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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yes, Sunday morning. Yeah.

 

Greg Johnson: Okay.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So the first point that he makes is:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[07:17]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[13:19]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[20:10]

 

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

 

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

 

I started thinking, you know:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[26:52]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[33:24]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, of course.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[39:51]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Which historically is what nationalism generally means.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Okay, so what’s your critique of that?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: It’s imperialism. Right?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[47:24]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[53:49]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:00:10]

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:07:22]

 

Greg Johnson: What’s stopping us?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And that means that, …

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

But the point is that, …

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:15:07]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: They pose no threat!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:21:40]

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Will Germany and France fight it out?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

[1:27:09]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

That’s what politics is about.

 

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

 

[1:33:57]

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Absolutely! Absolutely!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

That’s fantastic!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:40:47]

 

 

Greg Johnson: Absolutely, yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:46:16]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Well, I would agree with that.

 

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

 

“We need to step over this.”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:53:28]

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yeah.

 

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

 

So that’s not a reasonable:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And right now our race is being genocided! Right?

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, yes and no.

 

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

 

[1:59:26]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Absolutely.

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: I absolutely agree with that.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And there’s no way of doing that!

 

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

 

[2:06:39]

 

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

 

[2:50:10]

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

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

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

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

18
0
Hide replies

@v0lum3
6 months ago
Hitler dindu nuffin

2
1
Show reply

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

Hide replies

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

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

Continue Thread

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

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

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

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

16
2
Hide replies

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

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

4
1

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

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

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

9
1
Hide replies

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

4
0
Earthling Carl
6 months ago
Easy Joel W.

10
3

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

9
2

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

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

10
3
Hide replies

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

7
0
Hide replies
ThinRedLine
6 months ago
it does

5
0

@Arilando
6 months ago
Of course you can.

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

2
0

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

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

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

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

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

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

6
2
Hide replies

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

2
1
ThinRedLine
6 months ago
Hail Joel

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

5
3

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

2
0

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

5
3
Hide replies

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

Hide replies

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

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

Hide replies

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

2
0

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

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

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

4
3

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

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

1
2

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

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

6
0

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

2
3

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Ernst Zundel: You are listening to Another Voice of Freedom broadcast financed through the free will donations of listeners like yourself. I’m Ernst Zundel, your host and moderator. The opinions expressed by our guests or in editorials and stories are always those of the originators. We believe that personal opinions freely expressed are not a danger to any democratic society. We don’t have to agree with any or all of the opinions expressed by others. We owe it to ourselves, however, to listen, to evaluate, and to possibly learn something new or different in the process. You may reach us at 206 Carlton Street Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5A 2L1. Telephone 1492-29850 [Note: All contact details out of date].

 

And now we have another interesting program for you.

 

I’m Ernst Zundel with Another Voice of Freedom program. A number of our listeners from around the country, and some even as far away as Europe, have contacted us about our recent programs relating to D-Day and the period in Europe after D-Day, and some of our revisionist viewpoints that we hold on this topic. Well, some of them complained that I, in my programs had not spelled out in more detail what the Second World War was all about and how it came about.

 

So let me try to give it a layman’s overview. Nothing academic, just a layman’s overview. The Germans in the First World War were defeated by a coalition of forces, and the German government under the Weimar Republic was asked to sign a treaty in Versailles. And one of the stipulations of that treaty was that the Germans had to declare themselves solely responsible for the First World War.

 

And of course, with the loss of Germany’s territories in the east, coupled with this slap in the face for the entire German nation, who knew that they had not been solely responsible for this tragedy, which was the First World War. This meant there was a fertile soil for nationalists, or even extreme nationalists to agitate against the existing order of things.

 

Germany, you must understand, was under some form of Allied tutelage, was under military occupation in some regions. Germany was condemned to pay reparations, huge amounts of reparations which were to only run out in the year 1988! I want to repeat that these massive billions of dollars worth of gold marks of reparations the Germans were to pay to the Allies, were to be running till the year 1988. That was reparations the Germans had to pay for the First World War.

 

The reason why I’m stressing that is because, of course, it bankrupted the German nation, led to hyperinflation where people were paid three times a day, mornings, noon and night, because the money devalued between breakfast and lunch, sometimes by millions of marks!

 

And so when men were receiving their paycheck, they didn’t go and bring a wallet at the end of the week, they usually brought a basket.

 

And finally, some of the store and shop owners paid their people every single evening, because hyperinflation was running away with the currency in Germany.

 

My own mother, a very simple young girl, said that she worked for a whole month and at the end of the month, all she could buy with her earnings for that month in 1923, was a stamp with which to send a postcard to her parents. That is what the situation was!

 

In that situation, Adolf Hitler, a very gifted young orator in Germany, started his struggle for power. And he struggled against those who had signed this shameful treaty in Versailles and against those who had imposed it on Germany. And he found increasing resonance amongst the German population. At first the working people, finally an ever increasing number amongst Germany’s students, then amongst the more middle classes, and finally even amongst the intelligentsia, meaning Professors, doctors, dentists, lawyers and so on.

 

Then Adolf Hitler democratically moved into the Reichstag, and because his party was the party that had Garnered most votes in a coalition with other nationalist forces, finally became the government of Germany in 1933, on 30 January.

 

While Hitler was struggling for power, he had said over and over in thousands of speeches and talks and articles in his party newspaper and so on, and many of his Members of Parliament, the Reichstag at that time said to the German population:

 

“Understand that a vote for National Socialism does not mean a change of government in Germany.”

 

In other words, it’s not a change of administration. It’s not the Democrats being replaced by the Republicans, or in the Canadian context, the Liberals replacing the Conservatives. He said:

 

“What you are doing with this election, it is a plebiscite on which way Germany is going to go.”

 

In other words, there are going to be some fundamental changes in German society. And he had outlined them to the German population quite openly and quite freely, what he thought Germany should look like in the 1930s. The Germans were not sucked into or conned into voting for yet another politician who had made all kinds of promises that he wasn’t going to keep.

 

My own mother and my own father, who had been unemployed for four years by the time Adolf Hitler finally did come to power, said that they had tried the Conservatives, they had voted for the Catholic Party, the Christian Center Party, they had even voted for the Social Democratic Party. Other Germans, disgusted by all this party wrangling voted for the Communist Party.

 

And there was a polarization of political opinion and political action and the political spectrum in Germany in the 1930s between the extreme Left and, yes, the extreme nationalist Right.

 

Hitler represented the Right, the forces of the Right, and together with a number of smaller parties, finally did form the government, as I said. And he was hardly in power when an international boycott was called against Germany.

 

And the reason why I’m mentioning this is because in the next few programs, we are going to take a look exactly at what happened in “Nazi Germany”, the way the popular press calls it, or National Socialist Germany, in Hitler’s Germany after he came to power.

 

[07:46]

 

Let me just say to you that in studying this period of time, I found that Germany was in a terribly shocking state! And that, for instance, in the state of Thuringia, which is in the east, the budget for social welfare was two thirds of the state’s budget was eaten up by social welfare. Two thirds. You can imagine, that means so many people were unemployed, were on the dole, were half employed and so on. A state cannot function with this kind of budget. And so a crisis was looming large in Germany.

 

Also, the foreign currency reserves of Germany had gone down to such a level that when the German economics minister mentioned this to the new government, Hitler was alarmed. It was down to some 480 million marks, which, for a trading nation like Germany that depended on financing exports and so on, it was virtually the death knell. Germany was, to all intents and purposes, bankrupt!

 

How to get out of this situation was what dominated the mind of the new government. And during this particular time, there were rumors around the world that they were going to be preventive wars. There was going to be an invasion of Germany either by France or by Poland or by both governments.

 

Now, at the time, these two countries were, in a European context, superpowers. You must understand that the Treaty of Versailles condemned the German government to a force of professional soldiers of 100,000 people, just 100,000 men! That meant the entire German armed forces could fit into the Berlin soccer stadium.

 

Now, picture that. The Berlin soccer stadium. The only weapons that they had were machine guns. When they were practicing with tanks, they were bicycles with cardboard cutouts made to look like tanks. Because Germany was the only totally disarmed country and it was forced to disarm under the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler knew all this. In other words, he was in absolutely no position to threaten anybody! Others were threatening his government.

 

And suddenly there were these news from North America that the jewish community in North America was Calling for an international boycott against Germany! There was a man called Samuel Untermeyer, who had gone to Amsterdam for a conference. And when he returned to the United States, he gave a nationally broadcast radio program in which he called for a holy war against Germany, a national boycott.

 

And naturally, Hitler’s ambassadors and consular officials reported that back to Germany. So did the media. Hitler was alarmed! Here was the threat of military invasion, economic strangulation. Inside Germany the communists were restive. And so Hitler did what other German Chancellors had done before him, perfectly Democratic measure to call out some kind of an Emergency Measures Act. In Canada, we would call it the War Measures Act.

 

Into this period fell a fire that was started by apparently a communist, or a man with communist leadings called Van der Lubbe, who tried to burn down the Reichstag, meaning the German Parliament. Apparently as some kind of a note to other Leftists, to start simultaneously all over Germany similar activities and to try to have an overthrow of the German government.

 

Now, I know that in Allied propaganda, Hermann Goering is supposedly himself having carried a canister of gasoline through some secret tunnels into the Reichstag, and he’s supposed to have had a kind of a hand in burning down the Reichstag. Well, perfectly independent people and historical commissions and inquiries by independent historians during, before, during and after the war have come to the conclusion that, in effect, the Nazis did not torch the Reichstag! That it was a canard put out by communist and Leftist propaganda.

 

Hitler used this as his means of introducing draconian repressive measures inside Germany, outlawing political parties, political movements, arrest without habeas corpus and so on. It was a typical emergency measure act!

 

Now, I want you immediately to understand this is not to excuse Adolf Hitler and him breaking the civil rights of Germans. I am just trying to explain to you that this is nothing new in European history, certainly absolutely nothing new of the period. And in Canada, as late as 1972, we had what they called “the invoking of the War Measures Act”.

 

Actually, it was earlier still, during the FLQ crisis, the Front des Liberation Qui Pequoi, which was a Leftist group that was blowing up mailboxes, the stock market building and so on. And the Canadian government, in perfect peacetime, prosperous, not surrounded by enemies that were trying to invade our country here, imposed a War Measures Act. I lived there during the time in Quebec, and I can assure you here is what happened.

 

Hundreds, many, many, many hundreds of French-Canadian activists who had been politically vocal in wanting to have separation between Quebec and the rest of the country were rounded up at night. 4:00, 5:00, 3:00 o’clock in the morning. And they were arrested without any legal representation. They were put into sports arenas, meaning concentrated into the same kind of area that Hitler would take his dissidents and so on in the early 30s.

 

They were kept in there. Some of them were kept in jails in Canada without having the rights that we normally have to be brought before a judge speedily and so on, because the War Measures act had declared a national emergency, saying that there was imminent danger to the survival of Canada as a society and as a state. And then your civil rights went out the window.

 

Well, that’s exactly what happened to Germans in the Hitler era, as soon as Adolf Hitler came to power, because there was this perceived threat to the German state, the overthrow of the German government. And Hitler invoked what he called the Enabling Act, where he spelled out what his moves were going to be.

 

And so Germany, that moment, became somewhat of a dictatorship. True, there were elections and there were plebiscites later on, but ultimately, Hitler governed Germany under this kind of draconian enabling legislation, which allowed him to forbid parties and movements and seize newspapers, outlaw publishing houses and stuff like this, very much the way the West German state has been doing in the last six to seven months.

 

[15:26]

 

And again, Germany has no threat of invasion. Germany has no threat that the state is going to be overthrown. Yet the ruling clique in power in Germany says:

 

“Oh, we have got political dissidents here that are getting entirely too testy. They are having these big marches of 4, 5, 10,000 people. Our police forces can no longer control them, meaning they cannot cow them into silence. And even 10,000 policemen last fall could not prevent a march in honor of Rudolf Hess, for instance. And so therefore, we are going to pass this draconian legislation.”

 

Which they tried to do recently on the 20th of June with their what they call crime bill. But the German Parliament, at that time, the Upper House, at least voted down this draconian law.

 

Well, in Hitler’s Germany they did not, because National Socialism at that time, as I said, had the superior numbers. And so Germany began to rebuild under those measures with limited freedoms, restricted freedom of expression. And Hitler managed by all kinds of means, which we are going to cover in future programs, to prevent the invasion by France and by Poland, to prevent the boycott from crippling and destroying the German economy. And Adolf Hitler and his government went on and governed Germany in peace time for another six years.

 

And by the year 1936, we are able already to absorb all the millions and millions of unemployed in Germany and the surrounding countries. Two million people worked as guest workers in Germany in 1937 and 38, at a time when the rest of Europe was, and America, may I say, and Canada was still very much suffering under a depression!

 

Hitler’s Germany was like a beautifully tended garden surrounded by a bunch of gardens full of weeds.

 

And of course, the envy of the people who tilled the gardens, meaning the governments of the particular day, was rife everywhere! Not the people. For instance, Hitler had this program where he was going to [actually did] send hard working miners and farmers and so on these cruise ships to distant places in North Africa, in Egypt, in Greece or in Norway.

 

And it was such a hit with the working people of Europe that ordinary people could actually go on cruises that England forbade the landing of these German cruise ships in British ports! Because rather than giving their own working people such a break, they found it much easier just to restrict German ships from landing and not getting British workers envious.

 

What I’m saying to you is Hitler made Germany prosper! He made the trains run on time. Things hummed in Germany. Germany broke all kinds of records on the ground, in the air, with cars, with planes. National Socialist Germany in peacetime was a progressive, thriving country. And the people that lived there during that particular time apparently kind of allowed this restricted freedom that they couldn’t have different opinions and so on. They traded social security, financial security, bread and butter stuff over freedom.

 

It has always troubled me that that’s the way it was, but that’s the way it was. I personally am far more of a believer in individualism and freedom than that particular generation. But the Germans, after all, if the majority does rule by their majority, and by constantly reaffirming Hitler in power and his government decided that was the way they were perfectly willing to live, who am I to say in 1994 that they didn’t have the right to do that?

 

Now, why did the war break out? Because apparently Hitler was a sworn enemy of Marxism, Communism, then called Bolshevism. And Europe had these Bolshevik uprisings, especially in Hungary, Romania. Also in the east, especially in Russia, where a lot of blood was spilled, where hundreds of thousands, millions we know today, tens of millions of people were butchered in the most gruesome way, worked to death in the Gulag, worked to death while building canals through mosquito infested swamps and so on.

 

Today, now that the archives are open and the mass graves are being found in the Crimea and in the Ukraine and in Russia proper. Mass graves that hold 200, 240, 300,000 people and we have only just scratched the surface.

 

So the Bolsheviks who were in the east, armed to the teeth, had always said that they believed in world revolution and they were appealing to the workers around the world in uprising after uprising.

 

I know, I’ve got a book in my bookshelves here about a communist uprising in Brazil. Then we had the communist uprising in Spain. It was known at that time in Europe that communism was a huge threat to Western values and Western civilization.

 

Adolf Hitler was a strong opponent of Marxism. He considered it almost like an evil religion. And when President Ford, and later on much more so President Reagan and President Nixon before them had certain anti-communist statements made, President Reagan was the one that coined the phrase “the evil empire”. Well, let me tell you, Adolf Hitler had called Bolshevism and the Soviet Union “an evil empire” already in 1920s! And had initiated policies to contain the evil empire in the late 1930s. Making what he called the anti-Comintern pact with Italy, Japan and Germany.

 

[22:05]

 

And he also knew from his intelligence services that Russia [Soviet Union], armed to the teeth as they were, were pulling together troops at the Eastern border.

 

And so he knew that they were going to attack Germany and Western Europe. How did he know? Because the German armed forces and the German spy system against communism worked. They had lots and lots of ethnic Europeans in the east who were siding with the German government. And so their information was excellent!

 

But when Hitler finally ended up in this terrible tragedy with Poland, which France and England used as a declaration, as the reason for a declaration of war against Germany, Hitler knew that he had to quickly finish the continental powers in a kind of a pre-emptive quick strike in order to keep his back free, because he knew that the Soviet Union was arming and ready and rearing to go and invade Germany from the East. Germany didn’t have enough land, enough depth, geopolitically speaking, geographically speaking, to absorb the massive invasion forces which were then beginning to build up on her Eastern Frontier.

 

And so, luckily for Germany, France was subdued quickly, Holland and Belgium also. And Hitler could now turn his attention to the east. By now, his air force, using the very latest in technology, high altitude planes, quite similar to the later the very famous U2 spy planes which Francis Gary Powers used to fly over the Soviet Union. Hitler had similar planes, not quite as sophisticated, of course, but he could penetrate with his reconnaissance airplanes, flying at tremendously high altitudes for the first time using pressurized cabins, way into the heartland of Russia.

 

How do we know it? Because we have books about it. One man has been on my mailing list for three decades. His name is George Pemler. George Pemler, P E M L E R. He has written a book called, Der Flug zum Don, published by Drufel publishing house in Germany, in which he details and shows with all kinds of photographs the massive build-up of Soviet forces on the German border.

 

 

And so Hitler knew that he was not strong enough to just merely defend himself against Russia. And so they decided to pre-emptorily strike at the build-up of the Soviet forces very much the way Israel did in a repeat policy. And many people said, using a copycat plan against the Arab world in 1967 with exactly the same results. The Israelis attacked air fields in Egypt, in Syria and in other places, in Jordan, destroying the planes on the ground. They attacked missile batteries, destroying them on the ground.

 

And once they were silenced, then the ground forces, Israel’s tank forces, could sweep through the desert, driving the Arab forces before them into the desert. And ultimately Israel scored a stunning defeat in a very, very short war called the Six Day War.

 

Hitler’s forces did exactly the same thing in 1941 in the east. And the German air force that was opposed by over 14,000 Soviet planes knocked down over 12,500 planes or bombed them underground within the first two weeks of the war. The German air force at that time had less than 4,000 3,750 planes. The same could be said for ground forces, tank forces and so on. It was not German massive armor that won this. It was superior German generalship and planning. And also the elandes, the spirit of the German troops.

 

However, they were unable to deliver a knockout blow against the Soviet Union, which the world had expected. Basically, we know today because of treason in German ranks! Treason was the reason for Hitler not winning the war against the Soviet Union. And this is why Germany got stuck in the east!

 

And this is why these huge battles of attrition in Stalingrad, where over 300,000 German men marched into Stalingrad and where only 6,000 of them came back after the Second World War from Stalin’s Gulag. 96,000 prisoners were taken. About 90,000 of them vanished!

 

And you wonder why there were so few planes, so few troops, so few tanks in the West. Well, I tell you, they were in the east defending Europe, Western Europe against the Soviet onslaught, against the hordes of the evil empire, as President Reagan would have called it.

 

And so Europe’s men, we have to remember that, the Hungarians, the Slovakians, the many Polish volunteers, Ukrainian volunteers, Danish, Dutch volunteers. Alone in Denmark, four times as many people were serving in the SS in the German armed forces of Danish nationality than were serving in the Danish armed forces and police! This is an incredible statistic which very few people know.

 

[See: The Epic Story of the Waffen SS – Leon Degrelle]

 

So Hitler’s Germany was defending Europe’s interest in the east. And this is why the Allies had such an easy time in the West. This is why the there were only 270 operational tanks and only 375 planes to meet the Allies’ 12,000 planes in the West. They were bleeding to death in the east for Europe. And so look at it in the context of a German or of Germany. The Germans defended Europe and European style civilization against Soviet Bolshevism.

 

And so this was the reason that I should have given you before we went into Normandy.

 

However, the next series of programs that you’re going to hear have to do largely with Israel and German jewish relations. And I think it is timely because very, very little has been said about this period in history and the German side of it.

 

I am Ernst Zundel speaking for The Voice of Freedom. Yes, I am a son of the Germans using the facilities of North American radio stations and the freedom guaranteed to me by the United States, Constitution, by the Canadian Bill of Rights, or the other way around, to bring you dissident or different information. And all I’m asking you is. You don’t have to believe me. Just open up your mind to our German viewpoint and our Germans.

 

We are located at 206 Carlton street in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Our postal code is M5A 2L1. Our telephone 416-922-9850 [Note: All contact details out of date]. Thank you very much.

 

Ernst Zundel here thanking you for your support.

 

[29:34]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

(Comments as of 4/2/2025 = )

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

See Also

top

 

 

 

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 1 – Intro – Jun 29, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 2 – Jul 6, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 03 with Paul Fromm – Jul 13, 2024 – Transcript

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 04 with Oscar – Jul 20, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 08 with Alfred Schaefer – Aug 17, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 09 with Grace Eki Oyama – Aug 24, 2024 – Transcript

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 20 with Kathleen Dudley – Nov 16, 2024 – Transcript

 

 

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 24 – Prof Tony Hall – Dec 21, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 27 – Germar Rudolf – Jan 18, 2025 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 36 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zundel – Mar 22, 2025

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

The World’s First Anti-Holocaust Convention — Instauration Dec, 1979

An Open Letter to New Jersey’s Governor

Historians or Hoaxers?

House of Orwell

Misha: Surviving with Wolves or …

Bradley Smith’s Smith Report # 1

The Liberation of the Camps: Facts vs. Lies

The Plum Cake

 

 

 

Auschwitz: Myths and Facts

Powers and Principalities XI – Ewen Cameron, MK-Ultra, Holocaust Revisionism — TRANSCRIPT

Tales of the Holohoax – A Historian’s Assessment – Part 1

The Holocaust Lie — Made in America

Probing the Holocaust: The Horror Explained — TRANSCRIPT

Jim Rizoli Interviews Prof Robert Faurisson, Oct 2015 — TRANSCRIPT

Holocaust Eyewitnesses: Is the Testimony Reliable?

Alain Soral – My Homage to Robert Faurisson, Oct 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

Inside Auschwitz – You’ve never seen THIS before! — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

Amazion Bans 100s of Holocaust Revisionist Books!

AUSCHWITZ – A Personal Account by Thies Christophersen

Jim Rizoli Interviews Bradley Smith — TRANSCRIPT

London Forum – Alfred Schaefer – Psychological Warfare – TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report Interviews Eric Hunt — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio – Germar Rudolf – Persecution of Revisionists & Demographic Disaster – Part 1— TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio: Nicholas Kollerstrom — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice TV – Ingrid Carlqvist – Scandal in Sweden When Ingrid Questions the Unquestionable — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report with Carolyn Yeager on Johnson vs Anglin debate — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

 

 

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

Monika Schaefer: Good evening. Greetings. You are listening to the Republic Broadcasting Network at Republicbroadcasting.org. It is October 12, 2024. And this is The Flipside with Monika. And I am your host, Monika Schaefer.

 

Okay, good news. We have a very special guest, and we had a small technical glitch, but I understand he is on the line.

 

And so I’m going to bring him on without too much further ado. But I’ll just set the stage a little bit and then invite my guest to give a little bit more background. His name is Jurgen Neumann, or Jurgen Neumann, I’m not sure how he likes to pronounce it. And he worked for many years, in fact, for decades, as a videographer for Ernst Zundel, or Ernst Zundel, pronounced German. And he was pretty much Ernst Zundel’s right hand man and did very many interesting things, went over to Auschwitz, not just once, but several times.

 

And probably most of you are familiar with the name Ernst Zundel. He was taken through the court system for reaching the wrong conclusions about World War Two, that untouchable topic that we are all supposed to believe in. Only one narrative, the Holocaust narrative! So that’s a big story.

 

And I always say this is still very relevant. Obviously, it is still very relevant. They put people in jail still to this day for doubting that story. And there are ever more countries that are criminalizing people who question that narrative. And Ernst Zundel was one of the greats in exposing the lies and revealing the truth about World War Two history and what exactly happened or did not happen in Germany. And Jurgen Neumann is continuing his work to this day with re-uploading videos from that are old interviews, old radio broadcasts that Ernst Zundel did decades ago. And he is busy every day doing this work.

 

And so I would like to welcome Jurgen Neumann to the show. Are you there?

 

Jürgen Neumann: I am, Monika. Thank you for having me on.

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh, you’re so welcome! I’m very, very happy to have you on.

 

And I think that people are going to learn a thing or two because I learned something new just today, earlier today when we were talking for 20 minutes or half an hour on the phone in anticipation of tonight’s show. And that was really, really great. I learned something new.

 

So anyway, why don’t you just set the stage a little bit more with your own background and involvement. Because then we will be talking mostly about Ernst Zundel and the greater story about that. But I do want people to know a little bit about you. So go ahead, please.

 

Jürgen Neumann: All right. Basically, for me, it started back in the early 1970s, anyway.

 

Now, my father was a German army veteran from World War Two, and so I have a little bit of a connection to that time, etcetera.

 

And so what happened was that he discovered through another veteran he was talking to, that there was going to be some sort of a meeting going on in Buffalo, New York. And he asked me if I would like to go along, that has something to do with at some German group there. So I agreed to go with them. We went, and I’ll cut this short, of course.

 

And so we went there, and they showed some films and did some speechifying and things of that nature. And afterwards, there were some book tables around. So I wandered around, figured I should buy a book. So I did. I walked over to a book table, looked at what they had, picked one up, went to, give the money to the gentleman sitting behind the table.

