Joel Davis: Okay, we are live. It is the 5th of October, 2025. Week off for Blair this week. He’s had a lot on, but it’s all good because we got Jacob back on the show. Often requested, the acting leader of White Australia, Jacob Hersant. How are you doing this evening?

 

Jacob Hersant: I’m going well. Just suffering because of the change of daylight savings. We lost an hour. So I’m just sad, just sad the Germans Instituted that during the First World War. Apparently a lot of people have car accidents when it like changes over. And I don’t know, it’s like an interesting argument, like either way, whether or not having more light daylight or having more people die, like, what’s like, more worthy? What do you think, Joel?

 

Joel Davis: I personally don’t really give a fuck! I really don’t give a fuck!

 

Jacob Hersant: That’s not something you’re gonna die on a hill for.

 

Joel Davis: No.

 

Jacob Hersant: You’re not gonna put that on the party policies.

 

Joel Davis: No.

 

Jacob Hersant: Repeal daylight savings. That’s our main issue.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, this is like the main problem with like a lot of people with political opinions. I had this thought this week that everyone who’s. Who cares about politics and is like actively involved in politics, but their motivation isn’t racism, that it’s like something else, something wrong with them. Like, why would you actually care about politics otherwise? Like, it’s a whole bunch of debates over minutia, like whether we should have daylight savings or not, or like what tax brackets should have to pay, what percentage and so on. It’s just like instant snooze fest for me. Like, yeah, it’s all pretty gay and, …

 

Jacob Hersant: Like talking about bean collections and things like that. There was this. I can’t remember his name, but it was a British nationalist who was criticising a radical group in Britain and he’s saying real politics is talking about bin collection. And the issues that affect everyday Britons. And he just completely missed the point that politics is really about like the main issues like identity and national survival and all these kind of things. He also had like a really funny accent and everyone just used to meme him, but I think he’s just disappeared now. I haven’t seen any of his videos for almost a decade now.

 

Joel Davis: This is a problem that Gerard Rennick has. Gerard Rennick has a lot of good policies, like particularly his economic policies because he has pretty nationalist economic policies. And his policy on immigration, even though he is cucked on race, his policy on immigration is actually better than any of the other parties I Believe. It was like a hundred thousand maximum. And the policy of like One Nation is Net Zero. And Net Zero is still like a quarter of a million people in a year because that’s how many people leave on average, emigrate away from Australia to other countries. Most of them are White. Most of the people coming in are non-White. And so even if you have Net Zero immigration, it’s still a demographic issue.

 

But I think for Rennick it was like, cut it to a hundred thousand, like gross, which would be like net negative migration. Obviously he doesn’t support limiting the intake to just Western countries or something, which would make it a much better policy.

 

But anyway, my point is this. Gerard Rennick is extremely boring. He just wants to talk about all of these minutia policies that a bunch of like Boomers find interesting on Facebook or something, but nothing that will actually grab headlines, nothing that will really motivate strong emotions, strong feelings in the people.

 

And that’s why, even though he has a lot of good policies, I don’t think his party is going to have a great deal of success. And it’s incredibly uninspiring. I had someone report to me on what went down his recent. Because he’s setting up branches around the country for his new party and they had a meeting in Western Sydney last week. Someone sent me a photo of the meeting and it was like 90% Boomers, like White hair Boomers just sitting there.

 

And apparently Rennick said to the people:

 

“We’re going to hand out flyers and this and that, but don’t say anything controversial. Don’t say anything that’ll get you into the newspapers. Don’t say anything that will get you called the Nazi by the media.”

 

And that’s his mindset. It’s like, how far are you going to get with that mindset, Gerard? Where, like, no one’s talking about you and no one cares about you, and no one has very strong feelings about what you have to say. I don’t think it’s going to get very far. I think you’re going to. I think obviously the way that we approach politics, I mean, you can get a lot further when you have ideas outside of the mainstream through controversy.

 

Like if you look at the rise of Pauline Hanson or the rise of Donald Trump or these kind of populist politicians that have actually accumulated a decent amount of support, even though we have criticisms of them due to their flaws, the reason they got that base of support was by being attacked by the media constantly, by being controversial and it’s a common trope. Same with Nigel Farage in Britain or all these kind of populist Right-wing politicians that have any kind of success. Again, these people are all Zionist cucks, but at the same time they understand that controversy is currency in, particularly on the political Right in the contemporary era.

 

[05:24]

 

And I think the few the future of Rightwing politics is going to depend on who can channel controversy to their best benefit as opposed to those who run away from it. Similar with March for Australia. March for Australia didn’t shy away from controversy and that’s why it got so big and so hyped and had such a good attendance because it invited controversy, it got attacked by the media, it got attacked by the politicians and that just inspired people who hate the media and hate the politicians to come out and march where they otherwise might not have even heard of jacob Hersant: Definitely! So what did you want to talk about tonight? What’s on the agenda?

 

Joel Davis: Well, I thought the reason why I called the stream “Ain’t no party like the White Australia Party”, which is a LeBron James reference for those who know. But the reason why I called it that was because I thought it’s been a slow news week and we should talk probably about like the state of the movement, you know what the plan is over the next few months because obviously it was a big winter, we had a lot going on, particularly in August, now Tom’s in prison and so on.

 

And I think maybe the people would be interested in where we’re going with things. Obviously we’re working towards setting up this political party that’s like our main focus. And there’s not a rush because there isn’t, keep saying this, there’s no significant election until the end of next year, which is the Victorian state election. So there’s no rush. But at the same time we want to get this thing set up and launch.

 

So that’s obviously a lot of the focus that we have. So I thought we could talk about that, like what the plan is so that you know this. The people that are following along at home can know what the plan is and buy into it and get where we’re going.

 

Jacob Hersant: Well, right now we’re focusing on just building up the amount of supporters that we have, specifically political supporters, because we need 1, 500 across the country to establish a federal party. Unfortunately, some of the work on the political party has been delayed because there’s just been a lot of reorganisation we’ve had to do with these charges that have been brought against a bunch of our members in Victoria in relation to the Camp Sovereignty incident where anti-fascists were attacking Australian patriots that were leaving the March for Australia.

 

So there was a scuffle there. A bunch of our people have been charged with violent disorder, given non-Association bail conditions and two of our members are in prison now, obviously one being Thomas national leader and another member which I won’t name. Hopefully we can get them out soon. We have a, we are organising another bail hearing for Tom and we’ve organised a bail hearing for the other member.

 

So hopefully there will be some good news in regard to that coming soon. So there hasn’t been much of an update other than so much.

 

There’s been so many people signing up to become political supporters in the wake of not only our winter nationals August 8, but also the March for Australia, August 31.

 

So there’s been a lot of people signing up. We haven’t yet reached that 1500 threshold but we’re majority of the way there and it couldn’t hurt to have a few more over that number. Obviously we’ll probably just allow it to go up further so that we have, we’re comfortably above that number when we actually establish the party.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. So obviously we’ve got these, what we’re doing, excuse me, we’re doing regular events that are going to be opened up to our supporters. So that should be a good incentive people to go to White Australia.org. Sign up as a political supporter and then you can get invited to our seminars. When we put on nationals you can get invited to our national events which happen twice a year and you can be vetted to attend these types of events. You don’t have to join the Organisation as like a uniformed activist member. You can just, basically come to events like that it’s good for women, for maybe for old people, whatever. People that have sensitive professions, they feel like the commitment to being an activist is a bit much for them at this point in their life. You can still be somewhat involved, you can still come down and meet everyone and you can attend those types of events.

 

We’re gonna keep putting them on a regular basis and there’ll be speeches and so on. So get involved because yeah, go and sign up now by Australia.org and our seminars that are happening in about two weeks time. You can potentially come along to those.

 

But yeah, anyway, the, yeah, I think we should talk about a bit about the party itself because the way that I see it at this point, the way that the kind of political system is shifting. You know, we’ve seen the polling from the election was back in like what, April to now. So like in half a year, One Nation has like doubled its vote according to the polls. It’s now polling at like 13%. It’s polling above the Greens. Now the third biggest party in the country, the Liberals, are down to like 27%. So One Nation is almost at half the Liberal vote. And that’s not including all the other Right-wing parties. Like Trumpet of Patriots, I think was polling at 2% and the other parties make up an extra smaller percentage.

 

[11:25]

 

So the non-Liberal Party Right-wing vote is now crossed over the point where it’s like over half of the Liberal Party vote. And each time they do a poll, it seems like that number keeps closing and closing. The issues that we care about seem to be getting a lot of traction in political discourse. All the polling shows that people are increasingly dissatisfied with mass immigration and things like that.

 

Obviously the March for Australia was a huge bellwether for where public sentiment is on that issue. But the issue that we have in Australia, I think with distinction to Western Europe and even America, is that it’s not really happening for young voters.

 

If you look at the polling by age demographic Zoomers, Millennials, they’re not really going to the Right in the way that they are in America. Look at the polling in America, Zoomers are actually like more Right-wing than Boomers. Like Zoomers are the most Right-wing generation, which is like crazy! If you said that 10 years ago, no one would believe you because it used to be the complete inverse trend. Similar trends as well in Europe, where the Right-wing populist party is very popular with young voters. Conservative parties, not so much. But Right-wing populist parties, you know, are.

 

And what we see in Australia, because One Nation is kind of, it’s kind of like a Boomer party. It’s Boomer coded, it’s run by Boomers. Its leaders are old. It’s been around for decades. It was kind of at its zenith in the late 90s when it first launched. It doesn’t feel particularly fresh or new or dynamic. It doesn’t really appeal to young voters and they don’t know how to campaign to young voters or whatever. It just seems to be Boomers that are pissed off about immigration jumping ship to One Nation from Liberals or something.

 

And so there’s a massive gap in the market for a kind of youth focused nationalism where no one is really meeting that market right now! And I don’t really see anyone else in Australian politics that could meet that market except us. We are literally young. We’re in those, that age demographic as people than pretty much all of us.

 

And obviously our messaging and our promotion, it’s very like focused upon like on younger people, younger generations, people under the age of say like 35. You know, the way that we kind of put out our content and the way that it spreads online and so on, it appeals more to that kind of spectrum. So we think we have a golden opportunity where there’s like this market opportunity in Australian politics where no one is really competently. There isn’t like some Zionist populist Right party like they have been in Britain, or a lot of Western European countries that really appeals to that demographic in the same way. But the trends are all going in that direction where that demographic, something is going to have to emerge ultimately to cater to them.

 

And so we’ve got a golden opportunity I think to launch our party and actually have a untapped potential to draw voters from. Not that we can win an election off the back of just like young White voters, they’re outnumbered.

 

But the way that Senate works or Upper House elections work in the States, if you can get that 8%, Ralph Babet got elected to the Senate with 4.6% of the primary vote in Victoria, for example. You only need to get that radical fraction to come to your side and you can get people in into Parliament. So you know, there’s a lot of benefits to launching the party just in terms of like propping up our legal status within the system.

 

But I think that we have a proper chance of actually getting someone elected. And if we get just like one person elected, it’s infinitely more significant than any other party getting one person elected. Because it would be like a Nazi getting elected to Parliament. Like it’d be like international news story. It would be a really big deal, like the first Nazi elected in any English speaking country like ever!

 

Jacob Hersant: Yeah, well, there are many, many benefits to the party. That’s why we’re doing it. First being the legal protections that hopefully we can be afforded by actually being a political party. A lot of the time when we go into court, Victoria police will lie through their teeth and say:

 

“This isn’t a political organisation at all! This isn’t a registered political party. It’s a criminal group. A criminal group focused on putting up stickers!”

 

Political stickers I guess. And that has been quite annoying. If we establish a political party, the police will no longer be able to lie like that. And hopefully it will put the, it will kind of put the police on notice that they can’t keep using the same tactics that they have been using against the National Socialist Network particularly anymore.

 

So that’s what we’re hoping for. Maybe it won’t actually be that circumstance. A lot of the time these supposed liberal Democrats don’t actually care about liberal democracy, don’t care about the system they profess to defend. So this is just speculation. We’ll have to see what actually happens.

 

Another benefit is I, like you said I think we can get people elected. And when it comes to the long term strategy of the party, I think that eventually if enough energy goes into it and enough, enough people actually vote for it, we can get a substantial amount of people elected. Not to obviously take power, take a majority government, but just to have a bargaining chip, more or less being able to.

 

Actually, these other parties will have to come to us if they want to pass legislation that requires the other party, the major party in this, in this, in most cases it will be Liberal and Labor. If they want to pass legislation, they may need some of our politicians to vote for something.

 

[17:46]

 

So when you gain that power, you can use it to great effect. Especially if you are, if you have the right strategy and you have the right mindset where obviously if we were involved in politics, we’re not just going to be like any other minor party. We’re going to be causing all kinds of chaos. So we’ll have to see.

 

Like I remain, what I would say is I remain kind of cautiously optimistic about it. Like, it’s not something that I’m wedded to, something that I’m like, we have to do this, otherwise you know, everything’s gonna go to hell! There’s all these other projects that we’re working on as well, whether it be the street activism or community building and just the meta-political struggle we’re doing as well. So people need to understand that the political party isn’t the main thing. It’s not the only thing that we’re doing. Because a lot of people, when they think of politics, they think of party politics and they think that’s the only thing that matters. That is the whole game. Like if it is political, then it’s necessarily party politics.

 

But we have a completely different understanding of politics. We see it as broader and see our movement and what we have to do to further that movement as being broader than only party politics.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, that’s true. But at the same time, I think the advantage of the political party, one of the main advantages is that it provides a way for the Australian public to buy into the movement en masse. Where if you’re just doing street rallies in uniform, it’s a pretty big step for a lot of people to go from just thinking that the video was cool to joining us and becoming one of us. But if you have a political party, it’s well, they could give you a vote, they could consider you as someone that they would vote for and that moves them into a position where now they’re supporting a National Socialist party and then that then maybe a larger percentage of them will then want to take the next step and the next step and the next step of involvement from there. So it provides, it’s good to provide a certain soft on ramp to the movement where it becomes accessible where people can see you as a viable alternative. Otherwise they get this view of like, well those guys in black, they’re pretty cool! But those ideas are obviously too extreme for the political system. And so I’m just going to have to vote for One Nation or something. If we give them an actual option to rally behind and they can go fuck one nation. All these Boomer cuck Sydney parties, I want the real deal, full spectrum.

 

So also, this is also part of why I think Liberal death., …

 

Jacob Hersant: Yeah, it’s important to give every like as many means to support the movement as possible. Whether it be donating or becoming a member or giving a vote or all these kind of things. So once we get a political party up, it’s just another way that people can support us. And yeah, that is very important. That’s a good point to bring up.

 

And another thing is if we get people elected, well then we can have, we can be given salaries to be full-time political soldiers, more or less. And all these establishment parties are, they’re kind of bolstered by these salaries that are being given out by the taxpayer. But we are pursuing our political mission without any taxpayer money! If we were given access to that through having our politicians elected and having staffers work with those politicians, imagine how much more work that we could do. Like these people are just taking the money of the taxpayer and wasting it on race treason and, or in the case of these smaller Right-wing parties, they’re just wasting it on Boomer nonsense that’s never, never going to change anything. Never going to save our race. We, despite having no money, are doing much more than they are. Imagine if the system was giving us some money or the taxpayer, rather. It’s not really the system, but the taxpayer.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, I mean we are starting to get some resources behind us and that will continue. That’s the other thing as well with the political party people are going to be more inclined to join as members. They’re gonna back it. And so we can then create better propaganda as a movement because we’ll have like a party machine churning it out in general, it’s just like a, the obvious organisational structure or political movement.

 

And then also it’s like the legitimacy advantage as well. If you have someone in Parliament, it’s just like natural people would start taking it more seriously, like, as like a viable. It’s a viable thing. And if we’re in the Parliament and we’re in the black jackets or something in Parliament, everyone else is in a suit and we’re calling out the politicians, it’s going to be quite the spectacle! We’ll turn the Parliament into the usher, basically and the kind of stunts that we could pull in there and so on.

 

You also have Parliamentary privilege if you can Fed post in Parliament, like no legal charges can be laid against you can say anything. We could try and organise diplomatic visas for like, controversial people. There’s lots of things we could do. So it opens up a lot of interesting doors that we could exploit to our advantage.

 

[23:23]

 

But also we can give a voice to White Australians in the halls of power, which currently there is none. There is no voice for our people. And that’s obviously the main purpose of it is like the whole idea supposedly of representative democracy is you have politicians that represent you. Well, if you’re a nationalist, there are no politicians that represent you know, so you’re kind of picking over crumbs and coping about how this cuked politician kind of said something that’s kind of okay. You want someone to go in there and hold these politicians to account, call them out and tell it like it is. That’s supposed, you know, speak truth to power. That’s supposed to be the whole point of the representative democratic system or whatever. So we want to actually give the Australian people real democracy.

 

And if they don’t let us register the party, then we can show the Australian people that they don’t have a real democracy. They need to be, they need to see that made explicit to them because we give the system an option, either let us participate or destroy your own legitimacy to block us from participating. And it’s a choice. And I personally think we will be able to participate because of how robust Australian constitutional law is in regards to political parties. They tried to ban the Communist party in the 1950s, it failed. They went to a referendum to try and change the Constitution to enable them to ban the Communist Party. That referendum failed at the height of the Cold War. Very conservative political process at that time still failed. So it’s pretty airtight. They can’t block us. There have been registered National Socialist political parties in Australian history, you know, back in the 70s and so on.

 

So this precedent, it is not legally possible for them to block us without like an egregious unconstitutional action. And if they try to go to a referendum to try and ban us, the Australian people, I believe will vote that they can’t ban us. And it will just be another huge win!

 

So we’re going to put the system in a position where it’s kind of going to have to tolerate us if it doesn’t want to nuke itself and its own legitimacy. So we do that a lot. But this, I think in this instance it’s a much bigger, higher stakes proposition to the system where just like persecuting us over a political demonstration or something, it is a cost on legitimacy. But it isn’t as intense banning a political party. It’s a way bigger cost on its legitimacy.

 

So I don’t think they will do that. I think they’ll allow us to register, allow us to participate and I think we’ll surprise a lot of people with how successful we are. It’s going to be a lot of fun designing these campaigns. They’re going to be dynamic, they’re going to be interesting working on the policies at the moment. We’re going to have policies that are really powerful, that are conversation starters.

 

And again, talking about the meta-politics of what we’re doing, it’s going to have an effect on the rest of the political system. If we start gaining traction and having success, the other Right-wing parties are going to start moving to the Right. It’s going to shift the entire structure of the system. And that’s also why I’ve been promoting Total Liberal death. Because if we can lower the amount of votes going to the Liberal Party and direct them into the constellation of other rhyming parties, it’ll be a situation where the Right cannot govern as one party and it will fought before still like work as a coalition, a kind of uneasy coalition. And in that chaos, we can get a seat at the table and try and use that seat at the table to try and push for the most radical policies possible.

 

Jacob Hersant: I agree. Yeah, I agree. I don’t have much to add other than that. Yeah, I think we’ve covered the topic pretty well.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. Do you want to, do you want to get into. You put out a post today saying we will not be attending October 19, March for Australia. Do you want to discuss that?

 

We will not be attending. But I want to preface it by saying that we have a good relationship with the organisers. We wish the march well. We hope that’s success. But in terms of our priorities as an organisation, we don’t think it makes sense for us to go again this time. We want to save our grill for Australia Day.

 

Jacob Hersant: Yeah.

 

Joel Davis: Got the reasons why in the post why we decided against it for this one.

 

Jacob Hersant: Yes. So I made a statement saying that we’re not going to be showing up and I explained the reasons why because otherwise there was going to be speculation. This is, I guess it’s a tactical disagreement between us and March for Australia. It’s not a disagreement in ideals or we don’t oppose the organisation or anything like that. We like March for Australia and we’re happy to work with them again.

 

It’s just that in this circumstance, as you said, it doesn’t make sense for our organisation to participate again. We have a lot of things on that we have to do. We, well, we got to organise. We’ve got a lot of events going on in October as well. And when we attend these events, we bear a lot of the brunt of the consequences of those events. And we’re happy to do that when it’s a circumstance where we agree with it. We rally all the time, we do activism all the time and we face the consequences all the time.

 

[28:56]

 

But when it comes to, we’re selective with our activism, we really want it to be something novel, a message that we want put out there or even just one that if there hasn’t been a rally in a while, then I could understand doing a rally similar like that, similar to what they’re doing. But the issue is we don’t really see there as being a compelling reason, compelling reason to mobilise and I guess, you know, face the consequences, which. Yeah, I think we wouldn’t face any consequences anywhere other than Melbourne, where there’s obviously these violent Antifa. Even then I think it may be a circumstance where these Antifa are already beaten because they didn’t show up to that other cuck rally that was in September, the one that was organised in opposition to March for Australia. None of the Antifa showed up to that even though and you may say okay, the reason they didn’t show up to that was because they understood these were the cucked Right and they weren’t the Black Shirts or the March for Australia ethno-nationalists. But I don’t think Leftists make that distinction. I think anyone to the right of them is a neo-Nazi whether they like it or not.

 

So I was very surprised that that march wasn’t met with any violence and I think the reason was because they got the absolute piss beaten out of them last time maybe the reason why they didn’t do anything. So it may be that circumstances again. So there could be a situation where we wouldn’t even bear any consequences for this. Maybe the Left are just too scared to use violence against the marchers and let’s hope that’s the case because we don’t want anyone getting attacked for their, for their political views on our side. So yeah but it makes sense for us not to, not to, not to go to this one.

 

But as I said in the post we will be working with them again in the future particularly for Australia Day.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. So in Melbourne I think Matt Trihey is going to be running today from the National Workers alliance who’s a solid guy, solid ethno-nationalist. A friend of ours and he’s alleged that he’s a ex-professional MMA fighter. Solid, solid ideologically has been for a long time. Doesn’t cuck on anything, not even the jewish question. Refuses to have people on the stage given speeches that they don’t meet a standard of being a true nationalist. So you know I think all power to him, support to him. I think Blair has worked with him a lot in the past so I’m sure Blair is going to help him out on this one. So we wish the march every success in Melbourne. In particular because it’s going to be our friends still doing the bit on the day and it’s an opportunity for because there was a lot of controversy about us being there.

 

The reason why we intervened in all August 31st as Sewell explained beforehand was because we wanted to make sure that Zionists and other you know, influence groups didn’t come in and take over the march and make it about them. And so we intervened because us just saying that we’re going to go pushes out a lot of those types. And also we kind of elbowed them, helped elbow them out the way behind the scenes. And we supported the organisers because none of the organisers are members of our organisation, but we know them to be actual nationalists.

 

And so even though maybe they don’t do the Hitler thing, whatever their private views are on the subject, we know that they are genuine nationalists and they care about our people when they’re doing it for the right reasons. So that’s why we supported them. And there was a lot of disputes between different in the nature of an event like that, between different elements that will:

 

“Keep the Nazis away and so on!”

 

But the actual organisers maintained a solid stance and said we’re welcome:

 

“They’re nationalists. They deserve to be here. They’re against immigration too.”

 

And so it’s adorable they didn’t cuck. They kept the messaging solid. The event was a huge success. And so they deserve respect for doing that because there’s a lot of people that do tuck under that kind of pressure. I think we added a lot of value to the event, like by going because we enhanced the controversy around the event.

 

But at the same time people said, oh well if the Nazis go, it makes Antifa attack everyone and it makes ruins the event. So now they have an opportunity to do it without us. And we can see like what, how that goes. You know, maybe us not being there all the people that said us not being there is going to make the event better and so on. Well, now you get to have your event. And everyone that said that we’re feds, that we just came down to the event to try and hijack it in order to give the media a certain narrative or de-legitimize the event. Well, here you go. Not even going to go to this one. So we’re not feds.

 

But yeah, the reality would be like if we rocked up in Melbourne again and we tend to do things nationally as a group, like if we’re going to do it somewhere, we do it everywhere. You know, we try to operate as a national group. We’re going to mobilise again in Melbourne, it’s probably going to mean potentially a whole bunch more assault charges.

 

[34:37]

 

Whereas, you know, we, you know, we’ve got to save our grill. Like Australia Day is going to be huge. I know much for Australia want to go again on Australia Day. I think that’s going to be massive because we’ve had these Invasion Day communist Aboriginal garbage rallies taken over our cities year after year on Australia Day for a while now with no official Australia Day celebration. And it can’t go on. We have to take Australia Day. We have to take our cities back on Australia Day. Australia Day has to be a celebration of our national identity and it can’t just be openly like disrespected and counter-protested and like they’re trying to basically make Australian pride illegal, get rid of all official celebrations of it to de-legitimize the fact that it’s our country, obviously. So it’s an attack on us. It’s not just about the day, it’s about what it means.

 

So we’re all in on that. And I hope that this event is successful so that it can be a kind of amplifier to a big Australia Day rally.

 

So we ’re not saying the event is cucked and therefore we’re not supporting it or some shit like that! I hope no one gets it twisted. We’re not trying to counter signal the event. It’s just our organisational priorities are like when we go, when the average person goes to a rally like this, the chances of them getting arrested or something like is much lower than if we go obviously. So we have to calculate that in our decision making.

 

And then also for the average person, they don’t really do anything politically. Like going to a March for Australia is like the one thing they’ve done this year that’s political organising. Whereas for us we’re trying to put on seminars, we’re organising a series of other events within our organisation and we’re trying to build up to launching our political party. And we’ve got our own brand. We don’t want to just become the March for Australia Black Shirts. We want to keep doing NSN rallies.

 

So yeah, I think it makes sense for all those reasons why we’re not going, but we wish them well. And it’ll be interesting, I guess, to see how it goes. Again. Sydney, they’re trying to take, they’re gonna take Hyde Park this time, which is like usually full of pro-Palestine protesters every weekend. So it’d be nice for it to be full of Australian flags instead.

 

But yeah. Is there much anything else you want to add on that?

 

Jacob Hersant: No, we covered it.

 

Joel Davis: But yeah, I think for the broader. This is a question I wanted to ask you about or get your thoughts on. And I presume you would have a similar view, but maybe you’d have a slightly different view. So it could be interesting.

 

There’s some debate that because obviously you get like conservatives who will say like horseshoe theory type stuff, oh, National Socialism and communism is actually very similar and like they’re two strains of the same virus and they’re all the same. And which is obviously insane! Right. But they say this kind of thing then you’ll get people on our side who will say:

 

“Oh, National Socialism isn’t Left-wing or Right-wing. And so we shouldn’t identify as being part of the Right-wing, we shouldn’t identify as the far-Right, we should identify as a Third Position.”

 

And obviously there’s some logic to that position.

 

But at the same time I think that that’s the incorrect way of going about things for two reasons. One, when National Socialism and fascism was first invented, what kind of denominator the political spectrum was quite different. It was a lot more about like climate, class distinctions than it is today. Today the Right and the Left aren’t really about what class you side with or your views on the Monarchy or the aristocracy or these types of things. It’s a lot more frankly like whether you oppose or have some sympathy to nationalism directionally.

 

And I think that should be encouraged. I think we should encourage the redefinition because Left and Right, as is just a relative determination like through history, it’s meant different things. Originally it meant do you support completely getting rid of the Monarchy and the aristocracy or you’re a conservative that supports retaining a certain amount of aristocratic privilege, or a constitutional monarchy or something like that.

 

And then also do you support the Church having like a prominent role in the state or not or whatever. And the Left were like get rid of it all, equalise everything. Then obviously the Left became a lot more about socialism, a lot more rather than just that liberal opposition to old world monarchism. And then it became kind of socialism versus like bourgeois liberalism which became the Right. And it became like your position on capitalism, your position on wage distribution or income distribution and things like that, redistribution, etc.

 

But I think increasingly that’s not the case anymore. I think a lot of people identify with the political Right-wing, but actually have so-called Left-wing or socialist views on economic policies, but they just support the Right-wing because they’re anti-immigration or they’re anti-trans or you know, that type of thing. They support Right-wing social policies. And a lot of people on the Left. What really animates them is those issues as well. Like they, you’ll get Leftists who you know, left us agree with billionaires that immigration is good for example. They don’t seem to really care about the White working class, seem to only care about brown people and black people or whatever and like their interests. There’s a lot of people on the Left that just want all the CEOs to become brown and black and then they support capitalism as long as it’s no longer like you know, propping up the White race or something in their perception.

 

So I think race is increasingly the main dividing issue on Left and Right and we should encourage this. We should like think, amplify it and say yes, us as like the pure position on this issue on the far-Right and the most ultra left are the most anti-White and everyone else kind of plots within that distinction. And we should try overcode the Left-Right dichotomy with our framework, our racialised framework and position ourselves on the far-Right.

 

Would you agree with that as like a orientation or would you side with the Third Positionist position?

 

[41:20]

 

Jacob Hersant: I’m not wedded to either really. I see validity in both kind of ways of framing it. Obviously we have some similarities with socialism being on the Left and then in terms of our values in nationalism and traditionalism, that’s more associated with the Right-wing.

 

So when you use that framework to talk about those similarities we have with the movement saying that we’re nationalists but we’re also socialists, sometimes going from that Third Position lens is useful when you’re trying to convince someone or persuade someone to become a National Socialist.

