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]

 

 

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

 

 

[1:54:23]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Youtube Comments

top

(Comments as of 5/29/2026 = 348)

@SonicBoom12345
5 hours ago
That was unreal guys. Thanks for trying to nut it out. To hear the passion in each other’s voices mean that you are all real and you aren’t paid for bureaucrats.
18

@aussiegypsywarrior
6 hours ago
Just gave 2worldscollide a whole new meaning.
15

@davidcole4229
5 hours ago
I appreciated the way the discourse was allowed to flow and the respect shown to each other even though there was differing perspectives.
Certainly not easy to define what an Australian is definitely.
I found this discussion useful to help me define what an Aussie is in my own mind.
Excellent job guys!
17

@jirvin623
5 hours ago
I absolutely loved listening to the passion you all have. It was intelligent and sincere, from all 3 of you.
I am a Scottish /Australian who came here as a 2 1/2 year old in 1965. I consider myself as being as much of an Australian as the next person. Australian is my home but I am proud of my heritage..
Thanks for having such an open, raw and honest discussion
21

@gpumn1
5 hours ago
Yeah it was a great one. Very passionate.
4

Hide replies

@jasontudehope5518
9 hours ago
You’re right Sam, we Aussies need an identity to protect, defend and fight for.
51

7 replies

@aussiegypsywarrior
8 hours ago
36 minutes in and this is getting awesome. We definitely need more of these types of conversations
11

@BrodieJamesBuchal
7 hours ago
Refreshing to see that on the right side of politics you can get heated without threatening to kill someone.
Take note lefties.
26

@tanztrueblue
5 hours ago
Love this firey debate this is the conversations we all need to hear. Brave of you all!!!!!
7

@aussiegypsywarrior
7 hours ago (edited)
Holy moly. This was brilliant. I can see where both sides are coming from.
9

@DrJoannaHowe
10 hours ago
Thanks Sam for having us on. It was an intense discussion but an important one. For context, it was me (not James) who asked Sam to remove 2 short 5 second clips because of some legal challenges I’m facing in my workplace. Sam graciously agreed, for which I’m grateful. Although James & I and Sam don’t see eye to eye on everything, I hope people can see from this conversation the importance of talking even when we robustly disagree. As Charlie said, when people stop talking that’s when violence begins.
78

@Stankyfrtz
9 hours ago
Scripture has the answer, Deuteronomy says that yes we should take in those vulnerable (immigration) but we should beware of being dependent on transient people as when they outnumber us they will subdue us (mass immigration).
Hopefully this helps with the immigration debate.
8

@suitathletics9074
4 hours ago
You are Australian , but Sams point is there is also founding Australians which are European and Aboriginal. Bu im sick of seeing Aust getting invaded .
8

@BLESSED2XS
9 hours ago
Please don’t let any of this upset Your Marriage, Dr. Jo
6

@domburton
6 hours ago
You’re an aussie to me mate.
6

@jasonwolfe5787
3 hours ago
Poor argument about irish immigration from 2008 to 2016. It was about 15k to 25k net migration from Ireland then compared to 150k to 250k from India
5

@micphoenix8200
2 hours ago
There’s a delicious irony in the fact that our ‘adopted’ sister Joanna is a leading advocate against abortion in Australia and that her tireless advocacy will hopefully result in an uptick in Australians having lots of future Australians.
5

@JessicaWright-t6b
6 hours ago (edited)
There were parts in this discussion where scripture jumps out and both sides should read Ezekial 18 and take it in. NONE of us who are alive today can take one ounce of guilt or one ounce of righteousness from the actions of our forefathers.
If Christians could all wholeheartedly and with unity agree with these teachings clearly spelled out in Ezekial 18 (which we all should if we are being logically coherent) then we could all in one accord say babies are INNOCENT and no baby is deserving of death and we are all created in the womb, of equal value in Gods eyes – then we would be able to rightly and consistently address the issue of abortion and also would give us a clearer/consistent starting place for the immigration discussion.
This is the only consistent basis on which to discuss these topics but the majority of the “Christian” world Catholic and Protestant alike reject Ezekial 18 and cling to doctrines of man invented thousands of years after Christ.
1

@Toastmalone6192
8 hours ago
53:08 that’s so cute

@LD2022-g7t
6 hours ago
Part of the problem with Angelo Celtic is they are slowly turning Muslim and they are no longer examples of great societies… Spain is automatically giving illegal immigrants citizenship. Christian based values under the west minister system is much better definition.
10

@nunoza
10 hours ago (edited)
As a South African, Portuguese, Australian citizen, I want to thank both Sam and Dr Jo for all the work they do. I love freedom of speech, this is a great example.
8

@351SVO
9 hours ago
Joanna, you think and sound like an Aussie, you are an Aussie!
8

@BLESSED2XS
8 hours ago
​ @351SVO If I move to India and earn their Cultural Respect, gain an authentic accent, think like them, talk like them, walk like them, Marry an Indian, and have Children, I am an Australian-Indian and my hypothetical Children would be half-Indian, half-Australian, that DOES NOT make me less than the Indians and DOES NOT make an Indian “racist” for clearly seeing that I am not Indian. Australia is not an NWO experiment, Australia is just as much a Nation as Germany, as Samoa, as Tonga, as all of the other young Nations that got formed in the 1800s & 1900s, no different. We are ethnically Australian and to say that We are no different to British is “racist” to Us just as it is to say that there is no difference between Samoans, Maoris & Hawaiians even though they are all Polynesians, they are DIFFERENT, just like English, Welsh, Scottish & Northern Irish are all British yet they are DIFFERENT, so are Aussies, Kiwis & Canadians, We are of the root race of White/Caucasian but DIFFERENT, just like Indians, Pakis, Nepalese, Sri Lankan & Bengals are all South Asian but DIFFERENT. Respect Heritage Australians!!!
16

@andyrew127
31 minutes ago (edited)
I don’t understand how people can confuse what Sam’s saying? He’s not being racist one bit in the beliefs and comments of his. He’s not saying she’s not Australian. She is an Indian Australian citizen. And an amazing Indian Australian mind you. Probably better than a lot of traditional Australians.
Her husband even started his reply when asked how they met? He said i met this Indian chick?
Isn’t that exactly the opposite of the argument they were fighting? She is an Indian Australian. It was her traditional race from India which naturally defines her skin colour and her families born nationality of their proud culture. So any immigration from different races and cultures are changing our demographical traditional people of these founded lands of our. The traditional Australian race is being outbred by other races and new Australian citizens, originating from other country races. That’s not racist it’s fact.
1

@treewhisperer07
3 hours ago
Can we please start using the word naturalisation instead of assimilation.
3

@deewilson3208
1 hour ago
​ @treewhisperer07 different words with different meanings

@Toastmalone6192
9 hours ago
34:53 you don’t have problem with it, you just don’t want to accept it
1

@Toastmalone6192
9 hours ago
Why doesn’t your husband debate Sam’s alone ?
1

@jacoblowe4247
5 hours ago (edited)
Hi Jo, just adding this to your comment because it’s another comment I posted directed at Sam but thought you might find it interesting because I think it was an angle your husband was trying to explore when Sam kept interrupting his questions
By your own reasoning mate you have to call yourself English Australian and not just Australian because you originated from there. It’s so absurd, your arguments and definition fall apart with even the slightest stress test. What so if someone migrates from India to Germany, then has a child there and then that child grows up and migrates to Australia are they then indian-German-Australian and do they then fit into your classification of being “Anglo-Saxon, European” or whatever? Or would you not want that person to come to Australia because they are somehow not European because their heritage originates elsewhere. Then it becomes just a weird dive back in heritages and if we all go back far enough it’s Africa so I guess I’m an African-English-German-French-natural born Australian.
How about we just say that if you’re a citizen and you love our way of life and culture you’re an Australian and we should drastically reduce immigration so that no matter the colour of your skin or where you come from you can adapt to our way of life, which will of course evolve because we don’t want to live in a bloody stagnate culture. Gosh many other cultures have food culture far superior than ours and we should totally import some of that… Man acts like he hates a curry.
I think the words of Martin Luther King apply that a man should be judged not by the colour of his skin (or where their bloody heritage is from), but upon their character. Being Australian is a matter of character, not heritage. I know plenty of Australians hailing from other countries like South Africa for example who display a level of patriotism for this country that far exceeds that of basically any leftist activist who consistently whine about our Australian heritage and values. Despite many of these activists being however many generation Australians I’d argue they are demonstrably less Australian then our proud Australians who have come from South Africa.
Do South Africans fit in your “Anglo European” categories? What about indigenous South Africans? Be careful how you answer to not make it about the colour of one’s skin hey…
Sorry “bro” but your views
fall apart with even the slightest pressure test.
And like bro how many generations in your mind does one no longer be say Indian Australian and just become Australian? You said Joanna’s kids are half Indian half Australian…. So after 10 generations that’s like 10% Indian and 90% Australian right? So you reckon you can define Australian, so what is a 90% Australian, how are they different than 100% Australian? Are you not 100% Australian because of your British heritage, so like 90% yourself? Genuinely curious…
6

Hide replies

@WinstonRugman
1 hour ago
Am an 85 year old born in England, have been an Australian citizen for 40 years and am proud to be an English Australian.

@davidataturk4357
9 hours ago (edited)
Australian culture is historically majority European/Anglo/Celtic and Aboriginal stock.
It should remain majority that way
But that doesn’t mean mixed blood Aussies who were born in Australia are less Aussie because one of their parents chose to marry outside of euro Anglo aboriginal or Celt.
10

@jacobeldridge5038
5 hours ago
Great job Sam. You’re correct, stick to your guns
7

@Cappuccino-ph7rp
1 hour ago
Fair call. You can’t criticise one person’s answer while being unable to answer the same question.

@HeatherClark-f5b
8 hours ago (edited)
I really admire Sam’s ability to stick to his guns.
12

@HeatherClark-f5b
3 hours ago
I am amazed at the way some people can get very angry with each other but kiss and make up.
2

@fpenman
7 hours ago
Podcast episode of the year
8

@JohnSmith-z4s
7 hours ago
An “ethnic Australian” typically refers to a person of primarily Anglo-Celtic (British and Irish) descent whose family has deep roots in Australia, often tracing back to the colonial period (late 18th century onward). This is distinct from Australian nationality (citizenship) or broader “Australian” identity.
13

@micphoenix8200
6 hours ago

@grannyannie2948
5 hours ago
I differentiate by how you or your ancestors arrived here. Sailing ship, ocean liner, or plane?

@jaydenMRPF
5 hours ago
The issue with that is in said 17-1800s we also had Dutch, German and Chinese all out here carving their own place in the country. SA had a very large amount of free settlers in this time period, a lot of which were German, not English. They also refer to Irish, but there were plenty of Scots too in this time period. Go look at old graves, street names, road names, even town names. There were a few large ethnic groups set up Australia, not just the British.

@JohnSmith-z4s
4 hours ago
​ @jaydenMRPF Germans are extremely close in genetics to the British and the Anglo-Saxons came from northern Germany. Scots are British btw. The Australian ethnicity is unique, forming in the 19th century and is around 50% 󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿English, 28% Irish, 14% Scottish and 5% German in origin. Australia will change drastically unless it only accepts immigrants who are ethnically British, Irish, Dutch, German, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Austrian, Belgian, Swiss or French!
2

@micphoenix8200
4 hours ago
​ @JohnSmith-z4s Exactly. If Australia was given a couple of thousand years applied with similar historical and technology development & circumstances then we’d have similar differences in language and culture etc between each state. Victorians would speak Victorianese, Tasmanians would have similar rates of first cousin marriage as Pakistan..
1

@micphoenix8200
4 hours ago
​ @jaydenMRPF All first world Western nations (Australia, Canada, USA etc) share a common ethnic and cultural heritage. Ethnically European and culturally Christian.

@jaydenMRPF
3 hours ago

@m @micphoenix8200 is is true. But the ethnicity is broad across a bunch of European countries. If you take a Scottish person and drop them in Holland, they’re very different, just like if you drop an English person northern island, the English person disappears lol The colonies, free settlers and freed convicts were made up of a lot of these different European ethnicities. The values, laws and cultures though are what the main common ground is. It was a culmination of all those people coming together and mixing to create what we today call Australian, or the Australian culture. But we can’t ignore the fact that there was also a large Chinese cohort here in the 1800s laying roots as well, you see this places like central Victoria. So I suppose I do agree with premise of at what point did these people tick over to be pure “Australian” and “English Australian” or “Dutch Australian” or “Irish Australian” as it was described. Because in the early 1900s and late 1800s every had come from somewhere and those born here were only 1-2 generations removed from somewhere else. Which means everyone is technically some sort of prefix Australian. No one other than native indigenous Australians have pure Australian Heritage. We are no different to America in that regard. Defining a pure Australian demographic isn’t that easy.

Hide replies

@RajNaidoo-b4e
8 hours ago
All of this doesn’t matter.
If you’re born in Britain, you’re British.
If you migrate to Australia, you’re a brit living in Australia.
Once you get citizenship, you’re still a Brit with an Australian Citizenship.
I think what we need to to define is what and who we give citizenship to… people who are contributing to and assimilating to Australia & hold our values.
If you’re born here you’re Australian. If you’re not, you are what / where you were born. That’s not the argument.
17

@gpumn1
5 hours ago
Totally agree
2

@moniquebeer-korver1107
5 hours ago
I think the problem there is if a person from another country comes here 8 months pregnant and gives birth here, their child is automatically an “Australian”. Now the parents of that child are bound to Australia because of that child, that’s why birth right citizenship probably needs to be looked at
2

@MSummaz
47 minutes ago
So basically, no one is Australian Australian because we all have heritage from all over the world! This make no freaking sense Sam

Hide replies

@MattGray-c9v
2 hours ago
To me Jo is an Australian. But Sam is right about being an Australian
3

@Kateeheel7
8 hours ago
I nearly broke my leg running to the comments
8

@aussiegypsywarrior
7 hours ago

Hide replies

@aussiegypsywarrior
6 hours ago
Sam has a hard time looking at it from a Christian perspective due to not really understanding Christianity. Culture comes from a belief system. Imo.
7

@Numptee86
3 hours ago
Hot debate. Thank you for working through it. I agree with Dr Jo (and as a PROUD Anglo-Celtic Aussie, i think she is an Aussie too) that we are at a GREAT moment in turning the tide…..DONT get lost in the weeds. Her husband is correct….its the Christian aspect that has made Australia what it is….and Christians come in all colours. But i can be fairly certain a Christian moving to Australia is likely to assimilate.
6

@bryce222nice
8 hours ago (edited)
Sam is NOT discriminating or making the argument that different ethnicities have less value. Just because Sam isn’t as articulate as a lifetime academic, it doesn’t mean his position is racist or discriminatory. James is emotionally reactive & can’t understand what the meat and potatoes of the argument is. Sam is trying to protect Australia. He wouldn’t move to India, get a citizenship, assimilate to Indian culture & call himself Indian? He’s now an Australian-Indian
7

@amandapinker2659
54 minutes ago
Guys I have become recent fans of all 3 of you. but I’ve never been comfortable with confrontation, that was hectic!

@justintarczon3347
1 hour ago
That was very well done and I sympathise with both sides but the main enemy is the labour government. Don’t forget that!
2

@jaydenMRPF
1 hour ago (edited)
As always, a great podcast having the conversations that need to be had. This was a good example of how to agree, disagree and agree to disagree without becoming mortal enemies.
On the topic itself, this is a prickly one. But ultimately trying to define an “Australian ethnicity” demographic is rather difficult given that during the 17-1800s, the penal colonies, settlers and freed convicts that banded together to create what we know today all came from different backgrounds themselves. Yes, a lot were of Anglo-Celtic and Western European descent, but there’s different ethnic groups within that bracket, English, Scottish, Irish, Dutch and German. All of these were prominent groups who laid the foundations of what we have today. All very different to one another. You only have to look at the names in old cemeteries, town names, street names, road names, a lot aren’t what you’d call typical “Anglo” names. South Australia being a prime example with Hahndorf or Klemzig. These names didn’t appear from nowhere. But the elephant in the room during that time period is the Chinese. This is another ethnic group that also laid foundations in Australia during that time before federation. So that does hinder the purely European demographic as being the people building Australia before federation. Then you get to the Australia as we know it today, which was ultimately built off the backs of post war migrants from both Western and eastern Europe. Melbourne being a good example with the cities cultural identity for food and coffee basically being forged by what we now fondly call (I mean this respectfully) as Wogs, Italians, Greeks etc. These people laid down roots, had families and their children became Australian. Ultimately it comes down to the values, laws, culture and traditions that these people all shared. Because as an Australian, we aren’t British, our culture and outlook on life is vastly different, drop an Aussie in a room with 3 Brits and the differences become apparent very quickly. As Australians we formed our own culture. Yes this is based of our European ancestry, but is uniquely our own, which is because we had all of these above mentioned ethic groups come together and intermingled to create the ”Australian” we all recognise today. We are the same as the USA and Canada in the fact that we’re all came from somewhere else at some point in our history or ancestry, with exception to the indigenous people. The attempt to define an Australian is important, but the definition that’s been presented is problematic. A clear definition and enforcement of our Values, Laws, Culture and traditions is what’s needed. Immigration frozen like Canada did and then when immigration is started up again, a slow, controlled system that allows for integration is needed. Linage also matters. If you come here from somewhere else and you on to have kids here, grandkids here and great grandkids here and so on, then just like our ancestors who all also came here from somewhere, they are Australian. No prefix added.
Also for Japanese argument, it’s stupid. We are like the USA and Canada in the sense that we were founded by people who came to those lands from elsewhere, we were not native to the land. The Japanese people are native to the land, they are the people of that land and have been there for thousands of years and such, you would expect it to be a homogeneous society demographically. To compare a society like that Australia is just uninformed or disingenuous.
In a modern Australia, the definitions of what an Australian is should be simple. 2 categories, A naturalised Australian citizen, someone who has immigrated here from somewhere else and has qualified to become an Australian citizen. OR a Native born Australian citizen, someone who was born in Australia to parents who are both Australian citizens either naturalised or native born. Dual citizenship shouldn’t be allowed for those immigrating here to Aquire citizenship. Nor should it be allowed in Parliament. Provided our immigration policy and society adequately promotes, protects and enforces the Australian laws, cultures, values and traditions, and we make sure those immigrating here are from places that share our values, then Australia will remain “Aussie” for many years to come regardless of original ethnicity. Unfortunately or governments are failing at this part miserably, which is why this whole conversation is being had in the first place.

@metgirl5429
6 hours ago
My parents came from holland
Here 50 years Dutch Australian never a prob
They saw themselves as that
Assimilated no Dutch club always spoke Australian
I have never seen myself as a Dutch Australian
Please make this make sense
Well we donot mention the elephant in the room
The cult / political ideology
That’s the issue
They are here to overtake not assimilate
And we are paying them to do that
The gov wants votes
Are we awake now
6

@jessiejordan2853
6 minutes ago
The Dutch are Germanic, so are Anglos.
We share common geography, ancestry and cultural heritage going back thousands of years.

Hide replies

@seikochako
6 hours ago
I feel there is only one real answer. If Western countries are built on Christian values, then immigration policy should also reflect those values.
People coming here should respect the foundations of the country, including its Christian heritage, laws, culture, and way of life.
I also believe schools and public institutions should stop pushing every religious belief and festival as if they are all part of Australia’s national identity. People are free to celebrate their own faith and culture, but that can be done in their own homes, churches, temples, community halls, or private spaces.
No one should feel the need to hide Christmas, avoid saying “Merry Christmas,” or remove the nativity just to avoid offending other religions.
5

@FrogBlasters
5 hours ago (edited)
We are one, but we are many, and from all the lands of earth we come, we share a dream and sing with one voice. I am you are we are Australian.
We need everyone who shares our values in the same tribe and we need to also follow the example of those who built Australia. Start there and build together. Dont strangle populism in the cradle.
1

@KathyRan
8 hours ago
Even the Australian Aboriginal came from somewhere else initially. They’ve just been here a bit longer. Australia has a definite culture but the absolute flood of recent immigration is diluting the prevailing Australian culture. The current policy is quantity over quality leading to silos. This needs to stop. Immigrants are visitors & it’s a privilege to become Australian. Treat citizenship like the valuable prize it is.
3

@h.epeterjohnmanthey6295
1 hour ago
The strongest armour a Christian can wear is our faith. Go to church, pray to Jesus for guidance and we’ll do what is right cause Jesus can perform miracles. As a Christian nation and people we love everyone & welcome all those who wish to live with us in peace. But it’s not wise to offer ones house to a stranger & put our own children out into the cold. Love & prudence. Practical judgment & dicipline through the use of reason.
3

@Eravide
4 hours ago
“I think this might be the start of a friendship,” great way to end it! It was intense at times, but that’s what you need- heated conversations with strong people who genuinely care to make positive change. SO glad to see you guys didn’t shy away from a difficult chat.
Ultimately, I found James and Jo very compelling. At first I was open to Sam’s definition of an Australian, but honestly James hit the nail on the head when he said, ‘there is a difference between race and culture.’ I also appreciated Jame’s transparency that it can be tempting to be tribalistic and prioritise your own race, but ultimately at the end of the day all people are equal in the eyes of God. This is a nuanced conversation, but James and Jo are right that the immigration problem can’t be solved on the basis of race, but rather on the basis of culture and values. Well done guys, love this podcast.
3

@martincoyle-o3b
24 minutes ago
Jo is all Aussie the type we need

@Numptee86
57 minutes ago
Duke it out, then find common ground and UNITE. We can’t risk fracturing and giving the labor/green side of politics any more chances

@raelaris
9 hours ago (edited)
the thing that turned me on abortion was when i watched a documentary on babies and they cited a study that found that newborn babies can recognise their father’s voice.
4

@triciamears7338
2 hours ago
Fantastic debate.
Keep them coming Sam.
I don’t have all the answers, but, listening to this type of debate only helps me to “define” what my opinions are and it helps all of us (the ones who are interested and care about where our country is heading) to appreciate the complexities of what we “Australians” are truly facing. Keep talking, we’re listening

@user-uu2ty6xs8l
7 hours ago
Sam much respect.
4

@yogibighouse1
9 hours ago
Yeah me and my wife tried ivf $15000 on procedures and nothing. Me and wife would of jumped on the opportunity to have a baby
6

@mic4788
6 hours ago
Sam, on that point I think you’re incorrect. Their children are Australian. They were born here
7

@batesmate5510
3 hours ago
I think it’s more about potential religious upbringing, European religion for the most part aligns with ours where as somewhere like India worships different gods. Even if Dr Joanna Dosnt practice Indian type religion it’s still that exposure.

@Samsy22
2 hours ago (edited)
Sam is wrong on this, too much ego built into the opinion, needs to rethink in the cold light of day after letting heat cool out of it. Sam is intellectually out of his depth with this debate and just on repeat like a broken record without ever actually listening or absorbing the logic or reason.
How do I know, cause I used to do the same thing, fall back on the stubborn/proud thing and die on that hill just because I had strong opinions held with white knuckles.
1

Hide replies

@GoranRadovanovic-m4b
7 hours ago
Oh my goodness what an episode? Definitely love listening to it. There’s a few points I’d love to have a pick at. but all in all it was good listening to all three of them.
2

@leonmiller4774
10 hours ago
How can any sane human poison and torture a living human baby and call themselves a medical proffesional because all abortion is murder anytime from conception onwards i say BAN ALL ABORTION
11

@grannyannie2948
10 hours ago
When a third of the population is born overseas, who are the Australian women choosing this procedure? It is often done in cultures that don’t value girls.
1

Hide replies

@Thecarnivorecoachkymbullen
4 hours ago
Such an important conversation. 3 strong personalities, you all did well.
2

@MaySpecials
7 hours ago
She’s good
7

@jimini_crikit322
3 hours ago
It’s clearly a complex and emotive issue; I think you have all made incredibly valid points. I meet the “definition” of what Sam deems to be Australian. However, I don’t agree that excluding people from being Australian based on their ethnic background is the answer here.
In my opinion, being Australian is that you were 1) Born here 2) Share our Christian values and culture 3) Denounce all other cultures
It’s not a perfect list, but I think it makes the most sense
2

@tonypalmer9575
7 hours ago
It is so important to have these debates. Most of us do not yet have the cultural vocabulary for these arguments. So many cultural and political terms in use at the moment are coded with meanings and histories derived from post war liberalism. I hope in time conservatives will formulate their own meanings on their own terms. Well done, Sam.
2

@kimeccleston5586
7 hours ago
Well said

Hide replies

@TrishOwen
1 hour ago
My definition of an aussie is someone who was born here or came here when they were small children, grew up celebrating Australia day with back yard cricket, beach, bbqs and beers and would fight for Australia.
I wouldn’t move to the middle east and refer to myself as middle eastern. I was call myself an aussie. And if war broke out, i wouod be back here in Australia fighting with Australia.

@kimeccleston5586
10 hours ago
It’s heavy going but probably necessary. Kind of like argueing on the deck of the Titanic if a Violin is Viola as the ship sinks beneath the waves.
4

@mic4788
7 hours ago (edited)
Sam you can use the annology of “rabbits & cane toads with regard to immigration” if we import the wrong immigrants they don’t assimilate. I can understand your point.
3

@treewhisperer07
2 hours ago
Great debate
2

@RajNaidoo-b4e
9 hours ago
James & Sam sound like long lost mates! Love it. (saying this 18 mins in, we’ll see how it goes)
3

@hamish2884
5 hours ago
Cant wait to watch this!
2

@Steve-HIMSELF
6 hours ago
Sam, your debating training pays for itself. This bloke definitely came in with an agenda and you clapped him with logic. This shows that he has the labour party mentality if he can’t even define what an Australian is.
10

@wildstallionbby6369
8 hours ago
Enjoyed this see it is possible to debate opposing ideas .. without (imagining )violence .. mostly
3

@greeningfam8359
2 hours ago
You’re right, that did get a little heated
1

@johnrogers5825
7 hours ago
Love the fiery arguments. So much better to have it out in the open as opposed to sleazy politicians who talk politely and deceptively. Stop the PC bullshit and say it how it is ffs.
3

@MaySpecials
7 hours ago
Fair debate
3

@leonmiller4774
9 hours ago
The 4 parts of my forebares came here as follows 1832 English whalers 1841 German in Klemzig Adelaide 1854 Ehglish 1904 Scottish Kiwi so what am i now i consider myself a true blue Aussie yes my ancestors help build this country we went to jail for this country (1st world war because of our German heritage even though we were 2nd and 3rd generation Aussie) i am white all my family is white and I’m proud to be a white Australian, i do believe in the white Australia policy and that it should be bought back for the fact people had to speak english and assimilate to our culture by denouncing where they come from and accept our way of life
5

@colin76545
4 hours ago
This debate has to happen and keep happening and every where this debate it always ends up the same way which is (I’m a civic national vs I’m an ethnic national) and no matter what happens it’s never going to stop

@darrenparsons5299
8 hours ago
Christianity is the key fundamental
3

@APP1E5
4 hours ago (edited)
By Sam’s definition, I would be Australian.
My parents were Australian. Three of my grandparents were Australian. The other was British and fought for Australia in the First World War 977 DCM.
So I am not objecting because his definition excludes me. I am objecting because it points nationality in the wrong direction.
Australia should not be reduced to Indian Australian, English Australian, Scottish Australian, German Australian, or any other divided label. There should be Australians.
A person’s ancestry may explain where their family came from, but it should not become their permanent political identity.
The real question is loyalty, assimilation, culture, language, law, and shared values.
If someone comes here, makes Australia their home, accepts Australia’s inherited institutions, speaks our common language, raises Australian children, and gives their loyalty to this country, then they should become Australian.
Not partly Australian. Not hyphenated Australian. Australian.
That is why Joanna matters in this conversation. She is of Indian descent, born in the UK, speaks with an Australian accent, holds Australian values, and the most important point is that she is Christian.
That places her much closer to the old civilisational inheritance of Australia than many people who may have the right ancestry but reject everything Australia was built upon.
Australia must control immigration. Australia must demand assimilation. Australia should not allow divided loyalty. Australian or nothing.
But the answer is not to turn nationality into race.
The answer is one people, one country, one loyalty.
Australians.
5

@blakewaugh2536
4 hours ago
could not sum it up better

@MSummaz
14 minutes ago

Hide replies

@Butcherbirdsarecool
9 hours ago (edited)
Geez this was a frustrating video. Sam did a great job to sit there and listen to that. Being yelled at by Dr Jo’s husband. I know he’s defending Jo but geez mate I felt like I needed to block my ears. I agree with Sam on this one.
Rude asf dude!! Jo’s husband was in full attack mode. He wouldn’t listen and didn’t want to listen. What a dick! Sorry but wtf!
16

@slash1989
1 hour ago
Give Gov A cut And a pay cut No big Australia get there heads out of the clouds

@MagicManintheSky-j9q
3 hours ago
Sam is right. These people don’t understand the difference between ethnicity and citizenship. It’s not rocket science.
1

@benkhosh
6 hours ago
An Australian is someone who comes here and completely adopts Australian values and heritage and does not congregate in there Enclave of ethnicities. And by my definitions you can become Australian before you get citizenship or by the same token you are not Australian even if you have citizenship but do not integrate fully
3

@aphaseelec
5 hours ago
Sam you are the man. I 100% agree with you. He was fine and I liked his points but that part where he kept going to skin color was frustrating as hell. One thing I disagree with you on is you invited him to your house that didnt need to come up.
1

@ColdPatterns
9 hours ago
Well hopefully I can go over to India as a white woman and be considered an Indian
4

@grannyannie2948
10 hours ago
Ban abortion And ban immigration. Problem solved.
4

@gpumn1
5 hours ago
Not enough of the conversation is being had around completely shutting down immigration for 4-5 years. It will buy us much needed time to fix our nation and help determine the right path moving forward.
1

@Guska95
8 hours ago (edited)
James came across far more thought out and intellectually honest. His family is Australian ditch the sub class catagories we can only unite on Christian values and culture
3

@blakewaugh2536
5 hours ago
Anglo Celtic is different to Anglo saxon (which is what you are referring to in Germanic). Which one are we using here…?
1

@akingsroad
7 hours ago (edited)
That would have been really good without all the name calling.
It was actually really interesting to listen when you guys were teasing out some of the ideas around what is an Australian.
Don’t stop talking about this guys. I hope you catchup again, and remove the personal attacks because there were some really interesting ideas being discussed.
1

@Kingxr6t
5 hours ago
I liked Sams argument and i admire hes attempt at defining what (Australians) are, but i also understand old mates view and the flaw hes seeing, it might sound bad and theres probably most definitely flaws here! But myself= a cut off point? When did the people living here become Australians? Land was Mostly made up of brittish “subjects” and indigenous in 1949 no longer subjects or (just indigenous) we become our own individual people i.e Australians and there is a difference we mingled with indigenous and weve mixed together to make something different no longer just! a brittish subject or just! Indigenous, Put an Australian and a brit in a room together? Are they the same? Can you tell them Apart? Who’s who? 1 word gets spoken & BANG! You know exactly who is who hes an Aussie hes an brit, different lingo or accent, we are different how? Still working on it! the only thing we have in common is religion/ Christian values, drop an Aussies in Britain or ANY! white country he wont instantly adapt because theres different social norms behaviours, celebrations ect brits tea and crumpets Aussies bacon and eggs we are different the way we interact theres so many differences ,and yea it can be hard to pin down thats only because the conversations haven’t happened, that doesnt mean we haven’t shaped into our own individual people (Australians) and this country was shaped into what it is today due to a mixture of indigenous/ white Christian based subjects (similar) to other Christian nations, a white American isnt now Australian because hes white and was born here, the population of 8 million that lived here in 1949 and the millions born over the decades are what Australians are! In my opinion if you decent from that 8 million then you define what Australians are
2

@Alessandro-b4k
1 hour ago
Hey guys, good to debate these things. I want to share that this was directly addressed during the Eureka rebellion, as the government accussed ‘foreigners’, basically non-english, as causing the rebellion. The Ballarat Times Jan 01 1855 has a letter where the author refer to new arrivals as being the newest Australians etc. Give it a read, I don’t have the link with me now and cbf typing it up. But it reflects a very early perspective on the matter, granted they are talking mainly about other Europeans, like Italians etc. that were a part of the rebellion, such as Carboni. I think it is a convenient definition the host has for Australian, when I was at school the anglos couldn’t work out if Euro wogs were Australian or not…thanks to the arrival of muslims and indians we are now conveniently Australian, well I won’t complain, but we are certainly NOT the same ethnicity as the anglos, and culturely massively different thanks be to God. Happy for Australia to stay British though says I. Cheers

@Shallowchal
10 hours ago
What did I just watch -holy heck.
7

@williamguile1788
6 hours ago
That was a tough listen.
1

@kimeccleston5586
10 hours ago
Do you have a definition around the 42 min mark?