 

And I always remember that he just looked up at me. It seemed like a long time, but I’m sure it was only a few seconds, but he just did look at me.

 

And then he opened the book cover and wrote something in it, gave it back to me.

 

Came home. I got interested in topics, ordered a few books from the United States, and I decided:

 

“Well, someplace in Canada, maybe I could find some books rather than send my money there.”

 

And so eventually I thought to myself:

 

“Oh, somebody wrote something in one of my book covers.”

 

He did. He wrote his name and phone number, and it was Ernst Zundel. I phoned him, and my father and I went down to see him. And that was in 1975, when I first got to meet him. And we all hit it off with each other, and we started volunteering to come down on weekends and things and do stuff for him, etcetera.

 

And eventually, in 1980, there was a, … Well, he had been promoting his ideas, of course, to many people mailing out. He would do great mailings, big mailings, to not only his supporters, but to every MP, every MPP, church leaders, things like that, get them informed about what he was discovering.

 

So eventually, …

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, sorry, I was just going to ask, when you first met him and he was doing these mailings, was that about the topic of World War Two, or was that more about the immigrant situation? Because I know that he had a experienced some disappointments as a German immigrant in Canada, thinking that this would be such a great and wonderful free country. But what was, were those early mailings about? Was it about his discoveries about World War Two?

 

[07:53]

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yes, it was.

 

And as you say, yes, he was very disappointed when he got here because he, at first, he didn’t notice it that much because he only spoke limited English. So he made his [commercial art] business, he got very successful and he learned English. Went to night school to learn English, where he met his wife. And he asked her where she was from and she said:

 

“I’m from Canada.”

 

And he thought:

 

“I’m Canadian, here to learn English. What’s that?”

 

Turns out she was from Quebec. She only spoke French.

 

But once he learned English, he started seeing all this anti-German propaganda that was around because it had absolutely nothing to do with what he knew about his people and so on. Then they moved to Quebec and he learned French. And the French language stuff was just as bad.

 

And that’s how he started getting into this. And he started meeting people, interviewing people who were there, and that’s what he was sharing with his, …

 

Monika Schaefer: Right. And we had talked earlier about his great moment of “awakening” and he called it being born again [chuckling] in quotation marks, I’ll say And why don’t you set that up for us a little bit?

 

And then we do have a clip. It’s a four minute clip about his, that moment in his life when he learned the truth! Because when he left Germany as a 20 year old in, I do believe he was 20. He was born in 1939. Is that correct? Am I getting the dates right? He came over in 1950, or maybe it was 58 or 59.

 

Jürgen Neumann: So he was 18 going on 19.

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh, okay. He was even younger. And he was very much a pacifist. He just wanted out of war torn Germany.

 

And of course, he believed all the narratives that were being told then. Correct?

 

Jürgen Neumann: Correct.

 

Monika Schaefer: So then just set this up for us before we play that clip. Tell us about the man who helped him. Yeah.

 

Jürgen Neumann: So anyway, he got active in politics in the sixties, around the mid sixties or so. he was very active. He got on radio talk shows and things, talking about the Arab-Israeli debate. I think it was around the ‘67 war, or something. And anyway, he did a lot of activities and things.

 

And eventually he was approached by a retired RCMP called special constable. And he said:

 

“Oh, Mr Zundel, he said, you are interested in all these things. There is a fellow in Quebec that you should actually go see, because he has a great library about all these subjects. And he was involved in a lot of this stuff back in the day, so you should go see him.”

 

And so he did. He packed up his wife and child, went to Quebec, dropped her off with her mother, I think it was relatives.

 

And then he went to see this man whose name was Adrien Acand*. He’s a very famous Canadian, especially back in, let’s say, in the thirties and so on. He had a kind of a neo-Fascist party, political party in Quebec.

 

[* Adrien Arcand was a Canadian fascist politician, writer, and journalist. He founded and led the far-Right National Unity Party of Canada from 1934 until his death in 1967. During his political career, he proclaimed himself as the “Canadian Führer”. Arcand was detained by the federal government for the duration of the World War II under the Defence of Canada, Regulations. Wikipedia]

 

 

[See: The Greatest War in History, Now On! — International Jewish System Against National Patriotism – 1937]

So they were doing very well with getting support and running for things. And he was also an army officer in one of the well known French regiments, Quebec regiments. And he was also an editor for one of the largest daily French newspaper, French language newspaper, outside of France. He went to see him and he discovered that as the story went, he goes in there and he introduced himself, Acand looked at him, said:

 

“Oh, you are one of those brainwashed Germans!”

 

He said:

 

“Oh!”

 

“Yeah, well, come on in, sit down. Would you prefer us to speak in German? Would it be easier for you?”

 

And he was blown away. This man spoke perfect German.

 

And so they got to know each other and he started showing him his library of thousands of books and started giving him all the other information that he had been denied all these years.

 

And so he was quite blown away by the whole thing.

 

And one of the things that really shook him was the fact that on the day that Germany invaded Poland and Canada declared war on Germany, or three days later.

 

Anyway, on that day he was arrested with a number of his major people in the party, put in a Canadian concentration camp, without charge for the duration of the war.

 

Monika Schaefer: That blew my mind! That’s the bit that I learned today. I had heard, I kind of knew that Adrian Arcand had been in some kind of a concentration camp, but I had assumed it was in Europe, that he was still in Europe. So that blew my mind! This was in Canada and that was like basically at the very start of World War Two. Please continue.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yes.

 

So anyway, he said, after his first meeting with Arcand, which lasted about 3 hours, he said, he just kind of “floated out of the room”. He just could not [chuckling] believe what he had heard. And it made sense to him, from what he has already experienced with his own relatives and what he had seen in Germany and so on. Everything he heard made perfect sense to him.

 

 

 

Monika Schaefer: Thank you for that. I think this would be a perfect time to play that clip. So, Frank, if you could play that clip now, that would be great!

 

[14:26]

 

Ernst Zundel: Then I had a good fortune. Some people said misfortune. I think it was a good fortune to meet a French-Canadian in Quebec. And I was introduced to him through an Irish-Canadian, who said that this French-Canadian had a very big library about these topics, meaning communism, Bolshevism, jews, race, and I should go and see that man, because to my surprise, he said he was in concentration camp in Canada for six years during the entire Second World War. That was the first time that I heard about non-German concentration camps.

Up until that point, I was 20 years old. I always thought only the Germans had these concentration camps for political dissidents. Well, I was always a person that from the thought to the action, to inform myself or to do anything was a very short one. Some people take a long time, contemplate this, do that, plan this. I say:

“Oh, so there’s this guy in Quebec, even he’s supposed to speak German, because at the time when I was still learning the two languages, I’m gonna hop myself in my old Beetle Volkswagen and make a beeline for Quebec. Look that man up!”

And boy, oh boy, I thought I had culture shock before. Well, let me tell you, I walked into this French-Canadian’s home. It was a room somewhat like this, surrounded by many books, modern art. And he could hear by my accent that I was still struggling with the languages. And so instead of speaking French or English to me, he immediately proceeded to speak German. Big surprise to me! He was a native born Canadian, speaking pretty good German.

And it turns out he had taught himself in the concentration camp, through German prisoners to speak and read German.

And so this French-Canadian, who had been a political party leader in Canada of a very large political party before the Second World War, first called the national social Christian movement, then the National Unity Party of Canada, with a swastika under a little beaver.

So he obviously had national sort tendencies. They were somewhat in the vein of [Oswald] Mosley, you could call him a Canadian Mosley. And he proceeded in a tour de force to take me through German history and European history and world history in about three and a half hours that afternoon. And he had memorized, phenomenal memory, all these books, the points that he was illustrating to me, many of them illustrated by jewish authors, some of them dating back 100 years.

I remember one, a book called Unity in Dispersion, about the jewish dispersion and diaspora around. And about Bolshevism, the jewishness of Bolshevism, the early Bolsheviks. Blew my mind! He was the first one to make the connection between Freemasonry and revolutionaries, bankers. What it was a kind of a very condensed march through European history with the aim of showing me that there was a different side to the story! There was the standard, ordinary version of history, which turned out to be the allied propaganda version of history. Then there was very real European history.

And I’ll tell you, after three and a half hours, I walked out of that man’s room, his library. I don’t think to say to “walk out” is a correct description. I “wafted out” of that place! And it is only comparable, I think, to what Christians, born again Christians say when they found Christ, they are born again. Well, let me tell you, Ernst Zundel was born again in 1960!

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yes, indeed!

 

Monika Schaefer: Oops, I forgot to unmute.

 

Thank you very much, Mr Producer, for playing that clip. That indeed, yes, indeed. That was The Voice of Ernst Zundel telling the story of when he was quote, unquote, “born again” with the truth! And like you were saying, Jurgen, then he felt that everything made a lot more sense!

 

And so from then on, I think it became a mission of his life to restore the honor of the German people. Would you say that that’s basically the theme, the thread of all his actions in the next few decades? Would you say that would be pretty accurate?

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yes, that would be a very accurate description. As you say, restore the honor, the reputation of the Germans, generally speaking, and of the wartime generation in particular.

 

Monika Schaefer: Indeed.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah, that’s what he did. So, as I say, he was doing a lot of his activities in the sixties after he met Adrian Arcand.

 

And then eventually they had some really big problems in Quebec. And so he decided, him and his wife, they decided to move back to Toronto again. So they moved back to Ontario. And he carried on. He said he mailed out all these things.

 

And eventually, in 1980. Well, yeah, yeah, he was mailing out all these things. And there was big raids on his supporters in Germany.

 

Monika Schaefer: Okay, let’s just backtrack a little bit here, because that would have already been in the eighties then. I’m not sure.

 

But let’s just give a little more background for folks who may note, know this. What a big figure Ernst Zundel was.

 

He was an extraordinary man.

 

Now, what he was a very successful businessman, you could say. But what his business was he was a graphic artist, right? And he was earning very good money being a graphic artist, because he was an extremely talented man, very good artist.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Just to show you how good an artist he was, when we were having problems with the JDL* and things, he was in his office and a jewish gentleman came in to pick up his job that Ernst had retouched for him.

 

[* The Jewish Internet Defense Force was an organization ran social media campaigns from 2,000 to 2014 against websites and Facebook groups that it described as Islamic terrorism or anti-semitism. The group’s website, whose former domain now links to a gambling site, described the JIDF as a “private, independent, non-violent protest organization representing a collective of activists”. The JIDF was termed “hacktivism” by the BBC and Haaretz. Wikipedia]

 

And while he standing there waiting for us to pack it up, I asked this jewish gentleman:

 

“How is it that he could deal with Ernst, who has such big notoriety about the Holocaust and all this kind of stuff?”

 

And his answer was:

 

“Ahh, that doesn’t mean anything! Because I come from New York. And in New York, we have the best of everything, because we have the money to pay for the best of everything. And here in Toronto, Ernst is New York quality!”

 

[22:04]

 

Monika Schaefer: [chuckling] Wonderful! So he was just the best at it. So, okay. He became successful doing that. When was the race, the leadership race for the Liberal Party in which Ernst Zundel participated? Do you know what year that was?

 

Jürgen Neumann: I believe that was 1978, I think.

 

Monika Schaefer: Okay. That’s what I thought. I think it was the seventies still or late seventies. Just so the people listening, I think perhaps most of the listeners are not Canadian here. So you may not know this, but Ernst Zundel, he ran for the leadership of the Liberal Party, which was up for grabs at that time. And the winner of that leadership race would automatically land at 24 Sussex Drive, which is the home of the prime minister of Canada.

 

In other words, it was between elections that, I don’t know the details anymore of why there was a leadership race, who was stepping down and whatnot? Go ahead.

 

Jürgen Neumann: It was because the prime minister at the time had become very ill. I forget whether he had cancer or something like that. So he wanted to step down. So he was going to resign because of his illness.

 

And that’s why it was opened up to a leadership race within the party to become leader of the party, which would automatically make that person prime minister of Canada.

 

Monika Schaefer: Now, this gave Ernst Zundel a stage, a big, big audience. He was talking on the stage. This was in front of, what, 30 or 40,000 people?

 

And, of course, it also got broadcasted in the not just in Canada, but in other countries. So millions of people got to see and hear Ernst Zundel talk.

 

And I think his main issue was the treatment of immigrants in Canada, particularly German immigrants. We’re not talking about the kind of immigrants that are coming now who are the invaders, [chuckling] but from all kinds of third world countries. We’re talking about German immigrants at the time, who, it seems to me, the German people, wherever they went, they would work hard. And basically build up the country wherever they went. So yeah. And he didn’t have any expectations of winning, but it did certainly give him a platform from which to speak.

 

Jürgen Neumann: He did also talk on behalf of Eastern European immigrants, too, as well.

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh, good. Yes.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Because they were also looked down upon, generally speaking, in society. So he was also on their side as well.

 

Monika Schaefer: Right.

 

So okay, then let’s go forward to kind of the next major thing that happened in Ernst Zundel’s life. Back to you Jürgen.

 

Jürgen Neumann: As I kind of jump forward there a bit, to 1980, where there was the German government took upon itself to initiate the biggest raid in German history! And that was a raid on over 2,000 of Ernst supporters in Germany. And they raided all their houses, got all their addresses illegally through the post office. And they weren’t nice about it either. So they raided all these people, they were looking for all Ernst Zundel’s material, videotapes, … Well, not video, audio tapes, booklets, newsletters, all those types of things. And they took it away.

 

And that spilled over into the news here, of course, etcetera. And the jewish community in Toronto decided that they should demonstrate in front of Ernst Zundel’s place to denounce him as a neo-Nazi and a hate monger, all those things. So we got news of this demonstration and we were preparing for it.

 

And it turns out that one of his supporters was there who had an electronics business, you know, Hi-Fis, turntables, radios, things like that.

 

And so he said:

 

“Ernst, they’re going to come and demonstrate. Have you ever thought of video?”

 

Because he’s already been working with eight millimeter film, already done a few films. And he said:

 

“Well, I don’t know, I’m really busy right now organizing this stuff.”

 

He said:

 

“Well, okay, I’ll go out and I’ll videotape some of this stuff, this demonstration and you can have a look.”

 

He said:

 

“Yeah, yeah. Okay.”

 

So it happened. The guy went out there, he videotaped what he videotaped. And then after it was all over, come back in, and we’re sitting there winding down. And he said:

 

“Okay, Ernest, would you like to see what I did?”

 

He said:

 

“Yeah, okay.”

 

So he hooked it up to the television, and I remember this like it was yesterday. He pressed play, the video started, and Ernst eyes got big, looked at it, and he said:

 

“This is the future!”

 

Monika Schaefer: This is wonderful, wonderful story! [chuckling]

 

Jürgen Neumann: So he said:

 

“Oh, yeah, this is great!”

 

We watched it, etcetera, for a while, watched it. Then he said:

 

“Okay, well, we’re going to get into this! Who can we get to do the videos?”

 

So I put up my hand:

 

“I’ll volunteer. I’ve never done it. I’ve never done this before, but I will volunteer for it!”

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh, that’s wonderful! Who was it that did the original, that first video? I thought it was you. It was somebody else, was it?

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah, it was somebody else did that.

 

Monika Schaefer: Okay. Okay, great!

 

But then you volunteered.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah, the video that is up on the Internet, the part where Ernst is sitting there talking about it. I was the camera guy for that. But all the exterior stuff was this other fellow.

 

Monika Schaefer: Right. But then you put up your hand and you decided:

 

“Okay, I’ll volunteer. This is great. Okay, here we go!”

 

Jürgen Neumann: It was actually 1981, in May 31st, as I recall. It was almost like, depending on who, what source you believe. There was about 2,000 demonstrators out front.

 

Monika Schaefer: Wow!

 

You know, I think we’re about to go into a break now, Juergens. So we’ll continue this after the break. And this is just getting me on the edge of my seat. It’s just really, really good! I thought I heard the music. Is that music coming on there? Oh, yeah. Okay. Hang on, everybody.

 

We’ll be back in a few minutes.

 

[29:13]

 

[music]

 

[29:43]

 

[ad]

 

[32:59]

 

[music]

 

[34:00]

 

Monika Schaefer: All right, we are back. The Flipside with Monika and our guest Jurgen Neumann. Before I ask you to continue, Jurgen, I’m just going to remind the listeners that if you have the means and if you possibly can, please do support the Republic Broadcasting Network. So go to Republicbroadcasting.org and you will find the means and methods to donate there, telephone numbers and whatnot.

 

And I’ll also just let you know that I do have a chat room at the Chatango site. And that is The Flipside W Monika dot Chatango.com. And I did, just before the show, I posted Juergen’s BitChute channel there and his alias there is JohnRobinson101 at Bitchute. And he has been working very, very hard Right to this day. I think daily there are new videos that he is posting and many of them are some very old videos. I think he does some upgrading of the sound and whatnot. Improving the sound. And old Ernst Zundel broadcast radio shows that he used to do. A Voice of Freedom, many of those. And Ernst Zundel did a lot of activity and radio interviews and whatnot.

 

Okay, so just before the break you were starting to talk about, … Actually, what [chuckling] were we talking about, Jürgen? We had gotten into the early eighties, I think. And the firebombing. Not quite firebombing yet, but the protests, that comes later. That’s right, with the trials. But we’re getting almost there to where that did happen. Go ahead.

 

Jürgen Neumann: We left off where I volunteered to be the video guy.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yes, yes, yes! [chuckling] That’s right. And all these people were protesting and that’s how that came about. That’s right. Okay, continue please.

 

Jürgen Neumann: One of the most, just as a kind of an aside, one of the most things that really sticks out to me in that video of the protests out in front of Ernst Zundel’s place was the police. There was a police line there, right to stop anything untoward happening, storming the house or something of that nature. But what really stuck out, it’s 1981, and how the police were dressed, right? They were dressed in slacks and short sleeve shirts. How were the police dressed nowadays?

 

Monika Schaefer: Well, they’re like.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Body armor, machine guns, all this stuff.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Things have changed a lot. And not for the better.

 

Monika Schaefer: No, that’s right, yeah. And just on that, I would say they are dressed differently now because it is becoming more and more clear that the government is at war against their own people.

 

And so they do need to be dressed that way because they know that they are at war with their own people. Back then, it was a little bit more hidden and I think we just didn’t know it yet. But all those lies and whatnot, that was setting the scene for what is going on now. But that’s just an aside. But carry on. Go ahead, please.

 

Jürgen Neumann: So going back one or two years, in 1979, Ernst met the man who turned out to be the world’s foremost revisionist. A Frenchman by the name of Robert Faurisson. He was a Professor at French universities, so on.

 

So they had, I guess it was the inaugural opening meeting of the Institute for Historical Review, and it was in Chicago. And so Ernst was invited to that. So he went there, he met Faurisson. He had to actually read Faurisson’s paper, everybody, because Faurisson was so tired from all his traveling and stuff that he wasn’t really in much shape. So he asked Ernest if he would do that.

 

And by talking to Mr Faurisson he realized that Faurisson said to him, he said:

 

“He’s been looking at this and investigating and everything, this story about the Holocaust.”

 

And he said:

 

“He missed the obvious question at the beginning.”

 

Which he now says. He says:

 

“We have to look at what is a gas chamber? It doesn’t matter all the other anti-jewish stuff, it doesn’t matter. What matters is the gas chambers. What does it look like?”

 

Because he’s been to Auschwitz and stuff like that. And when you get down to the real nitty-gritty, there’s not much of a comparison between a real one and what they were talking about in Auschwitz.

 

So therefore Ernst, he started, of course, promoting this, promoting all that. We actually, a little later on, we did some videos with him about that subject.

 

Monika Schaefer: With Robert Faurisson, do you mean?

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yes. First he was given the publication in German called the, it was entitled, I think was Auschwitz Luge, perhaps by a German World War Two veteran by the name of Thies Christopherson.

 

Monika Schaefer: Right. And that means the Auschwitz Lie.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah. So he read that and he was blown away by that.

 

And so he decided he’s going to go and visit Mr Christopherson, which he did. He went there and he discussed it. It turns out that Christopherson had been, he was in the army, 1939, I believe. Yeah, it was 1939, the Polish campaign. He got a bit of a wound and then they considered him to be a non-combat anymore. He wasn’t good enough to fight anymore. He didn’t agree, but they did.

 

So eventually he had been a farmer and so they got him by 1940 or so, they sent him to Auschwitz as a agronomist, I guess they call them. And he used to study plants, kind of dandelion plants, grow them, because they produce kind of an elastic type of liquid if you crush them and all that. The whole point of Auschwitz was a plant to produce synthetic fuel and rubber for the tires and all that. And so they were going to use this as one of the additives. So he was there for, I think, a year and a half or something.

 

[41:36]

 

Monika Schaefer: You don’t say! It was a place where they were producing stuff. It wasn’t just a place where they, [laughing] you know.

 

Anyway, I’m just interjecting there. [chuckling] Okay, go on.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Well, the actual Auschwitz plant that they built there is still today the biggest chemical plant being used by the Poles in Poland. [chuckling]

 

So anyway, so he talked to him. And so that was another thing he started promoting. And not long after that, he was introduced to that booklet, Did Six Million Really Die? And so he was promoting that everywhere.

 

 

And because of that, next thing you know, [chuckling] he was invited onto a TV show in Hamilton. It’s called Cherington [The Tom Cherington Show (1983) – https://www. BitChute.com/video/omGAPCI4YOuK /]. The host was a well known fellow, talk show type of deal. And Ernst was invited on there to face the woman who had charged him for his postal hearing. Or did I not mention that yet?

 

Monika Schaefer: No. Yeah, that’s right. Go ahead. Mention that. [chuckling]

 

Jürgen Neumann: 1980 postal hearing. He got a letter from the Minister of Posts.

 

Monika Schaefer: Like you’re talking Canada, Post.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yes, Canada, Post. The letter said:

 

“This is the last letter you will receive.”

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, they were doing something completely unheard of and completely unlawful! And they were cutting off his mail! Which had serious repercussions. It means he wouldn’t get any correspondence, let alone bills that he had to pay. Or for his work, you know, contracts, whatever.

 

Jürgen Neumann: So, yeah, and we had to go get the electrical bill and the insurance bills and then pay. He’d write out checks, and stuff. We’d have to go back and hand them back into the company because there’s no mail.

 

So this went on for about a year, until we finally got a hearing. And the hearing was longest one in Canadian history. I think it was about a week long. And the woman who made the charge against him, Sabina Citrone, she brought in a file, kind of a binder, about two, three inches thick, of all kinds of materials. And here’s all the hateful stuff that Ernst Zundel was sending in the mail. Because, you know, he’s trying to get it back. Of course, it’s an appeal.

 

So we looked at all the stuff. Eventually, it was quite obvious that 99% of what was in that binder had nothing to do with Ernst Zundel. So he hadn’t produced any of it, hadn’t mailed any of it. He didn’t even realize half of it existed.

 

Monika Schaefer: What was it? They it just put a bunch of other stuff from other people into the binder? Like, was it just, what was it?

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah, it was just mostly stuff like KKK type of racist material.

 

Monika Schaefer: They just put stuff on him basically. They wanted to just smear him by some kind of a association or non-Association or whatever?

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yes, that he had been mailing this around. Anyway.

 

Monika Schaefer: Lying! Anyway. Lying! [chuckling]

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah.

 

Anyway, he won. He won it.

 

And then they refused to give him a copy of the transcript. But that took him, I forget how many years, ten years or something, to finally be able to look at it, but they wouldn’t give him a copy of it.

 

So he had his lawyer with him, and she typed out the whole transcript on her laptop, because they wouldn’t give a copy of it.

 

Monika Schaefer: Wow!

 

Jürgen Neumann: Anyway, (((Sabina Citrone))), she was the one who’s going to be on this Cherington Show with another lawyer. And Ernst was going to be sitting across from them. And they went to it. And it was a really good show. It was like an hour and a half, I think, something like that. Live. It was really neat. He did very good job.

 

And then after it was over, we left the studio. We’re sitting in the lobby and you can still you still hear the program running because they had TVs in the lobby and stuff for people who would sit there. And Cherington said:

 

“Oh, and we’ll guess we’ll see what will happen, because there’s going to be a court case and we’ll see what’s going to happen.”

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh! Wow!

 

Jürgen Neumann: And Ernst pricked up his ear and:

 

“Oh, what? Court case? What’s this?”

 

Hadn’t heard anything about it.

 

And sure enough, two days later, along comes the serving of the papers that you have been charged with. Well, actually, they didn’t charge them with “hate” or anything, they just charged them with “spreading false news”.

 

Monika Schaefer: Right, this spreading false news.

 

But I find that very interesting, that these television sorts seem to have the inside knowledge of what’s going to happen.

 

Now, who was putting that into their ear, I wonder? And why did they have that inside knowledge of that Ernst Zundel was going to be charged? I find that very interesting! Wow!

 

Jürgen Neumann: Anyway, so that went on to his moving ahead to his first trial. Went to court a couple of times, preliminary hearing. Had to fight our way into court. And just that every time we went into court, judges say:

 

“Oh, the prosecution’s not ready yet. Has to come back.”

 

He had do that three times, to fight our way into court.