 

But at the same time I also like, I like being called far-Right man. I think it sounds good. I like being the furthest to the Right being the most pure position and I like the fact that when you’re right about something, you’re correct about something. We are far-Right, we are far correct, we are the most correct position and everything else is a watering down of our position. And the further you go, you go to the far-Left and that is, it’s good to have that contrast because I don’t think anyone’s going to be convinced by horseshoe theory. Because when you look at Black Shirts, we look like, we do look like the far-Right. That’s what you look at the far-Right. That’s what you would expect to see someone with a good haircut. Clean shaven, wearing all black, just proper like old school kind of look.

 

And then you look at the far-Left, it’s the complete opposite of that, where they’re disheveled, transgender freaks, spiteful mutants and all of that kind of stuff. So people, they look at the difference between our two groups, like let’s say the Victorian Socialists on one hand and then the National Social Network, despite the fact that you have the word socialist in it, look at the two groups and then try to say that they’re the same thing. It’s insanity! And that’s why it’s confined to midwits like Drew Pavlou, who’s, who used this type of argumentation because it’s not convincing. It’s so different from how things actually are. So I like both, I like calling myself far-Right, but when it comes to saying:

 

“Hey, actually we have some agreements with, I guess what you would call the historical left.”

 

Because most of the, most of the Left-Right now aren’t very socialistic when it comes to like the Labor Party and things like that. So I like being able to talk about that, but I also like being able to identify as far-Right.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, that’s fair enough.

 

But obviously Left and Right is a relativistic determination.

 

So originally classical liberals the original liberals were actually on the Left during that time, like I’m talking about the French Revolution or something.

 

Whereas like the so-called conservatives of today, they identify as liberals they are ideological liberals. The average member of the Liberal Party that is apparently a conservative or Liberal Party voter doesn’t support absolute monarchy or aristocratic peerage or like any of these, like the, like the clergy having like representation in the Senate or something like there would never support, or maybe a few of them would, but pretty much none of them would support things like that or even to conceive of them, which is what the traditional Right supported against the Leftists who were like, no, it should be one vote once per citizen, shouldn’t matter what social class you come from, whatever. So these things change over time. So we could have agreements with the historical Left, but so do conservatives. Conservatives literally are the historical Left, like in every respect.

 

And then when it comes to what the current left gets offended by, if I go up to a Leftist and say:

 

“Hey, I might have some agreement with you on, I don’t know, environmentalism, or I might have some agreement with you on like defending, you know, state funded healthcare systems or whatever.”

 

Now I’m going to be like:

 

“Oh, well, you know, it’s, just you being a racist, it’s not that big of a deal. Like we agree on most things. Let’s like try and work together to those ends. Let’s try and get all these different environmentalist and socialist policies passed and we could just leave the race discussion for later.”

 

They’re never going to do that! It’s far more likely that people on the Right-wing who are already anti-immigration and are already nationalists, but maybe they biased, what’s more of a free market system. They’re more likely to say:

 

“Oh well we agree on all of this stuff, but we don’t necessarily agree on economic policy, but we could still kind of work together.”

 

That’s way more likely that that’s going to happen. So like, obviously, therefore we’re on the Right because what fundamentally animates each side morally is those more fundamental social, like racial issues. And no, we’re not like communists when it comes to economics either. National Socialists defended private property. They defended small businesses. If you read about what the election campaigns were like in Germany in the late 1920s, early 1930s, the other Right-wing parties of that time, a lot of them tried to criticise the National Socialists for having like Bolshevik economic policies or whatever. Like that was actually an argument that they used.

 

And in those days, like it wasn’t like the NSDAP was considered controversial because it was racist or anti-semitic. Like half the parties were racist. Almost all the parties are racist and anti-semitic in Germany in the late 1920s, and early 1930s. So it was a completely different era.

 

[47:13]

 

But in the kind of debates they would have, the National Socialists would defend themselves saying:

 

“No, we support defending private property, we support defending agriculture. We support defending, you know, small businesses. We don’t support this kind of Americanised capitalism where these mega corporations take over all of these industries and remove your experience of being a worker, or a consumer completely alienated from your local context and make you a cog in this international machine run by jewish finance. We don’t support that. We support localism, we support mom and pop stores.”

 

And these are the types of things that conservatives care about apparently, like the party of small business. That’s what Liberals present themselves as, even though they’re really the party of big business. So that doesn’t sound like the same thing as a communist. You know, communists talk about how:

 

“We’ve got to like execute landlords and small business, big business doesn’t matter, they’re all capitalist scum and they all need to hang!”

 

You know, that’s completely different. National Socialism is not just like racist communism. It is like clearly distinct.

 

Jacob Hersant: Well that’s why you have the term National Bolshevism. Yeah, that describes what these people are describing and it’s a more or less a meme ideology now. Nobody really believes in it or is actually fighting for it. So yeah, it’s not an issue.

 

But I remember Jonathan Bowden to move back to the previous point. Jonathan Bowden, he defined the Right and the Left based on whether or not you support inequality or equality. But I think, which I think describes more or less the what you’re talking about as well.

 

But I think it’s easier for people to understand when it’s framed around nationalism and then I guess race treason and national treason on the other end. That’s probably easier for people to understand.

 

But that is more or less the defining Right versus Left-wing nowadays because it’s such a crucial and visceral issue that is defining this whole age like whether or not nationalism is going to win or you know, national treason. We need like a better word for that. I guess just race treason. Race treason. National treason. I guess anti-Whiteism. What do we put on the other end? What’s the Left defined by?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, I think it’s just defined by like White genocide basically. You’re either you’re non-White and actively supporting the theft of Western nations from the White race or you’re a race traitor White person who actively supports it.

 

Jacob Hersant: Yeah, White survival on one end and then White genocide on the other? That really is what is animating all of these political groups. But we also got to understand that what we call Right-wing parties today are more or less Left-wing parties. Like the people that vote for them tend to be Right-wing.

 

But then they’re betrayed over and over again by the politicians who they want to represent them. They don’t represent them at all! They take their votes, they take their money and they’re happy and then they Institute a similar agenda as the rest of the Left. The rest of the race traitors and traitors to Australia.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, this is part of why I supported in my article I wrote before the election “Reconceptualizing Liberal Party as a Left-wing party”. Because on policy it is a Left-wing party. Like name one Right-wing policy that Liberals have. You can’t, because there isn’t one. The Liberals were the party that were responsible for taking away our guns. They were the party responsible for passing gay marriage. They were the party responsible for institutionalizing multiculturalism as government policy under Fraser in the late 70s, Liberal Party openly declared, like Scott Morrison, ex-leader, ex-prime minister, Liberal Party said:

 

“We are the party that ended the White Australia Policy!”

 

He’s right. They were. The Liberal Party time and time again has, basically facilitated the agenda of the Left.

 

So why is it conceived of as a Right-wing party? It just shouldn’t. We should just like move the centre of Australian politics from one side of the Liberal Party to the other side. I think that’s a really easy distinction to make and one that needs to happen. That’s why again, I support Total Liberal Death.

 

One thing that we should be able to agree upon with the Right, even if you think we’re a little extreme for you is we’re going to destroy the Liberal Party because it is this traitorous entity that just sucks all the energy out of the general Right-wing and subordinates it to the interests of the establishment which is fundamentally defined by basically Left-wing social policies straight up and down the ticket. Like the Liberal Party supports transgenderism.

 

I remember there was a time I was still living in Sydney, but I was coming down to visit the boys in Melbourne a lot a few years ago and I made a trip down to Melbourne for some other reason. I think it was because the Stop Immigration rally was happening and some other things and I was like:

 

“Well, if I’m going to be in Melbourne, there was like all these Drag Queen Story Hours that were happening. Might as well just try and like attack these Drag Queen Story Hours.”

 

And so I started creating campaigns to like mobilise people to attack certain Drag Queen Story Hours. And I think Sewell was like:

 

“Yeah, let’s like mobilise like the NSN, the counter-protest one of them.”

 

But we didn’t have to counter-protest any of them because we just kept getting them shut down. As soon as like we started like attacking it and getting people to like call up and you know, complain and saying we’re going to do a kind of protest rally at the front of the child care centre or library or wherever it was being held. That would just pull it! The police would advise them to pull it and, or that they would buckle under the pressure and they’d pull it.

 

[53:43]

 

And so we got so many of these Drag Queen Story Hours shut down across Melbourne that it frustrated the Premier. I think at the time Dan Andrews was still premier. I think it was before he stepped down. That he actually held the Drag Queen Story Hour inside Parliament with all the media just to like, because it was the one place where we couldn’t get it shut down by threatening to counter-protest it.

 

And then at the time, John Pudo [sp] was the leader of the Victorian Liberal Party and he came out into the media, he was so upset about this Drag Queen Story Hour being held in Parliament because he wasn’t invited! Because he wasn’t invited. He said:

 

“How dare they not invite me. No one supports transgenderism more than Liberal Party. We love transgenderism even more than the Labor Party. And this is an outrage! They would try and portray us as an anti-trans, anti-LGBT party. We love gay people, we love trans people and so on.”

 

So that’s the Liberal Party, right? Just like let that sink in for a second. This is your so-called Right-wing party. Like it’s a joke!

 

Jacob Hersant: Well, it’s been interesting seeing the shills come out and try to mobilise and what’s the word? Recuperate some Right-wing support for the Liberal Party with this Andrew Hastie character. So I saw a video of him where he was, I guess, lamenting the fact that Australia’s car industry has died, which the Liberals did nothing to save anyway. But he was lamenting that with like a antique car. And he had a flashy video for it.

 

And this is what is being kind of dangled before the Right-wing to try and recuperate some support for the Liberal Party. And I’ve seen that you’ve been coming out against it.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, we’ve been talking about how Andrew Hastie is a faggot for the last two weeks in a row, on The Joel and Blair Show. So all viewers probably heard the talking points.

 

But yeah, I saw Andrew Hastie announced that he was stepping down from the front bench stepping or the shadow front bench because of the Liberal Party’s pro-immigration policies.

 

So I guess it’s kind of interesting that he’s tipped to probably make a leadership challenge next year. From what I heard from my sources inside the Liberal Party, he actually has the numbers. And considering the way things are going, the Liberals keep bleeding votes in the polls to One Nation and everything is kind of shifting to the Right in general discourse and public dissatisfaction. And we’re going to keep probably we’re going to keep definitely pouring kerosene on the fire of anti-immigration sentiment.

 

And so that trend will probably continue. I could see him being successful next year and Liberal Party trying to rebrand as you know, a more of an anti-immigration party in order to win votes in 2028 because otherwise, … It’s not so much that they’re losing votes to the Labor Party at this point or to the Teals, they’re losing votes to One Nation and other Right-wing parties and that’s existential for Liberal Party. If they lose the base they could become a micro party. They could never be a major party again, which is absolutely fantastic! So I support Sussan Ley. Hail Sussan Ley! She’s doing an incredible job, Agent Susan, destroying the Liberal Party. But unfortunately she’s doing too good of a job maybe. And so we accelerated too hard or something there and it could unravel.

 

But it’s very important that Andrew Hastie and this if he does get the leadership. He’s not believed! Because at the end of the day the Liberal Party is funded by corporate and industrial lobbyists that benefit from mass immigration. And they all, you know what he said was we’re going to, we should cut immigration to 2019 pre-covered levels which is still hundreds of thousands a year, net half a million a year gross. Over half a million people immigrated to Australia in 2019, I think it was like 200,000 roughly net over half a million gross.

 

And as I said earlier like quarter of a million plus Australians emigrate away from Australia every year, move to other countries. Most of them are White and most people coming in are not White. So 500,000 mostly not Whites coming in, 300,000 mostly Whites leaving. You do that for you know, the next 20 years, White people become a minority in this country. That’s what Andrew Hastie is offering you. So how is that worth supporting or rallying behind?

 

Also what it shows is that the only way it does occur, Andrew Hayesi does take power in the Liberal Party and they do pivot on their messaging. But what it shows is taking support away from the Liberal Party is the only way to make the Liberal Party become more Right-wing. If you give it all of its support, it just tries to win Left-wing votes at the centre, take away the support. Then it tries to actually listen to its own voters because that now it needs to. But at that point you’ve already got other parties that are better than the Liberal Party and other options that are better than the Liberal Party that are getting your support. So why would you take it back to the Liberal Party, just keep it over there? You know, so it’s like a, the incentive structure if you’re a Right-wing to support Liberal Party, isn’t there? The less you support it, the better it will get. The more you support it, the worse it will get.

 

So why support it?

 

[59:22]

 

Jacob Hersant: That is a good point. Yeah, I think this Andrew Hastie, it’s always not genuine when it comes to the, all this posturing and then they’re just going to continue immigration and it’s bizarre! It’s bizarre because you think they would pull the brake on it a little bit. Like what are the housing prices like in Sydney now? Somebody like showed it to me a few days ago and I couldn’t believe my eyes how expensive it is. And now they’re bringing in what’s the new legislation that brought in where it’s, I think you only have to have 5% now to get a, of the down payment to get a mortgage for a house. It’s just insanity! Like they’re just pumping up the usury even more. They’re pumping up the problems not only in terms of immigration and demand but then also economically. Like I don’t even understand what is happening. Maybe you’re going to have to explain it to me, Joel.

 

Joel Davis: Well, yeah, like the average house price in Sydney I think is over $2 million now, which is the average, I think the average income is about $100,000 a year.

 

So that’s 20 years average salary to buy a home. Obviously you can’t spend all your salary on just on mortgage repayments and then you’ve got interest on top of that. So basically if you’re taking out a 5% deposit loan as an like permanent debt slavery basically like just mathematically as like an adult.

 

Jacob Hersant: Could you even pay it off though? Even if you’re doing it somewhat, …

 

Joel Davis: I don’t think the bank would give it to you. I don’t think the bank would actually approve you for a loan at that, at those, on those. If you’re only earning $100,000 a year and you tried to buy a 2 million dollar house and you only had whatever 5% of that is like 100 grand deposit, I don’t think you could approve that. But like if they try to like force them to approve it through legislation. Like obviously that’s insanity!

 

And then also this whole system is just dependent upon. Then once you buy into the housing bubble and you get mortgaged up to the shit house in order to buy into it, well then now you’re basically kind of like leverage on it, continuing to expand because adding equity to your home is the only way that that becomes like financially viable. Like so then you’re not going to want to then support like cutting house prices in half by mass deporting 8 million non-Whites. Because that fucks you over. Which is why one of our keynote policies is going to be nationalizing the mortgage lending market and engaging in mass debt forgiveness. You’re going to have to write off a bunch of this debt in order to make it work, otherwise because we have to bring house prices down in order for housing to be affordable.

 

But we also have to like provide a way out for the people that got a mortgage to buy it. Like you know, they saved up, they worked hard, they got a massive mortgage for a massively overpriced property. We need to provide them with a relief as well. Like in order to like free them from debt slavery so that we can rebuild the middle class. Like it’s the only way to do it.

 

Jacob Hersant: Yeah.

 

Is there anything else you want to talk about or should we go on to the Superchats?

 

Joel Davis: There isn’t that many Superchats because everyone’s being a cheap cunt tonight.

 

So we should probably, I don’t know pick one more subject.

 

Jacob Hersant: Talking about housing prices and it made them think about they’re being more sober with their spending.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, exactly! Yeah. What else is there to discuss? I guess another subject we could discuss. I guess is the subject of women in the movement. Seen a lot of like a lot more women in the movement lately. A lot more women online supporting policy. There was the poll that came out recently that showed Australian women actually have more negative attitudes towards immigration than Australian men. Of course, according to one poll. Obviously it’s one poll, but I thought that was interesting.

 

Obviously there’s the statistic that I think in the 1932 election the NSDAP actually got more votes from women than it got from men. So you know, we’ve said a lot of misogynistic things on the show over the years and I don’t take any of it back. But at the same time that’s interesting to note and obviously we’re not going to have women in the NSN anytime soon or ever! But that’s partly because of we just don’t. We don’t think it’s safe for women to be engaged in that kind of activity. But we’re putting on these seminars or whatever. There is a way for women to be involved and to support the party, that aspect of the movement, be a political supporter, attend those kinds of events. So we are giving women something they can do, some way to get involved other than just like, breeding.

 

So we’re throwing you a bone, throwing you a bone! But do you have thoughts on that? Did you see that poll? Would you have thoughts on that poll? Do you think it’s accurate?

 

[1:04:55]

 

 

Jacob Hersant: I’m not sure if it’s accurate. I can’t really. I don’t have any information that I’m privy to that can confirm whether it’s real or false. But it is interesting. That’s the same parallel that I made or the same connection I made was to the fact that the NSDAP got more votes from women than it did men. And it’s an interesting fact. I don’t think I have any definitive position on whether or not it’s a good thing to have more men voting for your party or more women voting for your party. It’s something that I’d have to sit down and really think about for quite a while. I’m kind of embarrassed that I haven’t thought about it a little bit more. But I guess this is an impetus to actually do that.

 

But as as Joel was saying you can become involved in our movement and White Australia that is not in the National Socialist Network because the National Socialist Network is focused on street activism. And just go watch the August 31st footage if you want to see why women aren’t involved in the National Socialist Network because there was some brutality happening on that day. So I’m sure women will be happy, to be spared that. And if you aren’t, okay, that’s pretty cool! But anyway we’re not gonna. We’re not gonna subject you to that nonetheless.

 

So you can get involved. Yeah, we’re doing things like seminar and where all the partners of members of the National Socialist Network and broader White Australia. All of the partners, the women meet up. A lot of them have children, so they’ll meet up and have play dates and those kind of things.

 

So there’s a lot that women can do if they are inclined to get involved and if you have a partner as well that isn’t involved. You should encourage them to get involved with one of the things that we’re doing at the very least.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. If you’re a woman, learn how to sew. Or maybe you already know how to sew, even better. So are some Australian flags, some nice because like the ones you buy in the shop that aren’t actually made, they’re just like Chinese, like plastic garbage! You can like make us a nice cotton Australian flag or several make us some Union Jacks. You can make us whatever. Or even better message one of us, then we’ll give you like, we’ll give you like stuff to make. There’s a lot, there’s lots of jobs for the grandmas that are good at sewing out there for a second example that they could do behind the scenes. Some of the women do help out. Some of the partners have helped out with that kind of thing in the past.

 

So there’s like women can be involved in the community aspect and they can do jobs like that, but just don’t want them on the front lines. I think that’s pretty reasonable.

 

But as for this poll, so this poll, the question was:

 

“Do you think immigration to Australia is generally positive or generally negative for the country?”

 

And men in this poll had about a thousand respondents, which is kind of normal, statistically normal for these kinds of things. Men were 46% positive, 39% negative, 14% unsure. Women were only 37% positive. They were 43% negative and, 20% unsure.

 

So that was interesting. And I was thinking about why would that be the case? Let’s just say that it’s at accurate. So we were disputing the accuracy, but I think it’s still like worth considering. Well, if it is accurate, why and polling the science people like say really low IQ about how polling is junk and how can you infer things about general populations if you only have a thousand or two thousand people in a study? But no, polling is actually extremely accurate. It’s been shown to be extremely accurate many times before in where polling can pretty accurately predict, you know, election outcomes with only a very small degree of like, not like perfect, like 100% accuracy, but only with, very small amount of discrepancy. So polling is science with empirical veracity.

 

But anyway, the point is that why would this be the case? I thought about a few things. One, I think what I observed, I don’t have polling on this, but what I observed just from like being out in public in Australia and somebody who travels around to different cities in Australia quite often and has a lot of varied experiences. Is that in Australia, mixed race couples, I’d say 8 out of 10 of them is a White man with a non-White woman at least and very small. A much smaller percentage of it is a White woman with a non-White man. Also when you go to like bougie White flight areas in like Sydney and Melbourne, I see a lot more women there than men. And all those women seem single.

 

So it seems like White women are more inclined to White flighting than White men and they’re less inclined, at least in Australia to dating non-Whites than the other way around. There’s a lot of White guys with Asian GFs and you’re seeing them with Indian GFs these days, which is like, I mean, what the fuck are you doing? But we’re seeing this as an epidemic. And you could say this is partly women’s fault for being, having being too hypergamous and having too high expectations. And so White men are like forced onto the yellow or brown GF plantation because they’re easier to pick up than a White woman. But at the same time, whatever the case may be, that’s a dynamic that I’ve observed.

 

And so if White guys are all banging gooks, they’re more inclined to say immigration is good. I’ve noticed a kind of dynamic where figures on the Australian Right like Drew Pavlou or John Ruddick, when they got rid of their Asian missus, they started pivoting to a far more anti-immigration stance almost immediately afterwards.

 

[1:10:52]

 

And I think there’s a correlation there. I think that there’s something to that. We’ve seen this many times with in like in general in the movement where you know, someone gets a non-White girlfriend and change their political opinions and vice versa because it makes sense.

 

Because if you’re going to breed with a non-White person, obviously everything changes in terms of what’s in your interest. When you become a full on like race traitor where you invest your genes in another race, then why would you care about White nationalism anymore? Now you’re invested in multi-racial society. So I thought maybe that could be one of the reasons why. Do you think that could be accurate?

 

Jacob Hersant: Yeah, I think women tend to race mix far less than men. And yeah, you’re right about that. Insofar as the most common race mixing couple that you’ll ever see is White man, Asian woman, at least in Australia, like you’ll see that quite frequently.

 

And I think it is for the reasons that you stated. And I want to hear your gradations of like, because you were saying I get it, why the Asian misses these pathetic White men are getting with the Asian women. But then you were far more disappointed about the fact that they’re getting with Indian women as well. [chuckling] So now we’re gonna have to hear like your [chuckling] hierarchy of like race fixing. [chuckling]

 

Joel Davis: Well, I think it’s just objective. I mean, Asian women look like bugs. But like, obviously Indian women are next level disgusting! Like, Indians are the most putrid, unattractive race. They smell bad. They’re hairy as fuck! Asians don’t smell good either. But you have to be really close to them to realise that they smell bad. Whereas Indians, it’s a much more offensive odor. And you know.

 

Jacob Hersant: But where do blacks fit into there though?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, well, I think having sex with the black woman is at least as gay as having sex with an Asian man! I would say that’s a kind of a different dimension. When I see a White man with a black woman, I think that maybe they’re like homosexual or they’re on the spectrum of homosexuality to a certain extent.

 

This is why I think as well, black men, like all niggers are gay. Like when blacks go to jail, they start butt raping each other. And like if you look at the data from America the gayest race per capita is blacks, according to the data.

 

So I think this is because black men obviously are attracted to black women, like, unlike anyone else seemingly, except for like a small group of freaks! And because they’re like biologically attuned to being attracted to black women, they kind of have to be almost bisexual because black women are so masculine. So their kind of sensitivity to the sexual sensitivity or whatever to homosexuality has to be reduced. So, yeah.

 

Jacob Hersant: Where do Red Indians fit? Are Red Indians equivalent of Asians?

 

Joel Davis: Well, it’s I don’t really know too many, like pure red Indians, like, usually like people that are native to the Americas are like mixed with White at this point to varying degrees. So.

 

Jacob Hersant: So like is Hispanic and like Arabic, because Arabic, a lot of Levantine people also have White DNA. Do you think like, the Hispanic and the Levantine are like a tier above the Asians?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, I mean the Whiter ones. The Whiter ones, I would say so.

 

But then some of them are like, they have more of the putrid non-White DNA mixed into the point that it makes it like, really gross!

 

Obviously there’s Asian tiers as well. I think the Japanese are more attractive than, like, jungle Asians from, like, Vietnam or whatever, objectively.

 

So I think there’s tiers. Like, all race mixing is wrong, but, like, when you think about it, like, from the perspective of the inner world of the person who is sexually giving themselves over to that experience, like, it has to be a scale of degradation. Like I think that.

 

Jacob Hersant: Such a funny topic.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, I think. So yeah, I think it’s a funny topic. Send in some Superchats on that subject if you want some elaboration.

 

Jacob Hersant: Some people are going to be like, [chuckling] is it all right that I’m doing this? [chuckling] Oh, no! Like, don’t send in that Superchat. We’re just gonna tell you. No. [chuckling]

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, of course it’s not all right if you have to ask if it’s all right and it’s not. But yeah I don’t know. Like, to me, it’s not like:

 

“Oh, man, I’m stuck having sex with White women. I really deeply I want to have a Japanese waifu, but because I’m loyal to Adolf Hitler, I’m stuck on the White implantation!”

 

I think White women are objectively, like, far more attractive, I think, in every way. Like, personally, like, obviously at their peak. If you said:

 

“This is the hottest Japanese girl in all of Japan and here’s like, the ugliest, fattest, most disgusting White girl.”

 

Obviously, like, … But luckily, I don’t have to make that choice. I can just be with a hot White chick. And that’s what you should all aspire to.

 

Jacob Hersant: Well, it seems to be when people say they have a preference for another race, the only one that you really hear about is yellow fever, like, having a preference for Asian women rather than White women. And you’ll hear this from, like, race traitors saying:

 

“I get what you’re saying about nationalism and all that, but I got yellow fever, mate!”

 

You [chuckling] never hear anyone saying they’re an oil driller or they’re obsessed with Levantine women or anything like that it’s only yellow.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. In Australia, I think a lot of Americans are into the Latinas.

 

Jacob Hersant: Oh, yeah, yeah. Actually, yeah.

 

[1:17:26]

 

Joel Davis: But we just don’t have too many of them in Australia, so it’s kind of like, not as much of a thing.

 

Jacob Hersant: They’re a similar race, though. Like the Red Indians. They’re almost like hapas [half and half], the Latinos are like hapas between Asians and Whites.

 

Joel Davis: It’s a scale that like some Latinos are like they’re like 3/4 plus White and then some of them are like brown as fuck k. And so there’s a spectrum. Like obviously like Nick Fuentes and like the average Mexican don’t look the same. Right? So there’s a massive spectrum in like how much mixed breeding with Whites occurred.

 

Obviously the Whiter it is, the more I can see why you’d be attracted to it because it comes closer to like White features that I find attractive. But that itself is a refutation in my opinion. But yeah, I think most of the time it’s a discount. Like they will say, people that have like Asian wives that try to justify it to me, they say:

 

“Oh, your White wife or girlfriend doesn’t respect you like my Asian wife, she’s cooking me fried rice and cleaning and she doesn’t like talk back and all this kind of shit!”

 

And it’s like obviously you don’t know how you can’t handle a White woman. You don’t know how to like make a White woman submit. So now like you just, you need a discount basically.

 

So it’s just like in a certain sense the trash taking itself out. I get less offended when I see a nerdy dysgenic White guy with an Asian misus because, I don’t support it. It’s still a problem. But I think:

 

“Well those genes, didn’t fail [pass] the test. So now I guess we don’t really need him on the race.”

 

Like if you’re a disgusting low IQ freak, do we need you reproducing with a White woman? Do we need you on the race anymore? Less. So but if it’s like a high stock looking, you know, solid White dude, it’s like, surely you could get a White girlfriend. Like what are you doing?

 

Jacob Hersant: I get crazy because they’re reducing a relationship to just having a domestic slave, more or less. It’s not about building a future, having children with this person, like the healthiest children you can have. The children that are going to be the most successful in the world. It’s just about having a domestic slave, which is crazy to me! But it just shows you the priorities that these race traitors have.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, I mean just like watch your Sterling Cooper videos, Get skills and get a White domestic slave if that’s your thing.

 

Jacob Hersant: But I like how we started talking about, by talking about the party and big ambitions and now it’s, we’re talking about the gradations of race mixing! [chuckling]

 

Joel Davis: It’s a quality, it’s quality content. Like I’ve not like, I think the viewers enjoy it. It’s like fun but also it is actually serious.

 

So in your day to day life. Like you encountered this often and you have to have these conversations. Like I have conversations often with people who will say I’ve got the yellow fever or their race mixes. And I try to say something because I think:

 

“Well, it’s better I say something now while they’re just dating or they’re just fooling around with non-White women than no one’s saying anything and then all of a sudden they get married and have three hapa kids and now like it’s over. And now that that guy and his blood is lost from our nation forever!”

 

Like so it’s always good to say something. It’s always good to encourage others to say something because it’s dignity. It’s like as if you’re going to want your own flesh and blood not to be of your own people. Then what’s the point? Like what’s the point of putting in effort as a father? What’s the point of like are you gonna go to your grave like that? Like your bloodline is doomed? Like what are you, what are you doing?

 

Like, it’s such a baseline issue and it’s gonna, the amount of race mixing that is occurring, it’s going to become increasingly a bigger and bigger issue. We’re going to have all these resentful hapas, you know, ascending through institutions into positions of power and prominence over the next generation. A lot of them are going to be motivated by an anti-White animus. A lot of them are going to be motivated by their resentful mutant status. And it’s going to be a massive problem. So you know, it needs to be discussed, needs to be called out. Miscegenation was illegal too. Mixed race marriages were illegal in Australia in the past. They should be illegal.

 

If you want to marry an Asian, move to whatever her country of origin is and go and join her tribe over there. You know, that’s really what you want. But yeah. Should we get into the Superchats? What do you think?

