even comes to camps, when it comes to the Red Army.

 

 

So they conquered the camp. In the press conference they claimed 2 million people were murdered there. It was the first big, still doing the war propaganda campaign on extermination, claim that started in August 1944. Big show! With all the world media, invited journalists from everywhere and cameras rolling.

 

 

Now in subsequent events, the Poles later that year still during the war, by the way, December ’44 had a show trial. They claimed 1.7 million. That’s a little bit of a reduction, but they weren’t generous. It’s kind of the same order of magnitude.

 

 

The Soviets then during the International Military Tribunal introduced an expert report. They claimed 1.5 million. Still again, 500,000 difference is not immaterial. But in the bigger picture, looking at it scientifically, it’s kind of the same order of magnitude. We don’t want to be nitpicking here.

 

However, the frenzy of immediate end of the war or post-war propaganda comes to an end and things cool down a little bit. And a Polish investigative judge reduces the number down to 360,000. And this is a considerable drop!

 

 

We’re down to 80%! Now, as I just showed you, there is a rule in communist countries you have to toe the party line and the new party line was 360,000. Couldn’t really go underneath that, even though they knew again, they knew in this case too, it is wrong! I think the number of prisoners sent to the camp was around that order of magnitude. And that assumes that every single one of them was murdered. And there’s plenty of documentation shown that was absolutely not the case!

 

The Soviet Union collapses and the number gets reduced again by a new historian in charge of the museum. 235,000. Not all that extreme a drop if you compare it with Auschwitz, compared to these two. But here we have already almost only 10%.

 

 

But that wasn’t the end of it. We Holocaust skeptics went into the archives after the Soviet Union collapsed, 1994, 95, 96. And researched the whole material, published a investigation on it. And it was so devastatingly demasking the propaganda of the homicidal gas chamber story, that pressure on the Majdaneck museum became so big that eventually in 2005, a new generation, a new historian dropped the death toll to 76,000. And that is only not even 4% of the initial 2 million claim.

 

 

And actually from the beginning they had claimed seven homicidal gas chambers. They maintained that number until the end. But five of them were so ridiculously, obviously, technically impossible to have ever been used for what they claim to have been used that to throw propaganda ballast overboard.

 

 

 

Thomas Kranz, the new Polish historian, threw five of them overboard. So what we have is an admission:

 

“That okay, we exaggerated, we lied, we lied, we fix, we fix, we keep fixing, we drop more and more of these lies!”

 

And then that’s what the situation is here today. They keep shifting the goalposts, they keep reducing the claim. You see, something is fishy with their attitude in general. But now:

 

“They got it right!”

 

Really, when you’re threatened with three years in prison? Why would I believe you?

 

[24:48]

 

Now we could say:

 

“Okay, one camp. What does one camp prove? That’s the most extreme downward revision by the mainstream.”

 

I haven’t shown our number that would here in 98, we published the book.

 

 

We find in the historical record 42, 200 death cases and no homicidal death chambers at all! They were all fumigation chambers!

 

So I’m just showing you what the mainstream itself has admitted to have been wrong over and over again! Is it a singular case? People make mistakes. Corrections for other camps? If you go in the brochure, if you want to go on page six, you see the table there now the same table here, the major camps that played a role in Allied war as well as immediate post-war propaganda as claimed extermination camps.

 

 

You see the initial death toll here on the left numbers column. And the death toll that is claimed by the mainstream.

 

 

Again, I say in the mainstream, Holocaust skeptical numbers? What really can be documented and what is forensically possible is an entirely different story.

 

So I want to show you that if you just use their own arguments and their shifty way of moving goalposts, you should make every believer see something isn’t right. And you see it here, mistakes stray statistically from the true value. If I make a mistake, I may under or overestimate, but they should stray to both sides. Here you see only one tendency, extreme exaggeration!

 

 

That’s not called a mistake, that’s called a lie! Truth is always the first victim of every war. And why should it be any different with the Second World War? The victors write the history and they never write it objectively. And why should it be any different for the worst war ever fought that ended for the losing side in a major disaster that mankind has not seen all that often in history? Cathage and the Punic wars probably had a worse fate than Germany because they got completely wiped. But other than that, Germany was in pretty bad shape after the Second World War.

 

So you see here, these are lies! They have been lying systematically! They have been correcting and admitting in Auschwitz, I showed you here in Majdanek again and again they lied. They knew they’re lying. And now they are threatened even worse than they were before. The question.

 

 

So for my Majdanek, 96% of the victims were invented. 70% of the homicidal gas chambers were invented. They got it wrong repeatedly acting under coercion, still under coercion even worse so today! Why believe them uncritically now? You wouldn’t!

 

 

And it doesn’t stop with numbers. If you go on the second table of the page six here, we’re talking about invented methods. What the mainstream, again, what the mainstream has admitted, we’re looking in the second column here, of all the stuff that is actually has been invented.

 

 

And I actually added a few more here on this one. And here you see for Auschwitz, war gases, high voltage electrocution, gas showers, gas bombs, pneumatic hammer, conveyor belt.

 

 

Treblinka, you have machine guns, mobile gas chambers, stunning gas, unslaked lime, hot steam, high voltage, chlorine, ether, a death bridge, burning alive.

 

 

So it goes on and on for the other camps. Suffocation with human excrements as a mass murder method is claimed for Bełzec by one witness. It gets absurd at times. But of course, all this stuff, sometimes based on only one witness, sometimes based on tens of witnesses on all kinds of wartime reports, got dumped! Interestingly, the stories that prevailed during the war, hot steam for Treblinkaa, high voltage for Belzec, chlorine gas for Sobibor, all got dumped! You won’t find a word of it today anymore, even though they were the ones that were most commonly claimed during the war, and even during the International Military Tribunal, by the way. It’s all gone!

 

 

What we have left now is this. Zyklon B, and engine exhaust gases. For a long time they even claimed they were diesel exhaust gases, which are technically impossible because they’re not toxic enough.

 

 

Just recently, well, not too recently, 15 years ago, a mainstream toxicologist tried to move the goalpost there again:

 

“Okay, diesel doesn’t work. Why don’t we say it was engine exhaust?”

 

 

So murder methods claimed during and right after the war were highly contradictory. Even once claimed main murder methods were all abandoned! Polish Stalinist officials streamline the narrative against facts! And mainstream historians hide these extreme revisions and manipulations from you! Because they are writing history on gunpoint!

 

[29:58]

 

How was it done? To give you one example, and unfortunately I don’t think I have that in this brochure. You would actually have to go, because that goes a little bit more into detail for which this brochure doesn’t have room. I have that detailed example in this book here. Nazi Gas Chambers, which you can either buy there as a hard copy or you can find it on holocausthandbooks.com free of charge as an ebook.

 

 

The one case that shows everyone, and should show every normie that the story was faked, is the case of Sobibor! Now again, Auschwitz, everyone knows, Treblinka, some of you may have heard. Bełzec, maybe. Majdanek, unlikely. Sobibor also, not very often. Sobibor is one of the three so-called “pure extermination camps”. Actually four. Chelmno is a special camp. It’s a separate issue.

 

 

Treblinkaa, Belzec and Sobibor are the three big ones that were jews were shipped to be murdered and nothing else. That’s the claim of the mainstream. Sobibor was the smallest of them. Treblinka. The other here started out with 3 million. Belzec, 3 million claim and Sobibor with, 20 million. It’s down to 200,000 now, plus, minus. There’s always this kind of an average of the mainstream claim because they can’t really agree exactly on how much. But the other ones are way higher.

 

 

Sobibor is an interesting case. The same judge who after the war downgraded massively the death toll from Majdanek to 360,000 also investigated the Sobibor camp and the Treblinkaa camp and wrote the story for it for the Polish Commission for German War Crimes. He investigated a number of witnesses. They are listed here by name.

 

 

Right after the war, the inmates that were alive in summer of 1943 had a revolt in the Sobibor camp. There’s actually a movie about that. Not very historically accurate, but the revolt did take place and many witnesses, survivors or inmates, ran away and they ended up testifying in front of that investigative judge. This is Zdzislaw Tukaszkiewicz. Now the interesting thing is of what they told him. Right now for Sobibor, they claim engine exhaust gas as the murder method.

 

 

And they are supposed to have been murdered in just a normal chamber. One door. They walk in, they get killed with gas, the other door at the other end opens out and they get carried out to mass graves or pyres to be burned. That’s the mainstream narrative right now! However, if you look at what these witnesses testified, if they describe the alleged murder method, many of them said chlorine. Nobody said engine exhaust. Not a single witness!

 

 

What they claimed of the mechanics of the gas chamber is very interesting because they kind of agreed, with a few exceptions of witnesses who didn’t say anything about that.

 

 

That the floors in those chambers were hydraulically opened up, they collapsed downward, discharge the dead victims into two carts running on tracks below in some kind of basement area, and would then be driven out to mass graves or to cremation pyres. And they agreed on that you will not hear a single thing about that in the mainstream narrative! What Zdzislaw Tukaszkiewicz did when he wrote, based on his interrogations, that’s the only evidence he had, he said:

 

“Well, they were killed with engine exhaust and with just a normal gas chamber with doors.”

 

Invented out of the blue! With no basis in fact of any of the evidence! He threw out all the witnesses!

 

 

Now where did he get that narrative from? He actually copied it over. I just mentioned he had also investigated the Treblinka camp. He had copied it over from the narrative he had developed from the Treblinka camp!

 

 

And if you were to go there. I don’t want to go do that now again, you can find the list of witnesses and what they said on Treblinka in here. You find in Treblinka this chaos here! Electrocution, engine exhaust, gas, vacuum, steam, all kinds of claims. He cleaned that up, threw everything out, kept the engine exhaust and wrote the narrative according to that.

 

 

And then he copied it over to Sobibor. That is invented history with no basis in fact, none whatsoever in the case of Sobibor! The clearest case where you can absolutely pinpoint what happened.

 

So that is what you find if you go into the historical record, which became accessible to us only after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in the archives in the east became accessible. And we could actually go to these interrogation protocols and then see what narrative they made of it.

 

There is an interesting question that arises. Why was that done? I mean, it’s an obvious question. You want to look, make your enemy look as bad as possible. So whatever comes after the war, you can manipulate and destroy them as much as possible. Psychological warfare is just a continuation of warfare with other means. And ethnically speaking, the whole Second World War broke out because the actual tinderbox that blew it up, there were many more conflicts around the globe was the ethnic conflicts between Poles and Germans, mainly over the city of Danzig.

 

 

And after the war, as you may know, Poland gained huge territories from Germany and expelled the population. My paternal ancestry was expelled from Silesia, so they were part of the victims of that. And Germany was not willing after the First World War to accept the loss of Danzig, which was a 95% German city. How would you make them expect to accept the loss of a quarter of its entire territory and the expulsion of 7 million civilians from their homeland, where they had lived for centuries. And were not just a majority in large parts of the world, just only Germans, all gone! How do you accept Germany to this time accept it?

 

If you break the German spine with a guilt complex, you can make them accept anything as justified punishment. And that’s what the homicidal gas chambers are good for!

 

[36:49]

 

 

Now I’ve looked into all of the people who have done the investigation on those camps and who have written the history. We’re actually talking about only four individuals that were doing the investigation. I’ve mentioned Zdzislaw Lukaszkiewicz for Treblinka, for Majdanek and for Sobibor. Jan Sehn was investigative judge for Auschwitz. For Belzec we have an historian. There was no trial on Belzec. That was Eugeniusz Szrojt. And for Chelmno, which isn’t even on here, it’s a special case. There it is actually. It was Wladyslaw Bednarz.

 

So we have four Polish individuals all working for the Polish commission for the investigation of war crimes and Stalinist organization set up by Stalin to stick it to the Germans and to use all kinds of fishy methods, as I just said, and with the aim of destroying Germany psychologically and make them accept all that was coming their way. And it worked “beautifully”, quote, unquote.

 

If you present these things that way, I have found you can get people to understand first of all that it’s not some lunatic idea, but that there’s something profoundly wrong in a society that proscribes the writing of any scholarly field under the threat of punishment. And what that must lead to is untruthfulness of scholars. And then showing them, yeah, they have admitted over and over again to have lied, to have shifted the goalpost to hide facts from us, to completely change their story.

 

And then psychologically, very important, it’s not the jews who did it in a great conspiracy theory! That’s what I’m getting here. I’m not saying I want to win the jews over seeing how they were duped, they were. But you know, all those witnesses at the end of it, most of them are jews. They had an axe to grind. I can’t blame them. They were treated horribly. And in the frenzy of post-war propaganda, they were making stuff up!

 

And this is completely made up stuff here! And they even co-ordinated these witnesses. Coordinated, as they couldn’t have come up all with the same story. But the investigative judge couldn’t do anything with it. In other cases, they were so contradictory, they weren’t coordinating any of these witnesses. They were just inventing whatever came!

 

And in the complete frenzy of post-war anti-German hysteria, you can understand where they are coming from. It would have been the judge’s job to say:

 

“This is all nonsense! We can’t make head or tail out of it. And therefore, we need to say that!”

 

They didn’t do that. These judges were put in by the new Stalinist government. It was a Stalinist agenda. I couldn’t find any jewish backgrounds in any of those four individuals. I don’t know the chain of command. They did what they did on orders. Nothing of that kind of propagandistic political nature was left to chance.

 

So you can bet that there were orders coming from Warsaw and from Moscow. What type they were, this is the kind of investigation we have yet to do. Whether in that chain of command jews were sitting, I don’t know. But they are not needed. You can see here the Stalinist will to completely destroy psychologically Germany and to pit Poland against Germany. That is an important point.

 

Hitler had tried until 39, until the very last moment, to win the Poles over for an anti-communist pact against Stalinist Russia. And Stalinist Russia tried to conquer all of Europe. That was the declared concept of world revolution from 1918 onward. It wasn’t a secret! And Hitler tried to make a bulwark, a European fortress against Stalin’s plan to conquer all of Europe. Poland refused and went their way of poking the German eagle to the point where they lashed out. And the rest is history.

 

[40:46]

 

Pitting Poland against Germany.

Any other normal nation, if you imagine Mexico in a World War that breaks out between Russia, China and the United States, United States loses and then Mexico gets everything that they used to own and more. You name the States of Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, California. Give everything to the Mexicans and drive out every White American. Would America put up with it if they gain strength again? How do you get the Germans to accept that kind of calamity? It worked. What did not work, and I want to make that sure, even though my parents were expelled, my parental ancestors were expelled from that region is that today Germany and Poland are not pitted against each other anymore.