 

[47:30]

 

Monika Schaefer: Wow!

 

And fighting your way into court, just to clarify for people who don’t know, that meant you were kind of running the gauntlet of all these violent thugs!

 

Jürgen Neumann: Oh, yeah, it was a literal fight. Literally fight! The first one, first two times, there was no police around us. Ernst and us supporters we literally had to fight our way into court. Because, of course, if you didn’t go in, then you’d automatically lose by not appearing in court.

 

 

 

Monika Schaefer: Right.

 

Jürgen Neumann: The third time, I think they finally brought out a lot of police to try to keep everybody apart.

 

Monika Schaefer: Right.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Anyway, and it was during that trial that he first reached out to the revisionist community and said:

 

“Okay, everybody, now’s your chance! I need witnesses, we need information.”

 

And that’s when revisionism really got off the ground.

 

Monika Schaefer: Indeed.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Because it was broadcast, well, kind of around the world, but certainly in North America for, was it six weeks?

 

Everyday in the news, the newspapers and everything.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, exactly! And I’ll just interject here briefly. Like, I do remember, that was 1985 and I was a young adult.

 

And I remember it was daily news. Daily news! But for me at that time, it was kind of just background noise. But I did I didn’t think much of it. I didn’t look into it yet. And I was very much still asleep at the wheel and in The Matrix. But the media, the way they presented things, it. Ernst Zundel sounded like kind of a kooky guy, sort of a madman and a bad man, too. But I didn’t make that judgment of, oh, he’s evil. No, nothing like that. But he just was kind of a:

 

“Well, wow! Why would somebody do that? What he’s doing? Like the holocaust? I mean, of course it happened!”

 

You know, it was just as solid as the nose on your face that it happened. That’s how it was for me, my impressions.

 

But, yeah, it was daily news. Daily news. I mean, you couldn’t not hear about it if you lived in Canada at that time and were not with your head totally in the sand.

 

But you know what I did find out later when I learned more about it and read about it, if I had looked beyond the headlines, like in the newspapers, for example, if I had actually read the fine print, I would have learned a lot! It was amazing what the newspapers actually did, write! I mean, their headlines, the titles of their articles were very bad!

 

And a lot of people just skim over the headlines and then they move on to the next page or whatever. But within those articles, there was absolute, like, bombshell! Like it was a bomb. Like it was amazing! It was just blowing their narrative straight out of the like, it was just blowing apart their narrative, really, because they were writing what was actually going on in that trial. Back to you, Juergen.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yes, exactly what was happening.

 

And what was very interesting about it was the court proceedings started at 10:00 am in the morning, and people started lining up to get a seat in the court at 08:00 in the morning to make sure they would get in.

 

Monika Schaefer: Wow!

 

Jürgen Neumann: That’s how much interest there was. And one morning, everybody was standing there in the hall outside the courtroom. Big line up there, people waiting. And what comes along, a jewish school class comes in and they usher them right into the courtroom.

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh, boy!

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah. Oh, boy! Was there a revolution out in the hall! And there was an outcry to such an extent that they removed the school class.

 

Monika Schaefer: [laughing] I hadn’t heard about this before. Wow! Carry on.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah. You guys gotta wait your turn like everybody else. That was good. I never thought that they would do that, but they did. So that was good. There was some honesty back then.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah.

 

Jürgen Neumann: So, yeah, so anyway, it was six weeks or thereabouts, and then there was an appeal, and then the appeal was lost. No, it was won. And then it was up to the Attorney General. Not the Attorney General, but, …

 

Monika Schaefer: Crown prosecutor?

 

Jürgen Neumann: No. The main legal head of Ontario.

 

Monika Schaefer: Right.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Who to say, either we dropped the whole thing or have another trial. And he said:

 

“We’re going to have another trial.”

 

So that turned into the 1988 trial, which had even more information that went on for almost four months.

 

Monika Schaefer: Right! Now, I’ll just say a couple of words about these trials. The 1985 trial, there were “Holocaust survivors”. I’m putting that in quotation marks. Eyewitnesses on the stand. And did those eyewitnesses come back in 88, or did they have other eyewitnesses in 1988, Juergen?

 

Jürgen Neumann: No, they did not return, because as far as history goes, it was the first time that former camp inmates were properly cross examined by a lawyer!

 

Monika Schaefer: Right.

 

Jürgen Neumann: And what came out guaranteed that they are not going to come back again. [chuckling]

 

Monika Schaefer: Right. In other words, their testimony was absolutely shredded to bits!

 

Jürgen Neumann: Yes, absolutely! Totally!

 

Of course, one of the favorite ones was the fellow who said:

 

“Oh, yeah they were burning all these jews in Auschwitz. And I could tell. I look at the crematoriums, and the color of the flaming smoke coming out there would tell me the ethnic background of the jews that they were burning that day. Green for Polish jews, and red for Hungarian jews.”

 

Even the prosecutor kind of hurried that up.

 

Tried to shut him up.

 

Monika Schaefer: Because they knew it was just so much garbage. Oh, my goodness!

 

[53:58]

 

Jürgen Neumann: Oh yeah. I mean, even the prosecutor could see that.

 

Monika Schaefer: Even the prosecutor was kind of embarrassed about that and knew this is not going to bode well for our side if these witnesses are making up such ridiculous garbage! [chuckling] Anyway, it’s pretty funny, that one. Yeah. It’s so unbelievable that it’s hard to believe, but there it is. It’s in the transcripts that got said in court. There are many witnesses [chuckling] that had heard that.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Oh, yeah. The other interesting thing is, of course, they have a preliminary hearing to see if there’s going to be a trial.

 

And one of the witnesses at the preliminary hearing before the trial started was Sabrina Citrone, because as a teenager, she was picked up and sent to Auschwitz. So she was there. And in the preliminary hearing, her testimony was such that she didn’t come to the trial. Because her story really didn’t fit well with the holocaust narrative.

 

Monika Schaefer: Okay. So her, her own handlers advised her:

 

“You better stay away!”

 

Is that correct?

 

Jürgen Neumann: I imagine.

 

Yeah, if we have enough time. I’ll give you a quick rundown on her story.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah! Please!

 

Jürgen Neumann: She’s young. She gets scooped up. She gets off the train on the selection ramp at Auschwitz. We know that everybody says:

 

“Now, you go to the Left, you go to work, you go to right, you go up the chimney. Nobody gets out of Auschwitz except for up the chimney.”

 

So here’s what she said:

 

“She gets off, she’s sitting there. And the officer, whoever it is, comes up, says ‘Okay.’ And so he looks at her, ‘Okay, you’re young as well. You go over there with that group who’s going to work.’ And she said, ‘I’m not going to work for you Nazis!”

 

Paraphrase a little bit:

 

“Yes, you are! No, I’m not! Yes, you are. No, I’m not. Okay, if you’re not, then you go with that group!”

 

So she goes off with the other group. What does the other group do?

 

The other group goes off to the barracks. They get all decked out. And whatever they did, and she hung around and did nothing for a week. Just goofed around, ate, you know, wandered around, did whatever she wanted to do.

 

And then at the end of the week, her and the rest of the people from that group got put on another train and shipped out of Auschwitz to Germany.

 

Monika Schaefer: Wow! This is not something.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Late 1944. But here’s what’s really something. The train that they were on was a regular passenger train.

 

Monika Schaefer: Hmm. Not a cattle car?

 

Jürgen Neumann: It was regular passenger trains. She said the only dead jews that she actually saw was as they were driving through part of Germany and the train were attacked by allied fighter bombers.

 

Monika Schaefer: Right.

 

Jürgen Neumann: She [words unclear] and some of the jews got killed by the allied fighter bombers.

 

Monika Schaefer: Juergen, I can see that. I have to have you back soon. We only have about a minute left, and there was so much more to talk about. I mean, your trips to Auschwitz. We didn’t even touch on that. We haven’t really touched on the 1988 Trial and we are just touching the surface here. This is just incredibly interesting, but I want to make sure that people know where to find you. I alluded to it earlier.

 

Can you just tell us about your BitChute channel and what’s your alias there? How to find you?

 

Jürgen Neumann: It’s not actually an alias. It’s just the title of the channel.

 

Monika Schaefer: Okay.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Anyway, for those who want to get there and have a look at all these things, it’s go to the BitChute platform and type in JohnRobinson101 [https:// www. BitChute.com/channel/pcBHZPgCtR2a]. All one word, and my channel should come up and you could enjoy and be educated.

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh, that’s fantastic! Yeah. I did say that you had been several times to Auschwitz. But you know what? I would like to have you back. And I do hear the music.

 

Is there anything else you’d like to say? Just going out words. Yeah.

 

Jürgen Neumann: One more quickie on my channel. I have over a thousand videos! So you’ve got a lot to look at.

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh, yes. And it will be a good education. Juergen, thank you so very much for being my guest today. The hour just flew by. That’s a good sign. [chuckling] And I’ll see you all next week. Bye bye for now.

 

Jürgen Neumann: Bye bye.

 

[58:37]

 

[music]

 

[58:44]

 

[ad]

 

[59:59]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

RBN Comments

top

(Comments as of 10/20/2024 = 1)

1 Comment
1 
Harry October 15, 03:04 How could there not be a decent sounding clip of Ernst Zundel audio? It’s clipping badly like someone amplified the volume all the way up…. And after the clip, she thanked the producer for playing it. Whereas I might have had some choice words… Seriously guys, it’s 2024 and we’ve all been doing this for years, so let’s get things right. I’ve been hearing so many technical errors and downright incompetence, I’m almost starting to think it’s deliberate. As if this is the new controlled opposition, where we won’t necessarily tell lies or conceal the jew, but we WILL be incompetent and waste everyone’s time with technical issues, vulgarity, etc.

Reply to this comment

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

See Also

top

 

 

 

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 1 – Intro – Jun 29, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 2 – Jul 6, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 03 with Paul Fromm – Jul 13, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 08 with Alfred Schaefer – Aug 17, 2024 – Transcript

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 15 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zündel – Oct 12, 2024 – Transcript

 

 

 

/>

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

Judge Napolitano: Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Monday, May 6, 2024. Scott Ritter joins us now. Scott, it’s a pleasure. Thank you for joining us. I want to talk about a variety of topics. The suppression of free speech in the United States, the coming invasion of Rafa, the compulsive fear of criticizm of Benjamin Netanyahu, and the latest in Ukraine.

 

And I’ll start there. Do you think President Putin is running out of patience, or will he continue his methodical war of attrition, no matter what Emmanuel Macron says, no matter what David Cameron threatens, no matter what Tony Blinken promises?

 

Scott Ritter: I think we need to understand one fundamental truth here, that this conflict is seen by Russia as an existential conflict. That there is no tie, there is no defeat. There is only victory. And they have put together a plan to achieve that victory. And they’re on the cusp of that happening right now. As we speak the Ukrainian army is disintegrating at the front. This is sending waves of panic through NATO, etcetera.

 

And this is why you see Emmanuel Macron talking about the need to send French troops if the Ukrainian line collapses. Well, it’s collapsing right now! David Cameron making similar statements.

 

Russia has a plan. They have mobilized the troops. They have trained the troops. They have the military, conventional military to achieve this objective. As I was told by a general earlier this year, major changes on the map in May and probably game over by the end of the summer. And that’s the trajectory there on.

 

The problem is you have the West saying insane things such as if the Ukrainian line collapses, NATO troops will intervene. This is why Vladimir Putin now has ordered the Southern Military District. [chuckling] People, please just open your eyes and your ears and listen to what I’m saying!:

 

“The Southern Military District to carry out training for the employment of tactical nuclear weapons.”

 

This doesn’t mean that they’re going to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. They’re not. They’re going to blow the hell out of NATO forces in Romania, Poland, Germany, France, Italy. It’s nuclear war! If this is what you want, west, you’re going to get it! Putin doesn’t bluff! This ain’t a game! This isn’t joke. This is life and death for Russia! They’ve made that clear from the very beginning.

 

And so now we have a situation where NATO tried to cause bluff. The United States poured hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weaponry and money and such into the Ukrainian military. Russia had a plan. They ground it out.

 

All this nonsense you hear in the West:

 

“Russia is suffering 1,000 dead!”

 

The number of Russian losses right now on the battlefield are the lowest they’ve been since the war started. That’s how unbalanced this is right now. Russia is dominating the front line! They are devastating Ukrainians. It was 800 Ukrainian dead a week ago. It was 1,000 earlier. It’s up to 1500 dead. They’re just being slaughtered! They’re being annihilated and there’s nothing to replace them.

 

[04:02]

 

So they are literally collapsing. NATO is in a panic. Macron’s talking about sending troops. Poland’s talking about sending troops. And Russia’s saying:

 

“I don’t know how many times we have to tell you if NATO troops show up on Ukrainian soil, we’re going to nuke you! We’re going to nuke you! Okay? We’re going to take you out. Not your troops in Ukraine. We’re going to nuke the decision making centers!”

 

Russia isn’t bluffing. I hope the people watching right now are getting cold sweats right now because the world’s over at this point, ladies and gentlemen. Okay, it’s over. It’s game, set, match. It’s done! Whatever plans you had for the summer, they’re canceled. Whatever Christmas plans you had, forget about it.!

 

So get scared. Start calling people and saying:

 

“What the hell are you doing, Tony Blinken! Biden. Get on the phone to Macron and tell him to shut up and sit down!”

 

The same thing with the Poles, because this is it. Russia is getting ready to exercise the use of tactical nuclear weapons in the Southern Military District. Okay? That means that if NATO troops are deployed, because the Ukrainian army is collapsing as we speak and Macron has said:

 

“It’s his red line. And if they collapse, I have no choice, he says, but to send French troops in.”

 

Well, the Russians will kill them, but then they’re going to nuke France. So there we are. This is about as serious as it gets.

 

And yet we are sleepwalking. We are sound asleep! Nobody in America cares. Nobody!

 

Judge Napolitano: Do they understand what you’ve said? But they choose to ignore it for political reasons? When I say they, I mean the West, the West wing, the White House, the American State department.

 

Scott Ritter: No, no, no! Because they’re not suicidal. I’ve seen them scared before. I’ve seen them early on when Putin said:

 

“Hey, I just want to let you know, from the start, this is our thing. We’re doing it. And if you put NATO boots on the ground, we nuke you!”

 

And at the start, everybody:

 

“Oh, you can’t say! That you can’t talk about nuclear weapons.”

 

And they were scared. And then they said:

 

“Well, we don’t see any evidence of this, and we think he’s bluffing.”

 

And then when he reminded them, again:

 

“You guys come in there, we nuke you!”

 

He’s bluffing. He’s bluffing right now. They think he’s bluffing.

 

Judge Napolitano: Let me ask some technical questions. If Ukraine is foolish enough to send an F35 equipped with a nuclear weapon into the sky and it is shot down, does that engage the nuclear aspect of it?

 

[06:35]

 

Scott Ritter: If Ukraine possesses a nuclear weapon that engages the nuclear aspect of it. The moment Russia finds out Ukraine has received a nuclear weapon, Russia will react accordingly. Ukraine cannot have nuclear weapons.

 

Now, here’s an interesting thing. Russia has put the West on notice that they will treat the F16s as nuclear weapons carriers.

 

Judge Napolitano: All right.

 

So that’s the point of my question. If they truly are nuclear weapons carriers and Russia uses a low yield nuclear weapon to take it down, does that set off the nuclear paraphernalia, for lack of a better word, in the atmosphere?

 

Scott Ritter: First of all, Russia’s not using nuclear weapon to take it down. Russia’s going to drop a nuclear weapon on Romanian bases, Polish bases, German bases, and then they’re going to go ahead and take out decision making centers. So they’ll engage Europe without 50 nuclear weapons. Then the question is, what is the United States going to do? Commit suicide? Because that. That’s just low yield. That’s low level stuff Russia is using. All their big stuff still sit there on full alert. On full alert!

 

So the moment the United States goes to alert, sends signals out to the subs, the Russians will say:

 

“Okay, screw it. Goodbye, [word unclear] with you. You’re all dead! Everybody dies! We go to heaven as martyrs because we didn’t start this. We warned you, do not use F16s!”

 

Those of 16s come from nations that are part of the NATO nuclear sharing program. And because they are part of the nuclear weapons sharing program, we have to assume that they still retain that role when they enter Ukraine. And the West is going:

 

“But no, no, no!”

 

Russia doesn’t care.

 

Judge Napolitano: Does Ukraine have American F16s as we speak?

 

Scott Ritter: They are training on, not American F16s, on, I mean, American made F16, but they’re training on F16s provided by NATO countries as we speak. These weapons have not arrived in Ukraine yet, but they’re expected to do so sometime this summer.

 

So this is why Russia’s trying to give us all the heads up possible. They’ll treat it as a nuclear weapons carrier. If NATO troops land, get involved, they’re going to Russia’s ready to go to nuclear war. This is not a game for Russia. This is literal existential survival! People should listen to Vladimir Putin tomorrow he’s being inaugurated.

 

One of the biggest events in modern geopolitical history, in the West, again, is ignoring it. Listen to his speech. It’s going to be very deliberate. His words are going to be carefully chosen.

 

Judge Napolitano: If President Macron sends a few thousand troops to Ukraine, French, regular French troops, not the Foreign Legion, does Putin attack Paris?

 

[09:31]

 

Scott Ritter: Well, no. What will happen is that Putin will kill all the French troops, and then he’ll probably strike the French logistics centers in Romania.

 

Now, at that point in time, France has said that, I mean, the stupidity of the French is unmeasurable. You have a French general who says:

 

“But we have 200 nuclear weapons. Russia would never bomb our troops in Romania!”

 

Well, that’s my worst French accent in the world.

 

But the point is, [chuckling] it doesn’t matter, man. Russia’s got thousands of them. And they will take you off the map! And that’s what France needs to understand, that you will be taken off the map! You will no longer exist! Whether you have 200 nukes or not. The French need to start shutting up! And this is where America’s got to be a leader. And call Macron and say:

 

“Just shut up! I don’t want to hear another word out of you!”

 

Judge Napolitano: So, so does Bill Burns, the head of the CIA, understand what you just said?

 

Scott Ritter: 100%! He knows they’re not bluffing! He is right now screaming to the White House:

 

“This isn’t a joke! This is red alert kind of stuff!”

 

But here’s the problem. Blinken and Sullivan said:

 

“Well, we can’t back down, because then that the Russians will think that they’ve achieved some sort of nuclear deterrent supremacy over us. We have to stand tall. If we back down, then the NATO nuclear sharing program is no longer viable. We can’t back down. This is about pride. This is about America standing tall!”

 

And they’ll say this nonsense, and Biden will sit there with his senility and go:

 

“Oh, yes, we must do this!”

 

And next thing you know, we’re going to be standing tall. The French are going to go:

 

“Well, America’s standing tall. Hell, let’s do this.”

 

And boom, we’re all dead! We need leadership right now, and we don’t have it.

 

Judge Napolitano: How many troops do we have on the ground in Ukraine, out of uniform or in?

 

Scott Ritter: Not that many? I mean, I’ve heard other people talk about some ridiculous numbers, to be honest.

 

Let me just say that one number I heard was 15,000. That’s a division. That’s 750 tons of sustainment a day. I don’t know if anybody knows how many trucks loads that is. That’s a footprint that is detectable and interdicted. I think that we’re, we’re dealing with hundreds at the most. Maybe 100, 150. That’s it!

 

We don’t have that many on the ground. We can’t afford to have that many on the ground because it’s a huge risk. They are detectable and they’ll be killed.

 

Now there’s some talk about if we send in these Patriots because Ukraine doesn’t have the crews for them anymore. Remember, when you destroy a Patriot battery, you kill the crew. I’m sorry, guys, [chuckling] I don’t mean to smile about this, but how stupid can people get? Isn’t.

 

Judge Napolitano: Isn’t. The crew of the Patriot battery consists of Americans.

 

[12:08]

 

Scott Ritter: They used to consist of Ukrainians that were trained. They’re all dead!

 

So now when we come in, we’re going to see American contractors, not necessarily serving soldiers, but when we start turning over this equipment, it’ll be used to protect the airfields where the F16s are coming in, which will be maintained by American contractors.

 

And so you’re going to have a lot of Americans on the ground in a airfield and the Russians are just going to kill them all.

 

Judge Napolitano: Is it true that President Macron sent 1500 French Foreign Legion, not regular French soldiers? French Foreign legion, which as I understand it, correct me if I’m wrong, Scott consists of many foreigners, not just French people, but the Command and Control is French, sent this is a group to Ukraine. Is that true?

 

Scott Ritter: I don’t believe. So because that’s. We need to be careful. The French Foreign Legion is still the French army. The men that are in there are French soldiers. They wear the French flag. They follow the orders of French. They’re not independent actors. They are a force that is used overseas a lot. You know, they used them in Africa extensively, but they’re still part of the French army.

 

And as such, if they deploy to Ukraine they will be French army. They’ll be treated by the Russians as French army. And they’ll be killed.

 

Judge Napolitano: Ray McGovern reports that seven of them were killed in the past weekend. Do you have any ability to confirm or alter that?

 

Scott Ritter: I’ve heard that seven Frenchmen were killed. Um, you know, there may be an arrangement where foreigners in the French Foreign Legion can leave the French Foreign Legion and join the International Legion in Ukraine to make a direct transfer. The French might have come up with an arrangement like that, but that still has the soldiers on the ground wearing a Ukrainian flag, not a French flag. But, yeah, no, I heard that the seven of them got killed. I heard that there’s a number of them that are out there, a couple hundred that are on the front lines plugging this is Macron’s interim measure.

 

So basically, he went to the French Foreign Legion and said:

 

“If you are foreigners and you’re under French contract, we are willing to., …”

 

And I don’t know the total deal, but I would imagine that you get sheep dipped, you go over, you fight for the Ukrainians, but the clock still ticking for your French pension.

 

And then when that’s done, if you live, you come back, they reconvert you get credit for your time served and your contracts maintained intact. Because otherwise, if I were a French Foreign Legionnaire, I wouldn’t do it. You know, be like:

 

“Wait a minute, I got a good deal here in France. I’m not going there without protection!”

 

[14:49]

 

It’s the same thing when in Vietnam, back in the old Laos days, when they used to take air force officers and have them go off and fly, you know, forward air controlling for the CIA in Laos, they sheep dipped them. They weren’t air force officers anymore. They were CIA officers.

 

But as soon as that tour ended, they went back to the air force and the air force went:

 

“Hey, you’re back. You get credit for your time served, your promotion didn’t get cucked up. Good fitness report, and your career is made!”

 

I’ve known a number of Ravens, they called them that had that happen to them, because they wouldn’t have signed up for the CIA and throw away an air force career.

 

So the deal had to be made. I’m sure the French did that to send these guys in, but these aren’t French Foreign Legionnaires.

 

Judge Napolitano: This scenario that you’ve described, whereby Putin might use nuclear weapons, is this understood by General Brown, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of staff, and by Secretary Austin, the Secretary of Defense?

 

Scott Ritter: Yes.

 

But the question now is, in the Defense Intelligence Agency, are they saying that:

 

“Is Putin’s bluffing?”

 

This is the key question of intent. This is where the failure of the United States to engage with the Russians. There was a time when we met with the Russian defense attache. We met with the assistant defense attaches both in Moscow, here in the United States. We had conversations. And this is the purpose of the defense attache to call up his counterpart and say:

 

“Guys, this ain’t a bluff. Okay? I know you got your politics, but this isn’t a bluff. This is as serious it gets.”

 

It also allows American officers sit down and go:

 

“Hey, what’s going on? What’s your intentions? How can we nip this thing in the bud?”

 

We don’t have any of that dialogue now.

 

There’s been no connectivity between our military officers and Russian military officers. There’s absolute steel barrier there! And with that, now, when you can’t talk to the Russians, you don’t know what they’re thinking, so you start to speculate. And the longer you go, the more ridiculous your speculation gets.

 

So right now, the guys that the State Department should be turning to, the foreign area officers who are supposed to be the experts, they say:

 

“What are the Russians thinking?”

 

They go:

 

“We don’t know because we’re not allowed to talk to them. We haven’t been allowed to talk to them for over two years now.”

 

So they don’t know.

 

Judge Napolitano: All right, switching gears to Israel and Gaza. Actually, to the domestic aspect of Israel and Gaza. Why is the government so forceful and enthusiastic about cracking down on the freedom of speech? What is the government afraid of?

 

[17:23]

 

Scott Ritter: Well they’re afraid of the truth and they’re afraid of, … They know for a fact that this is an issue that can rapidly spin out of control as far as the government’s concerned. It’s expanding across the campuses. There’s a chance that once the school shut down, this will jump into the streets and we’ll have a long, hot summer of, you know, anti-genocidal stuff going on. And we’re leading up to an election. And this is not the optics that the president, United States wants to see.

 

So they’re doing this.

 

And now, I mean, this is a question I have for you because I’ve been a very I’ve been strongly saying that this is a frontal assault on not just freedom of speech, but freedom of assembly. And I have people that are saying:

 

“No, no, no, they don’t have freedom of assembly. They don’t have freedom of speech rights. This isn’t a constitutional issue.”