 

Jacob Hersant: Yeah, let’s do it!

 

[1:22:40]

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. All right. Fellow Comrade said:

 

“Lucky I work in real Estate!”

 

I guess, talking about how house prices are up, blah, blah, blah. Macula Torren said:

 

“Would you have Lucas Gage on the show again? He was stabbed in the back by the Brown Alliance. He’s writing his book Our Struggle, where he introduces neo-feudalism to solve America’s race issue.”

 

I’ve spoken to Lucas multiple times. We’ve done Twitter Spaces, we’ve done a few streams after January 26 for Australia Day. We had a big rally action. A lot happened. And he interviewed me afterwards. And again, Lucas is my friend. Sometimes we don’t see fully eye to eye on a lot of issues. But I do think that he does want to what is best for our race, for our people.

 

And even though I don’t agree with him on all takes because I think he tries too hard to win over the base non-Whites and develop some kind of one struggle philosophy, I do think that he’s earnest. I do think he’s just trying to do what he thinks will work to advance our people. I don’t think his motivations are like wrong.

 

So why wouldn’t I be friendly with someone like that? It’s okay to not agree 100% on all issues with people in our movement if their heart’s in the right place. They’re trying to advance movement, they’re trying to advance our people and they conduct themselves in a friendly manner. Like, why wouldn’t you still be friendly?

 

So if you wanted to do a stream, whether it would be discussing ideas we agree or disagree upon, I would always be down to do it.

 

But yeah, in terms of like, are you. This is gonna be something for you to sign up on Jacob, this whole allying with non-Whites thing. It was discussed after the March for Australia because there was some, mostly Americans. There’s like a wing of the American far-Right, the American nationals nationalist movement, where they’re so fixated upon anti-semitism, they’re so fixated upon anti-zionism that it’s almost like they put being pro-Palestine above being pro-White. Obviously we’re anti-Israel, obviously we’re anti-semitic, we’re anti-jew! But like, if I could deport every single jew to Israel tomorrow, I would do it without even thinking, of course I would do that. It feels like for some of these people, they wouldn’t even do that because it would be, it would facilitate the genocide of the Palestinians or something.

 

And it’s like, what? Like I’m not in politics because I give a shit about Palestinians. In politics because I give a shit about our race. You know, I don’t have anything particularly against the Palestinians either. I’m neutral on Palestine, but I’m anti-Israel because of what Israel is doing to our people.

 

And it’s like they can’t compute this. They think because Tom mentioned the anti-Israel, the pro-Palestine, anti-March for Australia protesters in his speech because we got into fights against people with Palestinian flags, that it means we’re allying with Israel. And like this, you’re either with Palestine or you’re with Israel and there’s no other position you could have. And I find this to be a ridiculous position. Do you want to weigh in on that?

 

Jacob Hersant: Yeah. Well, if they’re so worried about us calling out Palestine, then these Palestinians need to police themselves and not attack our activists when we’re trying to do a March for Australia. If you’re going to position yourself against the Australian nationalist march, then obviously we’re going to oppose you in that’s a core principle. That’s what we’re fighting for.

 

So if they come out against us, we’re going to meet them. That’s the reality. Like, we’re going to oppose them in their opposing of us.

 

So it’s a bit ridiculous! What’s the alternative? Are we supposed to, anytime someone’s carrying a Palestine flag, are we allowed to just be beaten by them? And we can’t fight back because that would be playing into the hands of the jews? Obviously, if anyone’s playing into the hands of the jews, it’s these activists.

 

And I’m not saying all Palestinians are doing it. Obviously not all Palestinians are doing it, but these people that are having the Palestine flag and then coming out against Australian nationalism are the ones that are playing into the hands of the jews, not us, because they’re the ones that are instigating this conflict. Because otherwise, if it was not opposed to us and it was just against Israel and for Palestine, then we would support it because we don’t like Israel and we see Israel as being a bigger threat to Australian nationalism than Palestinian nationalism and Palestinian sovereignty. We have no problem with Palestine at all! In fact, we wish them well because they are fighting against a common enemy.

 

And in terms of, well, all we can do really is express solidarity with the Palestinians in their country. There’s not really that much more that we can do. We don’t have massive resources that we can just donate to Palestine. All of the money is going to the struggle for our nation. Just as the Palestinians are going to spend all their money on the liberation of their country. We’re focused on the liberation of our race and our country rather than foreigners. We’re focused on our race. Like we’re nationalists.

 

But a lot of these people that call themselves nationalists that are focused on Palestine particularly have become de-centered. They’ve lost what defines them largely which is nationalism. So they’re focused on foreigners instead of their own position and what is actually their own interest and what they should be fighting for.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. And I think when it comes to the pro-Palestine movement, a lot of people in the movement are not Palestinian. They’re just like assorted Muslims of various types. There’s like Islamic solidarity. And these Muslim peoples are not our friends. They are one of the most hostile groups of immigrants to Australians. They weren’t just responsible for rape gangs in Britain was a way large scale, but that kind of shit happened here as well. That was one of the main fuels for the Cronulla riots* and so on and so this idea that we can ally with Muslims is ridiculous! Either Muslims live in their own countries on the other side of the world where they’re of no use to us, or they live in our countries in which case they’re hostile invaders and we want them to get the fuck out of our country.

 

[* The 2005 “Cronulla Riots” were a series of race riots in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. It began in the beachside suburb of Cronulla on 11 December, and spread over to additional suburbs the next few nights. The riots were triggered by an event the previous Sunday, when an altercation turned physical between a group of youths of Middle Eastern appearance (Lebanese) and White Australian lifeguards on the beach. Wikipedia]

 

[1:29:51]

 

So it’s like there’s no Muslim alliance that’s viable. They either have nothing to offer us or they’re just diametrically opposed to our interests.

 

And then the other major faction of the pro-Palestinian movement is communists who also hate us for all the obvious reasons. And so we’re not going to go and support the pro-Palestine movement. We stay away from it. We avoid it. I think Melbourne has had more pro-Palestine rallies in it than any other city in the world or something since October 7th, it has like the world record for pro-Palestine rallies. We have not interrupted a single one. It was only them that interrupted us. So we obviously stay away from them and let them do their thing because we’re not going to be foot soldiers for the jews. But yeah, this is, I think it’s a particularly like American online movement affliction.

 

And then a lot of people who amplify it are actually brown. They go into nationalist communities online but they have an anonymous avatar. No one can see their face. And then they pretend like they’re on our side just because they. But they’re just advancing their own interests. They then go and tell White nationalists they should stop being so hateful towards, towards other races and they should be focused on supporting Palestine and things like that it’s subversive! All of these people are falling for literal subversion.

 

There’s also an issue where a lot of the pro-Palestine rhetoric is anti-settler colonial. Like I’ve heard these people, the same arguments they use against Israel could be used against America or Australia like and us. So we oppose Israel not because it is conducting a genocide or whatever. We oppose Israel as White nationalists because Israel is the enemy of the White race! Because jews are the enemy of the White race and they are a parasitic influence on our countries. And if these people, this is the final kicker. I think. If you said there’s nothing that we can do for them. Well, there is one thing that we can do for them. We can take control of the Right-wing of Zionists, put in actual nationalists who are anti-jew in charge of the Right us instead of Zionists which currently control the institutional Right-wing.

 

How are we going to do that? Are we going to do that by waving Palestine flags? No, because if you look at the polling in Australia for example, Islam is by far the most hated religion in Australia. The Islamic migrant community is pretty much one of, if not the most hated groups in the country by the general population, particularly by Right-wing Australians. Patriotic Australians hate Muslims, period. There was polling done on this some time ago showed that the majority of Australians want a total ban on Islamic immigration. And then particularly with Right-wing voters, like a super majority of Right-wing voters supported that policy.

 

So we have to be strong on that issue. Otherwise if you have Zionists come forward on the Right like Zionist conservatives, like the Tommy Robinsons of this world and they are tough on Islam or they create the perception that they are and they’re the patriots against Islam and we are like soft on Islam. We’re waving Palestinian flags and talking about allying with Muslims. It’s just going to confuse a whole lot of patriotic Australians that we should be rallying behind us and our movement which is trying to take over the Right-wing from the Zionists.

 

So like if you’re pro-Palestine you should understand that even like from a tactical perspective it actually doesn’t make sense for us to directly support you because it would actually ruin our ability to take the Right-wing off the Zionists. And you guys already have control of the Left-wing. The Left-wing is already largely supporting you. So that’s the final move.

 

And then once that happens, then Israel is cut off from Western support because Left and Right together will oppose Israel for different reasons and then Israel’s fucked!

 

So that’s actually in your tactical interest, but also it’s in our tactical interest to deport jews to Israel and it’s in our interest to deport Muslims back to the Middle East. We want all of you gone! From your tactical point of view, you should stay out of our way and we’ll stay out of your way. But also we have fundamentally different interests. So the alliance is not viable.

 

Jacob Hersant: Well, in that regard it is a zero sum game where we want to deport all the jews to Israel and the Palestinians want to deport all the jews to our countries! And we don’t want the jews. So you guys, the Middle East is going to have to take the jews or we’re going to have to, … Maybe we can come up with a compromise where we send them all to Madagascar? I’ve heard of that plan. And maybe we’ll have to move some of the black, … I think actually the Madagascans are like a different ethnic group from regular Africans, like on the continent.

 

So maybe we can’t send them there, I don’t know.

 

Joel Davis: Madagascar as a metaphor for another place.

 

Jacob Hersant: You think it’s a metaphor for a different place? Yeah, I’m not going to talk about that because I’m a sensible wholesome chungus nationalist. I couldn’t even, I can’t believe you would suggest such a thing.

 

Joel Davis: No, no, no, of course not!

 

Jacob Hersant: I’m gonna be, I’m gonna be concerned, trolling you for like 30 minutes now. Be like, how could you say such a thing?

 

[1:35:13]

 

Joel Davis: No, no, I think, I mean realistically, if you tell people to get the out of your country, you don’t actually you kind of can’t force them to go to a particular country because they could just leave that country and go somewhere else else. Right? So like you just better tell them to get the fuck out and then it’s on them to figure out where they’re going.

 

So if you tell jews get the fuck out of Australia and you know, Europeans are telling jews to get out of Europe and Americans are telling jews to get out of America and so on. Obviously they’re just going to go to Israel, like that’s the main place for them to go next.

 

So it is what it is. I don’t give a fuck where they go as long as they get out of our countries, like then the problem is solved. The main problem in the past has been that all western or all White countries didn’t deport jews all at once. It was like this city in Europe says get out jews, let’s move to another city and set up operations there and keep fucking with us. And they just kind of like jumped around different parts of Europe. We have the main I guess issue is you know, and if we just, if we take over Australia and you know, other Western countries still ZOGged out, I guess a lot of jews are going to end up going there because a problem.

 

But ideally they get out of Western countries period. And that’s one thing that I think we could try to control is that when they leave they go to a non-Western country. But we can’t really stop them once they’re gone from where they go from there. Like realistically. Like we will tell when we are trying to do remigrate a lot of these non-Whites, like we’re not going to allow them to remigrate to White countries. We’re going to force them to remigrate to non-White countries. Like we could send them back to India but then America could let them back in. Like we can’t stop it! So there’s only like a certain amount of control we have over that.

 

But at the end of the day we’re anti-jew because we’re pro-White. We’re not anti-jew just for the sake of it. And you know we call out the jews and we criticise the jews openly obviously, but it’s not the be all and end all like we have to have a comprehensive position.

 

But we’ll go through some of these more of these Superchats. Unpopular opinionator said:

 

“Australia needs a nationalist church. Get Professor Andrew Fraser and James Donald to oversee the doctrine. Former group to revise the BCP. Find a renegade Bishop who’s down and you’ll have something.”

 

Well look, sounds great but it’s not the job for me. I don’t think Jacob’s that interested in either. But if you guys want to do that, knock yourself out. Like I would much rather there be racist churches than anti-racist churches. Jacob, do you agree with that?

 

Jacob Hersant: Yeah. I agree with that.

 

Joel Davis: [word unclear] said:

 

“Hi guys. How do we address the Christian question? I see many potential White nationalists cucked into Christian nationals.”

 

What a double those two Superchats together. I mean in the National Socialist Network, in White Australia, we’re not anti-Christian. If you’re a Christian, you can join the Organisation as long as you accept the fact that it’s secular, meaning that not everyone in the organisation is of a particular religious faith. As a White Australian, you are free to explore your religious views as you see fit. We don’t allow Muslims, we don’t allow Satanists, we don’t allow Judaism obviously, but we have a few prohibitions.

 

But basically like if you want to go and fucking explore Buddhism or whatever, knock yourself out. You want to be a pagan, you want to be a Christian, you don’t really have a religious view, that’s fine! The function of the organisation is to defend our race. If you agree on its principles, then you can participate. So that’s our position.

 

Obviously the problem with Christian nationalism is this idea that you can define a nation by religion rather than by what a nation is, which is its people. Obviously we disagree with that. I don’t if the country becomes 99% non-White but everyone a Christian, it’s not Australia anymore. It’s some like racial slop that I want no part in.

 

So if you think that, like there’s no reason why as a Christian you have to accept that. The analogy I would use is that like say you’re a Christian and the other people in your family aren’t Christians, does that mean that you abandon your family and you just only associate with Christians that you aren’t related to? And pretend like they’re your family now? That would be ridiculous! Like your family is your family regardless of their religion is.

 

The same thing is true with the nation. Our nation is our nation, our people is our people, regardless of what their religious views are. Fellow Comrade said:

 

“He can see his reflection in my shiny nose.”

 

Do you have anything to say on the Christian question, Jacob?

 

Jacob Hersant: Yeah, well I wouldn’t come out and attack Christianity. We come out and attack people that are against ethno-nationalists. So if there are Christians that are against ethno-nationalism that then we’re attacking Christians in that way. But people that are ethno-nationalist Christians, we have no point problem with that it’s going to be a disparate group of people that call themselves Christian nationalists. And we support the Christian nationalists that are ethno-nationalists and we oppose the ones that are universalists who think that nationality can be defined by a religion. But we say that nationality is primarily defined by blood. So when we propagandize, we criticise on that basis rather than criticising people for being Christians because we have no problem with Christians who are racists.

 

[1:41:07]

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, like Obviously we all have personal views on the subject and in the organisation those views vary. Everyone in the organisation there’s people with different religious views in the organisation.

 

So we don’t have like one official position on religion in the organisation because we allow members to have religious freedom. They become like some stateless lunatic or like a fucking Muslim or something, we draw the line there, but we’re pretty tolerant.

 

[word unclear] said:

 

“Fellow Comrade is a half caste mutt!”

 

Well, interesting. Aussie orders88 said:

 

“How much? , …”

 

I’m not going to read this. I’m not going to give him the satisfaction of this clip. Fellow Comrades said:

 

“How do we stop gay Superchats from everyone except me?”

 

I support gay Superchats because I can just not read them out but I still get your money. So aussie orders 88 said:

 

“Indians saying they are more Australian than us Anglos as they have abo blood is fucking solid. So hilarious! I like that admission by the jeet.”

 

Did you see that Jacob? There was this Indian woman who said:

 

“They have more of a right to be here than we do because they’re related to the Aboriginals as Dravidians and we aren’t.”

 

Jacob Hersant: Yeah, I did see that.

 

But at the same time they didn’t build anything so they can go to hell! They can get out as far as we’re concerned. They only immigrated here because. Not because of the soil, not because of the mountains, not because of the sea around this continent. But they immigrated because we built a civilisation here that they want to parasitize off. That’s the reality. Everybody understands that. Everyone understands why people are moving to Australia and they’re not moving to Africa, for example. It’s because they want to be economic parasites and they want to. Well, not only economic parasites but they want to be parasites on our civilisation. They want the material comforts that come along with living amongst White people. So they can get out as far as we’re concerned.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. Also it’s just embarrassing that you’re genetically related to Aboriginals. Aboriginals are literally the most unimpressive race on the face of the planet. And it doesn’t surprise me that Indians and Aboriginals are related because they’re both vermin that in a better place planet would not exist.

 

Jacob Hersant: Would be sent to Madagascar. Is that what you’re saying?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, I think. Yeah. Just we probably shouldn’t go over that. Paul Bob said:

 

“How did we stop the March for Australia movement being subverted if there is no NSN presence?”

 

Well, it’ll be an experiment. We’ll see. I mean, there’s a lot of good people involved, so we’ll see how they go. Hopefully, it’s a solid event and but if, you know, it does get subverted, obviously we’ll look into what to do about future events, trying to do more of what we did last time. But from what I’ve seen it’s a solid team.

 

Jacob Hersant: If it gets subverted, then it’s not going to surpass the previous March for Australia. And it doesn’t really matter. If it gets subverted and it’s just a pathetic rally where they’re talking about multiculturalism. Maybe they’ll put on an extra Indian on the stage. Like, it was not bad enough in Brisbane when they put an Indian on the stage. Maybe they’ll put two on the stage next time.

 

But if they do that and it becomes cucked and it becomes pathetic, then it doesn’t really matter. Like the it’s just going to be like the other rally that happened. Nobody cares about it because it’s not controversial and it’s not in opposition of the establishment’s values.

 

The only reason March for Australia mattered was because the National Socialist Network was there to enforce a message that was against the establishment, against mass immigration, actually, for the historic Australian nation, for White Australia. That’s the reason why it was significant, why it was controversial, why it drew so many people out and why it was talked about so much.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, but I don’t think it’ll be, … I mean, there’s issues with the Brisbane team. Some of them have made statements that are cucked on race, but I think they got a lot of negative feedback after the last one.

 

And I think they’re trying to pivot into framing that doesn’t offend actual nationalists so much. I don’t think we’re going to have another Indian on the stage. None of them wanted to take responsibility for that they all kept, like, blaming each other and so on, so I don’t think that’ll be reproduced. So it’ll be interesting to see how it goes in Brisbane.

 

But in Sydney and Melbourne, the organisers are solid like Beck and Jesse. From what everything that they’ve said, they’re clearly both nationalists. Jesse’s speech at the Sydney March for Australia was excellent! You know, he’s obviously a nationalist also. Same thing is true about Matt Trihey in Melbourne, who’s going to be running the Melbourne March for Australia. He’s obviously a nationalist.

 

So I don’t think they’re gonna cuck in Sydney and Melbourne. And it’s the same people that were running it last time across the country. So they were pretty solid last time in their bias and their, in their kind of orientation. The messaging was pretty good what they were putting out like officially to the public.

 

[1:46:56]

 

 

So yeah, I think it’s kind of the first one kind of said it like what it is and now it’s just kind of hopefully maintain that trajectory and then you know, we can intervene in the future if necessary as best we can to continue channeling it in the right direction if necessary. But we’ll see how they go now. They got established with the first one, it was a success and see how things go in the future.

 

But you know, again we’re gonna mobilise on Australia Day. We’re willing to take on all the risks associated for Australia Day because Australia Day is one of the most important days of the year. Only the Anzac Day is as important or more important than Australia Day. So we always march on Australia Day and we always will. Let’s see what else we got here. Blah, blah.

 

[word unclear] also said, oh no, sorry, I read that one already. Natalie said:

 

“Will White Australia criminalise race mixing?”

 

The approach that we’re going to take with policies, we are going to not have like a million policies on everything. We’re probably, we’re going to have our core policies, we’re going to put it forward and we’re going to say these are our policies. If we were elected as the government, these are the things, these are like the top 10 priorities in our opinion that need to be fixed.

 

There’s obviously more things that need to be done in general. But these are like 10 or whatever, we haven’t got the exact number. These are the core priorities policy wise and we’re just going to put all our energy as a political party on these things and then once they’re achieved, then we can look at adding the next 10 policies and we can bring them back to the people and see if they want to support us on that. But these are the 10 things we’re going to ask for your support on and try and build a support base on and you can be for it or against it.

 

So I don’t know if making laws about race mixing is worthy of being in that top 10 priority stack because you know, one of our policies is going to be mass deporting non-White.

 

So if you kind of deport all the non-Whites, there’s not going to be much race mixing happening after that point. So ideally it would be banned, it would be illegal I think in an ideal world. But it might not be the, it might not be in the initial list of priorities. Do you have a different opinion? Do you think it needs to be in the policies or?

 

Jacob Hersant: I think people understand that we’re going to criminalise race mixing because we’re going to deport all these non-Whites. I think what you said. Yeah it makes sense. Like we don’t need to say these are our policies and then like seven of them are like all about how we’re going to solve the non-White problem. Like there’s obviously going to be a lot of things. But I think the policy should just be yeah, re-migration and that’s when you say when we say we’re going to re-migrate all these people, all these people understand that there’s also going to be a lot of other things that we’re going to legislate like criminalizing miscegenation.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. And when we go to like say we’re in a coalition or we’re working with a coalition of Right-wing parties, like you don’t know how it would end up fleshing out. You know we’re not going to be like well our condition for being in this coalition is that you create anti-miscegenation laws or something. Like we’re obviously going to prioritize like immigration and re-migration policy as like our number one priority for or working with the other groups like make concessions to us here. Maybe we’ll make concessions to you guys on other policies we’re not going to like. So yeah it’s about priority stack. We’re going to put the policies in an order of priority so that when people vote for us it’s like you’re voting for these priorities. Like you know if we have like there’s no point having like policies on like side issues that we’re not going to be, that’s not going to be one of our main issues because you know that’s not what it’s about.

 

So we’re not going to have like 38,000 policies. Fellow Comrade said:

 

“Fat gay black retards for Trump with Down Syndrome!”

 

I don’t know what he’s going on about. Liam Ford said:

 

“What is your advice to guys who have a mixed race kid and now regret it? This advice is not for me by the way. I’m just curious.”

 

Jacob, you want to take this one? What’s your advice?

 

Jacob Hersant: What to do with the mongrel spawn? Just have nothing to do with it! That’s my advice. Like I’ll never get myself in the situation. But if somehow someone. I think VicPol [Victorian police] have my DNA because of the Cathedral Rangers thing, if they somehow like transferred some of those like saliva cells into like sperm and then impregnated a non-White and I sired a child through that, through like what is it called? IVF. If that child appeared before me just randomly, then the only thing to do is to have nothing to do with it. And that’s probably the only time when I will advise someone to abandon a child. You shouldn’t abandon a child if it’s White and it’s yours. No matter how much the issues you have with like the mother or something like that, I’d say never abandon a child if it is of your blood, but if it is not of your blood, then have nothing to do with it.

 

Joel Davis: And if you’re like a total cuck who can’t abandon the kid, then what I would say is get your non-White family and move to wherever the mother is from and go join her tribe. So just basically eat it.

 

[1:52:51]

 

If you want to leave them there and come back, then Jacob’s strategy then even better. But you’re too much of a cuck. Then just stay over there. You got like a half Thai kid, go live in Thailand and just that’s the path you decided. So accept it. If you truly believe that White people should have their own countries, then you should not be in our country anymore because you’re you know, spiritually non-White now. Like you’re literally like in terms of like your bloodline. You’re now, you’ve left the tribe. So see you later!

 

Heidi Ellen said:

 

“Good to see Jacob tonight.”

 

And she threw a Roman with little O slash thing. And she said:

 

“I definitely need women involved at least in terms of political campaign and support roles. We’ll forgive Joel for his misogyny. Race.”

 

Well, there you go. See this is the thing with women. You can get away with misogyny if you earn it, you earn the rights of say misogynistic shit play by doing other things that are so awesome that you outweigh it. To make women not care that we’re misogynists.

 

Jacob Hersant: Did they give you the Misogynist Pass? You need like an actual card printed out, pass.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah.

 

Jacob Hersant: And you just say:

 

“A woman gave this to me. I’m allowed to say it now. I’m allowed to say insensitive comments about women..”

 

Joel Davis: That would make me not want to do anymore. Because now, like, I’m like, now I’m like, subordinating myself to the gynocracy by like, seeking its approval. So maybe, like, there’s an argument that feminism isn’t so bad. Like, if we’re going to have all these Nazi activists, like, women are girl bossing these days, send your wife to work, let the bitch work, and then focus your time on reading Mein Kampf and doing NSN rallies and so on because they’ve got washing machines and fucking ovens and stuff now, like, being a homemaker is not that hard. Let’s be real. It’s pretty easy.

 

Jacob Hersant: It was funny when you brought it up and [chuckling] you’re like:

 

“I know I’ve said a lot of misogynist things and I apologise for absolutely nothing!”

 

Joel Davis: Oh, I support feminism now. Like you think about it like women, like, if you take like, [words unclear] work seriously, like, if they, if women truly lack, like, subjectivity in the way that men have it. Men should be free to pursue, you know, culture, art, ponder, and we can women there’s like, they just need to be told what to do anyway, so you might as well make money out of it. And so maybe feminism is a good idea. Maybe like the final misogyny red pill is like feminist accelerationism. Free men from ZOG, hard labour! And no, obviously I’m kidding! But Southern Sun 77 said:

 

“What are your thoughts on the Maltese and their devotion to the empire?”

 

I don’t really consider Maltese people White, to be honest. I think from a genetic standpoint, they’re actually less related to us than jews. So I think if you’re going to draw the line where we Keep jews, …

 

Jacob Hersant: Depends on what types of jews obviously, like, there’s different types of jews.

 

Joel Davis: Ashkenazi jews. If we draw the line where Ashkenazi jews are non-White, then we also would have to say Maltese and on non-White.

 

Jacob Hersant: Yeah, it depends. I think there would be gradations with Maltese as well. Like there are with Sicilians and Greeks and things like that. So there would be ones that are more miscegenated with North African DNA and Levantine DNA from the history of Barbary piracy.

 

And then there would be ones that are like a little bit more White. But I don’t know, I guess you’d have to do an eye test for people that trying to join White nationalist organisations. There might be ones that are like very swarthy and they look like they’re fully North African.

 

Joel Davis: Philip Mailer said:

 

“What’s your advice on how to meet good women?”

 

Well, I’ll tell you this, good women, they should sign up as political supporters, come down to the White Australia seminars and events and you can meet a man of, who has far-Right beliefs. There’s a lot of women out there complaining they can’t find good men and so on. Well, here’s your chance. Join, join us. And there’s plenty of young bachelors at those events. And then I would say to you, sir, come down and pick up one of these fine ladies.

 

Do you have any advice, Jacob?

 

Jacob Hersant: Well, you just gotta go somewhere where there actually are women. You could just go out on the streets and start talking to random people. I don’t think most people are going to do that because there’s a lot of, it’s like, takes a lot of energy to be able to like go and talk to strangers. But you gotta join, you just gotta go. It could be anything. You could go into a profession that has women in it. You could go to university. There’s a lot of women there. You just need to go somewhere where there actually are women that you can start interacting with and then start, start talking to them.

 

That’s the most, [chuckling] that’s what a lot of people need to do because some people are spending too much time, especially people that are far-Right. We have interests that are male dominated so there’s not really that much opportunity to go out and find women. So I say you just the main thing is to go out and expose your. That was like the worst way to say that don’t expose yourself to women, but go and find women where they are. Yeah, [chuckling] that’s like the worst way to be say that! Don’t expose yourself to women! [chuckling]

 

[1:58:57]

 

Joel Davis: David P said:

 

“Never have I felt more proud than I was marching alongside fellow common sense patriots on the 31st. Keep up the good work, lads. Hail Sewell! Hail White Australia!”

 

Well, that’s a nice Chungus. Superchat. Aussie orders88 said:

 

“What’s your favourite song off Taylor Swift’s new album?”

 

Well, what kind of, … I’m not going to read the rest of that. What kind of question is that? RSA Liberty said:

 

“I joined late. Did you cover the NSN MFA press release? Hail Thomas Sewell!”

 

We did earlier in the show. Aussie orders 88 said:

 

“We looked up the mortgage numbers. Australian banks collect 20 billion a month in mortgage repayments. The average household would save 30k a year if mortgages were interest free.”

 

Some good, some good facts. [words unclear] said:

 

“TND. How do we avoid these national marches being taken over by the wrong crowd?”

 

We already dealt with that. Fellow Comrade said:

 

“When I think of politics, I think of mullets. When is Jacob going to grow out a mullet? It’s the right thing to do.”

 

That’s a it’s a great Superchat actually. I think it’s absolutely fantastic Superchat!

 

Jacob Hersant: I’m gonna stick to this style. This is my style and I’m not somebody that changes very quickly. So I think you’re going to be seeing me clean shaven with the short hair indefinitely.

 

Joel Davis: James UK 76 said:

 

“Hail the NSN! Love from White Vanguard!”

 

Well, I’m seeing White Vanguard getting out on the streets and doing something over in Britain which is admirable! And they stole our jackets but it looks cool so that they’re welcome to steal our jacket selection.

 

Jacob Hersant: They can take it. People are free to take whatever they want from our organising. If they want to wear the black, the Black Shirt, we support it. If you want to say “White Man Fight Back”, we support it. We want people to take up these bits of propaganda because the reason we do it is because we see value in it. So if other countries, groups, want to do that, we fully support that.

 

Joel Davis: Fellow Comrade said:

 

“Can you recommend me some women to Superchat?”