 

I’ve gone with my father to our Poles who had expelled him and his family in the 1980s and 90s. German expellees went back to Poland to party with our Poles in the house it used to belong to my grandfather! There’s no frontier, no border between Germany and Poland anymore. If I wanted, the German government not sticking me in prison for other reasons, I could go back and settle where my parental ancestors came from. That story is over in Europe! We don’t kill each other. We don’t kill White people over territory. That should be the case. Unfortunately, the Russians and the Ukrainians have yet to learn that lesson. That is over. Stalin did not succeed in pitting us against each other, we work together now.

 

I am saying these things in order to make you understand where this come from, how it was done, who did it, why they did it! Not in order to, say, give Germany its territories, they can’t even populate their current territory, nor can the Poles. The real biggest challenge for all of us in Europe is population collapse, which is something I will talk about tonight, by the way, and how this ties in to all these issues that I’ve been talking about historically.

 

So now we are not talking territories here. We’re talking about historical understanding and to make the jews understand, and the Zionists, we’re not coming after you. We’re not blaming you for having constructed this narrative in order to whatever. Sure, they took advantage of it, particularly since 1961 when the gravy train was already running with the Eichmann trial big time, and ever since have been profited from that.

 

But if you look in the first decades of the state of Israel and of the jewish community, particularly in this country, they were not riding the Holocaust train! It wasn’t even called that, way back then. The partial identity between Soviet spies in the United States and a religious jewish background was troublesome truth for the jewish community. They kept their head low in the early years of the Cold War and were not rocking the boat.

 

So this way you can make even the jews see we’re not out for revenge for what you did to us, psychologically. The story came from a different angle. And I think that is because people assume we are spreading these Holocaust “denial theories”, as they call them, in order to get at the jews, in order to say the jews have made this big conspiracy in order to get us and destroy us. Yeah, it’s being used now as such. This is what happens now with them manipulating us with this and saying in order to prevent anything like that happening again, we must allow and support them to pre-emptively kill everyone that even looks askance at them! Which is what’s happening in Gaza and what the conflict with many of these nations in the Middle East with Israel is about. That’s a separate story where we are today.

 

Historically seen as it started differently and it has taken on its own life. And we need to break that vicious circle we are in, using this presumed genocide, say what happens to the jews as we define genocide by the United Nations and in law, actually it was a genocide. You don’t need gas chambers to commit genocide. If you separate people so that they can’t reproduce, it’s already called genocide. And that’s what the National Socialists did in the camps, separating genders and putting them under living conditions that inevitably had to lead to many of them dying of disease and so forth. So technically speaking, legally speaking, how it is defined today, it was genocide. Now, that law didn’t exist back then. That’s a legal fine print.

 

So this genocide in its downgraded fashion without homicidal gas chambers, which didn’t exist, but the homicidal gas chambers being the foremost psychological weapon to traumatize the jews, young jews of new generation today and every one of us, we have gone through this education and know how shocking it is to see these bulldozers shoving corpses into mass graves at Bergen-Belsen and being told that’s what the Germans did to the jews. That was force majeure* of epidemics breaking out in camps that the Germans had no control over. They didn’t plan that. But you’re not being told that.

 

And the effect of it is that America for the most part is willing to go along, and Europe, to go along with what the jews and Zionists do in the Middle East. To break that vicious circle, to get a correct understanding, we can learn the correct lessons of history only if we get first the facts straight. And no matter what the facts are, morally speaking, you are never allowed to use past catastrophes of whatever nature to justify or foment current and future catastrophes! And that’s what’s happening. In order to prevent a new “Holocaust”, Israel is committing genocide.

 

[46:54]

 

So in order to prevent genocide, they commit genocide! There’s something wrong with this! And to see how we are manipulated with historical accounts being exaggerated and invented, to see it in this old example, the most extreme example, makes us see that happens all the time. What was it October 7, 2023, what happened there. Israel has a law outlawing, as I just mentioned, it was the first one outlawing Holocaust skepticism. And they have now introduced a law outlawing Gaza skepticism in terms of just what happened on the 7th of October. And they are probably in the process of making it a crime to accuse Israel of genocide.

 

All right, I’m having, as I mentioned, a second presentation tonight. We are talking about demographic collapse and where that leaves us, which options we have and what the various drivers are, which Holocaust propaganda actually is one of them. And I’ll explain that tonight. I hope I’ll get a chance to talk to you and maybe even discuss that with you guys.

 

 

If you want to look into this book, if you don’t have it yet, about how this core of the Holocaust, the homicide, gas chamber story, was created. As I mentioned there you can have it.

 

 

The encyclopedia also. I still have six copies floating around. Please keep the brochure. It is a short description and summary of Holocaust revisionist arguments with reference of all the books. You can find them all free of charge at holocausthandbooks.com. But you can also buy them from us on these websites and you’ll find links to purchase them.

 

And if you don’t want to keep it, leave it on the table and we’ll collect it later because this is advertising for our products, for our knowledge, for our insight, and we liked it to get spread.

 

So thank you for your attention.

 

[49:00]

 

[loud applause]

 

[Outro message]

 

 

If you want to learn more, here are a few suggested websites. At our Holocaust Encyclopedia you can find concise information on almost 600 related topics with references to further reading.

 

 

 

The results of 35 years of archival and forensic research into the Holocaust can be accessed free of charge at our Holocaust Handbooks website, where you can also access several documentaries as well as our Mini Series Holocaust Pocketbooks, which give easy to read introductions into various topics.

 

 

 

Printed copies of these and many other books can be purchased on our websites armreg.us and armreg.co.uk.

 

 

At our Holocaust Academy, we teach the ropes of skeptical Holocaust research.

 

 

 

It also features our growing podcast series named “Holocast”.

 

 

At the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, we lobby for free speech where it is threatened the most.

 

 

Most prominently with our periodical Inconvenient History.

 

And last but not least, Germar Rudolf’s personal website where you can learn more about him.

 

 

[50:22]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 6/23/2026 = 3)

Unlocking_Freedom
5 days ago
This video is so important. Discussing with a normie has many challenges, layers of brain washing, mind control by legacy media. https://www.printernational.co.uk/timmann2/history.htm#holocaust Approaching such a sensitive subject, especially with relatives is so hard. Yes the method of just sciences : Biology : Cholera, Tuberculosis (TB), Famine, Dysentery and Typhoid (Typhus) were at epidemic levels of disease Engineering : Wooden Doors, Floor Drains in a “gas chamber” Architecture : Swinging Doors Chemistry : Residue in the walls This video is a better beginning because the banning is a serious question for thought control. Exaggeration to Reduction in numbers comes from the authorities, which normies only will accept. Changing method of executions. There is no consistency.
1
0

Lueger
1 week ago
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10000207&FassungVom=2023-01-08 interesting history of the modifications of this “Verbotsgesetz 1947” in Austria

‹ Hide 1 reply
Lueger
1 week ago
The AI could not identify a legislative or political donor impetus for the 1992 amendment, but that the “1992 Verbotsgesetz amendment was adopted by the Austrian Parliament with broad cross‑party support; it was driven by government and parliamentary lawmakers (major parties including the SPÖ and ÖVP), backed publicly by Jewish organizations and civil‑society groups concerned about rising neo‑Nazi activity and legal inconsistency. Major identifiable supporters were: Parliamentary sponsors and supporters: members of the governing parties at the time (Social Democratic Party — SPÖ — and Austrian People’s Party — ÖVP) who voted for the amendment in Parliament. Wikipedia Civil-society and community backers: Austrian Jewish organizations and international Jewish groups, prosecutors and legal scholars who urged a clear statutory prohibition to close court inconsistencies and enable prosecutions.” I asked it to enumerate and identify the neo-nazi events, which it indicated would take 30 minutes. Bin gespannt.
0
0

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Sam Bamford: Hi, guys. Welcome back to the Two Worlds Collide podcast. On today’s episode, we have James and Joanna Howe.

 

Now, for the first, 205 minutes, we talk about Joanna’s pro-life Bill that she’s getting through Parliament in South Australia. And after that, we had a healthy debate about immigration and what it truly means to be Australian.

 

Now, this debate did get pretty heavy. It did get a bit nasty. But at the end of the day, we had enough respect for each other to sit there and debate, sometimes listen, sometimes get angry. But at the end of it, we all seemed to come together.

 

Because at the end of the day, if we can’t have debates like this, then who are we really? What are your thoughts? And there we go.

 

I’m at, like, 100—I think I’m at 102 now—episodes.

 

Joanna Howe: That’s good. They say if you survive after 100, you are more likely to keep going.

 

James Howe: I think 98% of people quit by their 25th episode or something. Yeah, I’m gonna keep forgetting that.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. Someone said something—I think it was… Who’s that guy? Chris Williamson. Chris Williams—maybe him.

 

James Howe: Yeah, I know the guy.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, he said something like 85% of podcasts don’t get past their episode 30. So, yeah. Anyway, my last podcast has picked up a bit of a stink with Australia.

 

Joanna Howe: Yep.

 

Sam Bamford: Everyone seems to bloody hate me. Well, no, they don’t hate me. They either— I mean, I’ve sold a lot of T‑shirts. But Joanna and James, welcome to the Two Worlds Collide podcast. How you guys going?

 

 

James Howe: Good, mate. Thanks for having us.

 

Sam Bamford: You’re welcome. Now we’re gonna get to stuff after about what we want Australia to be, what we want Australia to potentially look like—does that matter? And the basis of the argument will—probably not. The argument—Jesus, what are you thinking? You guys are coming in to argue. The base of the debate would be: What truly is an Australian? How you guys see it; how I see it. And we’ll go from there.

 

But first there’s more important stuff to get to, which is the Bill that you’re going to push through Parliament. And now that One Nation have got the balance of power, looks like this is going to happen. So, Joanna—

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah. Thanks so much for having me back, Sam.

 

Sam Bamford: You’re welcome.

 

Joanna Howe: I remember you said that if I was doing something, I could come back and we could talk about it, which I’m grateful for.

 

So we have legislation in the Parliament at the moment that seeks to ban abortion in the third trimester, so 25 weeks upward.

 

So at the moment it’s legal up until birth for any reason in South Australia, except for sex selection. What we’re seeking to do is now ban abortion after 25 weeks, except if it’s necessary to save the life of the mother. Now, we’ve got that in there just as something so that people can see that the mother’s life is valued and prioritised, but the reality is in a late‑term abortion, it’s never necessary to save the life of the mother. If the mother’s got pre‑eclampsia or some kind of risk to her life, what they will do is bring that baby out alive via an emergency Caesarean. So they won’t waste time on a time‑consuming late‑term abortion; they’ll just get that baby out alive through a C‑section in less than an hour.

 

Now, the process for a late‑term abortion—do you know what it is, Sam?

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, you explained it to me last time and it ripped my heart away.

 

Joanna Howe: So I think last time I talked to you about, actually, a dilation and evacuation, which is when they wrench the arms and legs off a child—

 

Sam Bamford: Literally, like, rip them out!

 

Joanna Howe: But after 22 weeks, the process in South Australia is different. That’s actually a second‑trimester abortion method. The third‑trimester abortion method is you’ve literally got a psychopath looking at a baby on an ultrasound. And they have to look at the ultrasound because this next bit has to be very precise.

 

So they’re looking at a baby on an ultrasound. The mum’s under anaesthetic—she can’t feel this—but they’re locating the Left ventricle of the baby’s heart.

 

So they’re looking at a baby that’s sucking their thumb, playing in the womb, just hiccuping—all the things that babies do in the womb.

 

And then they locate the Left ventricle of the baby’s heart. They fill a needle up—a 20‑gauge needle—with potassium chloride, which is a poisonous substance. They use it on death row to kill rapists and murderers. And here they fill that needle up with approximately 10 millilitres of potassium chloride, KCL, and inject that into the Left ventricle of the baby’s heart. The baby goes from being alive to suddenly being tortured to death! It’s intended to induce a cardiac arrest. It causes excruciating pain.

 

And we know that because sometimes prisoners on death row have not been sedated first, and so they’ve actually lived to tell the tale of how horrifying this is, and so they now do get properly sedated. This doesn’t happen for babies in South Australia, and it happened to 105 babies older than 23 weeks and up until birth since abortion up to birth was introduced and enacted in July 2022.

 

So they inject the baby’s heart with poison. If it doesn’t kill them shortly thereafter, they’ll see that on the ultrasound and they will do a second injection.

 

So they’re just torturing this child to death, who eventually dies in the womb. Now, how do they get that dead baby out? Well, they give the mum labour‑inducing drugs and she goes through the process of labour—just like your wife did, just like I’ve done five times. And she delivers that baby intentionally stillborn. So she delivers—she has the contractions, she has the pushing—and she delivers a dead baby who, under South Australian law, can just get placed in the medical waste bin at 30–35 weeks.

 

[05:17]

 

Sam Bamford: So she’s still going through the same process?

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, just—

 

Sam Bamford: Just giving birth to a dead baby.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah. Yep.

 

And so we’re saying: Ban this barbaric procedure! It has no place in our modern healthcare system. It’s not pro‑women. Actually the data shows that women are often very traumatised and scarred by this. But evidently it kills a baby that would be alive today because they’re viable, they’re healthy. Seventy‑five percent of late‑term abortions kill healthy babies in South Australia.

 

So this is a really exciting new bill, and Sarah’s introduced it straight away—so people are still doing their maiden speeches and she’s put that Bill forward—because there isn’t any time to lose, because babies are dying in this state right up until birth. This is the first attempt now, in this term of Parliament, to try and take that back.

 

Sam Bamford: What did you say—100 over the last year?

 

Joanna Howe: A hundred and five in the last two and a half years. That’s one every couple of weeks. That’s late‑term abortions. But it’s actually 5,000 abortions a year in South Australia, so it’s a lot.

 

Sam Bamford: Now, you had a very different idea on abortion when you were younger.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: And the man to my right, your left, changed it. Talk me through that.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, well, I liked him. I had a bit of a crush on him [chuckling] at the time, but he didn’t know that. And we would argue about a lot of things because I was a Leftist arch‑feminist. We would have gotten great, Sam, back when I was 20!

 

And so we would argue about a lot of these things, and then the topic of abortion came up. Now, I’ve told the story a lot, but why don’t you say what it was like from your perspective?