@domburton
5 hours ago
Crazy aye

Hide replies

@DB-in3jy
4 hours ago
Brilliant episode!
1

@APP1E5
4 hours ago
Sam’s argument falls apart on “Anglo Celtic” Look up John Christian Watson reputedly born in Valparaiso, Chile. King OMalley, Evidence points to USA. Two of the first Parliament.
1

@JustJoshofficial89
3 hours ago
Good work pushing through guys, hashed it out in the end.
Want to hear more on the mass immigration part you all agreed on a thoughts on what could be done.
Perhaps a new rule for the pod, 15 mins stuck on the same argument move on.
1

@breban18
4 hours ago
I think Sam doesn’t really believe people from a non-European background aren’t Australian. Audience capture is a problem and clicks are a powerful driver of opinion.
1

@CoenKR
4 hours ago
While both parties have things I do and don’t agree with my opinion is that you can’t say someone has Nazi and racial ideology about what they believe is an Australian while saying they don’t know how to define what an Aussie is in saying that I’m pleased that these discussions and debates are being had the way it should be even if it gets heated

@ausbushman2347
2 hours ago
The key word that seems to be getting dropped too often is Ethnic. To be an ethnic Australian you have to have descent from here and Anglo-Celtic descent. If you come from an Anglo-Celtic heritage but aren’t born here, you are not an ethnic Australian, but you can be an Australian citizen. Everyone else can only be a citizen. Jo is a great Australian… citizen. She can never be an ethnic Australian because she wasnt born here. Her kids could be seen as ethnic Australians because they have an Australian father, even if they do have a mixed heritage. I dont think we can avoid having mixed heritage these days.
1

@leonmiller4774
9 hours ago (edited)
Sam in Joes case to me shes a pom not an Indian also as a Christian you should believe in creation not that crappy evolution in that case we all came out of Mesopotamia not Africa
On another level didn’t you say your forebares came here after 1901?
Jo there is only a few million Irish there is 1.5 billion Indians and we didn’t import 100,000 of thousands of them like we have Indians and Jo being born in England was a pom before becoming
Jo is an english Australian not Indian Australian
Actually Sam India was part of the British commonwealth up until just after WW2
According to our constitution we do not have freedom of religion but freedom of association and there is a difference and Jo’s kids are Aussie not Indian Australian
Sorry my comments are slightly incoherent but I’m following along your conversation
3

@reubensrichardson
3 hours ago (edited)
Great interview. Defining something is the first step in protecting it.

@NicholasWitham
2 hours ago
Sam, I hope you have watched this back by yourself.
James was trying to show that when you differentiate someone as Indian-Australian or just Australian you do actually create a hierarchy of Australian.
I am Australian born on Australia. My father is from England in the 70s and my Mother is from Malaysia. With your definition my “Australian” label is somewhat grey….and to James’ point, this is similar to how the left define woman…it’s grey when it shouldn’t be.
I’m glad you had this debate, and I’m glad there were no fists thrown lol.
I hope your debate skills can grow in the future, and that you do become open to other ideas, your ideas and opinions are great and well rooted in yourself, but being open to other ideas makes a much better debater as you can see things from the opposite side….which I don’t think you can do very well right now. You seem to be very staunch with your argument and not willing to hear the arguments against them…although James didn’t do a great job at explaining the argument.
Keep up the good work, I’m looking forward to more.
1

@SueMurphy-l2n
6 hours ago (edited)
James referred to the people in the NT as Chinese people. He actually identified them based on their looks, which is just what Sam is trying to establish
1

@jimhaggerty2741
4 hours ago
Question for Sam Bamford:
If Australia became a full republic tomorrow, cut constitutional ties to Britain, changed the flag, and built a completely independent Australian identity separate from the Crown — where would you stand on that?
Would you support a fully sovereign Australian nationalism with an Australian flag, independent identity, and recognition that Aboriginal Australians were the original people of the continent?
Or is your idea of Australia still ultimately tied to British heritage and the Anglo world?

@ShaneCooper-b2u
3 hours ago
thank you very much

@DanAttewell-y5b
45 minutes ago
So it’s a mentality.

@jacoblowe4247
5 hours ago (edited)
India was part of the British Commonwealth the same British empire that founded Australia. So I guess because of their British heritage they can call themselves Australians and not just Australian citizens right? They technically have British heritage too… Just like you pal… I really don’t think you thought about this deeper than skin deep!
In fact their country was colonised before ours so I guess you could say that they have a longer British heritage than you do man. So can we lump India into Anglo and European because of their British heritage?
2

@Citraz62
9 minutes ago
NO.

Hide replies

@Cappuccino-ph7rp
1 hour ago
He shouldn’t be able to ask questions he can’t answer himself.
1

@southern-samurai
6 hours ago
Join the Australian Natives Association. Sounds like they are in sync with your position.
1

@nomoremaybes
6 minutes ago
She did the meme lol

@johnrogers5825
7 hours ago
James has wiggled his way into the Dr Jo podcast and I have been unsure about him, but now, watching him here, I don’t like what I see. He has agendas, and his potty mouth is one of the worst I have ever heard.
4

@aussiegypsywarrior
6 hours ago
His potty mouth is one of the worst you’ve ever heard? Really? I don’t agree with foul language in any way however, I’ve heard much worse.
2

Hide replies

@slash1989
13 minutes ago
Not hard men we need strong men

@kjing8109
5 hours ago
So what’s an Australian according to each side? Someone save me watching this entire episode

@victorgomes7585
2 hours ago
Dr Jo is simply gorgeous. You guys are a wonderful compatible couple. And I had no idea Dr Jo has Portuguese heritage. Well… hugs from a proud Portuguese born Australian citizen. PS … to be in positions of power, politics etc… no dual citizenship should be allowed for such person. Our biggest enemy is within.
5

@brontepetropoulos4755
9 hours ago
Great video
2

@scooter183
6 hours ago
South Africa and Rhodesia, Take a look at the 70s and take a look Now.. Australia is Next . Case Closed.
1

@danielpearce7585
8 hours ago (edited)
Yeah. That’s the stuff. I can see me in you Sammy. It’s that logic that kicks in and its hard to talk to these folks. Your a good man and I hear your argument’s and your personality shining through. I love it. Ex navy myself of 11 years and I wonder how much of this logic come from subservience to your country and a cause.

@becomng
2 hours ago
Pausing immigration isn’t such a crazy idea. Pausing immigration gave Canadian renters their first nationwide rent relief in five years, pushing vacancy rates above their 10-year average and driving 12 straight months of falling asking prices.

@raphaelbotelho91
3 hours ago
What a fcking great episode, guys

@uebergangster
3 hours ago
An ‘Australian’ is a legal citizen of the country who adopts the cultural and religious norms (which are inter-related). Skin colour and prior national background aren’t relevant in that equation. However, the argument against mass immigration and exclusion of majority immigration of certain nationalities is that both may threaten to either overwhelm the cultural norm, or that there is a heightened risk that immigrants under such cirumstances will not endeavour to adapt.
1

@uebergangster
3 hours ago
So the definition of what we are protecting is the cultural norm, not a biological race (which is not a real thing anyway). The cultural norm of Australian is then defined as: Christian (you don’t have to be practising, but be at least sympathetic), family oriented, capitalist (not socialist), generally politically conservative, accepting Westminster style democratic parliamentary rule and equality under the law.
1

Hide replies

@wotslife
6 hours ago

@marleymeathook1975
9 hours ago
On 23 December 1901 the Immigration Restriction Act came into law. White australia policy. We would be a lot better off if it was still law. Do you think we would have a lot of these problems today? i dare say we wouldnt even be talking bout this. love this podcast bro!
3

@grannyannie2948
8 hours ago
Exactly. Our forefathers federated to achieve two objectives. To implement the WAP, and to build a navy capable of defending the country. I would argue that the federal government has been a complete failure and should be suspended.
I can’t understand why all three of them ran away from the term the White Australia Policy, which was very popular and should come back.
2

Hide replies

@BLESSED2XS
9 hours ago
Dr. Jo, I Love You soooo much, You are an AUSTRALIAN, Nationality & Culturally, and brilliant one at that!!! But You ethnically an Indian.
The British aren’t from Britain naturally, they are from mainland Europe and before that Israel and before that the Caucus Mountain Range hence “Caucasians.”
To say that there is no such thing as Ethnically Australian just because We’ve only been here since 1788 (yes, my Ancestors came over on the First Fleet) HAS to be matched with “there’s no such thing as Ethnically British, or any National-Ethnic Identity other than the 3 root races of old social science: Whites/Caucasians, Blacks/Negroids & Asians/Mongoloids, and everyone is just one of those or a mix of those.” But that is not true, Samoans are Samoans (not just Polynesians), Irish are Irish (not just Whites), Fijians are Fijians (not just Melanesians), Ethiopians are Ethiopians (not just Africans), etc.
I am all for a multi-racial Australia as long as everyone lives the Australian monoculture and Ethnically Australian Australians are put first and that ONLY Australians can be in Parliament/Federal Government, and in State & Local Governments.
I Love You just as much as any Australian and I would fight for You to be protected and secure in Australia.
GOD Bless
5

@BLESSED2XS
8 hours ago
If I move to India and earn their Cultural Respect, gain an authentic accent, think like them, talk like them, walk like them, Marry an Indian, and have Children, I am an Australian-Indian and my hypothetical Children would be half-Indian, half-Australian, that DOES NOT make me less than the Indians and DOES NOT make an Indian “racist” for clearly seeing that I am not Indian. Australia is not an NWO experiment, Australia is just as much a Nation as Germany, as Samoa, as Tonga, as all of the other young Nations that got formed in the 1800s & 1900s, no different. We are ethnically Australian and to say that We are no different to British is “racist” to Us just as it is to say that there is no difference between Samoans, Maoris & Hawaiians even though they are all Polynesians, they are DIFFERENT, just like English, Welsh, Scottish & Northern Irish are all British yet they are DIFFERENT, so are Aussies, Kiwis & Canadians, We are of the root race of White/Caucasian but DIFFERENT, just like Indians, Pakis, Nepalese, Sri Lankan & Bengals are all South Asian but DIFFERENT. Respect Heritage Australians!!!
1

Hide replies

@gregsags3364
2 hours ago
F-ing good podcast.

@Howdnz
8 hours ago
That escalated quickly

@trishwilson8141
5 hours ago
I agree values are Australian

@Toastmalone6192
7 hours ago
Aussie Logan Paul being triggered for 2 hours
3

@ItsMe-vy1wt
3 hours ago
I’d absolutely LUV to see that “Fuck the ABC” sign done up all nice & professional…..& LARGE!

@Itsmevgc
5 hours ago
My mum has been here since 77, she’s still British
1

@MSummaz
11 minutes ago
Is she a citizen? If she is, she’s an Aussie with an English background! This whole hyphenated thing is a load of nonsense and I refuse to play that game. I’m Australian first and foremost who happens to have English ancestry. Sam’s argument is asinine!

@Itsmevgc
7 minutes ago

@MSummazher words not mine. And she’s a hell of a lot wiser than you. You’re wrong, listen and learn. Sam is %100 correct.

Hide replies

@jittmet7766
1 hour ago
James – the GREEKS created democracy.

@broke3008
3 hours ago

@unipartywonagainstthepeople
9 hours ago
Great stuff
1

@Pauly-v9j
1 hour ago (edited)
As a Aboriginal descent and European descent. A Australian is a person been here from birth or been here 6 years plus when they received their citizenship AND speaking English AND Christian beliefs AND leaving any other cultures war’s at our Australian door before they come in. My thoughts. Probably not agreed by some people. But it’s okay everyone has a different opinion.
Problem not speaking English is my wife is a nurse and some nurses can’t speak English properly and my wife finds it hard to understand them.
So Dr Joanna Howe you would fit into my definition as a Australian. Been here more than 6 years with citizenship papers, speak amazing English AND Christian beliefs.
4

@KathyRan
7 hours ago
There are some Chinese families that have been here since before Federation, so many, many generations. They are Australian in my opinion. Not Chinese Australian.
2

@domburton
5 hours ago
You’re absolutely right.
1

Hide replies

@slash1989
1 hour ago
No foul Langauge

@domburton
5 hours ago
I like Sam, but his definition is very problematic. To say Joe’s kids are not fully Australian cause they have brown skin is unjust and ridiculous. They share our religion and values and culture. They have no connection to India, as i have no connection to Ireland or Britain, except parts of their culture.
3

@RajNaidoo-b4e
10 hours ago
Abortion is murder!
4

@h.epeterjohnmanthey6295
7 hours ago
Yeah those who get angry know they are wrong.
1

@blakewaugh2536
4 hours ago
for looking out for others who aren’t ethnically from here, but put much more heart, effort, meaning, emphasis on integration and following the very values the place was built on? You would be disregarding the work that many non Europeans have done. Should we have the arguments about immigration? Yes, but not based on ethnicity, becasue that is the basis of prejudice. It will be, and it must be, VALUES first.

Hide replies

@redfinfisho
3 seconds ago
Imagine comparing Ireland with a population of 5 Million people to India with a population of 1.4 BILLION!! Also Irish people integrate perfectly into Australian culture and were never taking large proportions of welfare. Whilst Indians are not integrating, costing a fortune whilst disrespecting our country through littering, illegal dumping, polluting rivers just to scrape the surface.

@sarahs2764
8 hours ago
“Why are you saying a bunch?” – uhhh because thats actually whats happening

@Coke_Addiction
2 hours ago
The debate is between nature vs nurture. Is culture down stream of biology or is culture down stream of theology? It would be very difficult to argue that it is solely one sided. The people that do, cannot answer the generalisation once it gets broken down to the individual level.

@PixieTinsel
8 hours ago
If one of Sam’s kids breeds with an Anglo Indian Australian born kid then his grandchild will be a citizen but technically an Anglo Indian but if his other child breeds with the Aussie born child of Pommy immigrants then it’s Australian through and through tru blue….
1

@Howdnz
7 hours ago
We just need Jesus
2

@aussiegypsywarrior
6 hours ago
I totally agree. Sam especially needs Jesus. He has good values and would make such a good Christian. He’s not understanding where these 2 are coming from.

Hide replies

@lukemagro6060
7 hours ago
I see both sides and both seem completely valid in my mind. Yes I get called racist all the time. If we stop citizenship for a year, kick out all non citizens and replace abortion with truely anonymous adoption, financialy encourage big families and restart immigration limited to .1% of the population per year. Thats 10% over 100 years we can integrate that many to be just like us without loosing who we are (that’s still replacement in 1,000 years but a preserved culture. That’s 28,000 “heavily vetted skilled migrants” at 28 million population) do this and the difference in these opinions will be a moot point.

@matthewleonardi247
3 hours ago
Sam’s argument is flawed for example a lot of Bosnians are Muslim but are also from Europe so how would he seperate the two? Say they’re Aussie because they’re European? Or say they’re not because they’re Muslim?
It should purely be cultural, does your culture follow the western Christian modal? If not, would you become a Christian or at least follow our cultural norms to assimilate into Australia? If no , you can visit but you can’t live here.
1

@leonmiller4774
9 hours ago (edited)
SAM ANGLO CELTIC EUROPEAN IS WHITE don’t be so defetist as to not use the word white Jo is an Aussie she wasn’t born in India she was born in our mother country England so Jo is an Aussie i don’t care her skin colour and i am a WHITE AUSTRALIAN and my family has been here for a bloody lot longer than yours so who is Australian we are matey all 4 of us. I’m 7th generation Aussie so therefoe Aussie NOT German Australian ol’mate and you’re only 2nd generation so who is an Aussie i am. I speak Strine so do you that makes an Aussie anyway i hope you read all of my comments oh to Jo’s hubby the Greeks invented democracy our forebares created the Westminster system
If i want to go back far enough I’m a Viking on one side and a Germanic barbarian on the other side how far do you want to go back we all came from one family Adam and Eve
I have to disagree Christianity is not a white mans religion original Christians were from the Middle East (out of Israel), and Greece(olive skin colour) not white anglo-celtic European
4

@grannyannie2948
8 hours ago
I’m also seventh generation Australian on all my lines. Funnily this includes a German family escaping the wars of German unification in the mid 1800s.
1

@Snappernose
4 hours ago
She’s Indian/austalian
If I mirrored her life in China would they say I’m Chinese?
Didn’t think so
1

Hide replies

@blakewaugh2536
5 hours ago
How does federation being the coming together of all 5 states and territories, be the essence of who ethnically built this country? The Anglo’s started building the colonies but lets just say its ‘federation’ when it happened. History speaks for itself, so you obviously don’t understand history…
1

@batesmate5510
3 hours ago
53ish mins bro, bloke would’ve been on the ground for telling me to shut up in my own house

@DanAttewell-y5b
49 minutes ago
Who would you consider Australian, albo= no Sam thaiday=yes

@jasonwolfe5787
3 hours ago
51:13 Poor argument about irish immigration from 2008 to 2016. It was about 15k to 25k net migration from Ireland then compared to 150k to 250k from India. Still x more back then. Dr Jo is great but that was weak.

@southern-samurai
6 hours ago (edited)
What is an Australian? An Australian is one born here and descended from the host and founding ethnic group. It defines us as a Nation. What is happening now is pure replacement of people and culture, of Country itself. It is as bad as military invasion and takeover, only this is supported and promoted by our seditious government.

@flexo-c
3 hours ago (edited)
32:19 Completely disagree, indigenous people helped build this country, they have thousands of years of connection with it, they’ve made big strides in politics and art, helped shape our laws and culture, as much as I like Joanna she doesn’t have that ancestry connection, apart from a few notable figures Indian people and culture wasn’t really a part of what built this nation, but I’d say she’s become Australian, she’s spent her life here, built a family, she has an Aussie accent lmao, and from what I’ve seen she puts Australia first, that’s what it means. Like those old videos of Greek and Italian people, they moved here and assimilated, they saw Australia as the new country, they respected the culture, they built lives within it, became a part of it and are always so grateful to have had the opportunity to live in one of the best, safest places in the world

@maxyorke2453
3 hours ago
First of all, culture is inextricably linked to race. So Australian “culture” is race made manifest. I’ve never been so embarrassed as listening to James use leftist ideology to explain away what it means to be Australian. What a train wreck. Really tough listen.
This debate has been settled; now it’s time to fix the problem.
2

@Alessandro-b4k
33 minutes ago
Bro he is nailing you on the point that you can’t define an Australian, you need to work through that . An Australian is anyone who votes for ON, all you others fall short.

@darrenparsons5299
8 hours ago
And im not religious

@boags9098
8 hours ago
This is wicked

@jessiejordan2853
40 minutes ago
Sam, 100% agree with you but I don’t know why you’re using Federation in 1901 as the beginning of our foundation as people when we’ve been here for 240years.

@aussiegypsywarrior
7 hours ago
53 minutes

@scooter183
7 hours ago
Woman’s Sport.. I love Woman’s Beach Volleyball..

@RichardJohnson-nq9ys
8 hours ago
Calm down James or you will have a coronary.
1

@mannus7776
7 hours ago (edited)
Something to consider on the ethnicity versus culture discussion. The reason peoples from our ethnic background Sam built all this was because of the culture that they were immersed in, that being the Judeo-Christian belief system. And yes those two are inextricably linked, there can be no Christianity without there first being Judaism. The New testament relies on the Old and Jesus and the apostles were all jews. You cut Christianity off from Judaism and it’s a cut flower. In short it’s culture that determines destiny not ethnicity.
Ps Really enjoy your podcast, keep up the good work and keep thinking

@blakewaugh2536
4 hours ago
I’m absolutely pissed off that he took the Judeo bit out. If he wants to turn his back on a community that has not only integrated but done more for this country than many Anglo saxon or whatever he refers them to be, he can get fked and we must CALL this OUT for what it is. All we look for is to be regarded as Australian’s especially after Bondi. If he is putting all his eggs in the ‘lobby basket’ he can F OFF with that ideology. That is sincerely Anti Australia to a tee.

Hide replies

@slash1989
8 minutes ago
You dont need churches or Priests You can talk to god he will answer you if your serios

@saqaleka
9 hours ago
1:02:58 why did her response about deporting muslims get cut out?
2

@Trunka34
8 hours ago
Why do you think haha
1

@grannyannie2948
8 hours ago
She explains it in the comments
1

Hide replies

@MaryAnzac
7 hours ago
My family I married into are German/Polish they embraced the Australian culture and had children here.
They still classed themselves as Europeans that live Australia, their children are Australian as they are born here.
Anyone who comes to Australia and embraces Australian culture are Australian.
These new people who come here are not embracing Australian culture !
But I personally know people who come from Iran and are Christian and live in Australia with an Australian passport but they still see themselves as Persian!
This race debate and who is Australian is silly as we are Multi cultural country?

@johnryan1386
9 hours ago (edited)
This is the argument in the Uk, Everyone can be British but you cannot be English,Irish or Welsh etc.
James is confusing ethnicity and nationality, sounds like a leftist frankly!
My wife is Chinese and my daughter is half Australian and half Chinese, it’s pretty simple
9

@gogeorgia707
10 hours ago
Go Jo . Any fool knows abortion is murder. Admitting it – another story. Yes pregnancy can be sad, complicated when young, or risk. ‘ a psychopath looking down an ultrasound..” Hilarious but horrifying. Adopted children are loved . Needed like the air we breathe.
I was on the left too, then realised this is too important.
3

@grannyannie2948
10 hours ago
I can’t understand how any mother chooses this instead of placing the baby for adoption. Pure evil.
2

@gogeorgia707
8 hours ago
@grannyannie2948 life is so precious. We’ve clearly been misled. It’s a tragedy if someone is young and can’t afford the baby. But the joy they create can come either for themselves, or a family who will love them forever .
1

@grannyannie2948
8 hours ago
​ @gogeorgia707 Instead of paying migrants Centrelink, we should be ensuring that young couple have the resources they need if they decide to keep the baby. If not I’m sure there are 100,000 Aussies who would love to adopt a newborn.

Hide replies

@nam55A
9 hours ago
There’s a reason for these terminations. The choice isn’t easy.
1

@grannyannie2948
8 hours ago (edited)
Yes they do it because the government gives them taxpayers money for having a “stillbirth.” To engage in such a depraved level of evil a nd greed might be difficult for some. Though I doubt it.
1

@Kateeheel7
8 hours ago
Elaborate on these reasons?

Hide replies

@NicholasWitham
2 hours ago
James’ argument on 10,000 Christians from India or 10,000 randoms from France is great. Sam, it sounded like you were going to say you’d prefer the randoms from France.
Well I believe those randoms from France will have ideologies that go against the Australian way of life than the Christian Indians. I wonder that if you did go ahead and say you prefer the French 10,000….I’d like to hear your argument for that preference….because it does seem you’d prefer them because they are white.
I’m not calling you a racist or a nazi, just trying to point out that it seems there’s a gap there.
I do disagree with your definition being based on geography over ideals/morals/ethics etc, but will still continue to support you, keep it going Sam…cheers

@peterscudds7299
8 hours ago
I have a mate in the NT whose heritage is Afghan Aboriginal Chinese, he grew up in the bush and had no choice about his heritage. So according to Sam he’s 1/3 Australian. It’s not about race it’s about values. Oh and by the way do some research Sam and find out how many races of people make up Anglo-Celtic European origins. They’re not all white caucasian.
1

@domburton
5 hours ago
100 percent mate. He’s aussie as.

Hide replies

@blakewaugh2536
5 hours ago
So someone who comes here at the age of 4, doesn’t hold their traditional ethnic culture, grows up in Australia, is still classed as an Australian Indian because of her heritage? Well then clearly your definition is ethnically based because you want to separate someone’s ancestry that they left at the door but have done everything asked of them and integrated? Christ almighty!
1

@slash1989
59 minutes ago
Two against one not fair and there waxing

@marleymeathook1975
8 hours ago
i think lock the gates perid become a self sufficiant country we build grow make everything we need in this country. zero imigration until this happens. lets see how that goes.

@slash1989
47 minutes ago (edited)
I cant beleive Australian Government had a whites only Policy I am a white ozzy bourne here We will nut this out plan in progress God is KING

@julianshalders6047
6 hours ago
We broke from england in1901 and identified our selves as australians under parlimentary law. Its called federation. The immigrants do not reconise this.

@blakewaugh2536
4 hours ago
The Anglo’s helped found and build the colonies. So why is the definition then in federation, not when the same race that has been identifed, come here to commence work to make this a country? If he was consistent in definition, it would be that date, but i can see why he would say federation as a nation forming event. If we are to define it as that, we would have to look further back from that in defining that term. Just doesnt make sense to me…

Hide replies

@JohnClark-l5p
6 hours ago
At some point in the future Australia will be renamed

@4litrespoolyboi206
6 hours ago
42:41, bro just literally told his wife to shut up because she tried to speak…

@DrJoannaHowe
5 hours ago
If you listen to the whole thing, you’ll see that I also tell James to shut up. We have a very robust marriage. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea but it is our dynamic, and I’m fortunate to be married to an incredible man.
1

Hide replies

@sinaimbriano8317
7 hours ago
His trans argument is going against him, I think there’s a middle ground

@adensticher6842
13 minutes ago
You killed it Sam, the amount of times you repeated yourself was painful mate
1

@77Coddie
24 seconds ago
You’re all trying to define what is an Aussie on both an international and national view at the same time, the chick would be considered Aussie by a foreigner but an Indian-Australian to someone like Sam. Can we get this straight?

@darrenparsons5299
7 hours ago
WELL SAID JO
5

@victorgomes7585
2 hours ago
An Australian is anyone who’s been born here. They follow they respect and uphold culture and history. If their parents were born overseas the children are still Australian. Some Australians like to show great pride to the nationality of their foreign born parents. And this is because there’s not much pride in celebrating Australia anymore. We are shamed by government, bureaucrats, education system… there’s a globalist communist agenda. You guys were debating it at a superficial level. Anyone causing trouble and destruction over foreign issues in australia should go to jail!

@peterrichards1058
40 minutes ago (edited)
Multiculturalism policies and their definitions is the issue Sam .Australian identifies are defined by our Christian based values which define our Australian culture skin colour has nothing to do with.

@leonmiller4774
9 hours ago
Sam I’m sorry to say the one who loses their temper first has lost the argument and you did exactly that so sorry matey go take 10 stop lossing it then you may win your debate point
1

@jasonwolfe5787
8 hours ago
I thought James went 1st. I don’t think these things wouldn’t have really been as big an issue but across the west demographics are under attack. I don’t have an issue with organic immigration, but the horse has bolted and drastic action is needed.
1

Hide replies

@nunyaconsern5590
6 hours ago
This guy’s history sucks Christianity started in the west lol democracy start in England lol what’s he rambling about he should learn these things because it’s embarrassing if your going to talk about these things on a public forum
1

@APP1E5
4 hours ago
James has a good point. Half man half woman.

@neilrwatts
7 hours ago
It’s quite simple Sam, your birth certificate defines your country of origin, what you are debating is something totally different and I hope that one day you can step back and fully comprehend that.
I’m an English immigrant from 1966 and was 6 years old when we arrived in Australia. I’m a permanent resident who has grown up in Australia so rest assured that posses Australian values. I have been educated, worked here and paid my taxes on my taxes like every other Australian, I consider myself as an Aussie and would gladly die for this country. However unlike my mother and sister I am still yet to take out citizenship. I refuse to pay to accept citizenship as a piece of paper and a little tree doesn’t change the fact that I have already contributed and paid my way for this country.
I have two children and by your analogy they are British Australian just like your daughter.
I originally started listening to your podcasts as like many other Aussies (see what I did there, just joking) I am totally disgusted with what is happening to our retuned soldiers. I realise and accept that we all have different opinions in life and hope that we all accept the need to respect that but I do fear that your position on this his matter is playing into the he White Supremisisme debate.
Let’s be clear, not labelling you as one though.
Stay safe.
An old British Aussie.

@marleymeathook1975
8 hours ago
Idont think the immigration restriction act had nothing about WHITE in there

@Coke_Addiction
4 hours ago
Did the Chinese who came here gold rush build this country, Sam ?

@chrisdavis6436
1 hour ago
Love your stuff Sam but you are way off here .
What you are talking about is being born in Australian makes you indigenous to this country no matter who your parents are .
Joanne is Australian .
My family some come out on second fleet , I have welsh , English , Jewish blood in my line .
So I’m am white and that Anglo as they come .
Just a thought I live in country our family moved here from Sydney when I was 3 growing up we were accepted by locals . It took 20 years for us to be seen as a local and I accept that get used to living in area and fit in . Now we are the locals being here for almost 50 years .
Now I used this as to being Australian . I’ve been to India love many of people I met . But in Singapore at universal studios on holiday just chatting to people in the line of a ride because they looked Indian got chatting enjoying time . I asked where they were from thinking maybe India they said Sydney I went wow ok cool no problems there . But yes they are Indian I said how long lived in Australia they said 20 years . Aww your Australians
They were so happy a white man said they were Australians and proud and we kept chatting . Mate you need to adopt this view . Because you are not going prove what an Australian is by race .
I’ll tell you what Australian is defined .
And Australian is someone who lives in this Australia and loves this country for all its best and its worst but want to work towards making the flag , the anthem , our history and respect for it , you assimilate to the Australia law and way of life .
You can’t make it ethnic Australia doesn’t work like that . I agree with Joanne’s husband many people have built this country .
I’m still watching Sam you taking this way to far brother . And I think you are talking to wrong people and you do owe Joanne an apology she is Australian mate .
Still love your stuff and I’m sure you are one who would accept truth if it was put to you the right way . This maybe not the best conversation in this video because it’s not only heated but personal on all sides. I’m up for the debate if ya want bro

@overpotato4133
10 hours ago
This guy is clueless lmao
2

@JohnClark-l5p
6 hours ago
The only Australian is an Australian with an Australian accent

@suitathletics9074
4 hours ago
Australian born of European heritage and indigenous are “founding ethnic Australians” , thats the facts….just call it
“”founding Australians “ Sam…, the rest are Australian born Australians or Australian citizens…..time to freeze all Citizenships. James is right about christians but he just does not get it about founding Australians..which should be the majority ….but he seems like a decent guy… Joanna is culturally and spiritually Australian……. It is time re migration. Deportations. This is all the Govt’s fault. Bring back the 1980s demographic.

@maxyorke2453
3 hours ago
Notice how these ‘conservatives’ (Jo and James) actually keep using liberal/leftist arguments and also argue within the leftist moral framework? This is so important for people to understand. Even Sam occasionally argues within this leftist moral framework.
That’s what needs to be dismantled. Also the “what is an Australian?” debate shouldn’t be a debate any longer — it’s White Anglo-Celtic peoples, with additional broader European ancestry. Shut and closed discussion. Now the problems need to be fixed.
2

@samg8313
6 hours ago
Ok god squad, Christians will not just save this country because half the country are non religeous.