 

No, keep Superchatting me. Why do you want to give women your money?

 

Jacob Hersant: We got to get you on OnlyFans Joel. So that all the OnlyFans simps can send you money instead of these online prostitutes.

 

Joel Davis: Real! Yeah. Although I got some moves, I got some moves I think that people will appreciate. Kee five 5 said:

 

“How would you contrast NSN with what Patriot Front is doing in the US? They seem similar but less militant than you guys.”

 

I wouldn’t really say that that’s the main distinction. I think they probably have a lot of similarities in like how they are organised and how they do like street actions and stuff. I think probably the main distinction is more like the tone, like the approach to act like the kind of goals with activism and yeah like obviously like there’s a bit of an ideological distinction. They’re not National Socialists. So yeah. But I think the differences speak for themselves. I don’t really need to like explain them. If you don’t get it, then maybe just pay more attention. But obviously we’re friends with the Patriot Front guys.

 

Aussie orders 88 said:

 

“I’m reading these in a weird order.”

 

That’s correct. But trying to get through them all. BigWhite94 said:

 

“Much support. I love you lads. You give White men hope in the struggle.”

 

That’s a very nice thing to say. And Flo Bubba Noonga said:

 

“Thoughts on the British-Australian Community? Are they Zionists?”

 

I don’t think the British-Australian Community has a position on zionism. I think there’s some people in their organisation that are Zionists, but there’s also many people in their organisation who are critical of Israel and critical of jews even so there’s a bit of a spectrum. That’s what I’ve seen from the outside looking in. My general thought in the British-Australian Community is that I don’t think it’s the correct strategy for us to just start behaving like a minority, just to accept minority status and then just try and get a seat at the table of multiculturalism. I think that’s capitulation. And I don’t think it’s particularly inspiring. I don’t think it’ll work.

 

 

[See: Snitch journalism at the Sydney Morning Herald]

 

The justification that I heard given by Frank Salter for it is:

 

“Well, even if it doesn’t work, it’ll prove that multiculturalism is anti-White and anti-Anglo!”

 

It’s like, we don’t need you to prove that! Like it’s already pretty blatant. So I don’t really see the point in that, I think.

 

But fundamentally, them trying to advocate for the interests of Anglo Australians, I do support that, because I’m an Anglo Australian. I want people advocating for my interests and there are good people that are involved.

 

So I don’t have like an issue with them. But at the same time, obviously we have our own organisation where we do things differently because was if we agreed with their approach to things, we would be part of their organisation and doing it their way rather than our way.

 

So what do you think? Do you have thoughts on the British-Australian Community Jacob? I know you’ve known guys in the organisation and have known about them for some time. So you probably have, …

 

Jacob Hersant: I don’t know a lot of people in the BAC anymore. I knew more people back when it was Mark Moncrief in control of it, but now it’s, I think its Frank Salter that’s in charge. But it may be someone else.

 

Joel Davis: Harry Richardson is the president. Frank Salter seems to be kind of like a bit of a spokesperson of sorts and like the most well known public intellectual or something. But he’s not actually the president.

 

[2:05:30]

 

Jacob Hersant: Yeah. I don’t agree with a lot of the branding. Like coming up with the word “Anglophobia” and things like that. I think “anti-White” has already been mainstreamed and everyone. That’s what we use.

 

There was a recent article that came out about two people that are involved in the BAC. This Leftist piece of shit journalist was trying to get them fired. But at the bottom of the article, these two people who were involved were cucking and saying:

 

“We don’t even use the word ‘White’ because we don’t want to be associated with the people who use the word White.”

 

And they were saying, …

 

Joel Davis: That wasn’t the two of them. That was just what Stephen Chavura said. It wasn’t what McInerney said.

 

Jacob Hersant: Oh yeah.

 

Joel Davis: McInerney is better, much better than Chavura. McInerney criticises jews and he’s obviously, … That’s why I cut you off! Just because I don’t, …

 

Jacob Hersant: I’m glad you cleared that up because. Yeah. But yeah, saying that kind of stuff is crazy! It’s like they’re watering down something that has already been mainstreamed. People do talk about being White. People do talk about the fact that this government is anti-White and they wanna change it? Yeah, I don’t understand it. I don’t like it. We’re gonna stick to being White Australians and we’re going to be talking about the anti-White nature of this system.

 

And the reality is we are in line with the historic Australian nation. When they came up with a policy, they called it the White Australia Policy. They didn’t call it the Anglo-Australian policy. They didn’t talk about Anglophobia or anything like. Well, they didn’t even really talk about anti-White because it wasn’t an issue back then. But they would be talking about anti-White. They would be talking about White Australians. So we continue in that tradition.

 

Joel Davis: It’s also weird, like Stephen Chavura is the guy that’s going to lecture us on how we should refer to ourselves as Anglo-Celtic rather than White. But he’s not even Anglo-Celtic. Like Chabura, that’s not a Angelo last name. That’s not a Scottish, …

 

Jacob Hersant: What ethnicity is it?

 

Joel Davis: I don’t know exactly, but you can tell by looking at him that he’s clearly not an Anglo.

 

And again, I’m not saying that he’s not White obviously, but just kind of makes it even more silly.

 

And then he also said in those comments he doesn’t like using the term “White Australia”. Number one is he’s going to be associated with people who use that term, i.e., us.

 

And number two, because for him it’s not just about race, it’s also about culture. But like, culture obviously comes from race. What are you saying? You can be culturally Anglo-Celtic without actually being of our stock? That doesn’t actually make any sense.

 

So it’s kind of like a silly position. He also started an organisation recently called Australian Sons where they said that they would welcome non-Whites in who are Christians.

 

Jacob Hersant: Hmmm, …

 

Joel Davis: So it shows that he is weak on the race question. And I don’t think the other members, … All the other members of the BAC are much better on the question. So I wouldn’t want to say that he, his personal positions are indicative of the BAC in general. I think BAC allows people like him to be involved, but there’s a spectrum in this that they allow.

 

So I don’t think it’s fair to slander the BAC as a Zionist organisation. But I think it’s fair to criticise them for tolerating zionism because I don’t think they should tolerate it. I don’t think people who defend the state of Israel can be truly trusted as advocates for our people. Because jews are very clearly a hostile group that is directly antagonistic to our interests of people.

 

 

And even in Frank Salter’s book Anglophobia, which I read, I agree with you, by the way, that I don’t think it’s a term that we should really adopt because anti-White is far more mainstream than Anglophobia. And also using terms that have phobia in it is weaker than anti. Like jews don’t call you know, Judeophobic. They use anti-semitic. That’s more like potent as a phrase.

 

Jacob Hersant: And the very issue is that these people aren’t Anglophobic. They aren’t scared of us! [chuckling] That’s why they’re doing what they’re doing! If they were scared of us, they wouldn’t even come here! They’re just anti-White. That’s why they’re being so aggressive against us.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, exactly!

 

So it’s just like a, it’s the wrong term. They want to say anti-Anglo, I’d say that’s better than saying Anglophobic. Because a lot of these are anti-Anglo too. Like for example, like Indians are very animated by an anti-Anglo animus specifically because of their grievances about being colonised by the British Empire and so on.

 

So I’m not obviously we’re not hostile to advocacy for Anglo-Australians or something like that. Some organisation should exist to advocate for Anglo-Australian interests. But that’s the other thing as well. They say:

 

“Oh, we advocate for Anglo-Australians and everyone who had. Everyone who has assimilated into the Anglo Australian stock.”

 

For most people in the BAC, only White people can do that. So then you basically are advocating for White Australians then because that basically is everyone who’s White. Or you’re like Stephen Chavura and you kind of leave it more ambiguous because you want to be able to go on Sky News and you know, you go to a church full of Zionists that you associate with or something. So then he waters it down even further. Where it’s:

 

“Well, Anglos are a distinct ethnic group that should be maintained as a majority, but it’s more about British culture. And if like non — Whites adopt British values then they can become part of our national family.”

 

And then it’s like you’re a hop, skip and jump away from like who we basically are, like a civic nationalist at that point. Then like what? Once you water it down to that level then like what position do you even have? He seems to be a foot on both sides of the fence guy, Stephen Chavura.

 

So I don’t respect him. Pick a team!

 

[2:11:50]

 

But I will say this, that most of the people in the BAC have picked the right team. I just don’t agree with the strategy. In Frank Salter’s book Anglophobia, he criticises the jewish influence, jewish lobby. So give him credit for that. He doesn’t cuck on the jewish question. And Stephen McInerney criticises jewish influence as well. So like a lot of their public facing people do criticise jewish influence.

 

So yeah, Matthew Maculatorin said:

 

“So when Jacob goes to prison, that’s when the mullet and full beard comes, like Stephen Wells?”

 

Jacob Hersant: I think you can get haircuts in there. I don’t think you have to grow it out.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, I think if I go to prison I’ll shave it off. I’ll become a prison skinhead. Big White 94 said:

 

“Much support and love to you lads.”

 

Oh, I already read that one. So nice. I read it twice, I guess.

 

And I think that could be basically it. Oh, crazy recluse. Last Superchat:

 

“Lebs [Lebanese] run a lot of Australian prisons. Is that a problem that they may try to target a strong White man like Tom in there?”

 

Well, number one, Tom is isolated from the other prisoners because, not because they’re worried about him being attacked. They’ll be quite fine with him being attacked. They’re worried about him organising all the White boys in jail into a giant [chuckling] prison gang! Recruiting them to the NSN when they get out and him taking over the prisons. So they put him in very restricted conditions, solitary conditions. So he will be fine.

 

But also what I’ve heard from Tom is that when he was getting marched through the aisle of the jail and Lebos saw him from their jail cells or whatever, they were yelling out support because they saw that the NSN beat up Abby Yemeni’s bodyguards and they were throwing Romans and found that to be quite amusing! So I don’t know, maybe there’s a certain amount of respect that he has from that community.

 

So also, it’s Melbourne. Melbourne doesn’t have as many lebos as Sydney. It’s different. But yeah. I think that could be it for the show tonight. Is there anything you wanted to touch on before we, … Oh, wait, one more Superchat, Georgie L said:

 

“Thank the gods a White man.”

 

And she sent a love heart. Well, that’s very nice of you. See, on the Joel and Jacob show, we are massive respecters of women, unlike The Joel and Blair Show where we usually, … [chuckling]

 

Is there anything you want to say before the end of the stream?

 

Jacob Hersant: No, I think we covered a lot. I think it was a good show. I’m happy to come on whenever. It normally just takes a lot for me to set up things, but now that I’ve got my new Rune background, I should be able to come on more frequently.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, well, it’s a sick background, but yeah, it’s a good show. Good to have you on a stream where we have Blair as well. I do like the three man streams as well. Two man is cozy. Three men sometimes can be dynamic, but, …

 

Jacob Hersant: Dynamic! [chuckling] No. Thank you for having me on. Blood and honour!

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. Hail victory! White power! You said blood and honour so I didn’t have to. And White Australia.org! Go to White Australia.org and join. Become a political support. Or even better, come one of the men in black, become an activist. Come down, we’ll teach you how to kickbox. Or you already know how to. Even better, you can beat up some of the guys who don’t know how to kickbox yet and teach them how to kickbox. And march with us. We got plenty of activism planned and it’s going to be a lot happening. So join the movement and we’ll see you next time.

 

 

[2:15:54]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 10/7/2025 = 73)

[Latest at top]

007lyse
7 hours ago
Life Chain in northern not so On terrible anymore polled 80 thumbs up (not including 60people there) to 12 thumbs down. The degenerates are dwindling. Poor lame death cultists are unaware 2 middle fingers is way worse than one. Lol
0 likes

frosty85
8 hours ago
Joel get a new microphone, your sound is terrible compared to jacobs.
0 likes

ForRealers
16 hours ago
Left Wing / Right Wing, should now be defined as: Brown Wing / White Wing… or…. just identify the left as anti white wing
1 like

TinyHatRemover
Supporter
18 hours ago
Send the jews to India.
5 likes

palacepony
SubSupporter
18 hours ago
Keith Woods in Poland & Germany; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylx6R8zz670
0 likes

katana17
18 hours ago
[Joel Davis – Ain’t No Party Like the White Australia Party – Oct 5, 2025 – Transcript] https://katana17.com/2025/10/06/joel-davis-aint-no-party-like-the-white-australia-party-oct-5-2025-transcript/ [In this livestream episode Aussie nationalist activists Joel Davis and Jacob Hersant discuss the following:

1. Jacob Hersant appears as guest host, while Blair takes a week off, discussing daylight savings and its German origins during WWI.

2. Jacob argues that people motivated by politics for non-racist reasons have “something wrong with them” as politics involves “debates over minutia.”

3. They criticise Gerard Rennick’s new party for being “extremely boring” and focused on policies that won’t “grab headlines” or motivate strong emotions.

4. Jacob explains their political strategy: “controversy is currency in, particularly on the political Right in the contemporary era.”

5. They discuss building toward establishing a political party, needing 1, 500 supporters across Australia to register federally.

6. Progress has been delayed due to charges against members following the “Camp Sovereignty incident” where “anti-fascists were attacking Australian patriots.”

7. Thomas Sewell (national leader) and another member are currently in prison, with bail hearings being organised.

8. Joel notes One Nation has “doubled its vote according to the polls” and is now “polling at like 13%” above the Greens.

9. They identify a “massive gap in the market for a kind of youth focused nationalism” as existing parties appeal mainly to “boomers.”

10. Jacob explains legal benefits of party registration, and currently how: “Victoria police will lie through their teeth and say this isn’t a political organisation at all! This isn’t a registered political party. It’s a criminal group.”

11. Joel argues the party provides “a way for the Australian public to buy into the movement en masse” as a “soft on ramp.”

And more, …..
1 like

Delete
bobbytimms
20 hours ago
white woman step up and stop banging blk and brown. stop the social media brain washing and normalization of degeneracy
2 likes

bobbytimms
20 hours ago
local politicians, immigration agents, real estate agents, local councils, NGO, lobbyists, some church groups, immigrant services, ethnic councils, libraries, business people, building developers and investors, are the main enemies in your area! act locally.
1 like

bobbytimms
20 hours ago
some advice, if u gonna to enter the political arena , u need experience. get some guys to find jobs within the AEC, go to local council meetings and enter local council elections undercover, volunteer for other parties, go to election booth, volunteer as scrutineers at voting day, and speak to people. most of the NWO and immigration in done through local councils.! they corrupt asf
1 like

Sieger88
Supporter
22 hours ago
The whole Weeb culture is why White men are into Asians.
0 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
BrossefStalin
15 hours ago
Also because they are more feminine than the feminist brainwashed White women. They are still traditional mostly if their parents still retain Asian culture
0 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
imSofaKingRayZest
Sub
1 hour ago
those “traditional” asians very quickly succumb to kosher feminism from their new “western” girlfriends and turn into even viler women so as well as destroying your genetic heritage you are worse off in the end with yellow fever.
0 likes

Snow_Whitee
1 day ago
So, where does one find an original copy of Mein Kampf without Jewish commentary?
0 likes

‹ Hide 4 replies
RealTruePatriot
1 day ago
The most recent and best translation is by Thomas Dalton. This is a good site to purchase a physical copy from: https://www.clemensandblair.com/catalog/mein-kampf-two-volumes Or you can download free PDFs here: https://archive.org/details/mein-kampf-vol-1-2-dalton-translation-by-thomas-dalt-240208-110759 https://archive.org/details/mein-kampf-redpill-action-publications-2021 Or you can listen to audiobook: https://t.me/HeebWatch/3757
3 likes

‹ Hide 3 replies
SackOPossums
1 day ago
Stalag or nothing. https://archive.org/details/meinkampf_202404
0 likes

Snow_Whitee
21 hours ago
Perfect. Thank you! Exact type of bookstore I was looking for too.. Won’t let me join the telegram channel, I prefer reading anyway but thanks for all the info
0 likes

SackOPossums
1 day ago
https://ostarapublications.com/product/mein-kampf-stalag-edition/ An exact reproduction of the only official English translation produced by the NSDAP, meant to be given to POWs to sway their favor while captured. Good quality and affordable. If you just want access to the text, it is archived and available for free here: https://archive.org/details/meinkampf_202404
2 like

‹ Hide 1 reply
Snow_Whitee
21 hours ago
Oh, interesting.. have you read the Dalton one as well as this one? Curious to know if there’s a huge difference? I’ll probably eventually look into both. Thanks so much!
0 likes

AmalekAvenger
1 day ago
the Dalton translation is the best … please get that one
1 like

‹ Hide 1 reply
Snow_Whitee
21 hours ago
Thank you!!
0 likes

Neqis
1 day ago
I could listen to these guys talking about interracial couples forever, golden content
2 likes

Scovell7
Supporter
1 day ago
Abandon your child because they are mixed race? You guys come across as fanatical at times.
-2 likes

Keane55
VerifiedSupporter
1 day ago
Man, Jacob’s setup is killer
5 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
AmalekAvenger
1 day ago
yes. he needs to help joel sort out his studio and sound. Joel always sounds like he is in a drum or silo
3 likes

imSofaKingRayZest
Sub
1 day ago
2 things wrong with the white australia policy, 1, it ended and 2, it let in jews.
7 likes

Motown88
Supporter
1 day ago
National Socialism would be neither far right nor far left, it would seem to be more centrist with a mixture of socialist policy for supporting the collectivisation of White Aussies and conservative capitalist in terms of our heritage preservation and encouragement of individual meritocracy.
1 like

‹ Hide 1 reply
Neqis
1 day ago
It would probably be the most accurate to call it Authoritarian or radical centrism, if we are to use the traditional political compass.
0 likes

evon626
VerifiedSupporter++
1 day ago
Look….. there exist Arab and Persian women who are hotter than any white woman I’ve seen.
-7 likes

‹ Hide 4 replies
ArchipelagoWoes
Supporter+
1 day ago
Gay and retarded.
4 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
1Antonius
1 day ago
Your guru, Hersant, has visible Iranic traits.
-3 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
evon626
VerifiedSupporter++
1 day ago
Like what?
1 like

SackOPossums
1 day ago
Then breed out. We don’t need you if you don’t have strong enough in-group preference to not stick it in a sand snatch.
2 likes

evon626
VerifiedSupporter++
1 day ago
Let’s clarify: The average white woman is 10x hotter than the average woman from any other race. In the range of extreme beauty, however, there exist hotter Middle East women, just barely. Nonetheless, is incumbent upon white men to only reproduce with white women.
1 like

‹ Hide 3 replies
1Antonius
1 day ago
Like his nose, eyes, eyebrows and hair color.
0 likes

1Antonius
1 day ago
The situation we’re facing is dire and not every man will have an opportunity to find his “perfect” white match. Finding an European looking middle eastern (Arab, Persian Turkish/Ottoman) willing to give you 7 kids is much more beneficial than standing around and coping. Just my 5cents…
0 likes

‹ Hide 2 replies
evon626
VerifiedSupporter++
1 day ago
This is a controversial take but I agree. It’s hard to formulate easily understandable rules for this though, so I’m fine with the mantra remaining “Only date white” since someone will bang an afro-arab and say “I thought you said we could bang arabs!” With genetic testing, I think we’ll be able to pick out those North Indian / Iranian / Arab women who are as Aryan as a blonde Swede. When everyone’s genome is mapped and public, then perhaps an easily understandable rule could be formulated, like “Only mate with >90% Yamnaya-descended women” or some such.
0 likes

1Antonius
20 hours ago
Yes, it is controversial and as you can see most morons here who happen to behave identically to the retards they pretend hating will downvote you to hell. These are hard times, man, and not everyone has the luxury of others.
0 likes

1Antonius
1 day ago
I agree. Their fetishism of blondes is pathetic.
-5 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
SackOPossums
1 day ago
Blondes? I only dig white women and don’t even prefer blondes.
1 like

Gurifisu
1 day ago
Love seeing Jacob on the show. o/
9 likes

RomanSaluter
1 day ago
BLAIR SUCKS AND IS RETARDED! KEEP JACOB AND TOM! FUCK BLAIR!
-8 likes

BasedKyubey
Supporter
1 day ago
Jacob Hersant looks like an AI.
6 likes

RealTruePatriot
1 day ago
Eric Striker was recently chimping out at European nationalists because they don’t like seeing their national monuments vandalized by pro-Palestine Antifa rioters. I used to enjoy some of the historical material covered on Warstrike, but he has completely lost the plot.
9 likes

‹ Hide 3 replies
v0lum3
1 day ago
Striker is brown himself. It’s no surprise he has become a third worldist, like Fuentes.
5 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
evon626
VerifiedSupporter++
1 day ago
Italian?
0 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
v0lum3
1 day ago
He’s Puerto Rican or something.
0 likes
Neqis
1 day ago
I love Warren but can’t stand Striker, wish Warren dropped him and teamed up with someone better
3 likes

SackOPossums
1 day ago
WarStrike is one of the dumbest shows in the sphere. No idea why it’s as popular as it is. Pretty sure Striker is some flavor of white-adjacent non, like a puerto rican or something similar.
0 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
ArchipelagoWoes
Supporter+
17 hours ago
Your low IQ reply is why you don’t get the show.
0 likes

RealTruePatriot
1 day ago
Here’s a crazy fact that White normies really need to hear: If you have a mixed-race child, you are more closely genetically related to some random White child that you see walking down the street than you are to your own mixed-race child. If you want to perpetuate your genetic material, it’s better to adopt a White child than have a mixed-race child. https://x.com/JFGariepy/status/1827386764673028112
22 likes

‹ Hide 2 replies
Motown88
Supporter
1 day ago
No coal burning, no oil drilling and keep off the rice wine…
4 likes

White_Dogs_House
1 day ago
Can’t get organ transplants. Can’t receive bone marrow. Wait till you see the artificial organ and cybernetics market boom.
3 likes

RealTruePatriot
1 day ago
Red Indians are around 2% of the US population. Unless you live in Alaska, near a reservation, or go to one of their casinos, you rarely see them. Also, a lot of them have White admixture at this point. It’s not the 1700s anymore. I used to hook up with one, and I was certain that she was White. She claimed to be native, and I told her she was full of shit, so she pulled out her tribal membership card to show me. In the US, Gen-Z is 40% Hispanic, so that’s why you’ll see low-tier White guys with them.
2 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
Neqis
1 day ago
It’s probably much less than 2%, it’s just cool and comes with benefits to identify as non-White. Same thing happened in Brazil, where the population of people who identify as mixed or native blew up because it stopped being cool to be just White, also in Australia so many Whites identify as aboriginals because it is cool and gives them an identity..
2 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
BrossefStalin
16 hours ago
Crazy that identifying as the race that conquered the world and invented everything was propagandized to be “not cool” such a losers mentality
0 likes

TheShowgun
Supporter+
1 day ago
Fuck i missed the stream
0 likes

katana17
1 day ago
[The Offaly Offensive – Tim Lutze – Part 2 – Sep 27, 2025 – Transcript] https://katana17.com/2025/09/27/the-offaly-offensive-tim-lutze-part-2-sep-27-2025-transcript/ [In Part 2 Graham Connolly continues with his talk with Aussie nationalist and State Leader of White Australia Tim Lutze about how his boxing gym, Legacy, was forced to close, and subsequent involvement in political rallies with the NSN, including the recent massive March for Australia event. – KATANA] [TRANSCRIPT – Words: 22,475 – Duration: 107 mins]
2 likes

Delete
1Antonius
1 day ago
Why have you still not addressed the issue some people pointed out in the top comments of your previous live-video ?
-3 likes

‹ Hide 5 replies
RealTruePatriot
1 day ago
Tom is not a snitch. He did not snitch while in prison. This is old drama that subversives are trying to start up. Tom was in communication with other based White guys while in prison. The guys were located in a different area of the prison, so they exchanged letters through the mail. They discussed having Tom ask to be moved to the same cell block as them. This is a common practice in Australia. The prison staff regularly facilitates such requests and places similar races together. None of this was a secret. All prison communications are monitored. The prison staff could see that he was in communication with those guys and that they were friends. It was not a secret to the prison staff. Asking to be moved into the same cell block as your friends after they all discuss it is not snitching.
8 likes

‹ Hide 2 replies
Carnierge
Supporter
1 day ago
Some of the people let’s just say in the more wignat proximate spaces are more privy to gaol lingo and prison etiquette, and they don’t like what Sewell said in that clip you’re referring to nobody else. People who are more Nat con, further right conservatives, ethnat lites, groyper adjacent etc don’t care because they aren’t interested in the criminal underworld aryan prison gang thing and have never been to prison because they don’t break the law. This is an issue for people who care about Australian prison politics to have. Stay out of prison but if you do go in try and come home as quick as you can. If Sewell ever gets sorted back into the main it might be the worst thing to happen to him so the governor did him a favour by not obliging.
1 like

‹ Hide 1 reply
RealTruePatriot
1 day ago
If any of those guys that were in prison with Tom thought that Tom had snitched on them, they could have come forward at any time. Prison politics in the US is not like Australia. This is some drama that Hammer started a couple of years ago when he got butthurt about Tom saying that men in South Africa need to kill rapists. Hammer was on stream with Tom and said nothing at the time about Tom being a snitch, but decided to bring it up later when he was mad at Tom.
3 likes

1Antonius
1 day ago
Personally, I would like them to come forward, acknowledge this and be transparent about it. But they don’t… And that’s a big minus.
1 like

RealTruePatriot
1 day ago
That old video is from the Truthslap channel on Bitchute. That guy is a schizophrenic who fedjackets everyone. You look like a subversive trying to share anything from that nutjob.
5 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
1Antonius
1 day ago
You’re babbling about fedjacketing, but you’re doing exactly the same thing, you fucking moron, LOL.
1 like

FlubbaBubbaNoonga
Supporter
1 day ago
What was the issue
2 likes

‹ Hide 2 replies
RealTruePatriot
1 day ago
Some schizophrenic named Truthslap on Bitchute is a nutjob who fedjackets everyone in the scene. Tom did not snitch on anyone.
4 likes

› Show 1 reply
imSofaKingRayZest
Sub
1 day ago
vid of him admiting to being a snitch
1 like

‹ Hide 2 replies
RealTruePatriot
1 day ago
Tom asked to be transferred to the same cell block as his friends. The prison staff already knew that they were his friends because all communications are monitored and they were sending letters through the mail between their different cell blocks. The friends encouraged Tom to come join them. This is a common practice in Australian prisons. You have to be a bad actor or extremely misinformed to suggest that Tom is a snitch.
8 likes

imSofaKingRayZest
Sub
1 day ago
i thought as much but as it was mentioned in the last vid a few have felt it needed to be cleared up
0 likes

WhiteBitchTripleSix
Supporter+
1 day ago
Perhaps join the NSM if you like pointless drama so much and not accomplishing anything.
0 likes

SackOPossums
1 day ago
Because it was addressed… in the same stream the clip was from… 4 fucking years ago. The context is clear. You’re either retarded or intentionally subversive.
0 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
1Antonius
20 hours ago
Not everyone was around 6 years ago you fuckface ! And I don’t care for you to explain the situation. I want Joel and the heads of this organization to come out as transparent. Absolute moron you guys are… A man asking for clarification and I get you retards instead. Reddit-level mongrels.
0 likes

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Caller 1: The present day European jews came up through Spain. They came through North Africa, through Spain, from Italy and from the Middle East, and they went through Germany and they went to Poland. That’s the route that they followed. The jews are now in Israel.

 

Ernst Zundel: Hundreds of thousands come from under the stars in the Pale of Settlement. Can you tell me that.

Caller 1: They came from Poland?

 

Ernst Zundel: Oh, they came from Poland. They came from Poland and from Germany.

 

Ernst Zundel: I’ve heard of big migration from Khazars into Poland and into Germany under Frederick the Great, to be exact.

 

Caller 1: No, no, no! You’re speaking of the Oriental jews who came up from the Caucasus Mountain. The mountain jews who came from Babylonia and some Assyria.

 

Host: Ah, well, when it comes to this area, …

 

Caller 1: Let’s forget about it.

 

Ernst Zundel: No, in a sense, why would you want to discuss it? Because it’s going to., …

 

Caller 1: What’s that got to do with the jews who are now in Israel?

 

Ernst Zundel: Because then 80% of those jews living in Israel, according to the Arabs and according to this interpretation of it, are not Semites. Therefore they have no historic attachment to the Wailing Wall.

 

Caller 1: Good. Good heavens. You know what you sound like? Yesterday I read a book about a guy who said that the South American-Indians were the lost 10 tribes. They wandered across from Mesopotamia to India and to China. It crossed that Alaska and then down. The Incas and the Aztecs were descended from the 10 lost tribes.

 

Ernst Zundel: You are referring to the Book of Mormons, I suppose.

 

Caller 1: Oh, good heavens!

 

Ernst Zundel: I’m not saying it, man! It’s the Jewish Encyclopedia that is.

 

Caller 1: I don’t believe you! I don’t believe you!

 

Host: Well, in terms of history, according to Jewish Encyclopedia, we have a caller who is well versed in jewish history and we’ll go to him in just a second. Okay, just one second now. I think this is the line. Is that you, Mr L?