 

James Howe: Oh, I mean, you were just like this—like, just rabidly woke Indian chick [chuckling] that I happened to sort of happen to encounter. And we got into an argument about women in sport and you were trying to tell me that it was disgusting prejudice that women’s sport didn’t do as well as men’s sport.

 

And I remember just thinking, like:

 

“What the fuck are you talking about!”

 

The reason why women’s sport doesn’t do as well is because they’re not as good at it. Like, people watch sport—well, they watch men in sport—because men are the pinnacle of excellence in whatever sport you haven’t been watching.

 

So we kind of had that debate. And I just said:

 

“Look, I don’t care if you like it or not—men’s sport is always going to do well because people want to watch the absolute peak of ability in any given kind of physical field.”

 

Joanna Howe: And I found those arguments really annoying! He just thought he was better than me because he was a man.

 

But then I think when you look into it and you point out the things like Serena Williams plays the 20th‑best male player in the world and she loses six–love, six–love.

 

And so I think there is, clearly in evidence, a difference between women’s performance in the same sport as men’s, and people prefer—and they pay—to watch the men’s sport.

 

Sam Bamford: Well, I’d also just suggest as well, you just gotta look at the numbers and where the money flows to—people speak with their viewership.

 

James Howe: Sure. Yeah, exactly! Yeah. And I don’t want to be rude—like, I’m not saying that women’s sport doesn’t matter—but it’s really just not even about that. It’s not that I thought I was better than you. It’s also just that you, like, had a—you were defending a stupid ideology. So, like credit where it’s due. Like, it must have been rough being you know, let’s be honest.

 

And then we got onto abortion and you started saying:

 

“Oh, women have a right to have an abortion.”

 

And I think I just said:

 

“Well, like, what even is an abortion?”

 

And you’re like— it was almost like you’re like:

 

“I never really thought about it.”

 

Joanna Howe: Well, because I hadn’t. Because when you’re brainwashed by feminism, you just swallow the party line. You don’t necessarily—you don’t think through all these things. You’re just told what to think! You’re told what to think. I was an economics–law student at Sydney University when we met.

 

Sam Bamford: You know, well, that happens with a lot of us, right? With society—everything. Like, you get brainwashed soldiers, you get brainwashed Parliament members, you get brainwashed Leftists.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: You get brainwashed people from the Right.

 

James Howe: Yeah. 100%.

 

Sam Bamford: Happens with everyone.

 

James Howe: Yeah, it does. And you can’t help it to some degree because you have to just learn some stuff in life. There’s too much information to do your own investigation about everything.

 

But ultimately, I do think it’s incumbent upon people to, when they’re presented with the evidence on an issue, to have the moral courage to actually grapple with it and find out where the truth is and to be willing to go with the truth!

 

Because I think, like, you can’t blame people for being brainwashed, but you can blame people for deciding to stay brainwashed. You know? And to your credit, after I pointed out to you, like:

 

“Well, okay, so it’s a baby after it gets born. What is it five minutes before it gets born?”

 

And you had absolutely no answer for it. Jo went—she was working for Bill Shorten at the time, who used to be the Labor leader, but he was the head of the Australian Workers’ Union—and he’d headhunted Jo to work for him two days a week because he said:

 

“I’ve never met anyone who is more hated by Labor Left than you.”

 

And I asked around and—

 

Joanna Howe: Because he was Labor Right?

 

James Howe: He was Labor Right, yeah, exactly!

 

Sam Bamford: I don’t get this stuff.

 

James Howe: Yeah, neither do I but anyway. And so she snuck into her office and shut the door and just Googled “aborted fetuses.” And some academic articles came up which had some photographs of aborted babies. And she could see that these were little people who’d just been sliced to pieces and ripped apart.

 

Sam Bamford: It genuinely affected me—our conversation. When we sat down, I remember sitting there, like, changing the diaper of my baby, like, an hour later, and I was like:

 

“Yeah, what the fuck’s going on here?”

 

Yeah, I genuinely—like, I was genuinely sitting there. I remember it was one of the only times I got teary on a podcast. I genuinely sat there and I was listening to this. I’m like:

 

“This is too much! We’re really doing this to babies, and everyone’s just going about their normal life.”

 

Yeah, it genuinely tore me up.

 

James Howe: Yeah, it’s horrible!

 

And the only reason it still happens is because people don’t talk about it. And the Left tries to silence you if you even raise it.

 

But it’s insane, man! Like, even last night we were just watching this movie, Knocked Up—

 

Sam Bamford: The old‑school one from—

 

James Howe: Yeah, same one. We’ve seen it before, but somehow we just found ourselves watching it again. And there’s the birth scene, and I’ve—like, each time we’ve had a baby and that baby comes out and starts crying, it just—it makes me teary, just because I’m like:

 

“Just the miracle of life!”

 

You just see—holy shit! There’s a person here on the scene. And I even had that experience just watching this movie last night. And I’m just thinking, man, that baby—it’s the same baby that was in there five minutes ago. It’s no different! It’s the same baby, so it can’t cry because its lungs are full of fluid.

 

But it’s the same baby. It’s capable of having all of the same experiences. It’s capable of having the same kind of sensations of pain. Same sort of comfort at the sound of its mother’s voice. Same child, same human being. And just the thought of killing that baby—it’s just murder like any other form of murder. And we just can’t tolerate it in a sane and civilised society. It’s just disgusting!

 

So, yeah—long story short!

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah. So I had to admit to him, maybe a fortnight later, that I’d changed my mind and that he was right and I was wrong.

 

Sam Bamford: It’s good, though. It shows you’re adaptable.

 

James Howe: Yeah.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

James Howe: And she’s just had to do that again and again!

 

Joanna Howe: That’s [chuckling] not true! He’s had to—

 

James Howe: No, it’s gone the other way pretty much ever since, …

 

Joanna Howe: No, it hasn’t. But we’ve just—I guess— Yeah, we fell in love!

 

James Howe: On every personal argument, it’s had to go the other way.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah. But I was a brainwashed Leftist and I’ve had to—I guess I’ve had to unpack all of the things I believed and realise which ones I still believe and which ones I still don’t. And that’s a journey that I would encourage other people to go on as well.

 

And if you are in South Australia, or even if you’re not, I encourage you to fly in for our rally on June 17 outside the South Australian Parliament, because that’s when we will be rallying and protesting for this bill. And I do think for these babies—after 25 weeks—we’re up against it. All of the peak medical bodies are against us; all of the media establishment; the Labor and the Greens like it; some of the Liberal Party, even.

 

And so you’re really up against it. But if we pass this bill, that’ll be the first pro‑life Bill to pass a House of Parliament in Australian history. But it’ll also be the first socially conservative Bill to have passed the South Australian Parliament—in history. So it’s big. And we do need—like, the Left is so good at turning up for evil. And our side, we’re just useless a lot of the time!

 

Sam Bamford: Because we’re all busy working.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, [chuckling] but this is after work. It’s 5:30 PM in the city. And so—

 

Sam Bamford: Well, most people have kids. Conservative families have kids.

 

Joanna Howe: Well, bring your kids. We bring our kids. Like, sorry, Sam, there’s not an excuse you can throw to me other than if you’re in Labor. If you’re in Labor or you’re dead, you don’t get to come. But you don’t have to come—you getta leave pass. But everybody else—like, these babies have no voice other than us.

 

And so if we don’t turn up, then the politicians just know we don’t care.

 

Sam Bamford: Yep.

 

Okay, so when is it again?

 

Joanna Howe: 17th of June. Tuesday, 5:30 PM to 6:30 PM, outside the SA Parliament, the City—North Terrace. Yeah. Really hope you can come by. Hope other people can come, too. It is really important. We bring our—we’ve got a six‑year‑old—and we’ve been bringing the kids to these things since they were just out of the womb—like, a couple of months old, three years old, four years old. They have to know what they’re up against in this society, in this culture. I think it’s important to raise them educated and awake.

 

[15:18]

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, definitely! Because the other side is doing it as well.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: But the thing with the other side is they’ve got—they seem to have—kindergarten, schools and universities to do that. As well, that’s why you asked me on the way in:

 

“Are you gonna home‑school?”

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: Did you ask me that question because—you know—because you’re know, …

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, you’re awake. And I guess in the public education system in South Australia, you’re being taught the gender bred person. You’re celebrating—you’re told to dress up in purple for IDAHOBIT Day. You know, so there’s all these trans ideologies, …

 

James Howe: It’s about trans—and yeah, I don’t know what it’s about.

 

Sam Bamford: Are you saying I’m short?

 

James Howe: No, I was just looking at your hairy feet.

 

Joanna Howe: If you send your kid to a public school, they’re gonna come out indoctrinated by this.

 

And so then, yeah, we had to try pretty hard to find a school where this sort of BS wasn’t happening.

 

Sam Bamford: Well, it’s also happening everywhere now because the government can’t even define a woman.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: I did a post about this the other day, right? And I sat down before I did the post—I’m like:

 

“What am I going to talk about here?”

 

And there was a clear thing there that I came up with: If you can’t define something, you can’t defend it. It’s like the “what is a woman” argument, you know what I mean? Like, same with the baby thing.

 

Like, if you just think that a baby, like you were saying before, isn’t the same baby when it’s born five minutes after, then you can’t define what that is, so then you can’t defend what that is.

 

And, I mean, the government at the moment—they do not have the capability to be able to control your economy that’s over a trillion dollars, while sitting there and telling us they can’t define a woman. Like, how are we supposed to defend women? How are we supposed to defend their rights, their spaces and their sports? And it’s good to see, actually, that although the Liberal Party for over a decade were in power after Julia Gillard—that stupid lady—decided to change the legislation around the definition of a woman, that they’ve finally come out and spoken out against it.

 

Do you think this will ever happen mainstream with abortions—fully?

 

Joanna Howe: Yep. Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: Truly believe that?

 

Joanna Howe: No, I truly believe it.

 

So I think if you look at anything, like how slavery was overcome or any kind of injustice, you’ll find that initially the people that are jumping up and down about it are seen as extremists and everything’s done to kind of attack them and marginalise them.

 

But eventually it becomes mainstream. So, 10 years ago—like Sal Grover—right now every conservative politician in the country is trying to get her for a photo shoot, and they’re tweeting about it.

 

Sam Bamford: I need to reach out to her to get her on the pod.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, but everyone’s doing it. But five years ago that wasn’t the case—10 years ago, you know, it was even more not the case—at the time when Julia Gillard changed the, …

 

Sam Bamford: I remember a couple of years ago they got her on—what’s that stupid show where that W‑lead dude was on, …

 

Joanna Howe: The Project. Channel 7. The Project.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. And they tried to grill her a year ago, but now it’s like:

 

“Whoa! We’ve changed! Yeah, we have. Changed!”

 

Joanna Howe: No, things have changed. People are awake. The One Nation vote is surging. So people can—even the mainstream media can see things are shifting. People aren’t listening to them anymore. They’re now trying to come along to the party. Like, we’ve even noticed—in the coverage of our abortion issue—they have changed somewhat from being openly hostile to now almost being fair in the coverage we had last week on the announcement of the bill.

 

So I believe that on abortion this will happen. It takes time. But if you just think about—like, two years ago, we were at the Olympics and you’ve got a male boxer punching on a female in the women’s division and then getting gold.

 

But then Trump gets elected, does an Executive Order, that biology is the basis of male and female. The Olympic Committee’s now changed its tune and said they’re going to be checking birth certificates and doing tests to make sure that female sport is for women—biological females—only. So things take time. And in Australia we are quite behind—like, behind whether you can—three to four years.

 

So I think on abortion the fundamentals are there. This is a child in the womb who’s a human being. If you’re on the side of abortion, you support killing human beings. We’ll eventually catch up. We’ll eventually get there. It just takes time.

 

Sam Bamford: And how many babies do we abort in Australia per year?

 

Joanna Howe: So, close to 100,000. The most recent data suggests 88,000. But that data is a bit old.

 

And so it’s a lot. We talk about a migration, a population crisis and a fertility crisis, but part of that crisis is that we’re killing so many babies and we’re not replacing our population.

 

Sam Bamford: Yes—which is where my main argument comes in, right? Where we’re importing two, three migrants per birth in this country. Our birth rate is at one point—if it goes below 1.4, that’s generally, like, an extinction‑level event. And I guess this is where my glaring argument has come out over the past few days about stuff. But I don’t want to get to that yet. I want to stay on your stuff.

 

So, what’s your next step after this Bill passes in the SA Parliament?

 

[20:02]

 

Joanna Howe: Okay, so to get it through to law, it has to pass in the Upper House and the Lower House. We think we’ve got the numbers for the first time to pass it in the Upper House.

 

Sam Bamford: Is that because of the One Nation—

 

Joanna Howe: Yep. And so that’s really significant!

 

But then to get it through the Lower House, which Labor runs, that’s going to be tough.

 

But having said that, their MPs are now going to be forced, for the first time, to put on the record their support for killing babies after 25 weeks. Literally, they’ll have to say:

 

“We’re on the side of injecting these babies with poison into their hearts.”

 

Now, many of those MPs live in electorates where the people would not be with them on such an extremist position.

 

And so I think it’s going to be interesting. I think we’ll have a mountain to climb to get it through the Lower House. But I think we could. When they sold abortion up to birth in South Australia, they stood on the steps with this sign that said “decriminalisation”.

 

And so the lie that they sold was that we need this new law because we need to stop women going to jail. But no women had been jailed for abortion in anyone’s memory—like, that just had not happened. It was a total lie! What they were really doing was removing all upper gestational limits on abortion so that it could be available up until birth and for any reason.

 

So the good thing about this campaign is, for the first time, we can now have this debate on our own terms and we can say:

 

“Are you on the side of killing babies older than 25 weeks, or are you not?”

 

And if you are on that side—of killing babies older than 25 weeks—then you’re really an extreme person! Like, you’re a murderer. There’s no other way to describe it, because you support injecting that baby with poison and then delivering them dead when you could just induce that baby early, deliver them alive and place them for adoption. Like, you could do those babies have to come out. They either come out dead or they come out alive. You guys are on the side of bringing them out dead! And so I think having that debate publicly is really significant!

 

But then beyond that, once you have that debate—and whether we pass that law or we don’t—we keep having those debates then. Because I think, as James said to me when we were debating this when I was 21, was:

 

“Well, what’s the difference between a baby five minutes before birth and five minutes after?”