 

I believe it is. But you’re the Constitutional expert on this. Are these students, in the faculty? Are they protected by, know, first Amendment rights here, or is the school right in cracking down? It’s a legal question, and I’m not a legal specialist.

 

Bernie Sanders: They are out there not because they are pro-Hamas. They are out there because they are outraged by what the Israeli government is now doing in Gaza. Which is bringing unbelievable harm, not just to the terrorist organization, the Hamas, but to the entire Palestinian people.

 

And that’s why these anti-war demonstrators are out there. They do not want to see a situation continue where 110,000 Palestinians out of, you know, 5% of the population have been killed or wounded. Where children now face starvation. Hundreds of thousands of children face starvation because Israel is refusing to allow humanitarian aid to get to where it has to go.

 

Demonstrations is what the right to dissent, the right to protest, that is what the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States is all about! That’s what, in fact, makes you a free country! Being a free country means that somebody goes out and demonstrates you don’t have to agree with them. They have the Right! That’s the difference between autocracy and dictatorship in a free country.

 

But for anybody to suggest that we cannot be critical of the government of Israel or the government of Italy or the government of Ireland, for whatever reason, is not what democracy is about.

 

So I happen to believe not everybody agrees with me that the war policies of the Netanyahu government are a disaster! They are causing unprecedented harm. They are in violation of international law and absolutely in violation of American law, by the way.

 

But I think people who are critical. The idea that people who are critical of what Netanyahu is doing are anti-semitic, that is nonsense! And that is a very, very dangerous line to cross in terms of freedom of expression in this country.

 

I am thinking back and other people are making this reference that this may be Biden’s Vietnam.

 

[20:40]

 

Judge Napolitano: All right, so I’m having a problem with my camera, probably because I’ve been on all day, and that’s all right. You know what I look like, and everybody watching now knows what I look like. I think that was too little, too late. But he’s the only United States, Senator, the only member of the Congress that we’ve heard speaking that way.

 

Scott Ritter: Right. My only problem with what Bernie said, and I agree with everything he said, there’s, is the way he starts, these students are not pro-Hamas. Bernie, it doesn’t matter! It doesn’t matter. Okay? Free speech is free speech. You know, it just so happens that Bernie, by saying they’re not, you know, pro-Hamas, that they’re going against the policy of Netanyahu, that he morally can stand with them. But where would he be if they were saying they were pro-Hamas?

 

Judge Napolitano: Well, they have. They have the right to be!

 

Scott Ritter: That’s what I’m trying to. That’s my point is that this is a free speech issue. It’s not a free speech issue that is sugar coated by saying, and it’s a free speech, and something that I agree with that the Netanyahu government is genocidal and bad and we need to oppose them. No, Bernie, it’s a free speech issue. It’s black and white, free speech. There I agree with. But they’re being shut down because, it’s private universities, except they take federal money.

 

So, I mean, but your freedom, assembly issues, you know, this is one of those areas where the police and the powers are, I mean, I love it, … When I say I love it, I hate it when someone like Ben Sasse, former Senator from Nebraska, current president of University of Florida, is talking about:

 

“How we love free speech and freedom assembly, but we’re not going to let them practice free speech and free assembly on our university because there are rules!”

 

Judge Napolitano: Well, I mean, why are they so, why are they so afraid of free speech? Why was the crackdown so ferocious? The governor of Texas sent 100 state Texas Rangers in on horseback! The president of the University of Texas hadn’t even asked for that. The Mayor of the city of New York was up there personally. At Columbia University, there were 500 demonstrators and 1,000 police! They had a Professor, an undercover Professor was also a, works in New York City NYPD intelligence spying on the students at Emory University. Two big, huge thug, overweight, tattooed cops beat the daylights out of a female economics Professor. Why the ferocity because of speech?

 

[23:19]

 

Scott Ritter: Well, it’s not because of speech. It’s because of the message. The United States is on the cusp of losing control of the pro-Israeli narrative. You know, the pro-Israeli lobby has been very careful in how it’s approached the Israeli issues, etcetera. They’ve tried to make Israel the 51st state. I know. I went to Israel everywhere. Every time there’s a holiday, it’s an Israeli flag out of one window, an American flag out of the other:

 

“We’re like America! We’re the same as America! We are America!”

 

And that’s their thing.

 

And right now, Americans are going:

 

“That ain’t us. We’re not genocidal. We’re not doing that. We disagree with this so much!”

 

And this issue has the opportunity to transform American public opinion about Israel, which is why they have to nip this thing in the bud. This isn’t about free speech or anything. This is about ensuring that an anti-Israeli narrative doesn’t take hold in the American population in an election year where there are ramifications at the polls.

 

So all of the people that are part of the establishment that the Israeli lobby has been lobbying, you know, for so long, bought them out, paid for their elections, whatever, they’re all saying:

 

“We got to take control of this because this is our future. This is our political future. We have married into this pro-Israeli lobby and now we have to step, …”

 

Look what Congress just did. Passing, …

 

And again, I’m not a legal scholar, but I mean, a simple reading of the First Amendment:

 

“Congress should not pass any laws that infringe on the free speech and the free press.”

 

Congress just passed a law, an act that tries to tell me what anti-semitism means.

 

Judge Napolitano: Surely that’ll be invalidated by the courts, although it is repellent that Congress would do that.

 

Switching gears to our last topic, what do you think about twelve thugs who would say in writing to a prosecutor:

 

“Target Israel and we will target you. We will sanction your employees and your associates, bar you and your families from the United States. You have been warned!”

 

Scott Ritter: Now, these aren’t just thugs. These United States, Senators and every single one of them should be reprimanded. I don’t know who, because one of them is, you know, Mitch McConnell, you know, who’s retiring as the Minority Leader.

 

But, you know, this is criminal on their part. This is not what the United States should be about.

 

And frankly speaking, the President of the United States should chastise the Senate. Tell them that:

 

“You don’t get to make policy! You can’t warn anybody. You have no powers!”

 

Warn them:

 

“What are you going to do, Tom Cotton, what are you going to do Mitch McConnell, Marsha Blackburn? What are you going to do? You can do nothing! It’s the exclusive purview of the executive branch to make these decisions! Now, we will go to you for advice and consent. And where necessary, you will have to ratify decisions that the president makes.”

 

But these Senators don’t get to do this is the Mafia. This is thuggery.

 

Judge Napolitano: Wait a minute. Wait a minute, Scott. Wait a minute, Scott. The Mafia would be smart enough not to put this in writing!

 

[26:19]

 

Scott Ritter: True, true. [chuckling] But where’s Biden? That’s what gets me. Is Biden silent on this? Literally? The president needs to step up and say:

 

“Now, separations of powers, you guys are out of your box. Get back in your box. You know, you don’t get to do this!”

 

You don’t get, now there was a law that was passed that you know, that basically said that the international criminal court came after American service members, et cetera, that we would take appropriate actions. But what these guys have done is unilaterally extend the meaning of the law to say that:

 

“Israel is the same as America!”

 

Israel is not the same as America! Israel is a foreign nation. It is a totally different state, which is right now committing genocide! And we ourselves recognize that what they’re doing is wrong. So these Senators are insane! And they should be chastised, they should be reprimanded, and they should be put back in their box, because if they don’t, it’s just, again, an example of America spinning out of control because of poor leadership in the White House.

 

Judge Napolitano: Scott, I’m going to have to go because of this camera issue. We got to figure out what it is. But thank you very much for your time, my dear friend. Thank you for your analysis. Thank you for your passion. I’m off to Italy, but we’ll see you next week, my man.

 

Scott Ritter: Okay.

 

Thank you very much.

 

Judge Napolitano: Of course. Camera will be fixed. Coming up at 5:30 Eastern, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.

 

[28:04]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

YouTube Comments

top

(Comments as of 5/7/2024 = 1,355)

@roderickjoconnor6064
11 hours ago
Scott spot on putin is not bluffing
499

18 replies

@bullsonparade687
9 hours ago
How many times does Putin have to prove he’s never bluffing before the West takes him seriously!?
31

@jhkhan
9 hours ago
@bullsonparade687 Until the mushroom cloud (God forbid) and West deserves it (probably).
30

@flashgordon6670
9 hours ago
100,009
6

@flashgordon6670
9 hours ago
The side that uses nukes first, is the side that’s losing the conventional war.
11

@rooseveltrugless4658
8 hours ago
YES…But GOD help us.
6

@harveytadman
8 hours ago
And what does it matter who was right as your skin turns red, blisters and starts to peel off your body ?
11

@theoBaba773
7 hours ago
One day, the Russian flag will fly over LONDONetsk
6

@marklouieadame
6 hours ago
@flashgordon6670 and we know who will do it first
2

@screamingmonk
6 hours ago
I don’t think Russia uses nukes first
4

@user-lk2vh7vk3k
6 hours ago (edited)
Scott wasn’t bluffing when he went after under age girls as well. The Police caught him and now a registered offender. It’s Public info and not recommended as a baby sitter for young girls.
2

@butmunchass
6 hours ago
@theoBaba773 that’s what Stalin said then he started preparations for fleeing Moscow due to Nazis closing on him

@butmunchass
6 hours ago
@user-lk2vh7vk3k I wonder whether Putin has blackmail on Scott to have him acting like this?
2

@chriszzw30
6 hours ago
He does nothing but bluff. A true boy who cried wolf. No one is listening now, he just isn’t credible and needs to be removed.
2

@vern146
6 hours ago
@chriszzw30 feel better now ?
3

@eac26114653
5 hours ago
This is crazy. I feel bad for the French men and women troops who may get killed for no good reason. And I don’t want American men and women troops to get killed for this. And I most certainly don’t want American civilians (me) to get killed by this nuclear war stuff.
4

@Theone-bc7tr
4 hours ago
History shows the bear never bluffs
3

@Spellscape
1 hour ago
​ @flashgordon6670 like the USA when they bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
1

@raymondpomfret4214
24 minutes ago
​ @theoBaba773 londonstan, not British anymore

@johnboykin3128
10 minutes ago
Putin can’t fight in Ukraine forever in a limited capacity while NATO takes shots at Russia from the safety of the sidelines. Russian soldiers Russia Putin and FJB and his supporters

@dev5392
8 hours ago
Scott is absolutely right the US and NATO has lost the plot risking all our lives. Send the politicians to the front line
289

3 replies

@Jojohumf
5 hours ago
Please encourage others to write to their MPs or representatives.
3

@PeterLamin-pi6rv
3 hours ago
​ @Jojohumf all elected representatives should be sent to the frontline
9

@adamnoman4658
3 hours ago
@PeterLamin-pi6rv And all the unelected ones, too!
– –
7

@robertgwatts1858
11 hours ago
We need Scott, over here in Europe, to knock some sense into the EU!
482

14 replies

@marcosvidal3146
11 hours ago
The amount of the diet coke daily supply that Scott needs is impossible to get in Europe
11

@tonylinkich3464
11 hours ago
Yes
3

@daphnethurlow5388
11 hours ago
If only……
2

@daphnethurlow5388
11 hours ago
​@marcosvidal3146 eh?
3

@under-en6lo
11 hours ago
He’s busy over here right now. Really busy.
7

@aidanmacdougall9250
11 hours ago
​ @marcosvidal3146 Zelensky has a bigger diet of Coke!
26

@-M0LE
10 hours ago
@marcosvidal3146 if you want to start a war offer Scott a coke zero
5

@flashgordon6670
9 hours ago
The EU hasn’t sent troops to Ukraine. Countries have done so independently, bc of NATO, not the EU.
4

@vern146
6 hours ago
@flashgordon6670 doesnt excuse there maddness and double standards though does it …
1

@chriszzw30
5 hours ago
Not sure he would be let in with his child sex offences
3

@user-lk2vh7vk3k
5 hours ago
@chriszzw30 True.
1

@hk3339
5 hours ago
​@flashgordon6670 EU? NATO? West is drowning in its bs… they are all the same bs in different label. Pepsi/coke.
1

@Ghandi12
4 hours ago
If you join the demonstrations it have more impact, but most people prefer watch it from the chouch. Stand up man, be a man show your guts every weekend and join the woman and man that doing the fight whit there voice every day or 9n the weekend. Fight now whit your voice, later is really to late. In Ukraine we are at point where they talk about nuclear, in the middle east they doing genocide. I really don’t understand why people are going to work but not demonstrat. It’s the future of our childeren. But he ypou believe the masters and your mesdia. Stand up man.
3

@albertschulz5575
44 minutes ago
Amen, Brother!

@johnfarley4201
11 hours ago
Putin and Lavrov mean business and straightforward to deal with.
258

1 reply

@Jojohumf
5 hours ago
I hope some of the people reading this, will email or write to their local representatives or MPs to have this war stopped.
3

@antoniovillanueva308
9 hours ago
I like it when Scott Ritter yells at me. I would rather someone yell the truth at me than to have someone politely lie to me. Ritter is a national treasure.
138

@rayal4395
10 hours ago
Judge, you are on overdrive with 9 interviews today!
I salute your dedication and hard work
236

3 replies

@elianamckee
6 hours ago
He’s unstoppable!
7

@Dot_Connectrice
2 hours ago
Agreed!
2

@suntzuhli
2 hours ago
He is paid to do this by russia
1

@Vic-bf4pf
11 hours ago
Only man with any brains can you imagine the French saying we have two hundred nuclear weapons to Russia this is more serious than Cuban missle crisis thank god Kennedy had brains to negotiate thanks Scott god bless you
306

4 replies

@genrcflyer
10 hours ago
Kennedy blinked, agreed to pull US missiles out of Turkey and Greece.
17

@kahutochishisumi9056
8 hours ago
​ @genrcflyer right
1

@heimomoilanen9654
5 hours ago
Then were sane men in the west, not sure about present ones.
3

@yarpenzirgin1826
3 hours ago
@genrcflyer Meaning he did not want to end the world???
1

@PerceivedREALITY999
11 hours ago
The globalists wanted to make a fool out of Russia. But instead, the globalists ended up making fools of themselves. Let that be a lesson.
303

28 replies

@svs8909
11 hours ago
HOW TRUE
17

@marcosvidal3146
11 hours ago
the apparently friendly judge banned me from his channel, that’s how much he loves dissenting voices. Food for thought.
Fortunately this is the internet, judge, so I can create another account in 2 min. First Amendment, remember?
4

@gusa8006
11 hours ago
​ @marcosvidal3146 You were banned??
Why??
4

@gusa8006
11 hours ago
​ @marcosvidal3146 You were banned why??
3

@gusa8006
11 hours ago
​ @marcosvidal3146 You were banned why?
2

@gusa8006
11 hours ago (edited)
​​ @marcosvidal3146 You were banned?Why?
2

@marcosvidal3146
11 hours ago
@gusa8006 I gave a detailed reply to your question but… it disappeared again
1

@gusa8006
11 hours ago
@marcosvidal3146 YouTube keeps deleting my Comments as well
4

@gusa8006
11 hours ago
@marcosvidal3146 YouTube keeps deleting my Comments as Well
2

@gusa8006
11 hours ago
@marcosvidal3146 YouTube keeps deleting my Comments as Well
1

@gusa8006
11 hours ago
@marcosvidal3146 YouTube keeps deleting my Comments
2

@gumarobertson-xk9ob
11 hours ago
​ @marcosvidal3146 you must have been a paid bot
7

@daphnethurlow5388
11 hours ago
Looks like we could be learning another stronger message is Macron carries on acting the fool
2

@georgesbv1
10 hours ago
@gusa8006 you’re on russkie propaganda channel….
Same rules apply as in Russia…
Only convenient posts are allowed…
105% turnout and 110% election score for the sole contestant.
1

@tayclift5322
10 hours ago
​ @georgesbv1 Its always amusing when Americans talk about fixed elections in other countries
11

@PerceivedREALITY999
9 hours ago
@marcosvidal3146 What do you hope to achieve with your childish comment?
4

@flashgordon6670
9 hours ago
Am I allowed to say, I hate hate speech?
1

@user-xt8ty6hr3p
7 hours ago
Russian folk wisdom. If your opponent is preparing a trap for you and digging a hole for you, then never, NEVER, remember, be patient and never stop him from doing this stupid thing. In the end, either he digs you a pool or he digs his own grave.
2

@lovejumanji5
6 hours ago
Well……they rolled out a test of cbdc’s in Russia already.

@AnaG-pd3ym
6 hours ago
@tayclift5322 That’s sad not amusing.It’s not their problem

@Ratnik_Svetla_1389
6 hours ago
@marcosvidal3146 Can you offer proof that what you are saying is true, otherwise I will consider you an ordinary troll. If you don’t know how to help you. Take a picture of the notification that you have been banned from the channel by the channel owner and thus prove to everyone that what you claim is true. If you don’t do it within 24 hours, you will go to the block.

@marcosvidal3146
6 hours ago
@Ratnik_Svetla_1389 Oh no I never got a notification, so I’m not sure if that’s technically being banned. I just know that I typed 3-4 different comments and replies and they all disappeared INSTANTLY. I created another account (this one) and some of them seem to last.
No I can’t offer evidence of what I said above bc I didn’t even keep screenshots for myself. And I’m not saying is the judge himself banning me–probably someone managing his account

@marcosvidal3146
6 hours ago
@PerceivedREALITY999 so every dissenting opinion is childish to you just bc it’s not like yours? that’s as far as your “perceived reality” goes?

@Ratnik_Svetla_1389
5 hours ago
@marcosvidal3146 And that you directly accused the judge of the ban and called him out for freedom of speech and the first amadman. Now, if you realized that you made a mistake, and it happens to everyone, including me, because people get annoyed, leave a comment and then there is no comment or they don’t get a notification. The least you can do is publicly apologize to the judge. And as far as censorship is concerned, you can search a little about it and when you see what they do, mistakes like this will no longer happen to you. I also do not receive a single notification from this channel and from a couple of other channels that present the truth.

@marcosvidal3146
5 hours ago
@Ratnik_Svetla_1389 you’re getting too excited and are missing the point–either the judge or someone working for him banned me, or blocked my ability to type any reply from my other identical account.
What was it that I had to apologize publicly for again?

@Ratnik_Svetla_1389
5 hours ago
@marcosvidal3146 You said you didn’t accuse the judge of the ban, so I’m telling you you did, read your comment again. Second, if someone had banned you, you would have received a notification that you could attach as proof, which you obviously do not have, and I have already told you the causes of comments disappearing, and I have given you a suggestion on how you can find out about it. I don’t care if you apologize or not. If you cared about truth and justice as well as freedom of speech, which you defend so much, you would have already done what I suggested. You see, I care about the truth and freedom of speech, and I will always respond to comments that I believe violate one of the above.

@marcosvidal3146
4 hours ago
@Ratnik_Svetla_1389 Sounds good. Freedom of speech is good, but you know what’s even better? Civil rights of individuals, women’s rights, LGBTQ+ rights.
These guys are defending some of the most oppressive powers against peoples’ freedoms today. Liberals are fighting for those people against those powers oppressing them. You talked about justice, so –on which side are you?

@mydancinglife730
4 hours ago
@marcosvidal3146 you wrote: “the apparently friendly judge banned me from his channel, that’s how much he loves dissenting voices. Food for thought.”
It is much more likely to be YouTube than anyone working for the Judge. My comments disappear all the time, btw, sometimes when I’m in the middle of typing them.
What was the substance of your comment?

@johnnykoo6593
11 hours ago
America is falling apart
128

3 replies

@niblet112
9 hours ago
All by design
11

@michaelwills1926
8 hours ago
Take this time to prepare your mind for a better world and focus in that direction. The fear industry doesn’t need any more subscribers.
4

@Frank-pc2rs
6 hours ago
But the News said multiculturalism is the way to go?
4

@stevepfi1
9 hours ago
Scott Ritter- Simply the Best!
82

@johnbhoy2489
10 hours ago
Scott Ritter,Jimmy Dore and Richard Medhurst my fav people on earth right now
101

4 replies

@antoniovillanueva308
9 hours ago
Start a movement. Can we get the Judge to interview Richard Medhurst?
16

@slim1one
8 hours ago
Oh yes, Richard Medhurst!
9

@aussiedeplorable8670
7 hours ago
Colonel Mcgreger
12

@jirisalamoun2297
4 hours ago
And the Duran and Alexander Mercouris
8

@saeedsalim5195
10 hours ago
Never miss any of Scott’s interviews you’re the best
98

2 replies

@daphnethurlow5388
11 hours ago
Me either..
7

@Faiez-rh1gm
7 hours ago
Me too
2

@johnfarley4201
10 hours ago
NEVER EVER TRUST THE FRENCH
119

8 replies

@aidanmacdougall9250
10 hours ago

10

@christopheryellman533
9 hours ago
They make good baguettes. I will go that far.
9

@michaelwills1926
8 hours ago
The honesty in this comment jumps off the page. Chapeau dear sir
2

@alisarr1268
7 hours ago
Absolute truth….Lying is part of their culture…They still cannot admit that they are not relevant.
9

@julesbrunton1728
3 hours ago
Or a bigot
2

@Dot_Connectrice
2 hours ago
3

@trumanhw
2 hours ago
You know they helped us with the Revolution, right ?
2

@turanamo
2 hours ago
@trumanhw helped? lol! waving the white flag and surrendering is not helping
3

@Markjogo
10 hours ago (edited)
Scott needs to be heard everywhere .. brilliant .
51

@paulyhoffmann
8 hours ago
This was a good clip. I’m so glad that Napolitano and Ritter are around. So few who are sane.
66

@johnarmstrong5591
10 hours ago
Takes a lot to scare the shit out of this guy….. we are fucked!!!
67

3 replies

@michaelwills1926
8 hours ago
It may seem that way, but it only seems that way.
4

@macrostheblack2486
5 hours ago
@michaelwills1926 I think you mean, that it seems to you that it seems that way. I mean you seem to think it seems that way and that it also seems that way for others. I disagree with you.
1

@dvfallon6345
1 hour ago
Agree 100%

@abyrahman6610
11 hours ago
Scott talks, we listen!!
136

@farzanarazvi8763
10 hours ago (edited)
Nothing about this crazy world shocks, or surprises me anymore!
84

3 replies

@mikenielsen3971
10 hours ago
The best blinken is no blinken.
102

1 reply

@heimomoilanen9654
5 hours ago
Thanks Scott for speaki ng the truth. Thanks Judge
18

@fabthefab75
11 hours ago
I never thought i would witness the demise of freedom in the very country supposed to stand for it.
78

@markokeefe8859
7 hours ago
Thank you Scott, thank you Judge…..
7

@user-hc7rc5xs5z
12 hours ago
Western pride…. Russian resolve. Neither side will back down. This ends in smoke.
96

6 replies

@nirbija
9 hours ago
With much “pride” comes much cowardice: “This ends” NOT in smoke! lol
1

@michaelwills1926
8 hours ago
Relax, it will be over sooner than that. Western Arsenals are about empty, traffic networks are being identified and taken out along with the prime operators, ground captured that Ukr will never regain. This is a wake up for the world, we are fortunate to live in these times.
2

@naughtiusmaximus830
8 hours ago
@michaelwills1926 I am skeptical of the efficacy of the NATO nuclear arsenal. This could be a very good thing if I am right.