@jacoblowe4247
5 hours ago
By your own reasoning mate you have to call yourself English Australian and not just Australian because you originated from there. It’s so absurd, your arguments and definition fall apart with even the slightest stress test. What so if someone migrates from India to Germany, then has a child there and then that child grows up and migrates to Australia are they then indian-German-Australian and do they then fit into your classification of being “Anglo-Saxon, European” or whatever? Or would you not want that person to come to Australia because they are somehow not European because their heritage originates elsewhere. Then it becomes just a weird dive back in heritages and if we all go back far enough it’s Africa so I guess I’m an African-English-German-French-natural born Australian.
How about we just say that if you’re a citizen and you love our way of life and culture you’re an Australian and we should drastically reduce immigration so that no matter the colour of your skin or where you come from you can adapt to our way of life, which will of course evolve because we don’t want to live in a bloody stagnate culture. Gosh many other cultures have food culture far superior than ours and we should totally import some of that… Man acts like he hates a curry.
I think the words of Martin Luther King apply that a man should be judged not by the colour of his skin (or where their bloody heritage is from), but upon their character. Being Australian is a matter of character, not heritage. I know plenty of Australians hailing from other countries like South Africa for example who display a level of patriotism for this country that far exceeds that of basically any leftist activist who consistently whine about our Australian heritage and values. Despite many of these activists being however many generation Australians I’d argue they are demonstrably less Australian then our proud Australians who have come from South Africa.
Do South Africans fit in your “Anglo European” categories? What about indigenous South Africans? Be careful how you answer to not make it about the colour of one’s skin hey…
Sorry “bro” but your views
fall apart with even the slightest pressure test.
1

@jacoblowe4247
5 hours ago
And like bro how many generations in your mind does one no longer be say Indian Australian and just become Australian? You said Joanna’s kids are half Indian half Australian…. So after 10 generations that’s like 10% Indian and 90% Australian right? So you reckon you can define Australian, so what is a 90% Australian, how are they different than 100% Australian? Are you not 100% Australian because of your British heritage, so like 90% yourself? Genuinely curious…
1

@grannyannie2948
5 hours ago
Australia federated in 1901 to implement the White Australia Policy. In the 1970s this was changed without a referendum. It can be argued Australia as a nation nolonger exists as the federal government nolonger serves its purpose.
1

@jacoblowe4247
4 hours ago
​ @grannyannie2948 so you’re saying the Australian government should exist to keep Australia white? That if you aren’t white you shouldn’t be Australian? Holy smokes that’s racist. I think most people these days subscribe to the superior ideology that things should be determined based upon the content of one’s character and not the colour of their skin. I’m sorry you’re stuck in the past pre Martin Luther King era.
1

@grannyannie2948
3 hours ago (edited)
​​​​ @jacoblowe4247 To be fair the federal government did have another purpose. It was to build a navy capable of defending the country. This has also been a failure.
I am saying no more than what was taught in history classes in the 80s. I have since read extensively on the subject and on constitutional law and facts don’t care about your feelings. This immigration policy was extremely popular. Their were pop songs written about it in the 1890s and early 1900s.
The reasons were not what you imagine. One was that sugar cane farmers in Queensland indentured servants from Pacific islands. These were virtual slaves. Australians hated this.
At this period Australia was the wealthiest country in the world. We also had the highest wages. History had taught Australians that Asians in particular, undercut wages. (Yes the WAP was left winged, unions etc. ). We were also an early democracy. All the states were self governing democracies, where even the working class could vote. To put this in proportion, the working class could not vote in Britain until after WW1. It was feared that collectivist cultures could corrupt our democracy.
My father collected antiques. Australian antique furniture is often marked with a stamp, saying, made with European labour. This was to show the workers were paid high wages. This continued into the 1950s.

@jacoblowe4247
2 hours ago
​ @grannyannie2948 a very long winded way of saying you are racist and a fan of parts of our history that were racist. Are you also a fan of the murder of indigenous Australians and them having less human rights that is also a sordid part of our history? Just because Australia had a prosperous time during its white Australia policy does not make it the morally correct approach for the future… America was pretty prosperous during slavery, doesn’t mean we should pull that ol’ one back out, jeez. Once again it should be about the content of one’s character not the colour of their skin or their heritage, otherwise it would be racist. It’s not that hard.

Hide replies

@slash1989
1 hour ago
If you leave islam you could be assasinated by shari law

@jessiejordan2853
24 minutes ago
Joanna, I like you but you’re not understanding what you’re asking of Australians like me.
My great great great great grandparents were BORN in Australia.
My most recent ancestor to migrate here arrived before Federation.
You’re not “just as Australian” as me, and it absolutely diminishes and trivialises everything that my family and our people endured and overcame over generations when you claim you are.

@adzshez
3 hours ago
Identity politics are lame. Dont break up the right with this crap.

@crankin77
2 minutes ago
Aboriginals were born in Australia so they’re Australian. It’s not that hard.

@clintanthony1779
1 hour ago
Sorry James, I really like you and Jo mate but you’re wrong in regards to what an Australian is. Totally wrong. And the nazi/racist name tag is nothing but a silencing tactic for when you’ve got no argument.
1

@MSummaz
54 minutes ago
Bullshit! Is Sam an Australian/Australian? Just asking questions….

Hide replies

@darrenparsons5299
7 hours ago
Jo n james overwelming win sorry sam
2

@simdavis4830
5 hours ago
Sam was an atheist until 5 minutes ago, changes his views
like he changes his jox. I’m a Christian and the old testament is Jewish, the new testament is Christian hence the terminology Judeo Christian not all that difficult. Sam isn’t a Nazi but he is seriously brushing up against it with his crappy non thought out positions.
1

@MSummaz
14 minutes ago
I couldn’t agree more…

Hide replies
Top is selected, so you’ll see featured comments

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Blair Cottrell: Picture this. Your country is overwhelmed by immigration and poor leadership. There’s rampant crime, there’s terrorism, and housing is completely unaffordable. You’ll never own a home like your parents did! And it’s really not even safe to just go for a walk in the streets where you grew up. But the presiding government ignores the problems and just keeps doing what (((the money))) tells them to do.

 

So you and your mates get together and you start talking about how to solve some of these problems. But you realise to have a lasting impact, you need a political party. You need to contest elections and win some seats in Parliament. You start by making some videos online, you host some protests, some meetings, and your message is really resonating with the people. Within a year, you’ve got almost, 2,000 members signed on and many more supporters. More than enough to register a party with the Electoral Commission. Your plan is to halt immigration, which will instantly drop the price of property and rent. You want to restore national manufacturing, get our oil refineries going again and put the Australian people, the original working class, first.

 

But then, early one morning, riot police kick your door in! They drag you out of bed and say:

 

“You’re a member of a prohibited hate group! And you’re under arrest!”

 

You ask them what that means and what crime you’ve committed, but they don’t answer you. They don’t actually know what you did or didn’t do. They’re just on orders to arrest you. And the truth is, you didn’t do anything! You haven’t actually broken any laws. The problem is your political party just got made illegal. In the weeks following, all your party members are arrested because while you were trying to register your party, the presiding government used a new law which allows them to ban political parties on the basis that those parties are “hateful”.

 

Some of your members do deals with cops to stay out of prison. Others go to jail for 10 or 15 years. That’s the end of your party and you’re in jail for the foreseeable future. That might sound crazy that could only happen in some Banana Republic, or a very corrupt third world country.

 

But as of January this year, the Australian government can and has been doing this! On May 15th of this year, Foreign Minister Tony Burke used new laws rushed through Parliament after the Bondi terror attack [Dec 14, 2025] to ban the White Australia Party as a prohibited “hate group”.

 

Now, the government in Australia hasn’t tried to do anything like this in a long time. Back in 1951, Prime Minister Robert Menzies tried to make a law to ban the Communist Party of Australia. But the High Court stepped in and said:

 

“You can’t just ban political parties. That basically violates everything we stand for as a democracy.”

 

Menzies wasn’t ready to give up though. He put a referendum to the people seeking public support to ban the Communist Party, but the people refused. The public wasn’t too keen on Communism, but they still agreed that banning political parties was undemocratic. So the precedent was set. Outlawing political parties wasn’t allowed.

 

Back to the present day, the White Australia Party obviously had nothing to do with the Bondi terror attack, but they’ve been outlawed as a hate group anyway based on laws that were made immediately after that terror attack and as a consequence of that attack. How does banning the White Australia Party stop terrorism? It doesn’t! At all! The government is just set on banning certain political parties.

 

But why? Well, new political parties are rising all across the West, opposing mass immigration and vowing to undo the damage former governments have done to their own nations. These new parties are generating huge amounts of support. Ever since social media changed the way we access information and the kind of information we can see, old governments or the traditional two party voting systems have never been more unpopular.

 

Basically, people’s eyes are wide open now! Especially after Covid-19. The traditional major parties of the West have really fallen out of favour with the people and they’re on the way out.

 

But in Australia, the presiding government has created a scheme for clinging to power in a way which really steamrolls our national constitution and essentially amounts to treason. It’s a very simple three step scheme:

 

– Immigration to replace the existing voter base.

 

– Censorship to stop you from talking about it.

 

– And banning political parties, so there’s no way we can vote them out.

 

The laws they just rushed through at the start of 2026 are called Combating Anti-semitism, Hate and Extremism Bill. They allow the government to ban political parties and jail their political opponents for up to 15 years! And they’ve done this in spite of the legal precedent set by the High Court in 1951. It’s like they don’t even care what the Federal Court says.

 

But here’s the crazy part. No one in a party that’s being banned needs to have committed any actual crimes. The presiding government only needs to be satisfied that the targeted party’s members have engaged in “hateful conduct”, even if that hateful conduct was years in the past.

 

What is “hateful conduct”? The definition is loose. It’s basically whatever the government decides it wants “hateful” to mean. The meaning of hate in the context of this law is almost entirely subjective, meaning it doesn’t have a strong fixed definition. And they’ve used this term deliberately so they can flexibly apply this law to any group or party the government wants to cancel.

 

So when you hear government ministers talk about hate or even hate crime, that’s not a term referencing any legitimate criminal activity. It can mean pretty much anything. You can say something that challenges government policy in a way which embarrasses a certain minister and they can decide you’re guilty of a hate crime. Any group you’re involved in, even loosely, you don’t have to be a direct member. Any group you’re associated with can be outlawed as a hate group on the basis of your comments or your conduct, which doesn’t even have to be criminal. It doesn’t matter if the group we’re talking about is a registered political organisation or religious group. There’s no legal protections here.

 

Now, I’m not someone who tries to drum up outrage for clicks. I’m not trying to sell you a Tshirt. I’m trying to tell you that if you’re Australian like me, we’re in a lot of trouble here! The major parties in our country have exploited terrorism to make a deal to cancel democracy, so we can’t vote them out!

 

Until this year, every Australian citizen had the right to register political parties, contest elections and vote for a party of their choosing. But that just got cancelled. While the media talks about taxes and the definition of a “woman”, your right to fully participate in politics, express yourself freely and vote the way you choose to vote just got shut down. This is the worst thing that’s ever happened to Australia and no one’s talking about it, because the government has deliberately misframed it as banning “Nazis”! But they’re lying! Because this law isn’t actually about banning Nazis!

 

This is about cancelling your right to contest elections, forge new political parties and vote freely. The Labor Party is using anti-Nazi moral hysteria to try to prevent people from understanding or criticising this new law:

 

“If you don’t like the hate group law, then you must be a Nazi!”

 

That’s what they’re trying to imply. But isn’t the whole reason “Nazis” are even considered bad is because they ban political parties and try to eradicate certain people and ideologies? So what? To fight Nazis, the government needs to do exactly what Nazis did historically?

 

And the White Australia Party was trying to participate in politics legally through a registered political party. So even if they are “Nazis”, whatever that even actually means these days, they were forced to operate within a certain legal framework which prevented violence and extremism, which is the whole point of democracy. But that framework is now gone! Which obviously encourages political violence!

 

And what happens when thousands of White Australia members and supporters retreat to One Nation, which they’re currently doing since their original party was banned? Well, then the government can just ban One Nation as well, on the basis that its new members and associates are guilty of hate! And there’s no realistic way for One Nation to protect itself from this outcome. Even if they shut down their branches and introduce strict vetting process, people are going to slip through the cracks and someone will have done something the government decides is “hateful”, at some point in the past.

 

The government will try to ban One Nation next and any of its major contenders. One Nation really has no choice but to demand these laws are repealed immediately and campaign on that basis. Because even if One Nation or other political parties are not banned immediately on the basis of this law, the threat of a ban will constantly loom overhead, coercing the way these parties behave and forcing them into deals they otherwise wouldn’t have done.

 

Any political party which expects to participate in politics independently and forge its own policies freely has to contest the next election purely on the grounds of repealing these new laws. If these laws stand, they allow the government to ban any political party without any due process and no criminal convictions required.

 

Constitutional legal expert Dr. Anne Twomey* just three days ago sounded the alarm, using her YouTube channel to warn Australia that the government has implemented these laws to set a precedent for banning political parties to preserve its position and cancel its opponents. As long as this hate group law exists, there’s literally no point in voting, and no political solution.

 

[ *See: Constitutional Clarion – The Challenge by ‘White Australia’ to the Prohibited Hate Group Law – May 24, 2026 – Transcript ]

 

Former White Australia Party member Thomas Sewell has applied for an emergency injunction at the High Court, which was accepted and is scheduled for a hearing in September to try to fight these laws. But you don’t need to support Thomas Sewell or Thomas Sewell’s ideology directly in order to understand the severity of these laws and oppose them. Every Australian with a brain has a moral duty to oppose these laws! Every sensible person will stop worrying about the definition of a woman and start talking about these hate group laws. Nothing in Australia is more pressing right now!

 

So share this video with your friends and family and help them understand.

 

[9:33]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 5/28/2026 = 4)

TVR_
5 hours ago
Great video on what is ultimately the greatest pressing issue in Australia today
9
0

Gretashapiro
1 hour ago
needs to be shared to normies
3
0

Skygod2020
3 hours ago
I left Australia 14 years ago, moved to China, and I feel sorry for the Australian people for what they are going through and what’s to come. China is light years ahead of Australia in every aspect. Australians need to ask themselves why they are subject to anti-China propaganda 24/7.
1
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
somethingforthisbox
7 minutes ago
Strange how my Chinese friends find the west more comfortable at least for them, though more expensive here… and they are monitored here too. Many things they won’t discuss
0
0

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Anne Twomey: Welcome back to the Constitutional Clarion!

 

The Commonwealth Government has made a regulation that classifies White Australia, or the White Australia Party, as a prohibited hate group. The party has now commenced a constitutional challenge in the High Court to the validity of that law, which will be heard in September. In the meantime, there will also be a hearing in the first week of June which of an application to suspend the effects of its prohibition until the Constitutional case is determined. In this video, I’ll try to explain some of the arguments that will be run in the Constitutional challenge.

 

But first, a bit of a recap on what the law does.

 

Now, for those of you who want more detail, see my previous video, which was called How the New Federal Hate Laws Work.

 

The power to prohibit hate groups was enacted in the Combating Anti-semitism, Hate and Extremism Criminal and Migration Laws Act in January 2026. It inserts a new part 5.3B in the Commonwealth Criminal Code. It authorises the Governor General, acting on the advice of the Australian Federal Police Minister, to make a regulation designating a group as a “prohibited hate group”. The Minister must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the group has engaged in conduct constituting a hate crime or been associated with a hate crime.

 

For example, by:

 

“Preparing, planning or assisting a hate crime, or advocating engaging in such conduct. The conduct of formal or informal members of the group can also be attributed to the group.”

 

So if rogue members of a group incite racial hatred or advocate violence based on race, that might well be sufficient.

 

Now, you might think that the term “hate crime” means that the group or its members actually have to have committed crimes! But that’s not so! The law says that:

 

“No crime needs to have been committed, no one needs to have been convicted by a court, and conduct can be a hate crime even though it happened in the past when it wasn’t a crime. It’s enough for the Minister to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the group has engaged in or been associated with the conduct constituting a hate crime.”

 

This means that it’s the Minister, rather than a court, who assesses that the group has engaged in such conduct. There’s no independent assessment of whether that conduct occurred, whether it satisfied the terms of any offence, whether it could be attributed to the group or whether any defences apply. In some cases, the Minister would have to also be satisfied that the conduct would:

 

“Cause a reasonable member of the targeted group to be intimidated, to fear harassment, or violence or to fear for their safety.”

 

These matters are quite impressionistic in nature and ordinarily they are determined by a court after hearing relevant evidence.

 

But under part 5.3B, it’s just up to the Minister to be satisfied without evidence, without a hearing and without procedural fairness.

 

Moreover, it seems that the conduct in many cases could have occurred at any time in the past, no matter how long ago, and certainly before that conduct became an offence.

 

Given the past rhetoric of members of political parties about racial, immigration and refugee matters, it would not be hard to satisfy this criteria in order to ban any political party! Making this a very dangerous weapon for a future authoritarian government to use.

 

There are, however, some further hoops to go through before a grip can be banned:

 

“The Minister must be satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that banning the group is reasonably necessary to protect the Australian community, or a part of it from social, economic, psychological and physical harm.”

 

But “psychological harm” could mean almost anything. And its stated in the act to:

 

“Include harm caused by the continued presence in Australia of the group that has engaged in or been associated with hate crimes.”

 

So it’s actually a self fulfilling condition!

 

More significantly, the Minister must have received advice from the Director General of Security, who’s the head of ASIO [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation], recommending the group be banned because it has:

 

“Engaged in activities that are likely to increase the risk of politically motivated violence or communal violence, or has either itself advocated for or engaged in such violence, or there’s a risk that it might do so in the future.”

 

So it covers activities that do not themselves constitute or cause harm, but simply if there’s a risk of harm.

 

While one might trust ASIO to make that assessment fairly now, one cannot guarantee it for the future. If, for example, an authoritarian leader placed a crony in the Office of Director General of Security. It’s therefore some protection from the abuse of the power, but not great protection.

 

The Attorney General must also sign off on any ban and the Leader of the Opposition must be briefed, and that’s it! Once this process is completed, a group can be designated a “prohibited hate group”.

 

Now, to be clear, this does not involve convicting anyone of a hate crime. It’s an administrative act to ban a group. But the consequences of that ban are serious! Continuing as a member of a prohibited hate group, if you know that it is prohibited and you haven’t taken reasonable steps to end your membership, that’s an offence with a penalty of up to 7 years in jail! Directing the activities of a prohibited hate group can land you in prison for 15 years. There are other offences of recruiting for a prohibited hate group, training it or being trained by it, funding it or providing support for it, all with penalties ranging up to 10 or 15 years in prison. It’s also an offence to display any of the prohibited hate group symbols.

 

Now this brings us to the Criminal Code Prohibited Hate Group White Australia Regulations 2026. They state that White Australia, also known as WA, WAP or the White Australia Party, is a prohibited hate group. The regulations commenced on 16 May 2026.

 

The White Australia Party, of whose members were drawn from the since disbanded National Socialist Network, is an incorporated association registered in Victoria on 20th December 2025. Its registered purpose is:

 

“To advance the cultural, historical and ethnic interests of Australians of European heritage and advocate for immigration and population policies that serve the national interest and engage in lawful political advocacy, education and community activities to support candidates and policies aligned with its objectives.”

 

It claims to have 1, 779 members. It sought to become a registered political party at the Commonwealth level, but it’s not submitted the details of the names of its members as required. Presumably this is because it would provide evidence to the Commonwealth of its membership and of course membership, unless you take reasonable steps to get rid of your membership as soon as you find out that it’s a prohibited hate group, is a criminal offence! One would imagine that the number of party members is dropping rather quickly as a consequence.

 

On the 18th of May the White Australia Party lodged its constitutional challenge in the High Court. It’s arguing that Part 5.3B of the Criminal Code is invalid on three grounds.

 

One, the absence of a Head of Legislative Power to enact the law. Two, breach of the implied freedom of political communication. And three, breach of the separation of powers by vesting punitive powers in the Executive. Due to time constraints on doing these videos, I’m only going to discuss the first two.

 

The Commonwealth Parliament must have a Head of Legislative Power in order to enact a law. The White Australia Party claims that its position is similar to that of the Communist Party when it was dissolved by legislation. That legislation was found by the High Court to be invalid due to the absence of a Head of Power. In the Communist party case in 1951, it was claimed that the law dissolving the Communist Party was supported by the Defence Power and by what we now call the implied Nationhood Power, which includes protection of the nation.

 

The High Court disagreed, finding that neither power supported the law. The White Australia Party asserts that the current law is not supported by the Defence Power or the Nationhood Power. It adds that the corporation’s power is also not applicable to it because the party is an “incorporated association” and not a corporation. It claims there is no Head of Power to enact part 5.3B.

 

Now, three issues arise here. First, while the Defence Power was held in the Communist Party case not to support the relevant law, more recently in the case of Thomas and Mowbray in 2007, the High Court took a much broader view of the scope of the Defence Power, particularly in relation to terrorism and the protection of the people of the nation from violence.

 

The reasoning in the majority judgements is so poor that it’s actually quite difficult to pinpoint the rationale.

 

But it seems that the majority rejected the view taken of the scope of the defence power in the Communist Party case and that the Defence Power in section 51.6 of the Constitution now extends to matters concerning national security and the risk of internal violence within Australia. Whether it would extend further to the prohibition of a political party and whether such a law would satisfy a proportionality test would be a matter for argument.

 

Second, the scope of the Nationhood Power has also been expanded by the High Court, with a majority in the PAPE case regarding it as a power to deal with national emergencies. There might be scope for the Commonwealth to argue that the prohibition of hate groups is necessary to protect the Commonwealth against internal threats and that it’s a matter peculiarly adapted to the government of the nation that cannot otherwise be carried out for its benefit. Which is critical part of the test for the Nationhood Power. Again, however, a proportionality test may apply.

 

Reliance on either of these powers would prove difficult because it would be hard to satisfy a proportionality test in relation to either Head of Power, given the breadth and vagueness of the application of Part 5.3B, as explained earlier.

 

Third, we have the External Affairs Power. This is the power expressly relied upon in Part 5.3B of the Criminal Code. It states in section 114A.1 that:

 

“One of the objectives of the Part is to give effect to Australia’s obligations under articles 20 and, 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, known as the ICCPR, and Articles 4A and 4B of the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, known as CERD.”

 

Articles 20 and, 26 require:

 

“The prohibition of incitement of racial hatred and the protection of people against racial discrimination.”

 

Part 5.3B, of course, goes much further than that! So they’re not terribly helpful.

 

The most relevant treaty provision, however, is Article 4B of CERD. It says that:

 

“State parties shall declare illegal and prohibit organisations which promote and incite racial hatred and shall recognise participation in such organisations as an offence punishable by law. Article 4A also requires parties to make an offence punishable by law the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof.”

 

A proportionality test also applies with respect to the implementation of treaties. The law must be:

 

“Reasonably capable of being considered appropriate and adapted to implementing the treaty obligations.”

 

In this case, Part 5.3B or at least most of it, would seem reasonably capable of being considered appropriate and adapted to implementing Article 4 of CERD.

 

So it’s likely that a Head of Power will be found to support it.

 

This is subject, however, to the key issue that arose in the Communist Party case. In that case, it was accepted that the Commonwealth Parliament could enact a law against subversion. But the Communist Party Dissolution Act did not itself prohibit subversion. It instead authorised the Governor General, acting on ministerial advice, to declare associations and individuals to be communists on the basis asserted in a recital in the preamble to the Act, that Communists engage in subversion. The connection between the law and the power was based on a decision of the Executive, the Governor General, on the advice of the Minister, not by a court!

 

Now, this led to the law being struck down as invalid. Part 5.3B of the Criminal Code sails perilously close to that same problem! It’s the Minister and the Governor General who determine that a body is a “hate group”, connecting the law to the power to enact it without there being any judicial determination that a hate crime has ever been committed.

 

But there are also differences. Part 5.3B, for example, applies generally, not just to a particular group. It doesn’t rely on recitals in a preamble. And there’s greater facility for administrative review of executive decisions than there was back at the time of the Communist Party case.

 

So it will be interesting to see what a court makes of those similarities and differences in the course of this challenge.

 

The next issue is the implied freedom of political communication. This is most likely where the Constitutional problems will arise. Would the designation of a group, including a political party, as a “prohibited hate group”, burden the implied freedom of political communication? Well, the answer to that must be, yes!

 

So we move on to the next part of the test. Does Part 5.3B have a legitimate purpose that is compatible with the Constitutional system of representative and responsible government? The High Court held in Farmer and the Minister for Home affairs in 2025 that:

 

“Prohibiting incitement of Discord in the Australian community was a legitimate purpose to the extent that this meant preventing harmful dissension or strife, including intimidation, vilification or victimisation on a large scale in the Australian community or within or amongst segments of the community. But it would not be sufficient if only the feelings or sensitivities of the Australian community, or a segment of the community would be hurt or adversely affected. Parliament cannot use its legislative power for the purpose of curbing political disagreement and debate inside Australia. The purpose must be directed at preventing material harm to the Australian community, or a segment of that community, rather than merely eroding social cohesion through disagreement and debate.”

 

The Objects clause in section 114A.1 of Part 5.3B, however, goes broader than that. It states that:

 

“The object is to protect the Australian community, or part of it, against social, economic, psychological and physical harm and from the promotion of violence by prohibiting organisations that engage in, prepare or plan to engage in or assist the engagement in, or advocate engaging in conduct constituting a hate crime and to give effect to those treaty obligations (that I mentioned).”

 

It will be a matter for argument in court about whether that actually is the purpose of Part 5.3B, and whether it’s a legitimate purpose, taking into account the qualifications given by the High Court in the Farmer case.

 

If the law has a legitimate purpose, the final question will be whether Part 5.3B is reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve the legitimate end, whatever that is, in a manner that is compatible with the Constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government.

 

Now this is where all those problems that I raised at the beginning of this video about the breadth and the vagueness and the discretion in these provisions will become important. One could imagine that a far more narrowly tailored law could achieve any legitimate end without imposing such an extreme burden on political communication.

 

In short, there is a good argument that it is disproportionate in its application.

 

The outcome, of course, will depend upon how it is argued before the court, which none of us can dictate or predict. It will also require putting aside any personal objection to the plaintiff in this case and its ideology, and instead place the focus squarely on the long term application and the validity of this law.

 

Thank you once again for watching or listening to the Constitutional Clarion and I look forward to your company again next time. Goodbye.

 

[19:30]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Youtube Comments

top

(Comments as of 5/25/2026 = 174)

@husaberg650
2 hours ago
But we can have Communist Parties.
13

@holobiont3197
3 hours ago
Not convinced they fully thought through the acronym WAP.
8

@richyglitched
4 hours ago
The primary function of discrimination for the group is enough to have it outright banned. Lumped with the Bikies
4

@benhall8172
6 hours ago
If WAP can be declared a hate group and then have every member jailed, so can any political party or group the Govt of the day doesn’t like when the language is so vague and broad anything can be construed as illegal: Three Felonies a Day
16

@farright118
6 hours ago
These laws are so undemocratic.
I’ll be shocked if these laws aren’t thrown out
27

@andhewonders
7 hours ago
I’m curious that if these groups form themselves into a religious body, will hate laws still apply?
8

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
Probably yes. Section 116 of the Constitution says the Commonwealth shall not make any law for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion – but that has been interpreted as subject to limits (eg if it is part of your religion to engage in human sacrifice, etc). You cannot use religion as an excuse for engaging in criminal conduct.
8

Hide replies

@malcolmfletcher7295
8 hours ago
I find it interesting that the Federal Government spontaneously decided that such a law was a good idea.
7

@hillstrong715
8 hours ago
The problem with this is that an administration change can take out any and every group that the government of the day finds objectionable. So any group that objects to any of the policies of the government of the day can be banned by simply defining the objection as hatred. Bad news for everyone in this nation, most particularly anyone who is a citizen.
11

@obliviouz
9 hours ago
Thank you for another informative video. Given the fact that the law almost expressly provides for punishment without (full) involvement of the Courts, I would be interested in the third issue referred to, the separation of powers point. That was a point taken and relevant to a recent determination in a visa/immigration detention/terrorism case if I remember correctly.
3

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
Yes, it’s a far more complex issue and would require quite a bit more work on my end. I just haven’t had the time for it so far. But maybe in the future.
1

Hide replies

@Lucid-AUS
9 hours ago
Very informative thank you

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
You’re welcome.

Hide replies

@caboose00f76
9 hours ago
Man these comments are wild. The creepers coming in from Pauline’s lot and the Trumpers. What a mess these people are.
5

@lukepaul7931
10 hours ago
I dont like them but i wish the government didnt block them. They are a pressure relief valve that has been blocked.
2

@__Max-oe6zm
10 hours ago
It’s an interesting situation for sure.
1

@steveliveshere
10 hours ago
Considering everything that’s going on in the world a White Australia Party is more concerning than a communist Party.
2

@mahcooharper9577
10 hours ago
I’m sure you could find someone who is genuinely distressed by the presence of ANY group in this country.
It’s a very poorly thought out piece of legislation, and as mentioned a terrifying weapon for an authoritarian to use.
Irrespective of who the group is who is currently proposed to be banned, I hope they can succeed in having the law overturned.
6

@JamesThomas-n3q
11 hours ago
Thanks Anne for the informative video. Always a helpful watch for those of us who want knowledge on the laws both current and upcoming.
11

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
Thanks. I very much appreciate it, as it does take quite a bit of effort to do these videos.

Hide replies

@therig.88
11 hours ago
If we don’t have freedom of political opinion.. do we really have freedom? Or free ideas in a democracy?
32

@richyglitched
4 hours ago
We don’t put up with criminal organisations like the Mafia or Bikies..

Hide replies

@not.rumple.stiltskin
11 hours ago (edited)
They really threw the toys out of the cot with this one.
sooo being unpleasant to someone is unlawful seems to be the goal.
also how is the reasonableness of a person measured?
17

@sylviaelse5086
11 hours ago
Is there anything to prevent the president of the group from being arrested and charged with directing the activities of a prohibited group while the group is litigating?
9

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
That was an issue raised the other day when they sought interlocutory relief (which will now be dealt with in the first week in June). As Justice Jagot mentioned, it is likely that any prosecution would be stayed until the constitutional issue was resolved.

Hide replies

@CaptainKremmen
11 hours ago
You say that it could be misused by a “future authoritarian government”. Surely simply creating such a law working totally outside the judicial system means we already have a current authoritarian government.
50

@Pastor-of-muppets1985
11 hours ago (edited)
How does it operate outside the judicial system? It’s currently being challenged in the HCA.
1

@mahcooharper9577
10 hours ago
​ @Pastor-of-muppets1985 if the HCA rules it is valid there is no further review, and no review is applicable to a Minister’s decision.

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago

@mahcooharper9577 – No, that’s not quite right. If the HCA rules it is valid, then that just means the law is valid. It may still be the case that the Minister did not have reasonable grounds to make a decision and that this may be challenged on an administrative law basis.
1

@yt.personal.identification
11 hours ago
Don’t attribute to malice, that which can easily be attributed to stupidity.
3

@hs-yr1zu
7 hours ago
@yt.personal.identification Doesn’t apply here. You don’t accidentally form a govt that delivers the 2nd worst record for secrecy and transparency of any govt since federation, and you don’t accidentally use a historic mandate to dismantle FOI laws as a first order priority. The authoritarian govt is well and truly here. If their contempt for democracy wasn’t clear enough, the latest budget should seal the deal, regardless of your view of the budget itself.
9

Hide replies

@mendaciousferret819
12 hours ago
Instead of focusing on how effective our security services have been we get this. They failed and are now blaming it on insufficient power.
19

@AGoodYear-q2v
12 hours ago
Very interesting clip by this lady. Protecting freedom of political expression is critical – such an important decision for the High Court coming up.
28

@constitutionalclarion1901
12 hours ago
Thanks.
8

Hide replies

@scottn2046
12 hours ago
I’m curious – how much freedom does a Federal Government have to sign a Treaty and then use the External Affairs Powers to claim a Head of Power that otherwise wouldn’t exist? Can it be used as a “Magic Head-Of-Power Tree” potentially initiating a treaty with co-operative countries with the intent of creating a Head Of Power that it doesn’t have, but would like??
6

@constitutionalclarion1901
12 hours ago
The High Court has said that it must be a ‘bona fide’ treaty (see Tasmanian Dam case). You can’t just go shopping for a treaty or bribe a small country to enter into a treaty to give you a head of power. But so far there has been no case where the validity of a law has been struck down because the treaty was not a bona fide one – probably because the Commonwealth has not been game to push its luck on this point.
5

@andrewjgrimm
11 hours ago
One of the past CC videos touched upon it. Sorry I can’t tell you which one.