 

I guess I would say to people:

 

“Well, what’s the difference between a 24‑week‑old baby and a 25‑week‑old baby, or a 20‑week and a 25‑week—and so on and so on—that they are human from conception. And at any point in human history when we’ve taken human rights away from a group of humans, it’s always ended in a pretty bad place.”

 

Sam Bamford: But what about the right of the baby in the womb?

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah—

 

Sam Bamford: Like, what about their right of living? I know you’re talking about taking away the rights of someone else, but the right of that baby when they’re conceived?

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah. I would argue they have human rights because they’re human beings.

 

Sam Bamford: 100%.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah. And so, even from the moment of fertilisation, you have a new and distinct human person that is created and, if left alone, will develop and grow and contribute to our society.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. And this is where—this is where we’ll probably flow into the argument of immigration as well. Like, we—I always talk about importing the next generation when I’m sitting here and we’re aborting the next generation!

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: We wouldn’t need high levels of immigration if we didn’t abort the next generation*.

 

[* The promotion of abortion fits in with the anti-White agenda that is pushed throughout the West by (((those))) that hate Whites and want to get rid of us by all means possible.]

 

Joanna Howe: Twenty‑eight percent of Gen Z is aborted.

 

Sam Bamford: What?

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, 28%! So we are—because it’s one, …

 

Sam Bamford: Over one in four!

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, because it’s the most unsafe place for a child to be, it’s not like on the playground unsupervised and a paedophile might come and grab him. It’s actually just in the womb. Like, that’s— we just—we are killing babies for any reason in this country. And yeah, it has to stop! This is the West—the West is doing this.

 

And so they’re importing—we’re importing—people and we’re killing our own babies. And it is having massive cultural disruption.

 

Sam Bamford: It’s even having the most massive cultural disruption now that people are, for the first time in history—and this is where we spoke about the other night—we’re debating between what’s an “Australian.” Like, this is a cultural division now that immigration is causing. I wouldn’t be having this argument if I was—five years ago—and, like, immigration wasn’t so high, right? No one had these arguments.

 

So before we have a discussion about this, I just want to say that the people that are doing this to us is the Labor government—through high levels of immigration, through their unsafe practices of immigration, through their terrible laws of aborting babies.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: And now they’re making people on the Right jump and fight and disagree with each other, which is healthy to have debate. But we’re at a point now where—what I’m trying to say is—everything’s been pushed down to us by this Leftist, communist government that are trying to replace us in our own country, and they’re actually allowing the abortion of the next generation coming through.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

So I would say abortion up to birth, radical trans ideology in classrooms, the eSafety Commissioner, the erosion of freedom of speech, and the migration mess that we find ourselves in—I think it’s a both‑sides issue. So I recognise that Labor is far worse than the Libs! But the migration blowout that’s happened since 1996 until the present day—that is a both‑sides issue.

 

And it’s only now that we’ve seen Pauline Hanson kind of force it open and that—and she somehow managed to break through since Bondi in a way that she wasn’t able to beforehand. Australians are awake now, or they’re awakening.

 

And now you see Angus Taylor and the Libs talk about:

 

“Well, we need a values test; we need a clampdown on mass migration.”

 

But they weren’t saying this before. I’ve worked with both governments, in my position as a researcher at Adelaide Uni in migration research. They both have always been on the side of a “big Australia”. And it’s only Pauline Hanson who’s consistently said, from her maiden speech in the ’90s, that if we have immigration, we need to have integration and assimilation, and the programme needs to be managed in a coherent way. Yeah.

 

[25:39]

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, I’m sort of going one step further than her and saying—and this is where my argument is— like, I think Australians—let’s say your Anglo‑Celtic and/or Indigenous Australians— where we’re being replaced at a rate that is glaringly obvious! Right? I’m walking around, I’m seeing different cultures everywhere, where five years ago we didn’t really see that.

 

And my sort of argument at the moment is that there are so many people coming in at such a rapid rate. And the government are telling us that all these people are “Australian”. And I’m sitting back and I’m being like:

 

“Well, no! They’ve been here since breakfast! They can’t just be Australian if they’ve been here such a short time.”

 

Someone like yourself—this is where the debate is, right? Like, are you Australian? When did you come here?

 

Joanna Howe: So it would have been 1988.

 

Sam Bamford: 1988. How old?

 

Joanna Howe: I was about four years old. And my dad, … So this was before we introduced temporary work visas. We only had permanent work visas. So we came as permanent residents.

 

There was an IT need. My dad was highly skilled. He was able to bring over his wife and his three children. We settled in suburban Sydney, bought a house, made it our home. He actually died six months after. We didn’t get booted back because he was no longer able to do that job. We stayed because we were all permanent residents by that point. And we’ve made Australia our home. You know, we’ve got five children.

 

I guess—in our last conversation—I asked you:

 

“Do you think I’m Australian?”

 

And recently I’ve been seeing on X that your position on that has changed somewhat. Yeah—why have you changed your position? And what would be your answer now to that question? Am I Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: No—not ethnically. Values, culturally wise—this is where the argument is because there’s so many people like you that have come in, and you’ve come in when Anglo‑Celtic and/or Indigenous Australians have been the overwhelming majority. So you’ve been able to come in and assimilate to our culture pretty easily, and you’ve sort of left your culture at the door.

 

Now, the reason I’ve changed recently is because I’ve sort of done a lot of inner thinking, I’ve done a lot of reading, reviewing, and I think that if we can’t define something, we can’t defend it! And I purely think that Australia isn’t Australia without the Australian people. Just like Japan: Japan’s not Japan because it sits on the island of Japan; Japan’s Japan because of the Japanese people.

 

And I think that the culture comes from the people. And that if we replace the people, we replace Australia. And Australia then is some, …

 

James Howe: True.

 

Sam Bamford: Fluid—or some non‑binary, whatever it is—and it can just be changed. And I don’t want that change.

 

James Howe: You have to define what Australia is. But at the same time, we’re talking about her—who has everything that a White Australian would have, except for the colour of her skin. Would you agree with that?

 

Sam Bamford: Like, 100%.

 

James Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: Completely came into this culture, completely adapted, and would arguably probably be doing more for Australia than anyone else in the history of Australia, given the [anti-abortion] Bill that she’s about to pass.

 

James Howe: Yeah. So we’re talking about Whiteness then, at the end of the day—not culture per se—because culture—that would just cancel out the culture issue, because culture’s the same. So we can just tick that off the list. We share that—share the same culture. So the only thing that you and I would not share with her would be her skin colour*.

 

[* Skin colour is just an obvious sign of racial difference, which are extensive including personality, temperament, general intelligence, propensity for violence, etc. Racial differences are not just skin deep, they are to the bone. And different racial groups have different cultures because of these innate racial differences.]

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. Okay. So what built this nation then, from 1901 all the way up until 2001?

 

James Howe: White people! Yeah. So—hang on. Just to understand, though—you would say your ability to call yourself Australian would be that you share the same skin colour as the people who built the country?

 

Sam Bamford: Same origins. Anglo‑Celtic.

 

James Howe: Anglo‑Celtic, though—but that’s specific to the British Isles.

 

Sam Bamford: So who were the people that formed government?

 

James Howe: The Brits. So—but what I’m saying is, what’s your heritage?

 

[30:06]

 

 

Sam Bamford: So both of my family originated from the UK.

 

James Howe: So you’re Anglo‑Celtic.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. I think Dad’s family came here very early 1900s.

 

James Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: Mum’s was a little different—maybe around the war.

 

James Howe: Okay.

 

Sam Bamford: First or second? I don’t really know.

 

James Howe: Okay. But I find it hard to believe that—just tell me if I’m putting words in your mouth, I don’t want to misrepresent your position. But I find it hard to believe that you would qualify her Australianness based on her skin colour or her Indian heritage, but that you would look at a guy who is like me—say, for example. Now, it just so happens that I have Irish blood, so I am technically half Anglo‑Celtic, but my other half comes from Holland. Imagine if both of my ancestors were from Holland. But I’m still just sitting here in front of you talking with an Australian accent.

 

Sam Bamford: Yes. I like to always say as well, that the Anglo‑Celtic and/or European culture—because I think that’s what we’re built off. So Anglo‑Celtic, European culture.

 

A lot of people don’t think that. A lot of people just say Anglo‑Celtic. But I’ve been very upfront, in some of the stuff I put out on Twitter, saying Anglo‑Celtic, European, and Indigenous culture. Because I believe that’s what built us from 1901 all the way until—let’s say— When did mass, …

 

Joanna Howe: ’75. So ’75 was when the Racial Discrimination Act was passed. And then we officially developed a non‑discriminatory migration program. And then, in terms of mass immigration, it’s been growing since 1996 and it really took off in the 2000s.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, yeah.

 

Joanna Howe: And then post‑COVID, it’s been on steroids.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. And that’s where my sort of argument is, because, …

 

James Howe: But would you say that indigenous people built the country?

 

Sam Bamford: No! This is my argument with indigenous people. They had the land before we built all the shit! So they had the land; we built it; now we share it.

 

James Howe: Yeah, but Australia is about the people and the culture, not about the land. So just because they happen to be on the same geographical parcel of land, how does that mean that they’re Australian? Because she’s on the land too. But you would say she’s not.

 

Sam Bamford: No, she didn’t forge the land from 1901 all the way up until mass immigration.

 

James Howe: No, but neither did indigenous people. They just happened to be here, just like she happens to be here.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, but they were here. They definitely were here. And they did forge, …

 

James Howe: They were here but they didn’t do anything to build it. I mean, they did a little bit, but no more than, say, an Afghan camel herder might have done, and various other ethnicities.

 

Sam Bamford: I think they’re definitely a part of the people and the culture which has shaped this country.

 

Joanna Howe: But the Westminster, … James is not denying that. But if you’re thinking about the institutions that the Brits brought over the Westminster system of government, the courts, separation of powers—all of that’s come from a Judeo‑Christian foundation from the British Empire.

 

Sam Bamford: Christian foundation—not Judeo‑Christian! Christian foundation. I think we’ve got to be clear.

 

Joanna Howe: We can acknowledge that.

 

James Howe: Yeah, but, like, I would say that Aboriginal people had a small—a very small—role to play in building modern Australia, but so did some other races as well. Like, Afghan people helped to open up the interior. Chinese people helped to build the railways and whatever. So, yes, they had a small role, but by that same token you would also extend that to other cultures.

 

Sam Bamford: So do you think anyone can be Australian then?

 

James Howe: No, I feel like in order to be consistent in your position, you should also say that Aboriginal people are not Australian—and that wouldn’t be new. Like, that was the position up until recently.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, so they’re indigenous Australians.

 

James Howe: Yeah, but they weren’t considered to be full Australians until the ’60s. Now, I believe that they are, but I’m the guy who doesn’t base things on race.

 

Sam Bamford: So would Joanna be Indian‑Australian then?

 

James Howe: You don’t have to say Indian‑Australian anymore than, …

 

Sam Bamford: We’re calling indigenous people “indigenous-Australians”.

 

James Howe: I would just call them Australians. And they can call themselves indigenous if they want to. She can call herself Indian if she wants to. It’s up to her. Like, I’m half Dutch—I don’t call myself a Dutch-Australian. I think that’s just on the individual; they can choose what—

 

Joanna Howe: But I also think if you come here, you actually should identify as this country.

 

So if you come here and you become a citizen of this country—you’re lucky enough to get that—we’re Australian! Like, people have been asking me on Twitter:

 

“Who do you support in the cricket? Who would you support in a war, if India—?”

 

Sam Bamford: I literally saw one and someone was like:

 

“This will end the argument. Who do you follow in cricket, India or Australia?”

 

And they’re like:

 

“If she says whoever, then she’s that!”

 

James Howe: Well, she doesn’t even know what cricket is—

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, I don’t [chuckling] watch the cricket, but if I were to follow a team, it would be the Australian team. Like, in the Olympics or whatever. And if we’re at war, it would be Australia. I’ve only been to India once. And at home, the only language that was ever spoken other than English was Portuguese, because my mum and my grandmother, maternal side, speak it. I don’t—because I never spoke it. So we learnt English from day dot. Because I was born in England.

 

I think I do have a problem with the “ethnically Australian” thing that you’re banging on about now.

 

Sam Bamford: So what is it?

 

Joanna Howe: Well, because I don’t think it’s intellectually rigorous as a concept. Like, what is an “ethnic Australian”?

 

Sam Bamford: Anglo‑Celtic and or European, indigenous Australian. Because there’s a difference between “ethnic Australian” and then “Australian citizen.” The problem is now, if we cannot define what this is, then we cannot defend the massive flood coming in. Because Anthony Albanese [Aussie Labor PM] just keeps telling us that:

 

“Oh, these are people, are all Australian because their boots hit our shores.”

 

Joanna Howe: Okay, so we all agree, …

 

James Howe: We all agree that that’s bullshit, though. That’s not the question that’s under debate.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, we all agree that that’s bullshit!

 

Sam Bamford: So would you agree that if you can’t define that, then you can’t defend that.

 

James Howe: I agree but, …

 

Sam Bamford: Because by everyone’s logic, everyone should just be able to be put into Australia.

 

James Howe: We are not arguing on whether we should define it. We all agree that we should define it. What we’re arguing about is your definition of it.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, so what is your definition?

 

James Howe: Well, first, let me ask you a question.

 

Sam Bamford: No, no, no—you give me your definition. What’s your definition of an Australian?

 

James Howe: Well, I don’t necessarily have a coherent one. I’ve been thinking about it ever since this first came up. It’s not something I’ve given that much thought to. I think I don’t need to provide a perfect definition of what I think an Australian is in order to try and prove that yours is wrong. Do you understand? Like, I can, …

 

Sam Bamford: Should we both have a base‑level argument of what an Australian is to be able to prove what it isn’t?

 

James Howe: No—because we should, …

 

Sam Bamford: No, no—that’s how you start a debate. You can’t just come out and be like:

 

“Okay, this is your argument. I’m going to pick it to pieces.”

 

But you don’t even give me your definition of “Australian,”. So you have to give me a definition of “Australian”.

 

James Howe: No—don’t— Let me explain.

 

Sam Bamford: Well, then what are we doing here then, dude? If you’re not going to define what an Australian is—what are we doing here?

 

James Howe: Just let me finish.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

James Howe: Okay. If we find—say, like, we’re out digging a hole, right? We both dig a hole and we come across a large bone, okay? Now, if you say this bone came from, say a giant flying fairy, I can actually say:

 

“That’s not the case.”

 

And then you say:

 

“Well, what do you think it came from?”