 

Caller 2: Yes, yes.

 

Host: Okay. You’ve been listening. Have you been listening?

 

Caller 2: Hello.

 

Host: Have you been listening for the last few minutes, Mr. Lipman?

 

Caller 2: Yes, hello?

 

Host: Hello.

 

Caller 2: Mr. Lipman. Yes, speaking. Hello?

 

Host: Yes, just one second now.

 

Caller 2: Speaking, please.

 

Host: Okay, there, you’re on the line now. Pardon?

 

Caller 2: Yeah, I’m the caller, Mr. Lipman. I want to speak to the Nazi and I want to speak to the jew there.

 

Host: Well, the jew hung up and the Nazi, as you call him, [chuckling] is on the line.

 

Caller 2: Did you laugh at the Nazi there?

 

Host: Yeah, go ahead, Mr. L.

 

Ernst Zundel: I beg your pardon.

 

Host: Go ahead. You’re on the air now.

 

Caller 2: Is the jewish man there, too?

 

Host: No, he hung up.

 

Caller 2: Well, if he hung up. Hello?

 

Host: Yes.

 

Caller 2: Wouldn’t be surprised if you’re listening while I’m talking.

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, the jewish man is here. Go on.

 

Caller 2: Hello?

 

Host: Hello? Go ahead, sir.

 

Caller 1: First of all, I would like to bag the jewish fellow to take my telephone number and call me personally. I want to speak to him personally after I’ll finish. My number is [bebbed out] Sometimes you can still have my telephone number. I’m not hiding anything.

 

And I’m not hiding anything. And I can debate with you what I want to know, Mr. Caller Number One. Hello?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes?

 

Caller 2: Caller Number One, is that you?

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, are you referring to the, …

 

Caller 2: Are you caller Number One?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes.

 

Caller 2: Tell me, what capacity do you speak of the name of the Arab? Are you in capacity of making a peace between the jews? And are you official representative that you talk with such authority, or you just an ordinary journalist which writes in the yellow tabloid of [word unclear] Gable? Answer me the question, sir.

 

Ernst Zundel: First polite question.

 

Caller 2: I like concrete, man! I don’t like to talk nonsense! In what capacity do you speak to make peace between jews and Arabs?

 

Host: All right, he’s going to answer the question. Mr. L.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. M. Would you be polite?

 

Caller 2: Yeah, I will. Yes.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay.

 

First of all, I’m not writing for Julius Streicher.

 

Caller 1: I beg your pardon?

 

Ernst Zundel: I’m not writing for Julius Streicher. And the other gentlemen because their papers have gone out of business.

 

Caller 1: Yeah, but there’s plenty of Streichers at the moment. Plenty of Streichers roaming around in the streets of Montreal and in New York and in South America.

 

Host: Well, sir, let me. Just for the benefit of listeners, your response can be interpreted two ways. You’re not writing for them because they no longer exist. Does that mean if they did exist, you would write for them?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, but I was just trying to find out how, …

 

Caller 2: Listen, give me an answer, man! I want you to give me an answer. Caller number one.

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, I, …

 

Caller 2: In what capacity do you speak to make peace between the jews and the Arabs?

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, all night stated in a, …

 

Caller 2: Yeah, go ahead. I didn’t hear.

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, then you have, …

 

Caller 2: Repeat yourself.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. Lipman, are you there?

 

Caller 1: I’ll beg your pardon.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay. Would you hang on for just a second, …

 

[04:55]

 

Caller 2: Yeah, wait a minute. I’ll close the radio. I’ll be able to hear.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay, very good.

 

Caller 2: Go ahead.

 

Ernst Zundel: Radio done?

 

Caller 2: Yes, go ahead.

 

Ernst Zundel: Now, Mr Lipman, if you have been listening and you have been hearing not what you wanted to hear, but what I said.

 

Caller 2: Yes, what did you say?

 

Ernst Zundel: I said repeatedly tonight that I spoke as an individual.

 

Caller 2: Wait a minute. Yeah, but you speak like you’re sitting at a conference table with the jews.

 

Ernst Zundel: No.

 

Caller 2: And trying to make peace between the Arabs and jews!

 

Ernst Zundel: Oh, I say it as a suggestion. It’s a free country we are in.

 

Caller 2: Well, no, no, no, no, wait a minute. There’s a different. There’s a dialogue, man! We can criticize the jews. We can criticize anybody.

 

Ernst Zundel: Sometimes I wonder.

 

Caller 1: Yeah, we can criticize the jews. They are right sometimes. Don’t give me that stuff, mister. You know well that we can criticize the jews.

 

Ernst Zundel: Anybody that listens to the headline tonight must wonder the, …

 

Caller 2: The [word unclear] doesn’t wonder. The only thing is I can’t understand Mr. Bell. I told him one time how does he allow such poison to be spread when there Streichers and so many Meyers and so many. What you call them? You call yourself Meyer. Your father was Meyer, you said. And so many [word unclear] walking around in the streets of Montreal.

 

Host: All right, now if you’ll let me say something for just a moment.

 

Now, there are callers who are barred from the line because in my opinion, they are guilty of what you suggested Mr. L.

 

Caller 2: Yes.

 

Host: In my opinion, this gentleman is not guilty of what you suggest and it escapes me how you can accuse him of this.

 

Now, as I have said before.

 

Caller 2: Yes.

 

Host: I take issue with some of his figures. Another gentleman called up with other figures. We have a few more lines loaded. People with other figures.

 

Caller 2: From the jewish Congress they called.

 

Host: How’s that?

 

Caller 2: From the Congress. Jewish Congress they called.

 

Host: Yeah, well, I have somebody on another line with more figures. In other words, over a figure dispute whether the man, … And a few statements that he has made. He could be historically inaccurate.

 

Now, when quoting from the Jewish Encyclopedia. I don’t know. I’ve never read the thing.

 

Caller 2: Yes, Mr. Bell.

 

Host: Yeah.

 

Caller 2: Not only inaccurate, he’s full of lies. And I can prove it to him!

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay, wonderful! Why don’t you prove it?

 

Caller 2: I’ll prove it to you right away.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay.

 

Caller 2: Listen. No, wait. I proved it to you! Give me a chance to prove it to you. I’ll prove it to you. I’ll prove it to you, man! I’ll prove it to you. I’ll prove it to you!

 

Ernst Zundel: I believe you.

 

Caller 2: Listen, listen! Will you listen?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, one hundred percent.

 

Caller 2: Will you listen?

 

Ernst Zundel: In other words, that we are going to be positive and not negative, that we don’t engage in name calling.

 

Caller 2: No, I wouldn’t call it a name calling, but just listen to.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay.

 

Caller 2: I want to expose you that you are working for the Nazis! And you’re an agent of the Nazis. Okay.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay. How much is my pay?

 

Caller 2: Do you know? I don’t know.

 

Ernst Zundel: And where is the headquarters by the way?

 

Caller 2: The headquarters in Nazis are still in Bonn. And it’s still in Cairo.

 

Ernst Zundel: So in other words, …

 

Caller 2: It’s still in Cairo!

 

Ernst Zundel: Is the Nazi headquarters in the, …

 

Caller 2: Is still in Bonn and Cairo. Will you listen? Will you listen? I want to refute your argument. Okay. I want to refute your argument.

 

Ernst Zundel: You’re wonderful!

 

Caller 2: I want to refute your argument. Oh, will you listen?

 

Ernst Zundel: Oh, yeah.

 

Caller 2: Well, listen. You made a statement that Germany restituted the jews so much. And you give figures, right?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, I did.

 

Caller 2: You did fine. Do you know that whatever they give 800 some million dollars it’s restitution, right or not?

 

Ernst Zundel: No.

 

Caller 1:800 million. I don’t argue. You had a figure. $826 million. They give a restitution to the jews. You said so.

 

Ernst Zundel: No, I didn’t.

 

Host: I’m the one who said that.

 

Caller 2: Hey, beg your pardon.

 

Host: I’m the one who said that.

 

Caller 2: Where did you get the figure?

 

Host: I got the figure from the Almanac.

 

Caller 2: Okay, fine, let’s be. So I’ll take this figure too. $826 million was given restitution by the German to the jews.

 

First of all, if you know history, and history is very young, that when Grynszpan* made an attack on the German ambassador in Switzerland or in Sweden, I don’t remember exactly between these two places.

 

 

[* Herschel Feibel Grynszpan was a Polish-Jewish expatriate born and raised in Weimar Germany who shot and killed the German diplomat Ernst vom Rath on 7 November 1938 in Paris. The NS’s alledgedly used this assassination as a pretext to launch Kristallnacht, “The Night of Broken Glass”, the pogrom of 9–10 November 1938. Grynszpan was seized by the Gestapo after the fall of France and brought to Germany; his further fate remains unknown. Wikipedia]

 

Ernst Zundel: I thought it was in France.

 

Caller 2: Wait a minute, wait a minute. Give me a chance to explain myself. So Hitler right away confiscated all the jewish wealth which amount to $4 billion. Before even he started to persecute the jews outside of Germany amounted to $4 billion.

 

Ernst Zundel: Not true.

 

Caller 2: It’s true! It’s in the paper. The start of civil life. I started the life here in Montreal. I’ll prove it to you. Number one.

 

Second thing. The money that Germany gave to the jews, it’s not her money. It’s American money from American taxpayers. Because Mr. Eisenhower and the rest of his gang wanted to whitewash the dirty deeds of the former Nazi. And he said “let bygones be bygones”. And he contributed $4 billion to build up again the Bonn government.

 

So it’s not their money, it’s American taxpayer pay the money. Is it right?

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr Lipman.

 

Caller 2: Wait a minute, I’m not finished yet. You got to listen. I listen to you. Because I listen to your story, which is full of lies. And I’m surprised that the jew that is a well capable man and that he converse with you. Because listen, I said to Mr. Bell, There is four brothers, four characters. Evil man, evil man, right or wrong. You still tell you that you’re wrong. So why they debate with you? You’re not an official capacity. You’re not an official capacity from the Arabs or from the Germans. What right have you got to speak in the name of the Arabs or the Germans or anybody else?

 

[10:12]

 

Ernst Zundel: That’s why you don’t like to talk to me. I’m just a goy.

 

Caller 2: I beg your pardon?

 

Ernst Zundel: You don’t like the other chap to even converse with this fantastic goy.

 

Caller 2: What goy? Anyway, go on. This language is French to me.

 

Ernst Zundel: You don’t speak Yiddish?

 

Caller 2: I speak Yiddish, yes. Goy is Hebrew. Goy means if you know Hebrew, goy means a nation, it’s not an individual. And he don’t even know the interpretation of goy. You don’t even know the interpretation of goyim.

 

Hello, Wait a minute. Listen, big shot. Goyim is plural, means nation. Goy means one race.

 

Ernst Zundel: And who is referred to usually as goyim?

 

Caller 2: I beg your pardon?

 

Ernst Zundel: Who is usually referred to as goyim?

 

Caller 2: They referred goyim. Because these people that say goy, they are ignorant. They don’t know what they’re talking about. Because goy means a race, one, a nation, I mean. And goyim is plural. So they don’t know. You just inquire if I’m in the wrong, I’ll give anything. You see?

 

Ernst Zundel: Right. Go on.

 

Caller 2: And number one, and we don’t use such language as “dirty jews” or any or anything else. When we. In our scriptures, if you want to know it’s written, when we go to the synagogue, we say:

 

“My Lord, forgive us all our sins. And also to those who live among us. Strangers that live among us.”

 

In other words, we pray for the non-jews too.

 

And as far as persecution is concerned, no jew persecuted yet a non-jew. It’s in history. And we were persecuted for 2,000 years.

 

And let me tell you one thing. I said sometimes I speak French. It’s [words unclear] English. Wait a minute, wait a minute. Give me a chance.

 

Ernst Zundel: I think the Old testament.

 

Caller 2: No, no, no! I want to prove my point that the worst jew, the worst jew, which is called Judas Ishkariot, had a conscience. And when betrayed Jesus Christ, he gave him the kiss of death. His conscious part of him. And he hanged himself. And I never seen non-jew that is conscious of him by attacking a jew, he shall hang himself. I never seen yet.

 

I said this to French people many times. But I’m French. I live with French more than the jews. If I speak French just as fluent as Yiddish.

 

Ernst Zundel: Are we a bit far off the point, don’t you think?

 

Caller 2: Go ahead. No, no, This is a good point. Pardon me. Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. I’ll listen to you. Then ask me question.

 

Ernst Zundel: No. You guys want to repeat all my arguments and call me and find out that I was a real liar and spreader of poison?

 

Caller 2: Yeah. I prove it to you and I mean it. If I said the word liar, it’s too mild. But I wouldn’t use any more of this word. I’ll debate with you like man to man. I’ll debate with you like man to man without any insults anymore.

 

Ernst Zundel: Would you say I’m maybe a super liar?

 

Caller 2: I beg your pardon?

 

Ernst Zundel: Maybe I’m a super liar.

 

Caller 2: Well, even this is mild.

 

Ernst Zundel: Oh, well, maybe we can find some other adjectives.

 

Caller 2: Yeah. Anyway. No, no, don’t worry. You’re a coward because when the man put you to the wall, cornered you last time, you ran away because you couldn’t take it.

 

Ernst Zundel: When was that?

 

Caller 2: That was two, three nights ago.

 

Ernst Zundel: Was the same man I spoke to?

 

Caller 2: The same man you spoke to? Yeah. He cornered you and you ran away and then you came back.

 

Ernst Zundel: The same man that I spoke to tonight for one hour that hung up on me!

 

Caller 2: No, no, no, no! You spoke tonight to the jewish family is well eloquent, but you’re still not acquainted well, with jewish history and world history.

 

Host: Right. That’s why I got you on the line, sir.

 

Now if we can dispense with personalities. You have accused the man of being a Nazi and of spreading poison. And you can’t for the life of you see why I permit it on the program. You will have to give me an example of a lie that amounts to spreading poison.

 

Caller 2: Yeah, I’ll give it to you.

 

Host: Good.

 

[13:48]

 

 

Caller 2: Of course, I’ll give it plenty. I got it in my [word unclear] my dear man, I got in my [word unclear].

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay.

 

Caller 2: And then here I give you the first example.

 

First of all, he said that the jews always lived with the Arabs. And first in harmony all the time, the Semite Arabs, I mean. And Palestine around there in the Middle East. The jews were always persecuted by the Arabs in Casablanca they had no right to walk on the sidewalk. Just like the negro had no right to walk in Alabama. Exactly the same thing for the last, 2,000 years! People in Casablanca lived in a ghetto and they couldn’t go out and they couldn’t show their faces, number one.

 

Ernst Zundel: But I didn’t say it’s the same.

 

Caller 2: No, no, no, no! You said once before. Not tonight. You said before the jews lived well with the Arabs. And I know history. You don’t know my history, but I know your history, my friend.

 

Ernst Zundel: I never said that.

 

Caller 2: Yeah, you said it last time. I’m not speaking tonight. And many Arabs made the statement that the jews never fought with the Arabs before. They lived in harmony, they understood each other, they were brotherly till the zionism came. I’m not a Zionist. I never will be a Zionist. I’m a jew.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. Lipman, why not.

 

Caller 2: What?

 

Ernst Zundel: What are the points that you differ with zionism?

 

Caller 2: What are the points differ what?

 

Ernst Zundel: Can you give us points where you differ with zionism?

 

Caller 2: Speak louder. I can’t hear good.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr Lipman.

 

Caller 2: I beg your pardon?

 

Ernst Zundel: Why would you not be a Zionist?

 

Caller 2: Why?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yeah.

 

Caller 2: Because theoretically I don’t agree with them.

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, in other words, you wouldn’t say that the idea of zionism to found a jewish homeland in Palestine, …

 

Caller 2: Yes.

 

Ernst Zundel: Doesn’t please you?

 

Caller 2: Yeah. It doesn’t mean to say that I’m a Zionist, because if jews have to have a home. First, I’m a Canadian and first, the 6 million jews are Americans, they’re not Zionist. Not all of them are Zionists. If they’re Zionist, some of them is their business. But I’m not. I’m speaking myself.

 

Ernst Zundel: Yeah, but listen, I’m very interested.

 

Caller 2: Yes, yeah, I’ll do to you. I’ll give it to you.

 

Ernst Zundel: Very good.

 

Caller 2: Well, all right. If Mr. Bell permit a time, I’ll give it to you as much as you want.

 

Host: Well, you have seven minutes, sir.

 

Caller 2: Okay, then listen. I made a statement that if I’m not mistaken to Mr. Bell that we jews in Europe before the Hitler Holocaust, before the Nazis tried to spit their dirt in the world, we jews fought zionism with all our might in the street because we find it impractical! We said that we live in Europe 10,050 years. We have more right to demand our rights in Europe and live there than to the rights on Palestine. Right? Listen to this. Just a moment. I’ll give it to you. This story. We had a jewish organization which is called Bund.

 

Ernst Zundel: Oh yes, I know about this.

 

Caller 2: Yeah, you know everything. Hey, you’re a real Nazi! You know all the information!

 

Host: Sir, you asked him if he knew. He said yes, he knew!

 

Caller 2: I beg your pardon?

 

Host: I said you asked him if he was aware of a certain fact. He admitted to being aware of the fact.

 

[16:46]

 

 

Caller 2: Okay.

 

Anyway, I’m hearing the Nazi organization, the jewish bund, which is a socialistic organization, they didn’t believe that the sand of Palestine shall be recultivated. And they said we have no right to think of Palestine because it’s impractical. Because the jews are living at their roots are in Europe. They live 10,050 years. And we shall try to fight our best for the rights of the jews which they entitled to.

 

Host: Which agrees with what the caller number one read from the encyclopedia. So I would assume that the encyclopedia is basically Zionist in its thinking.

 

Caller 2: I beg your pardon? I didn’t hear that.

 

Host: Did you hear me caller number one?

 

Ernst Zundel: I did.

 

Host: Would you agree with that?

 

Caller 2: Did you repeat that? I didn’t hear all this conversation tonight.

 

Host: Well, what you just said is similar to what the caller number one read from a Jewish Encyclopedia.

 

Caller 2: What do you read?

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, you will listen.

 

Host: Well, what you said, sir, basically what you said is what he read from the encyclopedia. So I am suggesting that because the other gentleman questioned the encyclopedia, I am suggesting that conceivably it is a Zionist publication.

 

Ernst Zundel: I suppose so.

 

Host: Would you say that does sound reasonable to you, number one?

 

Ernst Zundel: Not really, no. I don’t think that the Jewish Encyclopedia that I’m referring to is a Zionist publication.

 

Host: Well, curiously, it’s, …

 

Ernst Zundel: Let’s say, it saying the same thing.

 

Host: I shouldn’t have said that. I should have said, as I phrased it the first time Zionist in its, …

 

Caller 2: Mr. Bell, let me explain, please. Mr. Bell.

 

Host: Yeah, okay, go ahead.

 

Caller 2: I know my history well and I can explain it. And even a man who is 100% against the jews, you cannot refute my argument because the truth speaks for itself. You can expose, you cannot expose the truth! You can expose a lie.

 

Host: Right? Well, again, that’s why I brought you on the line because you know, we have had a number of discussions based on jewish history. And you do know jewish history.

 

Caller 2: I’ve had many conversations with ardent jew baiters in Quebec City. And I spoke with a man two and a half hours and in his hotel, and there was pleasant 20 Frenchmen. And he spoke the same language as Hitler and I exposed out of him and the Frenchman, which is a wonderful people. The moment he sees the truth, he came over. And he slapped him in the back and he said to him, you lost your discussion because the jew had the best of you! You see.

 

Ernst Zundel: Listen.

 

Caller 2: Hello.

 

Ernst Zundel: I just would like to find out. You said before that the jews had lived in Europe for 10,050 years.

 

Caller 2: Yes.

 

[19:26]

 

Caller 2: Not 10,050 years. Thousand and fifty. Not 10,000.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay.

 

Caller 2: If you know history, man!

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, I wonder if it is your, …

 

Caller 2: I wish you should know your history as I know! You don’t know your history. You just try to, …

 

Host: Well, I suggested that we not engage in personalities. We try to stick to the facts. So if you’ll proceed sir, …

 

Caller 2: I want to speak about the bund.

 

Host: Yeah, well the seven minutes you had is now three minutes.

 

Caller 2: Well, I don’t know. What can I do? Listen, you gave him so much time. You don’t give me time, Mr. Bell.

 

Host: I’m giving you time to make your case. But you are wasting all of your time by engaging in personalities.

 

Caller 2: You spend so much time to give him and you don’t give me time to explain to refute the argument.

 

Host: Well, you are one of many callers who are calling in to refute the argument. But you’re wasting your time with personality.

 

Caller 2: I’m not talking out of my people either. Like the rabbis, the rabbi. The rabbis, the religious rabbi were against Palestine too before it the holocaust of Hitler. Because they, from religious point of view, they believe that Messiah has to come. And they [word unclear] evil freedom. And the [word unclear] jew didn’t believe in that. He believed that we had to free ourselves with our own capability and with our own power.

 

And that’s why they fought those Zionists in the streets of Warsaw, in the streets of other places where jews live. That we shall fight for our rights in Europe. But here came Hitler and many Hitlers. He said after we lived in Europe 1,050 years, we are fifth class citizens and they try to destroy us. And we had to leave against our own will. So every jew, even a non-zionist like me, I’m a non-zionist. I came to convince that every jew, a jew is supposed to have a home. And where he lives, if he hasn’t got a home, his place is in Israel. And if he’s got a home in Canada, he has no business to think of Israel. Except, shall I say spiritually and financially he could help and morally. But as far as physically, it’s got nothing in common with Israel. You hear me?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, I hear you.

 

Caller 2: I beg your pardon?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, I hear you very loud and clear, sir.

 

Caller 2: You hear me?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes.

 

[21:43]

 

 

Caller 2: Okay. So it shows you that a man like me that was against Zionist and yet many times debates in Europe against zionism and we.

 

And today I’m 100% backing Israel because every jew that knows after what we went through. Wait a minute. Besides that, I want., … This is not the point. I want the proof, facts, never mind statistics. You, I want to [words unclear] from the subject. The compensation that the Germans give these murderers that murdered 6 million jews. I don’t mean the German people, the German rulers. I don’t accuse the German people. I accuse the German ruler.s These German rulers and that killed the people. They paid their [word unclear]. They took away 10 times, 10 times 100 times as much as they give. And what they give, they give you one cent of their own. That was American taxpayers money. Because Eisenhower and the rest of the American people, I mean that’s the American rulers, not the people, wanted to whitewash their crime and to give them asylum and those that will run away from there and to give them as anti-[word unclear] against whatever political views they have. And they wanted to keep them in line to whitewash their faces. Because you cannot whitewash a criminal! Every criminal is a criminal!

 

Ernst Zundel: What crimes did Eisenhower commit against jews?

 

Caller 2: When he said “let bygones be bygones”. When he’s seen himself what happened in Belsenberg, he see with his own eyes the way the jews, … The English bulldozers were cleaned away to their grave because they couldn’t come near to them. They had to use bulldozers. And he had the nerve, the audacity to say that bygones be bygones after what he’s seen. That no human being can finish him like that, what he’s seen.

 

Ernst Zundel: And for that statement he paid $4 billion American dollars. Right?

 

Caller 1: And not him alone! The only paying behind them, the rulers, not the American people. The American people, the taxpayers pay. But he forced them to pay $4 billion to build out the Germany. Isn’t it seen that Germany has to lend money now to Canada. And she was defeated by us.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr Lipman, who was the gang behind Eisenhower?

 

Caller 2: What was the gang?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yeah.

 

Caller 2: All these Republican wheelers and dealers. All these Republican wheelers and dealers. And the same time applies not only the American wheelers and dealers. Applies to the Canadian wheelers and dealers. Applies to the English wheelers and dealers. I’m not speaking of people, the people are innocent. The jews, the Arabs are innocent. The English are innocent. The Americans are innocent. They are suckers!

 

Ernst Zundel: Are the German innocent?

 

Caller 2: The Germans are innocent to a certain extent. But one thing I say the Germans never express themselves to the, at least not all them are guilty. How shall I say morally they are guilty, but not physically. Because not everyone participates in the murder of the jews. It’s stupid to say that! But at least they should have collective shame. They didn’t even express collective shame. I didn’t see a German yet to bow his head and say:

 

“We are sorry what happened to the jews!”

 

They still stick to their own.

 

[24:54]

 

 

Host: Gentlemen, we’re a couple of minutes late with the 2 o’clock news and we have to break for it now.

 

Caller 2: Hey, anyway, listen. Don’t allow this poison to be spread. Let him go and hang himself like Ribbentrop!

 

Host: Well, sir, you’ve been on for some time and you still haven’t given us an example of poison.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. Roberts.

 

Host: Well, [chuckling] he hung up on us again. Since the program as of next Monday starts running around 9:00. Complete idiot or something. I fail to see why I am being accused of being anti-Israeli. The caller on the line right now has stated a time or two that he is not anti-Israeli.

 

Ernst Zundel: Not at all Mr. Bell. I have no reason for anti-Israeli. Like in every other subject you must look at all sides in as unemotionally as possible. Now I know Mr. Lipman, I have heard of him. I also have read. I read all the jewish papers. I know what they are saying. I understand that they are very much involved. And I deplore the bloodshed in Israel. I deplore the terrorist raids against Israel. That’s why I suggested a very humble suggestion. I have stressed that and stressed it again. Possibly this might prove a way out. But I’m definitely not anti-Israeli! And everybody that knows me at university and has read my political party program when I was running for the Liberal Party, everybody knows. And I am a card carrying member of the Liberal Party. I am not, as one the first caller suggested, a neo-Nazi, or a Nazi as the second caller suggested. I don’t see where name calling gets us. If I am something. I am a young man that will have to live on this planet for a good long time. I hope 40, 50 years. And so my two sons that they are born in Canada by a Canadian mother.

 

So you see, all I am saying is I don’t want the world to blow up. So as a young man, a student at University of Political Science, I’m saying, have I maybe got an original thought? Is that a crime? I don’t want to offend anybody or hurt anybody. I’m just making this as a I hope a legitimate suggestion. Now if some of my figures are wrong, then I am sorry. I will certainly call these people back and I will certainly tomorrow call the Israeli consulate and find out what they have to say.

 

Host: Right, good. I’m glad you committed yourself to that.

 

Ernst Zundel: I definitely will do that.

 

Host: Fine. Would you say standby please and on CKGM. Good morning, sir.

 

Caller 3: [words unclear] I’ll hang up.

 

Host: Pardon?

 

Caller 3: [word unclear]

 

Host: Yeah, go right ahead, sir.

 

Caller 3: An upline show. I’m not by CKGS, the forum of healthy controversy and exchange of opinion.

 

Host: That’s true.

 

Caller 3: Yes. About two hours ago I opened the radio. I listened to some enormous deliberate distortions of facts! So that I was unable to go to sleep.

 

Actually I should have been in bed now because I had moved [word unclear] very early in the morning. But I couldn’t go to sleep. It’s a person whom I heard already a few times. In fact a few weeks ago he called Mr. David Bassett. As I answered later. He started to throw in figures like $14 billion. And he said that the figures were supplied by the German consulate.

 

Of course this is a lie! And after Geobbel’s said:

 

“Repeat a lie a thousand times and people will believe it!”

 

It’s such a big lie! I don’t know because he doesn’t seem ignorant because I don’t know if he realizes what $14 billion means. Here I have the figures in the latest. The New Middle East issue of December. It’s a monthly issue. A monthly paper issued in London. And they give the figures between. It’s a study about Israeli economy and they give the capital in different tables. And one table I see capital import sby major [word unclear]. From 1950 to 1967, 17 years German personal institutions $1, 190,000. German reparation. It just means to the government.

 

Host: I assume you mean 1,019,000,000.

 

Caller 3:1, 190,000,000. Yes.

 

Host: Yeah.

 

Caller 3: German reparation means to the government, [word unclear] which gives a total of over $1, 900,000,000, from 1950 to 1967. This is one fact. And this gentleman started to come with a figure like 15 billion.

 

And then he changed. He said maybe 7 billion. And then I don’t know.

 

[30:27]

 

 

Caller 4: (female) [garbled voice] What happened to the jews. It doesn’t matter whether it’s jews. Any nationality. It’s hard. It’s trans to me shaking. And you said you don’t give a damn. Those words are you in my ears. And the doctors and nurses that hurt you and shame on you’re not a nice man. You’re a nervous man. You’re crazy! You’re not just saying the clay. You’re just soft. Good relaxing voice in the middle of the night. People like to hear a nice soft voice so we get.

 

Host: Well, they can listen to Red Gail, ma’am. He’s got a nice soft voice.

 

Caller 4: [garbled] They told me that you’re cold one day. Yes. You want to even send a meter down for you’re a nervous. Look, you’re not for this job. Get out the way and give the job to Mr. Lagock or Mr. McCray or all these nice boys who have a little bit of heart and knowledge of everything. You are cruel, man! Very cruel. And you did say that you don’t give a damn what happened to those poor people in the ovens. And you know it! You and your passions are. You have any. And goodbye. Okay.