Hide replies

@EAFSQ9
12 hours ago
I’m just here before the comments get locked due to the PHON types and White Australia Party members brigading this video
6

@therig.88
11 hours ago
You afraid of different opinions may the best man win in the land of ideas.
23

@Pastor-of-muppets1985
11 hours ago
So no opinion then? Just wanted to get a comment in?
16

@steveliveshere
10 hours ago
@Pastor-of-muppets1985 its not an opinion mate its fascim.

@mahcooharper9577
10 hours ago
If Trump was in charge here and was banning left wing activism groups I suspect you wouldn’t mind those groups objecting.
You need to step outside who it is and whether you personally support them and think about what this law actually means.
3

@homelander-enjoyer
12 hours ago
Better not let them have opinions in our brave little democracy!
34

@trunkage
11 hours ago
​ @homelander-enjoyer Unfortunately, their opinions is taking everyone else opinions away
Either way, someone is going to lose their opinion
1

@ricochet2977
10 hours ago
@trunkage
Who is taking your opinion away, didn’t you just state your opinion?
4

@constitutionalclarion1901
12 hours ago
Yes – shut down will happen soon, as I don’t have the time to keep monitoring the comments. I’m afraid I have other work I have to do.
9

Hide replies

@duncancargill6371
12 hours ago
As opposed to any and all forms of racism as I am I see this legislation as a draconian over reach open as it is too absurd levels of abuse. Also it is puzzling that the same government that enacts this legislation for, inpart, to protect social cohesion at the same time acts to destroy social cohesion with it’s immigration detention policy?
19

@CaptainKremmen
11 hours ago
It’s especially ludicrous to make arbitrary laws aimed against the White Australia Party, a tiny group of around 1500 members. The group is so small that it would be sensible to just ignore it, unless it commits any actual crimes. This kind of heavy-handed legislation is more likely to give them free publicity and possibly even support.
8

Hide replies

@SuperLloyd84
12 hours ago
Forcing people to give up their association seems like such a smart idea. I’m sure this won’t anger any radical elements and drive them underground, or give them a grievance they need to resolve.
24

@CheekyJebus
10 hours ago
giving people 15 years in prison for wrong-think strips them of having a peaceful route to seeking change in the country, that’s never a good idea.
4

Hide replies

@Margarinethebutterlover
12 hours ago
Great vid, thanks. Under these same circumstances, your own media may well be under attack.
6

@constitutionalclarion1901
11 hours ago
I try to weed out the comments that would breach existing laws, but it’s always possible I will miss some, or judge incorrectly which side of the law they fall. It is a real risk of running a channel like this – but I do try hard to ensure that the channel stays within the law.
5

@nationalistpolitics
9 hours ago
@constitutionalclarion1901 How could you possibly be held responsible for what other people post in the comments?

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
Unfortunately, there are a number of cases in which the person who owns/runs the channel (or facebook page or blog) has been held responsible for the comments, as they did not take action to delete a comment (where that comment breaches an anti-hatred law) in a reasonable time. I didn’t make the law – but I do have to obey it.

Hide replies

@mathewritchie
12 hours ago
Under the rules outlined all the major parties could be defined as hate groups.
21

@Robert-xs2mv
12 hours ago
Besides I don’t “ hate” anything, I just disagree
10

@phwbooth
12 hours ago
Excellent analysis, ma’am. Thanks.
11

@constitutionalclarion1901
12 hours ago
Much appreciated.
2

Hide replies

@phwbooth
12 hours ago
Hate is a sin, and has not in the past been a crime ( Matthew 5:43–44 ) Only when it resulted in action was such an action punishable, and then (in England) by the Ecclesiastical Courts.
2

@dodecahedron-r7d
12 hours ago
They have redefined biblical principles and turned things into thought crimes and crimes of perception
Instead of 1:1 cause and effect, they have decided now that something is s crime when it’s one step removed from reality, thus if someone is offended now they have been harmed. The next stage will be pre-crime or being born into the wrong lineage
My biggest objection is that all these laws that keep proliferating at a rate society cannot ascertain the long term effects of, are not being agreed to by those who are expected to be governed by these laws, or ANY laws for that matter
It is part time laws were wound back and we reassess the very notion of law and it’s so called right to govern others, especially when 99% of laws are never agreed to by those placed under them and are asserted by nothing more than the violence of the state or by implied rights
5

@hs-yr1zu
7 hours ago
@dodecahedron-r7d The joys of postmodernism. The only objective truth is that truth is an oppressive social construct, so reality is as defined by any given individual. Now it’s enshrined in law and the ideology of our ‘democratic’ government. We might be cooked.

@DizzyButler
10 hours ago
Not sure if a biblical reference was made in the video that gave this comment more context and I just zoned out during that bit, but the Bible doesn’t say hate is a sin in it’s entirety. Romans 12:9 “hate what is evil, cling to what is good.” This ‘hate what is evil’ has been used as justification for actual hate crime historically and currently.
1

Hide replies

@pmafi_eng
13 hours ago
Given Pauline Hanson’s past comments and actions against minority groups such as Muslims, Chinese etc.
Do you think it would possible for One Nation to be a banned group?
9

@LuckyLocust
12 hours ago
The laws are so vague and retroactive that likely any party could be banned. Just needs the minister to have the will to do so. Any party that said negrative things about the germans, italians or japanese during WW2 could be banned under these laws.
13

@mahcooharper9577
10 hours ago
Pretty much every political or activist group in the country has said something that could be considered hateful, on both the left and the right. This (aside from the legal issues) is the problem – it’s too vague and it’s antithetical to democracy.
2

Hide replies

@peregrineh1620
13 hours ago
Seems a bit fishy that it’s left to the minister to determine – and after what we know about the lack of info sharing…seems dodgy….ministers are not capable! This is not a good idea.
7

@tomo9224
13 hours ago
As much as I hate speech being silenced, this is probably one of those videos where the comments section should be shut down, Professor
2

@nationalistpolitics
9 hours ago
“This legislation silencing free speech is bad”
“We will disable the comments so that people cannot discuss it freely”
???
4

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
Unfortunately, the law requires me to do so – it’s not my choice. There have been several cases in which the person who runs a Facebook page, blog or channel has been held responsible under anti-hatred laws for failing to delete offending posts made by others.
1

@CheekyJebus
10 hours ago
nothing says democracy and education like not allowing open discussion.
3

@constitutionalclarion1901
12 hours ago
Yes, I’ll do so shortly.
2

Hide replies

@jackhanley293
13 hours ago
We already give ministers too much power. Is this an attack on free speach
15

@worker-wf2em
13 hours ago
The antidote to hate speech is not censorship, but more speech. This is a lesson mankind consistently fails to learn. As soon as you hand those in power the ability to determine what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable speech, there is only one outcome. I vehemently disagree with everything White Australia stands for, but it is foolish to cheer any system of power censoring it.
19

@somluck2813
13 hours ago
Singapore and Malaysia use laws made by British to quash opposition groups.
2

@MrTiddalik
13 hours ago
Never a dull moment
1

@lauchlanguddy1004
13 hours ago
I trust the courts. The law already allows an elected crony to make these decisions.

@somluck2813
13 hours ago
Given that act applies to historical statements made by the relevant party, the Australian Labor Party has from since Australia was established to at least the 1960s made racist statement, the ‘White Australia’ was part of its platform up to the 1970s, it would seem that questions can be raised in relation to the ALP.
17

@Imagineering100
13 hours ago
This will cause nothing but problems.
8

@dancarmody3789
13 hours ago
If the challenge is succesful and the law is found unconstitutional, it will affect all the other groups listed so far…. Hizb ut-Tahrir. What a crazy world we live in that white supremacists might end up helping Islamic extremists. One has to wonder if that they’ve even considered that outcome.
3

@Jordz97
13 hours ago
No one has even heard of Hizb ut-Tahrir, once White Australia gets in Hizb ut-Tahrir will be deported lmao.
17

@dancarmody3789
13 hours ago
@Jordz97 Lol, White Australia aren’t going to get in.
2

@JamesThomas-n3q
10 hours ago
@dancarmody3789 if that’s what the government thought then they wouldn’t have banned the WAP.
2

@TheKrispyfort
13 hours ago
Misogynists and xenophobes helping other misogynists and xenophobes.
3

Hide replies

@williamhay3029
13 hours ago (edited)
Wondering if their arguments will be a mix of the best cooker material, mixed with badly misquoted sections from your videos and involve red/ green constitution.
Also coincidentally this has come out on the afternoon that John Safran has a new show on free speech in Australia, focussing on free speech laws such as this and whether it’s healthy to have these. And of course he then discusse and meets with NSN and learns how to give a decent Nazi salute
3

@jimmy12347654
10 hours ago
Isn’t doing the NS salute a crime in a lot of states in Australia ?

Hide replies

@davidsullivan4449
13 hours ago
This was both awesome and very disturbing. I saw Rupert Lowe in the UK talking about similar trends in law whereby judgements that were usually made by juries are now being made purely by judges or a judge. I don’t really know the details but you know what I mean.
12

@TheKrispyfort
13 hours ago
You should read up on NSW legislation and laws around compulsory possession of proceedings of criminal activity.

Hide replies

@NelleBligh333
13 hours ago
It irks me as the granddaughter of a member of the Communist Party of Australia who only ceased to be a member when the party disbanded, to see this kind of legislation brought in to ban a political group when they tried to ban the CP twice and each time the ban was overturned by the High Court. You would think current members of Parliament would be aware of this history. Stop impinging on our right to political expression!
35

@PhilipGissing
10 hours ago
This former member of the Communist Party, who also was around when the party disbanded, couldn’t agree more!

Hide replies

@2paulstacey
13 hours ago
A Nazi party won’t get many votes but any votes for it would be damaging to Australia.
2

@TheKrispyfort
13 hours ago
Apparently, “Nazi” was initially a derogatory nickname for Hitler’s political party.
Kinda like calling the Liberal Party the “Libs”
6

@CheekyJebus
10 hours ago (edited)
If they won’t get any votes why do we have to go out of our way to frantically ban them? (let alone criminalize any association with up to 15 years in prison)
2

Hide replies

@stephenwellstriggers
13 hours ago
Too many numbskull’s in the comments who dont care about the tyranny inherrent in this law, as long as it stops “muh Nazis”. As President Kennedy said “thiose who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable”. The former leaders of the NSN and White Australia Party explicitly condemed terrorism and political violence to achieve their goals. What do you think all the young men who followed them are going to do if they think that strategy has failed? Ultimately the Government has shown it doesnt trust the Australian people to reject the White Australia Party at the ballot box.
46

@jimmy12347654
10 hours ago
It’s such a weak move that only pushes people underground, We have so little faith in our people and ideas that they need to swing the ban hammer so pathetic
2

Hide replies

@supernoveau
14 hours ago
Which party has the burden of proof?
2

@hevsa1507
14 hours ago
This is just a test as to whether we live in a completely corrupt system, or not.
None of this passes the pub test.
38

@JimmyCall
14 hours ago (edited)
I posted a comment on this subject in previous video, but deleted it due to mistakes/poor structure. The topic is some of the most complicated argument/dilemmas of Constitutional law.
1

@SH-3274
14 hours ago (edited)
Professor Twomey, I have a question about the “future authoritarian government” concerns you mentioned.
Suppose that a ruling party wanted to illegitimately classify a well-established political party (GRN, ALP, LIB, NAT, ONE, etc.) as a hate group. Assuming that their caucus and ministers were entirely on-board with this*, how many well-placed cronies would they require, and how difficult would it be to place them? By my guess they’d require five – the director of ASIO and four High Court judges – but my understanding of this is quite shaky. I certainly don’t understand how difficult it would be to place them.
*I say this because a leadership spill would undoubtedly make this difficult to pull off.
(Edited for clarity and typo correction)
3

@constitutionalclarion1901
11 hours ago
I agree that it would be difficult. In the past, one would have thought it unthinkable. But the unthinkable has been happening in a number of countries around the world in recent years. So it is no longer unthinkable. In my view, at least, it is something we should be alert to and defend against. In particular, we should not pass laws that could be abused in the future.
5

@SH-3274
8 hours ago
​ @constitutionalclarion1901 thanks for the insight. One follow up: with the laws as they currently exist, if the government wanted to seriously abuse them, what would the minimum required number of cronies be? Would the head of ASIO and four High Court judges be enough?

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
Another factor is that the regulation declaring a group to be a prohibited hate group can be disallowed by either House. So an authoritarian government would need majority support in the upper House to prevent disallowance.
2

Hide replies

@mrx6682
14 hours ago
They have a right to form a political party, thats just common sense.
27

@79gengen
13 hours ago
Sure, but they won’t even give their names…. Go figure
1

@lioncross1849
12 hours ago
@79gengen because if they do, they risk going to jail under these new laws. That is the issue at hand. That’s why we are having this high court case.
Shouldn’t that not be obvious to you mate?
11

Hide replies

@richardjohnston-bell476
14 hours ago (edited)
Free speech is the foundational right that all other rights are built upon and is worth protecting. I also believe that not only is ‘hate speech’ free speech, but that free speech cannot exist without it. Free speech is not just about the right to express an opinion or an idea, free from violence or government intervention, its the right to be able to listen to those ideas and opinions. As an adult, I find it insulting that the government thinks so little of my ability to reason, that they get to decide what information is too dangerous for my poor little brain to handle.
This is why I am voting for One Nation. They are the only party that is serious about free speech
17

@C0wCakes
14 hours ago
Australia isn’t the United States. There’s nothing in the constitution that guarantees free speech or makes it a foundational right. We have a very long history of common-law and case history. That includes that speech that is harmful to society and its people isn’t permitted, backed by the prior mentioned case law. That’s actually far better than a few lines in a constitution that are exceedingly diffult to change.
2

@supernoveau
13 hours ago
There’s a very big difference between speech that is advocating for physical violence, and speech that some identity group doesn’t want to hear because it’s contrary to their political interest.
4

@richardjohnston-bell476
12 hours ago
@C0wCakes why do people always confuse the concept of free speech and what it is in law. The US didnt invent free speech, they have just taken the concept and placed it in the constitution. If you base your argument defining free speech by what the laws say, then if we put the same rules as the US into our constitution, then your argument no longer exists, Would you then agree that ‘hate speech’ does not exist becasue the law says it doesnt?
3

@79gengen
13 hours ago
Sure, have free speech, but be prepared to face the consequences that go with it.
1

@FairyBreadforbreakfast
13 hours ago
@79gengen The only consequence that is reasonable is that someone disagrees with you. Any other state sanctioned punishment is not reasonable and means you don’t have free speech.
4

@richardjohnston-bell476
12 hours ago (edited)
@79gengen I assume you mean consequences that are within the law?

@79gengen
8 hours ago
​ @richardjohnston-bell476 I assume you mean free speech that is within the law.

Hide replies

@nicholassteel5529
14 hours ago

@learningmore8047
14 hours ago
This is a great video, well done. It gets me thinking about how this law and how the Indigenous peoples see their positions especially as they have taken the brunt of hatred since the arrival of the first fleet, throw that into the context of what the Uluru Statement from the Heart stated about their unceded sovereignty and mix that with Australia’s obligations under the ICCPR for example and then the intentions of Australia when it supported UNDRIP in 2009. You have really triggered ones mind with this video. Please keep up the great wotk especially with these videos.
3

@AustralianGrandmasForDemocracy
14 hours ago
Thanks Anne. I think this and related issues will be hotly debated for some time to come. Time for a Bill of Rights to balance it out I think!
9

@Pab_1967
14 hours ago
We have a Bill of Rights 1688, which the GovCo is breaching, it’s attached to our Commonwealth Constitution of Australia, Imperial law

@AustralianGrandmasForDemocracy
12 hours ago
@Pab_1967 According to Google that one only covers parliamentary privilege. The (4 I think) rights mentioned in the constitution are totally inadequate. There are a hodge-podge of rights mentioned in different acts of legislation in different states but I still think we need a fully fledged Federal Bill of Rights. Perhaps Anne can clarify?
2

@Pab_1967
12 hours ago
​ @AustralianGrandmasForDemocracy the Commonwealth Constitution of Australia was never about rules for the people, it was designed to keep Corporations and Parliament in line. Ours are given with the blessing of Almighty God, ten commandments.

Hide replies

@kipwatson
14 hours ago
They sound like a nasty, stupid party; and it sounds like a stupid, extremely dangerous law.
12

@JayGuitars1
15 hours ago
Why can’t we all just get along?
4

@dancarmody3789
14 hours ago
Some folks aren’t good at just minding their own business. The internet has made it worse.

@aussiegodx8629
14 hours ago
Bcus we tried that and it’s not working and never will
7

Hide replies

@Hansel_and_Grettle
15 hours ago (edited)
I think the best way to legitimise a far right movement is to ban them.
If you believe their ideas to be horrid and wrong (which I do), then you should be able to debate and beat them with ease.
Silencing them only incentivises them to move away from democratic means of pushing their agenda, which is far more dangerous and scary imho. So far Australia has mostly avoided large scale right wing terrorism, I’d like to keep things that way.
17

@seanlander9321
14 hours ago
Is it fair then to ban other groups who aren’t on the Right but which oppose Australia’s institutions, promote violence, hate, or prejudice? Because it really is a can of worms that’s being opened, and the prejudice of the Minister has too much sway in what should be the decision of a court.
7

@stephenwellstriggers
13 hours ago
From a former member of said party, I agree.
5

@uasj2
14 hours ago
This is it. The prof is not supporting this group but nevertheless we don’t want repressive laws to ban them, just well-crafted laws that target only extreme groups
4

@seanlander9321
14 hours ago
@uasj2 How then would a government that has funded a group that advocates hate or violence treat itself then?

@stephenwellstriggers
13 hours ago
​ @seanlander9321 you can make violence illegal, but if you make hatred illegal then everyone is a law breaker. Hate is a universal emotion and part of the human condition. You cant legislate it away.
4

@RSA_Liberty
14 hours ago
The system doesnt want open debate
4

@MrBlaygor
14 hours ago
In my opinion if the government really wanted to end extremism, they would have put in a clause ENCOURAGING any group targeted for designation to escape that designation by requiring them to participate in the electoral system.
3

Hide replies

@DeGuerre
15 hours ago
I hate that we have to think about “what this would be like in the hands of ȧ madman” because that’s not hypothetical any more.
16

@Teufeltusken
15 hours ago
This appears to be what happens when you make rushed laws. The intentions may be honourable, but by being sloppy you allow the targets of the legislation to make valid challenges.
4

@CheekyJebus
10 hours ago
Stripping free speech and your right to political expression is never “honourable”
1

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
Indeed. Much better to do it carefully and sensibly.
6

@SethWAE
13 hours ago
​ @constitutionalclarion1901 Like Donald Trump?

Hide replies

@MartyH99
15 hours ago
Will the Labor party object when these laws are used against themselves?
10

@MartyH99
15 hours ago
It will interesting to hear how the government proved ‘hate’?
1

@lauchlanguddy1004
12 hours ago
They dont have to. Its not a court. All comes down to one person, seems

Hide replies

@zalzalahbuttsaab
15 hours ago
thank you. informative and well-researched as usual!
3

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
You are most welcome.
2

Hide replies

@paulx3733
15 hours ago
Sometimes in this ” modern world” the best motives are easily undermined by those who try to hard to appease the people who are to easily offended…
Just cause your feelings are hurt, don’t make you right.
5

@hs9067
15 hours ago (edited)
I’m continually suprised by Labors attempt at overreach. Restrictive protest, speech laws etc Should we be worried are they trying to lay the foundations for Authoritarianism?
11

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
It was supported by the Coalition too.
9

@hs9067
14 hours ago (edited)
@constitutionalclarion1901 Thats worrying two mainstream partys and than One Nation who is outright oligarchical. Thank you for all the work you do!
2

@AustralianGrandmasForDemocracy
14 hours ago
@constitutionalclarion1901 that isn’t at all surprising!
1

@JayGuitars1
15 hours ago
And trying to eliminate legal firearm possession at the same time…gee you could draw a conclusion.
2

@constitutionalclarion1901
14 hours ago
The law did not seek to ‘eliminate’ legal firearm possession. It imposed some restrictions – eg on the number of firearms that could be owned.
4

Hide replies

@robertwalker7924
15 hours ago
the largest ” hate group ” in Australia is the Australian population towards Australias indigenous peoples…its all very one sided
8

@justheretowatchatrashfire
14 hours ago
Yep
1

@AustralianGrandmasForDemocracy
14 hours ago
It’s shameful that antisemitism gets far more attention than the disrespect and violence that our First Nations people are subject to.
5

Hide replies

@aarondemiri486
15 hours ago (edited)
Will be excited to read what the High Court decides in their judgement.
They will likely discuss Latham’s dissent in the communist party case. Fullagar and Dixon’s separate judgements still stand the test of time.
2

@lylegc01
15 hours ago
Thanks again for your vids
1

@Robert-xs2mv
15 hours ago
Hate in it self is never a crime.
To state otherwise is an injustice!
And when injustice becomes law, the law becomes irrelevant!
11

@RSA_Liberty
14 hours ago
Which human emotion are they going to regulate and ban next?
4

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago (edited)
No one has suggested that hate itself is a crime. It is the public expression of that hate in particular ways (eg inciting violence, intimidating, humiliating others, etc) that is the crime.
1

@Robert-xs2mv
15 hours ago
@constitutionalclarion1901 . So being condemned and accused to be a sinner is a hate crime inciting violence? And you clearly accentuated the relevant minister has the ability to declare whether an expression of hate indeed is inciting ? Sounds like an extremely fine line.
8

@worker-wf2em
10 hours ago

@constitutionalclarion1901 There are already laws against inciting violence in this country. All I see here is overreach from government equating words with violence. Terms like ‘humiliating’ is a ridiculously broad and objective feelings based standard that will be abused by those in power to target dissenters, and anyone the Israel lobby doesn’t like if we’re being honest.
3

Hide replies

@StephenSkinner-k4w
15 hours ago
Who decides if the minister actually did have “reasonable Grounds” to prohibit a “hate group”?
Why, the minister of course!
What could possibly go wrong?
6

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
It could be challenged in a court in an administrative law challenge.
1

Hide replies

@JOSEPHDANCE75
15 hours ago
Nothing to be ashamed about for being white. Same can be said for Black or Asian , what ever else is out their like us hybrids. For those that did bad in the pastis on them . Cannot blame so many today for the actions of some.
6

@tedknight2608
15 hours ago
Quick Question: If it is a criminal offence to direct the actions of a prohibited group, then isn’t someone committing a crime by directing the group’s legal challenge against the prohibition?
2

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
Possibly. It depends on whether the law is valid, for a start. I think there are also exceptions which allow funds to be provided to lawyers for such a legal challenge – but I haven’t delved into all those provisions.
2

@yubnuts
14 hours ago
This is similar to the question that arose in Deripaska (2026) where the sanctioned person (Deripaska) argued that the sanction laws were invalid because to engage legal representation to contest the listing would have itself been a breach of the sanction laws. The High Court saved the sanction laws by reading them down so that they would not extend to prohibiting a person from engaging legal advice for the purpose of contesting the listing.

Hide replies

@michellefranklin3182
15 hours ago
Thanks for this.
4

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
Much appreciated.
2

Hide replies

@DS91284
15 hours ago
Insecurities are so vague and should never be handled by double digits.
1

@Know_It_All
16 hours ago
Thanks
3

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
You’re welcome.

Hide replies

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Mark Collett: Hello everybody and welcome to tonight’s special stream live with Tom Sewell. We’re going to do a very quick introduction. This stream is live on Rumble and Odysee only. It’s also live on Entropy, but that is, if you want to send a Superchat. Please do share the Odysee and Rumble links. Whichever one’s your favourite, get it up on X, get it up on Telegram, get it up on Facebook, get it wherever you want, but please do share it. It’s very difficult for me to share things because I’m only allowed on Telegram and Gab. I’ve already shared it in those two good places. If you can share it, it’d be very much appreciated. If you are new to my channel, especially if you’re watching on Rumble, please do give me a sub if you can and help me build the channel. We usually have big streams when Tom is on and I’m looking forward to tonight very much.

 

Now, if you would like to support my work, if you’d like to contribute to what I do, please do consider making a Superchat either through Entropy or through Rumble. All donations go to a good cause and this is what I do every week, as well as all of the political work. If you like that, please do consider making a donation. $3, $5, $10, whatever you can afford. And if you’re watching on replay, you can also donate at any time through Entropy. You can also donate via Crypto. All the crypto links from the description below and you can write to me at mark@thefallofwesternman.com.

 

Now if you do give a donation in the second part of the show, we will read out all of the donations and ask any questions to myself or Tom, regardless of who they are directed to, or both give answers. We’re going to talk about the situation in Australia, some of the world politics.

 

This was going to be a PWR, but Tom couldn’t make it on Wednesday because of the super early start. So we’re doing it now and we’re going to discuss a range of different topics starting with the situation in Australia. So any questions you want to ask that have a donation attached, we will ask them. And if you support my work and you want me to keep doing the things that I’m doing, please do consider giving something.

 

Anyway, let’s get into the show right now! Tom, it’s been a while since we spoke. In fact, the last time we spoke we were talking about the NSN [National Socialist Network] being disbanded. You had led the NSN to a point where it had become a major national force and possibly the largest NS organisation in the whole world at the time, certainly the most active and the one that was probably the most covered by the media. You were getting a huge amount of coverage in Australia as well as here in places the UK, Europe and even in America. And you become, well, were becoming something of a household name. He’d had a couple of really big interviews with famous people, including with Dan Bilzerian, which was a pretty big one. That was something that really put you in the spotlight in the US. And it seemed at the time as if things were going so well for you that you were going to register your political party, White Australia. Then all of a sudden the state came in with this huge ban, something you’re fighting. And around the same time Joel Davis was sadly arrested and held on remand. He’s now being released.

 

So we’ve got a lot to catch up on, a lot to talk about. But you certainly are one of the world’s most famous National Socialist. You’re somebody who doesn’t hide that fact. You’re somebody who is very honest about what you do and you’re unashamed behaviour has made you somewhat of a hero in Australia. And now not only are they going after the NSN, they’re also apparently trying to jail you as well, which is not surprising considering all the good work you’ve done.

 

So how have things been since we last spoke? How have you been getting on and what’s the mood like there since the organisation was disbanded?

 

Thomas Sewell: Well everybody, thank you, Mark. That’s a very good introduction. And it’s been a very pleasant couple months for myself. It’s nice to focus on things that aren’t 100% politics all the time. Go, go, go!

 

So definitely slightly slower pace and time to reflect and think and focus on the future. I’ve spoken to Joel since he’s been out of jail almost every day or every second day. He’s doing really well! He’s very clear minded. Certainly the lack of stimulation and online chitter-chatter has closed a lot of tabs in his head and he can focus on the tabs that are open. And that’s definitely a key to concentration. And they do put you in a “concentration camp”, when they punish you for being a political prisoner. You get plenty of time to concentrate and think. And yeah, he’s doing really well! He’s in a really good mood.

 

I spoke to him yesterday, two days ago and as we were talking on the phone, the media put an article out about him saying that, like they found him at a 7/11 at a service station filling up petrol and he wasn’t with his missus and he must be fighting with his missus and he’s been kicked out of Bondi and he’s living with mum! And it was just this really nasty Daily Mail gossip article about him. And the bail conditions say he can’t live with his family, he’s got to live with his mother.

 

[05:43]

 

So these are like gutter journalists and we were just laughing about that on the phone. And they weren’t even honest enough to say who wrote the article, which we thought was pretty funny.

 

And obviously, yeah, he passes on his regards to everyone in the White community. He loves everything that’s happening, and he’s obviously like most of us he’s a bit upset that we’re going through a phase where it’s not so much about promotion. Joel’s a big promoter. He loves promoting the worldview, he loves promoting our opinions, our thoughts, our takes, our ideology. You know, he’s a very sharp guy that’s always on the money with geopolitics and these are things he loves talking about every day. He’s always running at full steam.

 

So he’s transitioning into concentrating all that energy into a book, and he’s been telling me he’s writing a book. And I won’t spoil it, I’ll let it, let the book be about him, but more or less it’s about geopolitics. He wants to talk about, I guess, Australia’s role in, and specifically White Australia’s role in the geopolitics of the multipolar world going forward. Like how America is going to respond to BRICS [Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa] and what he perceives Australia’s role in that dynamic.

 

So, yeah, he’s loving having access to., … He might not be able to post on the Internet or I don’t think he’s even got access to the Internet really, but he’s loving having access to just new sources and materials and more books and stuff like that. And just not being in a concrete box is always a pleasure. So he’s kind of got the best of both worlds in some ways that he’s not in jail. But then he’s got state mandated, like, concentration time and like he’s got state mandated focus time. Like he can’t get caught up in Twitter debates and debacles and all this nonsense! And, yeah, he can only focus on the important things and he’s actually kind of enjoying that as much as he, like, misses all the dopamine from being able to interact with the boys and cause a storm online. So each are given what they deserve in some way. What else? You asked about Joel.

 

Mark Collett: Joel’s an interesting one because sort of I’ve obviously met Joel. A lot of people won’t have because he obviously lives in Australia. But Joel is one of those guys that is. He’s very sort of how can I say this? I don’t want to say he’s hyperactive and make him sound like he’s some ADHD.

 

Thomas Sewell: No, that’s fair. That’s fair. He is full of he’s full of beans!

 

Mark Collett: He’s like a live wire and he’s constantly thinking, talking, and I kind of saw that online with him, that he was always replying to people, he was always interacting. And when our guys usually get released, whether it’s after a sentence or whether they’ve been on remand and they’re released before their trial, there’s usually quite heavy restrictions on what they can do online. And I didn’t know how that would affect Joel, but I hope he’s enjoying fatherhood as well, because that was something I wanted to mention because obviously becoming a dad changes you in so many ways. And Joel, he’s a lot younger than you and I, but he’s a dad now, and I hope that he’s had some quality time with his partner and their newborn.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. Yeah, he’s loving it. He says he’s got the best of both worlds, which I won’t go into too much detail on that, but young fathers or fathers of young children will understand what I mean by the best of both worlds. He gets to see his kid and gets all the privileges of that without the punishment of being woken up all night, you know, two o’ clock in the morning, to screaming babies. So, yeah, he’s getting the best of both worlds.

 

What else? Yeah, he said the funniest thing on the phone. He’s like:

 

“We go to the shops and I carry the baby and I’m like, ‘This is easy. What does everyone complain about?’ And then the baby cries and I’m like, ‘Oh, I’ve got someone for you’.”

 

He’s like:

 

“Just passes the baby off to mum because I don’t know why people complain about fatherhood. It’s pretty easy actually!”

 

And I’m like:

 

“Legend! Excellent! Thank you!”

 

So yeah, he’s loving it. Big strong boy he’s got. And yeah, he’s been spending a lot of time with the missus, and as much as he can. Sydney’s a really big place and it’s like state mandated that he can’t live, he can’t go into the suburb that she lives and obviously she’s like in her nest. So yeah, it’s pretty silly what they’ve done to him with these bail.