 

And I go:

 

“I don’t fucking know! I just know it’s not from a giant flying fairy, because that’s a dumb theory.”

 

So—just me not having a coherent theory of my own—I try to be intellectually honest. I’m not going to sit here and go:

 

“Oh, well, here’s what I think.”

 

When I don’t know what I think yet. It’s hard to come up with this stuff. Okay. I agree with you that when people’s boots first land on the land, they’re not Australian straight away. I also don’t know if I think citizenship is the moment that that happens—although it could be, or maybe it happens sometime afterwards. It’s a vague line. I don’t know. It’s complicated!

 

It’s a little bit like when you start work at a new workplace. Right? At first, it’s a little bit awkward and you’ve got to, kind of, like—you’ve got to be a little bit submissive to the other people who’ve been there for 20 years, you know what I mean? But at some point you do become a true, like, fully fledged member of that company, you know what I mean? There is a point there and it’s a bit vague—like, it’s not necessarily super‑easy to nail down when that happens.

 

But I’m telling you this—I’m telling you this: If there’s one guy there who goes, you’ve both been there for 20 years, but this guy keeps on telling you that his grandfather started the company and therefore he has rights that you don’t have—you’re going to tell him to go get fucked, because it’s annoying, you know what I mean? Like, you’re like:

 

“We’ve both been here—we’ve both contributed—so shut the fuck up about your grandfather! I actually couldn’t give a shit!”

 

Sam Bamford: You’re getting angry that I’m calling your wife a non‑Australia.

 

James Howe: Oh, well, I’m not getting angry about that. I’m angry about—yeah, like, I’m angry at the theory because it’s stupid! Sorry—no offence. I think it’s dumb!

 

Look, let me ask you this question. Would you accept responsibility for White treatment of Aboriginal people in Australia if someone said:

 

“You’re a White guy, you should feel ashamed of yourself for the treatment of Aboriginal people!”

 

Sam Bamford: Not at all!

 

James Howe: Why? Explain.

 

Sam Bamford: Because it’s got nothing to do with me.

 

James Howe: Why?

 

Sam Bamford: Personally, I’ve done nothing to them.

 

James Howe: So then how come— all right, so you want to—as a White guy—you want to take the credit for building this country, but you want to reject all of the responsibility for anything negative that happened.

 

Sam Bamford: No, I’ve never said that.

 

James Howe: You want all of the rights but none of the responsibility! No, no, no—but do you understand the point that I’m getting at?

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, like—so do you think that I can just go to Japan, get a Japanese citizenship and then become Japanese? Is that what we’re saying?

 

James Howe: No, because—

 

Sam Bamford: Because there are definitions around this that we need to have a really tough stance on, and be like:

 

“Well, this is an Australian, and if we can’t define it, we can’t defend it.”

 

The same thing with the “what is a woman” argument. If we can’t define a woman, we can’t defend women. So if we can’t define Australian, …

 

James Howe: Dude, the way you’re defining an Australian is pretty much, bloody, the same as the Left’s definition of a woman!

 

Sam Bamford: How! How?

 

James Howe: Because you’re going all on superficial appearance*. The Left will define a woman as anything that looks kind of like a woman. You define an Australian as someone that you think looks kind of like an Australian. It’s the same shit!

 

[* Again racial differences are both superficial and deep.]

 

Sam Bamford: What, and demographics don’t matter? What, demographics don’t matter?

 

James Howe: I’m not saying, …

 

Sam Bamford: So you are literally saying that if we got 30 million Arabs here tomorrow—brought them all—and then just said they just adapted to our way of life for the next 15 years, that they’re all just Australian?

 

[40:04]

 

 

James Howe: Could be. You don’t know what that looks like.

 

Sam Bamford: You just said 30 million Arabs could be Australian if they came here tomorrow and adapted to our way of life over fifteen years!

 

Joanna Howe: Adapting to our way of life.

 

Sam Bamford: They could be. And then we just demographically change Australia, and we’re all just sitting here going:

 

“Yeah, that’s all right!”

 

Joanna Howe: Well, Italy might be an interesting case study for that.

 

James Howe: Well, hang on—you just brought up Japan. Okay. I think that Japan is a case that people always bring up because it’s, like demographically it’s just one race of people.

 

Sam Bamford: Or we could bring up India or whatever, if you want.

 

James Howe: Well, why don’t you bring up Russia?

 

Sam Bamford: We could bring up Africa.

 

James Howe: Why don’t you bring up Russia, right? Because you’ve got Sámi reindeer herders in the north; you’ve got, like, White people in the middle; you’ve got people that look Chinese down the bottom. You’ve got a whole range of different people.

 

But the other thing is, people always bring up Japan and say:

 

“Well, they don’t let people move into their country.”

 

It’s like the Japanese are pretty fucking bigoted! Like, they’re pretty racist and they’re a bunch of psychos! Like—no offence if there’s any Japanese listening—but I don’t have that much respect for Japanese culture. If you read about what happened in World War II, it was absolutely freaking horrific, man! They marched into China—into Nanjing—and they slaughtered 300,000 people*; they put 200,000 women into prostitution. No, but seriously-we don’t take cues from Japan!

 

[* This is highly disputed regarding the number and what actually happened. The Chinese themselves had no issue with killing millions of fellow Chinese during the early communist years.]

 

Sam Bamford: Like, yeah, but I’m not saying that. Yeah. So, like, you’re happily just sitting here saying:

 

“Yeah, you would gladly just watch Australians be demographically replaced in our own country because we’re not willing to sit here and define it.”

 

Like, this is the problem!

 

James Howe: I don’t think you’re defining it any more than I am. You just said it’s a White person.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, you haven’t even—I have not said it’s just a white person. Stop trying to put words into my mouth! This is what you’re trying to do. You’re trying to sit here and just say:

 

“He wants a white only Australia!”

 

Like they all try and sit out there and do—they all try and sit there and say that:

 

“You just want a White Australia!”

 

So you can pin me up as some type of Nazi. It’s pissing me off! And you’ve been sitting here doing it for the last 10 minutes, mate!

 

James Howe: Well, that’s because I think that you are, …

 

Sam Bamford: Do you think I’m a Nazi?

 

James Howe: I think you’ve got an ideology that’s on the Nazi spectrum.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah—for protecting Australia. For saying that Anglo‑Celtic, European and/or Indigenous Australians are, in my opinion, Australian. You think that is a Nazi? You think that ideology is being a Nazi?

 

James Howe: No, I don’t think you’re being a Nazi, but, …

 

Sam Bamford: No, no—you think that ideology is being a Nazi?

 

James Howe: Are you gonna let me talk?

 

Sam Bamford: No, you, …

 

James Howe: You’re asking me questions—every time I try and answer, …

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, well, you sit over there, sitting over me, trying to talk over me, weren’t you?

 

Joanna Howe: Okay, guys, …

 

James Howe: Don’t say:

 

“Okay, guys.”

 

I’m trying to answer your questions, but you’re not letting me answer.

 

Sam Bamford: You can’t even define an Australian, bro. What is an Australian? What is an Australian?

 

Joanna Howe: You’re changing, …

 

James Howe: Okay—no, shut up! You need to define what an Australian is.

 

Sam Bamford: How many times have I done it? I’ve done it four times now! An Australian is an Anglo‑Celtic, European and/or indigenous‑descent person. That’s what I think—demographically, …

 

James Howe: So, a white person! So then you say—

 

Sam Bamford: I literally said European. “European” covers, like, Italy, Greek—the majority of Europe—because a lot of people migrated from Europe.

 

James Howe: Okay.

 

Sam Bamford: And then indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians are brown!

 

James Howe: Okay. White people and indigenous Australians.

 

Sam Bamford: Indigenous Australians are brown! *

 

[* Unless there are freebies being handed out, then they can be blue-eyed Whites, with hundreds of thousands popping up!]

 

James Howe: Okay. So if someone comes—she’s been here for 20 years— If someone comes over from Europe 20 years ago and speaks with a broad Australian accent, then they just—purely because of their race—they’re an Australian, in your view. So, you asked me:

 

“Do I think that’s Nazi?”

 

Well, it’s not Nazi because you’re not talking about gassing jews* or whatever.

 

But it’s like a racist ideology!

 

[* As revisionists have conclusively proven there was zero gassing of jews by the Germans. It’s diabolical black “racist” propaganda against Germans and Whites in general. See the many links to this issue below.]

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, I’m happy to be called “racist” then.

 

James Howe: I’m not calling you racist—it’s the definition of the word!

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, well, I am happy to have a racist ideology then. That’s fine.

 

James Howe: Fine. It’s up to you. I don’t really care. But if you’re asking my opinion, that’s my opinion.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, so what is an Australian?

 

James Howe: I already explained. I don’t, …

 

Sam Bamford: Can’t answer it!

 

James Howe: No—don’t do this podcasty thing. It’s annoying!

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: What is an Australian?

 

Joanna Howe: In my view, an Australian is someone who comes here—because everybody came here. Right?

 

Sam Bamford: Yep.

 

Sam Bamford: So—even the Brits that came here—they’re ethnically British. Like, your parents are ethnically British, right? Like—you talking about “ethnically Australian” — I’m not sure that there is such a concept, Scot.

 

Sam Bamford: Sam.

 

Joanna Howe: Sorry, Sam. [chuckling] I think I’m talking to Scot.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, yeah.

 

Joanna Howe: But I think that—because I’ve had a lot of these arguments with him, too.

 

But I think one of the issues is—like, and this might be why James is positing that this is a racist position for you to take—is because you’re happy to include all the people—like, you’ve got indigenous Australians in there—but it doesn’t actually make sense with your— If your definition is “the people that build the institutions that make the country what it is” —that wasn’t indigenous Australians. That was, …

 

Sam Bamford: Oh, no, no, no—it wasn’t. But we sort of took the land off them.

 

Joanna Howe: So I feel—yeah—so I feel like you’re including them in because you sort of feel like you have to.

 

But at the end of the day, your position says that if you have brown skin like me—because you came from India—it doesn’t matter that you’ve never been to India, you never lived there. It doesn’t matter that, …

 

Sam Bamford: Are you proud of your Indian heritage?

 

Joanna Howe: Well, I’ll be honest, Sam—I don’t even really know anything about it. Like, I don’t! The curries [chuckling] that I’ve learnt to cook have been from a cookbook. Right? And I’m a Catholic, a Christian, so it just feels to me that what your definition comes down to is essentially—it’s people with White skin, because, …

 

Sam Bamford: Indigenous people don’t have white skin!

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, but I feel like you’re including them.

 

James Howe: Why would you include Indigenous people? It just makes no sense. Because they happen to be on the land.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, we had the land—sorry, they had the land. We took it off them and we built all the shit! And now they use all the shit that we built. I think they’re Australian.

 

[45:35]

 

 

James Howe: We [shouting] built all the shit! And she uses the shit that we built! But you don’t call her Australian!

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, but she came here in the ’90s, …

 

James Howe: That’s just arbitrary! Making an arbitrary rule, …

 

Sam Bamford: With her family from India. Originated from India. I know they came from Britain or from England, but they originated from India. We are denying basic origin and biology here for saying someone isn’t what they are! Like, we are literally being like:

 

“That person didn’t originate from India. That person didn’t originate from Japan. That person didn’t originate, …”

 

James Howe: But you said Europeans count. So if a person did originate from Germany, then they’re just as Australian as a guy who came from England, even though it was British people who founded this country!

 

Sam Bamford: But where did they originate?

 

James Howe: You’re denying basic biology, too!

 

Sam Bamford: Where did they originate from?

 

James Howe: They originated from Germany, bro! It’s a different country. It’s literally not even the same island.

 

Sam Bamford: No, no.

 

James Howe: Britain over here, island, Germany over here. Mainland!

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, yeah.

 

James Howe: Not the same country.

 

Sam Bamford: Anglo‑Celtic people actually started in Europe. You know that.

 

James Howe: Look, dude, we all started in Africa*, mate!

 

[* So the implied argument is that we are all the same, that racial differences are only superficial, etc., and therefore it doesn’t really matter who we bring into Australia as they can all become “Australian”. How would that work if Australia imported millions of pygmies from the Congo? Would they eventually act and behave as White Aussies now? It’s a ridiculous argument.]

 

Sam Bamford: I know. We all walked up, didn’t we?

 

James Howe: Yeah, we walked up and we, like, bred with fucking Neanderthals! You know what I mean? Literal fact—that happened. We had sex with Neanderthals. And so we all have a bit of that in us. So, but—like—

 

Sam Bamford: So this is—sorry, sorry— to jump in.

 

So this is my thing, right. And this is one of my arguments. I heard you say the other day, and I liked it. And I really thought about it:

 

“We’re all equal in the eyes of God.”

 

And I was like:

 

“I think he has a point.”

 

But from my point of view—let’s say Sudanese kids—they equate for maybe, what, 90% of machete crime? But they’re under 1% of the population. I would not want to live around a street full of Sudanese people, given the data.

 

James Howe: Yeah.

 

Joanna Howe: No shit! [chuckling]

 

James Howe: We are all on the same page.

 

Sam Bamford: So, like, for me, I’m not going to be like, … But with something coming out and saying:

 

“We’re all equal in the eyes of God.”

 

Well, I don’t know that all cultures are equal in this, …

 

James Howe: I couldn’t agree more.

 

Sam Bamford: In the same way.

 

James Howe: We’re all on the same page bro.

 

Sam Bamford: So how do we, …

 

James Howe: There’s a lot of White fuckwits as well!

 

Sam Bamford: 100%

 

James Howe: I would totally deport someone dickhead with pink hair and a septum piercing from Gertrude Street over a good Christian, nice person.

 

Sam Bamford: Where are you going to deport them to?

 

James Howe: Back to fucking England where they came from, mate!

 

Sam Bamford: Back to England.

 

James Howe: Because that’s the thing—you say:

 

“Oh, I’m ethnically Australian.”

 

No, bro, you’re ethnically British! Okay?

 

[James is showing an underlying animosity towards Whites here, i.e., a self-hating programming by mass media.]

 

Sam Bamford: No, no, no, no! I’m ethnically Australian because we formed the government in 1901.

 

James Howe: Okay, sure. So, but then, once again, you said that people who are ethnically Australian—then you wouldn’t give them that— But you would say people who are ethnically Japanese are fully Japanese, …

 

Sam Bamford: So you’re saying anyone now can be deported back to England?

 

Joanna Howe: No, no!