 

Host: So I can’t know who she is. Not only do I know who she is, I know she’s been here longer. Because when we taped the call yesterday, and when we taped the threats she’s made against my life, it was compared with another tape when I was not even here.

 

But she also threatened Hank [word unclear] ’s life. And we have a tape of that also.

 

So I suggest to the ladies and if you want me to prove who you are, call back. I’ll tell you off the air who you are because we. There’s a lot of people who know you and have been calling us off the air, suggesting that no matter what you say, you’re not dangerous. But let me put it this way. If there’s another threat of the nature that you have made through Hank and to make myself, I’ll do everything in my power to have you committed.

 

Nightline.

 

Caller 5: Hello, Mr. Bell?

 

Host: Yeah. Nightline.

 

Caller 5: Hello.

 

Host: Yes, Right. Nightline.

 

Caller 5: Is that Nightline?

 

Host: It is.

 

Caller 5: Is that you, Robert Bell?

 

Host: Yes, it is.

 

Caller 5: Okay. I’d like to know what the hell the conflict about anti-semitism was.

 

Host: Well, it’s all starting. Started with the, …

 

Caller 5: Let me make myself a little clearer. I am the Anno Automata for sale.

 

Host: Oh, yeah, yeah.

 

Caller 5: Now, I listen to the two babes yelling at each other and you played a kind of neutral role. Now, where do you stand?

 

Host: Where do I stand at? One was attacking me, one was defending me. I guess I stand with the one who defends me. [chuckling]

 

Caller 5: I’m not interested in whether they attacked or defended. But did anybody have some right to say what they said?

 

Host: No.

 

Caller 5: Come on, you can do a little better than that!

 

Host: Well, you asked if they had a right to say what they said. They have a right to say what they want. Of course. Assume you mean say, …

 

Caller 5: I mean, did they reflect something you’ve done in the last couple of days or said in the last couple of days, pro-or anti?

 

Host: No. What was referred to? I answered the charge. The charge was that I said I did not give a damn. What I said was during the course of a hysterical conversation where the lady was screaming and hollering at me.

 

Caller 5: Keep the conversation out of it. But what is your feeling?

 

Host: My feeling about what, sir?

 

Caller 5: I think the charge was anti-semitism and pro-semitism or what?

 

Host: That’s right. Yes. Huh. Do you know what anti-semitism indicates?

 

Caller 5: All right, you tell me. What does it indicate?

 

[34:15]

 

 

Host: Well, for one thing, a Semite is descended from Shem. So this. This includes Arabs and Israelis.

 

Caller 5: Yeah, they were blood tests, as I recall.

 

Host: That’s right. They’re all Semites.

 

Caller 5: Right.

 

Host: Now, in the context that most people use it, which is incorrect, anti-semitism denotes anti-jewishness.

 

Caller 5: Well, yeah, but it’s sort of in a practical sense that you can accuse [word unclear] ’s at pragmatic. It sort of is the way it works. Right.

 

Host: Right.

 

Caller 5: Okay. Now let’s go back to what I listened to. These two broads, two young ladies that were talking to you. I couldn’t figure out what the hell is happening because I tuned in a little late and I haven’t listened to program for the last couple of days.

 

Host: Well, one called me a Hitler and one said I wasn’t.

 

Caller 5: Well, what the hell is the real score?

 

Host: Well, we’ve been dealing with the Middle East situation.

 

Caller 5: Right. And?

 

Host: And there are Arabs who say I am anti-Arab, and there are Arabs who say I am pro-Arab. There are jews who say I’m anti-Israeli, and there are jews who say I am pro-Israeli.

 

Caller 5: I don’t give a damn what you are! I’d rather you told me what you are!

 

Host: Well, [chuckling] if you don’t give a damn what I am, that doesn’t follow. Are you trying to ascertain with whom my sympathies lie in the Middle East dispute?

 

Caller 5: No, no, the point isn’t. I’ll correct myself. I didn’t mean to say. I don’t give a damn what you are. What I really meant to say was I want you to tell me what you think.

 

Host: I think, you’re talking about the Middle East situation?

 

Caller 5: That’s what you told me you were talking about.

 

Host: Right now there is a state, a Republic called Israel, in that area.

 

Caller 5: Was established in 1948.

 

Host: Right.

 

Caller 5: By the United Nations.

 

Host: Right.

 

Caller 5: And I’m sorry, go ahead.

 

Host: Anyway, the state is in existence. The Arab world does not recognize the existence of this state.

 

Caller 5: Well, they don’t do it. Well, they sort of recognize it, but they don’t recognize it from a political point of view.

 

Host: Right. My position is it is there. To me it exists. I recognize it. There will never be a relaxing of the state of hostility until the Arab world accepts the existence. There are many reasons why they do not accept the existence.

 

Caller 5: I follow you. Go ahead.

 

[36:47]

 

 

Host: Now in allowing Arabs to come on the line or anyone to come on the line and explain the other position, I opened myself to being charged with being anti-Israeli. The term has been anti-semitism and second Hitler and so on and so forth.

 

Caller 5: Wow! Second Hitler. You have a mustache.

 

Host: No, I don’t.

 

Caller 5: Okay. [chuckling] And you’re not a second Hitler. No. But have you made any pronouncements that have made these broads talk the way they do?

 

Host: No. Except in a private conversation with the hysterical one.

 

Caller 5: You shouldn’t have had a private, …

 

Host: I know I shouldn’t have!

 

Caller 5: This is the first place., …

 

Host: And I rarely break that rule! I rarely talk to anybody except on the air. And whenever I do, I’ve done it twice. [chuckling] It’s bad news.

 

But anyway, I did, fortunately, because of the equipment here. Taken the precaution of taping, you know,. So and also I taped her threats against my life and so on so forth.

 

Caller 5: [word unclear] this provocative conversation that set me up to this hour. My wife is listening here we have seen it.

 

[buzzer sounds]

 

Mr. Bell?

 

Host: Yeah.

 

Caller 5: When and if I hear you saying something wrong, I’ll get on and be even more malicious than these young ladies can be. Will you tell them to control their emotions and bring a little bit of rationalization or rationale to their conversation? I’m the guy who told you a couple of weeks ago that you are too patient with some of these idiots. Remember the day, …

 

Host: I don’t remember the conversation, but I do remember, …

 

Caller 5: I remember listening about five minutes later and some drunken old gal got on and she said:

 

“Well that pseudo intellectual comes on and tells us to be rational.”

 

 

Remember that?

 

Host: Yeah, vaguely.

 

Caller 5: Okay, that’s where I remember. No, but kidding aside, I’d like to hear your position on it. If there is a position or if you have a position and you’re going to be attacked no matter what your position.

 

Host: True, I’m in the position, the historical position of the jews who I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t but I have stated that I am basically., … Pardon?

 

Caller 5: I said being a jew, I know what the name of the game is.

 

Host: Ah.

 

Caller 5: Go ahead.

 

Host: Anyway, I have said that, as with most of the Western world, my sympathies are with the jews in this matter. In other words, I would be more, …

 

[39:24]

 

 

Caller 5: I’m not even sure I am a Democrat sympathetic to the jews. I think the Arabs have got a you know, they got a lot of problems. And I’m being facetious at the moment. But not completely because I think there are a lot of poor people, poor uneducated people that could benefit by what Israel could contribute to the Middle East. Not looking at something, not looking at it from a Westerner point of view, but just looking at it from the point of view of what fits to the Middle East. I think that the jews that have come there, who are mostly Europeans, highly educated, highly sophisticated, you know, technologically skillful, they could, you know, remake the goddamn Arab world and they’re ready to do it! I don’t mean every one of them. I’m not talking about orthodox religion, I’m talking about the people who would do it!

 

And I think that that the whole damn Middle East has become a boiling pot for western both politics and Soviet, US deal and they’ve lost sight. And guys like Nasser and maybe some of the jewish leaders too, have lost sight of the fact that if they want to make something good for their people, which is presumably what we’re all born to do, they’ve got to stop playing games, stop worrying about whether Mr. [word unclear] is an anti-semite because I don’t give a damn if he is, but if you are, don’t walk across the street with me at the same time, [host chuckled] stop giggling! I think if they., …

 

Host: That was a chuckle, sir.

 

Caller 5: Pardon?

 

Host: That was a chuckle.

 

Caller 5: I don’t know. You might have burped. I think the point is that if we really care about the Middle East for the Middle East sake, then we ought to tell the Arabs, and I think the jews have been trying to do that they don’t always do it very carefully. But then again, the gentile world hasn’t done it very gently all the time either.

 

If you want to cooperate. Cooperate. You want to be a bunch of silly [buzzer]. You know, just. Did I hear any deep beats?

 

Host: I don’t know what he’s doing in there.

 

Caller 5: Something to either.

 

Host: I think he may be softening your conversation a bit. It’s a little colorful.

 

Caller 5: Who’s the he?

 

Host: Pardon?

 

Caller 5: I said who’s the he?

 

Host: My engineer.

 

Caller 5: I thought it was a censor. No, I think if you want to tell him, keep on with your own idiocy and keep up this nonsense in this part of the world, fine. I think the jews by any right have a right to Israel. And it’s debatable, but they are there and they’re a force for good so long as the Arab world wants to accept them. The Arab world wants to [word unclear] you on any kind of silly nonsense like filthy punk termite Carmichael that Canadians don’t own Canada because the Eskimos was here first and we are in a democracy because the Indians owned it first. Then you can listen to these guys and they’re right up to a point, and they’re seeing a certain amount of social injustice. But deep down, Israel the jews, have a right to that land on any international basis. And they proved it by virtue of their skill. And they could make the Arab lands richer, healthier.

 

Now their emotionalism is going to say:

 

“We don’t want the jews, we want our land back. We want to go back to the 17th century.”

 

Then, okay, they have a right to do that they have a right to do as Arabs, as Nasser did in 1968, 67, remember?

 

Host: Yes.

 

[44:07]

 

 

Caller 5: He said on Sunday:

 

“We’ll throw them into the ocean!”

 

The jew said:

 

“Look, if we’re going to be thrown into the ocean, like Mr, we’re not going to let you do that. We’re going to do the best we can to stop you.”

 

So then the rest of the world said:

 

“The jews were the aggressors.”

 

Because they sort of stopped the guy that would throw them into the ocean from throwing them to the ocean. Mr Bell, do you have anything to contribute?

 

Host: No. You’re saying, in effect what has been said over the past few days. And I have said over and over again, you know, there are three sides to the story. There’s the Arab side, there’s the Israeli side, and then there’s the truth! Because the Israelis are blinded on one side, the Arabs are blinded on one side. And you cannot be objective over an issue like this. It’s impossible! This is why it is fairly obvious that, at least it should be fairly obvious that I am. You know, if I have to be one or the other. I’m basically pro-Israeli. However, …

 

Caller 5: … Myself., … Problem.

 

Host: No, but that’s just my personal feeling.

 

Caller 5: But I gotta wait and that’s my problem. Now you go ahead.

 

Host: Yeah. Now, I think it cannot be objective. That does not preclude your being fair. And that is what I try to do, functioning on this program. I try to be fair.

 

In other words, there are these sides to be heard. And of course, because it’s an emotional issue and you cannot be objective about it. And I don’t expect anyone to be objective about it, I open for myself to incredible criticizm and threats against my life and so on and so forth.

 

Caller 5: Why don’t you expect anybody to be objective about it?

 

Host: I don’t see how it’s possible.

 

Caller 5: Why?

 

Host: Because it is such a highly charged emotional issue.

 

Caller 5: Pardon?

 

Host: Because it is such a highly charged emotional issue on both sides.

 

Caller 5: [buzzer sounds] Highly emotional? The French-Canadian separatism problem, the problem of the atom bomb, the problem of communism, of separatism, of everything. These are all highly emotional issues! No, I think you’re right. Most people are not capable of being objective. Including me and maybe you. I’m not including you because that’s your prerogative. But I don’t think it’s valid. Can’t be reasonably objective.

 

Host: Right. When I say, you know, ideally, objectivism or to be objective, it would be an ideal way to deal with it. But because it is unlikely, I say that there is no reason why you shouldn’t be fair.

 

Caller 5: Fair?

 

Host: I’m using that in place of the objectivity that you could use in reacting to another issue. In this particular type of issue, as I say, objectivity is unlikely. Are you open to taking a call, sir?

 

Caller 5: Pardon?

 

Host: Are you open to taking a call?

 

Caller 5: I’ll take any calls at all!

 

Host: Go right ahead.

 

Caller 1: (female) Good evening.

 

Host: Good evening.

 

Caller 1: May I please speak to the gentleman who’s on with you now?

 

Host: Yes, go ahead.

 

Caller 1: Listen, Mr, I don’t know your name, but anyway, Mr Bell hasn’t been leveling with you at all!

 

Caller 5: Hello here. Would you talk a little louder?

 

Caller 1: Right. Mr. Bell hasn’t been leveling with you at all! Did you hear the night line last night? From 12 o’clock till 5 o’clock this morning?

 

Caller 5: Oh, dear! I Was busy sleeping, I think.

 

Caller 1: Well, let me. And it was obvious to everybody who was listening. It took a few hours, he [words unclear] that this man was upsetting every jewish person in Montreal.

 

Caller 5: Now, baby doll, he wasn’t upsetting me.

 

Caller 1: Well, he wasn’t upsetting you?

 

Caller 5: No, I wasn’t listening to him then.

 

Caller 1: He was upsetting me.

 

Caller 5: Okay, I’m sorry if he upset you. What did he do to you, [word unclear] idiot?

 

Caller 1: This neo-Nazi carried on for five hours!

 

Caller 5: What did he say?

 

Caller 1: He spoke all sorts of nonsense! We had very articulate jewish people on the line. We had very hysterical people on the line, people who had lost all their relations.

 

Caller 5: Okay, but what did Mr. Bell do?

 

Caller 1: Mr. Bell was absolutely neutral if he had anything to do. He gave the other chap all the time. He gave some people seven minutes. He gave some people a little longer.

 

Caller 5: I hear. Would you hold on for a minute? Okay. Mr Bell?

 

Host: Yeah.

 

Caller 5: You there?

 

Host: I am.

 

Caller 5: Did you do that?

 

Host: No, I did not. The gentleman was on the line, but in terms of time, my time and his time put together did not anywhere near equal the time in opposition, which, in effect was the jewish side.

 

Caller 1: He kept the man on five hours!

 

Host: Madam, I’m sorry. The jewish callers kept him on.

 

Caller 1: Mr Bell there were two callers. You gave them seven minutes, even then if they came back. I tried to get the line for five solid hours!

 

Host: Right. Now. When you add up all what we’ll call the jewish time and put it, let’s say, against the caller and my time and the news, you’ll find that the jewish callers had proportionately more time.

 

Now, I did not keep him on. The callers kept him on.

 

Caller 1: He kept me on the air for five hours with my position and [word unclear] beat the Arab people, I have no issue with Arabs coming on the line and explaining their side.

 

[49:52]

 

 

Host: Madam, when you called up, you want to talk to this gentleman, and I said:

 

“That’s fine.”

 

Now, if somebody calls up and wants to talk to you, that’s fine, too. You can hang on if you don’t object to taking their calls.

 

Caller 1: But I wanted to tell this gentleman that you were not telling him what went on last night, keeping him [words unclear] natural offender.

 

Caller 5: Dear, you listen to me for a minute. I didn’t listen to the conversation last night.

 

Caller 1: But I’m telling you I’m not, …

 

Caller 5: Hey, dear, I heard you and I got the message. Bell must be a rotten. Mr. Bell, you listening?

 

Host: Yeah.

 

Caller 5: Well, you must be kind of some kind of pervert! But he also is a very confident man that’s handling this kind of job. Are you listening, dear?

 

Caller 1: Yes.

 

Caller 5: Maybe from time to time, this kind of job is a battle. So don’t attack him until he tells you he’s an anti-semite.

 

[sound cut out]

 

Host: I mention to you that we are undergoing some technical difficulties. I have three engineers and they’re working on it. So you will be cutting out from time to time? Possibly. It’s unfortunate, but that’s where it has to be for the moment.

 

Caller 1: Is that Mr. Bell speaking?

 

Host: Yeah.

 

Caller 2: (female) I am the third party, Mr. Bell, and I would appreciate very much. Even if it’s off the air, I would appreciate to speak to that gentleman and, …

 

Caller 5: And Just a minute, dear.

 

Caller 2: Is it possible?

 

Host: Well, you’re talking to him now, ma’am.

 

Caller 2: Thank you.

 

Caller 5: Mr. Bell.

 

Host: Yes, sir.

 

Caller 5: Okay. I’m Hope, Chief Charity. And I said you’re Faith, …

 

Caller 2: Sir.

 

Host: So we have Faith, Hope and Charity on the line.

 

Caller 2: I am a human being. This is what happened. I appreciate the fact that you got, …

 

Caller 5: I wasn’t there and I didn’t look there, …

 

Caller 2: I appreciate the fact that you got out. The fate of the whole situation. I am not going to, … You know what that means?

 

Caller 5: I don’t speak that language. But go ahead, dear.

 

Caller 2: Oh, yes you do.

 

Caller 1: And I know what you mean.

 

Caller 2: You do?

 

Caller 1: Yes, I do.

 

Caller 2: Well, listen, the woman pulled up, …

 

Caller 5: How many women? Mr Bell.

 

Host: Yeah.

 

Caller 5: How many women, …

 

Host: Sir, you’re cutting out. Would you mind repeating what you said?

 

[52:32]

 

 

Caller 2: Hey, I said I appreciate the fact that the judgment got [word unclear] It saved the whole situation because that’s what we need, more brilliant people on the line, not just trusted on. If he’s such a hardened nurse, why listen to the stomach sickness in these days. Why isn’t she nursing? That’s the nurse I’m speaking of now, the gentleman was saying that the two women were young. I am in [word unclear] for the last two weeks, sir. And I heard everything. I heard the Sterling fellow and everybody. And I couldn’t cope with the way that both of the women were attacking Mr. Bell And I faced him. I came to his rescue. I don’t know if he cares to. There was such excitement. Well, why can’t Mr. Bell defend himself? He’s quite capable of defending himself. Oh, are you the lady? I’m the lady. Are you still the you call yourself a lady too? I’m not yelling at. I came on to speak to the gentlemen, and to Mr. Bell. I want to have a full weight.

 

Caller 1: [words unclear]

 

Caller 2: You’re not saying anything else, but the same thing all over again.

 

Caller 1: Please believe me. You didn’t believe me that I am jewish. I want to tell you I had more friends than you will ever have and I never had any misunderstanding with any one of them.

 

Caller 2: Mr. Bell, I came on. And you called me an anti-semite.

 

Host: All right, well, just moment. Let’s take space for a second. Go ahead.

 

Caller 5: Faith, faithful and charity.

 

Caller 2: Mr Bell, I came onto the air.

 

Host: Yeah.

 

Caller 2: To the gentleman, may I have my chance? May this lady please come on later.

 

Caller 1: Yeah, I’ll wait.

 

Caller 2: Well, I’ll be the judge of that, ma’am. Just stand by you have been designated Faith, hope and charity. Madam, you are Faith. Go ahead.

 

Caller 2: Now, Mr. Bell, if you knew that you were a upsetting so many people last night for five hours, why didn’t you cut this man? Why didn’t you stop the whole thing?

 

Host: Because upsetting one is no basis for cutting anyone off the air. We’ve had other discussions. I won’t even mention what they are, but they have upset people too.

 

Now, no matter what you talk about, if you’re dealing with an emotional issue, you’re going to upset people. And that just narrows what we, … I don’t want to get into budgie birds and puppies dogs and, …

 

Caller 2: Neither do I Mr Bell. But the whole point is this, that you knew quite well that the jewish people of this city whose relations are in Israel who are going to part of the war are in a panic anyway. You don’t need neo-Nazis to put us into a bigger panic!

 

[55:20]

 

 

Host: Well, you see, you’re accusing someone of being a neo-Nazi. That is your opinion. You are entitled to it. It is not my opinion and I am running the show.

 

Caller 2: Hey, but what about all the dozens of others or [words unclear] and accuse him of being a neo-Nazi too?

 

Host: Well, what about the dozens and dozens of calls that came in not accusing of being a neo-Nazi?

 

Caller 2: Because you really compare the intelligence of the few people who called you up to compliment you and say:

 

“Oh, Mr Bell, we enjoy your show. Carry on. You do the good work.”

 

To these people who came on this articulate woman last night, who gave you the position of Israel to the man who comes on pretty often. Do you know that this particular Nazi, and we probably do know by now, does not get onto Mr. Burns, sir, Mr. Burns says:

 

“I smell this Nazi and he never gets onto that show!”

 

So if Mr. Burns thinks he’s a Nazi, surely you appreciate Mr Burns intelligence? I mean, really, Mr. Bell, there’s something so sadistic about you and this man and this, …

 

Caller 5: Hey, doll, can I interrupt?

 

Host: Yes, sir, go right ahead, Hope.

 

Caller 5: Dear, I haven’t heard a thing and I didn’t listen to the program last night, but I haven’t heard of a thing that Mr. Bell did last night. I was wrong to start [word unclear] some character talk. Did he do anything other than that?

 

Caller 2: Do you want me to answer?

 

Caller 5: Yes, you’re the one that’s caught me.

 

Caller 2: He upset people to such an extent, …

 

Caller 5: No, no, I’m asking you a question here.

 

Caller 2: Yes. This is one of the suggestions he made, that the Israelis should pay the refugees reparation.

 

Caller 5: I think it’s a pretty goddamn [buzzer sounds] I’m all of the, … Go ahead.

 

Caller 2: Would you like the 6 million jews plus the 28 million, 24 million other people to come out and also have to pay the reparation? How do you pay for these human lives?

 

Caller 5: Well, I don’t know how you pay for human lives. And you’re right.

 

Caller 2: And don’t you., …

 

Caller 5: Mr Bell.

 

Host: Yes.

 

Caller 5: Just a minute.

 

Host: Yes.

 

Caller 5: Mr. Bell ought to participate.

 

Caller 2: Mr. Bell does not participate!

 

Caller 5: Now, baby doll, quiet down. Quiet down, …

 

Caller 2: I’m not your baby doll.

 

Caller 5: Well, if you’re not my baby doll. You’re somebody else’s.

 

Caller 2: That’s for sure.

 

Caller 5: Okay, fine. Sure. You got to be somebody’s baby doll. Mr. Bell.

 

Host: Yes, sir.

 

Caller 5: Come on! You, sir, participate.

 

Host: All right. In terms of evaluating the lives lost and the caller was on earlier referred to it as a grisly subject, which it is.

 

Caller 2: [buzzer sounds]

 

Host: On one side with his lawyers and a jewish leader on the other side with his lawyers arrived at a settlement. Let’s say. That was a figure was arrived.

 

Caller 5: In relation to what?

 

Host: In relation to the lives lost in Germany.

 

Caller 5: Okay, all right, now I got the message. Go ahead.

 

Host: Well, this term, rather this figure was based on, as the caller mentioned, the fact that a father is responsible for the upbringing of children up to the age of 21. So then the state took over at that point. In terms of other members of the family logic. It was arrived at in similar logic, let’s say a lawyer’s logic, I guess, for lack of a better term.

 

 

Caller 5: Yeah, I got the message. Go ahead.

 

Host: Well, that is all that I’m saying on that point.

 

Caller 5: What the hell is this broad [word unclear] you up?

 

Host: It’s upsetting the jewish population of Montreal.

 

Caller 2: Well, why is it upsetting the jewish population? They know that’s [word unclear] for no reason.

 

Caller 5: You’re not a baby doll. I know. Okay.

 

Caller 2: Isn’t that awful?

 

Caller 5: No. Okay. It’s not awful!

 

Caller 2: Now, what sort of a remark is that from that woman? Isn’t that awful?

 

Host: Well, let’s listen to the [word unclear] charity. Go ahead. Charity.

 

Caller 2: I mean, this is ridiculous! Wouldn’t like to get on three, four times a day.

 

Host: Okay, now Charity is on the line. Go ahead, Charity.

 

Caller 2: There’s a point of this that it’s a well known fact, or it should be to Mr. Bell.

 

Host: One moment. You’re Faith, you’re Faith.

 

Caller 5: I’m sorry. [word unclear] responsibility. Mr. Bell.

 

Host: One moment, sir. One moment, sir.

 

Caller 4: You know you’ll never change that woman’s mind. She sticks to the same story. I shall tell tomorrow to every one.

 

Caller 2: And I discuss this with Mr. Bell. I don’t want that woman on the earth. I have nothing to do.

 

Caller 4: I can say the same things for you, my dear.

 

Caller 2: But I didn’t call up to talk to you, madam.

 

Caller 4: I didn’t talk to you.

 

Caller 2: I mean, you’re just a false spoke to the wheel.

 

Ernst Zundel: I would like my listeners to realize that all three individuals arguing with one another so vehemently are jews. Faith, Hope and Charity. All three are jews! The debate raged on. Much material was brought out and I would like you to have the opportunity to inform yourself further to these issues. You can obtain material book list from us from Zamistad, 206 Carlton Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Postal code M5A 2L1. Telephone number 416-922-9850. [No longer valid]

 

[01:01:18]

 

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

See Also

top

 

 

 

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 15 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zündel – Oct 12, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 18 with Jürgen Neumann – Nov 2, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 36 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zundel – Mar 22, 2025 – Transcript

Ernst Zundel – Another Voice of Freedom Radio – Why World War II Started – 1994 – Transcript

Ernst Zundel – 1967-68 Radio Shows in Montreal Discussing Israel and Jewish Topics 1 – Transcript

Ernst Zundel – 1967-68 Radio Shows in Montreal Discussing Israel and Jewish Topics 2 – Transcript

 

 

 

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

Ernst Zundel: This is Ernst Christoph Friedrich Zundel. I’m about to share with you what by now is a historical series of interviews, talk shows, tape recorded excerpts of radio shows and reactions to radio shows which I did in Montreal in 1967-68.

 

I used to live in Montreal for nine years amongst French-Canadians. Enjoyed my stay amongst the French-Canadian population immensely. It was a very interesting time for me in that I attended university in Montreal and was very active politically speaking. Sometimes four times a week at different places in churches, businessmen’s clubs, union halls, air cadets, Boy Scouts, schools and so on about political topics, mainly communism, separatism, and of course, my always and ever ready favourite topic, namely the swindle of the 6 million jews.

 

In those days, this was completely new terrain for me, as it was for everybody else. No one in the Western world publicly had discussed this topic very much and it was positively dangerous to one’s health to touch upon this topic.

 

However, I was writing a column in the university student newspaper and gave speeches at the university and so on, and always ready and willing to have an intellectual scrap, or whatever you want to call it.

 

I decided one night that I would like to discuss this particular topic on radio. And it came shortly after the war in 67, the Arab-Israeli war. And the reaction was so fantastic that I decided to tape some of these talk shows. Unfortunately, it would take hours and hours and hours to bring all the tapes that I have. So these here are really excerpts. The moderator of the show was a young English Canadian whom I have never met to this day, certainly only knew from the air, never even spoke in private via the telephone, always only while we were on the air or during commercial breaks. He was about my age, and later on I heard through somebody at the radio station that his father was in fact an RCMP, a Royal Canadian Mounted Police captain.

 

Now, I have no idea if this was the reason why this young man was allowing me so much airtime. It was an absolutely incredible situation in that he did allow me sometimes five hours of often very little interrupted time to expostulate and to expound my outlooks and theories on life. So much so as can be deducted later on from some of the statements made by jewish scholars who are complaining about the amount of airtime that I got.

 

He was a very kind fellow. I thought he was eminently fair. And for the first time I felt that the gentile side, or certainly my side or the German side of this issue got a really good public hearing and a good airing.

 

This issue that we are discussing in the following tape the Arab-Israeli dispute and the German reparations payment was so intensely and intensively discussed that delegations from the Canadian jewish Congress and from the Israeli consulate used to visit the radio station, putting all kinds of pressure on that radio station. And it’s again evident by what the moderator later on is saying when he repeats that he has had death threats and assassination threats, boycott threats and so on.

 

Also it is evident from the reaction of the jewish callers themselves. I would like to draw your attention to the fact of argumentation, how the jewish community of Montreal, both young and old, European and Canadian, male and female, of how they argue, the tactics and the methods that they employ. It is a tremendous lesson to be learnt.

 

All the hate and the vilification that can be mustered against an individual totally unknown to them, except for what is being said on the radio comes through there. You can see the intolerance towards me and towards things German. You can also see how impolite these people are in that they constantly interrupt me in this particular case. And they would do the same with other Gentiles, never to allow us to bring a thought, to develop it and to draw it to a logical conclusion. Constant interruption, constant deflection manoeuvres, constant ridiculing!

 

And another interesting feature of the discussion is obviously always the attack from the jewish side against the individual that is launching some kind of an idea. Never so much as to the content of the idea. Usually the attempt is made to destroy, in effect, the accuser. And I’m called a Nazi, a Neo-Nazi, a German, in the most hateful undertones, and men and women alike. It is very interesting.