 

Mark Collett: Why can’t he go into the suburb where, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Because the Member of Parliament [Allegra Spender*] that he allegedly threatened is the member for Bondi or Wentworth.

 

[* Allegra Spender (born 1978) is not a jew; however, she represents the Wentworth electorate, which has a significant jew population, and she has been an advocate for the jewish community. Since her election in 2022, Spender’s policy platform has focused on strong action on climate change; economic reform; integrity in politics; and support for gender equity, humanitarian treatment of refugees, LGBTQs inclusion, and action on anti-semitism. The Division of Wentworth is an Australian electoral division in the state of New South Wales. The division encompasses the suburbs east of Sydney CBD, mostly Woollahra and Waverley councils in Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs. Wentworth is the smallest geographical electoral division in Australia with an area of just 31 square kilometres (12 sq mi), covering Woolloomooloo along the southern shore of Sydney Harbour to Watsons Bay and down the coast to Clovelly—an area largely coextensive with Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs. Since 2022 its MP has been Allegra Spender, an Independent. From 2004 to 2018, the seat was held by Malcolm Turnbull, who served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2015 to 2018. Source: Wikipedia]

 

Mark Collett: Basically he allegedly threatened his own neighbour and that’s got him out of nappy changes at 2 AM! Was this all part of his like evil master plan to make himself more famous and not have to change nappies?

 

Thomas Sewell: This is Joel Davis, 4D chess! Yeah. [chuckling] That’s the primary motivation. Yeah. So regarding other court nonsense, I won’t go too much into the High Court challenge, but that is “cooking”. These things don’t happen overnight.

 

A lot of people are being impatient and have been messaging me asking:

 

“What’s going on, what’s going on!”

 

And yeah, everyone just needs to be patient. It’s only been, I mean it’s what, April? I mean it’s been two months or something. Just everyone needs to chill. I’m talking about Australians, not yourself, Mark. A lot of Australians are messaging me like:

 

“What’s the update? What’s the update?”

 

Everyone’s just standing back and standing by.

 

[11:41]

 

But yeah, I’ll give an update when there’s an update to give. So there should be an update very soon. “Two more weeks!” So they say during Covid, two more weeks of lockdowns.

 

And regarding my court stuff, geez, I don’t know how much I want to say. We’ve got a court date coming up soon. It could get wrapped up within the next four weeks or we could go to trial. So the lawyers are still negotiating. It really comes down to the violent disorder, the so-called violent disorder which happened at the rally on August last year. And yeah, we’ll see what happens. I might have to do a little bit more jail time. We’ll see what the deal is. I might probably, worst case scenario, might have to go to jail for like three to six months. Best case scenario, probably time served. So, yeah, it is what it is. I got plenty of, I got plenty of books to bring with me this time, so I’m not too stressed.

 

And yeah, we’ve just been my little clique of guys we’re still training every day, we’re still hanging out. You know, nationalism is just localised now. We’re not able to organise, you know, 400, 500 people across the country into activism, into community events and political events. We’re not able to do that at the moment, but we are still allowed to have friends.

 

So obviously there’s a lot of do’s and don’ts. I had to tell a whole bunch of idiots off, I think two or three weeks ago there was a bunch of kids that were trying to do like a, “we’re not the NSN group”. And I just had to remind them about particular things that happen in the UK, and that that’s what they’re hoping you do and don’t do this. And we’re playing the game by the rules. And we have an opportunity here where we haven’t been prescribed. I want to make it very clear to everyone, we are not a banned organisation. We’re not a prescribed organisation. And we’re disbanded. But again, it’s a disbandment pending a High Court trial.

 

So it’s not like we’re giving up and we’re like:

 

“All right, back to the drawing board, guys!”

 

It’s pending a High Court trial. How long will they drag that out for? They can probably drag it out for a year, but these things actually move faster than you’d expect. And people just need to be patient. People need to build their local community. And that’s it. Everyone’s so focused on what’s happening in Iran and what’s happening in Israel and what’s happening on the other side of the country. And it’s like:

 

“How many nationalists do you know in your suburb?”

 

And so this is a really golden opportunity for people to just focus on their own area, their own close little circle of friends and build local connections.

 

And so it’s easy for me to say that because I’m a public personality, I’m a known face, and everywhere I go, that conversation arises. Like just yesterday I had two conversations with businesses in my area. And they recognised me and they started asking me:

 

“What do I think about the jews? Do you think there’s an anti-White agenda? What do you think about Iran?”

 

And so, like everywhere I go, it becomes political. You know, I talk to businessmen in the area, like shopkeepers the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker, so to speak. And these conversations arise. So I’m always, I’m constantly building community, I’m constantly networking. And if you’re not a known face, you can still do that. You’ve just got to do a little bit of foreplay first and see who’s your friend and who’s your foe.

 

And where I live is definitely like a White flight corridor. And so a lot of the local businesses, a lot of the people in my area, they recognise me and they’re honest enough and confident enough to admit that they recognise me and that they support what we’re doing.

 

So it’s really awesome! Like, Australia is massively polarised and people are so political in Australia. I mean, Australia had a really bad reputation of having an attitude of:

 

“She’ll be right!”

 

This laissez faire, politics is for dummies. Just focus on getting a Hilux ute and focusing on your trade and minding your own business. And the Australian dream is having a Hilux ute, or a Toyota Land Cruiser or both, a jet ski, a dog, 2.5 kids, a white picket fence, and four [weeks] holidays a year. And Australians are actually starting to, I can feel it, I can see it. I’m talking to people my age, older, younger, and I can see so clearly that Australians are putting that as a secondary principle now. And Australians are going:

 

“Well, hang on a minute. I’m not actually concerned about that idealistic dream anymore. I’m concerned about survival now. I’m concerned about the survival of our country. It’s clear we’re under attack!”

 

This fuel shortage thing that’s happening here in Australia and the price of petrol and the price of diesel going up like 1.5 or 1.7 times, like diesel almost doubled instantly, overnight. And so if you’re a tradesman, if you know you’re reliant on transporting yourself and goods around, that’s just smashed your business, because you can’t charge double for what you’re doing. So it just hits you. It’s just another tax. I noticed in Ireland there was some protests.

 

[17:08]

 

Here in Australia, we haven’t had any protests yet, but I assure you things are getting very tense. And the Australian government has set up Australia to fail! The current Australian government and previous administrations of this regime have set Australia up to fail! We are one of the least fuel secure countries in the world and we’re meant to be a developed nation. We’re meant to be a first world nation and we’re in a worse position than a lot of second world and third world nations when it comes to fuel security.

 

And so we haven’t even really felt the brunt of it yet. I think we’re going to start feeling the brunt of it in the next fortnight with this crisis in the Middle East, which I don’t want to talk about too much. Obviously it’s 6 am here and it’s a bit too early for geopolitics.

 

But what I will talk about is the feeling on the ground here in Australia is that the average Aussie is like, people just come up to me in the street and just say:

 

“The government has set us up to fail! The government set us up to fail!”

 

Basically it’s the same rhetoric as like Weimar Republic where people were saying:

 

“You know, we’ve been stabbed in the back! We didn’t lose the war, we’ve been stabbed in the back!”

 

It’s the exact same rhetoric like:

 

“We’re being betrayed from within, we’re being stabbed in the back, we’re being set up to fail!”

 

That’s like the Aussism of being stabbed in the back, is we’ve been set up to fail. And people are pissed off about that. They’re like:

 

“How did they not know that this was a liability? Oh, they did know! And they did nothing!”

 

They did absolutely nothing to make sure that we were secure.

 

So anyway, I could waffle on about that forever. What else? Mark, what do you want to talk about today?

 

Mark Collett: Well, I was going to ask. So in Australia, just before you guys disbanded, there’s a couple more things I wanted to ask about Australia. Before you guys disbanded, there seemed to be a sort of a real street movement coming about. Now we have a street movement in the UK which is quite small, that myself and Steve Laws and numerous other groups have sort of come together to try and get going with the ethno-nationalists. But our large scale street movement, Unite the Kingdom, is basically run by people that have a very dim view of ethno-nationalism. Tommy Robinson’s the front guy for that. He’s already said that:

 

“If he saw the sort of people who are at Charlottesville coming down his street, he would attack them, he would side with the far-Left rather than stand with us.”

 

You know that’s where he stands at.

 

Thomas Sewell: He’s an anti, …

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, effectively he’s a multiculturalist that just claims Islam is the problem because he’s pro-Israel. But you guys, your street movement doesn’t seem to have been co-opted in the same way. And when there was a big rally you guys turned up and you were actually welcomed there. And it seemed to be that normal people were there and they were like:

 

“Look, we’re all here together!”

 

And people like Avi Yemeni were told:

 

“We don’t want you here because you’re not here for Australia, you’re here for Israel!”

 

Now that was pretty heartening. From a UK perspective, I was over the moon for you guys because we have so many problems with Tommy Robinson, with these Civnats just the other day, people putting these big flags up and giving speeches in front of them saying:

 

“Britain was built on migration! It’s just gone a bit too far.”

 

Once you’ve got that message, you’ve lost already. Once you’re saying that, it’s like you’ve already lost. But you guys seem to have escaped all that. There doesn’t seem to be that big celebrity controlled opposition movement in Australia.

 

So you guys turn up, you get treated really well! It looks like things are going to take off. What’s happening with those sort of rallies at the moment in Australia? Are they continuing to be arranged? Have the organisers said we’re going to give those up? We or are they still doing it? And if they are still doing it, can your guys go along? What direction do you think those gatherings will take after these laws have come in?

 

Thomas Sewell: Well, ultimately I’m not a supporter of rallying for the sake of rallying. I think rallying has to be, you can have a planned rally. Rallies are always planned. But there has to be an organic will of the mass to come out and demonstrate. There has to be an energy, there has to be a really good reason to try to get hundreds of thousands of people out on the street across the country to demonstrate.

 

And that’s why a lot of these things, they migrate. Well, that’s probably a bad word to use, but they move from specific subject issue like immigration into:

 

“Well we can’t just keep rallying for anti-immigration, rallying for anti-immigration, rallying for anti-immigration. It doesn’t seem to be doing anything.”

 

And it has like a law of diminishing returns. And so where it’s moving to is more subject specific and it’s trying to branch out and instead of being a myopic movement, because in Australia it’s called March for Australia, that’s our equivalent. And they’re currently focused on things like what’s happening to Ben Roberts-Smith. I don’t know if in the UK you guys have seen with the decorated war hero, the SAS guy, Ben Roberts-Smith, most decorated or one of the most decorated soldiers in Australia’s history, the guy is genuinely a war hero.

 

[22:40]

 

Regardless of what people think about geopolitics and whether we should have been in Afghanistan or not, the reality is he was sent there and he got the job done. And there’s many, many famous stories about Ben Roberts-Smith. Like one of the most famous ones is about when an ANA soldier or when a Taliban soldier pretending to be an ANA soldier, which if you know, there’s really not much difference between the ANA and the Taliban. It was very easy for the Taliban to take back control of Afghanistan after the Americans, after the Allies withdrew, because the ANA was a fraud. It wasn’t a real army. It was just the Taliban on a government paycheck. And these guys dressed up as ANA, shot Australian soldiers in the back at a forward operating base. And they gave Ben Roberts-Smith a call to go hunt these guys down and find them, hunt this guy and his friends down and bring him to justice. And he did that. He hunted this guy down, he killed him and all his friends in his village. And now he’s being charged with war crimes, hunting this guy down.

 

 

I can’t, can’t remember the guy’s name. I don’t think he actually killed the guy that did it, but he managed to get all the fuckers that helped him in his village. And this is, it’s a dirty war. It’s a dirty war! I don’t believe, I mean, we don’t need to talk too much about the metaphysics of war crimes, but I don’t believe in a guerrilla war that the enemy can shoot at you and then put the rifle, … They’re wearing civilian clothes, they shoot at you, they put the rifle down and you know, they’re suddenly not an enemy combatant. And the Taliban laugh at our nonsense laws of warfare. They don’t follow the laws of warfare and so neither should we.

 

The laws of warfare are a contract between civilised People, in order to avoid civilian casualties. If Australia goes to war with New Zealand, we have laws of war and we say:

 

“You fucking New Zealanders! You know you’re gonna get it!”

 

And then you have a fight, but you have like a contract that you don’t do this and you don’t do that, and it’s to prevent innocent people dying. But if one side starts breaking the rules, the other side’s gonna start breaking it.

 

And the Australian government’s not punishing the Taliban. In fact they’re inviting them into the country and giving the Taliban money. So Ben Roberts-Smith is being charged with five counts of war crime murder. And he just got bail yesterday, which everyone was shocked at. I mean I did not expect that’s something weird is going on about that. I don’t know what is going on in the background. But the March for Australia and like that kind of whole scene, they seem to be rallying behind Ben Roberts-Smith at the moment. That’s like the subject issue of the day.

 

And people might think that that’s not as important as the anti-immigration sentiment. And I would argue it’s as important as the anti-immigration sentiment to rally behind national icons, to rally behind national figures. I mean, Ben Roberts-Smith represents the spirit of the hero, he represents the spirit of the Anzac. What you’ve got in this country is a complete lack of will to fight in general. You’ve got this laissez faire attitude, and we have politicians that are trying to stab us in the back by emasculating society. They’re trying to emasculate our men! They’re trying to denationalise our society.

 

They’ve done a really good job at destroying the army. Like the Australian army is like a politically correct cesspit now. The people in charge of it are more interested in being politically correct than they are in the strategic defense of the nation. I mean I consistently see in their speeches and I was even trying to read some policy stuff recently online, and it was a speech from one of the generals here in Australia, Lieutenant General. And he started the speech, the lecture and it’s about national security. He started it with a “Welcome to Country”, saying that:

 

“We’re on sovereign Aboriginal land and sovereignty was never ceded.”

 

And it’s like, hang on a minute, are you, like you’re a traitor! This is outright treason! We’ve got people that are leading us, and these are the people throwing Ben Roberts-Smith, under the bus.

 

And so it’s as Joel said in his interview:

 

“It’s emblematic of all the problems in this country!”

 

Where actual soldiers fighting for Australia are getting thrown under the bus by politicians and generals that are saying that Australia is not a sovereign nation, that it’s actually the sovereign territory of the “Kulin people” or some garbage like that. And yeah, that’s obviously very, I mean, offensive is one way to put it. It’s sacrilegious!

 

And it’s also an argument about the sovereignty of Australia we currently have. A sovereign is, as much as I don’t like the guy, it’s the King of England. The King of England is also the King of Australia. And I don’t like him personally. And I think the institution has become rotten.

 

However, I acknowledge that is the sovereign. He represents the British people and the British people are the predominant founding stock of Australia. We’re speaking English, and that’s the way our government works. The foundation of our Nation is in 1901 is a Parliament built on the sovereignty of the King of England. And that flag being stabbed into the soil of this continent in the antipodes in the southern hemisphere. And so to say:

 

“Well, hang on a minute. Actually, that’s not the sovereign. The sovereign is the local flora and fauna that did nothing with this place for 40,000 years!”

 

To say that we’re not sovereign here, they’re the sovereign, well, what defense force are they joining? What defense force are you joining? What Parliament are we sitting in? What, anything that we do. What tax are we paying? Are we just paying tax and serving in the defence force and serving in the institutions?

 

And so, yeah, I can see that’s where this ethno-nationalist movement in our absence, that’s where it’s focusing on. It’s topic specific.

 

Yeah. What else, Mark?

 

[29:13]

 

Mark Collett: Well, no, I want to respond to something, what you said about this soldier. And hear me out here, because when I see people like him, I’m not quite as enthusiastic about them as you are. Now I look at that man and he goes to Afghanistan. The Afghans essentially pose, especially the Afghans, you know, load of Afghan goat herders in Afghanistan. They pose no threat to Australia, Australian people or the West. This guy’s essentially at this point, a paid mercenary who points his gun at anyone his government tells him to. And if the allegations about him are true, that he did shoot civilians and he shot civilians and asked other young, impressionable soldiers to also.

 

Thomas Sewell: He’s not being charged. Yeah. He’s not being charged with shooting civilians. He’s been charged with shooting “disarmed combatants”.

 

Mark Collett: Okay. Disarmed combatants. Okay. Yes. Right. I take that on board!

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah.

 

Mark Collett: Let’s say he’s actually done that. These are allegations, …

 

Thomas Sewell: I don’t doubt that he’s done it!

 

Mark Collett: Yeah. If he’s done that, though, he’s a bit of a piece of shit! And I’ll tell you why, because, …

 

Thomas Sewell: I disagree, but all right.

 

Mark Collett: Well, I’m going to tell you why. And I’m going to tell you why you’re wrong. With all due respect.

 

The Australian government decided the Afghan people were their enemies because the Australian government are basically a branch of ZOG.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yes.

 

Mark Collett: The Australian government also believe that you are their enemy! And people like this Ben Roberts or Ben Roberts-Smith or whatever his name is, he’s the kind of person, the kind of, if this is true, unscrupulous person that the government will employ to police Australia and to clamp down on anyone that the government deems an enemy at any time. And one day, mate, it may well be that Australia’s falling to pieces and that your family are “disarmed combatants” sat with their hands tied behind their backs, staring down the barrels of guns held by ZOGbot enforcers employed by the Australian government. At that point, is it right for those guys to pull the trigger on your wife, your kids, or you? Because the Australian government don’t like you and they’re doing their job and you’re the enemy of the day because Nazis are taking over Australia.

 

Was it right for the men that firebombed Dresden, killed some 450,000 White women, children, elderly Germans and wounded soldiers? Was it right that the American GIs, in many cases shot disarmed young German boys who had been part of Hitler Youth and had signed up to the Wehrmacht? Was it right that Russian soldiers raped German women at the end of the war? Or that Eisenhower essentially starved hundreds of thousands of Germans that were disarmed? You know, people say:

 

“Well, they had it coming! We’re at war with them!”

 

I do believe there are rules. And I think for somebody like you, who is Australia’s arguably Australia’s best known political dissident, it wasn’t that long ago that police officers were brutalizing you and I believe two police officers even joked about killing members of NSN. They’re the kind of, …

 

Thomas Sewell: That’s true.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, and don’t get me wrong, I believe those cops, if they’d had the chance and no cameras were pointed in their way and they thought they could get away with it, would have shot your lads because they were doing what the Australian government and their superiors thought was right in defense of multicultural Australia. Is that right?

 

I mean, all these ZOG enforcers, whether you fly off to Afghanistan to shoot Afghans because ZOG tells you, or whether you shoot Tom Sewell and the NSN members because ZOG tells you’re still a bit of a ZOG enforcer! And I look at you and I think to myself:

 

“Come on we’ve got to have this straight!”

 

A lot of these people who follow the government’s mandate as soldiers, as police officers, as people that would be used against us, may well one day turn their weapons on us in this way.

 

And I think we need to aim for sort of a higher standard because I firmly believe that if things start breaking down, people like you, myself, dissidents all over the world could well be facing down the barrel of Ben Roberts gun. And what if somebody like him was put in charge of breaking dissident political groups that his government said were a true threat to Australian or British or American democracy? Would it be right for him to kill us?

 

Thomas Sewell: Well, I appreciate the hypothetical, and I can certainly play the game, and play the hypothetical scenario with you, Mark, but I would put forward to you that’s a false equivalency. And that I’m not making an argument some Zogbots are different to other Zogbots. I’d make the argument that our war against Islam in the Middle East was partly justified.

 

Regardless of Israeli influence, I don’t have any sympathy for the Islamic world. I think that Islam is a giant rape gang on a global scale. I don’t care about dead Talibanos at all! I think what Israel’s doing in Palestine is disgusting, because of their moral hypocrisy and because of the fact that they’ve got such control over Western nations they can get away with sniping babies and toddlers and all the crazy stuff that’s going on.

 

[35:03]

 

But we’re not talking about Ben Roberts-Smith going over there as part of ZOG to go snipe babies. Ben Roberts-Smith was part of the Australian Defense Force. He swore an oath to defend the Crown, as I did. And he didn’t make the decision to be deployed to Afghanistan. He didn’t make that decision. He made the decision to be part of an elite unit of Australian soldiers to defend Australian interests, to be part of the Defense Force. And I don’t have any sympathy for these bachabazi, you know, boy fuckers! The Taliban are the most putrid, disgusting human beings on earth! The stories that come out, and it’s not war propaganda. The stories that come out of how these Afghanis live in Afghanistan and how they behave and how they treat their own civilians. I don’t care! And I think it’s a false equivalency to say:

 

“Oh the Taliban are just as noble and fair as the Germans fighting in the Second World War.”

 

I these. I’m not against people having pointy sticks, Mark. I’m not against the fact that he’s paid by the Australian government. You know, he’s technically a mercenary. He’s the same kind of guy that comes and kicks my door in. He might be of the same stock and he might be part of the same or very similar institution to the people kicking my door down, but he didn’t kick my door down. So he didn’t choose to kick my door down. He didn’t kick my door down. He’s not part of the police, he’s part of the SAS*.

 

[* The Special Air Service Regiment, officially abbreviated SASR and commonly known as SAS, is a Special Forces unit of the Australian Army. Formed in 1957 as a company, it was modelled on the British SAS with which it shares the motto “Who Dares Wins”. Expanded to a regiment in August 1964, it is based at Campbell Barracks, in Swanbourne, a suburb of Perth, Western Australia, and is a direct command unit of the Special Operations Command. The regiment first saw active service in Borneo in 1965 and 1966 during the Indonesian Confrontation, mainly conducting reconnaissance patrols, including secret cross-border operations into Indonesian territory.]

 

And I think we’re putting him on a false trial, moral trial here, because he followed the orders that he wanted to follow. I think that you vote with your feet. And if he was morally upset about the war in Afghanistan, he would have left the army. Just as if I was morally upset about the war in Afghanistan, I would have left the army. I wouldn’t have been trying to deploy to Afghanistan.

 

And so my opinion about war is you need men with pointy sticks, and you need men with pointy sticks fighting the enemy. You need men with pointy sticks facing outside, not inside. And I don’t support the men with pointy sticks pointing them inside. I’m totally against what ZOG, obviously, is doing to our own people in our own country, but I think that we should have gone to Afghanistan with the correct intentions. I’m not against the war in Afghanistan. I’m against this nonsense of spreading democracy and freedom and McDonald’s and sodomy to the Middle East. Well, they’re already doing sodomy, but LGBT rights to the Middle East. I think we should have gone to Afghanistan either not at all, or with the intention of absolutely, totally obliterating the Taliban, and completely eradicating the enemy!

 

And then you don’t need to install a new government. The old government is completely gone. And other people will come in to power, and they’re either aligned with our geopolitical interests or they’re not. They’re either allowing Al Qaeda training camps in their mountain hills or they’re not. And they’ll learn the hard way.

 

And I believe in force projection. I don’t believe in a universal morality. I think what’s right for my people is what’s right. I don’t think there’s a universal right and wrong. I think that the laws of combat apply to brothers wars. I don’t think they apply to people that don’t have our value system. The Taliban weren’t. Why should we treat the Taliban better than they were treating us? Well, because we’re in their country?

 

So I think it’s a false equivalency. I think you can’t put Ben Roberts-Smith on trial because the actions of police officers that kick down my door and threaten to kill me. I’ve been in ZOG! I was an Australian soldier, and I’m telling you, the world is changing. And less and less White men are joining the army. And I don’t encourage White men to join the army that much anymore. I tell people. I generally tell people not to. Some men, they kind of have to. They kind of get to get it out of their system. But I told them to focus on politics. I tell them, we got to fix the country, and then we can fix the army. We can’t fix the army from inside the armies. There’s no point joining.

 

But, you know, less and less men of our calibre that are patriotic and nationalistic are joining the army. And more and more, or police, and more and more are joining not to serve their community or serve their nation. They’re joining for a paycheck. And I don’t believe Ben Roberts-Smith is one of those people. And I don’t believe the SAS is that kind of institution. And I get a lot of messages on social media from guys, former SAS guys and current SAS guys. And they say to me:

 

“We all support what you’re doing. Keep up the good work. You’re a name with us. Like, people know who you are. They know that you’re fighting for, that you’re on the money.”

 

People know. And so the government is actually out. In my opinion, the government is at war with people like Ben Roberts-Smith. I don’t think Ben Roberts-Smith is their toy the way it’s been made out. I think they’re afraid of people like Ben Roberts Smith. They’re afraid of Special Forces guys that can’t be controlled. They’re ungovernable and they’re trying to break him. They’re trying to break him for what he represents. He represents these groups of elite soldiers that ultimately they could be a praetorian guard. They could in theory turn on the government. But they’re not going to do that without public support.

 

And so we have to do our job. I think everyone’s doing their job with politics and some people are in the institutions and some people are not. And yeah,

 

Mark Collett: But I’d argue like, …

 

[40:42]

 

Thomas Sewell: Okay, I can entertain the argument that we shouldn’t have been in Afghanistan. Like that we can just bomb the Al Qaeda training camps and we can just defund Israel and blah blah, blah, and ISIS will disappear. Or Al Qaeda at the time was the organisation prior to ISIS. But Al Qaeda will disappear if we bomb enough people, but then we’re bombing people. You know, it’s like, I don’t believe in this, Muslims are generally peaceful, blah, blah.

 

Of course, there’s 1.1 billion of them. There are nefarious entities with a lot of money in the Islamic world. And they want to hurt us and they want to engage in a war with the West. You know, they do want to engage in a war with the West. They don’t hate us for our freedom. I’m not an idiot! [chuckling] They hate us because we’re non-believers! We won’t submit to their God. That’s why they hate us. And yeah, don’t send men like Ben Roberts-Smith to occupy a foreign country unless you want that.

 

So the politicians should be on trial, not Ben Roberts-Smith. So I am going to defend the guy.

 

Mark Collett: But the point is the Taliban aren’t really your enemies.

 

Thomas Sewell: They are! 100%.

 

Mark Collett: No one is 100% your enemy. Your enemy are the people sat in Canberra. Your enemies are the people sat in Australian Parliament.

 

Thomas Sewell: I think they’re both. Both can be true.

 

Mark Collett: No, they’re not.

 

Thomas Sewell: Taliban is my enemy!

 

Mark Collett: No Afghan in Afghanistan poses you any threat whatsoever! Your government poses you the threat and they pay people like Ben Roberts Smith.

 

And I believe quite firmly that if tomorrow the government said to the Australian military, as I’ve said to the Australian police force and Civil Service and social services and all the other, all the other arms of sort of law enforcement in the state that you guys are the ultimate enemy. You would be facing off against those guys who are in Special Forces.

 

And unfortunately we’ve seen that if you look at all the elite police units, counter terror units, if you look at all the branches of the Secret Service who are extremely elite individuals, some of them are drawn from Special Forces. They are the people responsible for kicking nationalist doors in at 6 am and dragging us out of our houses. And I can tell you this, there’s not a single person in Afghanistan who’s ever done anything that has harmed me. But there are plenty of people who work for the British state that have harmed me, my friends, people that I’m close to and have worked to either malign, frustrate or shut down organisations in the UK that are fighting for the betterment of White people.

 

And I think this idea that you know, the Taliban and Al Qaeda and all these groups are our enemies is basically just ZOG propaganda to get young, strong White men out there fighting wars for Israel, when really young, strong White men should be joining nationalist groups and working to get rid of anti-White governments here in the West.

 

The war isn’t in the Middle East, it’s never been in the Middle East. There’s no need for us to be in the Middle East other than the fact that Israel’s there and needs our protection, because ultimately most of these soldiers are just pawns on the chessboard for a bunch of supremacist jews that run Israel!

 

My belief is young White men, they need to be at home pushing back against their government and they don’t need to be part of the government brainwashing machine.

 

And that’s another thing. When people join the army today and I know people who are in the army, I know people who work in different branches of the government, whether it’s social services, local council services, etc, these people are regularly indoctrinated, monitored, and they are told that the greatest threat to what they serve and the country that they work for is actually people like us and our thought processes.

 

Thomas Sewell: I know. I know. Do they believe it?

 

Mark Collett: Well, many do, or they wouldn’t be kicking our doors in, would they mate? You know those cops who wanted to kill you and your friends? They did believe it. And they are the people, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, I think they’re a minority. I think the average cop that kicks my door in, because I ask them, I say to them:

 

“How do you feel about doing this to me and my family?”

 

And they are mercenaries for ZOG, and they admit that they’re mercenaries for ZOG, and they say:

 

“Well, look, mate, I wouldn’t be doing this if I won the lotto.”

 

That’s what they all say to me:

 

“Oh, look, mate, I gotta pay a mortgage.”

 

That’s what they all say to me. That’s their justification for doing it:

 

“I’m just following orders.”

 

And I say:

 

“That sounds familiar.”

 

So I know what you’re talking about. But I don’t equate the men with pointy sticks pointing outwards with the men with pointy sticks pointing inwards.

 

You know, I think men should be judged on their merits. I think men should be judged on their merits. And can we say that Ben Roberts-Smith is politically naive? Yes, of course. Absolutely! He’s politically naive. Is he in bad faith? No.

 

[45:56]

 

 

And I think that there’s a difference between people who have, I see what Ben Robert-Smith, what he’s done. I see it in the same moral paradigm as any man in this country that goes to work and pays tax and has a job. I don’t see his behaviour is any less moral than going to work and paying tax and paying a mortgage to international finance. Because every single man that I know, when I say:

 

“You should get more involved, you should be more political.”

 

You know what they say to me?:

 

“Oh, I’ve got a mortgage. Oh, I’ve got all these bills. Oh my job, my career!”

 

And it’s like your career in what? Who are you paying tax to? A government that’s destroying us. Who are you paying a mortgage to? A nefarious group of people that hate us and are trying to destroy us. So it’s easy to hate on Ben Robert-Smith for shooting the Taliban and in the back of the head while they’re in the killing field. It’s really easy to hate on him. But what about all the men that every day fuel the beast? Every day go to work and pay tax to a system that is just bringing in more and more migrants to ethnically replace us in our own country? I think, honestly, if I want to compare the two, I would say they’re more immoral! I would say the average man in this country that goes to work and pays tax is more immoral than Ben Roberts-Smith. Ben Roberts-Smith is overseas killing what I define as the enemy. That’s how I see it.

 

And so when you’re going to work, … Because I don’t think that they’re doing it for ZOG. I don’t think these men are doing it for ZOG and I think that he’s of a calibre, …

 

Mark Collett: He’s not making life better for Australians, has he? And that’s the point., …

 

Thomas Sewell: One less, one less Saracen jihadist on earth! So total happiness improves.

 

Mark Collett: Muslims living in the West must go. But some random goat herder who’s [chuckling] never going to leave Afghanistan is not our problem. And this is the issue. This is the, … You’re buying into the Tommy Robinson narrative.

 

Thomas Sewell: There’s a black and white here, Mark, and I don’t believe it’s black and white like that. I think there’s a hierarchy and I agree with you on your hierarchy. But you have to admit that it’s a hierarchy. It’s not black and white. These people aren’t a threat and these people are a threat. They’re both a threat. But obviously they, people destroying our society are in government, or they’re in banking, they’re in media, they’re in finance. This is obviously the major issue!

 

But I’m not going to hate on someone because he’s dealing with a lesser threat. And you can argue that it’s a much lesser threat. And I more or less agree with that argument. The average goat herder in Afghanistan is not the major threat.

 

Mark Collett: It’s a zero threat!

 

Thomas Sewell: It’s not zero threat. It’s not zero, because, …

 

Mark Collett: They’re never going to get here. The only reason they get here is because we’ve got traitorous governments. It’s like you don’t have a problem with people overseas until your government allows them to come in and welcome them in the Afghans are never going to invade Australia, until the Australian government gave them council houses and said:

 

“Come here and do as you please!”