@VolkovVelikan
7 hours ago
Western pride ‍
4

@nirbija
6 hours ago
@VolkovVelikan
Excellent retort. lol

@vern146
5 hours ago
tnucs

@Marlago-pv9tq
9 hours ago
Scott foresight never fails
28

@PerceivedREALITY999
12 hours ago
Zelensky didn’t try to prevent the conflict through diplomacy because he lacks honor and integrity.
In 2014 there was a coup. Soon after, there was a massacre in Odessa (dozens of people were burned alive). Ethnic Russians living in Ukraine were treated as subhuman. Their language and culture was being oppressed. A civil war broke out due to the rise in ethnic tensions. For 8 years the Ukrainian military was indiscriminately shelling civilians living in Donbas.
If Zelensky honored the Minsk agreement and pledged neutrality, none of this would have happened. The 8 year civil war would have ended and Donbas would have remained part of Ukraine. War is the ultimate failure of diplomacy.
Zelensky, Poroshenko, Merkel and Hollande admitted that Ukraine had no intention to honor the Minsk agreements.
Who didn’t want peace? Who advised against the 2022 peace talks in April? Hint: someone visited Zelensky in Kiev at that time.
Russia’s national security was compromised once nato began to expand eastwards. Russia clearly stated that Ukraine joining nato was a red line (November 2021) and unfortunately this concern was never taken seriously. The Russians openly stated: if nothing changes, we will be forced to act in order to defend our national security. Enhancing the national security of one country at the expense of another is unacceptable. The Russians have legitimate security concerns.
20th September, 2021. Ukraine launched military drills with US and NATO
NATO is not a defensive alliance. Nato illegally bombed Yugoslavia (a direct violation of the U.N. Charter).
We should never forget what they did to Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq etc.
Who blew up the pipeline causing an environmental disaster?
Zelensky banned all opposition and arrested a leading priest.
Zelensky tried to invoke article 5 under false pretenses. Remember the incident in Poland.
Ethnic Russians living in Ukraine were treated as subhuman. Their language and culture was being oppressed.
Poroshenko said, “Our children will go to schools and kindergartens—theirs will hide in the basements”.
Russians will never forget the 2014 Odessa massacre. The whole world needs to know about it.
Why was Denis Kireev eliminated? He was a member of Ukraine’s negotiating team during the peace negotiations. He wanted to help his country.
Ukraine has a hit list. They target artists, journalists and ordinary citizens. Hundreds of children are on this list. 13 year old Faina Savenkova was placed on this list.
Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters is on this list. Jimmy Dore (American stand-up comedian, podcaster) and Aaron Maté (Canadian writer and journalist) are on this list.
There is evidence that Ukrainian troops have been indiscriminately shelling civilians in Donbas (they used petal mines and targeted areas where there was no military presence).
The azov troops trapped in the azovstal steelworks in Mariupol used human shields. They refused to allow civilians to leave despite of humanitarian corridors being present.
Russia held a proposed cease fire in order for the civilians to leave, but azov would not allow the civilians to leave.
Ukraine has committed many acts of terrorism (car bombs and other forms of assassination). Darya Dugina (journalist) RIP.
The first terrorist attack on the Kerch bridge killed the truck driver and the individuals in the adjacent car (innocent civilian victims).
The second terrorist attack on the Kerch bridge killed two parents and severely injured their young daughter.
I have done a lot of research and it took me a long time to write this comment. I have stated a lot of facts and I have given my honest opinion.
I have provided a brief summary of events that took place. In order to explain this whole situation in great detail, a book would need to be written.
Hopefully someone will write an UNBIASED book, stating facts and allowing the readers to form their own judgments. Everything I said can be fact checked and verified.
181

36 replies

@Jo-sp5cp
12 hours ago
Excellent summary.
23

@chadwolf5596
11 hours ago
14

@georgesbv1
11 hours ago (edited)
1. Russia supported the breakaway regions (Crimea, DPR, LPR) and declared them indepedent.
2. Yanukovych traitor regime commited to stop entering EU or NATO instead of CSTO/CIS (a masked USSR) in spite of Ukrainian population and parliament.
3. Odessa events were started by the death by gunshot of 2 Ukrainian ethnics by unknown snipers.
The investigation revealed that the shooter was led to escape by the former deputy chief of Osesa Police, now a Russian citizen.
Odessa incident was staged to open a new front or to help in the referendums in LPR/DPR.
4. The so called 8 year of shelling is bullishit. aFter Minsk 2 there were some skirmishes (hundreds of soldiers died on both sides), but there was a relative ceasefire.
In 2020-2021 there were a handful of civilian victims most due to unexploded ordanance or landmines.
5. Minsk was never honored by the terrorists in DPR / LPR or Russia.
Neutrality cannot be kept if Russia kept meddling into the affairs of Ukraine and even started a ful invasion.
6. Russia wanted surrender, not peace. US and UK kept their world on Budapest Memorandum to defend Ukraine. And NATO partners followed.
7. “Enhancing the national security of one country at the expense of another is unacceptable.”
This applies both ways. Russia supported the terrorists in DPR/LPR/Crimea. Check Igor Girkin, FSB colonel present in many of the initial attacks (forcing Crimean deputies to vote for seccesion, Slovyansk, MH17, Ilovaisk).
8. Defender Europe was a massive NATO exercise (30k troops), but it happened from March to June 2021 – some troops from Ukraine were invited. Every single equipment and the troops left.
Russia organized the Zapad-2021 in September 2021 on multiple borders of Ukraine. The 200k troops remained mobilized on Russia and Belarus on Ukraine border including their equipment.
9. No definitive proof on NS pipeline explosions.
NS1 was stopped by Russkies on bogus reason (a turbine leaking oil), trying to blame on a german company in Canada.
NS2 was never opened and used by Russia as a gas depot.
One may think Russia tried to cause a gas price blackmail, but they failed.
10. Zelensky banned formed pro-russian traitors, not all the opposition (it usually happens during wars).
11. Orthodox church priests usually support the invasion. This is a traitorous act so those priests cannot serve anymore and they can go to trial.
12. Read the full speech of Poroshenko, not just the Russkie cut.
13. Myrotvorets is not a hit list, but a list of people that are against Ukrainian cause. This means that they are persona-nongrata and they will not to be cited by Ukrainian media.
if they are caught they will suffer the consequences of their actions.
14. Russia can never be trusted.
15. Daria Dugina was a Russian propagandist like her father. She even posed in the tunnel beneath Azovstal after Russian occupation.
Assasination of Russian invaders and traitors are normal. Some even had outstanding prison indictment.
16. Passing Ukraine border into Crimea is a crime, so this is on the ones who built the bridge.
3

@alexxela9502
11 hours ago
I also previously published a detailed analysis of what preceded this conflict, I will duplicate it – So, (after the Democrats came to power in the United States in early 2021) Ukraine is preparing for military action against Donbass, and then Crimea, after Zelensky March 24, 2021 signed Decree #117/2121 – “to put into effect the NSDC doctrine…” – (adopted by the NSDC of Ukraine on March 11) – “we will return Donbass and Crimea at any cost, including by military force,” although they only had to fulfill the Minsk agreements. And echelons with military equipment were sent from the west of Ukraine to the east (there are these videos from ukraine on YouTube)
Russian, organizes military exercises on, and then leaves part of the contingent there on the western border (making it clear to Ukraine that it will not allow the destruction of Donbass, and to conduct military operations in autumn and winter is fraught for Ukraine) in August 2021, the CIA director comes to Moscow to clarify Russia’s plans (apparently Washington’s plans were violated) in December 2021, Putin out with a proposal to the United States to agree on security on on the Russian borders (because Putin understands where the plans for Ukraine’s military operation were built, given that the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine is appointed not a military but a lawyer with close contacts with international /American foundations Minister of Defense Mr. Reznikov),
Putin is given to understand, that his proposals on security are not being considered, then Russia on February 24, 2022 (when the activity of shelling of Donbass from Ukraine began to increase exponentially (there is a summary by days) and Zelensky in Munich on February 19, 2022, said that Ukraine wants to denance the Budapest memorandum – which means to host nuclear weapons, especially since all the competencies were available and given Zelensky’s young team, managed from outside, where Ukraine was prepared as a battering ram against Russia, and sanctions were planned in advance – begins a military operation with small forces, everything is logical…
12

@alexxela9502
11 hours ago
This is also from that dialogue with the American – I also had a dialogue on this topic earlier I will duplicate – Let me remind you that the United States committed a coup in Ukraine (at that moment in February 2014, close contacts in Kiev (there is a video) took place between Victoria Nullond, John McCain, the American ambassador and the Ukrainian opposition. As a result, after signing the declaration with President Yanukovych on early elections (which were signed under the guarantees of Germany, France and Poland), the police were removed from the streets and the next morning the opposition began to occupy administrative buildings (everyone was deceived), fearing reprisals, Yanukovych was forced to flee the country.
Immediately after the coup, on the first day of the Ukrainian parliament, the law “on the status of the Russian language” was adopted, Crimea and Donbass were categorically opposed, the Crimean parliament adopted a resolution on holding a referendum (since Crimea was an autonomy within Ukraine), and Donbass asked the “new authorities” of nationalists for autonomy or federalization (to preserve its Russian culture, its language and the memory of its ancestors (the “new Ukraine” turned the story even about the WW2). But in return for this request, tanks were sent to Donbass, and until 2022, 12,000 people were sent to God by Ukrainian nationalists.
Сrimea held a referendum and “returned home” to Russia. No one seized Crimea under the lease agreement of the Black Sea base, Russia had the right to keep 25,000 military personnel in Crimea, at the time of the known events there were 22,000 of them and not a single shot was fired. And now compare this situation with the separation of Kosovo from Serbia, where the United States (through Hillary Clinton) in June 2010, through the UN court, pushed through a decree on the separation of Kosovo from the sovereign country of Serbia (and the situation there was legally more complicated), and then safely built there a large American military base in the Balkans. This is more than a precedent in relation to Crimea.
The Minsk agreements, both the first and the second did not imply the “withdrawal of Russian troops” do not lie, because there were no Russian troops there, it was about disarming the militia! There were clearly spelled out points that had to be carried out strictly in order, for example, the first part of the second Minsk agreements had to be fulfilled by Ukraine and only then (general elections, the adoption of provisions of general jurisdiction and the last point – control of the Donbass-Russia border), but Ukraine began to turn everything upside down (and the West helped it in this), that they say the clauses of the agreements can be “mixed up”, this despite the fact that there is clearly written about the order of implementation. And one more thing – Russia is not a party to the conflict, so it legally had to do nothing (as you are trying to imagine here).
But this is not the main thing, but the main thing is that in the same year in 1999, NATO launched an aggressive campaign against Russia’s ally, Serbia, as well as Western intelligence fueled separatism in Chechnya under the guise of Islamic scholarship – Wahhabism, where thousands of Chechens were simply deceived (let me remind you that the Chechen militants were commanded by a native of Qatar Khattab) and later The Chechens themselves “saw through” that they were brutally used against their own country and Mufti Ahmad Kadyrov ended this war (now his son is in charge of Chechnya).
And in 2003, the United States generally withdrew from the ABM treaty and began building anti-missile bases in Romania and Poland, brazenly deceiving Russia that the bases were being built from Iran (and later they themselves admitted that Iran had nothing to do with it), then there was the destruction of Iraq, then Libya and aggression in Syria.
So what do you want, showing your “grin” and when you deceive the whole world that you allegedly have good intentions, and you yourself are conducting an aggressive policy by clamping Russia (the pantry of the planet, on whose territory there are all chemical elements) into a military ring and reproaching the strong president of Russia (who is fighting for the sovereignty of the country, unlike from the 90s, when Russia “lay” under the West) in its autocracy?
And in 2003, the United States generally withdrew from the ABM treaty and began building anti-missile bases in Romania and Poland, brazenly deceiving Russia that the bases were being built from Iran (and later they themselves admitted that Iran had nothing to do with it), then there was the destruction of Iraq, then Libya and aggression in Syria.
those who run America thought that Russia in the 90s had gone into oblivion and would never return, and you would so like to “divide it into pieces” (like the collapse of the USSR) and take control of this resource-rich territory. But you have shown your aggressive intentions in the Middle East and all over the world
14

@georgesbv1
11 hours ago
​ @Jo-sp5cp yes, I know the trurh.
I live near the conflict. Do you?
1

@alexxela9502
11 hours ago
There was also a dispute over the Budapest Memorandum – I will tell you about the Budapest Memorandum, which the United States likes to “wave” about Ukraine’s renunciation of nuclear weapons in 1994 –
Ex-President of Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk in an interview with the German agency Deutsche Welle said that the Budapest Memorandum was only a formality, since in fact Kiev was powerless.
In principle, Ukraine did not have the opportunity to maintain the existence of its nuclear weapons, since if missiles were produced in Ukraine (and also required substantial funds to maintain the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal in a safe and combat-ready position at that time), then nuclear charges were produced in Russia. And more importantly, the entire nuclear weapons control system was located in Russia and Ukraine did not have access to it
It would have cost us $65 billion (53 billion euros), and the state coffers were empty
— Kravchuk declared.
In addition, the West threatened Ukraine with isolation, as nuclear-armed missiles on the territory of Ukraine were directed at the United States. Therefore, the only possible solution, according to Kravchuk, was to give up weapons. It should be recognized that these guarantees were only a formality, since no sanctions mechanisms were created at that time. German journalist and expert on Ukraine Winfried Schneider-Deters agrees, saying DW: “The agreement is not worth the paper it was written on.” The missiles were taken to Russia or destroyed, and in return, the Ukrainian authorities received financial assistance from the United States, cheap energy from Russia and guarantees prescribed in the memorandum
Former US Ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer, who participated in the signing of the memorandum, commented on the content of the document and its terms:
The English text of the memorandum contains the word “assurances”, that is, “assurances of support”, but not “guarantees” (guarantees). This is an important difference. For example, our NATO allies have security guarantees. South Korea and Japan, with which the United States has concluded agreements on joint defense, have guarantees
In the case of Ukraine, we are talking about assurances. This is a less powerful word. Secondly, the memorandum did not specify a mechanism for retaliatory actions, except for an appeal to the UN Security Council if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine
— Steven Pifer (according to the 112 Ukraine agency)
The United States publicly stated in 2013 that “the Memorandum is not legally binding”, calling it a “political commitment”
8

@johnbhoy2489
11 hours ago
So articulate and well presented
5

@parklee7659
11 hours ago
Bro thank u it’s been a long couple of years
2

@Jo-sp5cp
11 hours ago
@georgesbv1 you are very clearly partisan.
1

@georgesbv1
10 hours ago
@alexxela9502 the status of lease for Sevastopol port was not threatened by ousting of traitor Yanukovych. Even if the traitor signed the latest lease himself.
And for sure not the Russian military posted there.
1

@alexxela9502
10 hours ago
@georgesbv1 Let’s take it all in order!
1- Russia declared the independence of Donbass on February 23, 2022 and on February 24, a military campaign began! In other words, you were given a chance to negotiate with Donbass, but you decided to “break them through the knee” (below I wrote what preceded Russia’s military operation in Ukraine)
2- Yanukovych took a break from joining the EU (no need to lie – Ukraine’s accession to NATO was not considered at all at that moment) He took a break for one reason – Ukraine was not ready to change internal technical regulations to become an EU member because Europe did not give money for this, and there the question was about tens of billions of dollars, since the replacement of everything from medical standards according to EU standards to the replacement of technical regulations in machine-building production (which in fact doomed 40% enterprises of Ukraine)
3- You probably wrote about the events in Odessa while typing on the keyboard! A rally with the installation of tents at the House of trade unions. it was planned in Odessa in advance and also in advance the so-called “titushki” from the western regions of Ukraine began to arrive in Odessa (these are those young nationalists who previously beat up the rally in Kharkiv and Mariupol) after which they gathered on two streets near the square and went to the protesters burning tents and driving them out of the house of trade unions and then cynically set fire to and those who jumped out of windows were beaten with sticks and also shot at windows where people asked for help (there are these videos on YouTube)
4- Is the Donbass region nonsense? The Alley of Angels in Donetsk is dedicated to the children whom Ukraine sent to God (there are more than 100 fimilias – look at this. on the Internet) “Gorlovka Madonna” – a girl with a one-year-old child in her arms fell asleep in an embrace in Gorlovka Park – is this nonsense? Did Ukraine refuse to comply with the Minsk agreements, Zelensky stated? and Merkel also stated in December 2022 to a German newspaper that the Minsk agreements were needed for Ukraine to strengthen its potential!
5= Russia reached an agreement with Ukraine in April 2022, but the West threw Ukraine into the furnace of war!
7- You say everything is right – creating security in spite of the security of your neighbor is unacceptable! Imagine that children are playing on your lawn and dogs of the fighting breed are running around on the lawn of the neighboring house without a muzzle! Boeing shot down ukran and not the Shooters! The Malaysian Prime Minister said at a press conference in Japan in 2018 that there are a lot of politics and unclear points in this tragedy! Let me remind you – it was the Donbass militia who found the black boxes and handed them over to Malaysian specialists, although the rebels could (there in the gray zone where the Boeing fell) plow everything with artillery, as the Ukrainians did for a long time, but the commission was able to collect some of the debris for the investigation!
The 8th one replied to us in a previous message!
9- gas pipelines were blown up by the USA in order to sever the connection between Russia and Europe and weaken technological competitors in Europe (now German enterprises are moving to the USA) There was no point in Russia manipulating prices, since the Nord Stream concern included European shareholders, among others!
10-Persecution of the opposition began in Ukraine until 2022 – objectionable TV channels were closed and journalists who had their own opinions (Such as Olesya Buzina and Babitsky) were shot in the streets!
11= The priests of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra did not express their position at all! Don’t lie! Religion is separated from the state! But for some reason, President Prorshenko began the persecution of the pro-Orthodox in Ukarin!
12- The Peacemaker website is in fact a list of people sentenced by the Kiev authorities to execution, some of them were killed!
13= Daria Dugina was the daughter of Philosopher – Professor Dugin, who clearly stated what is “white and what is black” in the events in Ukraine since 2014 and politics
11

@delatroy
10 hours ago
Your comments get deleted?
1

@georgesbv1
10 hours ago
@alexxela9502 lol, Boeing shot down the airplane although DPR terrorists praised themselves to the score.
1

@PerceivedREALITY999
10 hours ago
@Jo-sp5cp Thank you, it’s my honor and my privilege to tell the truth.
3

@PerceivedREALITY999
10 hours ago
@delatroy Many comments are hidden/deleted.
1

@genrcflyer
10 hours ago
@georgesbv1 Yeah, well I watched the events in Ukraine and Eastern Europe ever since the end of the USSR and the West needed to respect Russia’s security concerns from the start. Big mistake!
5

@PerceivedREALITY999
10 hours ago
@alexxela9502 Thanks for sharing.
2

@genrcflyer
10 hours ago
@georgesbv1 Are you being evacuated?

@PerceivedREALITY999
10 hours ago
@georgesbv1 You posted many baseless allegations and lies. What do you hope to achieve?
5

@georgesbv1
10 hours ago
@alexxela9502 the death toll of the war prior to Russian full scale invasion since 2022 was about 14500.
– 300 foreign civilians, mostly in MH17 shot down by DPR terrorists using Buk-1 missile system provided by Russia (back traced on satellite)
– 3000 civilians that Russians claimed all were Russian ethnics, supporters, the works (although a terrorist rarely wears an uniform)
– 4500 Ukrainian military
– 6000 separatists/terrorists
– 500 Russian mercenaries or special forces trained to sabotage, instigate to civil war, etc

@PerceivedREALITY999
10 hours ago
@georgesbv1 Ukraine was supposed to adopt a law recognizing the autonomous republics of LPR and DPR (Minsk agreements), but Ukraine refused to do so.
5

@georgesbv1
10 hours ago (edited)
@PerceivedREALITY999 which is a lie? Combating the Russian propaganda you posted, that’s my goal

@PerceivedREALITY999
10 hours ago
@georgesbv1 “Ukrainian President Zelenskyy banned the activities of political opposition parties in the country.” – Business Insider
3

@PerceivedREALITY999
10 hours ago
@georgesbv1 Yanukovych agreed to early elections (2014). Why not wait for the elections?
4

@georgesbv1
10 hours ago
@PerceivedREALITY999 lpr/dpr never expelled foreign military be it Russians, Serbian, Chechen, Afghan or whatever. Also the LPR /DPR terrorists didn’t hand over the border
1

@tayclift5322
10 hours ago
​ @georgesbv1 Do you think all this is worth the potential of a nuclear war? Also where does your hatred for Russia come from?
6

@ikeanderson6466
8 hours ago
No lies were told
1

@hansjorgkunde3772
8 hours ago
@georgesbv1 full of hatred
4

@vern146
5 hours ago
@georgesbv1 your so full of it
2

@vern146
5 hours ago
@PerceivedREALITY999 some people just cant handle the truth can they
1

@vern146
5 hours ago
perfectly put!
1

@PerceivedREALITY999
5 hours ago
@georgesbv1 You seek comfort in subjective reality and ignore all the facts.
3

@PerceivedREALITY999
5 hours ago
@georgesbv1 What would have happened if zelensky honored the Minsk agreement and pledged neutrality? Obviously it’s too late now.
2

@georgesbv1
2 hours ago
@vern146 i know, full of truth

@georgesbv1
2 hours ago
@genrcflyer Russian security concerns? What about the security concerns of countries previously occupied by murderous Russia?

@davidcox8945
11 hours ago
Major Ritter!
29

@ibrahimdihum9127
9 hours ago
Thank you Scott for telling the truth about the situation today and imminent dangers around the world and for that you have great respect form must people
Thank you Judge keep up the great work God bless you and people like you
21

@Aaron28999
11 hours ago
Putin has that good-natured tolerance of true leadership. i wish we had Putin-like presidents in Africa
71

7 replies

@user-uc2yn6tk5o
10 hours ago
2000-2008 Putin Was top notch leader, now hes a bit to autocratic imo
1

@Aaron28999
9 hours ago

@user-uc2yn6tk5o Putin loves and defends his country. He’s a faithful patriot to the Russian spirit. Use ur noddle mate, there are other political systems and forms of governments in the world, nothing wrong with that
8

@halifaxeh
8 hours ago
You’re the one that needs to use your noodle! lol

@urrywest
8 hours ago
I think there are some…

@Aaron28999
8 hours ago

@urrywest We had Gaddafi in Africa, the best leader ever, NATO slayed him, while the rest of African states keepin an eye on the murder of their champion, warmongers tryna do same to Putin
3

@Faiez-rh1gm
7 hours ago
We have as many are not war like and evil like in America and Europe
1

@vern146
5 hours ago
@user-uc2yn6tk5o you mean in 20 years he turned russia back into a super power and still has 90% aproval rating ?
3

@Neumann1311
11 hours ago
I love the comments of Scott. He is talking “Klartext” as we say in my mother tongue.
49

5 replies

@yvonneforsman8649
10 hours ago
You should tell your politicians, now that Sweden is part of NATO! The question is: do they understand “klartext”?
6

@Neumann1311
10 hours ago
​@yvonneforsman8649 I don’t know how it works in your country but in mine politicians don’t listen to their voters (Annalena Baerbock: “… egal was meine Wähler denken …’)
6

@user-uc2yn6tk5o
10 hours ago
@Neumann1311 mal sehen was nächste Wahl passiert. International betrachtet sind afd und bsw wohl am pragmatischsten.
3

@idubzh243
4 hours ago
@Neumann1311 same in France.

@Dot_Connectrice
3 hours ago
Genau greetings from Holland

@luzhiratsuka4151
8 hours ago
Thanks Scott I agree with you 99% my blessinfs
8

@chrisman234
11 hours ago
Right on Mr Ritter, you have called it right.
52

@jebjeb1498
11 hours ago
Thank you, Scott.
30

@MindfulFactology
11 hours ago
Putin is the last man on earth you want know if he can do what he says!
50

1 reply

@User-bruser891
2 hours ago
So far, in 23 years, he has done exactly what he has said. Why should it be any different this time around?
1

@dvfallon6345
1 hour ago
Myself and friends are praying everyday for ourselves, family & friends+ all of Humanity.
2

@Ghandi12
4 hours ago
Scott thank you for your voice in the fight for humankind.
25

@ismatnaquib600
11 hours ago
Very dangerous time. People wake up else we all be gone.
39

@jasonbourne3869
6 hours ago
Scott, you are the MAN! Love your analysis!
5

@user-ki5jt7wf8s
10 hours ago
Scott for President 2024
38

1 reply

@buckshot704
8 hours ago
Two assumptions there. One: voting matters. Two: the neocons would allow competition. Neither is valid.
2

@roslyntchakedjian927
10 hours ago
Thank you Gentlemen excellent as always. Good Day
8

@iamiam2994
10 hours ago
Make Peace in your heart. Hold your loved ones.
It just may take Putin to clear the swamp.
35

@hosseinmohammadi4574
10 hours ago
They are afraid of the truth. This could be the title. Great work Scott
22

@mkshffr4936
8 hours ago
Never thought I would be in agreement with Bernie!
6

@johnfarley4201
11 hours ago
FREE SPEECH IS FREE SPEECH.
32

@marchay550
7 hours ago (edited)
scott, you hit it right on the nose in the end , thank you both.
6

@kurtmontgomery9719
9 hours ago
Good job Scott on the French accent
10

@therencemeton4696
11 hours ago
you gotta love this guy….Scottt…love this guy, the way he broke down and articulate things
39

1 reply

@daphnethurlow5388
11 hours ago
Yes
3

@adrianthompson7033
8 hours ago
It is always good to hear Scott’s wisdom.
3

@ShortbusMooner
11 hours ago
Thank you, gentlemen!
23

@LonelyRanger902
9 hours ago
Scott should put it simply. What would you do if your country was going to be attacked by 30 other nations?
44

@robertohlrich369
10 hours ago
May God have mercy on US
9

@steveogle3679
11 hours ago
This country is done. Secession now.
43

2 replies

@JFF35753
9 hours ago
I am a Texan. I am all for it and have been for awhile. Texas needs to become a nation NOW!!!
8

@michaelwills1926
8 hours ago
The greatest irony is that we only ever needed to decide that these idiots have no control over us. Never knew it this whole time. Now we know
3

@roshanmashoor766
8 hours ago
For the first time since beginning of this crisis I’m really terrified about a nuclear war
9

@michaelmakarevich601
6 hours ago
Guys, thank you for trying to save us all!
2

@myrachurchman5013
11 hours ago
Pride comes before the fall.
50

2 replies

@LindaKieltyka-sm8ge
11 hours ago
So true…pride and greed.
9

@genrcflyer
10 hours ago
Here that Zelensky?
5

@dankurz7675
10 hours ago
Heaven help us.
10

@toscabrutus1781
9 hours ago
Scott is Briljant! Hy is baie slim! Groete uit LIma Peru!
8

2 replies

@Faiez-rh1gm
7 hours ago
Bly jy daar nou
1

@toscabrutus1781
6 hours ago
@Faiez-rh1gm Faiez Ja ek bly nou hier! Intressante plek! Groete!