 

The man is desperate and asked me during a commercial break to please come to his rescue. This is Mr Bell, the moderator, and to say something nice about the Israelis. Not that I had said anything that wasn’t nice, but he thought I should get him off the hook and get some of the pressure off him by stating my case of what the heck I was really driving at. Because he was being accused on air, off air, by the station manager and by the station employees, many of them who were jewish, of being an anti-semite of the worst kind!

 

And so that young man was desperate. And since he treated me very fairly, I also came out to take the pressure off him with one of my statements about my policy on Israel and so on.

 

Now, when one listens to this whole tape, I want to be specifically reminding you, listen to what happens to statistics when money is discussed. Statistics, sums of money, sums of people and so on. Money and numbers of money and amounts of dollars and amounts of people have nothing to do in the discussion on the airwaves. People get lost, confused! Just listen to the pauses in the argumentation whenever we are discussing different statistical facts and so on. This is a very important point.

 

[09:19]

 

In closing, I will have to point out yet again that the station manager was forced to have flown by a special courier plane every morning the five hour long tapes to the board of broadcast governors at that time in Ottawa, the capital of Canada. And these men would sit there and listen to the argumentation going on because the president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, Dean Maxwell Cohen, had stated in front of a Senate committee at the time that Ernst Zundel was:

 

“Poisoning the air and pitting jew against gentile.”

 

And so on in Canadian society. And the station was under threat to lose its licence. In effect, what happened, the programme was pushed back towards very late at night. The times were changed for the program. Sponsors were lost. This young man, Mr. Bell, in effect was again fired from his job, lost his livelihood and the station closed this particular talk show down!

 

Once again, jewish pressure had succeeded in silencing a voice. Listen to the tapes now.

 

[Start of radio show recording]

 

Ernst Zundel: An inexpensive way for Israel of gaining allies and of undermining Nasser and the other high hats. The $1 billions. This is pretty close to what the war costs currently. New budget came out in Israel and it allocates 37% of the total budget of the state of Israel for defense.

 

Radio Host: Right. Okay, there’s a call on the line now. And I don’t know whether this caller has figures or opinions.

 

Hello?

 

Caller 1: Hello? Hello. Yes, I want to explain something. This man who is talking to you is a German pro-Nazi, you understand? I know him. I don’t understand why you’re so interested in these stories.

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, is there a law against being interested in those stories?

 

Caller 1: I know that you are pro-Nazi German.

 

Ernst Zundel: It’s wonderful how you throw labels around. What are you?

 

You want to declare yourself? What you are?

 

Caller 1: Don’t try to come out and [words unclear] Speak to him. You’re in Canada, you’re not in Germany.

 

Ernst Zundel: I know I’m in Canada, that’s why I’m speaking Over The Airwaves here.

 

Caller 1: No, come on! Here you understand. Go to Adolf [word unclear]. You are pro-Nazi. I know who you are.

 

Ernst Zundel: Yeah, you are pretty rude, sir. Truth hurts doesn’t it?

 

Caller 1: You try to come out to Mr. Bell, but you never have a truth.

 

Ernst Zundel: Very true. I don’t have a chance with Mr. Bell.

 

Caller 1: Right. You are a pro-Nazi. Go to [word unclear] Okay?

 

Ernst Zundel: Maybe it indicates something. Maybe it indicates something.

 

[Caller hangs up]

 

Radio Host: Now we’re dealing right now with some figures that are contrary to figures I have. And we’re getting callers. You have a few calls to take here.

 

Ernst Zundel: Right.

 

Radio Host: Now, I don’t know if anyone has any figures against the figures you have, which you got from the consulate here. This is not the first time that whether you are on the air or off the air, that someone has accused you of being a Neo-Nazi or something. How do you react to that?

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, of course, being a German, they think it sticks.

 

But I would like to remind them that I was born in 1939. That made me exactly, let’s say three years old when Hitler was at his supreme. It made me six years old when the Allies liberated us. Moroccan troops and Algerian troops. And I had three sisters at the time. And I would like to tell those people how it felt to be liberated as a 6 year old boy. I also saw 141 bullet holes where my mother was chased across a field By a, [word unclear] you know.

 

Radio Host: Algerian and Moroccan troops. Where were you? Where were you exactly?

 

Ernst Zundel: Black Forest.

 

Radio Host: In the Black Forest?

 

Ernst Zundel: Maybe Freudenstadt, was burned down completely. The hospital city of Freudenstadt is about half an hour away from where I was born. Neighbor city of Portheim was bombed in February and, 20,000 people got killed in one night. All that as a boy. You never forget those things, the sirens wailing, the bombers coming across and everything else, you know.

 

Anyways, I was 6 years old when the war was over. Now I have a boy, he’s 8 years old. If I were to ask him, are you a conservative or liberal? He wouldn’t know. Certainly was no card carrying member of the Nazi party. I immigrated to Canada at the youth of 19, not even. I have been here for the last 10 years.

 

So I don’t quite see why I should go and discuss my ideas on the Middle East with Mr. Fontaine. As a matter of fact, I think it’s very intolerant from the man they called. Am I any less a Canadian because I am of German origin? I would like to remind this man that we are Canada’s third largest ethnic group by far. That we are far more numerous than the Ukrainians and that we are far more numerous than the jewish Canadians.

 

In other words, I have just as much legitimate right to be discussing anything that I believe, including the Middle East.

 

Radio Host: Right. Well, you don’t feel that you’re anti-Israeli?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, I’m not. No, I’m not anti-Israeli.

 

But as I always say in every discussion, there is not only two sides to a coin, there is three sides to a coin.

 

Radio Host: That’s what I say.

 

[15:08]

 

Ernst Zundel: And if I look at the Middle East, I look at those hapless Arabs in their tents and those Arab soldiers, I know they have no axe to grind against Israel. They are victims of very emotional propaganda, because anybody that has a short wave receiver can pick it up. The operator of Radio Cairo. And the argument always emanating from Cairo is:

 

“That the jews have stolen your land and that’s why you are living in misery and in poverty.”

 

That’s why your Radio Cairo is lying.

 

So [word unclear] last week called and suggested that possibly a way out for the Israelis would be to pay a settlement to those people that lost their home, and their fields, in their stores in 1948 and possibly 1953. Is that a crime? Is that unreasonable? Is that being Nazi? I don’t see so.

 

Radio Host: Well, I think we have a gentleman on the line that you were talking with originally.

 

Sir?

 

Caller 1: Yes.

 

Radio Host: You’re on the air.

 

Caller 1: Okay.

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes.

 

Caller 1: Okay. Now, I don’t know about what you were when you were six, but you’re not six now. So the fact that you were six when Hitler was in power doesn’t have any logical reference to what you might be. Now, I’m not saying what you are or are not, but that has as illogical as an argument.

 

Let me ask you this.

 

Ernst Zundel: Yeah.

 

Caller 1: You say that two things. In the first place, you gave a figure, incidentally, I’m the chap you spoke to you last week.

 

Ernst Zundel: Right. I recognise your voice.

 

Caller 1: You gave a figure that a certain number of billions of dollars was paid to individuals, right. In Israel. What was that figure?

 

Ernst Zundel: According to the German consulate, it’s seven billion.

 

Caller 1: Seven billion?

 

Ernst Zundel: Right.

 

Caller 1: Now, how many jews were in Germany in 1933? German jews?

 

Ernst Zundel: 680,000.

 

Caller 1: How many German jews were killed by the Nazis?

 

Ernst Zundel: I think the figure is 320,000.

 

Caller 1: Well, I have a figure for you.

 

Ernst Zundel: Right.

 

Caller 1: It’s a very large one. In fact, I think it’s a bit exaggerated. But even if that’s a true figure., …

 

Ernst Zundel: How much is it?

 

Caller 1: About 100,000 German refugees, German jews were left after the war. I think that’s a high figure, but I’m not sure. But even if that’s a high figure, if they all went to Israel, which they didn’t do, you see, if they all went to Israel, which they didn’t do, and if they were all paid according to you, they would all, by my calculation, they would all receive, have received about $55,000 a piece!

 

Ernst Zundel: Just a moment, sir. Just a moment. I know figures.

 

Caller 1: Let me ask you this now.

 

Ernst Zundel: No, just you let me answer you right back.

 

Caller 1: Okay.

 

Ernst Zundel: So we don’t get off the track here.

 

Caller 1: Okay.

 

Ernst Zundel: The missing 200,000 or 250,000. Between my figure and your figure. Did you ever think that many jews between 1933 and 1938 went to Czechoslovakia?

 

Caller 1: Are you kidding?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, I’m not on that. I’m dead serious, man! I can bring you very [words unclear] that went to Czechoslovakia and that went to Vienna and that went to France and that went to, …

 

Caller 1: Are you kidding?

 

Ernst Zundel: I’m dead serious.

 

Caller 1: How can you be. How can you be. How can you be dead serious?

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay, we have a very prominent Montreal journalist that is always interviewed, that writes for many tourist papers. If Mr. Bell wants to pass the name up, I’ll give you the name. He left Germany in 1933.

 

Caller 1: Of course. Of course, there was some. But it required a great deal of money and they had to leave most of their property behind.

 

Ernst Zundel: But he didn’t. This man’s father didn’t.

 

Caller 1: Yeah, well, you have an individual case.

 

Ernst Zundel: Just a moment.

 

Caller 1: You have an individual case.

 

Okay, so how many were left? 300,000, you say. If there are 300,000 German jews left.

 

Ernst Zundel: No, I didn’t say that. The figures that, as you said to yourself, there are some exaggerated figures.

 

Caller 1: No, no, my figures exaggerated 100,000. I think it was very much fewer. But even if it’s 100,000, that would give each one of them $55,000. Is that what they got in reparations from Germany?

 

Ernst Zundel: Sir, I didn’t count the money. All I did is some research. Told the authorities that paid the money and that had the money on the book.

 

Caller 1: Now, did you go to the people who received the money?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, sir, I didn’t try to.

 

Caller 1: Well, let me give you some advice. If you go down the street from the West German consulate, there’s the Israeli consulate.

 

Ernst Zundel: Right.

 

Caller 1: Why didn’t you bother to take the figures that you got from the German consulate down to the Israeli consulate, and ask them if they put the same interpretation or indeed if they have the same figures that you got from the Germans? Does that ever occur to you? If you’re a journalist?

 

Radio Host: That’s a fairly good idea.

 

Caller 1: You’re a journalist, aren’t you?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, sir, it has occurred to me.

 

Caller 1: Well, before you get on the earth, before you send any stories to any newspapers, before you publish anything, go and check your figures from both sources. You say stories have two sides, and these three sides!

 

Ernst Zundel: Would the New York Times be a good source for accurate information?

 

Caller 1: I just told you what to do. And why didn’t you go to the Israeli consulate?

 

[20:05]

 

Ernst Zundel: Sir, would the New York Times you good source?

 

Caller 1: No, I don’t trust. I don’t trust any newspaper.

 

Ernst Zundel: Don’t eh?

 

Caller 1: No.

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, maybe I’m a bit more trustworthy. I trust that the Minister of Finance.

 

Caller 1: All I have of course is your report of what you read in the New York Times.

 

Ernst Zundel: The Minister of Finance of Germany had faced 482 Parliamentarians in Germany. Plus the whole press corp.

 

Caller 1: Yeah, yeah.

 

Ernst Zundel: Plus the Canadian [words unclear], plus the Canadian Jewish Eagle, plus the International Scientist Organisation and stated that we have, …

 

Caller 1: Let me ask you something else. Let me ask you something else.

 

Ernst Zundel: Go right ahead.

 

Caller 1: You mentioned the Canadian Jewish Eagle, eh, This is a Yiddish newspaper.

 

Ernst Zundel: Right.

 

Caller 1: I have many, many Christian friends here in Canada. As a matter of fact my adult years were all spent amongst non-jews. I’m a very jewish person. I would have to speak to 1,000 of them to find out anyone who has ever heard of the Canadian Jewish Eagle. How come you’re so interested? How do you know about it?

 

Ernst Zundel: Is it a crime to be?

 

Caller 1: No, no!

 

I’m just curious as to how you come to know about it. Do you read Yiddish?

 

Ernst Zundel: Do I read Yiddish?

 

Caller 1: Yes.

 

Ernst Zundel: That’s my business. I just might, you know.

 

Caller 1: You just might.

 

Ernst Zundel: Yeah.

 

Caller 1: Just like [word unclear] and he reads Yiddish too.

 

Ernst Zundel: Let me tell you something. If maybe that indicates something to you that my grandfather’s name was Isidor Meyer.

 

Caller 1: Isidor Meyer?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yeah. How do you like that for [word unclear] You think about that for a while.

 

Caller 1: Listen, listen. If you know any German history, you would know that German history is filled with a man like, … Do you know any German history? Ever hear of a man named Peppercorn?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, I know a man.

 

Caller 1: He went by the name named Peppercorn, lived about 400 years ago.

 

Ernst Zundel: That’s right.

 

Caller 1: And he was one of the worst anti-semites, a convert, that ever lived. I don’t care what your grandfather was called. You see, that’s not evidence of any kind.

 

Ernst Zundel: I didn’t say whether I read Yiddish or not.

 

Caller 1: I’m just curious about your interest in it, you see. What is your interest?

 

Ernst Zundel: My interest is.

 

Caller 1: Yeah.

 

Ernst Zundel: I’m interested in many things. You want to have a couple of statistics?

 

Caller 1: No, no, just why are you. Why are you so interested in the jewish question and Israel?

 

Ernst Zundel: Because it is very vitally involved with Germany and with the history that we are being taught.

 

Caller 1: Can I read something to you in a moment, Mr. Bell?

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. Bell.

 

Radio Host: Yeah, I’m listening.

 

Caller 1: You got a moment there? Can I read something? I’ll give you the name of the guy who wrote it just in the paper as well, but just let me read it, if we’re concerned with these raids back and forth and the German interest in it.

 

Radio Host: Ah ha.

 

Caller 1: One of the more efficient leaders. This is a publication date of January 3rd.

 

Ernst Zundel: What year?

 

Caller 1:1969.

 

One of the more efficient leaders of the Al Fatah terrorist organisation is a tall, slender man who calls himself Al Hatch, “Pilgrim” in English. Al Hatch heads a group of specialists trained to assemble bombs which in turn are smuggled into crowded civilian areas of Old Jerusalem. In all likelihood, the recent terrorist attack which cut scores of lives in all Jerusalem, most of them women and children, are the work of this man.

 

Al Hatch is a master of disguise. He crosses the border sometimes in Arab guard, but more often dressed like a European. He also sports a forged Swiss passport. In his European clothes, he does not look one bit like an Arab, and for this reason, he was able to cross practically at will until his identity became known. There’s a good reason why Al Hatch is able to pass as a European. He is none other than Richard Winterhalter, formerly of the SS Death head squad. Winterhalter, wanted by West Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia for war crimes, operated both in Terezin, Theresienstadt and Auschwitz. Winterhalter was the key man who arranged for the death trains bringing elderly people from Terezin to the Birkenau extermination factories. He has also trained the special command of Auschwitz prisoners temporarily reprieved from the gruesome task of bringing bodies of murder victims from gas chambers to the crematoria.

 

Winterhalter escaped from a British prisoner of war camp during the summer of 1945 and crossed him to Italy. From there he made his way to Egypt, where he converted to Islam. During 1949, he made his pilgrimage to Mecca, calling himself Al Hatch. The newly created Mohammedan, promptly joined the battle against Israel and served under the notorious Mufti of Jerusalem. So, on about the deliberation plan.

 

Ernst Zundel: Now, who writes? What paper is it?

 

Caller 1: This is written by Peter Lust.

 

Ernst Zundel: Oh, well, Mr. Peter Lust. Wonderful.

 

Caller 1: Yeah. Now, this information, since he names this name, it suggests to me several things. In the first place, I want to ask a general question. I don’t dislike the Germans. I’ve been to Germany several times. I’ve met many young German people, in fact, in Israel. But I don’t understand. This is what I just can’t get through my mind about the German engineers who worked in Egypt, the German engineers who are working in Syria.

 

The Germans are helping these people now to fight the jews. Why can’t they just leave them alone? You know, they tried to get rid of them 30 years ago, 20 years ago. Why can’t they just leave them alone? Why just have to go on and on trying to get rid of what Hitler left over. Can you explain that to me as a German?

 

[25:08]

 

Ernst Zundel: I don’t know.

 

Caller 1: Have you ever thought about it?

 

Ernst Zundel: I don’t. Look, I came to Canada when I was 19 years old.

 

Caller 1: Don’t give us that bit again. You know. How old are you now? You’re 30?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yeah, I’m 30.

 

Caller 1: So you read newspapers?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, I do.

 

Caller 1: So you read about your fellow Germans who work for the Egyptians and the Syrians? What do you think about it?

 

Ernst Zundel: What do I think about it?

 

Caller 1: Yes.

 

Ernst Zundel: They’re engineers. They were forbidden by the allied, …

 

Caller 1: What do you think about it? No, don’t tell us about what they were forbidden. What do you think about it as a fellow German?

 

Ernst Zundel: You don’t have to be so aggressive. Anybody that shouts and screams indicates usually that he is [word unclear]

 

Caller 1: Not necessarily. If he gets stupid replies, he has to shout.

 

Ernst Zundel: I haven’t even made my replies, because you are so aggressive. So.

 

Caller 1: Well, what do you think about it?

 

Ernst Zundel: What do I think about it?

 

Caller 1: Yes.

 

Ernst Zundel: These people like for instance, Messerschmitt that build a plane for the Egyptians and the engineers like. Well, I think Metzgar is one of his name that builds El Kahir that never brought fire during the Arab-Israeli war, which is a rocket with a 600 mile range, along the V2 line. These men, by the treaties of or by the Nuremberg Judgment, are forbidden to build this kind of stuff in Germany. So they were looking for new fields.

 

Caller 1: Yeah, but why did you mean. Was that the only place. You know? There are many Germans who go to Israel to work. I’ve met them there. I’ve met them working in the kibbutzene, if they wanted. If they wanted to go someplace to work.

 

Ernst Zundel: If you are Messerschmitt that had designed jet planes and rockets, you’re hardly inclined to continue your career in an Israeli kibbutz.

 

Caller 1: I suppose. I thought he could have gone to Brazil where Dr. Mengele is, you know.

 

Ernst Zundel: Yeah. What is Dr Mengele, is he a rocket engineer?

 

Caller 1: No. Well, I could have gone to Brazil needs. It’s a funny thing, but they always end up. They always seem to end up on the side facing the jews! What do they want from us?

 

Ernst Zundel: Wernher von Braun is he facing the jews, sir?

 

Caller 1: You got one example there. And you had dozens working in Syria and Egypt.

 

Ernst Zundel: Anybody that followed Apollo lately knows precisely how many German rocket scientists are in America.

 

Caller 1: I’m not so excited about Wernher von Braun either I’m interested in knowing from him he’s going to testify in a trial. You know, I’m interested in knowing from him just as I’m interested in knowing from other just plain soldiers when they were in Germany for that long period. And since they are not stupid people. He knew exactly what he was doing when he was designing the V2s. You know, his conscience is not that kind that gives me admiration. I would just assume, just assume if he had been told that if he didn’t design the vehicles, they would shoot him, that he had let himself be shot. You know, he’s not one of my great heroes.

 

Ernst Zundel: How many of you Russian scientists that created the what they call the Stalin Organ rocket?

 

Caller 1: I haven’t the slightest idea about that.

 

Ernst Zundel: All right, how many of the, …

 

Caller 1: Let me ask you one last question.

 

Ernst Zundel: How many of the Canadians. Hang on for a moment. Do this one by one. Okay.

 

Caller 1: Yeah.

 

Ernst Zundel: You thought you could bring in a couple of good points and let me answer them.

 

Caller 1: Yeah.

 

Ernst Zundel: Those people that designed Liberator bombers.

 

Caller 1: I haven’t the slightest idea.

 

Ernst Zundel: Jews themselves.

 

Caller 1: Liberator bombers?

 

Ernst Zundel: That turned Dresden into a fiery inferno.

 

Caller 1: Are you? You’re not serious, are you?

 

Ernst Zundel: I’m dead serious.

 

Caller 1: The more you talk. You know, you’d be smart if you hung up right now. The more you talk you give yourself away.

 

Ernst Zundel: Why are you afraid you’re losing the argument?

 

Caller 1: No, what’s the point of bringing Dresden into this?

 

Ernst Zundel: Because in Dresden the estimates are apart from Mr. Peter Lust that was invited by Walter Ulbricht at his expense to go behind the Iron Curtain. I think Mr. Irving in England wrote a book about it.

 

Caller 1: Yes, I read the book. I read the book.

 

Ernst Zundel: All right. He says 300,000 people got killed in one single bombing raid.

 

Caller 1: Yeah, well, if the Germans had been smart in 1933 and they sat on Hitler, they wouldn’t have killed in 1944.

 

Ernst Zundel: We are not talking about who is smart. We are talking about what crimes.

 

Caller 1: Well, the Germans themselves were responsible for it. That was no crime. I’m against it. I’m against killing anyone. I wouldn’t have killed that one. You know, I’m against killing everyone. But once you start on that road, once you start on that road, that’s the way you end up.

 

[29:23]

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, but anyway, doesn’t that answer my original argument again?

 

Caller 1: No, it has nothing to do with it because the people, …

 

Ernst Zundel: Wernher von Braun should have shot himself?

 

Caller 1: Yes, absolutely! Before even trying to [word unclear].

 

Ernst Zundel: Just a minute. Air Vice Marshall Harris that was in charge in England of the bombing of Dresden. There over 300,000 people, mainly refugees and women in an undefended city. It was called an “open city” via the Red Cross from Geneva. There was not one fighter plane that protected it. No [words unclear].

 

Caller 1: I can just imagine Hitler doing that. Well, my dear chap, I mean this is the information you get from what side?

 

Ernst Zundel: These 300,000 people got killed. I don’t see Air Vice Marshall Harris shooting himself.

 

Caller 1: That’s hardly a comparison, you know. Air Marshall Harris was fighting against an aggressor. It was Hitler that started the war!

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, you know, finding out [word unclear] is very interesting because, …

 

Caller 1: I see. As I told you’d better hang up. The longer you talk, the more you give yourself away.

 

Ernst Zundel: Just a minute. We’ll come back to it because you, …

 

Caller 1: You certainly sound like a six year old.

 

Ernst Zundel: Fine. I’m taking history at Sir George Williams University, sir. And you know what they are teaching us there? That at the very same time, I think it’s Sep 9, 1939, that Hitler walked into one side of Poland, Stalin walking to the other side of Poland. He occupied half of Poland and Hitler occupied the other side of Poland.

 

Caller 1: Two birds of a feather.

 

Ernst Zundel: Pardon?

 

Caller 1: So how does that make Hitler less an aggressor?

 

Ernst Zundel: If you are fighting the aggressor. Your point was that Air Vice Marshall Harris was fighting an aggressor?

 

Caller 1: That’s right. Hitler walked into Czechoslovakia, …

 

Ernst Zundel: Just a minute. Why was Air Vice Marshal Harris not also bombing Moscow?

 

Caller 1: They weren’t fighting with Moscow? Moscow wasn’t the enemy.

 

Ernst Zundel: Moscow was an aggressive, just as much as Hitler was!

 

Caller 1: Yeah, but Moscow hadn’t attacked England. Moscow wasn’t firing V2s at England. Besides that Hitler had, …

 

Ernst Zundel: [words unclear] aren’t you?

 

Caller 1: No, no. Yeah, you give yourself away.

 

Let me ask you one last thing. Let’s get back to 1968. Let’s get back to 1969.

 

Ernst Zundel: Yeah.

 

Caller 1: We follow your advice. The Israeli government from the $14 billion plus the $7 billion it’s got for the individuals.

 

Ernst Zundel: I didn’t say that.

 

Caller 1: Incidentally, is that the word that the Germans are using reparations that they paid to Israel?

 

Ernst Zundel: No.

 

Caller 1: What word do they use?

 

Ernst Zundel: In German they call it [word unclear] That means “to make good again”.

 

Caller 1: I see, Right. It’s not reparations since Israel wasn’t at war with Germany, right?

 

Ernst Zundel: And then some Germans wonder if Israel didn’t exist as a state, why Germany should pay for it as it didn’t exist?

 

Caller 1: Yeah, that’s a good question. Do you wonder that too?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, but I’m just pointing out to you.

 

Caller 1: Let me ask you guys. Let’s carry on then here, eh? You say you’re suggesting to solve the problem in the Middle East. East that Israel with its $14 billion and its $7 billion.

 

Ernst Zundel: I didn’t say 14 billion and 7 billion. You got the figures wrong. You should listen more closely, let hear what you want to hear.

 

Caller 1: Didn’t you say that the reparations, so-called, to Israel was $14 billion and the money paid to individuals was $7 billion? Isn’t that what you said?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, I didn’t.

 

Caller 1: What did you say?

 

Ernst Zundel: I said that under the treaty with the state of Israel directly, Germany made payments to the state of Israel to the tune of $3, 450,000,000. And this, …

 

Caller 1: What’s the 14 billion dollar figure?

 

Ernst Zundel: Pardon?

 

Caller 1: What’s the 14,000,000,000 dollar figure?

 

Ernst Zundel: I said up to 1969 all the reparations by policy paid to individuals, to the state, people living outside Israel was $14 billion.

 

Caller 1: Including people living outside Israel?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yeah.

 

Caller 1: What’s that got to do with the Israeli government?

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay, I’ll try. I’ll do it slowly for you. Okay.

 

I said separate treaty. One is between Israel as a state, you know as a state government of Israel?

 

Caller 1: Yeah.

 

Ernst Zundel: Between the Bonn government and the Israeli government. Money involved in that?

 

Caller 1: Yes, that’s 3, 450,000, you say.

 

Ernst Zundel: And there were payments involved between Israeli and between jewish individuals and carrying Israeli passport. But they don’t have to live in Israel, because Germany allows a dual citizenship in the case of a jew. Do you understand?

 

Caller 1: So you’re not including the figure of German ex-German refugees who had never gone to Israel? You’re not adding in that figure? You know, not all German refugees went to Israel.

 

Ernst Zundel: I know that.

 

Caller 1: So you’re talking with German refugees who either went to Israel and left or else they got the Israeli passport and here’s the passport. Okay, well this is a small thing. The first thing, let me repeat that you better, you’d better go to the Israeli consulate and find out what their side of the story is. Now in addition to that, let’s take your figure for what it. Let’s take your figure for what it may be. I accept your figure!

 

Ernst Zundel: Israel and James Weissman and David Ben Gurion and Levy Ashbolt, they have never quarrelled with these figures. Because these figures are open for everyone to see, including Mr [word unclear]

 

Caller 1: I accept them all. I’m not quarrelling with them either. I accept them in total, including your translation into German Reichmarks, so it sounds like 50 billion. But I’m not quarrelling with that. You’re suggesting, you’re suggesting, …

 

[35:03]

 

Ernst Zundel: Just a minute. I’m afraid I have to translate it into German marks because Germany doesn’t deal in [word unclear] or in [word unclear].

 

Caller 1: Yeah, but what purpose was there for you to mention German marks at all? All Canadians can understand dollars.

 

Ernst Zundel: It’s the currency to start with, ..

 

Caller 1: Yeah, I know, but you you said whatever the figure was 50 billion Marks. That sounds like $50 billion to someone not listening carefully.

 

Ernst Zundel: One second after I gave it in dollars. So look, don’t, …

 

Caller 1: Yeah, okay.

 

Ernst Zundel: You’re terribly suspicious, I must say.

 

Caller 1: So we’ve got whatever billions of figures you got there. And you’re suggesting that they should take some of this money and pay to whatever refugees are within their reach. Well, how much to each one.

 

Ernst Zundel: Nope. The last time I suggested. And this is my suggestion as an individual, it’s not a German government policy. They would be horrified if they heard me discuss this problem anyways because they’re such cowards when it comes to this.

 

Caller 1: What have you got to do with them? You said you’re a Canadian. What do they care what you say? What do they care what you say?

 

Ernst Zundel: I’m just declaring it to you.

 

Caller 1: Yeah, okay. So what’s your figure? 500 bucks a piece?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, I said commensurate with what they lost. And this is very easy.

 

Caller 1: But they didn’t lose anything, you see. They weren’t chased away. They left of their own accord, as you said yourself, because the legislation, the agreement, or rather the resolution that was passed at the United Nations at that time in 1947, which divided Palestine, remember not including Jordan, just Palestine, west of the Jordan, into two states, gave to the Israelis only that part of Palestine which was generally occupied by jews on land which they had bought from the effendis, and for which, incidentally, they also paid the peasants who didn’t own it at all!

 

In other words, these refugees didn’t leave from any land which at that time belonged to the jews. They left of their own accord, as you have yourself admitted on broadcast. On broadcast from their Arab neighbours. Okay, now, so what should, what should they be compensated for?

 

Ernst Zundel: Let me continue. First of all, many people that left were not peasants. Many of them were, …

 

Caller 1: I didn’t say that they were peasants. Those that left from [word unclear] weren’t peasants.

 

Ernst Zundel: You know, in other words.