 

The invasion isn’t even masterminded by Afghans. It’s masterminded by men and women sat in Canberra who are taking away your freedom of speech.

 

Thomas Sewell: Sure, Absolutely! Absolutely! But this idea that Islamists in the Middle East are not part of a civilisational threat to us, I think is wrong! If we’re looking at this isolated individual, if, for example, we’re saying this one little Afghan farmer, he’s no threat to us. It’s like, of course, he’s a little ant on the other side of the earth.

 

But you know, Alexander the Great, when he’s invading northern India, what did northern Indians do to Macedonia? I’m just looking at this from a, beyond geopolitics. I’m looking at this from a civilisational perspective. The Northern Indians didn’t do anything to Macedonia. So why is he there with 40,000 Macedonian, you know, phalanx? Why is he, why is he there with all his Macedonian soldiers all the way in Northern India, invading Northern India? I actually don’t care about the Northern India. I care about Alexander the Great! I care about the greatness of Western civilisation and the expansiveness of the Aryan race. Europe either breathes in or breathes out.

 

Now obviously these guys got played. They obviously got played, right? Don’t get me wrong, they got played, okay? And I agree with that they got played. But their intentions were righteous. And when we look at you brought up Dresden and stuff like that. My great grandfather was a Lancaster bomber pilot. But they joined the Air force and they fought for king and country for what was intended to be a noble reason. Obviously wars get dirty and it was a disgusting war, the Second World War. And obviously the British people, the Australian people, the American people and the Russian people as well. The Russians were co-opted by the Soviets. Obviously these men, they fought with an ounce of patriotism and nationalism and it was obviously manipulated against the interests of Western civilisation. It ultimately was not in the interest of Britain to engage in that war.

 

[50:58]

 

But I’m not going to say that the British soldiers aren’t heroes like in general for their courage. I worship, well, worship is probably a very strong word. But I respect the hero on the merit of heroism. And Ben Roberts-Smith isn’t just shooting civilians like in the field. Like there was encounters where Ben Roberts-Smith, they were in ambushes. The ANA betrayed them and ambushed them with the Taliban. And Ben Roberts-Smith in one encounter killed 50 of these people in one encounter by himself. You know, I mean the guy is just, he’s an archetype of the hero. The guy was running at machine guns with three steel plates on his chest. I can respect the heroism being on the battlefield and running at the machine gun and fighting tooth and nail. And that’s my belief system, Mark. And like we can agree to disagree on it. But I can appreciate, I can appreciate the warrior for the warrior. He’s not a priest! I’m not claiming he’s a priest. I’m not claiming he understands politics super well. I’m not saying:

 

“I’m not saying this guy is God, emperor, warrior, priest Ben Roberts-Smith!”

 

But what I’m saying is he represents the archetype of the warrior. Just like the British soldiers in World War II. We can agree that what they fought for ultimately has damaged Britain. But we can agree that they fought. Just like the Anzacs. Like, we worship the ANZACS here in Australia. We say the Anzacs are our foundation legacy, they’re a part of our civic religion. We have a civic religion here in Australia, where Australia’s foundation is built around the Anzac mythos.

 

But these men ultimately fought for Israel, for the creation of Israel. Like, they fought to break the Ottoman Empire in Gallipoli. In Turkey, they broke the Ottoman Empire that caused the British Palestine Mandate, which later caused Israel. So I should just throw all the Anzacs under the bus? I don’t believe in that. I can respect that, the hero for being the hero. I can respect the ANZAC for being the Anzac and at the same time say like, I can respect the 16 year old boys that died in Kokoda in the trail fighting the Japanese Empire and at the same time be like:

 

“We manipulated Japan into declaring war with the West. They could have just focused on China and extracted resources and blah, blah, blah!”

 

And those that wanted war with Germany created war with Japan and we never needed to go to war with Japan. They weren’t a threat. You know, the Japanese weren’t really a threat to Australia. They only declared war on America and Australia because they were forced into it.

 

And so we can have this take on geopolitics. That doesn’t mean the guys that fought at Kokoda weren’t heroes, Mark. No Japanese soldier ever shut down the bank accounts of the fascist movement in Australia in 1930. It’s like, so?

 

Mark Collett: But that’s an important point, because otherwise you fall down the Tommy Robinson narrative. So Tommy Robinson, he raises one valid point, that Muslims here in the UK do horrific things to young British girls and in some cases young British boys.

 

And I want to make it totally clear, I don’t want any Muslims in Britain at all! I want them all to go. I want every mosque to be closed down. I want this to be 95% White British country, where the few that remain are overwhelmingly of White European descent from elsewhere in the world.

 

So you have some White Australians here, some White Americans here some Germans, some French, but we’re 95% White British. But Tommy Robinson, he’ll raise this valid point and then he’ll say:

 

“Look, we need to have the warrior spirit, we need fighting men. And the best way to put it up the Muslims is to go and fight in places like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan!”

 

He spreads that narrative. And then when we do go and fight there, it has three effects. The first effect is we spend lots of money and lots of our young men either die or come back with horrific injuries. The second effect is the Muslims here in Britain become far, far more radicalised and do far more horrible things to our people in terms of revenge.

 

And the third thing that it does is it creates a never ending stream of Muslims coming to the West as refugees, as translators. And for all the piss and vinegar from people like Tommy Robinson and all these “we’ve got to go and fight them abroad”, the net effect is British people suffer because money spent abroad. British people suffer because their sons and daughters go over there and fight and come back in body bags or maimed. And then British people suffer because more people come from Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Middle East because we’ve kicked the hornet’s nest. Never once has one of these foreign wars that Ben Roberts has fought in resulted in a better world for Europeans!

 

In fact, quite the opposite. And we’ve got lots of people who are great warriors, wonderful with guns, expertly trained, incredibly fit, people who would make me wince with the physical feats they can carry out. And they went to Afghanistan, they went to Iraq, they’re probably on the borders of Iran as we speak. They’ve operated in places like Syria and Libya. And I’m sure they’re great warriors in your book, but their actions unfortunately have led to a greater demographic shift here.

 

And if you go and do something and you are part of a machine whose actions reduce us to a minority and make our life worse whilst only enriching one particular group of people who are the Zionists, the people that Tommy Robinson works for, how is that a good outcome for us?

 

[57:08]

 

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, I stand by the point I made earlier that that is not the isolated fault and guilt and responsibility of one particular class of people just because they’re trained gunmen. Every single person in this society that’s not a full-time nationalist is contributing to the machine. I agree with a lot of what you’ve said on this subject, that it has. These wars have not helped us. Absolutely, you’re right. These wars haven’t helped us. These wars have harmed us. Absolutely! I 100% agree with you! They have harmed us, they have brought in a never ending stream of immigration. That wasn’t Ben Roberts-Smith’s decision. I assure you if Ben Roberts-Smith was Prime Minister or he was in Parliament, he would be trying to stop that. So, and I think that’s my central point is that it’s actually men like Ben Roberts-Smith that they’re taking out.

 

There’s a guy in government at the moment called Andrew Hastie and he is part of the machine and he was in the SAS and him and two of his buddies testified against Ben Roberts-Smith and that’s why he’s being put up on these war crime charges. And he is part of ZOG! He is part of the machine! He is responsible for destroying this country! And he is the deputy leader of the Liberal Party, which is our version of the Conservative Party, here in Australia. They pretend to be conservative to get votes, no different to yours. But like yours at least they kind of are conservative, which is a shit ideology. These people aren’t even agreeing with the shit ideology. They’re pretending to agree with the shit ideology.

 

And so Ben Roberts-Smith could become a political force in this country. I think it’s quite obvious the way Ben Roberts-Smith was gearing himself up after leaving the SAS. He was making political manoeuvres. Ben Roberts-Smith was getting on the boards of the Return Service League. He was getting on the boards of all these like ex-soldier organisations, community organisations. He was getting involved with the War Museum, he was getting involved culturally, he was getting active, he was getting political, Mark. And he wasn’t joining the Liberal Party because obviously he doesn’t like the Liberal Party. He doesn’t like what they’ve done to Australia. And he was looking at other options.

 

And I believe that Hastie, Andrew Hastie, sees Ben Roberts-Smith as a political threat to him. I think in a different timeline we could have had a Ben Roberts-Smith, you know, MP as opposed to an Andrew Hastie MP. I don’t think it’s as clear cut as everyone that’s in the army or everyone that fights in these wars is a Zogbot. I don’t think it’s as clear cut as that. I think some people like, am I a Zogbot, because I was in the Australian Army? Like obviously I came to my senses. I obviously came to my senses, but the point is that I joined the army. I applied to join the army at 17 years old because I loved my country and I wanted to fight for my country and I wanted to fight my country’s enemies and I wanted to put that to good use.

 

And so the soldiers on the ground, I think it’s a false equivalent equivalency to say:

 

“Well, you’re part of the beast, you’re responsible!”

 

And it’s, well, hang on a minute! They going over to Afghanistan because they don’t want Afghanis in Australia. And yes, you’re right, …

 

Mark Collett: But that results in more of them coming there!

 

Thomas Sewell: It has.

 

Mark Collett: That’s what’s happened!

 

Thomas Sewell: Yes, it has. Yes, it has. You’re right! That is what’s happened.

 

Mark Collett: It’s like me saying:

 

“I don’t want war!”

 

It’s like me saying, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Because they’re getting stabbed in the back!

 

Mark Collett: It’s like I don’t want more water into my house, but then I feed a hose through my window and turn it to max! That is not the way to go about drying the house out, is it?

 

Thomas Sewell: I think that’s a false metaphor or false equivalency. It’s like saying:

 

“I don’t like pit bulls.”

 

And then you go to the suburb over and go, kill a pit bull in the suburb over. And then somebody else is bringing pit bulls into your suburb because the suburbs not safe for pit bulls that you’re killing in the other suburb. That’s to me a more accurate metaphor. It’s like, Ben, Roberts-Smith is going over to Afghanistan because he doesn’t like pit bulls. He’s trying to get rid of them. He’s trying to get rid of this dangerous breed. And it’s like, meanwhile, he’s getting stabbed in the back. They’re bringing this dangerous breed into Australia!

 

And so it’s like he’s not pouring the water into his own house, Mark. He’s trying to deal with this issue externally because he’s pointing the pointy stick outside Australia.

 

Mark Collett: He’s pointing the pointy stick and chasing them into Australia, because that’s what happens. When these soldiers go abroad and fight these wars the undoubted end, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Roberts-Smith didn’t open the borders. And no one in the Australian army joins the Australian arm for that reason.

 

Mark Collett: And every time soldiers from Britain, America, Australia go to the Middle East, the net effect is more Muslims come to Britain and never once, …

 

Thomas Sewell: And how often Mark, how old are you? Mark, how old are you?

 

Mark Collett: I’m 45.

 

[1:02:04]

 

 

Thomas Sewell: And I’m 33. And we have the wisdom in our middle years. We’re definitely not old men. We’re fit, young, middle aged men or slightly younger than middle aged men perhaps. And we have the wisdom to know this. We have the wisdom to know this.

 

But you know, guys that are 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, like when do these guys join the army? You don’t join the army at 33 years old. You don’t join the army at 45

 

Mark Collett: Which is good.

 

Thomas Sewell: It doesn’t happen. When I was at basic training, the oldest guy like the “grandpa, gramps” at basic training was 25. A guy called Coxy, he was 20. That was the oldest guy at basic training. Everyone was 17, 18, everyone. The second oldest guy was like 22. And we were like:

 

“Whoa! It’s like a grown arse man!”

 

He’s as old as the corporals. We were like, you know what I mean? Like a 22 year old. When I was at basic training, a 22 year old was like an old guy that we looked up to and we were like asking him questions about shit! We’re like:

 

“What do you think of so and so? What do you think of this guy?”

 

You know, we were fucking kids, Mark! You know, we didn’t know joining the army that they’re going to be flooding Australia full of Muslims. We joined the army to fight Muslims! We thought that if we fight them on the front line in their country, they’re not going to be fighting on our turf.

 

Mark Collett: But the exact opposite happened.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yes. And we can reflect on that now as older men and we can say:

 

“Hey, don’t join the army!”

 

And we can say to young guys, blah, blah, blah, we can steer guys in the right direction:

 

“The real issue, the real threat is government. The real threat are the traitors in government that are stabbing us in the back!”

 

And they’re not putting Ben Roberts-Smith on a pedestal and having him in the Liberal Party and soak in votes and say:

 

“We need to bring more Afghan refugees into the country.”

 

Like Andrew Hastie, his counterpart. Another guy that was in the SAS, that has stabbed Ben Roberts-Smith in the back! He’s testified against him, he’s ratted on his own boys! He’s the piece of shit! Andrew Hastie’s the piece of shit! So that’s my position on it.

 

Like Hitler talks about this in Mein Kampf. When you’re fighting on the front line, your focus is on the enemy. And so Hitler was so pissed off and he got involved in politics at the conclusion of the First World War because his focus was fighting on the front line, rightly or wrongly! You know what I mean? It’s like Hitler’s fighting on the front line. What? You know the British are there to defend the little countries, to defend Belgium and the Netherlands, and the Germans are there to fight for the empire, the German Empire. And it’s like, so you’ve got these young guys being manipulated to fight against each other. And then where this political energy comes from in this expansion of fascism in the 1920s and 1930s across Europe was like:

 

“Well, hang on a minute. While the warriors were not thinking about politics and just doing what they thought was the right thing and serving their nation, they were getting stabbed in the back by politicians and a political class and a communist class and a traitor class!”

 

And that creates the rise of fascism. And I can feel that happening in Australia, in America, in Britain, with people that are leaving defense or people that are fed up with these institutions, people that are leaving the police force. Look, Mark, you know how I feel about police officers. I’ve obviously been treated pretty badly by police officers. My men have been treated badly by police officers.

 

But there’s a lot of ex-police officers that come up to me in the street and say:

 

“I support what you’re doing. I’ve retired from Victoria Police now, so I can say it, blah, blah, blah, keep on track, I think you’re a good man, blah, blah, blah.”

 

And they’re sorry for what’s happened to us by the institution. It’s the leadership that are responsible. It’s the institution. These guys just obviously it’s changing and less and less good quality men are joining these institutions.

 

Is that a good thing? Yes, in some ways, it’s to and fro. There’s pros and cons to good men not joining these institutions. There’s pros and cons! I think there are some cons because if it sucks having your own kind of men, seeing men of your own calibre, seeing guys point machine guns at your family. But I have spoken to some of these special operations guys that have pointed guns at people’s families. And I have spoken to them. And I won’t go into too much detail. I don’t want to get them in trouble. But their position on it is:

 

“Hey, this is nothing compared to how bad it could be!”

 

And I know that sounds like a, I’m not saying this, like a defeatist thing, but what they’re saying is:

 

“It’s just your turn at the moment, and it’s not even that bad. Get over it, soldier!”

 

And that might be hard to accept at face value, but it’s like, can we turn this around? What does that look like? The possibilities are infinite. What does it look like?

 

I mean, you got Nick Fuentes saying:

 

“Join these institutions and subvert them from within. And un-subvert them from within and get involved in institutional power.”

 

You’ve got people like Jacob [Hersant] saying:

 

“Drain the beast, or Masons.”

 

You’ve got like “put the system under siege” mentality. You’ve got people saying the exact opposite of Fuentes. And I usually side with that mentality. I say:

 

“Don’t join the police, don’t join the army!”

 

But some people are going to do that regardless of whether we tell them to or not. And there’s a lot of good, spirited young men that aren’t listening to us. We have a relatively small audience compared to Tommy Robinson or compared to the mainstream media. And so they’re going to do it.

 

And so it’s like, how do we jujitsu that? That’s probably a bad way of putting it, but how do we mobilise that into political victory downstream?

 

[1:07:53]

 

And so, yes, they are getting lectured. They are getting lectured. But the Soviet Union, before it collapsed, lectured a lot of people on Soviet values. It doesn’t last! Their regime’s not going to last. You know, they can talk about LGBT rights and:

 

“The greatest threat to democracy are these neo-Nazi guys like Thomas Sewell!”

 

And there’s a lot of guys in these institutions that are secretly in the group chat going like:

 

“Thomas Sewell’s a legend!”

 

So they’re not falling for it. Those that are falling for it want to fall for it. You know that guy that threatened, that cop that threatened to kill my boys in South Australia? He’s a lil’ Reddit, you know, low IQ, fucking hive mind, you know, cuck boy! I would say he’s in the minority now. It’s a good point. Golden Dawn, it’s a good case study. Golden Dawn, allegedly 50% of the riot police in Greece were members of Golden Dawn. And the riot police still acted in regards to the Greek government in shutting down Golden Dawn.

 

But you know that that’s obviously a very bad statistic. You’ve got 50% control of the police members of your political party and your political party still gets banned? How do we deal with this, Mark? How do we move forward?

 

Mark Collett: I’ll tell you, I’ll tell you! I think you’re talking nonsense mate! And I’ll tell you why.

 

Here in Britain, the police force, and this is why you need to be slightly more open to what I’m saying. Here in Britain, the police force who are there to protect and serve, social services who are charged with specifically children’s welfare and looking after children, okay? They, between them, along with other government groups, conspired not only to cover up the greatest case of organised mass rape Britain has ever seen! Where more than a hundred thousand White British girls have been sexually abused, raped, trafficked, even murdered by Muslim men. And the police and social services conspired to cover it up.

 

But not only did they conspire to cover it up, they also worked relentlessly to brutalise, harassment, silence, arrest any people including parents groups, political organisations, who tried to blow the whistle on what was happening. Now I think the idea that secretly amongst these police forces that cover up these crimes, harass us, and silence genuine victims of anti-White crime, amongst these police forces there’s just ranks and ranks of them ready to take up arms with us. I think that is wishful thinking to the greatest degree!

 

And I think secondly, …

 

Thomas Sewell: I didn’t say about England, you know how I feel about British police.

 

Mark Collett: But I think the police force in Australia would be the same. And I think if push came to, …

 

Thomas Sewell: I think it’s turning that way. No, I think it’s absolutely turning that way!

 

Mark Collett: If push came to shove and the government declared you a terrorist group and told the police that anyone who’d ever been a member of NSN had to be rounded up tomorrow, the police would eagerly do it. And then I think if, …

 

Thomas Sewell: They would do it.

 

Mark Collett: If they ordered the army to assist, I think the army would do it too.

 

Thomas Sewell: They probably would too.

 

Mark Collett: So at that point, yeah, so at that point you’re dealing with hostile people.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah.

 

Mark Collett: And I would say this, I don’t know what goes on exactly in Australia with non-White criminality or anti-White crime. But it wouldn’t shock me if there wasn’t cover ups going on now. And I’ll tell you why.

 

There have been cover ups in France with these church burnings. There have been mass cover ups in Germany around crimes specifically related to Turkish criminals, gangsters groups bringing in firearms from Turkey and controlling the criminal underworld in Germany. And I would find it to be very strange if all these cover ups were taking place in European nations, but weren’t taking place in Australia.

 

And I think we’re living in a world now where people who work for the system, especially those in law enforcement, are being specifically vetted to be against people like you and I, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Yes!

 

Mark Collett: And I see all of this as a package of people that are our enemies. And look, I believe in the warrior spirit. I believe in struggle, I believe in men being Hardy. I talk about this all the time. But if you’re going to be a warrior, you’ve got to fight the right enemy to be in my good books.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. Look, absolutely there is institutional corruption in Australia! Is it as bad as Britain? No! Did we have a mass rape epidemic in Australia like there is in Britain? There’s isolated cases, yes. But it’s not anywhere near on the same industrial scale. Did the police in Australia do their job? Mostly. They did. When these rapes started happening, the Australian police and the Australian court actually like threw all these Muslims in jail. And there’s some classic cases that were popularised in the media where they didn’t actually try to do that here in Australia. I don’t know why it didn’t work. I can only put it down to the fact that we have an old guard that are not child rapists. And I do believe there is an old guard in Australia. Is this old guard dying and retiring? Yes, absolutely, absolutely! They’re retiring from the police force or they’ve already retired. They’re retiring from, …

 

Mark Collett: Just to interject there, Tom, I think we sent all our actual real criminals, like hardened street fighters to Australia, but we kept the child abusing paedophiles here in Britain, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah.

 

Mark Collett: And that’s why our entire establishment is run by child abusing paedophiles who obviously love the Muslim child abusing paedophiles. Whereas your criminals and your police, I will admit, may be cut from a slightly different cloth.

 

[1:14:05]

 

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. There are 27 high profile paedophiles in Australia that are being protected. Including a former Prime Minister. I can’t remember the name of the files, but some people call it “The John Howard Files”. It’s not John Howard that’s in it. Well, he probably is, but he’s not the paedophile that’s been accused. But John Howard, a former Prime Minister, put a 99 year seal on 27 high profile judges, senior police officers, politicians, and one prime minister, and probably people in defense as well, that are convicted paedophiles and they’re convicted in secret courts. For the sake of the Australian integrity of the system these people have not been named.

 

And so there is institutional corruption here in Australia. And that’s pretty heinous that it’s from the top down. The fish stinks from the top [head] down. And obviously the Australian political class were just as deeply involved with the Epstein scandal and the Epstein files. I think it was Paul Keating’s daughter was basically like one of Epstein’s little girls. So there’s many photos of Paul Keating’s daughter going in and out of Epstein’s Manhattan apartment. While she was in her, I think, late teens, an adult, but in her late teens.

 

And so who knows when that relationship started, how young she was. And when he sold his daughter to Epstein to be part of the political class here in Australia. No doubt there’s mass institutional corruption!

 

But yeah, again we are, yeah, things, it’s all coming out in the wash when it comes to the, as you say, the special units they’re using to hunt down political dissidents are being vetted for having particular Left-wing values. And they are being vetted to having particular anti-national and anti-White values. That is true. That is happening in real time. I’ve seen it transform in the time I’ve been involved in nationalism. I’ve seen it go from one end to this end over 10 years. And the reason why I continue to defend Ben Roberts-Smith is because if this was to have happened right now, where we’ve got a great awakening and a great zeitgeist of thought and understanding, I think the attitudes would be a little bit different.

 

But when we go back 15 years ago, I mean, who knew what was going on 15 years ago? A bunch of conspiracy theorists on the Internet. I mean there was some anti-war protesting, but it was from the Left-wing perspective. They were protesting war because they’re anti-war in general. I’m not anti-war in general. And obviously I wasn’t old enough or an, or intelligent enough or well read enough at the time to take a Right-wing anti-war position on say, Iraq.

 

So yeah, I think we should get off the topic. You’ve had your say. I’ve had my say.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, look, I’ve got to say I want to thank you for being such a good sport. I like it when you come on and we have a bit of a back and forth. And to the people in the chat who some of them are saying like I love Muslims or Tom’s ZOGed, look, …

 

Thomas Sewell: I haven’t checked the chat.

 

Mark Collett: Two people having a reasoned debate, okay? As friends, neither of us are insulting each other. Both of us have been extremely respectful. No one’s even said the slightest insulting thing to one another. This is how movements deal with issues. Figureheads discuss them like adults. And if you’re in the chat insulting either one of us, you’re not really in the spirit of what we. Of what we’re doing here tonight. And I have muted a couple of comments who have said insulting things about both myself and Tom.

 

So if you’re one of the people who is saying that either, Tom’s a Zogbot or I’m a Muslim lover, well, I think that’s unfair and there’s just absolutely unnecessary to do so because this has been completely polite. And if figureheads in a movement can’t debate one another and have a reasoned discussion as friends, I don’t know what we can do.

 

But look, let’s move on. I think that’s about the end of the topics we were going to discuss anyway. We’ve gone an hour and, 20 minutes. We’ll do the Superchats. If you haven’t Superchatted yet and you’d like to contribute to the show, please do ask any questions. We’ll answer them. But please do be respectful. And the people have muted. I’ll unmute them after the show when they’ve calmed down and stopped acting like complete spergs.

 

Because I think both me and Tom can agree that part of being a White man is understanding how to control your emotions. When somebody says something that you may disagree with. If you can’t control your emotions and you have to start jumping around [chuckling] screaming and shouting like a madman, you probably not being the best avatar for our people.

 

Anyway, let’s do some of these Superchats. Thank you to everyone who’s donated so far. If people want to donate, that would be absolutely fantastic! It really helps me out and I think it’s been a really entertaining show tonight. And I love doing these chats with Tom, especially when we debate.

 

In fact, Tom is so good at these debates, I could easily schedule him for once a month to debate on a topic with me. If there was one, because I do enjoy it. It’s been a really good back and forth. Nationless Nationalist gave $5. Thanks so much. Said:

 

“Good interpretation of the subject.”

 

Thank you so much! UK granny gave $25 and said:

 

“Thank you, Mark.”

 

Thank you so much! Open Borders for Israel said:

 

“Tom is an Australian hero. Great to see his exchange with the female Channel 7 reporter the other night.”

 

What was that? I haven’t seen that.

 

[1:19:50]

 

Thomas Sewell: Sorry, what? I was reading the comments. What was the question?

 

Mark Collett: The Channel 7 reporter.

 

Thomas Sewell: Oh, that was months ago. That must have just popped up in whoever’s NewsFeed. The Channel 7 reporter outside the court that was like, behaving in a kind of fawning manner. Is that what he was asking about?

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, he said he liked seeing it.

 

Thomas Sewell: Well, I think we discussed this last time, or maybe I discussed it with somebody else on stream. But yeah, I mean, ultimately, you know, politics is so boring, mainstream media politics and women are not actually used to. I mean, the public is not used to, but especially women are not used to men just saying it as it is. And we don’t have a filter. We just say what we think the truth is. We just say our truth. And women find that absolutely tingling! Whether they agree with it or not.

 

And people need to stop being, … It’s just more proof that you can. What’s important is saying the truth and saying it confidently and strongly. It’s not. You don’t need to morally police yourself to appease women or appease the feminine masses. The feminine masses, Hitler describes the masses as being inherently feminine. They kind of go with the strongest force. And if you’re giving them negative tingles, it’s ultimately a good thing. That’s more powerful politics than being boring. There’s basically nothing worse in politics than being boring. So just say the truth, say it loud, say it strong. And even people that disagree with you, unless they’re revolting, like Lefties, like, with blue hair, and they look like freaks!

 

But if they’re just like a normal person that’s kind of brainwashed by the Lefty institutions, when they hear the other side some people call it juxtaposition. It’s like when they hear the other side in such a way, it kind of rattles them, but it rattles them in a good way. Like, it makes them excited, it makes them interested, it makes them, like, pay attention. And you can’t say that journalists are, they’re obviously horrible people, but you can’t say that they’re bored when they’re interviewing me, they’re just like:

 

“This is what I come to work for. This is awesome!”

 

And so then you can’t get silenced that way. No matter how many times Left academics write article saying:

 

“Stop promoting these people. You need to asphyxiate them! Stop interviewing them!”

 

They have to do it. They have to do it! And so how do you counter Leftist academics instructing the media to silence us? Obviously they’re going to manipulate what we say. You know, it is what it is. You just got to play your cards as best you can.

 

Mark Collett: What Tom is describing is an interesting quirk of the female personality. Whereas men are generally most happy when a female listens contently to what the man has to say and politely agrees and giggles at the right time, women actually don’t particularly like that. Women don’t look for partners who basically roll over and just listen to them Prattle on.

 

In fact, women quite like men who are strong, can challenge them and hold their own points and show themselves to be dominant. So men generally don’t look for., … Well, men who are wired correctly do not look for a dominant female. They look for a female that is going to be basically their support. The person who listens to them, agrees with them, learns from them. That is attractive for a male. The opposite is generally attractive for a female. The female wants a man who will stand his ground. And even when she’s saying:

 

“Well, I don’t think I like what you’re saying.”

 

If the man states it confidently, calmly, and doesn’t back down, that makes her melt inside. Because women, generally speaking, if they’re wired correctly, do desire an alpha male. They do look for a man who isn’t going to bow to their every whim. That’s why men who get friend zoned are generally guys that agree with the woman who they like, incessantly. So they agree with everything they say:

 

“Everything they do is great.”

 

They can never give them any criticism. And women get bored of that. And they see that man as a doormat. No woman’s going to see Tom as a doormat.

 

In fact, some of these liberal women who work in sort of TV studios are probably surrounded by gimpy little doormats all day. And Tom’s probably the first man that woman has met doing her job, that is actually an alpha, and that just blows her away!

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, a lot of the criticism I see from these kind of liberal men is the same dynamic as simping and White knighting. So even when you take the sexual or the sex of the journalist out of the equation, what you’ll find is that when nationalists stand up and they’re strong and they’re confident about what’s happening. The kind of men that agree with that are men that are wired correctly. There are other patriots, there are other nationalists and they’ll say:

 

“This guy gets it, this guy understands what’s wrong with the country.”

 

And they say:

 

“I support this guy.”

 

And then what you’ll find is the same snarky kind of like libtard Redditor beta males that would like try and snipe you in part of their beta. It’s part of their sexual, … Like you can’t actually separate sex and politics. Sex and politics are inherently tied together.

 

[1:25:22]

 

 

So when people see it on camera, when they see like a sexual energy within a political force, or a dynamic, it like obviously it excites them because it’s like:

 

“Oh, okay, I’m actually seeing this in real time, bleed together.”

 

But all politics is sexual. And so understanding that the weak men are always going to snipe the strong men, that’s what weak men do, they snipe. And it’s part of a strategy. They feel intimidated by the presence, so they’ve got to tear down the alpha. And it’s an attempt to White knight in order to win favour from the women. And ultimately the women don’t respect them.

 

Women don’t respect liberal men. Liberal men are like eight times more likely to see a therapist and they’re eight times, 10 times more likely to be on antidepressants and all this sort of like liberal men, they’re not breeding, they’re getting cucked they’re below replacement. They’re not wired correctly and they’re basically funneling themselves out of the gene pool.

 

Whereas like strong men, strong hearted men, whether you want to call that conservative men, patriotic man, nationalist man, whatever label you put on it, there are men that are wired correctly. And we’re reproducing, maybe not in our 20s, but most guys in their 30s and 40s are reproducing. We’re above replacement. You know, we’re having big families, we’ve got these strong values. And yeah, when the system says:

 

“Your values are wrong, I’m offended. Blah, blah, blah!”

 

Just treat it like the same you would in a relationship. It’s just like you don’t disagree with what I’m saying. You just don’t like the way I’m saying. It’s like, so just be quiet and do as you’re told! And that’s basically what fascism or National Socialism or ethno-nationalism, that’s ultimately a force that needs to be driving behind it.

 

Last night, I know you probably weren’t paying attention, Mark, and rightly so, but in Australia, there was a nonsense debate between Michael Nelson, one of the young Zoomers, and a Zoomer girl called Bass Blondie, who’s not actually blonde. And they had a Twitter space and it went on for hours. And I was losing brain cells. But I listened to it because I wanted to hear the dynamic because these are people in their early, very early 20s. And they were having an argument over, I guess, like, women’s role in politics. And it was entertaining, to some degree.

 

But, yeah, listening to that last night was, yes, fascinating! I could talk about that for a while, but I’ll spare you. But there is a lot of that. People are trying to find their feet and figure out what the right approach is for these energies. What is the right application of the feminine energy within the political sphere in totality. And what’s the right energy that men need to put forward. And yeah, I think nature is going to solve the problem. Birds and bees!

 

Mark Collett: So thank you. DerCherusker gave $5. Thanks so much. Said:

 

“Powerful episode. Hail to you, Mark and Thomas. De camp ist de vanta Aladinga. Struggle is the father of all things.”

 

Well, I couldn’t agree more. ThinRedLine gave $5. Thanks so much. Said:

 

“Secure the future of our people. One minute ago, Mark Collett. Mark, can you ask Tom if he thinks the Australian military would., …”

 

Oh, it’s sort of relating to our little debate. He said:

 

“Do you think the Australian military would open fire on Australians if ordered to?”