@destab8971
11 hours ago
You are absolutely true
Humanity existence is in jeopardy
35

@samikhal5455
11 hours ago
I love your channel. thanks for sharing the truth.
18

@Just_username_3161
11 hours ago
Scott awesome as always.
37

@alexanderaghayan117
9 hours ago
Scott is thoughtful and wise. His warning has to be taken very seriously
34

@AxelWeber-gx2yt
11 hours ago (edited)
I suspect the French have a false opinion of themselves when it comes to military issues. They have lost all the major wars in the last 150 years, but were elevated to the winner’s podium by the US support and involvement in WWI and WWII. They don’t seem to have learned from their past and think they are strong winners, which they are not. A distorted view of reality can have devastating consequences.
93

10 replies

@daphnethurlow5388
11 hours ago
I agree with you
10

@darknessrising7385
10 hours ago
There were a few more countries involved than just the USA in those wars. France did the majority of fighting in ww1 and didn’t yield. The were steamrolled by an army no one had seen before in ww2, but they still contributed as best they could. Better to respect all people regardless of their nation than to claim superiority over others.
9

@JamesGonzalez-em9un
9 hours ago
France absolutely did not lose all their major wars. Go to the wikipedia page on “wars involving france” and look at all of the green.
4

@peppybocan
9 hours ago
imagine Russian army marching in Paris again. That did happen not that long ago.
4

@giovanhagar
8 hours ago
The USA hasn’t won a war since ww2, either.
11

@Faiez-rh1gm
7 hours ago
Were chased out of Africa too with America out of Niger
5

@macanngantuk1439
7 hours ago
​ @JamesGonzalez-em9un “involving” means even sending 50 troops you got the shared trophy
1

@AnaG-pd3ym
6 hours ago
@Faiez-rh1gm Yes that’s the Macron hate over Russia.

@vern146
6 hours ago
@JamesGonzalez-em9un and wikipedia is not bias at all are they ….

@heimomoilanen9654
5 hours ago
French learned nothing from Napoleon wars. Nothing.
1

@fritzkinderhoffen2369
9 hours ago
First I heard Bernie Sanders give that speech. My respect for him is increased. Scott’s important criticism of his speech with standing. Young people the future is yours more than ours. It is a time to act as best you can to save yourselves from these mad men. It will only get worse if you stand down.
7

1 reply

@mydancinglife730
4 hours ago
Why is it on the young, it is on all of us, yes? Everyone with a conscience who can see what’s going on.
1

@234currency
7 hours ago
Scott tells it like it is no sugar coating bottom line we are quickly seeing a very dangerous situation kick into a higher gear.
8

@garyodom474
11 hours ago
Well now…its about time that somebody sounds the alarm about how close we are to the brink of nuclear war…I know there have been some, like Tulsi Gabbard and a few others as well, but Scott has a way of driving it home. I hope people take him seriously.
40

1 reply

@genrcflyer
10 hours ago
I went with two of my grandsons to see Oppenheimer. Watching the crowd leaving, there was no indication that anyone was concerned. I never hear a word spoken about Ukraine here in central US unless I bring it up.
3

@mushchina6749
9 hours ago
Scott is the man!
27

@sidenbigh8832
10 hours ago
Keep it up Judge!
13

@mohammadmossayebi2609
8 hours ago
Thanks judge and mr Ritter to getting to roots of problem.
14

@danielhopwood5985
11 hours ago
the billionaires did not build their nuclear bunkers just incase,
45

4 replies

@aidanmacdougall9250
10 hours ago
In Hawaii, they might be flooded out though
11

@danielhopwood5985
10 hours ago
@aidanmacdougall9250 wouldnt that be a pitty
6

@rhetorical1488
10 hours ago
best place to get fresh food
2

@fleurstarable
4 hours ago
New Zealand so many
NY of them.. but need to fly in… Li Ka Shing… so many. Waiheke & South Island. They need to be able to get in

@mikeholness3860
11 hours ago
Sad, really, isn’t it? The whole situation is just sad.
14

@farzanarazvi8763
10 hours ago
Glad Bernie is awake now!
4

@johnfarley4201
11 hours ago
God bless you Judge. God bless you Scott.
21

@WESTLOSPROS
7 hours ago
Excellent as always
Love Major Ritter
Thank you Judge. Safe Travels
7

@franceslynch2615
4 hours ago
One of your best you two, thank you!!!
1

@Cooee1961
7 hours ago
That’s what makes Putin such a great leader. He always tells the truth. And he doesn’t back down.
23

@mikeholness3860
11 hours ago
This talk of nuclear war is becoming more commonplace on a daily basis. THAT is scary.
44

5 replies

@stepheneurosailor1623
10 hours ago
Why do you think all the billionaires have huge underground bunkers in remote parts of the world do they know something we don’t?
7

@malcolmt7883
10 hours ago
@stepheneurosailor1623 Of course, as soon as it happens, money will be as useless as tits on a two headed bull.
4

@michaelwills1926
8 hours ago
Don’t give it your energy. It survives and thrives on the thought form energy of real people. Yes it’s that simple.
2

@istudios225
26 minutes ago
@malcolmt7883 LOL!! Never herad of that analogy but LOVE it!

@istudios225
15 minutes ago
@michaelwills1926 Yes, this is true. Our thoughts create our reality. Our positive collective thoughts will render the negative collective thoughts of the population weaker, powerless and ineffective. Our thoughts alone can manifest the outcome we want.

@scififan698
9 hours ago
I think the Russians actually mean it and are not only ready but also prepared.
21

2 replies

@thulomanchay
7 hours ago
Gotta make sure those nukes don’t fall back on themselves, like the Tridents.

@geoattoronto
4 hours ago
Russian rockets actually consistently work.

@mackeyswenson9312
13 minutes ago
Mr Ritter ,you have my deepest respect for telling the truth.

@laneboucher509
11 hours ago
great video Judge and Scott
15

@sentapt8387
11 hours ago (edited)
Judge, you should really invite Dr. Norman Finklestein, a fellow Princetonian, to your Channel. No one is better equipped to address issues on Gaza than him.
24

1 reply

@mayamichelle6741
5 hours ago
True. But I think it would be hard to contain NF in JN’s 35 minute format.
1

@mik823
5 hours ago
Scott Ritter for president
7

@billcarpenter5271
3 hours ago
Thank you Judge, excellent Scott & the Amazing team !

@betweendrinks8885
9 hours ago
This guy is chilling in his truth
30

@gorancucko1437
10 hours ago
EXCELLENT SHOW, SCOTT RITTER IS AN EXCELLENT ANALYST AND A GREAT MAN IN EVERY WAY.
18

@maxkazzora4234
6 hours ago
For me, the most scary reality scenario has just been explained by the judge. Thanks for having Scott Ritter on a regular basis.
7

@hamayoonshah1990
11 hours ago
Feeling pity for these Ukrainian boys who are dying for an American puppet Zelensky
28

@tarwingrill4531
11 hours ago
Why the US government is cracking down on free speach? Simple answer: They got ordered to do so by Nat.
35

@veroniquedelphi7689
11 hours ago
Judge every single show you put on today was stellar. I can’t believe our country was taken over by a small supremacist cult. Safe travels en Italia, my second favorite destination (after Greece).
32

@CastleHassall
11 hours ago
if the Russians want to get rid of the UK politicians (except Bridgen) WITHOUT harming any of the population they would probably find that the majority of the UK population would thank them..i of course would be very upset by them doing this but I’ve noticed a lot of people are sick of the UK politicians but there are no alternatives for us
40

4 replies

@artyerlich3514
8 hours ago
Australia is in a similar situation.
6

@ikeanderson6466
8 hours ago
Greeting from your friends in Alberta, Canada. El Salvador is looking better and better, might go there. Not sure if you read the Bible but check out Revelation Chapter 6, if im correct the 2/3/4seals about to open before 2026. When Israel signs peace treaty with neighbours starts countdown 7yr or less till 6th seal.
4

@ikeanderson6466
8 hours ago
@artyerlich3514 Give the rest of your life to serve the Lord JC and you will get 7yr in Heaven for wedding feast and 1000yr with JC on the new Earth, that’s the deal. Pretty clear2me we are near the end of this age.

@typeorulz
6 hours ago (edited)
Absolutely agree with you–we could use a reset here in US.

@daphnethurlow5388
11 hours ago
Love listening to Scott..tells it straight..tells it true. God bless you and yours.
Macron is a fool, what on earth is he thinking ??
25

@katerinak4164
1 hour ago
So well said by Scott Ritter!

@jameswithrow1685
8 hours ago
Pride before the fall
5

@JohnnyYounitas
11 hours ago
Well it’s 6 months late but Bernie has finally figured it out. I guess better late than never..
13

1 reply

@mydancinglife730
4 hours ago
He still cannot say genocide, though. Pity that.

@kroschelfilms
10 hours ago
Scott Ritter delivers the cold, hard, brutal truth today, May 6th, 2024………..Basically, are we all ready to meet God ? …. I feel there isn’t much time left. For anyone.
12

1 reply

@ikeanderson6466
7 hours ago
Our entire Universe exists as intelligent energy as a spark between neurons in God’s brain. God is not restricted by physics or time like we are. God loves you.
1

@user-dz8ww7tj8j
9 hours ago
As always … Very..very..Good conversation both of you…
2

@nailz4325
3 hours ago
Judge Nap is the man. I imagine he golfs during the mornings and then does his amazing show for all of us after his round. Keep em coming Judge! Thank you!

@Usamak1
8 hours ago
Every word spoken on this show has the clang and drang of truth, the most accurate and focused view of reality, the sleepwalking toward the dreaded, derided Mutually Assured Destruction. Says this returned Peace Corpsman.
3

@williamtyndale1402
11 hours ago
If you want to know who owns you look to who you are forbidden to criticize
26

3 replies

@michaelashley2855
11 hours ago
Aaagh

@niblet112
10 hours ago
Look who owns the MSM.
2

@kenwilson-zy8qv
2 hours ago
Surely not the Smiters?

@carlomariamosco
1 minute ago
Thanks to Napolitano and Ritter for offering us an unbiased information

@mariaheredia6822
3 hours ago
Scott Ritter as always is on point

@MC-1976Mei
10 hours ago
The US & NATO better learn to coexist with other major powers before it’s game-over.
6

@marqbeatty2694
6 hours ago
Nailed it Scott; it’s a free-speech matter…..
7

@sharonhitchcock6656
9 hours ago
$4.99
Thanks!
2

@bradroy8902
9 hours ago
Love the ones your with folks,,,,,I sure hope those the made us step in and stop this madness and dispose of the maniacs pretending to be in power.
2

@hassanqanbari8531
11 hours ago
Thanks
3

@CastleHassall
11 hours ago
china was not visiting france to see the scenery.. it must have been a final warning to Macron from Russia via China
29

3 replies

@aidanmacdougall9250
10 hours ago

2

@TTP16.4
10 hours ago
You are dead right!
6

@mydancinglife730
4 hours ago
With a bit of sweetener…China saying “help us stop this madness and we can trade, you don’t have to lose everything and we will help you shift your economy”.

@jimdemetri8168
11 hours ago
Madness all for ukraine?? Seriously
11

2 replies

@daphnethurlow5388
11 hours ago
Was thinking the same
1

@aidanmacdougall9250
10 hours ago
Aye just hand it to the Russians, it ain’t worth it.
1

@WORKOUTSOLUTIONS
11 hours ago
CHRIST IS RISEN
BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS
12

@lrww5673
11 hours ago
Ritter came out swinging in this one. Scary stuff. I respect him immensely, but hope he’s wrong about the nukes flying. Good Lord.
25

@thereisnofork
8 hours ago
There is a reason it’s called “Russian roulette”. They don’t chicken out. Don’t try this bs with them, you will lose.
13

@user-qm1jl1iq8l
2 hours ago
Bravo Scott

@davidwong1848
1 hour ago
Scott you are always spot on

@aynhiayraadr6599
7 hours ago
AIPAC has burned the american dream to the ground
6

1 reply

@wadegoodwin6773
10 hours ago
Macron is a madman…….
17

4 replies

@user-uc2yn6tk5o
10 hours ago
He’s French…

@niblet112
9 hours ago
He’s a puppet of the madmen
6

@CRRVENI
7 hours ago
You have to shut him down all all of you will be…There have no much Time.. Regards
2

@vern146
5 hours ago
and a tnuc
2

@deguldenmiddenweg895
40 minutes ago
Thanks judge, and Scott

@kraz007
11 hours ago
Nothing like a Scott rant
17

@rolflagerquist8514
12 hours ago
Love is the highest energy vibration in the multiverse.
“Love withheld is a Burdened Heart”, I pass my LOVE to All.
22

4 replies

@mariaangelicabrunellsolar7086
11 hours ago
Wisdom!
2

@stephengeorge3507
11 hours ago
Agree, LOVE NEVER FAILS,BUT WITH THE LEADERSHIP IN AMERICA,EUROPE, IT MIGHT NOT BE ENOUGH TOO RESCUE MILLONS. LOL
2

@michaelashley2855
11 hours ago
Huh ?

@aidanmacdougall9250
11 hours ago
Love can stop your fear
Fear can stop your lovin’

@keithnorris6348
10 hours ago
All my resources are taken up with the study of the Russian position and I have to say that I agree with Mr Ritter. The western powers do not seem to have a good understanding of the requirements of the Russians nor of the ` grass roots ` sentiment of the British people. As for the Israel situation, other than the disproportionate response the dynamic is to complex to follow and see a likely out come. So yes I am worried that with no change of course visible in the situation it will degenerate to disaster level.
8

@joannesavage3709
3 hours ago
Thankgoodness for the sound reasoning and incredible exerience and knowledge of Scott Ritter

@leehawkins8599
2 hours ago
Great show as always with Scott, Safe travels Judge , Boun Viaggio

@kp-wp8tx
11 hours ago
Scott still didn’t answer what happens if a F-16, with a nuclear warhead, is shot down.
8

2 replies

@Handmemoretramadol
9 hours ago
If you mean will it cause a nuclear explosion ,no it won’t
2

@mydancinglife730
4 hours ago
They generally do not arm the warheads until they are about to release them from the plane. So, it will likely just be a tricky recovery operation.
1

@mousiebrown1747
11 hours ago
I’m reminded of the last scenes of “Dr Strangelove”———. YEE HAHHH!
7

1 reply

@geetee2694
8 hours ago
Nuclear Rodeo.
1

@wtf_usa5597
7 hours ago (edited)
It’s gotten to the point where EVERYBODY is afraid to say ANYTHING, especially about the current middle-east situation. THIS HAS TO STOP!!!!
1

@billkeidan270
8 minutes ago
Bravo, Scott: You are responsibly warning these idiots. I wonder if they will pull back in time?

@mingthemerciless6855
10 hours ago
The issue of Free Speech is a ruse. It’s the Israeli PAC threatening any Legislator who hints at criticizing Israel actions against the Palestinians. Wasn’t a Michigan Legislator who openly criticized Israel lost his primary. That’s why…
8

@fleurstarable
5 hours ago
Thankyou Gentleman.
1

@maxmurphy7306
5 hours ago
While you’re at it.
Send all members of congress to the front lines .
1

@icecoldyellowredbull
7 hours ago
“ this is life or death for Russia “
That line means they ARE NOT playing. West is really playing Russian roulette
3

@bonanzaguy1
11 hours ago
Russians don’t bluff
10

1 reply

@aidanmacdougall9250
10 hours ago
100%
1

@Rickmaxi
5 hours ago
Analysis spot on as ever.. Thank you both.. The problem with the usa is … NONE of their wars were faught on THEIR territory…. Could Putin change that ??
2

1 reply

@maryk4588
2 hours ago
Revolutionary & Civil War.

@user-zx1ir7jt4c
2 hours ago
I love Scott. This guy is the real deal and we NEED him delivering this message to congress AND the American people because Americans are zonked out watching Netflix and popping pills!

@fatmah9916
11 hours ago
Sir you forgot to ask him about Rafah
6

@thethinkingman9338
11 hours ago
The higher gold goes, the closer to the end game we get
4

1 reply

@niblet112
10 hours ago
100%

@averagelibertyenjoyer3217
7 hours ago
And not a lie was told. Great show judge!

@probasket8159
2 hours ago
Nice episode!
1

@sheilamartin1577
12 hours ago
It’s pronounced Ma- cr-on. It’s his ‘wife’ that’s Ma Crone.
18

2 replies

@kahutochishisumi9056
7 hours ago

@vern146
5 hours ago
its pronounced Macunt
2

@EWA8755
11 hours ago
Anyone still think it can’t happen here? Your country ain’t what you think it is. It’s a lot worse.
13

1 reply

@metalmamasue3680
8 hours ago
Yes it sure is. Those of us who are paying attention are VERY concerned and worried.
1

@Dot_Connectrice
3 hours ago (edited)
Thank you once again gentleman, for being a lighthouse in dark times. Your tireless effort courage and expertise is much appreciated. I guess it’s time to dust off my prayerbookGreetings from Holland

@NK-iw6rq
4 hours ago
Judge, please run for president and have these guests as your cabinet . Humanity would be saved by Christmas time.
1

@mortimersmithsr2522
11 hours ago
God bless Russia and Palestine! <3 Love from Norway
22

@schinaro
9 hours ago
I really fear that Europe has to be sacrificed for the next stage in the global reset
4

1 reply

@AnaG-pd3ym
5 hours ago
They wanted to be under US boot.

@robtherub
11 hours ago
Hey! Bernie’s peace movement again! Cool!
2

@ModernPrepping
19 minutes ago
Everyone start prepping! Get in the best shape you can physically, emotionally and spiritually.

@rcbrown22
9 hours ago
Stay strong Russia
2

@kevinstrade2752
8 hours ago
Modern times make the cold war appear tame and secure….seriously…we and the Soviets faced off, world destruction always 1/2 an hour away 24/7 but yet we had adults in charge. We hated each others ideologies and politics but we didn’t hate ourselves to annihilate each other. Today, we have literal psychopaths in charge. They have no respect for anyone, not even life itself.
3

1 reply

@mydancinglife730
3 hours ago
They would rather blow the world up than lose all their toys.

@cryptotrendsanalysis
2 hours ago
Putin said, “A world without Russia, who needs this kind of world?”
2

@tahirsultan2428
3 hours ago
How clearly Scott states his opinion with no ifs and buts. Judge, this podcast was deeply informative. Your questions and Scott’s answers were hitting the nail, right on spot.

@ralphbauer2616
12 hours ago
Scott,please read the Aachener Contracts between Germany and France.
Germany cant say no when Macron send troops and they are hurted.Than Germany must help France,is part of this Contrackt signed by Merkel.
3

1 reply

@daphnethurlow5388
11 hours ago
Someone ought to lose it then..whatever next?

@someoneelse.2252
1 hour ago
Putin appears to be the only sensible person in this sick joke.
3

@abuibrahimfes5586
36 minutes ago
Scott Ritter is always on Point even in explaination , it’s compulsory those people listen, unfortunately they don’t I’m from the uk

@artyerlich3514
8 hours ago
Russia has my blessing from Australia
4

1 reply

@BozenaMable
3 hours ago
And my from Croatia

@BG1975sh
11 hours ago
Oh that is why Xi went to Paris – to see the eiffel tower for the last time
11

@Pompomgrenade
11 hours ago
They enforce then force whatever they want..
Everything has to die. It’s a zero-sum game… No loss no gain… Time spent then the end. Have a good time. The world is yours but you’re mine
2

@Jocksman100
3 hours ago
Ladies and gentlemen: Scott Ritter
1

@djxhakaza1827
5 hours ago
The Rothschild poked the wrong bear
5

1 reply

@mydancinglife730
3 hours ago
They poked the bear ten years too late.

@oldbiker9739
7 hours ago
America has reduced itself to the annoying drunk that just refuses to leave the bar! fight
4

@fredenfleur
8 hours ago
I’m love putin
the Netherlands
2

@popthis8891
9 minutes ago
Where are the REAL SOLDIERS,you are needed to look after youre own !!

@frankgarciawhite7612
12 hours ago
RitterJudgeTrumpMAGA
9

@johnnykoo6593
11 hours ago
Nucler winter is coming
10

@muhammadsaleh290
12 minutes ago
Students do lead the next page of history, no one can denied.!!

@user-yc9fw7pq2r
10 hours ago
Vova is the President of the Planet
1

@antoniotorres-alcala2355
12 hours ago
5

@87rover49
11 hours ago
Scott supports the college protesters but not the J-6 protesters
3

1 reply

@daphnethurlow5388
11 hours ago
Maybe he knows thjngs nobody else ( or few) does? Just a guess..Scott is normally very fair
4

@josefkrajcir1059
10 hours ago
….. safe travels Judge
1

@juanluistostadocanales3955
9 hours ago
That’s right Scott
1

@rolflagerquist8514
12 hours ago
Ask yourself: “Why all these continual wars? Could the lineage of Egyptian pharaoh hybrid Central Bankers be directed? Are there overlords directing Humanity’s on multiple levels? Are you afraid to face iT (inconvenient Truth)?
8

3 replies

@Jo-sp5cp
12 hours ago
Yes, those families still pulling the strings.
3

@Jo-sp5cp
11 hours ago
​ @marcosvidal4940 the propaganda is strong with you.

@PeterLamin-pi6rv
3 hours ago
Lizard people.

@Farrukhsiyar159
11 hours ago (edited)
All eyes on Rafah
5

@cherylriegel6128
8 hours ago
They did more about the people demanding at the college then the border
2

@taisadiercks696
2 hours ago
Just incredible..

@jimmybraun4193
11 hours ago
Russia’s Foreign Ministry perceives the F-16 fighters operating in Ukraine as carriers of nuclear weapons. Moscow clarified that for many years these aircraft formed the basis of the aircraft fleet used in the so-called joint NATO nuclear missions.
Regardless of the specific modification these aircraft will be delivered in, we will perceive them as carriers of nuclear weapons and consider this move by the United States and NATO as a purposeful provocation,” Russia’s Foreign Ministry added.
7

@user-xk2ue9zm4q
12 hours ago
Assumption is the mother of all fck ups
8

@steve1302000
8 hours ago
So thankful I have the peace that passes all understanding. I win either way

@DrNauseous
12 hours ago (edited)
TG channel artielebedevv published a video today of russian soldier discovering it was FRENCH troops (or mercs?) (now dead) participated in a battle.
SO, EXACTLY AS WARNED THEY WOULD DO TO
just gon a wait and see what ppl who track the frontline events and locations will say.
*btw… flag is clearly visible on the dead soldier/merc.*
6

1 reply

@aidanmacdougall9250
10 hours ago

@thugmessiah
11 hours ago
I think the judge was asking Scott, if a f-16 with a nuke on it was shot down, would that set off the nuke on the f-16. Would it???
3

2 replies

@invictuscenturion8468
11 hours ago
As far as i am aware,
No but i do not want to test that theory.
1

@villavan
11 hours ago
Yes not that Nuke carried by F-16. But SARMATS…
1

@neviocapodagli4742
2 hours ago
Amazing

@GabeT-eo3pm
6 hours ago
Italy calls for a truce in Ukraine and peace talks with Putin – Reuters
“ The West mistakenly believed that its sanctions could stop Russian aggression, but it overestimated its economic influence in the world ,” the agency quotes the Italian Defense Minister.
According to Guido Crosetto, the only way to resolve this crisis is to first achieve a truce and then peace.
2

@EarthColonyNet
12 hours ago (edited)
Mr. Scott Ritter, @4:15. given the outrageous behavior of Congress over the last few years, do you think that many people feel demoralized and powerless.
7

@aquilarossa5191
4 hours ago (edited)
Scott is getting carried away talking about Russia nuking France in the scenarios he outlined. That is not Russia’s nuclear policy. Russia’s laws on nuclear weapons use are published and are not difficult to understand. There are two criteria: If Russia is attacked with WMDs it is legal for Russia to use nukes. If an existential conventional threat to Russia exists, it is also legal (or if a conventional attack impedes Russia’s nuclear deterrence, e.g., hitting command posts). Using nukes because F-16s show up in UKR does not meet that legal criteria. A few hundred French troops in UKR does not either, even if they engage on the front lines (Russia would attack them with conventional arms).
A scenario that could meet the criteria for nuclear weapons is a large NATO force with armour threatening to overrun Russian lines in Donbas or breakthrough to Crimea etc. That’s because Russian law views
Donbas and Crimea as parts of Russia. An existential threat to those regions would exist if a large NATO force attacked them. By large, I mean an army corps or more, not companies or battalions (It might take a 50-100K NATO force to overwhelm Russian troops in a sector).
However, NATO almost certainly will not send large units of troops to the front when NATO does not have air supremacy over that front. Russia controls the skies over that front. The US method is to conduct an air campaign to degrade air defences and win control of the skies. Only when that task is complete do they send in the tanks and the grunts, etc. They will however send smaller numbers of troops to assist UKR’s military. They already have. The more they send and the more they operate toward the front lines, the more who risk returning home on ice.
That said, it is still very troubling that we are now just one or two moves from nuclear war. I lived through 21 years of Cold War. I do not remember a situation that was this close to direct conflict between nuclear superpowers (Russia has about 6000 nukes and the means to deliver them on target, so is a superpower in nuclear terms at least).
P.S. F-16s are nuclear capable launch platforms. Russia’s nuclear stance is ‘launch on warning’. That means launching its nukes if it detects nukes heading its way, i.e., they will not wait for a mushroom cloud. The trouble with F-16s launching ground attack munitions is Russia must ask itself every time if those munitions are nuclear or not. Russia has pointed this out to the West and that F-16s operating this way makes for a much more dangerous situation. Russia has effectively spoken about having to consider ‘counter force’ strikes. That means if a nuclear attack on Russia appears to be imminent, Russia could nuke that threat before it even launches. Currently that is not Russia’s nuclear weapons policy, but that can change very quickly.
3

2 replies

@aquilarossa5191
4 hours ago
BTW. The roots of this conflict go way back, but the seeds were mostly sown in 1991. The USSR broke up. Russia was in a mess and on the verge of civil war. It was unable to contest declarations of independence. The West rushed to recognize the newly declared nation of UKR, which has been declared with the borders of the Ukrainian SSR of the USSR. The trouble with that was it included cities that had been Russian for centuries, plus at least 10 million Russians found themselves on the wrong side of a new international border. UKR had a very strong Russophiie contingent. It meant so called -pro-Russia parties tended to win elections. The USA resorted to ousting those parties from power by using rebellion instead of the ballot box. What are called colour revolutions. The 2014 one was quite violent and can be called a coup.
A civil war resulted. Russia tried to have the rights of those millions of Russians in UKR protected with the 2015 Minsk II peace agreement. UKR signed it too, but it then chose war. UKR signed decrees on using force to retake rebel regions, i.e., it rejected Minsk II. UKR began mustering troops at the front and moving heavy weapons back within the exclusion zone. Russia had to chose to leave those millions of Russians to their fate, or use force. It chose the latter.
The whole thing could have been avoided if UKR nationalists were sensible enough to not claim obviously Russian regions when it declared independence and if the West had not rushed to recognize those borders (Russia recognized them too, but it had no choice — Russia was prepared to live with that until the troubles in UKR became so bad that it could no longer ignore them).