 

Caller 1: But they weren’t chased away.

 

Ernst Zundel: Look, this wasn’t my argument at all! You’re always trying to put words in my mouth. I didn’t say that you don’t have to be hostile.

 

Caller 1: So why should they have to be recompensed for what I said?

 

Ernst Zundel: Oh, hold on. Look, tonight when I came on again, if Israel is in need of allies, which I think she is, and Israel says she is, then those 2 million Arabs would be very good allies.

 

Caller 1: What makes you think that?

 

Ernst Zundel: What makes me think that?

 

Caller 1: Yes.

 

Ernst Zundel: Because these people are, I’m sure, very tired of living in tents. They would be very good friends of Israel if they thought that the Israelis were giving them a hefty deal than the Arabs.

 

Caller 1: And it’s your speculation that if they were paid by the Israelis, they would suddenly become friends of the Israelis. Is that your speculation?

 

Ernst Zundel: Hold on, those Arabs that are living in Israel since 1948, you yourself and every other jewish caller that called said they are treated like an Israeli, they are prospering, they have all the military service and everything else.

 

Caller 1: Okay.

 

Ernst Zundel: Are they hostile to Israel?

 

Caller 1: Generally speaking, no.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay. You see what I mean?

 

Caller 1: No, but it’s hardly the same thing, you know.

 

Ernst Zundel: It’s the same thing. Right now hundreds of thousands of Arab refugees are living in territory administered by Israel.

 

So what I was suggesting was extend the same policies that you, …

 

Caller 1: That’s not the same. That’s not the same policy, at all! You know, if you were to pay them whatever figure you think would be adequate, would they be then brought back to Israel or would they be left where they are? Where would they go? With their little payment, with their little check? Where would they go?

 

Ernst Zundel: Hold on for a minute. It would be in the interest of Israel, I suppose that they would settle them somewhere, which I think Israel is trying to do.

 

Caller 1: In Israel? In Israel? In Israel?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, in the new territory.

 

Caller 1: What new territory? The Israelis aren’t keeping those territories.

 

Ernst Zundel: According to the Montreal which I have in front of me, it says that these territories are called the “new territories”.

 

Caller 1: These territories are called the new territories?

 

Ernst Zundel: Right.

 

Caller 1: What date? What story is that?

 

[News Break]

 

Radio Host: You had a question you wanted to ask? Go ahead.

 

Caller 1: The other end is not just taking up your time. But he considered what he suggested, a practical solution to the problem. Now does he consider. We didn’t finish before we went to the news. Is he suggesting, if I may be wrong, suggesting that these people would, the refugees would come into Israel to get paid.

 

In other words, the one and a half million who are now outside would have to return to Israel. They would get to pay whatever. He didn’t specify what amount of, let’s say, several hundred dollars. And they would remain in Israel, Is that the suggestion?

 

[40:12]

 

Ernst Zundel: I can’t decide where they wanted to go, where Israel wanted them to. It’s entirely up to them. But my main point in bringing up the payment angle is that I know that those people live on handouts from the United Nations and they are always in every story that we hear and read it, that they were dispossessed by the Israelis.

 

Caller 1: Yeah, but this. Yeah, I know, but, …

 

Ernst Zundel: You see what I mean, it would be a good point as far, not as a publicity stunt, I wouldn’t want to say it that way. But it would be a great deal in the favour of Israel as far as the world situation is concern. And specifically for those small Arab people, whether they be peasants or herdsmen or former storekeepers. To them, I’m sure it would show the goodwill of Israel and it would make life out of every statement that emanates from Beirut or from Cairo as [word unclear].

 

Caller 1: It doesn’t require this to show up the statements that emanate those countries as lies tell people to those people.

 

Ernst Zundel: People with a full stomach and a square meal and more comfortable mud hut rather than a, …

 

Caller 1: But don’t you don’t, in the first place, if you base your suggestion on the moral question that they were dispossessed by the Israelis, therefore the Israelis would look better in the eyes of the world by recompensing them in one way or another. This is from a false start because they were not dispossessed by the Israelis.

 

This point has been made time and time again! And it doesn’t matter how often uninformed people say that they were dispossessed by the Israelis, it still doesn’t make it true, because you can’t turn back history and say because it’s repeated, therefore it becomes true. The only reason there should be any compensation, I mean, if the Israelis had it and if other governments had it, they should give it to their human being.

 

But from a practical point of view, I don’t see, looking at the way the Arab governments around there operate, I don’t think it would make any difference whatsoever to forming, to getting peace with the Arab countries. This is what the Israelis are after. They want to sit down with Egypt and with Jordan and with Syria, if Syria can stay on one seat for a long enough time and sign a peace treaty after 20 years.

 

Now, how payments to the refugees who would either be kept after that they can’t be admitted to Israel because Israel hasn’t got room for them. What they would do with the money, that they would go to Amman or they would go to Cairo. Those countries could have taken them before and they didn’t. They kept them there for a special purpose. And for you to think that because they will get several, on the contrary, it’s very likely that what would happen if they got the money, it’s such an impractical suggestion. How would the money get to them outside? Would they be in checks or in cash? In Jordanian money and Egyptian money? You know, if they got it, they would probably end up in their mind having the money taken from them by those governments. What makes you think that if they were to receive that money, it would make the slightest difference in the attitude of the Arab governments, the Arab governments to Israel?

 

Ernst Zundel: First of all, I have to. Maybe I am naive, I doubt it. But the point is, if Israel wants to have peace, it is obvious that the Arab government for the last, 20 years, the government, the cliques in power, whether they be the Bath party, whether they be the colonels of Nasser or whatever they are, those in power are not speaking for the small peasants, but they are using those peasants as a weapon and as a tool.

 

Caller 1: Let me ask you something. Have you been to the Middle East?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, I haven’t.

 

Caller 1: Have you never been to Turkey?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, I haven’t.

 

Caller 1: Or Egypt? None of those countries?

 

Ernst Zundel: Have you been to the moon?

 

Caller 1: Yeah. No, no, I’ve been to those countries and it doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference what the peasants think. It’s the colonels that are in Cairo that matter at this point. I don’t see what the peasants, how the peasants [words unclear] at all!

 

They’re medieval countries, you know.

 

Ernst Zundel: I don’t see that the [word unclear] himself has stopped across the border, planted a mine in the market in Jerusalem and blown up 10 Israelis.

 

Caller 1: He might as well have. What difference does it make? He tolerated the people who did it.

 

Caller 2: Not partial at all! This is the World Almanac of the 1966 Yearbook of Britannica. Now, there’s no bias in there or any prejudice. I will quote you if I may.

 

Ernst Zundel: Right. Well, I got my figures from an almanac too.

 

Caller 1: Oh, okay. The overall picture, this is page 430. Under the topic of Israel. The overall picture was one of continuing prosperity and expansion, tempered by a growing balance of payments problems which was expected to become more serious because of the ending of the German reparations payments. This I assume, is in 65, which had ended.

 

Ernst Zundel: [words unclear]

 

Caller 2: Just a minute.

 

Ernst Zundel: World Almanac reparations payment too.

 

Caller 2: These had accounted for about $70 million annually. Now, if you carry that for 20 years, that would be a total of 1, 400,000,000. Which does not come anywhere close to your figures.

 

So how do you account for that? This is to the state of Israel, money reparation.

 

[45:22]

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, how do I count for that?

 

Caller 2: You said 7 billion.

 

Ernst Zundel: I thought I went to the horse’s mouth.

 

Caller 2: I beg your pardon.

 

Ernst Zundel: I thought I went to the horse’s mouth.

 

Caller 2: Yeah, but you went to the wrong horse.

 

Caller 1: Your zoology is all wrong.

 

Ernst Zundel: It’s the person that pays the Bill usually less in funds than the person that, …

 

Caller 1: He usually tries to build up what he paid, though.

 

Radio Host: Well, in terms of Britannica, though, I would assume that to arrive at any figure they would go to more than both sides. Again you have to, …

 

Caller 1: Definitely! And through the fact that it involves the changing of funds into international currency of some kind.

 

Radio Host: Right. Well, when we use the term dollar, it is accepted that it is the American dollar.

 

Caller 1: Yes, that’s right. That’s the international currency.

 

Ernst Zundel: Hold on for a moment. I’m mulling this thing over here.

 

Caller 1: Yeah, it’s probably 7 billion in Reichmarks is that would make it a billion 400,000!

 

Radio Host: Yes, it wouldn’t it?

 

Caller 1: Yeah, 7 billion Reichmarks would make it a billion 400,000.

 

Ernst Zundel: The ratio is not.

 

Radio Host: No, the ratio is 3 to 1, isn’t it?

 

Caller 1:5 to 1.

 

Ernst Zundel: No, no.

 

Caller 1:4 to 1. Something around there.

 

Ernst Zundel: It’s now 32 cents per mark.

 

Caller 1: That’s now. So that’s now. The dollar has fallen. The Mark is up, is very strong.

 

Radio Host: Right. So there are three marks in the dollar, roughly.

 

Ernst Zundel: No more. There’s, …

 

Radio Host: Well, like in terms of 31 billion marks, you got your figure. $10 billion.

 

Ernst Zundel: Roughly. Yeah.

 

Radio Host: I mean, we’re being rough, but you know.

 

Caller 1: So you speak German? Maybe they told him in Germany he doesn’t understand!

 

Ernst Zundel: Very funny, very funny!

 

Radio Host: Well, anybody can look it up if they have Britannica.

 

Caller 1: Yeah, of course, you shouldn’t argue with [word unclear].

 

Radio Host: Anyway, this is curious. I’m looking up to find, you know, where I. Again, you see, there are cross indexes here and I have the United Nations roster to find out, you know, where to find West Germany. I can’t find them on the roster here.

 

Caller 1: Look for it on the Republic of West Germany.

 

Ernst Zundel: No no, West Germany is not a member of the United Nations.

 

Radio Host: I was coming to that conclusion and I was afraid to say so, but it appears it is not a member of the United Nations.

 

Caller 1: I wonder why?

 

Ernst Zundel: Germany wasn’t at the time considered to be fit to be part of member nation.

 

Radio Host: Well, well, well, there are 124 members. Neither Germany is here.

 

Ernst Zundel: No, neither will you find, I think South Korea and North Korea. Neither South Vietnam and North Vietnam.

 

Radio Host: That’s right. They’re not here.

 

Ernst Zundel: That’s right.

 

Caller 1: Let me go on. Can I go on for something that has a similar, two similar suggestions that are made that relate somehow to your suggestion, it’s a speculation as to whether what you do will have the desired effect. You know, Israel can pay out this two or $3 billion or whatever it happens to be, and it should go down the drain, down the Suez Canal and hear no more about it. And they should be just as violent.

 

So it would be a pretty dangerous thing for Israel to carry that out on your say so.

 

Let me ask something else now. It is suggested that Israel, in the case of this attack on Beirut, that as a matter of fact, the message came the Pope after he had been criticised for his first statement, he made another statement which wasn’t a very satisfactory either one. It sounded like he was saying:

 

“Well, you’re both wrong, so both stop fighting.”

 

It suggested that if the Israelis wouldn’t retaliate, which is what they’re being charged with, that the Salahi, that the Al Fatah and the terrorists would stop crossing the border.

 

Now, anyone who thinks that if the Israelis would not respond, then the people on the Jordanian side, the terrorists would stop, you know, must be out of his mind! What else can the Israelis do if they’re being shot at? They shoot back. You know, they were to stop in order to conform to what the Pope suggests and other very kind people are suggesting that they should stop escalating it. They’ll be run over!

 

Ernst Zundel: The jews have a law, a eye for a eye, a tooth for a tooth.

 

Caller 1: Oh, come on now!

 

The next thing you’re going to tell me, the next thing you’re going to tell me is that I belong to a tribe. You know, you sound like something out of the Middle Ages!

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, Life magazine has [word unclear] that.

 

Caller 1: I don’t care what Life magazine does! You know, what’s this “eye for an eye” business? That went out of fashion 2500 years ago!

 

Radio Host: Well, it’s back in vogue now because it’s interpreted by many as referring to transplants! [chuckling]

 

Caller 1: Israel is clear that the reason for their attack on the Beirut airport, and they made specific, they made very good, very good care that no one should be hurt, was to teach the Arab countries around there that the Israeli Airlines was not something that could be just thrown away. They had to show them it wasn’t an eye for an eye. It wasn’t revenge of any kind. It was to teach them that if they carried on the path that they were following that they would suffer for it! Which would make them stop. And this has been the reason for all the Israeli so-called retaliation. What they get is the time of peace. And usually it has happened. There has been hardly any fighting around this way because the Israelis hit back hard!

 

[50:39]

 

Ernst Zundel: Every news commentator that I have listened to from the United States, from Europe and the GDC, they all say that these terrorist organisations have succeeded in their primary aim and that is to make Israel overreact. Would you say Israel overreacted?

 

Caller 1: No, I wouldn’t. I don’t see how she could overreact. I don’t see how she could overreact by destroying 13 aeroplanes in exchange for human life. That’s not an overreaction.

 

Ernst Zundel: [words unclear]

 

Radio Host: How’s that?

 

Ernst Zundel: Everybody else seems to think so. Including [word unclear].

 

Caller 1: Now, tell me something. What difference does it make in a question of right and wrong what everybody else thinks?

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, first again there is your right and there is they are wrong and there is you’re wrong and they are right.

 

Radio Host: Okay, just before somebody calls up and correct us on it, let me correct it.

 

As far as the Deutsche marks is concerned, there are 3.988 per US dollar. Okay gentlemen. The last gentleman who is on the line. Are you satisfied with the point you made?

 

Caller 2: Yeah. I have one more point to make.

 

Radio Host: What is it, sir?

 

Caller 2: Have you ever heard of the flying carpet notion whereby about a million jews would [word unclear] all the Arab countries including Yemen, Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt and Syria, were all thrown into Israel without a penny in their pockets and it was the Israeli government who undertook them, closed them, fed them and gave them jobs. They came into Israel without a penny in their pocket.

 

Radio Host: Right. Well, in terms of restitution or reparation, it has been suggested by our caller that these people be included.

 

Caller 2: Yes, but why they forgotten? When everybody talks about the Palestinian refugees, what about these people?

 

Radio Host: Well, as was suggested when I when mention it that it had not been mentioned before. It’s a suggestion from a staff member who was in the booth with me at the time.

 

Caller 1: Would the restitution come from the Arab government? They should be the ones responsible because that’s where they came from.

 

Caller 2: Exactly!

 

Caller 1: And can you imagine them doing it?

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, look, why don’t give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

Caller 1: Give whom the benefit of the doubt?

 

Ernst Zundel: The Arab government, put you on the spot.

 

Caller 1: Are you a journalist? Did you say you’re a journalist?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, I’m a journalist.

 

Caller 1: Why are you dreaming? Why are you having these dreams?

 

Ernst Zundel: You know something? I have to make a very basic point here.

 

Caller 1: Yes.

 

Ernst Zundel: You people. And this is so evidently so when you listen to these open lines. You are extremely sensitive! And you are always having such a perfect taste.

 

Caller 1: It has nothing to do with this! It has nothing to do with it!

 

Ernst Zundel: I’m a fan of Sherlock Holmes and of Perry Mason and you know about Perry Mason? Everybody that watches television, you know what Perry Mason does? He usually investigates the guy with the perfect alibi first.

 

Caller 1: Do you know something else? I’ve listened to you two evenings. I haven’t heard you say a good thing about the Israelis.

 

Ernst Zundel: I haven’t?

 

Caller 1: No.

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, my suggestion was that they should possibly pay restitution.

 

Caller 1: What kind of a good thing is this? This is the sort of a dream that has no relation to reality.

 

Caller 2: Can I bring in another point just for a second? It says here in the same yearbook, just a little bit smaller paragraph below, it says:

 

“A new series of terrorist attacks in border areas originating mainly in Jordan and Syria and later also in Lebanon, began during the year.”

 

Now, this is back in 65.

 

Caller 1: Of course, this is true. I was in Israel last spring. I was shooting a film there. And part of my filming was along the Lebanese border. There was an old synagogue about three miles from the border. Just about three hours after I had passed there and done my work, a mine was blown up. Now, this was way over, way over near the Western, near the Mediterranean Sea, just south of the Lebanese border.

 

Now, for any Jordanian or Syrian to have been able to go all the way from there east of the Jordan to plant that mine would have been impossible. This was a Lebanese mine. And there have been incidents from Lebanon time after time after time! The Israeli intelligence is excellent! As a matter of fact the Jordanians have just today hunt two spies, or they call them spies who are spying for Israel, if you can imagine that.

 

So the Israeli intelligence is pretty good. When they say that they know what’s going on inside Lebanon, I’m pretty sure that they know.

 

[54:56]

 

Ernst Zundel: Yeah, I agree with you.

 

Caller 1: Okay?

 

Ernst Zundel: That’s a good thing to say about Israel?

 

Caller 1: Well, you’re absolutely impossible! Here you have a country. You know, I feel, when I read my, I don’t understand it when I read my Bible, I feel embarrassed about something that the Israelites did 2,000 years ago. I say:

 

“Why should my people have behaved like that?”

 

You know, I’m not really guilty, but I feel sorry that they should have. That it shouldn’t be one of our traits. Here you have a people in the Middle East whose only existence., … Now, I’m not a Zionist, that’s why I’m saying this. Whose existence, Israel is due solely at this point in history. Who knows when they might have created, if at all! At this point in history, it’s due solely to the behaviour of your people! You see, and you have the gall, the chutzpah to come along on a public show and to make criticism of them, why they’re there they shouldn’t have been there in the first place or something else.

 

Ernst Zundel: Did I say that?

 

Caller 1: Well, you certainly suppose that from the way you talk.

 

Radio Host: Well, again, you see, the caller accused you of hearing what you want to hear before, and this is evidence of it. He never did say that.

 

Ernst Zundel: I would be perfectly happy to give you the Arab case. What they say:

 

“Why you shouldn’t be there, if you want to.”

 

Radio Host: Well, I don’t know if any of you are listening on my Saturday morning program. Late in the program, we did get someone who outlined it on Viewpoint Tonight. If any of you are watching, it was outlined again. There are three sides to this story. There’s the Israeli side, the Arab side, and the truth!

 

Caller 1: Well, of course, that doesn’t necessarily follow. It’s possible that one of the two sides is true.

 

Radio Host: Unfortunately, no. This is, it’s just like in the case of a divorce or anything else. There’s his side, there’s her side, and then there’s the truth!

 

Caller 1: That’s very clever. But in an actual situation where you have two antagonists, it’s very possible that one of the side is more right than the other.

 

Radio Host: According to whom, though? You see, according to the Israelis, they’re right. The Arabs are wrong. According to the Arabs, they’re right. The Israelis are wrong.

 

Now, I’m not saying to be objective. I do not believe anyone can be objective. And I don’t care who says that you can be objective in this case. All I say is that you should be fair!

 

This is why I am accused by Arabs of being anti-Arab and I’m accused by Israelis of being anti-Israeli.

 

Caller 1: That’s quite unfair to you because you have to be fair as a moderator and present both sides of the coin. I can understand the Arab point of view, although I think it’s wrong.

 

Radio Host: Yeah. But on this issue, I’m the only host of a programme on this station to my knowledge that is getting threats against my life and so on over this issue.

 

Caller 2: It won’t come from me. I think you’re pretty good.

 

Caller 1: What I was going to say is this. If you take the Israeli and the Arab position, the Israelis have nowhere else to go. There’s some suggestion made that on the part of so-called anti-zionist and some Arab books I’ve read and articles that the European jews. Let me state now several things here, that the European jews who are now in Israel who came from Eastern Europe should go back since they’re not Mediterranean, but they’re probably descended from the Khazari who were a Turkish people in the Crimea 1300 years ago. That they’re really Europeans, blue eyed, blonde, so they shouldn’t be in Israel at all! You can well imagine this kind of a suggestion that Ben Gurion, who was born in Russia, that the Russians would let him back into Russia.

 

In other words, he’s going to stay there. Certainly the Israeli disciples who were born there are going to stay there.

 

And can you imagine the Yemenites who were born in [word unclear] to go back there? And the Egyptians to go back to Egypt? So it’s not very likely to happen.

 

Ernst Zundel: May I just come in here?

 

Caller 1: Let me just finish that. So the Israelis, when they say they are going to stay, they’re going to stay.

 

That’s one side of the coin. You can believe that’s their point of view and I can see their point of view and I don’t see how anyone else can. I mean, what’s wrong with that point of view?

 

But then you get the Arab side of it which says they’re going to drive them into the sea, get rid of them! Can that be correct as well? How can it?

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, can I come into the point here?

 

Caller 1: Yeah.

 

Ernst Zundel: According to The Jewish Encyclopedia, Volume 4, Pages 1 to 5, it deals with what you just outlined, the Khazars.

 

Caller 1: The Khazaris, yeah.

 

Ernst Zundel: Right. And it says in there:

 

“That the Khazar Empire, it was founded by Asiatic Mongol people in the first year after the birth of Christ and existed till about the 14th century.”

 

As you said. But it had its peak in the seventh and eighth century. These people were heathen and they’re converted to Judaism.

 

Caller 1: That’s true. Okay, so what’s that got to do with the Israelis right now? And the Mediterranean in 1969.

 

Ernst Zundel: This is on which much of the Arab argument is based on. If you had heard the UN debate.

 

Caller 1: Yeah, but you see, you’ve got to start from where you are. You can’t start from where you were 500 years ago. The Israelis are now. What is going to happen to Ben Gurion, for example? Would he go back to Russia?

 

[1:00:19]

 

Ernst Zundel: No, no. May I make a point here, a philosophic point, if I may?

 

Caller 1: Yeah. Okay.

 

Ernst Zundel: So the Arabs and [word unclear] that was speaking at the United Nations, he was horrified over CBC at the time of the Arab-Israeli war. He said precisely that.

 

In other words, he said:

 

“The Khazars were converted to Judaism or what was called then Talmudism.”

 

And like, …

 

Caller 1: Watch, watch it. What’s Talmudism? There’s no such thing. Just stick to what you know.

 

Ernst Zundel: Look, I’m quoting the Jewish Encyclopedia, volume 4 pages one to five, …

 

Caller 1: Talmudism? Okay.

 

Ernst Zundel: In the seventh century, Judaism. It wasn’t called Judaism. It was called Talmudism.

 

Caller 1: Oh, come on! I don’t know who wrote that, but this is all nonsense!

 

Radio Host: All right. Who wrote the Jewish Encyclopedia?

 

Ernst Zundel: I suppose a couple of anti-semites!

 

Radio Host: [chuckling]

 

Caller 1: So what? They disappeared. They disappeared in the 14th century. What’s that got to do with the German jews?

 

Ernst Zundel: They didn’t disappear. That’s precisely the point!

 

Caller 1: Of course they became Christians. They were absorbed into the Russian Empire.

 

Ernst Zundel: They didn’t become Christians.

 

Caller 1: Where are they?

 

Ernst Zundel: They were spread all over the Soviet Union, all over the Balkans. And this is why you have such a big amount of Eastern European jews. They are called the Khazars. And do you know, difference between the Sephardic and Ashkenazis?

 

Caller 1: The Khazars, …

 

Ernst Zundel: The total percent, the [word unclear] state. And the Jewish Encyclopedia has a map in the book. 80% of the world’s jewish population today are Khazars. In other words, they are converted!

 

Caller 1: What are you talking about?

 

Ernst Zundel: Precisely. That’s what the Arabs are saying.

 

Therefore. Just a minute now. Look, this is the argument. You have to look at their argument and you have to look at your argument and then we can arrive at something. That’s why the Arabs say that, …

 

Caller 1: Well, the Arabs don’t know what they’re talking about and you don’t know what you’re talking about. Because, … Let’s forget about it. Let’s forget about it!

 

[1:02:21]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

See Also

top

 

 

 

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 15 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zündel – Oct 12, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 18 with Jürgen Neumann – Nov 2, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 36 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zundel – Mar 22, 2025 – Transcript

Ernst Zundel – Another Voice of Freedom Radio – Why World War II Started – 1994 – Transcript

Ernst Zundel – 1967-68 Radio Shows in Montreal Discussing Israel and Jewish Topics 1 – Transcript

Ernst Zundel – 1967-68 Radio Shows in Montreal Discussing Israel and Jewish Topics 2 – Transcript

 

 

 

Joel Davis – Mark Collett vs Greg Johnson – The Ukraine Debate – Oct 17, 2022 – Transcript

Mark Collett – Patriotic Weekly Review – with Joel Davis – Apr 27, 2023 – Transcript

Joel Davis – On Australian Nationalism with Matthew Grant – Dec 17, 2022 – Transcript

Joel Davis – The White Australia Policy with Matthew Grant – Jul 27, 2023 – Transcript

Joel Davis – On Activist Politics and White Advocacy – PA Conference Speech – Oct 7, 2023 – Transcript

Slightly Offensive – Debate – Is Diversity Our Strength? – Joel Davis vs Drew Pavlou – Apr 5, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Mass Deportations Enthusiasm, Twitter Politics & Activist Persecution – Jun 6, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – The Vibe Has Shifted and the Paradigm is Shifting – Jun 13, 2024 – Transcript

Slightly Offensive – Is America (& the West) Over? – Guest – Joel Davis – May 31, 2024 – Transcript

 

 

Red Ice TV – Nationalism for White People & Activist Persecution in Australia – Joel Davis & Thomas Sewell – Jun 15, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Polarisation Phases – with Blair & Tom – Jun 20, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Conservative Terrorism in Australia as Trump Set to Become New ZOG Boss – Jun 28, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Muslims to Create Their Own Party as “Extremism Experts” Cry About US to the Media – Jul 4, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Trump Inevitable, Blair Censored, Paedo Freaks Destroyed – Jul 19, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – When Will Enough Be Enough? – Jul 25, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Mass Deportations Now! – Aug 1, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Wargaming the Response as Communists Organise Brown Parasites – Aug 22, 2024 – Transcript

 

 

Joel Davis – Activist Reflections with Jacob Hersant – Aug 18, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Analysing the Implications of the Pajeet Hate Surge – Aug 29, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – The Purpose of Street Activism, the Principle of Race and the Politics of Will – Sep 19, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Building Nationalism from the Ground Up – Sep 26, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Political Existentialism, Zionist Hypocrisy, Austrians Vote for Remigration – Oct 3, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Jews Turn Hersant into a Free Speech Martyr – Oct 9, 2024 – Transcript

Mark Collett – Patriotic Weekly Review – with Jacob Hersant – Oct 16, 2024 – Transcript

 

Joel Davis: We are live. We are live. It is the 19th of September 2024. We’re actually live on Twitter. Live on X for the first time.

 

Finally rigged it. I don’t know why I didn’t start streaming these streams on Twitter earlier because, yeah, it’s just like an obviously good platform. I saw some other nationalists that have been streaming up there and they got crazy numbers of views and they get a shitload of, … I remember when I did streams with Elijah Schaffer, he streamed it on X as well and it got heaps of views. We’re going to stream every show on Twitter now.

 

So you can watch the show on Twitter, but if you’re already accustomed to watching it on Rumble, stay on Rumble because the Rumble’s got a good live chat.

 

So you can stay on the live chat on Rumble. And also we’re on Odysee. But yeah, you can watch on Twitter. And the replay will be available. I think it automatically re-uploads as a replay. So we’ll see. Hopefully there’s no technical difficulties this time, but we’re into the show. Tom actually going to join us. He’s just turned his webcam off because he’s smashing down his late dinner and it’d be a little bit uncouth for him to finish it on stream.

 

So we’re going to start off with me and Blair. Blair, how you doing this evening?

 

Blair Cottrell: I’m good, man. I’m just trying to figure out how I change my settings on X to see quote, unquote, “sensitive content” because I just reshared this stream on X. Really excited to be streaming on X, by the way. First time we’ve done it, as Joel said, so should really soak up some new viewers, which is great. But how do I change my settings so I can see sensitive content? Like, does anyone have any instructions for me?

 

Joel Davis: I’ve got all these blocks on my account. Anything that goes on my account is classified as, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, it sucks!

 

But look, someone sent me an instruction on how to do that. We won’t get into it on the stream to divert the conversation that way, but someone tell me how to do that because I’m a little bit boomer tech with this stuff.

 

But yeah, I’m going well, really busy. I’m working as much as I can to make a bit of money for an endeavour of mine that’s coming up next month. But other than that, yeah, man, I’m just keeping an eye on current affairs.

 

Our mutual friend Thomas Sewell caught up with upcoming young Australian influencer today. So we might talk a little bit about that. I saw that you’ve been getting into a bit of back and forth with Fuentes, so that’ll be interesting to get your take on what’s happening there. But how you feeling Tom Sewell. What’s up?

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, I’m great. Just had a busy afternoon, but glad to be on the show. I just watched over that video. I thought the young guy did a good job. You can tell he’s very afraid of censorship. So we did, like, a half an hour interview, and he put up maybe four minutes of it, and the rest is just him at 7/11 being casually racist and funny.

 

So I have high hopes for the young man. It’s a shame that that generation’s kind of got a lot of brain rot. But you just got to roll with the punches.