 

Thomas Sewell: Oh, I mean, that’s, … I think some would. I don’t think they, … I think some would. The Australian military, I mean, we’re talking about 60,000 people. I think some would. There’s a percentage that would be just straight goy cattle that would. What is that exact percentage? I don’t know. Somewhere between 1% and maybe 10%. I don’t think the average Australian soldier would do that. No, absolutely not! I think you’re more likely to find a police officer that would do it.

 

And I think that was proven during the Covid lockdowns. That the average police officer, like probably more than 50% of police officers, if it came, if push came to shove, they’ll point the spear at their own people, and they’ve just been conditioned to do that. You’ll find that Australian soldiers were put in Melbourne, they were put next to police officers at military style checkpoints in these like 5k radius zones trying to block people from like going and visiting their friends during Covid. And I got pulled over and it was a cop and a soldier. And the soldier had his rifle on him, which is pretty like:

 

“Oh, that’s pretty Orwellian!”

 

And they pulled me over because I was going for a drive to see a friend, and I was way outside, I was like 40km outside my radius, my 5k radius. And instead of showing my driver’s licence, I pulled out my old like 10 year expired military ID that I still had in my wallet and the soldier just looked at it and was like:

 

“This is expired.”

 

And I was like:

 

“Yeah.”

 

And he was like:

 

“What are you doing?”

 

And I was like:

 

“I’m just seeing a mate.”

 

And he was like:

 

“Anyway, have a nice day bro.”

 

And then just let me drove off. So, I don’t have much anecdotal encounters with ZOG like with the army and the police. But I’ll tell you this right now, like a police officer probably would have fined me $5,000, but the soldier looked at it and was just like:

 

“Oh, he’s one of the boys, I’ll just give him a pass.”

 

But you know, so many people have got these horrible stories where like soldiers and police officers are pulling them out of their car and assaulting them. And you know what I mean? So it’s like it’s fucked up! It’s a really fucked up situation. I don’t have an exact answer for you. It’s case by case. Yeah, there are pieces of, in society that would turn on their own people. Would they open fire? Well, let’s say they did. Let’s run the scenario. I think you’d find that it would probably cause a civil war! I think you’d find there would be more people in defense that would be like:

 

“Why are we shooting Australians? I didn’t sign up for this!”

 

And it would cause a civil war. So the likelihood of it ever happening is possible. Of course, on a long enough timeline, anything’s possible, but I don’t see it happening in the current conditions.

 

[1:31:34]

 

Mark Collett: I think one thing that we have to be very careful about is although we don’t want to sort of alienate people in the forces who do support us, we can’t sort of ignore the fact that the police has become sort of more and more anti-White to the point where it would be legitimate to see them as a whole, as a rather hostile group.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yep.

 

Mark Collett: But the really worrying thing is, I believe, and some people aren’t going to like what I’m going to say here, I think the army is going the same way and the powers that have transformed the police are now doing the same with the army.

 

Thomas Sewell: Absolutely!

 

Mark Collett: And if you look in Britain especially, there is a massive, massive drive to recruit soldiers, as there has been police, from ethnic minority communities, which I think by its very nature would create a situation where the military became more hostile to sort of indigenous Brits. And I think that’s a worrying thing in the future.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, absolutely!

 

And a lot of people don’t see much value in the argument of trying to separate individuals from institutions. And it is much clearer, it’s a clearer propaganda message or it’s a clearer perception of reality to just address an institution as a whole.

 

And obviously the defense force in Britain and Australia and the police force in Britain and in Australia, they are institutions that are destroying our country! That is true. That is true! And so separating the individual or separating individuals out of an institution becomes messy work. It certainly becomes messy work.

 

So you, yeah, Australia is going down the same path, where, as I was saying before, I’ve seen two speeches now, one written and one visually, on video. I’ve seen two speeches from two of the most senior people in the Australian army starting their lectures with a “Welcome to Country”. When you think about the significance of that these Welcome to Country’s started, I don’t know, in the 2010s, like mid 2010s, they appeared out of nowhere. When one Aboriginal group visited another Aboriginal group, the local council would put on a little smoking ceremony. And they would say like:

 

“Oh, one group’s welcoming the other group to their turf.”

 

And it was just like this LARP [Live Action Role Play], it was this little placation of these two little groups of people. Like in Melbourne, there’s probably like 10 full blooded Aboriginals, you know what I mean? Like, it’s a joke!

 

And so it’s like one group saying to the other group. And then it, in a five year period, it went from that to every school started doing it on Monday morning! You know what I mean? Like in five years I went from this thing that no one had ever seen or heard of to every footy match, every school! And then within five years of it being in every school, you’ve now got senior members of defense, who have sworn an oath to the sovereign. Like the whole military is a hierarchy. You follow orders, blah, blah, blah. The whole idea of being one of the top generals in the country is you are literally a direct servant basically of the Crown. You follow the direction of the Crown, slash the Parliament that represents the Crown.

 

And so then to say that all of that is nonsense, to say that none of that is sovereign and that this is actually the land of the Aboriginal people and not of Australians, like to start your speech and then go and lecture people on national security, the absurdity of that! The absurdity of that! It shows that the fish stinks from the head down! The whole thing is rotten because this is what the leadership are doing.

 

Now, can leaders change? Yes, but we have to address it at its root, at its source. I don’t think the army can be fixed from within the army. We have to focus on politics. That has to be our trade. People that are patriotic shouldn’t, as you rightly put before, they shouldn’t have their patriotic impulses manipulated into joining these institutions. The same way they shouldn’t have their patriotic instincts manipulated into barracking for their local football team and dressing up like a clown and worshiping the football hooliganism obviously needs to mutate into politics or mobilise into politics, and it needs to leave football hooliganism for teenagers. And then ideally the teenagers leave it behind and realise politics is more important than football.

 

But you’ve got grown men behaving like teenage boys. And clearly the football culture in Australia, in America, the sports ball culture is, and don’t get me wrong, Mark, and I’ve said this many times, I fucking love football! I do. I love AFL! I think it’s one of the greatest sports in the world. I played a grade soccer for 11 years. My boys are going to play soccer. My boys are going to play AFL as well, I’m going to make sure they’re playing lots of team sports. I think it’s really important for childhood development, but it’s important for childhood development. You know, when you become a fucking adult, you focus on politics, not fucking Richmond versus Hawthorne! Like that doesn’t fucking matter! What matters is who’s running the country and why is that? Why are they running it into the ground? We need new leaders.

 

So, yeah, that’s we got to address things at the root. We’ve got to address things at the root.

 

[1:37:23]

 

 

Mark Collett: Well, thank you. ThinRedLine gave another $25. Thank you so much, my friend. He said:

 

“I didn’t really hear what the situation is with Joel. Is he on probation?”

 

He’s not on probation. He was on remand. He is now being released and he has quite heavy restrictions which don’t allow him to use social media or even live with his partner and his child. A trial date has no doubt been., … Has a trial date been set for him?

 

Thomas Sewell: The Australian court system’s so slow. I don’t know, probably. Like sometimes, …

 

Mark Collett: He’s on trial and essentially, or he will be on trial. He was being held on remand. He’s no longer being held on remand.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, he’s now on 20, 21 bail conditions or something. Ridiculous!

 

Mark Collett: Yeah.

 

Thomas Sewell: So, yeah, he’s on bail to go to trial. Yes, he is fighting these charges. These charges are nonsense! Yeah, he’s been charged with basically a summary offence. He’s been charged with a very low level offence of basically, I think it’s “using a carrier service to harass”. So it’d be the same as, let’s say you lived in Australia, Mark, and I sent you a text message saying, I fucking hate you’re a piece of shit! Ben Roberts-Smith is a hero in this house. Fuck you! Let’s fight! Or something [chuckling] like that.

 

And then you just say:

 

“Leave me alone, Thomas Sewell. I don’t like these text messages.”

 

And I just keep messaging you and I keep harassing you. And then you go to the police and say:

 

“Thomas Sewell won’t leave me alone! He keeps menacing me! He’s a menace!”

 

And so Joel’s been charged with menacing. He’s been like, literally in the charge. It’s like using a carrier service to harass. But that’s just the title of the charge. It actually says “harass, menace, or intimidate”. And I think what the cops are going with is not harass, but menace. They’re saying he menaced Allegra Spender. And I think 94% of people that are convicted of this crime get like a $250 fine and told:

 

“Stop menacing this person.”

 

But they held him in solitary confinement in the most heinous conditions for 133 days or something instead. But I’m telling you, 94% of people convicted of this crime get a 250 fine. And for far worse things than texting, for posting naughty words on his Telegram saying basically:

 

“Go destroy this lady’s comment section. She’s a bitch!”

 

Mark Collett: Yeah. Although he could have worded that slightly better, [chuckling]

 

Thomas Sewell: I’m sure he could have! Of course he could have.

 

But I think the argument. I think the argument that he would be making. I’m not speaking on his behalf, but I’m making an assumption. And this is actually the argument that I’m making is that I don’t believe in the female gynocracy police force. I think what he said was crude, but I actually don’t disagree with what he said.

 

Mark Collett: Look, I think when he said “rhetorically”, [rhetorically rape] he made it clear that what he was saying was get in the comments and make her feel small, basically.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah.

 

Mark Collett: And they have used one of the words that he said to basically throw the book at him as if he was actually threatening a heinous crime, which is clear., He wasn’t.

 

But I will say this, and I’m not ragging on Joel. No, I’ve got to say this, Tom, because like I said, …

 

Thomas Sewell: The locker room talk! The locker room talk won’t get us anywhere!

 

Mark Collett: No, I was gonna say, be careful! Like, when you do post things and you think, in a moment of madness, if you think something’s funny, or a little bit edgy, …

 

Thomas Sewell: He’s learnt the hard way. Yeah, like, he’s learnt the hard way. Everyone said that to him. You know, myself, I assure you, myself and Jack Eltis told him, like:

 

“Hey, dude, take it a little bit easy when you’re, … Differentiate between posting publicly and posting in the group chat.”

 

You know what I mean? Because this is how boys talk in the group chat. This is locker room talk. This is how. And like, women that are disgusted by what Joel said, basically, shut the fuck up! Go fuck yourself! Like this is how boys talk when women aren’t around. And what Joel’s issue was not the way he speaks in private, it’s that Joel spoke publicly the way that a lot of people speak privately.

 

And so you know, don’t police locker room talk, but also be careful that if you’re going to say locker room talk publicly, the gynocracy might throw you in a concrete box! And I don’t think anyone expected it because it’s the first time anyone in Australia has been thrown in a concrete box for locker room talk!

 

So yeah, men are never going to change. We’re always going to talk like this. Don’t police us! Women talk far more disgustingly in the women’s locker room and we don’t police how they talk in the locker room. I don’t police how women talk in the women’s locker room.

 

But yeah, what Joel did was he did it publicly and they wanted to make an example of him. And that’s the gynocracy and they can’t help themselves.

 

[1:42:39]

 

 

I mean, I remember being in primary school and saying something mean or my friends saying something mean and the teacher gave, I remember his name was Tom Matz and he said something, he back chatted this teacher and the teacher said:

 

“You’re getting detention!”

 

And so he said the same word again! I can’t remember what word it was, but he didn’t say “rhetorically rape”! You know, we’re talking primary school, we’re talking 10 year olds, but we’re in art class. And the art teacher was one of these Lefties and he said a particular word that I think he said “spastic”. I think he said spastic. He said the word spastic. He said to someone else like:

 

“Oh, that looks like a spastic!”

 

Like we’re in art class, we’re 10 years old and I think his name was Tom Matz. And he said:

 

“That looks like a spastic, the way you’re drawing.”

 

And the teacher said:

 

“You can’t say that word, you’re getting detention!”

 

And he said:

 

“Spastic! Spastic! I’m getting detention for spastic!”

 

And she was like:

 

“You’re getting detention, that’s two detentions now, how many detentions you want?”

 

And he was like:

 

“Spastic! Spastic! Spastic! Spastic! Spastic! Spastic! Spastic!”

 

And he just kept saying spastic and he ended up not getting detention. Like the coordinator, the year level coordinator or whatever, like stepped in and was like:

 

“No, you can’t give him like 40 detentions saying the word spastic.”

 

But like she was trying to police this like 10 year old boy saying:

 

“You’re not allowed to use that word.”

 

And he’s like:

 

“It’s not a naughty word, it’s not a swear word. I’m allowed to say spastic. Like what he’s drawn, it looks spastic, it looks dumb, it looks stupid. Like, I can’t say that?”

 

And so it was like a fascinating argument. I remember the same thing. I remember teachers saying:

 

“Now look, if you say these swear words.”

 

Obviously we got to have some decorum, but you know I think there’s a line in the sand. Obviously I believe in decorum, but one person’s version of decorum and another person’s are different.

 

And if you don’t like Joel’s decorum, don’t associate with them. I don’t mind it. That’s why I associate with him. I kind of like his, I kind of like it a little bit. There’s a lot of people that don’t like my decorum. They don’t associate with me, so be it. That’s part of living in a free society, a so-called free society. You have the right to not associate with people. No one’s forced to be my friend. So yeah. Should he have said it publicly? Well, he said it he said it! And he’s done the 133 days!

 

Mark Collett: Because you don’t want 133 days! The reason I say this though, and I’m not cucking, but there’s a lot of young lads out there that think they’re being funny online. And the police have got increasingly high tech ways of tracking people down who think they’re anonymous. And in the UK especially there are lots of young lads now that police, Prevent, even Counter Terror go after on these things. And I just hate to see people, especially young lads, end up in situations that we don’t want to see them in. So I’m not cucking!

 

Thomas Sewell: No, no, you’re right. The right advice is don’t say anything in the group chat, you don’t want read out in court. So be funny, be a funny cunt! But one day it might be read out in court. So be careful. If you’re important, if, look, if you’re important enough or they want a statistic, it’ll be read out in court.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, I’m not sure how to pronounce this. Alcion. That’s what I’m going with, gave $55. Thank you so much for your generosity. Is very much appreciated. He said:

 

“Good points being made by both. But as an American, I empathize with the valourisation of those that serve. Ultimately, the day will come where soldiers may choose to shoot us or join us. If we take the hardline view that every soldier is personally responsible for all the evils of ZOG, we’re not doing much to encourage them to join us.”

 

And look, I concede that point. We do want soldiers to join us and I do agree with Tom’s assessment on that you know, good people within the forces or even in the police force, we’d like to join us. And it is a very difficult position to both appeal to the public but be ideological at the same time. And that’s why debates like this are important.

 

But I think you covered that. I don’t know if you want to say anything further about that. And also there is also a degree of kind of double standards with valourisation that certain people throughout history have been called war criminals, whereas other people have been called freedom fighters. Well it is a difficult situation to wade through.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. The only two things I’ll say is I’ll repeat the point that I think ultimately everyone that goes to work is propping up the system. And so I wouldn’t call any man a piece of, for providing for his family if he was a carpenter. I don’t blame the carpenter for being a carpenter, for paying tax as a carpenter. And therefore I’m not going to blame a soldier for being a soldier, who’s a soldier. Some people are built as soldiers. Some people are built as carpenters. Some people are built as both. We can’t all be priests! We can’t all be political leaders. Some men just do as they’re told. Society functions that way. You know, that’s the point I’ll repeat on that regard, I had another talking point, but it just, I like wandered somewhere in my head just then.

 

[1:48:14]

 

Mark Collett: Thank you. Well, look, we’ve got loads more Superchats to get through anyway. So Never Smile gave $5. Thank you so much! He said:

 

“Hello, Mark and Thomas. I wanted to ask Thomas what his thoughts were on Michael Nelson saying that young White men should be unemployed and instead focus on higher culture and politics. Is he secretly right, Thomas?”

 

Thomas Sewell: Sorry, I was reading the comment about Alexander the Great! [chuckling] What was the question? Sorry.

 

Mark Collett: He said:

 

“I wanted to ask Thomas what his thoughts are on Michael Nelson saying that young White men should be unemployed and instead focus on higher culture and politics. Is he secretly right?”

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, Joel brought this up to me on the phone, two days ago. Because I can’t talk to Michael. I can’t talk to Michael Nelson. We’re on non-Association. We’ve both been charged with “violent disorder”. And so I made a video about two or three weeks ago saying that young men should do manual labour. I talked about a whole list of things that I think young men should do. And part of that list was that I believe that young men should do a period of time doing manual labour. And Joel said to me:

 

“Oh, Michael was upset when you made that video because he thought it was a personal attack against the article he wrote, called ‘Against Employim’.”

 

So he kind of like changed the word “goyim” into “employim”. And he wrote an article saying “Against Employim”. And the thesis of his article is that young men should focus on higher culture, politics, philosophy, studying things.

 

And in my video, I said, and I hadn’t read his article yet when I made this video. And the video I made wasn’t in response to Michael Nelson. I want to put that on the table. But what I said in the video is you can tell the calibre of a young man that’s never done manual labour. You can just see it in his character. When you’re dealing with young men, like when you’re dealing with a spastic, nine times out of 10, he has never done any manual labour. That’s a fact. Right? It’s probably more than nine times out of ten. There’s a very high correlation with it. They’ve never done manual labour. They’re a spastic! There are some boys that have got an old soul and they were raised really well by their dad and they somehow they never needed to do anything actually difficult in their life. And they’re quite well rounded. These are diamonds in the rough. This is a very rare occasion.

 

Most young men that have their heads screwed on and are, very strong willed and have a good character, and I have a robust attitude and are respectable. Respectable from a Patriarchal perspective, that are respectable from the Patriarchy. They’ve gone through some sort of hardship. It doesn’t have to be like a trade, like you can be at university, but even if you’re at university, there’s this idea of you have to be the scholar-athlete. You don’t just be a scholar.

 

And so when I say “manual labour”, I mean physical exertion in general. And that comes in many forms. There’s many forms of physical exertion. And I think you should do a whole bunch of them as a young man. I don’t think it’s necessary at 40 or 50 or 60. I think you should keep healthy, I think you should run, I think you should stay fit. I think you should do all the things you need to do to keep your body vital.

 

But you know, it’s not important for you and I, Mark, obviously I’m a bit younger than you, but it’s not important for us to go dig holes and do all the shitty work. You know what I mean? There’s some shitty work out there that you don’t want to do, but when you’re young, that’s when you do it! Sometimes you got to dig pits, sometimes you got to dig trenches, sometimes you get to dig holes. I think it’s character building. Call me old fashioned.

 

And so he took this as a personal attack and I can’t communicate with him and say:

 

“No, Michael, it’s not a personal attack.”

 

Michael Nelson has done many years of manual labour. He’s a young man, but he has been working a trade. He has been doing landscaping, he has been doing manual labour. And he’s obviously going through a process where he’s like:

 

“I don’t need to do this anymore. I should be focusing on more important things.”

 

And so I agree with the thesis that young men should not be focusing on being a goyim. They should be focusing on being, if they’ve got political capacity, they should be studying, they should be reading. And not necessarily through the institutions, not necessarily through the universities. There’s so much to learn and study by reading the classics, by reading the greats, by reading political texts and getting engaged in politics. I just disagree with the idea that process starts at 17 and never ends.

 

And you know what I mean, you never do your time on the gun. Because I see these young men that never do their time on the shovel. And like in the army, we called it “do your time on the gun”. Like you got to do your time doing the hard things and you just got to get that done when you’re young. And it was not an attack on Mickel. It was an attack on the spastics that Mikkel hangs out with. You know, Mickel was actually done is he’s built his character. I actually really like Mikkel, but he hangs out with a lot of spastics that are like 17, 18 and you know, [chuckling] they got a lot of growing up to do!

 

[1:53:25]

 

Mark Collett: My advice, don’t focus on politics and culture when you’re young. Get yourself a trade, get yourself something that is a transferable skill. Wherever you go in the world, you’ll be set up and you can do things. You know all these people out there that are sort of like super book smart but can’t apply it in the real world.

 

But then there’s people out there who are trained electricians, plasterers, even people who can just do sort of odd jobs and they’re driving around in a white van. People need them. They’re making lots of money, they’re out there meeting real people. Those are the sort of skills. I mean, a while back it was all about coding. People were like:

 

“Look, young men, you got to be coders, you’ve got to be this. You got to be able to write your own programs.”

 

Well, AI does that for everyone now. But AI is not going to replace an electrician, or a plasterer, or a plumber. You know, these jobs are needed. My advice is get something like that under your belt. Be your own boss!

 

And then if you want to be political and you want to be more face out, you’re not having to report to somebody on Monday morning because you got filmed, you know, at a demo. I think that you know people out there who can work with their hands and have got these skills, it’s really good!

 

Anyway, so Trancealot gave $10. Thank you so much! She said:

 

“Donation. I’ll have to watch the rest on replay. Good discussion guys.”

 

Well, thank you so much! Antifa Smasher89 gave $3. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Hi Mark and Tom. I wanted to ask Tom if he’s ever going to release an official NSN workout manual or something. I’m trying to bulk up and struggling. I need some pointers from the best lads.”

 

Well, thank you so much! Yeah, eat lots of meat and train hard.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, it’s not on my list of priorities. I’ve talked about it on stream infinite amount of times. Just figure it out. There’s infinity resources on the Internet. We’ve got limited time, so work it out, dude. Thanks. Yeah, thanks for the question.

 

Mark Collett: If there is one thing that YouTube is good for young White men, it’s workout tips and sort of combos of sort of how to train your muscles and what your muscles need immediately following a workout. Me and Blair did a stream about that as well. So if you want to check that out, you can. Kurgan 86 gave $25. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“I very much enjoyed this discussion. As someone who deployed several times to the Middle East, I certainly appreciate, appreciate both your takes on Ben Roberts-Smith. Wishing you to only the best from the States. P.S. Mark, it’s not partner. It’s either wife or girlfriend. That’s feminist speak talk!”

 

Thomas Sewell: That’s an American thing. Yeah, the Americans make sense.

 

Mark Collett: The reason I said “partner” is because I didn’t know whether he’s married to her or not. And also, I don’t know why, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Baby mama. Baby mama! [chuckling]

 

Mark Collett: Joel’s baby [chuckling] mother’s out of control! Yeah, sorry, mate.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, I got a baby mama. I’m not married on paper. I’m not married on paper. I just call her my wife. But we’re not married on paper. I don’t care what the government says. I don’t recognise their authority. Stay out of my family. I believe in the power of the family. I don’t believe in the power of government institutions over the family. I think they should stay the fuck away from families. I don’t think governments are designed to tell families what to do. I mean, maybe there should be a registry. Sure! But sign a piece of paper, it’s not the same thing.

 

Mark Collett: So we’ve got a Superchat here for $10 from Fight, Fight, Fight. And it might be a troll one, so brace yourselves. Well, thank you for the Superchat because I appreciate the $10, whether this is just a joke or not. He says:

 

“Hello, Mark and Thomas. I was wondering if any of you have ever heard of the ANM, the Australian Nationalist Movement and Jack Van Tongeren and what your thoughts are on him. There is a good movie called Nazi Supergrass about the ANM. And also a book. What could you learn from, …”

 

Thomas Sewell: He sent me his book. No, I write to Jack probably once a month. He sends me letters.

 

Mark Collett: Okay.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, so I know Jack. Yeah. I know Jack Van Tongeren*. Yeah, fascinating history. It’s fascinating history. I don’t condone the criminal allegations against him, of course, but it is fascinating history! And there were men in the 70s and 80s in this country. You know, Jack fought in the Vietnam War, and after the Vietnam War, he got involved in National Socialist politics here in Australia. And he’s almost like Australia’s George Lincoln Rockwell in a lot of ways.

 

But, yeah, he did a lot of time in prison, unfortunately, and he’s more or less retired politically now and corresponds with people. I don’t know how much more I can say about that. It’s a personal relationship.

 

[* Peter Joseph “Jack” van Tongeren (born 1947) is the former leader of the West Australian neo-Nazi group Australian Nationalist Movement (ANM), a white supremacist and extreme Right group. He served thirteen years, one month, and six days in prison from 1989 to 2002 for grand theft and arson, after robbing and firebombing businesses owned by Asians in Western Australia. It can be noted that he himself was half-Indonesian. Source: https:// alchetron.com/Jack-van-Tongeren]

 

[1:58:39]

 

 

Mark Collett: Okay. Well, I didn’t know who he was. I didn’t know whether they’re trying to stoke drama, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Jack, I think in the 80s, he got in trouble for burning down Chinese restaurants. Which caused a drop in immigration. It caused a drop in immigration to Western Australia tenfold from Chinese immigrants. So no comment on the effectiveness of his [chuckling] political activism, if you want to call it that. He got convicted of basically, politically, motivated violence. Yeah.

 

Mark Collett: Restore Australia gave a dollar. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Hi, Tom. Total dropout. Senomax or do a trade FIFO in the time while NSN is super banned?”

 

We’ve already answered that, I think. Get yourself a Trade, mate. Reese Beast 310 gave $5. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“The two best nationalists around.”

 

I agree! [chuckling] The Shogun gave $10 and had a little man waving his arm. Thank you so much! Santandex gave $20. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Thank you Tom, for waking up Australia and giving us hope. Hail Australia! Hail Thomas Sewell!”

 

Thank you very much. Santandex gave another $5. Thank you so much, she said:

 

“Did Tom see Andrew Hastie’s office get spray painted with the words ‘traitor goy’?”

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, I did see that in the news. Yes, I did. Yeah. Andrew Hastie is the worst of the worst! Yeah.

 

Mark Collett: The worst of the worst!

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah.

 

Mark Collett: Damien Demento gave $10. Thank you so much, my friend. Good to see you here tonight, he said. I’m a few minutes behind on this discussion, but the Taliban aren’t the Bacha bazi* organisers. The Taliban put a stop to that. Hence why we have the Afghan perverts in England who escaped justice.

 

[* Bacha bazi is a pederastic practice in Afghanistan and in historical Turkestan, in which men exploit and enslave adolescent boys, sometimes for sexual abuse, and/or coerce them to cross-dress in attire traditionally only worn by women and girls and dance for entertainment. The man exploiting the young boy is called a bacha baz and the young boy is called a bacha. Often, the boys come from an impoverished and vulnerable situation such as street children, mainly without relatives or abducted from their families.]

 

And one thing I’ll say to back that up is in Iran, there is very little sexual violence. And it’s essentially because all of the rapists and perverts who were in Iran now do live in England.

 

So if you look at the statistics for arrests, Iranians living in Britain are 18 times more likely to be arrested for a sexual crime than White British men. And in Iran, if you are convicted of either paedophilia or rape, you get hung from a crane. Whereas in Britain, if you’re convicted of paedophilia or rape, well, paedophiles regularly walk free from court and rapists get very lenient sentences.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, look, I do know that, like Turkey, for example, their prisons are empty, and Germany’s full of Turkish criminals. I do know that as a fact. Look, Afghanistan. Yeah, I never went to Afghanistan, but I was in the Senior Company in 5th Battalion and most of the guys in the company had just gotten back from Afghanistan when I rocked up as an 18 year old to battalion. And look, mate, you can believe whatever the fuck you want. Like you don’t know what you’re [chuckling] talking about! Like the guys that were over in Afghanistan came back and said:

 

“This is what’s going on in Afghanistan.”

 

And I was like:

 

“Interesting!”

 

Okay. Yeah, the Taliban banned bacha bazi! Yeah, dude, believe what you want, man! You believe that? Sure.

 

Mark Collett: Well, we do have another Superchat there on the same thing. I’ll just read out at the same time because obviously it deals with the same issue. It’s from Evon626. Thank you so much! He gave $10 and said:

 

“Taliban stand here. The Taliban are the exterminators of the bacha bazi guys. It was the people Ben Roberts-Smith was supporting who do horrible things to little boys. But what’s happening to Ben is unjust.”

 

One thing I will say, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Where are people getting this from? What’s it like? I don’t want to be the source guy. I don’t want to be like, source. But, …

 

Mark Collett: No, but you are wrong about one thing, Tom. And that is the Taliban did prevent heroin flowing out of Afghanistan.

 

Thomas Sewell: No, but I’m not wrong about that. I didn’t mention heroin once.

 

Mark Collett: Okay?

 

Thomas Sewell: I’m not wrong about that. I never mentioned heroin. I do know about the heroin.

 

Mark Collett: If I wanted a government in Afghanistan, I’d want a government like the Taliban that stopped drugs flowing into the West from that country. I would sponsor any government that killed drug smugglers and prevented heroin and other horrible substances reaching British children.

 

Thomas Sewell: The Taliban didn’t ban heroin because it negatively affected British children. The Taliban banned heroin because it was affecting Afghani children. So like that’s why they banned heroin. It’s not because they like got this universal morality and they want to like help Britain. The Taliban banned heroin because heroin was destroying Afghanistan. And I’ve actually heard that from Afghani taxi drivers over the last 10 years, multiple times, that:

 

“They had family members, blah, blah, blah. It’s a big problem, problem. And it was good that they did that they had public support. That’s what people wanted.”

 

But yeah, that’s heroin. That’s a different discussion. Once you get out of the major cities in Afghanistan, you get up into the mountains, doesn’t matter. Taliban, ANA, non-Affiliated. They’re all doing it. It’s in their culture. It’s in their culture! It’s not like it’s not a political party that is in agreeance of it and there’s a political party that’s against it. They’re all doing it! It’s in their culture. It’s man-love Friday. If they can’t get their hands on a boy, they’ll just get the youngest soldier and they’ll do it to him. Like it’s in their culture. It’s how they’re built. They’re sick! I don’t want anything to do with these people. Mark!

 

Turkey. Yeah, okay. You know, Turkish people are like 40%, Greek like ethnically they’re Muslims and you know, they’ve got a mix of DNA. They’re all mongrelized. There’s plenty of Turkish people that are civilised that want to try to pretend they’re an extension of Europe. And then there’s a whole bunch that are just rabid Arabs and Turkic people basically Central Asian people that have colonised that region. So Turkey’s a bit of a fuck-fight. And obviously they just deport all their sex pests. Iran probably deports all their sex pests or kills them. You know, the Middle East has a policy because they’re a giant rape gang of getting rid of, breeding out through their barbaric people. If they’ve got barbaric people and there’s another country that’ll accept them. That’s just how they expand. Now it’s somebody else’s problem. It’s a form of warfare. It’s a form of jihad. It’s in the Quran!

 

So yeah, I mean, Afghanistan, fuck! I don’t know, what is this BRICS propaganda Mark? What’s going on? Why are people defending bacha bazi enjoyers?

 

[2:05:54]

 

Mark Collett: No, they’re saying, … Look, I’ve actually looked this up and it does say:

 

“The Taliban officially banned bacha bazi, the sexual exploitation of young boys, doing their first rule in 1996-2001 and again upon their return to power in 2021. The practice is considered haram under their interpretation of Sharia law. And they have historically threatened perpetrators with severe punishment, including death.”

 

Thomas Sewell: They probably just. Again, it’s one of those selective laws that if you’re a political enemy of the Taliban, it’ll be used against you. But then they’re doing it themselves.

 

Mark Collett: I don’t know.

 

Thomas Sewell: I mean, the Taliban were doing this.

 

Mark Collett: There are lots of people in the chat saying that they outlawed it. I’ve looked it up and they said they have and I can’t, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah.

 

Mark Collett: I’m not saying there isn’t sexual abuse that ever goes on, but it does appear to be dealt with far more seriously by the Taliban than it is by British courts. Let’s put it like that.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. Okay. I’d agree with that because British courts are fucked, certainly. Mark, I’m not against Ben Roberts-Smith being deployed to England to take out the British courts. [chuckling] I’m not against that!

 

Mark Collett: People who molested children faced a firing squad, I’d be a much happier man.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, I think you’ll find that there’s a lot of people that, yeah, would agree with that within all walks of life. But, yeah, this idea that you know what’s written down on paper, … ChatGPT said that they banned it and it’s like:

 

“Okay.”