 

James Howe: If you gave me two people to deport, I would probably pick that one.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

James Howe: So—

 

Joanna Howe: But I think there’s some fundamentals that we all agree on. Immigration system’s out of control! We should deport the, …

 

Sam Bamford: This is why we’re having this argument in the first place.

 

Joanna Howe: We should deport the criminals. Right? Like, anyone that’s breaking the law who’s a permanent visa holder and does have dual citizenship—send them home!

 

But then I think—I guess my issue, Sam—is the argument that you and Scott Challen are prosecuting. To me, it’s really, like, it is problematic. And I want to work with you because I like you and I feel like there’s so much that we can agree on, but I do think this is going down the wrong path because James can’t properly define yet what is Australian. But I think what he can do is say that your definition excludes someone like me from being Australian.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, so if we, …

 

Joanna Howe: Should we talk about that? I’m not Australian in your eyes anymore?

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, but if we, yeah, you’re an Australian citizen.

 

So, if we move away from demographically what we are, do you think that moves into insecurity in Australia? Insecurity in our future?

 

Joanna Howe: Well, I think one of the problems we’ve had is that we’ve introduced immigrants at such a great scale that it’s been incredibly disruptive. There’s been no obligation to assimilate or integrate. No English‑language requirement. So there are so many, …

 

Sam Bamford: And why is that? Because we were the overwhelming majority in our own country. That’s why!

 

Joanna Howe: If you look at, …

 

Sam Bamford: So if we are the overwhelming majority in our own country when you came in, that’s fine. Integrated—fine. Now we’ve been slipping away from being the overwhelming majority in our own country. And I mean by overwhelming majority Anglo‑Celtic and—can I just say “Australian” when I, …

 

James Howe: Just say “White,” bro!

 

Sam Bamford: No! Anglo‑Celtic and or European, …

 

James Howe: Where the fuck are White people in the world? England, …

 

Sam Bamford: Stop trying to lure me in to be like:

 

“Can you just say White!”

 

Like, every single time, dude! Every single time! Anglo‑Celtic and or European Australians, indigenous Australians. How many times!

 

James Howe: You get annoyed at me for calling you on making euphemisms like the Left does. Just use the words, bro. I know you mean White. Okay?

 

Sam Bamford: Anglo‑Celtic and or Europe, … Anglo‑Celtic, … Anglo‑Celtic, … Angelo‑Celtic, … Anglo‑Celtic, … Anglo‑Celtic and or European, …

 

Thank you for letting me finish. Anglo, … I don’t even know where we’re at! Anglo‑Celtic and or European Australians. When we don’t become the overwhelming majority in our own country, then how are people meant to integrate? Because right now they’re just coming in. Anthony Albanese came out this morning, he’s like:

 

“I just want to say thanks to the Indian community for helping build modern Australia.”

 

Why isn’t he saying, “I just want to thank the Australian community”? Why is he referring to them as the Indian community?

 

Joanna Howe: Look, both of us, …

 

Sam Bamford: Because they originated from India?

 

Joanna Howe: Both of us don’t like Albo, so I don’t think we need— I would ask you—the Irish that came in the Global Financial Crisis. So in the mid‑ to late‑2000s, we had an influx of Irish people because their economy was tanking and they wanted to come here. They came as backpackers and then they switched to 457 visa holders. Then they became permanent residents.

 

So the same thing that Indians are doing now, the Irish were doing in huge numbers in the mid‑2000s. Should we send them home?

 

Sam Bamford: When were they coming?

 

Joanna Howe: Global Financial Crisis—between 2008–2016. We had a lot of White people from Ireland coming.

 

Sam Bamford: No, no, no, no, no! Well, what I’m saying—and what I’ve always been saying, true to my word—is these people aren’t assimilating. And we were the overwhelming majority in our own country. I think back then, in 2016, Anglo‑Celtic and/or European Australians were 76% of Australians.

 

Joanna Howe: What’s the policy prescription here, Sam? Is it, …

 

Sam Bamford: I don’t have a policy prescription*—why do I need a policy prescription?

 

[The policy prescription is to return to the original White Australia Policy and re-establish Australia as a super majority White country. Place the multi-culti, multi-racial destructive policy in the trash, where it should have always remained.]

 

Joanna Howe: Well, because I think language— I think that what you’re doing is really— It really concerns me as someone with brown skin.

 

Sam Bamford: I’m moving on and off this argument. After I’m having you on today, I’m literally moving on from it.

 

James Howe: You’re not going to be able to though!

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, well, that’s fine. People can say what they’ve been saying for years now, about it.

 

James Howe: I don’t think you realise just how big a thing this is.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay.

 

James Howe: I don’t think it is something that you can move on from. I

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah! Because I think it’s a mess.

 

Sam Bamford: Oh, no! Oh no! I can move on. You can say that an Australian is this, and I can define that. And I can say:

 

“These people are great Australian citizens.”

 

James Howe: You can’t define what an Australian is!

 

Sam Bamford: Dude, you can’t define what it is! I’ve literally—I don’t know how many times you have come out and said, …

 

James Howe: But you can’t even acknowledge that you can’t!

 

Joanna Howe: Your definition doesn’t work!

 

James Howe: Okay, let me ask you some questions.

 

Sam Bamford: You can’t tell me my definition doesn’t work. I just defined it—it is defining something.

 

James Howe: Let’s see if you can.

 

Sam Bamford: I’ve just defined it.

 

James Howe: Let’s see if you can.

 

Sam Bamford: Let’s see if you can! You first. What’s an Australian? What’s an Australian? What’s an Australian?

 

James Howe: I don’t know!

 

Sam Bamford: There you go! So don’t come at me!

 

James Howe: He won’t let me answer my, …

 

Sam Bamford: Don’t come at me!

 

James Howe: He thinks he knows what an Australian is.

 

Joanna Howe: Let, …

 

Sam Bamford: I just told you what an Australian is, dude!

 

James Howe: No, I’m asking—

 

Sam Bamford: This is getting ridiculous!

 

James Howe: He won’t let me ask him questions!

 

Sam Bamford: This is getting ridiculous!

 

James Howe: You won’t let me test your thesis!

 

Joanna Howe: Can we please, …

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah go, test my thesis!

 

James Howe: Okay—but you’re going to shut up and let me actually ask the question?

 

Sam Bamford: Pot calling the kettle black, mate!

 

Joanna Howe: All right, let James, ask some questions.

 

Sam Bamford: No. Well—no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no! If you’re going to sit here and sit there and insult me in my own fucking house, mate! This is getting bullshit! Actual bullshit! You can’t just sit there and have a crack at me and tell me my thesis is bullshit, when you can’t even define it yourself, mate! You can’t even sit here and define an Australian! Yeah—well, this is ridiculous! Get out of my fucking house then, mate!

 

Joanna Howe: Come down!

 

Sam Bamford: You think this is ridiculous?

 

Joanna Howe: Hey! Hey! Hey!

 

Sam Bamford: You want to sit there and have a crack at me in, …

 

James Howe: Your:

 

“This is ridiculous!”

 

Is it? Okay, what’s an Australian?

 

Joanna Howe: Let’s ask him.

 

James Howe: You are making fun of me for not being able to define what an Australian is!

 

Sam Bamford: Because you keep going, …

 

James Howe: Because you’re too scared for me to even ask you a question!

 

Sam Bamford: Just ask it then! Ask it then!

 

James Howe: But you won’t shut up, so I can’t.

 

Sam Bamford: Go!

 

Joanna Howe: Ask the question!

 

James Howe: You’re being ridiculous!

 

Sam Bamford: You’re being ridiculous!

 

Joanna Howe: Shut up! Stop calling each other names! Oh my goodness!

 

Sam Bamford: You are being ridiculous!

 

Joanna Howe: I should [chuckling] be sitting in the middle. Ask him some fucking questions! He will answer them!

 

James Howe: All right.

 

Joanna Howe: Deep breaths.

 

James Howe: A German person who arrived 20 years ago and has Australian citizenship. Are they Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: They are from Germany?

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay.

 

James Howe: Yes or no?

 

Sam Bamford: What?

 

James Howe: Are they Australian?

 

Joanna Howe: Have they come from Germany?

 

James Howe: Yeah, they’re from Germany.

 

Sam Bamford: Yes. Anglo‑Celtic and or Europeans. Have they assimilated into our society?

 

James Howe: Yes.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah—well, then I’ll probably class them as a German‑Australian.

 

James Howe: Are they Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: German‑Australian.

 

James Howe: Is she, what’s she?

 

Sam Bamford: Indian‑Australian! Okay, she’s of Indian descent with Australian citizenship.

 

James Howe: Right—so they’re the same amount Australian. Fine.

 

Okay, so an English person who arrived 30 years ago, …

 

Sam Bamford: I can’t believe, … Like debating basic biology here.

 

James Howe: It’s not biology. It’s your definition of what an Australian is! Because you were just mocking me for not knowing. And I’m testing if you know. So let’s go.

 

All right—a British person who arrived 30 years ago and has fully assimilated—has an Australian accent. What are they?

 

Sam Bamford: British‑Australian.

 

[55:07]

 

 

James Howe: They’re not Australian.

 

Sam Bamford: Sorry?

 

James Howe: They’re not “full‑blown Australian.” Are they as Australian as you?

 

Sam Bamford: Well—no, because I was born here.

 

James Howe: So you have to be born here to be Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: No, no, no—I didn’t say that.

 

James Howe: Okay—so what is it? At which point do you become an Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: Well, let’s say your kids, right? Your kids are half Indian, half Australian. That guy that came over—explain him again.

 

James Howe: Say—like—someone from 30 years ago arrived in the country from England. Are they Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: I would probably say that is an English‑Australian. And their kids would be Australian.

 

James Howe: Okay—what if they came over when they were two? They’re 50 years old, they speak with a broad Aussie accent, they work on a cattle station. Are they Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: From where?

 

Joanna Howe: England.

 

Sam Bamford: Well, he was probably born in England.

 

James Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: English‑Australian.

 

James Howe: So he’s not—so that’s what it is, just birth?

 

Sam Bamford: No, no—it’s not birth. It’s also origin.

 

James Howe: Okay, sure. So—all right—what about if she was born in Australia? Would she be Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: No, because she is from India!

 

Joanna Howe: What about my kids?

 

Sam Bamford: Your kids are Indian-Australian. What was our government built off? What was our government built off?

 

Joanna Howe: The Westminster tradition.

 

Sam Bamford: British law.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: European law. Is India European? No.

 

James Howe: Okay—so what are my kids then? What are they?

 

Sam Bamford: They are half Indian, half Australian!

 

James Howe: So, half Indian, half Australian, Australian.

 

Sam Bamford: Half Indian, half Australian!

 

James Howe: Are they Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: They are Australian kids born here, but they are of half‑Indian descent; half‑Australian descent. How are you not getting this?

 

Joanna Howe: Because, …

 

James Howe: Because we’re just asking about what it is an Australian!

 

Sam Bamford: Like, honestly, honestly. When we have to use, …

 

James Howe: Everyone has their own category.

 

Sam Bamford: When we sit there, …

 

James Howe: Instead of just one category, now we’ve got a million!

 

Sam Bamford: When we sit there, …

 

James Howe: I don’t think your system’s any better than mine.

 

Sam Bamford: Ha?

 

James Howe: I don’t think your system’s any better than mine. You mocked me for not knowing what an Australian is. But it’s like, …

 

Sam Bamford: You would, … You literally came out and said:

 

“If there are 30 million Arabs, and they all just came here and adopted our way of life, then they’re just Australian.”

 

James Howe: No—if they adopted our way of life. I don’t think it’s likely that they would adopt our way.

 

Sam Bamford: And they had Sharia law!

 

James Howe: But I’m just going with your hypothesis.

 

Joanna Howe: No, because Sharia law is incompatible!

 

Sam Bamford: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no! Australia is free from religious law. But you can practise your religious law! That’s in our, …

 

Joanna Howe: We’re built on Christian traditions. We acknowledged that at the start.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, I know, but that’s called freedom! If someone wants to come here and just practise their, … They do it all the time. Are you saying that we need to deport all Muslims?

 

James Howe: I don’t think that Islam is compatible with Australian values! I think it’s a fucking up religion! I think it’s barbaric and primitive and wicked. But we’re not talking about that—we’re talking about race!

 

Joanna Howe: And I think the thing is—can I say something now about this? So, I feel like—

 

So, first of all, Sam, I feel like this is— I feel like for the first time, people on our side of politics have an opportunity to take on the Left. And I feel—and I feel—like we’re winning. And—no, please, just let me finish for a second.

 

You boys have talked a lot. But I feel like we could do this—like, we could actually defeat them—and we need to! I work in a university system that is controlled by Leftists. The media is controlled by Leftists; the government’s controlled by Leftists. This is the first time in my lifetime that we’ve had this opportunity. And I feel like if we go down this path that you and Scotty are potentially trying to take us down—saying we need to be like the Japanese—when the Japanese are racist! *

 

I feel like that’s a dangerous path. Like, I don’t want, … My kids aren’t Indian, …

 

[* The Japanese are racist because being “racist” is the commonsense and healthy attitude that you look after your own kind first. Every organism on earth does this naturally, except (((brainwashed))) Whites.]

 

Sam Bamford: We’ve never said that, though.

 

Joanna Howe: My kids aren’t Indian‑Australian.

 

James Howe: Scott says that!

 

Joanna Howe: Yes—Scott said it to me in my interview.

 

Sam Bamford: Like what?

 

Joanna Howe: Like:

 

“The Japanese is a beautiful thing.”

 

Yeah—he said that.

 

James Howe: That we should do what the Japanese do.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, but—like—do you guys disagree that Australians should be the overwhelming majority in their own country? And then, by definition—not using—because you don’t want to do it, but by my definition?

 

James Howe: No. Look, bro—can I just say something? I understand your instinct. Just let me finish on this.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, I’m over the yelling.

 

James Howe: Okay, sweet—me too. I understand your instinct, okay? Sometimes I feel also fond of White people and—whatever you want to call it, …

 

Sam Bamford: Anglo culture.

 

James Howe: Yep, fine. And I don’t necessarily like seeing my own race disappear either.*

 

[* The (((agenda))) is to “disappear” the White race, yet he is really not concerned about this? He is acting as a race traitor unwittingly.]

 

But can I just make a point here? I don’t think that that part of me is the best part of me. Now—I don’t want to be a fucking Leftist, okay, and be like:

 

“Well, everybody’s an Australian.”

 

That’s not the answer either, okay?