@mydancinglife730
2 hours ago
@aquilarossa5191 The Russians tried to negotiate for a neutral Ukraine beginning in the early 1990’s, shortly after the break up of the USSR, but were rebuffed every time. The SMO was launched to preempt a massive attack by Ukraine just days before it was to begin. The Ukrainian plan was to ethnically cleanse the Donbas.

@CharDaLuX
3 hours ago
I notice that the grandfather clock behind Mr. Ritter is stopped at two minutes to midnight. I am afraid that most people I know are oblivious to the frightening reality of this phase of human history. I can only reconcile this to myself as a global mass hysteria/delusion and that not every one was meant to survive for us to evolve as a species. I can’t turn my mind off, and find it difficult to sleep at night. Thank you both.

@TheBigkal201
7 hours ago
thanks judge

@Mk-rr2zj
11 hours ago
This is scary judge ! Omg !
4

@Jeremiah20vs9
12 hours ago
King JESUS is Coming
13

5 replies

@michaelashley2855
11 hours ago
And boy is he pissed

@aidanmacdougall9250
10 hours ago
Where to?
1

@Jeremiah20vs9
10 hours ago
@aidanmacdougall9250 Earth

@aidanmacdougall9250
10 hours ago
@Jeremiah20vs9 any specific locality, last time it was just Israel. He might be wasting his time if he picks the same destination!
1

@Jeremiah20vs9
10 hours ago
@aidanmacdougall9250 why does location concern you so much? are you ready?

@JohnDoe-wy5kh
36 minutes ago
If something doesn’t change soon we are screwed

@HarryFenton6124
58 minutes ago
I moved to France from the UK to get some peace and quiet. Dammit.

@Mccurterk
11 hours ago
You guys are right on a lot of things, but you are not right about the college campus occupations. It’s not freedom of speech to threaten and keep other students who rightfully deserve their education they’re paying for. Just like blocking roads is not an acceptable form of protest. Once your protest hinder others rights, it’s no longer protected.
5

@flashgordon6670
12 hours ago
You gotta respect the Ruskies in their own front garden. At least Dr.Trump knows that much.
No good being a sore loser, bc of Syria, by opening a front in Russia’s garden. That just says that you want to invade, or threaten to invade Russia.
If you’re going to fight Russia, you should at least pick somewhere that’s more favourable for yourself.
Saying, “But that just shows how powerful the USA is”, is complete nonsense. It just shows how powerfully in debt you are and getting more so.
Russia isn’t Iraq or Afghanistan, it’s RUSSIA.
They have ancient culture, are very intelligent and very very powerful in their own garden.
They defeated Napoleon and Hitler’s land armies.
They threatened the Japanese navy, sailing around the whole world to do so. Ok they lost that fight. But to even attempt it, shows their courage, determination and ingenuity. They put the first human in space and the first orbiting satellite.
THIS IS RUSSIA! WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING?
You’re jeopardising NATO and frittering lives away, for literally no benefit whatsoever, other than to get one up on Russia, bc of Syria. That’s not smart, it’s incredibly stupid and cold blooded, towards the innocent lives destroyed.
I used to be against Ritter, Macgregor and co. But the more I think about it, after time going by. The more I’m coming to my senses and realising, they’ve got a dam good point.
It might take longer than they say and they might not make their case, as well as could be, but their underlying message is the right one.
War is pointless, futile, unnecessary and insane. It’s a fight that we don’t need to have, so why are we doing it?
If a fight is on the cards, there’s much better ways, to go about it than this. Or try other methods, of containing any threats and challenges that are posed to the west.
Russia and it’s allies leaders might even be acting like their worried, but really their laughing. Russia hasn’t sent its best military into Ukraine, this is its B team, or C team even. They wouldn’t be that foolish, in case a major war broke out directly with another major player.
So this is all basically a great charade and a way of saving face, for Russia’s victory over the USA in Syria.
I hope I’ve sufficiently laboured the point?
Vote Trump = vote peace.
36

5 replies

@chadwolf5596
12 hours ago
3

@letsgetreal-df7pu
11 hours ago
Well I think Ritter and Macgregor consistently make there case rather clearly, as for Trump on Foreign policy same shit different bucket you’ll see soon enough.
6

@nicassiuscordero7173
8 hours ago
Uniparty congress will not allow that
War is good business for the Hill
1

@kahutochishisumi9056
7 hours ago
​ @letsgetreal-df7pu I believe you’re right

@AnaG-pd3ym
5 hours ago
I like what you said but not Trump,he isn’t the one who brings PEACE.It is enough these two party for so many years,must go.
1

@PaulMitchell-uj1uu
5 hours ago
Bernie Saunders is right on this issue.

@HaG92
10 hours ago
I’m in heaven. All the experts coming on in a single day.
19

@Jan-OlofJohansson-le7hq
12 hours ago
I think sanders is there to F things up again. To suck up the rage and do nuthing. A fake as always. Call me a cynic, and let’s see.
11

@IIVVBlues
11 hours ago
Protests are fine until they impinge on the rights of other Americans. There is no constitutional right to disrupt public or private activities or to take over private or public facilities and destroy property in the name of protest. There is a difference between vandalism and protest.
12

1 reply

@shiznit1999
8 hours ago
Every protest can be cited as impinging on the rights of other Americans.
2

@Sarah33Kaufman
8 hours ago
Wow!
1

@IllegalAlien-ep2ty
9 hours ago
They must have got the US Congressmen from the Trash.
1

@DiplomacyGone444
12 hours ago
(Sigh)….. That was definitely sobering.
3

@vvvc8528
10 hours ago
now we are all closed in the room with insane players with a box of grenades.
2

@kenlightbody6205
11 hours ago
The US have never negotiated with Russia during the DEMs in office…THis more than likely US would not be supporting this with another Admin in charge
1

@ipocritii9215
3 hours ago
Romania

@user-xh8fy1ip6k
11 hours ago
Thanku. Judge. And. Scott
4

@beto-ln5ng
9 hours ago
$2.00
Thanks!

@cesarcalderonvalles
10 hours ago
Thanks

@davidkehn6960
11 hours ago
Thanks!
2

@at5545
4 hours ago
I remember this one time when the government told the people to shut down their businesses and fire the noncompliant while also saying destructive protests were ok.

@jaygreenakajackstax9345
2 hours ago
I live in Switzerland, and this vid is making me uneasy….

@Pompomgrenade
11 hours ago
the mafia would not put something incriminating in writing… I’m not sure they’re in it for the Bill of Rights.
But then force law for their rights… I admire their honesty
2

@sokaiya1
6 hours ago
Yep. We’re living in Weimar Germany again. Same people causing the same problems.
1

@MrKaypet
7 hours ago
Brigitte L Jones. Putin has made clear his responses to NATO involvement. Scott understands and makes it very clear the risks and potential consequences as a Westerner in very understandable language. Wish he had ways of making this more widely known so ordinary people from the West could understand and express their alarm.

@mikemarkowski4547
6 hours ago
superb

@Think.com21
11 hours ago
As Joe Pesci said in the Irish man movie , ” tell him this is it, it is what it is” Unfortunately Jimmy Hoffa thought they were bluffing and he was untouchable.
2

@Yusufmasron
9 hours ago
thats the best french accent Scott
2

@SpetsnazBear-3710
9 hours ago
Excellent interview, as always w/ Mr Ritter.
Yes, indeed, these are chilling times.
As for Americans fighting in Ukienaziland, the number the Russian MoD has stated is “400+”. The US is third on the list in supplying mercenaries. It is the number that I see most commonly and that does NOT include US personal ‘sheep dipped’ and OPERATING US Patriot ADS in Ukraine. Yes, there might have a couple of batteries operated by Ukies, but the vast majority have been operated by US personnel. The US not the only country playing this game w/ their ADSs being operated in Ukraine.
As for the genocidal subject that is Gaza, all I an say is “wow”.
“Rome on the Potomac” certainly is burning.

@goldenoriolesilverbirch8220
5 hours ago
The final demise of Humankind will not be caused, not by greed or stupidity, but by HUBRIS.

@jessicamacfarlane2761
7 hours ago
The babies, donkeys, horses and mules are the true innocents of this horrible war.

@haypapa
10 hours ago
scott and magregor 2025
2

@michellefranklin3182
7 hours ago
Love Antony Sutton.

@buraczanychlew
11 hours ago
Eight O’Clock in the Morning.
1

@greencrunchy6640
4 hours ago
This shit is going to spiral out of control.
1

@danieleppelsheimer9273
4 hours ago
Judge please have a safe trip to Italy .
Your audience will miss your show during your trip.

@ralphsimpson4593
22 minutes ago (edited)
“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”—Harry Truman

@elenanikitina5206
17 minutes ago
The President of the Russian Federation, Mr. Putin, who announced the start of the military operation in Ukraine on February 24, 2022, made a statement addressed to those who would like to intervene in the situation – “Now a few very important words to those who may be tempted to intervene in the current events. Anyone who tries to interfere with us, let alone create a threat to our country and people, should know that Russia’s response will be immediate and will lead you to consequences you have never faced before in your history. We’re prepared for any developments. All necessary decisions have been made. I hope I can be heard”. (с)

@mohmoudfarah1897
3 hours ago
May cooler heads prevail.

@khaleedyushau4460
5 hours ago
Khalid from Lagos Nigeria Z

@bettysteve322716
6 hours ago
ICYMI the French Foreign Legion is already IN THE FIELD

@HeliStephan
2 hours ago (edited)
If a French nuclear weapon would enter Russian airspace I assume Russia would not treat this as a French nuclear weapon but instead as a NATO nuclear weapon. This can result in an all-out nuclear strike against NATO, including US.
1

@postapocalypticwarlord
59 minutes ago
Only cowards think bluff works, and bluff works only on cowards.

@tomcondon6169
10 hours ago
I don’t know, Scott may have better information. I saw a video some time ago that went into the process of becoming part of the French Foreign Legion. It was said that a new identity, a French identity, is made for soldiers, and they can stay in France after. The impression that I was left with was that there are many foreign men who join.
1

@michelhamel5435
9 hours ago
As for the French army, 450 soldiers came back to France in pine boxes last week…

@amywalton4201
7 hours ago
Let’s go Putin….they won’t listen, never did.
2

@thewefactor1
8 hours ago
Actually, what needs to be limited in government is the belief/faith that is behind these wars and almost all of the fighting since time immemorial. However, peace firstly…
1

1 reply

@thewefactor1
8 hours ago
Irrational belief/faith is

@user-kh9qr9ys7c
6 hours ago
Макрон уже заткнулся, получив с разворота пяткой в челюсть от Си Дзинпиня!!!
1

@LonelyRanger902
9 hours ago
Currently, the foreign Legion is made up of about 60% Ukrainian. So they couldn’t be just switching uniforms.
1

@padredemishijos12
1 hour ago
That letter from the Senate is a AIPAC solicitation for money letter.

@iseeulysses
4 hours ago
I can’t even mention what’s happening in the world to friends and family. I’m not sure if they’re too scared to “go there” or if they think it’s all political theatre to make citizens scared – and nothing more than bluff and bluster.

@Asgardsteve1
6 hours ago
There’s 150 Artillery Recce troops from the 3rd Regiment FFL in Ukraine at the moment the rest havent arrived yet. Macron has stated that he does not class them as French citizens therefore he does not class them as part of the French military.

@nicosnewman6402
11 hours ago
2

@Argarthie1320
3 hours ago
ritter says US senators don’t have the right to warn anybody or anyone. Yet, ritter gives warnings on a regular basis to peoples, groups and counties. Were keeping a very close eye you ritter and what you defend, endorse and say.

@hamytemkit
7 hours ago
If it were not for Russia we would be all speaking German now. France got liberated only by the grace of the allies in ww2 and now they wanna play tough. Russian front was the game changer in ww2, more than 18 million Russian souls died in ww2, what a way to say thank you to the big bear. Tell us how many GIs have you lost in ww2 in comparison.
2

@joshuahunt5924
9 hours ago
I care scott
2

@goranbpecotic
4 hours ago
Forzza Judge

@adhamsafi6185
3 hours ago

@aussiegypsy6273
9 hours ago
It was reported yesterday that 100 French troops were fired upon.

@dereckguilfoyle1219
2 hours ago
Weird I can agree with Sanders

@sajjbrown2357
11 hours ago
Scott I’m as frustrated as you are. No one wants to hear it!!!
2

@belisioglipet4655
10 hours ago
No French nationals in the legion, only foreigners.
1

3 replies

@panzerknackerpaul2061
10 hours ago
Wrong.
2

@idubzh243
3 hours ago
no true, it’s fifty fifty.

@mydancinglife730
3 hours ago
Foreigners can join and become French citizens through service. The French can join if they want to and many do. I have a French friend who served in Africa. It’s a mix.

@GazSable4wheeldrive
6 hours ago
Even if they were “anti-semetic” that should still be protected speech.

@WilliamMallinson
9 hours ago
It’s rather ironic that it was Kissinger who first advocated the use of tactical nuclear weapons in 1957 in his book ‘Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy’.

@martinmdl6879
9 hours ago
Freedom of Speech depends upon “WHERE IS THE PUBLIC SQUARE?”

@guycossettecossette7444
11 hours ago
If Russia have kind of Zeus Rods , Macron will not have the time to launch almost anything .. USA hav the system since 80s
1

@chucklander5475
26 minutes ago
I would not want to be living in Europe now.

@notayoutuber09
7 hours ago
This is truly terrible and heartbreaking. This really has to be a simulation

@user-jp5uw2ws5s
11 hours ago
Ritter is sweating it coz he knows the legion is the thin end of the wedge of more boots on the ground.
2

@kennethpaultargett5483
6 hours ago
It’s not the time to have a pissing competition between Nations…..

@volkiruski1221
7 hours ago (edited)
Scott Ritter and Col. MacDouglas are the 2 best analist there are….and there are more; Sachs, Johnson, McGovern, Tony Schafer, etc. etc. Listen to them and take them serious.

1 reply

@butmunchass
6 hours ago
Scott said Russia was winning for the last 2 years the whole time.
2

1 reply

@mydancinglife730
3 hours ago
And they have been. The Russian withdrawal from around Kiev was a gesture when it looked like Ukraine was going to sign a peace deal. Their withdrawal from around Kharkov was tactical in protection of their troops. The Ukrainians now have almost no men to fight and most of the weapons in all of western Europe have been destroyed. NATO has disarmed itself.

@grahammcandrew5614
9 hours ago
“LEST WE FORGET”

@silverxxmountain487
2 hours ago
Douglas Macgregor & Scott Ritter; Do I need to say more?……………………..

@sal-fo5ow
9 hours ago
Push the bear… push the bear…. He’s been saying it…
Bluffing…, their that stupid they’ll play the bluff…
THEN CRY WOLF…. LIKE ISREALREICH….
1

@flesz_
1 hour ago
Damnit , I’m going to Poland end of the month

1 reply

@mydancinglife730
1 hour ago
Timing is everything. I went to Europe in 2018 and 2019, because I thought this nonsense would start in 2020…

@jone8626
6 hours ago
Bernie Sanders FINALLY Making sense.

@stevedavis1316
4 hours ago
Here you go Scott: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What does “Peaceably to Assemble” mean?

@chriswong9158
6 hours ago
6:00 It does need to have the F35, just the F16 deliver to the Ukraine combat field, Russia will use their Unclear Missiles.
1

@Maria-ig1bd
2 hours ago
The Supreme Court decides that a bakery must bake a gay cake because they are a public service but now the students have no right of assembly or free speech because they are in campus?
No no no no, The moment the uni gets a dollar of federal funding and these students are paying tuition, that’s their ground. Stand proud, stand strong. You’re the hope for the future. Kudos. God bless.

@dalequale9365
8 hours ago
OMG!! If Scott Ritter is terrified then I’m ing myself. I’m calling Dina Titus NV CD 1 tomorrow.

@maxiakouchev8175
11 hours ago (edited)
Just before the military intervention, Putin went to Xi to talk. Putin is going to meet Xi this month. It’s time to start writing to my local MP as something fundamental happens after those talks.
1

@frankraschke4515
5 hours ago
question to Scott: Russia wins in Ukraine, but the collective West is still not willing or able to enter into any negotiations. is it possible for Russia to enter into Europe to force the European to sit down and negotiate a European security infrastructure?
1

@naturalaquatreasures
5 hours ago
Such a shame we didn’t hear the Judge’s response to Scott’s question. Why did you guys edit it out?

@roijaxen5674
5 hours ago
Are “Nukes,” being promoted as a introductory game at the summer Olympics? Great opening ceremony…

@KoguryoKid
9 hours ago
I think the boom should be lowered not just if the West puts “grunts on the ground.” It should apply for the so-called “advisors” and robots, too.

@juanluistostadocanales3955
9 hours ago
Educate them
1

@lukehanley5392
4 hours ago
JC was onto something.

@neilbodoc8600
8 hours ago
This senators are tretors
1

@indrekkpringi
9 hours ago
This video was made just before Poland said it would not send polish soldiers to Ukraine and Macron said he would not send French Legionaires to Ukraine and France will remove the French legionnaires on Ukraine.

@wtf_usa5597
7 hours ago
“There is no such thing as a limited nu.clear war. Once the sh.ooting starts, it’s over because nobody wants to get hit first with their nukes still on the ground unlaunched..”
~ Col. Douglas Mac.Gregor

@mxoldtimer4braaappp858
8 hours ago
Yet the criminals want to double down to hide their crimes

@user-yk3sl4xd6x
2 hours ago
What happened..! To ……..we THE PEOPLE

@Yvcdwsm3
8 hours ago
Maintain the status quo. keep the money flow.

@wilftomkins5546
15 minutes ago
I just wish our Dodgy Dave Cameron could listen to this.

@jimmybraun4193
9 hours ago (edited)
Blinken at the Cyber security conference in San Francisco.: “The United States wants to promote its norms and standards worldwide from a position of strength,” ( US rules based order…..by all means ).

@deguldenmiddenweg895
1 hour ago
There will be no other French soldiers then Foreign Legion soldiers in UA.

@theonlinedancer8308
10 hours ago
Did the Judge not answer Scott’s “legal question “?

@jimmychoi5219
8 hours ago
I can’t find this chapter of US Freedom of Speech or this so-called First Amendment in this new US novel called ‘Rules Based Order’
1

@Hat6000
6 hours ago
I have always considered myself a Christian, although that term covers a lot of diversity, but I don’t see the political state very craftily calling itself “Israel,” ruled by some of the most evil men on earth, as worthy of support for every evil hateful thing they do and have done. The real house of Israel is composed of those who have the spirit of and do the works of righteousness, and not those who exhibit the spirit of anti-Christ. I suppose there may very well be genuine humble and loving descendants of the tribe of Judah among those living there, I hear of the protests that the press ignores from many who understand what their psychopathic leaders are doing and planning and want nothing to do with it.
2

1 reply

@JamesGonzalez-em9un
9 hours ago
Ask Bernie if his words extend to Trump supporters.
1

@volkiruski1221
7 hours ago
Judge…where is the knob of the lamp for a light?

@lg2058
9 hours ago
But I had summer plans! I wanted to go to Thailand to see beautiful transvestites.
1

@ericlassin953
9 hours ago
Crazy Ritter as usual.

@MikeCris
7 hours ago (edited)
As I understand, the US Army is training troops at Fort Irwin for “deployment to eastern Europe”…SMH.

@taisadiercks696
3 hours ago
Living in France..macron is diluted..getting scared..now

@taisadiercks696
3 hours ago
Living in France..macron is diluted..getting scared..now

@mikehopkins6937
35 minutes ago
Bernie. Is rite

@jumbeaux1
5 hours ago
Why? Because they remember what they did at Arab Spring. They fear it’ll happen at the universities.

@LeeWalton-jk1iq
7 hours ago
MAY 15,

@bentodica4325
6 hours ago
A very important question from Judge, Scott did not answer: What will happen if a nuclear explosion happens in the air?

@111CREWGO69ZEHZ
10 hours ago
A man dribbling a ball is amazing

@Vit_Kon
2 hours ago
Я почти уверен, что западные СМИ преподнесут учения как то, что Путин безумен и угрожает ядерным оружием, хотя для большинства понятно, что Путин предупреждает не делать тупых шагов и это касается не только войск НАТО на Украине . Например, я не вижу в западных СМИ обсуждений еще нескольких аспектов происходящего, дело в том, что Россия сейчас на самом деле побеждает на поле боя и будет только ускорятся, соответственно запад видит что проигрывает и пытается быстро что-то придумать. Так вот – не обсуждают на западе то, что они пытаются создать дополнительные точки конфликта, например в Грузии сейчас проходит очередная попытка цветной революции, где может случится то, что случилось в Украине в 2014г.. Также есть подозрения, что они хотят расконсервировать старый конфликт между Молдовой и Приднестровье, так как в Приднестровье располагается миротворческий контингент России. Причем они так уже делали в 2008, когда марионеточный президент Грузии Саакашвили, напал на российских миротворцев в Абхазии, и был конфликт спровоцировал конфликт Грузии и России, тогда все закончилось быстро за несколько дней, так как Грузия маленькая и противостоять России смогла около недели, после чего Россия вывела войска. Но сейчас, когда Украина явно проигрывает и все сыпется, они могут попробовать открыть что-то типа второго фронта – Молдовы и Приднестровья. И предупреждение Путина, что бы они перестали играть с огнем может касаться не столько войск на Украине, а что бы Молдова не напала на Приднестровье, а то может прилететь очень сильно.
2

@nataliekato741
10 hours ago
Don’t need nuclear power. As we know Yellowstone.
1

1 reply

@TodaTruth
10 hours ago
“ Putin is wining “
Reporting live

@deguldenmiddenweg895
43 minutes ago
The maffia doesn’t kill children.

@laniethosea9781
5 hours ago
Piers morgan doesn’t have the guts to interview Ritter

@gragor11
3 hours ago
12:35 Not regular French soldiers. Of course they are. They’re just the non-union side of the business. They’re French soldiers

@paulhunt121
5 hours ago
“Biden” – resident evil!
2

@user-hf3vy3hu7i
11 hours ago
Please re-listen/read Macron’s recent speeches. His comments about French deployments in Ukraine were far more nuanced. He was not talking about French troops being on the combat
line. He was talking about French ( and other foreign) troops forming a rear echelon presence and acting, in effect, as a peace keeper buffer between the crumbling/retreating Ukrainians and
advancing Russians before the entire Ukraine falls. I’m no fan of Macron, however it was a pragmatic proposal …. it would create time for negotiations before Ukraine ceases to exist as a
viable nation state. He made it clearest in his address to the Sorbonne.
2

2 replies

@abdelazizbenferjani3456
3 hours ago
Let’s keep on making Dua & Prayer, Boycotting, Donating, Protesting, and Sharing Videos. Free Palestine, from the river to the sea.

@concerned_2023
9 hours ago
Judge, didn’t you have a document on your site earlier referring to a European nuclear war and the United States would sit back and watch?

@garykendall3776
5 hours ago
The French Foreign Legion is a fully integrated into the French army. However, the French government uses them for nasty work where loss of Frenchmen by birth would cause internal political questions. [ Source – interviews with former Legionnaires.]

@mikebarbeau8569
7 hours ago
How much criminality will be enough???