 

I think any government in Afghanistan would probably ban it. Except the one that we propped up. Yeah. At the end of the day, it’s like, what’s that meme where it’s like the two castles and it’s like, our castle is great and your castle sucks! And then they’re like, our castle is great and your castle sucks! It’s like the ANA and the Taliban. It’s like:

 

“You rape boys, you’re horrible people!”

 

And then it’s like:

 

“You rape boys, you’re horrible people!”

 

And it’s like:

 

“We don’t rape boys. We don’t rape boys!”

 

It’s like, ANA, Taliban. Same thing. Same thing, Mark. That’s what all these people in your comment section need to get through their head. ANA, Taliban, …

 

Mark Collett: No, I just agree with you. I think the people in the comment section are right over this. I think fundamentally, if the Taliban are killing child abusers and preventing heroin flowing out of Afghanistan, they’re two positives, and I’ve got to be on their side! [chuckling] You know, when it comes down to it, if there are people out there who have an intention of flooding the West with narcotics or shipping people to the West who abuse children, I’m against that. But if there are foreign groups who have some kind of honour system that results in paedophiles being dealt with in the most harsh way possible, I’m gonna call that out as a good thing.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, of course. I don’t want to get into the whole thing again, but I think if we go back to the West, getting involved, we have to go back to 2001 to flesh this whole thing out. If you go all the way back to 2001, you know, there was a list of demands. Obviously, it was a setup. You know, ZOG wanted to go in. I can’t say what would have happened or could have happened in 2001, … The Taliban have come to power. They won the war. Ultimately, they won. They’ve come to power again. They’ve won the war. They’re 20 years of struggle, and they won!

 

So it’s like the Viet Cong, they had the will to do it. I’m not going to sit here and say the NVA were the good guys, because the South Vietnamese were corrupt and they were serving ZOG and blah, blah, blah. Like, I’m just not going to do it, Mark!

 

I mean, I don’t think the NVA were the good guys. I don’t think the Viet Cong were the good guys. They won, but I don’t think they were the good guys.

 

Mark Collett: I didn’t say the Viet Cong were.

 

Thomas Sewell: But there would have been the same arguments. I don’t know what they would have been. But I’m sure at Woodstock, the same argument was made that the NVA they’re actually the ones stopping child exploitation, and they passed a law that said children can’t work in sugar mills, and that South Vietnamese government, they’re okay with child exploitation. Okay, next topic. You know what I mean?

 

[2:10:21]

 

 

Mark Collett: Well, I think that’s a slightly reductive thing to say.

 

Thomas Sewell: And the same thing. Heroin was coming out of Vietnam. It’s the same talk. In my opinion it’s the same talking points as the anti-war crowd, the peace movement, the hippie movement. That’s just my opinion. Yeah, people can decide what they want of it. I don’t want to get caught in the weeds about, I think an easier conversation is Saddam, all right, Saddam tortured people. Saddam did horrible things.

 

But ultimately like Saddam, like was good for us. I mean it was good having a Baathist party in the Middle East. I don’t think Saddam was the evil, horrible human that the ZOG made him out to be. I think it was a mistake going into Iraq. I think that’s a much easier conversation. The majority of, …

 

Mark Collett: Do you believe that the Twin Towers were blown up by Al Qaeda Muslims or do you think it was Israeli false flag?

 

Thomas Sewell: I believe both. I believe both are true at the same time. I think both are true at the same time. I think that they did do it. I think Al Qaeda was involved in it and that ZOG and Mossad, well, same thing. But I believe Mossad and the US State Department were in on it. They allowed it to happen. And I do believe there were explosives in the towers.* I think that’s the evidence points to that. And I believe that both things can happen simultaneously.

 

[* More than just “explosives”. The Twin Towers were wired top to bottom to blow out every floor to ground level, aka, “Controlled Demolition”. Dozens of planes could have hit the buildings and it would still be standing. Then we have the controlled demolition (bottom up) of the third building, Building 7, in the afternoon.]

 

I do believe that ASIO [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation] knew that these Muslim guys were going to shoot up Bondi. I believe 100% ASIO knew. I don’t think ASIO told them to do it, but I believe that there are people that want to go kill jews, and these two Muslim guys, I can’t remember their name, Navan [Naveed Akram and his father, Sajid Akram] or some shit, I can’t remember. But these two Indian Muslims in Australia went to Bondi and they shot up a bunch of people, especially jews, and they did it because they hated jews and they were sympathizers with ISIS. And I believe that ASIO and the police let them do it.

 

So I believe that both conspiracies, I believe that the mainstream story about what happened and the conspiracy, the so-called conspiracy theory, I believe they can be simultaneously true.

 

So I believe that 911* was organised by Mossad, but I do believe that there would have been like, … I don’t think Al Qaeda** was like these good guys growing candy in the forest in Afghanistan. [chuckling] Like I think they were bad guys on both sides. I think its hands across the Judeo-Muslim-Islam I believe its hands across the Great Satan to try to bring down the West.

 

You know, I think the passport thing is ridiculous!

 

[* 9/11: A false flag (foreshadowed in the earlier PNACx document stating that a ‘Pearl Harbor’ type event was required to get the American public on board for US hegemonic expansion] carried out by ZOG with Israel being the lead behind its planning and execution. The aim was to unleash the War OF Terror on the countries around Israel, among other aims. See Also links below, especially the work by Christopher Bollyn.]

 

The Realist Report with Christopher Bollyn – Sep 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

 

[** Al Qaeda was a CIA operation and it never claimed responsibility for anything to do with 9/11. Even the FBI never had Bin Laden as involved with 9/11. The “19 Arabs” narrative were just part of the false flag operation and were Mossad operatives to dupe the public.]

 

Mark Collett: Al Qaeda were essentially funded, built and armed by the West!

 

Thomas Sewell: Yes, yes, yes, that’s true.

 

Mark Collett: I think what we’re talking about here, where we’re definitely on the same page, or we should be, is I believe all of these interventions in Afghanistan, they were foreign policy failures. Whether we’re funding them, whether we’re killing them. Just leave them alone. Quarantine them. Never let them come here. We never need to go there. [chuckling] Leave them just to get on with, …

 

Thomas Sewell: I’ll never say never. I’ll never say never.

 

Mark Collett: I don’t want to go there!

 

Thomas Sewell: Well, look, if we clean up our countries, Europe must breathe out. Like I got no moral issue with we’re in Australia. New Zealand’s looking pretty yummy. It’s a nice place. I’m liking the look of New Zealand.

 

And once we got New Zealand, I don’t like PNG, but maybe we need it for some reason.

 

Mark Collett: What’s PNG?

 

Thomas Sewell: Papua New Guinea. This is one of the islands north of us. Where Kokoda was. We fought the Japanese and we got Australian blood bled into the soil there. There’s a moral imperative to take it, in my opinion. It used to be part of our protectorate. It used to be part of the Australian realm. You know, I don’t want to go too crazy, invade Poland and shit, then like start World War III, but you know what I mean I’m not morally against the Germans going into Poland. But yeah, I don’t want to get off topic.

 

But like, at the end of the day, it takes two to tango. It takes two to tango. We can I agree, yes. Al Qaeda was set up by the CIA. That is a fact. It was. Why? Because it was part of the Cold War and they were weaponizing the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets. Yes, that’s a fact! Did they have a use for them after that? Well, ZOG did. The State Department, the majority of American foreign interests didn’t, but a particular group did. The CIA definitely still had an interest in them. But who housed them? Who homed them? Who allowed them to build training camps? I don’t think the Taliban are innocent, Mark!

 

You know, I think both things can be true simultaneously. And they were told, the Taliban were told when 9/11 happened. This is my understanding of the beginning phases of the war. The Taliban were told:

 

“Hand them over. If you hand over Al Qaeda, we won’t go in.”

 

That’s my understanding. Now, whether that’s propaganda or I don’t know.

 

Mark Collett: But you are missing one point. They said they didn’t have him to hand over, and he wasn’t in Afghanistan. He was in Pakistan.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yes, he was later found in Pakistan. That’s true.

 

[2:15:36]

 

 

Mark Collett: It’s like me saying:

 

“Give me back my football. It’s in your yard!”

 

And you’re like:

 

“It’s not in my yard!”

 

I burn your house down, and then the football’s in my other neighbour’s.

 

Thomas Sewell: But we gotta watch Apocalypse Now! We gotta watch Apocalypse Now. Did you say you did a movie review of Apocalypse Now?

 

Mark Collett: I haven’t done one.

 

Thomas Sewell: All right, well, we’re going to do a movie review now, and we can have this discussion because:

 

“Oh, the Viet Cong, they’re not in Vietnam. The Viet Cong were found in Cambodia, Mark!”

 

It’s the same thing. It’s like okay, we should hunt them down into Cambodia. Like then we should have invaded to. If we want to follow this to its logical conclusion, do it properly. We should have invaded Pakistan, but we didn’t did that because they’re a nuclear power! We didn’t want to go all the way. We want to start these little wars and assert Western dominance, but we don’t want to go all the way. You got to go all the way, Mark. You got to go all the way down the river. That’s what Colonel Kurtz did. He goes all the way! And I’m Colonel Kurtz., …

 

Mark Collett: You would be a good Colonel Kurtz!

 

Thomas Sewell: I’m going all the way down the river, Mark. I’m going all the way down the river. Now, if I go batshit insane at the end of it, so be it. But he goes batshit insane because he’s not supported. You know, he gets cut off.

 

Now, I’m trying not to get cut off. I’m trying to stay connected to the my friends. I’m trying to make friends. Colonel Kurtz, bit of an autist, didn’t make friends, went insane! I’m trying to make friends. You know, that’s my strategy. I’m Colonel Kurtz, but I’m making friends, …

 

Mark Collett: Colonel Kurtz with friends, …

 

Thomas Sewell: I’m Colonel Kurtz with friends. You got to have friends. You got to make friends.

 

And it’s like, that’s the way I see. I don’t compromise on my values, but I’m following the Viet Cong all the way down the river. I’m following him into Cambodia. And it’s like the same in politically. And you know what should have happened because I don’t deny, I don’t doubt, like maybe he was in Pakistan at that exact moment. Maybe he was.

 

But the fact was that there was Al Qaeda in., … You know, we put Al Qaeda everywhere. There’s Al Qaeda in North Africa, there’s Al Qaeda in Syria, Al Qaeda in Iraq, Al Qaeda, we put Al Qaeda everywhere and, …

 

Mark Collett: We put Al Qaeda in power in Syria.

 

See: Putin: Who Created ISIS? — TRANSCRIPT

 

Thomas Sewell: Yes, yes, we have. Yeah, well, we haven’t. But yes, ZOG has. Yes, yes!

 

Mark Collett: But this sort of leads back to everything, I suppose for me that underlines this. Is everything that we see happening there is basically pieces on the chessboard being moved by ZOG not to our benefit ever! You know, it’s just like, … And that’s why I just want all of our troops out of the Middle East. It’s just why I can’t support these Middle Eastern jaunts.

 

But look, we’ll move on before we get into the weeds. White Triple Six gave $5. Thank you so much! And said:

 

“Catch this later. Have a good stream Gentlemen.”

 

Great to see you back, my dear. Thank you so much for your generosity. It Was Made Up gave $10. Thank you so much! And said:

 

“Interesting discussion about Ben Roberts-Smith. Thomas speaking with heart and Mark is speaking with rationale. I think on balance I’m siding with Mark on this one.”

 

Well, thank you so much! Seaga88 gave $5. Thank you so much! And said:

 

“When are we getting the Total War stream? Joke. Thanks for the evening stream. Hail Sewell! Hail White Australia!”

 

I agree with that and I would love to game with Tom. He knows that. Delvian gave $5. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Great discussion from both speakers. Absolute morals and role model function versus strategic political positioning.”

 

Well, thank you so much! IGS 22 gave $5. Thank you very much. And said:

 

“Mark influencer Marlon was in London with his girlfriend getting food when approached by feral youth in balaclavas, possibly armed. How would you deal with these ruffians if you were in power?”

 

Well, if they’re not our ruffians, it’s just instant deport! I mean, when it comes down to it, London has become a complete and utter cesspit! Because White Britons have been reduced to a hated minority and chased out.

 

But look, equally. Look, I’ve got to say this, and I don’t know what Tom’s take is on this because I’d be interested to hear what he thinks about this actually. So we are now seeing these widespread youth events in Britain where you see sort of dozens, sometimes hundreds of mainly non-White youths like flood into shopping centres, just rip everything off and run out. But there are a small proportion of Whites who live amongst these people, act like them and participate in these events.

 

Now obviously we need, we know that the non-Whites need to be deported. But what would you do with these White youths who have become completely alien to us and actually act like the ethnic minorities that they live amongst? Are these people redeemable? Do they need military service? Would you jail them? How would you deal with Whites who have essentially become like either the black community or whichever ethnic minority community they live among?

 

[2:20:50]

 

Thomas Sewell: Oh, absolutely 100% redeemable! Absolutely 100 redeemable! Wiggers, if you want to call them that. The young, the young wiggers, 100% redeemable. Penal battalion. You know, they just need to be put in the army specific penal battalion units.

 

 

I don’t believe in putting wiggers in prison. I’ve met a lot of wiggers in prison. And at the end of the day they just see how messed up society is and their survival mechanism is “I’m just gonna be a thug”. You know, that’s their survival mechanism. They’re post politics, they’re post morality. Like they’re just growing up in the dystopia. And if we can save as many of them as possible these are the 14 year old Spartan boys, you know what I mean? So what, they do a little bit of shoplifting or whatever. Like, of course they’re redeemable. That’s what 14 year old boys did in Sparta. And you have a society where shopkeepers are allowed to keep sticks and beat them over the head with it, you know what I mean? It’s part of the game.

 

There’s always gonna be rough poor kids. You know what Britain did in the past was it deported them to Australia. And I wasn’t part of that stock. I want to make it clear, I’m a first generation Anglo Saxon Australian. Like my grandparents, all of them are British. I come from British stock. I’m constantly reminded by the so-called Nativists that I’m not even an Aussie because ’m an import basically from Britain. But you know, that is what we did, that’s what we did. Like they got chain ganged or whatever it is called, I can’t remember the exact term, but they got press ganged into the navy and that’s why Britain became a superpower. We got these 14 year old ruffians shoplifting and doing this and doing that and acting like wiggers, acting beneath themselves and we press ganged them into the red coats and we press ganged them into the navy and we became a superpower. So yes, with good leadership, this is not an issue. We just need good leadership. We just don’t have good leadership.

 

Mark Collett: I largely agree. However, I do think it would have to be done on the case by case basis, whereby some of these would probably be too far gone. So if you’ve got a young White lad who shows potential and after he’s been separated from the bad influences in a military scenario, becomes good, I’m all for that.

 

But I think I will admit one of the big problems we’re going to have if we ever do become an ethno-state again is dealing with a lot of White people who unfortunately are very problematic in the way they act and behave. And if there’s one thing that really annoys me as a dad, well, there’s three things. First, if I go to the park and I see people smoking weed, they need thrashing! If I go to the park and I see dog poo everywhere, the people who have allowed their dogs to poo and haven’t clean it up need to be forced around with a leash around their neck and have their face smeared into the poo until they learn that. And people who bag the poo then throw the poo bags into the trees, they need to be told to climb the tree and get the poo bag out of the tree as I throw rocks at them.

 

And finally, there are people who litter! Now if you go to a park, or a beach or public area and you litter, especially when there are bins everywhere, you need to then be put as part of some kind of chain gang where you litter pick in the worst conditions possible until you have learnt your lesson. I think those are three good things for change.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, no, I agree with that, I agree with that. Yeah. Look, on my list of problematic demographics of White people, wiggers are, they’re the least problematic as far as I’m concerned. Leftoids, homosexuals, traitors, the political class, the police, you know what I mean? Like these people are like, this should be the central focus on when we take power, how are these kind of people going to be reintegrated into society? You know, how are we going to re-educate the people in Victoria Police? And how are we going to re-educate the people that are spreading “Welcome to Country”?

 

How do we deal with this sort of infestation in academia and in media? I mean like the universities, I mean it’s literally, you’re going to have to shut down the universities, like completely shut them down. No one’s going to uni for like a period of time and then just open up departments one at a time. So go:

 

“Okay, what do we need to reopen? Well, we need engineers. Okay, we need doctors. All right, so we’ll reopen the medical department within the university.”

 

And like, you know what I mean? Like you’re looking at the fucking curriculum with a fucking magnifying glass! Like:

 

“Okay, all right, that’s all good, that’s sorted, that’s back to normal. Well, let’s open the STEM again. Let’s open. Okay, that’s all good, that’s sorted.”

 

You know what I mean? And then you just don’t end up reopening 90% of the fucking uni! And you just convert them into useful things instead of jewish psychobabble.

 

So that to me, it’s easy to hate wiggers! It’s real easy to hate wiggers because they’re behaving unbecomingly, they’re behaving beneath us. It’s easy to hate wiggers. What’s hard and what’s courageous is to love wiggers! It’s hard to love wiggers. I love wiggers! I just, I have to, I love them because they’re just fallen men. They’re just falling men.

 

Like imagine I grew up like, I’ve got a father, right? I’ve got a father. And my father is extremely strong willed and my father has been raised very properly by his father. And my father went to a good government school. Like he went to a good public school. He got a good education and he’s got good values and he raised me well and he worked hard his whole life and he paid tax and blah, blah, blah, all that boring shit! And then I went to a good school and I was raised in the right suburb and so it’s easy for people that have had that privilege to be like, … I looked after “Resi” kids. So I was Ground Zero with the wiggers! I looked after the resi kids. And these kids, their mom’s a prostitute, their dad doesn’t exist. And like they, the primary school they went to, they were the only White kid in the class. You know what I mean, Mark?

 

Blair [Cottrell] said to me once in conversation, he said:

 

“But for the grace of God goes I!”

 

But for the grace of God goes I! When I look at a wigger that’s a White nigger, that’s what I say. That’s what I think.

 

[2:27:56]

 

Mark Collett: You’ve used the N-word twice now and I have to tell you, I thought the first was a mistake, but you got to sort of like yeah, because I don’t want to spend the rest of my life in jail because you got too excited on a stream.

 

Thomas Sewell: You can’t say the N bomb in Britain? Is that real?

 

Mark Collett: No, it’s illegal. You’ve said it twice.

 

Thomas Sewell: Oh, sorry. All right, well you’re gonna have to cut it out.

 

Mark Collett: You’re basically putting me in serious jeopardy.

 

Thomas Sewell: I’ve forgotten. I forgot. I apologise. I forgot.

 

Mark Collett: Let’s move on to the next point. The Bearded Indian gave $9. Thank you so much! And said:

 

“There’s a car parts store in Brisbane called Panel House that has been making the funniest jewish store videos. The jews are going wild. Lol.”

 

I don’t know what that refers to, but thank you. Evan626 gave $5. Thank you so much! She said:

 

“Re thread hierarchy. Alexander the Great didn’t provide South Asians impetus to organise and strengthen long before invading. If Afghans are a threat, it’s not strategic to fight them now.”

 

I’m not sure, what, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, again it’s the whole idea of doing that is because Macedonia is in order. You know what I mean? And I think Mark makes a good point. Like our countries are fucked so we shouldn’t be invading Afghanistan. And that’s a good point. I agree with it. You gotta clean up your house before you clean up your next door neighbours or before you start policing the end of the street. I agree and in defense of BRS and in defense of servicemen, they assumed that their country was all good when they joined the army. That’s why they joined the army! Otherwise they wouldn’t have.

 

So that’s why young men shouldn’t join the army because your country’s not in a good situation. We can’t have that energy manipulated into going and fighting these wars. I agree. But if you’ve done it, you know what I mean, it’s already done. We’re talking 15 years ago he allegedly committed these things. He shouldn’t be prosecuted.

 

Anyway, moving on.

 

Mark Collett: Thank you. The Ghost of George Lincoln Rockwell gave $20. Thank you so much, he said:

 

“Cheers, lads. Huge fans of both of you. I donate more often, but as a Canadian, my priority lies with Ferryman and the Dominion Society. Thomas, my book collection exploded thanks to you.”

 

Well, thank you so much! The Silent Nationalist gave $3. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Great stream bros. Thomas, I was wondering if you have a Monero address so I can donate to you directly.”

 

Thomas Sewell: No, I don’t have any crypto-currency. I don’t have any.

 

Mark Collett: You should change that, mate. People may well support you with that. That’s.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, I don’t have a bank account, so I wouldn’t even know how to access it.

 

Mark Collett: That’s a good point. It is difficult. [chuckling] The Resident Baker gave $15. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Evening Mark. Hope you and Tom are both well. Looking forward to catching up later.”

 

Thank you so much! It Was Made Up gave $3 and I cannot read that. Superchat. My apologies. Doing so would be illegal in the UK. Down with ZOG gave $3. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Hello, Mark and Thomas, I’m going to ask you this question on behalf of Time Now. Do you need to be Christian to be a National Socialist?”

 

Thomas Sewell: Sorry, what was the question?

 

Mark Collett: Do you need to be a Christian to be a National Socialist?

 

Thomas Sewell: Oh, there was nothing before that? That’s the question?

 

Mark Collett: No, that’s the guy’s name. He’s asking on behalf of, …

 

Thomas Sewell: No.

 

Mark Collett: No, I don’t think you do. Look, I don’t think you need to be a Christian to be a National Socialist. I don’t think you need to be a pagan to be a National Socialist. But what you do have to be is not a retard!

 

So if you come to basically a nationalist, ethno-nationalist or National Socialist event and you spend the whole day wittering on about how you either hate pagans or hate Christians.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah.

 

Mark Collett: That’s the kind of stuff that makes you not welcome at an event like that.

 

Do you know what? I don’t know whether you feel this or if we’re united on this issue. But I find little more tiresome than the people who just bang on about these arguments about religion. And worse still, like when you get some sort of fat retard in a toy Viking hat waving a me horn about talking about some transgression that happened to a Viking settlement some like 1200 years ago. And that’s the reason why you could never sit in a room with a Christian who’s also a nationalist. You’re like:

 

“Oh my God, this is just so retarded! Stop! Leave that at the door!”

 

We can argue about these issues once we’ve dealt with the issue of our country being demographically transformed. I hate arguments over religion. It’s like, yeah follow what you wish, promote it politely, but don’t turn it into a bun fight at my events. Your thoughts?

 

[2:33:04]

 

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, I agree with that. And we’ve always run a secular organisation. There’s obviously always been Christians and pagans in our Org, whatever we’ve been doing. I think ultimately Christians and pagans are going to be two different ethnicities of White people. They seem to be the only people in the world, the only White people above replacement the conservative Christians and the conservative pagans. You know, the nationalist Christians and the nationalist pagans are the only people that seem to be above replacement.

 

So they’re the two predominant White ethnicities in any given country. Obviously some countries are obviously very heavily Christian and some are not. Australia is not very Christian at all! They’re a tiny minority. It is growing, it is increasing. But so is just a secular worldview, a secular nationalist kind of spiritualism.

 

So, yeah, it’ll be interesting to see in 50 or 100 years time. But ultimately what I say to people is that there’s a lot that Christians can learn from pagans and a lot that pagans can learn from Christians. And there’s a reason why the pagan world existed for so long. And like all the great Christian scholars studied Paganism. All the great Christian scholars, like from, I can’t pronounce his name, Beatty [sp], Thomas Aquinas, like these people, they studied, they studied what the Romans did, they studied what the Greeks did. They were like:

 

“This is fascinating!”

 

They were absolutely fascinated. The guys that preserved all the Norse Paganism that we have or the Germanic Paganism, obviously a lot of Roman historians preserved it and then it was preserved again by Christian scholars.

 

But all the Nordic stuff we’ve got is from Christian scholars in Iceland and Norway and the UK a little bit as well. And so there’s a reason why Christians preserved a lot of pagan theology and mythology and philosophy. There’s a reason why they did. And because there’s so much value in it. There’s so much value in it! And it should never, it should not be disregarded as:

 

“Oh pagans it’s just a gay orgy and blah, blah, blah!”

 

It’s like, well, that was the late stage of their civilisation. It collapsed. And the same argument can be made about the so-called Christian society we live in today, where it’s just like LGBT flags outside the Churches and “refugees are welcome”. The same argument can be made.

 

So I think pagans can learn a lot from Christians as well, vice versa.

 

So why did Paganism collapse? And I had this discussion actually last night with some friends about how in my opinion, Christianity is the cult of self sacrifice. And what Christ represents is., … And I’m not a Christian, although I do believe in self sacrifice. I think it’s a governing value. I think Paganism and the pagan aristocracies that were preserving the pagan religions, they were so focused on particularism and their own family and their own cult of their own family and their own way of thinking and their own way of doing things, they forgot that there is a universal force that they need to kind of be aligned with. And it’s not just about the particular. There’s a synthesis between the particular and the universal. But also they forgot the value and the virtue of self sacrifice. And it became this attitude:

 

“Well, that doesn’t affect my family!”

 

They almost became like a spiritual libertarianism within ancient Paganism, which I think led to Christianity.

 

And so Christianity in some ways actually completes the synthesis of White religious thought or theology because it’s kind of inverse to Paganism in some ways and it’s identical to Paganism in other ways. And so where Paganism lacks, Christianity flourishes. And where Christianity lacks, Paganism flourishes.

 

So I think if we can synthesize the values and we can learn from one another, I think actually Christianity can be stronger if it returns to vitality, if it returns to Aryan vitality, which Paganism was obsessed with vitality! So, but then what pagans need to understand is self sacrifice, not sacrifice for just the sake of idealism or heroism, but the idea of, for people outside of your family, for people outside of your community, for these sort of more universal values.

 

So that’s my position on it. It’s a bit more philosophical. Obviously the basics are, hey, if you’re not intelligent enough to discuss these things rationally don’t bring it to the table!

 

But I think there is a rational way to debate Christianity and Paganism. I just don’t see anyone doing it. I don’t see like all these people arguing over Christianity and Paganism. They’re just literally throwing feces at each other and it’s, I think it’s beneath us. I think it’s absolutely beneath us! I don’t do that. I have my critiques of Christianity and people have their critiques of Paganism, but I’m not interested in hearing people’s critiques of Paganism if it’s not actually an educated position. And I’m not interested in hearing critiques of Christianity that’s not coming from an educated position.

 

I mean, people can express their instincts if they instinctually don’t like something. Sure! But I think it should be done in a respectful way. I think there’s a way to discuss it respectfully and I don’t see that very often. But I would always be down to have this discussion if any Christian out, if any Christian nationalists wants that, wants to do a debate, or a stream attacking this, or maybe “attacking” is not the right word, but going after this specific subject, I’d always be down for it. And I think there should be a space for it. I think it is a conversation that people do need to have.

 

And yeah, the divide that the enemies of White people would want to exacerbate, if I was the enemy, the divide I would want to exacerbate would be this divide! The goal would be to turn Christians and pagans against each other and to make them identify more with that than with their race. So I’ll break bread with a Christian any day of the week!

 

[2:39:09]

 

Mark Collett: If people put race and ethnicity first, that’s the important thing.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah.

 

Mark Collett: That’s for me anyway. Trump has jewish DNA, gave $5. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Hello. I know this Superchat may be a bit late, but I was wondering, what are your thoughts on morals as nationalists? There are some nationalists that are more extreme than others, but where is the line drawn? Does it matter?”

 

Thomas Sewell: Oh, that’s. I need to have a break if we’re going to go into that. I don’t know if I have a short answer for that, but yeah, my morality is more pagan than it is Christian. So my morality is about particularism. I don’t really believe in universal morality. I think you can apply it. But what’s good for my people is my morality. What’s good for me, what’s good for my people, what’s good for my kind, I think is what’s good for life. I think there is a general goodness for life. There is a general universal morality. But I actually think that it’s beneath the morality of the particular.

 

So, for example, I want to turn Australia into a more European biome. I want to cut down the gum trees and I want to turn, I want to plant, you know, oak trees, for example, right? The greenies will say:

 

“That’s immoral!”

 

The greenies will be like:

 

“That’s disgusting! That’s immoral!”

 

They’d attack it on a moral level, you know what I mean? Because they’re so obsessed with this universal morality that it’s like, you have to let nature be what it is. And you can’t dominate nature.

 

So there’s, in my opinion, nationalism, fascism, National Socialism the moral structure is a will to power! There’s a will to power! Like, no, I don’t have to do what nature demands of me. I actually can’t control nature. There are areas where I’m in charge of nature.

 

So that’s you know, there’s more cut and dry conversations. I mean, obviously we’re all on the same page that raping children is immoral. You know what I mean? Because it’s bad for us! It’s like a society that does that is revolting! It’s disgusting and it’s a freak show! It’s ultimately evil!

 

But then, yeah, I don’t think you can separate morality from the soul. Of course I believe that we have a soul. I believe that every human being has a soul. I believe that every animal has a soul. I believe there’s a hierarchy of souls. I don’t believe that a dog has the same level of soul that a human has. And I likewise don’t believe that particular people have the same level of soul that other particular people have. I think some people have a higher, more developed soul. I think that there’s a soul supremacy.

 

And yeah, I think that morality is to do with that. Like, we do things as White people and we behave in particular ways and say particular things are immoral, that other races are just like:

 

“What are you talking about? That’s normal, it’s normal to behave in that way.”

 

And then we’re just like:

 

“Well hang on a minute, we believe in a higher standard. It hurts our soul to behave in that way.”

 

Or it should if you’re not a wigger. [chuckling] But you know what I mean. What do you think, Mark?

 

Mark Collett: Well, I’ve got probably a slightly different take to you on this.

 

So my opinion about morality, especially about Christianity is I view Christianity in a very similar way to how I view socialism. I think it works when you apply it to a specific closed bordered familial ethnic group. But once you extend it to people outside of that ethnic group, it ceases to work and starts to become your greatest weakness.

 

So for example, if I said we are going to have an English society and that English society is going to be both nationalist and socialist and that socialism is just for us because we see the fellow Englishman as family, it works. If we say we’re going to have socialism, we’re going to extend it to everyone who washes up on our shore from Africa, Asia or the Middle East. It no longer works. And I think the same is very true of Christianity.

 

So when nationalists who are Christians say that Christianity is a fundamentally European thing, the cathedrals, the arts, and that morality is for us, for our people and should not be extended beyond our people, I think it works.

 

But when you apply either socialism or Christianity universally, it immediately fails and becomes your greatest enemy.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yes.

 

Mark Collett: And before anyone says:

 

“Well that’s why Paganism is so strong.”

 

But I will say this sort of against Paganism is, I know lots of pagans who are actually new age hippie types who [chuckling] extend their Paganism to everyone who washes up on these shores! And I think any sort of religion or sort of social grouping or sort of social morality, whether it be political, social or economic, needs to be kept to your in-group, and then it works.

 

So basically it’s for a family or an extended family, not to be given and extended to others.

 

[2:44:53]

 

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, I agree with that. Yeah. Cool.

 

Mark Collett: Right, well we’ve got one last Superchat from totally awesome nationalist who gave $3.

 

Thank you so much! Said:

 

“My great grandfather joined the NSDAP in 1926. So he was an early supporter. That’s all I have to say. Hail Mark. Hail Thomas. Also it’s Hitler’s birthday in three days, so it’s time to party!”

 

Well, thank you so much! And we have one last, last Superchat. $10 from Delvian. Thank you so much! He said:

 

“On the Christian question, the space to discuss this is on CQ Radio X. Spaces on X.”

 

Well, thank you so much! I don’t really discuss religion other than furthering what I’ve said earlier because it becomes a bit of a mess. People get very upset and then they don’t like us.

 

But look, it’s been an amazing stream tonight and most of all I’ve got to thank Tom. It’s been really good! And I always like the fact that when Tom comes on we do have little back and forwards, but little debates. They’re very interesting. Tom, it’s been amazing! Is there anything you want to plug or anything you want to shoot out there before we close it down?