 

But I don’t think that racist part* of myself is my best part, okay?

 

[* The (((brainwashing))) has created a contradiction here, He would be all for defending his “multiracial” family to the end, but doesn’t want to defend his actual racial heritage of being White. He’s been guilt tripped into hating being White by anti-Whites.]

 

It’s a little bit like—I have temptations to all sorts of bad ways of thinking and behaving—what I believe at heart. Now, the reason why we have a great country is not because of Whiteness or Anglo‑Celticness or Europeanness or anything like that.

 

The reason why we have a great country is because of Christianity! Christianity! It just is, okay? You won’t see freedom having arisen anywhere else in the world except for in the West, okay? European countries—you’re right—White countries—were Christian, okay? And they created the best legal system in the world, the greatest freedoms for people, the greatest conditions to live, the most prosperous, richest, scientifically advanced countries, okay? But not because they’re White—because they’re Christian! *

 

[* This is nonsense! Africans can become Christian and they won’t create Western civilisation in ten thousand years.]

 

Now, if we turn our back on those fundamental Christian ideas of all men being created equal* in the image and likeness of God, we don’t end up with what we had.

 

[* All men are not created “equal”. In every aspect of being human we all have different abilities as individuals and as races. Are Pygmies as good as Zulus in the high jump? This is just the physical realm, but it applies to all other realms as well.]

 

We end up with something more similar to the rest of the barbaric world, okay? The barbaric non‑Christian world: Genital mutilation, human sacrifice, cousin marriage, …

 

Joanna Howe: Widow burning, …

 

James Howe: Honour killings, slavery. This disgusting shit! All of these things that we have gradually taken out of our culture over many, many, many thousands of years. These things existed in Ireland, too. It’s not just isolated to the brown world or black world either. You know, we have transcended that because of Christianity! But the fundamental idea of Christianity is that all human beings are equally created in the image and likeness of God! You can’t turn your back on that and still hope to get back to what we had here in Australia. You end up in a dark place. That’s my fundamental problem with it.*

 

[* His fundamental problem is his religious beliefs have blinded him to hard racial differences that science observes. Christianity can be interpreted every which way to Sunday and he is promoting the “hate your own people” kind.]

 

[1:01:34]

 

 

Sam Bamford: So—but this is my counter-argument to it. Like, sometimes that gets weaponised against you literally just said again, like:

 

“We’re all equal in the eyes of God.”

 

But you wouldn’t want to live around a street of Sudanese people because they’re so, …

 

Joanna Howe: Of course not! Like—not everybody has a right—like, borders matter.

 

Sam Bamford: So—yeah. So the right to be here—what’s—

 

James Howe: But I wouldn’t like to live near a work fuckwit, who is White and is sending her death threats either—

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah—because I get that a lot of the time—and that’s—

 

Sam Bamford: I get the same thing—yeah. I get the exact same thing. And I don’t want to live around these people as well.

 

Joanna Howe: But see—I think between 1901 and 1975, Whiteness was like a proxy for Christianity, because the people that were coming from White parts of the world were Christian people—because those countries were Christian. They brought those ethics and morality—that system of morals—here. We built our value system on that.

 

Now, if you were to just say:

 

“Let’s open the world up to the White people, like to the Europeans.”

 

Like you saw at the opening ceremony of the Olympics—we’re gonna get total Leftists if we make it like a White thing again. This is more about values—like Muslims are incompatible with the Australian way of life because they believe that men and women aren’t equal. They believe in Sharia law.

 

Sam Bamford: Do you think we should deport them all then?

 

Joanna Howe: I think that what happens when someone’s a citizen it’s harder to get rid of them, right?

 

Sam Bamford: But do you think we should deport all Muslims?

 

Joanna Howe: But I don’t think we should be having—

 

Sam Bamford: In the perfect world, do you think we should deport them?

 

Joanna Howe: Because it’s incompatible—now, if they’re a bad Muslim but a good person—like a good Aussie—because they don’t actually subscribe to the teachings of Islam— And remember, Muhammad was a paedophile!

 

So if they don’t subscribe to that—so they’re a bad Muslim—then we probably could keep them because they’re not really Muslim after all. Right?

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, but where do you draw the line?

 

Joanna Howe: I think, at the end of the day, one thing we could do straight away is to say we’re not going to have immigration from Islam—like, people that are Islamic. We’ll have a values‑based test. There should be an English‑language test. You should have to speak English if you live in this country.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah—100%. I think we all agree on that. But what about, …

 

Joanna Howe: I think the point is—like—we can’t go back to the White Australia Policy, because, I know that’s not what you’re saying, Sam—sorry, please listen.

 

Sam Bamford: Like —no, no—I’m not saying to debate a White Australia Policy. I’m not saying that! I’m not saying the White Australia Policy, …

 

James Howe: You get so mad when people say:

 

“Oh, they’re misrepresenting me!”

 

But it’s like, what do you expect us to take? Like, what do you expect to take from it? Like, you say, “In order to be an Australian, you have to be White.” Now you use the word “Anglo-Celtic”.

 

Once again, you get so offended by that—

 

Sam Bamford: No, because I haven’t said that!

 

James Howe: Yes you have!

 

Sam Bamford: You’re putting words in my mouth. Anglo‑Celtic and/or European descent with indigenous brothers and sisters!

 

James Howe: White! It’s euphemism, bro!

 

Sam Bamford: Oh dude, don’t, …

 

James Howe: I never respected the Left’s euphemisms either!

 

Sam Bamford: Don’t worry about it bro! Don’t fucking worry!

 

Joanna Howe: How com we are back here again!

 

Sam Bamford: You can’t even define it! You can’t even define it, bro!

 

James Howe: Neither can you!

 

Sam Bamford: I just did—30 fucking times mate! 30 times! What’s the point? No, no, no, no! You’re trying to just sit here and get me to admit a word of being “White”! It’s like, …

 

Joanna Howe: No, Sam—are you, …

 

Sam Bamford: No, you are, … You come in here—you come in here with a fucking plan!

 

Joanna Howe: No, no, no, no, no!

 

Sam Bamford: And to try and set me up!

 

Joanna Howe: No!

 

Sam Bamford: You have! You fucking have!

 

James Howe: Okay—if that’s what you think—

 

Sam Bamford: I fucking think that, mate! That’s 100% what I think!

 

Joanna Howe: Sam!

 

And I think you can’t define shit! Just like you couldn’t even define what a woman is! If you can’t define something—you can’t defend it!

 

James Howe: You think I can’t define what a woman is?

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah! Go tell me!

 

“XXY chromosome. Adult human female.”

 

James Howe: Adult human female!

 

Sam Bamford: Well done!

 

James Howe: Silly sausage. Why are you being so aggressive?

 

Sam Bamford: What is an Australian! What is an Australian?

 

[1:05:05]

 

 

Joanna Howe: Could we agree? Could we agree? No! No. Hey! Let’s try and work, … Can we try and work this out now? Can we try and work this out? Okay—shut up, you two! Okay, so, Sam, …

 

Sam Bamford: Yes.

 

Joanna Howe: Let’s just answer this: Am I an Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: No! You are an Australian citizen!

 

Joanna Howe: I think that this is a problem—that you’re creating a demarcation between—

 

Sam Bamford: It’s not!

 

Joanna Howe: It is!

 

James Howe: Just have the moral courage to just admit it, bro! Like, what you’re talking about is racial discrimination.

 

Sam Bamford: No, it’s not!

 

James Howe: Yes it is! Like, your definition of an Australian is broken down on skin colour. All right— Is Denzel Washington an American?

 

Sam Bamford: Huh?

 

James Howe: Is Denzel Washington an American?

 

Sam Bamford: He’s an African‑American. I’m pretty sure he calls himself an African‑American, bro.

 

James Howe: So is he an American?

 

Okay—if you had only a yes or no answer—you’re only allowed to say “yes” or “no” and I asked you the question, is DenzelWashington, …

 

Sam Bamford: No, no, no, no! You can’t just throw that onto me. You can’t.

 

James Howe: Yes, you can—because you keep on throwing things onto me and saying:

 

“What’s an Australian? What’s an Australian?”

 

Sam Bamford: There’s no point going, … We’re just going to keep going around in circles. If you can’t define it, I can’t defend it!

 

James Howe: I reject that! But anyway, I don’t think you can—

 

Sam Bamford: You didn’t even define it.

 

James Howe: Neither did you.

 

Joanna Howe: It seems like there’s a hierarchy here.

 

Sam Bamford: Can we just get some common ground here? Do we want Australians to be the overwhelming majority in their own country? And when you came in here, you found it easier to assimilate— If there were so many people in here that were just of different demographics—from the age of, let’s say, from 2016 to now—they are struggling to integrate into our society because they are coming in their groups.

 

James Howe: No, I agree. So I agree on all of that. The problem is we keep on crossing lines because we’re not allowed to use words like “race”.

 

Sam Bamford: Because if you can’t define something, you can’t defend it.

 

Now, I have defined an Australian multiple times on this podcast.

 

James Howe: You’ve done a shitty job on it!

 

Joanna Howe: If you’ve got like, …

 

Sam Bamford: Cool! That’s your opinion!

 

James Howe: You haven’t provided a clear definition of what and Australian is!

 

Sam Bamford: That is your opinion! I have written this so many times on the internet, and I’ve said it so many times here. And, like if, …

 

James Howe: Yeah, but your definition doesn’t make sense! * It is low resolution!

 

[Sam has defined it multiple times as people of “Anglo‑Celtic and or European descent” and as a special category “indigenous (aka, abos) peoples”. Now this can only mean “Whites” and abos, as James understands it, but for his own reasons Sam doesn’t want to say “Whites”!]

 

Sam Bamford: No, but it does to me! It makes sense to me. I don’t have to tell you any further than my definition. I’ve told you that, bro, so many times!

 

And it’s like you’re just trying to lure me, …

 

James Howe: One more time, …

 

Sam Bamford: No, no, no!

 

Joanna Howe: If there’s 200 people, …

 

Sam Bamford: No. Like, what’s the point in going forward? That is my clear definition. And I am moving on from it after this. It’s fine—I can move on from it. People clip it up everywhere and I’ll just do what I normally do. I’ll sit there this afternoon and I’ll talk about how Phil Thompson—one of my good mates is in the army. They’re getting all the veteran budget ripped away from us and giving it all to immigrants. I’ll go back to talking about that!

 

And then this issue will just move on. Like, I’m done with this issue after today. I came out and said something a couple of weeks ago. We’ve debated it. It’s had good debate. And okay, now we’re just gonna go back to attacking the Left. That’s what I’m gonna do. And you’re gonna sit there saying, “It’s gonna stay with me.” All right. I don’t care!

 

Joanna Howe: I actually think that there is a moral imperative on us to find the areas of agreement and to also try and find the truth, right? Like, I don’t think any of us could be so arrogant as to say that we are the 100% holders of all the truth on this.

 

Sam Bamford: Of course not. Everyone is wrong all the time.

 

Joanna Howe: I think the problem I have with your position is that it allows anyone who’s come from Europe or Britain or who is indigenous to get the full word “Australian.” Like, on their Instagram bio, they can write, “I am Australian,” but someone like me—I write, “I am Indian‑Australian.” Or my five children that were born here “we are Indian‑Australian.” You know—I feel like this is carving things out.

 

Sam Bamford: That’s basically what I’m saying.

 

Joanna Howe: I know that’s what you’re saying, and, …

 

Sam Bamford: I’m not going to change that!

 

Joanna Howe: And I think it creates a hierarchy and it also, …

 

Sam Bamford: I don’t think it creates a hierarchy.

 

Joanna Howe: Well, it does!

 

Sam Bamford: How does it create a hierarchy*?

 

[* It identifies two types of “Australians”, the Anglo-Celtic/White type and the hyphenated “Australian”. A “hierarchy” implies a higher and lower ranking which for those on the lower ranking could be disagreeable, but reality is full of hierarchies, just like humans are not all equal in abilities, etc.]

 

Joanna Howe: Like, as a little girl growing up—and I have to turn around to my daughter and say:

 

“Look, you were born here. This is the only country you’ve ever known. You’ve never been to India. You’ve never been to any other country. You only ever speak English with an Australian accent. And if you go to the Olympics—which my older little daughter, that’s her dream—you are representing Australia. But actually, when it comes down to it, your mum has brown skin and was born in India, so you are an Indian‑Australian*.”

 

[* And what is wrong with that? The reality is the girl is half White and half Indian. A simple racial fact, along with all its implications. Joanna wants to have her curry and eat it too!]

 

Sam Bamford: Are you not proud of that?

 

Joanna Howe: I have no national pride in India! *

 

[* I could imagine some Indians calling Joanna a “self-hating Indian”, whilst James has aspects of being a “self-hating White”! Maybe that’s why they are a pair?]

 

James Howe: I wouldn’t be proud of that at all! If our kids started calling themselves Indian‑Australians, I swear they’d be grounded!

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah!

 

James Howe: That’s bullshit! Because they’re not, …

 

Sam Bamford: So they’ve originated from there.

 

Joanna Howe: It’s like, I think that’s—

 

James Howe: They’ve originated from here, mate! Like, this is where they were born! *

 

[* That old saying, “Being born in a stable doesn’t necessarily make you a horse”.]

 

Sam Bamford: But their mum originated from there. Her parents are Indian.

 

James Howe: Her mum was born in England!

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. Dude, we’re just going to keep going around in circles like this because I’m gonna have my opinions and you’re gonna have your opinion.

 

Joanna Howe: Sam!

 

Sam Bamford: At the end of the day, that’s all we’re gonna have. Dude, I’m not changing that.

 

James Howe: But I don’t mind you challenging my opinions. Why do you get so tense when I challenge yours? Like, I’m just trying to debate this. You don’t have to get so, like angry about it

 

Joanna Howe: Because we like you Sam. I think there are things we can usefully do together as well, Sam.

 

[1:10:05]

 

 

Sam Bamford: Like, of course there is. But I’m gonna have my opinions and you’re going to have yours.

 

Joanna Howe: But—okay, well, let me tell you—

 

Sam Bamford: And that’s where we’re going to sit.

 

James Howe: Sometimes you change those opinions—like, you might change my opinion on something. Like, you would totally be successful in that, I imagine, in many fields. Okay? And I would like to think that you could be open to having your opinion challenged on something, too—because isn’t that how we grow and move forward as people?

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, it has been. And after this conversation, my opinion still is that Joanna is a great Australian citizen, but she’s not what I define as an ethnic Australian.

 

James Howe: Okay, fine, sure! But I think it’s an incoherent position.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, cool. Yeah, I respect your position to have that position on my position.

 

James Howe: Okay, sweet.

 

Joanna Howe: And so when we say—like, I know you’re not Scotty—but he’s put up recently:

 

“Millions must go—deport them!”

 

Sam Bamford: Oh, yeah!

 

Joanna Howe: Who are you guys talking about?

 

Sam Bamford: So—anyone that hasn’t assimilated into our, … So I challenged you, Jullian Hill, to a debate the other day, and I said that anyone that hasn’t assimilated into our society.

 

So, people that haven’t assimilated into our society would be a whole bunch of Indians living in one house together, right? Sometimes there are 20 of them living in one house. It’s literally happening around the street of mine—I drive past every single day. Islamic extremists don’t assimilate into our society. Postcode machete wars—kids running around with machetes—that’s not assimilating to our society. And there’s probably a whole bunch of other—what’s the Iraqi dudes having the wars with the smoking shops over in Melbourne—that’s not assimilating. So we could literally get millions of people out of this country that have not assimilated. If you’re talking about deporting Muslims, there’s 3 million people there. So that means millions, …

 

Joanna Howe: To me that sounds like you’re deporting based on values. But they all happen to be … [chuckling] As in [brown?] like, that’s sort of what it sounds like.

 

Sam Bamford: Well—yes, so that’s, … Then it’s like—yeah!

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, but you’re deporting based on values. I agree, there should be a values test to come into the country.

 

Sam Bamford: So you’re saying that, then, there are different values with White people to brown people.

 

Joanna Howe: No, I’m not—but I’m just saying that I think it’s interesting because, … Okay, so one side of the argument is:

 

“Deport all the people that don’t support our values. They all happen to be brown. Let’s get rid of them.”

 

Sam Bamford: I would deport a whole bunch of people, …

 

Joanna Howe: In terms of bringing people in, …

 

Sam Bamford: If they were bikies—like, they’ve been deported. They can be deported back to New Zealand.

 

Joanna Howe: So then, in terms of bringing people in, where are we pulling from?

 

Sam Bamford: Well, going forward?

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: Back to our Anglo‑Celtic and/or European origins.

 

Joanna Howe: So you’re just bringing in White liberals?

 

Sam Bamford: Europeans.

 

Joanna Howe: Leftists. But, yeah [chuckling] think about France’s opening ceremony. Think about Europe. Like, it’s really messed up!

 

Sam Bamford: Okay. Would you rather deport from, let’s say, the Middle East, where there’s, …

 

Joanna Howe: Well, I’d rather have a Christian from Fiji than—I would like a Leftist from France.

 

Sam Bamford: I would rather just shut the gate on immigration completely and work on our birth rate.

 

James Howe: No, but we’re not going to do that. We’re talking about, if you did., …

 

Sam Bamford: Why not?

 

James Howe: Okay, so you want to have just zero immigration?

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. Yep!

 

James Howe: Okay, fine. So—well—and then we—like—

 

Sam Bamford: And if it—

 

James Howe: So then why are we even having a conversation about who you bring in?

 

Sam Bamford: Exactly right.

 

James Howe: Because you said you would bring people in from Europe. So we can only really refer to what you said.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, but I think, …

 

James Howe: So we’re saying if there were a choice between a Leftist from France, or a Christian from Fiji or whatever.

 

Sam Bamford: If Australians are the overwhelming majority in their country, I would take either.

 

Joanna Howe: But I think what I would define as an Australian, …

 

Sam Bamford: Do you sort of understand what I’m saying? Like, when we’re the overwhelming majority, we can be very picky on who we want to come in this country. We can get the absolute best! And I’ve said before—you know, Ronald, the guy from SBS?

 

Joanna Howe: Yes.

 

Sam Bamford: The perfect immigrant. That has come here, assimilated to our society. And he speaks Australian. He is Australian, but he still originated from India, and he comes here—assimilates perfectly. But I said the fantastic thing about Ronald was he came in under the right circumstances, with Australia, when Australians were the overwhelming majority. The problem is, with people coming in at the moment—we aren’t the overwhelming majority in our own country. We’re being, …

 

Joanna Howe: We don’t even have an expectation that you assimilate. We don’t even have an expectation that you learn the language.

 

Sam Bamford: Exactly right!

 

Joanna Howe: We don’t have an expectation that you move beyond your little ghetto of the people that are from the country that you’re originally from.

 

Sam Bamford: And that’s the problem!

 

Joanna Howe: We can agree with all of that, …

 

Sam Bamford: Because we were the overwhelming majority a long time ago. But we are not that anymore.

 

Joanna Howe: I think we can agree with all of that. I think the point where we depart is when you label me as not really an “Australian” because I’m an Australian citizen, but I’m not Australian like you.

 

Sam Bamford: Correct.

 

Joanna Howe: I’m gonna be honest with you, Sam. As a little girl growing up, like, that’s what my daughter hears. And little girls in the country hear. That’s really fkd! Like, really! That is, I, …

 

Sam Bamford: I’m sorrys But my position ain’t gonna change on that.

 

Joanna Howe: No, but it’s just like, …

 

Sam Bamford: But you’re just denying basically, …

 

Joanna Howe: So I can have the same accent as you. I can contribute more than you fucking do! I can, all of it!

 

Sam Bamford: 100 percent.

 

Joanna Howe: I can have more children than you do! So I’m helping the country grow and you’re not! You’ve got one, I’ve got five. [chuckling]

 

Sam Bamford: I’m hoping to have more.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah. All of that, I can even marry a White guy. But I’m never gonna be “Australian-Australian” like you! I’m always gonna be “Indian‑Australian,” which is something less than “Australian-Australian”.

 

Sam Bamford: It’s not something “less”.*

 

Joanna Howe: Well, what is it then!

 

[* Joanna won’t let the issue go because she is resentful that despite being a model Indian-Australian, a poster-child for assimilation, she’s not accepted as an ethnic Australian. Also what does that imply about Indians who haven’t really assimilated? She’s trying to brow-beat Sam into accepting an untruth to promote her own ethnic group interests.]

 

[1:15:00]

 

 

Sam Bamford: We just said that “we’re all equal in the eyes of God”. There’s nothing “less”. You’re just from a different background than mine! But my background were the ones that built the nation!

 

Joanna Howe: Okay. So I can acknowledge that—like, I know that. I know that’s the difference!

 

Sam Bamford: And then that’s the part where we look at each other—where it’s like:

 

“Okay, well, then maybe I am Australian, you’re Australian too.”

 

That’s not the part that I’m talking about though.

 

James Howe: Sam, what you’re saying is not even true. Because White people didn’t build Australia, British people built Australia! Germans didn’t do shit!

 

Sam Bamford: Anglo‑Celtics! People from Europe.

 

James Howe: You said that.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah.

 

James Howe: You’re just, … It’s White, man! What you’re talking about is White! She’s brown. And it’s really that simple. It’s just, like—it’s so skin deep. It’s no different to the Leftist definition of “woman”:

 

“Oh, does she look like a woman? Has she got a dick cut off? Like, does she have long hair? Maybe she’s had a surgery to get rid of the Adam’s apple, so she [it] just looks like a woman.”

 

Sam Bamford: Do you think I’m a racist?

 

James Howe: Yes—but I’m not judging you for it.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, okay.

 

James Howe: Like, you can be a racist. Like, I’ve got lots of flaws, too!

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, so do you—

 

So do you think, …

 

James Howe: Dude, discriminating* against people on account of their race is the definition of racism!

 

[* Discrimination is a positive and essential quality to help you succeed, prosper and live a long life as it protects you from making bad choices. You discriminate against individuals and also the group that individuals belong to. Unfortunately generations of propaganda and brainwashing has turned Whites to lose their commonsense about these matters, especially with race differences. James and Joanne have both drank the Kool-Aid and need to deprogram themselves from these really stupid ideas.]

 

Sam Bamford: Then I would say, sit down with her one‑on‑one and actually change my, … You actually changed my opinion on abortion.

 

James Howe: I think you would So, like—I’m not saying you’re a bad person.

 

Yes, but I’m not saying you’re a bad* person!

 

[* Well of course he is saying he is a bad person, unless he changes his views and becomes anti-racist, which in practice means being anti-White, as “racism” is always bad and evil except when it applies to Whites!]

 

Sam Bamford: Okay—then if people think I’m a racist because I’ve got that opinion, then that’s fine! People have been calling me a racist for a long time! I don’t care!

 

James Howe: Racism these days is seen as the capital crime. I don’t see it that way. I just think everyone’s a little bit racist, …

 

Sam Bamford: The Left have been using “racism and bigotry” from, like, for the last decade—on us.

 

James Howe: Exactly! But not everything that the Left says is wrong, okay? There is such a thing as racism. It does exist! What’s your definition of racism?

 

Sam Bamford: Judging someone upon the difference of their skin.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: But I’m not judging you upon the difference of your skin.

 

James Howe: You are judging her as being not Australian because of her skin colour.

 

Sam Bamford: I’m judging you upon where you came from. That’s not judging you upon your colour of your skin! It’s judging you from your origin.

 

Joanna Howe: But it just so happens that the people that you allow to be Australian are the people from the White parts of the world.

 

Sam Bamford: So—who are the people that built this country? Anglo‑Celtic—British!

 

Joanna Howe: But, you know, …

 

James Howe: British people.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, so the British people came here, they settled in 1901. They formed Australia—the Australian government. And they gave us our identity of who we are and what we look like. It’s like—guys—how we are moving away from that?

 

James Howe: Because it looks like that is irrelevant. That’s the same as the “what is a woman” question. If it looks like a woman, then it’s a woman. But that’s bullshit, mate! Like, if I present to you a guy from the Czech Republic—both of his parents are from the Czech Republic—he’s, like, third generation living here in Australia—hasn’t got any British blood in him at all—you’ll say that’s an Australian based on what he looks like.

 

But it’s skin deep, mate! It’s the same as the Leftist definition of a woman! *

 

[* Race is a scientific biological reality that is to the bone genetically, while the Leftist definition of a woman is non-biological nonsense, so they should not be compared.]

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, like I said before, if we had a whole bunch of people come here from India, and then they were just living here and assimilating, then they’re all just Australian, like that.

 

James Howe: But why do you have to go with “a whole bunch”? Why don’t we just go one person?

 

Sam Bamford: Because that means we were the overwhelming majority in our own country. If they come here, that’s fine.

 

But we need to ensure that we are defining what that massive bunch is—what that overall majority is if we can’t define that overall majority, then what are we? Are we Australia? Are we not?

 

James Howe: Well, look, …

 

Sam Bamford: Like, sorry, jumping in. This is the argument.

 

James Howe: Look, let me just, … Can I just say something just briefly? So “a whole bunch”, kind of confuses the matter.

 

Sam Bamford: Overwhelming majority!

 

James Howe: Yeah. But we’re not talking about that. We’re talking purely, … You could just say “one person.” Because, really, when we’re talking about her, it’s just one person. She’s not like your massive influx of Indians. She speaks with an Australian accent. She’s got an Australian name, …

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, okay, whatever.

 

James Howe: She’s married to an Australian. But in the Northern Territory, there’s a lot of people who are Chinese. They’ve been there for many generations. A lot of them are half‑Aboriginal, but a lot of them are still just Chinese‑looking people. But they speak with broad Aussie accents. They all work on cattle stations.

 

Sam Bamford: So they’re half Aboriginal, half Chinese.

 

James Howe: Not all. But some are half, …

 

Sam Bamford: But let’s say they descend from, let’s just say Chinese, half Aboriginal.

 

James Howe: Well, let’s just say there are also a few who have no Aboriginal because they’re just …

 

Sam Bamford: You’ve literally just said they have, …

 

Joanna Howe: Some are.

 

Sam Bamford: You literally said Chinese people, …

 

James Howe: Just let me finish. Okay—so a bunch of— Yeah, exactly! So a bunch of what you would refer to as Chinese people—but I would call them Australians. Would you call them Australians?

 

Sam Bamford: I would call them half‑Chinese, half‑indigenous Australians! [getting exasperated by James’ persistence]

 

James Howe: No. Okay, but would you, like because, …

 

Sam Bamford: That’s where they came from, bro!

 

James Howe: But they’ve been living up there for generations, right? And I’m going to ask you now. You’re the expert on how to define an Australian. You give me a yes or no answer. Are they Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: Half Australian, half Chinese!

 

James Howe: No. If you have a really good definition—which you claim to have—you should be able to answer yes or no.

 

Sam Bamford: They fall into that “half Australian” category. Because I say Australian, …

 

James Howe: A man who transitions into a woman, is he a woman?

 

Sam Bamford: Of course not!

 

James Howe: See, there’s a clear “no.” Okay—is this person an Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: Half Australian, half Chinese!

 

[1:20:00]

 

 

James Howe: No—you don’t have a good definition. You think you’ve got a great definition, …

 

Sam Bamford: Half, … Oh, no, no, no! Because, a little bit different, …

 

James Howe: Yeah, it’s no different.

 

Sam Bamford: Yes, it is.

 

James Howe: Same fucking thing! It’s just as woke as the Left. I’m sorry.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay—that’s cool! Because that’s fine. And you can have your opinion.

 

James Howe: You insist on euphemisms. You can’t give clear answers. You’ve got a garbled definition and you say that I’ve got no idea.

 

Sam Bamford: Dude, you can’t even define an Australian. So!

 

James Howe: Neither can you! [chuckling] I mean—that’s why I ask you a yes or no question. You’ve got no answer!

 

Sam Bamford: So many times I have defined “Australian” and I’m just not, … Okay, whatever, dude! That’s your opinion! Like, so many times, … And you just keep having these low shots. It’s like, all right—whatever!

 

James Howe: I don’t think it’s low shots.

 

Sam Bamford: Yes, it is.

 

James Howe: No—just because it makes you feel uncomfortable, it doesn’t make it a low shot.

 

Sam Bamford: Oh, no, no! 100%. So many times you’ve done that.

 

James Howe: No—disagree.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, well, then I disagree that you can’t even define what an is a woman, what an Australian is.

 

Joanna Howe: I [chuckling] wonder what people are going to make of this in the comments!

 

Sam Bamford: Well—yeah, but that’s the thing, though, right? I’m sure James is such a fantastic man—I’m sure he is! Yeah, you told me!

 

Joanna Howe: I like both of you, but I think I just, …