@NormanGarreau
9 hours ago
America is falling apart it’s sad but I don’t see the end I wonder when the end is there what will it look like norm
1

@marioduva1411
6 hours ago
Why doesn’t Zelenskyy just resign and let those young men live? What is wrong with him? Why aren’t they listening to Putin? His demands weren’t outrageous they were pretty much just, we’re going to find out soon.
1

@bertojongman1922
10 hours ago
I just saw a video of dead bodies of Frenchmen with a French flag on their uniform.
1

@gepisar
5 hours ago
6:11 jesus… havent they learned yet. The two inviolate rules of international relations: 1. DO NOT POKE THE BEAR. 2. DO NOT BLUFF THE DRAGON.

@evancarterful
10 hours ago
What are the French investments that warrant intervention in Ukraine?
1

1 reply

@d.d.6045
4 hours ago
Bernie suddenly woke up?
1

@judevalles6148
10 hours ago
Woe onto the french army

@sal-fo5ow
9 hours ago
Send Sullivan in with the captain America shield…

@davidswink6653
5 hours ago
French Foreign Legion isnt a mercenart army….its an arm of the french army
1

1 reply

@maxmurphy7306
5 hours ago
Say what who cares
French

@ophidiaparaclete
8 hours ago
How do you reconcile free speech to anything you say can and will be used against you?

@bertholdsanchez3864
10 hours ago
The Ukraine army has been collapsing for a couple of years now so I guess they will be doing so in the coming years too.
1

1 reply

@user-uc2yn6tk5o
10 hours ago
It’s a process but I get what u r saying prolly in the next 2 years it will be over

@mikeyerian2562
3 hours ago
Ive seen a lot of video of the protesters saying they’re pro Hamas, Bernie.

1 reply

@mydancinglife730
2 hours ago
Really? Post a link or two.

@jamesboswell9324
11 hours ago
Whenever I hear Bernie Sanders, the theme tune from ‘Curb Your Enthusiasm’ immediately pops into my head for some reason.
1

@helengoethals9220
3 hours ago
Surely that Senators’ letter is a fake?

@michaelsaint9181
8 hours ago
Macron = Gayy Inspector Clousau.
1

@wtf_usa5597
6 hours ago
Congress-people who have citizenship in a foreign country should not be allowed to vote on or speak about our gov’ts policies towards that country. That’s an easy conflict of interest to see. Duh..

@Anonymous1dskjoadi93
1 hour ago
Judge nap please discuss issues like the thousands of Palestinians wrongfully detained, and the organ removal from murdered civilians bodies. Baby abductions as well. The cruelty of the idf torture practices.. These are big things Israel does which require truth tellers to discuss the world needs to know about the hideous and evil practices of Israel
1

@brellosjanos1022
9 hours ago
What option did Kennedy have in Cuba in 1963 if Khrushchev hadn’t given in? And what options does Putin have if NATO intervenes directly?

1 reply

@oot007
9 hours ago
Khrushchev did not start it. It was the yuuessay.

@dashriprock8596
10 hours ago
Judge, please let your guest finish his sentence. Stop interrupting.

@julietaaboka3285
1 hour ago
Was this camera issue a warning ” shalom” to you, Judge?

@PeterWilliamson-nn9et
7 hours ago
I think that Spetz Natz. Would be in Kiev in a week if given a chance

@michaelhertwig4528
5 hours ago (edited)
When Bernie Sanders is right, he is right. I do not agree with him always, but I agree with his words here (albeit considering Scott’s argument that Bernie needs to make this a free speech issue, period)! That said, the letter of the 12 makes me worry about what would happen if Trump gets in. We need somebody other than Biden or Trump. Somebody who can put such goons in their place!

@michaelbruce2476
3 hours ago
It’s about hegemony..

@user-qm4xf4ob4t
11 hours ago
The judge never answered Scott’s question regarding the constitutionality of the congressional law on antisemitism. The feed went to Bernie sanders, then a problem with the camera ensued leading to canceling the rest of the interview.
2

@gmoney7398
5 hours ago

@45pepa
11 hours ago (edited)
USA no have experience for big war on US soil !this is big problem, if is war outside over sea ,americans do know nothing !only few Americans have opinion f, good opinion for this / all war !
1

@davidswink6653
5 hours ago
To say F16s havent arrived isnt the most important question
Have all thr maintenacr crews spare parts ..the supply and supoort network been set up for them
An F16 arriving means nothing unless all that is present

@user-jl3ny9zj2z
8 hours ago
France is gonna be Euro Sahara
1

@falxnecis
2 hours ago
In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer its nuclear weapons to Russia and became a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in exchange for assurances from Russia to respect the Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders

1 reply

@flashgordon6670
12 hours ago
Ezekiel 38
2

@Debdeaid
3 hours ago
Mr. Ritter is so excitable compared to Mr. Johnson or Ray or Mr. Cooke. Let’s get rational. Russia will be celebrating their Victory Day parade on May 9th. I am assuming the Russian MoD has recommended to Mr. Putin to be ready to protect that parade. National Security Adivisor of Russia stated Capitol Hill will be hit also along with the other powers. I am going to hang onto the Holy Fire celebration in Jerusalem of the Resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I saw Mr. Putin along with the Mayor of Moscow in church celebrating Easter.

@uncleshamus3451
10 hours ago
What part of America is it that you love?

@jumanjiu6559
5 hours ago
There’s no wisdom left in Edom.

@jamesberonja1539
7 hours ago
Biden how many troops are you sending to prevent defeat?

@reggieduquesnoy
3 hours ago
here goes macron…pooofff…gone with the wind!

@DavidDuVivier
1 hour ago
Roland Napolitano, Hauptstürmführer Ritter, Hoffaktor Sanders… Birds of a feather flock together

@alphaghostrabbithole5340
7 hours ago
I know. You know . I’m afraid.

@patrickribard8447
29 minutes ago
French Foreign Legion are thé élite French army

@Leny1777
7 hours ago
Judging going to Italy!? I did not thumbed down this video. Youtube is acting weird.

@giganoob1968
5 hours ago
American will care when they walk outside and see a mushroom cloud, then they will think “This is bad”.

@AbdullahKhan-mo5nx
5 hours ago
The R’s’ians would happily retain the history that the US is the Only country in the world that used ‘ukes and committed ‘enocide !
1

@frankblangeard8865
9 hours ago
Tactical nuclear weapons have a range of 300 to 400 miles. They won’t reach Romania, Poland or certainly France.

@andrewkrolikiewicz6522
10 hours ago
I wonder how many of our ICBMs actually work. They sit in silos for 40 to 50 years with little maintenance. Our military considered upgrade – estimated cost came around $ 1 trillion.
So, they have done nothing. British tested their Tridents. Two out of two fizzled out. Then, testing has been stopped. They prefer not to know, I guess.
On the other hand, Russians spent untold treasure during 2000 – 2020 on updating their nuclear forces. I assume that they are ready for us if we try.
God save us from the stupidity of our politicos.

@tonygriffith2164
8 hours ago
Sending Mr. Trump to Paris and then Moscow for meetings may be the only way to save the planet. He’ll also use the opportunity to make America billions of dollars.
2

@elangovan1592
8 hours ago
If only people ate more rice there would be no wars

@NineInchTyrone
10 hours ago
We are in good hands with President Potato Head
1

@Rick8191-tv8pg
10 hours ago
over 400,000 American js where in Israel when this started ,

@deborahdillmore7347
5 hours ago
Would contractors actually go to places knowing they will be wiped out? That is not a good business model.

@suntzuhli
3 hours ago
Finally, is it Ritters real hair?

@gigante87
5 hours ago
When does free speech crossover into hate speech? And how do you distinguish between individual freedom versus society freedom or versus the freedom of another individual when they are in conflict ie the freedom to smoke and the freedom to not have to inhale somebody elses smoke?

@jessicamacfarlane2761
7 hours ago
For once I agree with Mr Sanders, great comments about mistakes of Mr Netanyahu. He has put me off reading the Bible, especially the Old Testament. I hope the Great Spirit brings him to justice. To me he is evil.

@heldtkochlyse6521
2 hours ago
french forign legion have russian nationality also

@martinmdl6879
9 hours ago
Criticise the Israeli Govt and get your camera shut off.
2

@richardcarrillo6164
8 hours ago
Okie dokie vaults to the vault

@HughJass448
17 minutes ago
The Aardvark Sanders.

@craigelectric5241
9 hours ago
I DIDN’T NO YOU WERE FRENCH

@pauldenham2952
11 hours ago
Minutes to midnight
1

1 reply

@Noname-gh5ec
3 hours ago
The German Gutmensch is lost: he wants to be against genocide but give Israel a free pass to commit genocide. So far he settles for police brutality against pro Palestinian protesters and silencing any criticism or discussion.
1

@hp323
9 hours ago
Fool Bidin nor Blinkin are calling except Xi. He went to France and then Ukraine pull out the Yank tank.

@enriquillobribiesca5602
3 hours ago
Why would Russia have to use tactical nuclear weapons when it could probably achieve its deterrence against NATO using conventional weapons? Naturally, should a humiliated NATO turn to initiating the use of tactical nuclear weapons, Russia would have to respond by doing the same.

@blustar1856
51 minutes ago
Looks like PCR has been right all along. The Kremlin’s failure to end the war quickly and overwhelmingly has led us to where we are now.

@jgarbo3541
3 hours ago
Scott, do you mean the Mona Lisa might a need a nuke-proof room at the Louvre?

@taragacie
11 hours ago
If a nuclear equipped plane is shot down, does that set off the carried nuclear device?
2

5 replies

@Just_username_3161
11 hours ago
No.
4

@user-vd2ry5ou8v
10 hours ago
Perhaps not, but then the Sarmatian will fly to the goal

@aidanmacdougall9250
10 hours ago
No, could cause some locaised radiation possibly
1

@MicheleDiBiase-wd4sh
10 hours ago
Their are incidents when nuclear bombs have been accidentally dropped or fell due to the plane having a structural problem and they have not detonated, I believe their is still a atomic bomb of the coast of Spain that has never been found
2

@Just_username_3161
10 hours ago
@MicheleDiBiase-wd4sh it is deleting messages

@moneymaker2024
8 hours ago (edited)
7:18,9:36

@MarcoPolo-lb8up
8 hours ago
the man in charge has nothing to loose, he’s famously a bad character, and he has an army of lunatics at hand….go figure where this goes.

@naughtiusmaximus830
11 hours ago
What does the US nuclear arsenal have? The 50 year old untested W-78?

@craigelectric5241
8 hours ago
I don no …
I kinda like the black screen thing

@milojames5593
8 hours ago
I don’t think it’s out of the question that Russia would use nuclear weapons. But I think it is very doubtful that they would for example use nuclear weapons on Paris just because France sent troops to Ukraine. Not making a prediction that it won’t happen, but I just don’t see that being a necessary step for Russia to deal with French troops. I don’t believe that President Putin expressly stated in unambiguous terms that he would use nuclear weapons if NATO troops were used in this war. He reminded the west of exactly what they were capable of and maybe that’s enough… Maybe reading through the lines is the same thing. But I do not believe that his statement was so unequivocal that if he did not use nukes it would be considered a bluff called. Any event, I don’t think the Western troops are any match at all for the Russian military. I just don’t think nuclear weapons would be seen as a necessary tactical decision for Russia. On the other hand, I think the western leaders are so bloody insane and godless that they would be the ones to consider using them first once they saw their troops losing on the battlefield.

@servantofgod5642
2 hours ago

@20:40. Judge is showing his support for
BLANK SCREENS MATTER

@pasofino9583
5 hours ago
“ thank you for you’re service”
What a joke

@zikfocus
1 hour ago
FREE SPEECH
FREEDM OF ASSEMBLY
FREEDOM OF CHOICE DON’T GO
DON’T LISTEN IF YOU DON’T LIKE OR AGREE

@nenadrancic6675
1 hour ago
The Russians found the bodies of 7 French legionnaires in the Battle of Chaso Yar

@debo750
8 hours ago
Nato aint gonna do shit. How long with their weapon last?

@robzilla730
1 hour ago
Israel isn’t the 51st state. It’s the U.S capital…

@Ghandi12
5 hours ago
Israeli envoy says US must ‘completely stop funding’ UN if Palestinian statehood endorsed
Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Gilad Erdan has denounced a UN General Assembly draft resolution that would recognise Palestine as qualified to become a full UN member, saying it goes against the organisation’s founding Charter.
“If it is approved, I expect the United States to completely stop funding the UN and its institutions, in accordance with American law,” Erdan said.
US law stipulates that Washington can’t fund any UN body if it grants full membership to any group that lacks “internationally recognised attributes” of statehood.
The resolution, which UN General Assembly members could vote on this Friday, will serve as a global survey on support for the Palestinian bid.
If passed, the resolution would recommend that the UN Security Council “reconsider the matter favourably”, after the US vetoed the Palestinian application for full membership last month.
Any application to become a full member requires approval from all 15 UNSC members and then the General Assembly.

@MB-oc1nw
7 hours ago
Nothing will happen………………………………..

@sirtruth3931
10 hours ago
The British aristocrats said if they lose Ukraine, the Empire will begin losing power, influence and money year by year until they become a middle of the pack nation with no resources. Slow death. So for Britain , this is an essential threat as well.

2 replies

@user-uc2yn6tk5o
10 hours ago
And Johnson was the one who sabotaged a reasonable peace deal lol

@agnieszkaolszewska6079
10 hours ago
Where did they say that?
1

@alexanderslawncare
7 hours ago
What’s going on in Africa
1

@Joaocruz30
9 hours ago
I heard in our national news that Portugal sent 12 F16 to Romania. Can any citizen of Romania confirm if they have seen planes with the Portuguese flag at your bases? If so I’m ashamed and embarrassed to be Portuguese because those F16 are going to Ukrainian bases! Jesus Christ!
1

1 reply

@mydancinglife730
3 hours ago
They will get destroyed shortly after entering Ukrainian airspace, either in Ukraine or after they flee back to Romania. Yes, it is very sad and distressing. Consider organizing a protest to negate the deal and have them returned to Portugal.

@snoozinglion8596
7 hours ago (edited)
Hey Bernie Sanders does that also stand for J6 protestors?

@johnmatthews8810
5 hours ago (edited)
Scott avoided the important question, namely if Ukraine loads a nuclear weapon onto an F35 and that plane gets shot down by the Russians, will that cause a nuclear explosion?

2 replies

@idubzh243
3 hours ago
Nope : a nuclear weapon must be ignited first to create a chain reaction that will deliver the atomic blast. Several bombs were lost (in Spain) and never exploded. The only thing you’ll get is hazards.
1

@johnmatthews8810
3 hours ago
@idubzh243 Thanks for that.

@andrewkrolikiewicz6522
10 hours ago
Stupidity and hutzpah of US senators is beyond imagination.
1

@user-kv7oj5nt2q
7 hours ago
seems like russia would use the powerful non-nukes first.

@danielfitzgerald3417
10 hours ago
Yes, but” France is NOT a NATO state, which means they can act unilaterally,not bilaterally France is not a nato member which means if they attack Russia by any sense of the word, Russia can attack them and Nato cannot retaliate, at least thats the nato rule book, but Nato has broken every word they have stated that they are supposed to abide by.

@Theone-bc7tr
5 hours ago
Love for Russia

@111CREWGO69ZEHZ
10 hours ago
It’s all about the pension. 300 million dollar dock

@nonameslb
3 hours ago
2 minutes to midnight

@yvonneollivier7088
9 hours ago
I’d never envisioned survival of civilization being put on the knife’s edge by a man who reminds me of Pepe Le Pew … I recall how arrogant, smug and self-satisfied, detached from reality that cartoon character was. Then, funny. Now, not.

@mikehopkins6937
33 minutes ago
Who the hell is going to vote for Biden

@terry7319
3 hours ago
Lets not forget Russia won w war 2.
2

@user-jx7od8js3w
8 hours ago
Scott American pepol day r stupeat i dont have school in aym smart more like American i sad 2024 is good bay avederzen world

@Horseracingtip
9 hours ago
22:28. Israel money? Aipac.

@kendahl7922
10 hours ago
Say hi to The Pope

@TakedaKenshin
7 hours ago
Your wrong Ritter about french foreign legion not being in Ukraine they are in Chasov Yar with the germans all had country of origin patches on there bodies Source (*WarNews Twenty Four Seven*)
(*

1 reply

@TimezUp23
7 hours ago
France lol
1

@giganoob1968
5 hours ago
You have to in the way, love the Russians because they are just straight with you. They are probably really bad poker players.

1 reply

@jonyoung6446
8 hours ago
I’m ignoring all of this. Die hard Patriot, but not having Joe Biden as my commander in chief!! Hands down, he will never be MY commander in chief. Same goes with any democratic party nominee…

@georgemurp7961
3 hours ago
Dasvedanya Lasagna……

@NineInchTyrone
10 hours ago
MERCENARIES

@robertcook8408
6 hours ago (edited)
Go ahead macron send your troops I dare you sorry about your luck macron’s butt hurt because Putin disrespected him when he wouldn’t shake his hand

@mysticmac5555
4 hours ago
Scott’s dead right about the Russians.

@music-art-theunknownsockpuppet
6 hours ago
I’ve always liked Scott. I only have one question though. What about the pedophile convictions? Google it. Scott, I would like to believe that you are healed from this evil sickness.

@CamC12_6_88
10 hours ago
There are thousands of American soldiers fighting in Ukraines international legion.
1

@mistwiir4011
11 hours ago
LOL – nice look, Judge

@wtf_usa5597
7 hours ago (edited)
“God’s chosen people” (in their opinion) doing their best to bring about Armageddon.
1

1 reply

@collybeans586
11 hours ago (edited)
Im not sure Ritter is correct that the foreign legion is a part of the french army and is made up of french soldiers. Can someone who knows clearify.
And to the point about Hmas and the protests and free speech, I agree completely Scott.

3 replies

@chadwolf5596
11 hours ago
Foreign non French troops fighting for France
3

@apmoy70
11 hours ago
Technically they’re French army, not French citizens (yet), they’re part of the French army selected from foreign countries. After three years of service the legionnaires may apply for French citizenship
2

@mydancinglife730
1 hour ago
The French can also join it, but it is mostly made up of foreigners. I have a French friend who served in Africa.

@aliounesogue6300
9 hours ago
why not just take off the government of Ukraine and bring in a government that cares about Ukraine. Zelensky does not care about Ukraine.

@naughtachance3960
6 hours ago
Don’t look up

@user-hf6qo7kq6j
9 hours ago
why dont you all tell us what happened to the tween towers first

1 reply

@Waridi23
1 hour ago
I think everyone knows the end game…the west is dying and there’s no way that empire will die peacefully. It is being led by deranged psychos just like every other empire on it’s deathbed, it’s always a deranged psycho that finally drives it over the edge, such a tragedy. It seems this is the human fate….
1

1 reply

@normankoo6159
44 minutes ago
Being anti genocide is now labeled antisemitism.

@trqster
6 hours ago
The west think that’s Putin is like the dog that always barks but never bites…oh well

@user-gn7mo8qi4v
6 hours ago
Is this REAL?

@danielpatterson9663
10 hours ago
FAFO.

@SuperBonBon2024
6 hours ago
FRANCE? Embarrassing

@larsh2923
3 hours ago
Scott is panicking, he needs to calm down.

1 reply

@marcusmurphy3640
11 hours ago
Glory to the Shovel.

@pla9012
9 hours ago
Scott feels america is not about genocide… perhaps a review of american history is in order?

@ophidiaparaclete
8 hours ago
Separate powers?
Legislative Branch Socialist BAR Association
Executive Branch Communist Jural Society
Judicial Branch Fascist Judiciary

@chriszzw30
6 hours ago
Scott thinks Russia are the only country with nukes. Truly the biggest Putin meatrider in the west.
1

@oscarmarrero3708
11 hours ago
Cornel West for president 2024.
1

3 replies

@abettertomorrow5928
10 hours ago
I hope you’re joking
1

@halifaxeh
7 hours ago
Jill Stein!

@mydancinglife730
1 hour ago
Why, exactly?

@affliction6665
6 hours ago
I can’t tell if this right wing or left wing propaganda.

@tonymcdow7206
11 hours ago
Worried about the camera while Scott Ritter is trying to prevent a nuclear Holocaust?

@DavidA-xp4ww
2 hours ago
I miss The Wagner Group

@tomisultra
6 hours ago
so let me see: Scott knows whats gonna happen – Armageddon, but politics just keep digging the grave to themselves and to everyone around?

@chriszelez7970
8 hours ago
Scott is all doom and gloom.
1

1 reply

@vincetagleoficiar2860
9 hours ago
Democrats united to pass support weapons to Israel
1

@Jimmy-rv5xs
9 hours ago
Once the aid starts arriving, which is just early stages now, Russian casualties can be pushed over 1500/day. Putin can only mobilize 1000/day.

@mariuschirita187
7 hours ago

from defense Romania youtube channel. title reads, “first impression of Ukraine pilots flying f-16”. so it will be no time before we start seeing burning piles of u.s.a. made aviation in Ukraine.
1

@josealvaro-bc7zv
8 hours ago
herói mundial Zelenski,com este SenhoR , a Ucrânia entra na NATO e UE Será o exército mais temido da Europa.Em poucos anos, será potência económica.Parabéns heróis Ucranianos,go Crimeia

@NatsarimPoet
10 hours ago
Without the Light , lawlessness goes forth. Saldy things will just get more confusing and divisive, more lawless now in these times. I pray more come to the knowledge of the Truth as Yahuahs mercy is still here. May Yahuah guide you out on Yahusha ha’mashiack.
MATITHYAHU AKA: MATTHEW [END TIMES EXPLAINED] 24 And going out, Yahusha went away from the Qodesh Place, and His talmidim came near to point out to Him the buildings of the Qodesh Place. 2And Yahusha said to them, “Do you not see all these? Truly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, at all, which shall not be thrown down.” 3And as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the talmidim came to Him separately, saying, “Say to us, when shall this be, and what is the signal of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” 4And Yahusha answering, said to them, “Take heed that no one leads you astray. 5For many shall come in My Name, saying, ‘I am the Mashiak,’ and they shall lead many astray. 6And you shall begin to hear of wars and reports of wars. See that you are not troubled, for these have to take place, but the end is not yet. 7For ethnicity shall rise against ethnicity, and reign against reign. And there shall be scarcities of food, and deadly diseases, and earthquakes in places. 8And all these are the beginning of birth pains. 9Then they shall deliver you up to affliction and kill you, and you shall be hated by all Guyim for My Name’s sake. 10And then many shall stumble, and they shall deliver up one another, and shall hate one another. 11And many malicious prophets shall rise up and lead many astray. 12And because of the increase in lawlessness, the love of many shall become cold. [Turah teaches love]
AMUS AMUS – AKA: AMOS 5 Hear this word which I take up against you, this Lamentation, house of Yisharal: 2The maiden of Yisharal has fallen, not to rise again. She lies forsaken on her land, with no one to lift her up. 3For thus said Aduni Yahuah, “The city that goes out by 1000 has 100 left, and that which goes out by 100 has 10 left to the house of Yisharal.” 4For thus said Yahuah to the house of Yisharal, “Seek Me and live,
1 kepha 3:18Because even Mashiak once suffered for sins, the obedient for the unobedient, to bring you to Alahim, having been put to death indeed in flesh but made alive in the Ruach, 19in which also He went and proclaimed to the Ruachs in prison, 20who were disobedient at one time when the patience of Alahim waited in the Yomim of Noak, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were delivered through water,
(It will be like the days of noah it’s written, look it up please.)
MatithYahu-matthew 4:17From that time Yahusha began to proclaim and to say, “Repent, for the reign of YAHUAH has drawn near .”
1 Timothy 2:3For this is good and acceptable before Yahuah our Deliverer, 4who desires all men to be delivered and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one Yahuah, and one Mediator between Yahuah and men, The Man Mashiak Yahusha, 6who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be witnessed in its own seasons

@MrMediterrano
11 hours ago (edited)
Being hesitant to send troops to Ukraine during the two years the war is going on, only emboldened Russia to the degree that it started threatening the West with the use of nuclear weapons if troops were to be sent to Ukraine.
Doing the same mistake again, by demonstrating hesitancy to use nuclear weapons to retaliate to a nuclear attack by Russia makes that attack likelier to happen.

@lettuceha3368
4 hours ago
100s? American mercenaries post their videos on YouTube of combat in ukrisne,,,

@odaydrums
11 hours ago
I dont know what Ritter did visa vie his pedophilia charge but that aside he does know this issue well.

3 replies

@aidanmacdougall9250
10 hours ago
That’s a pathetic old slur!
1

@odaydrums
9 hours ago
@aidanmacdougall9250 i believe he was convicted.

@aidanmacdougall9250
1 hour ago
@odaydrums he’s paid the penalty, there should be forgiveness for mistakes in life. Scott has spoken about it, and not hidden away from it, but shouldn’t have to apologise forever. He’s a man of great integrity

@lowkeygato2133
5 hours ago
Scott is contracting what prigozhin said before he was assassinated. 1000 Russians dead a day is what prigozhin died for speaking about.

1 reply

@mydancinglife730
1 hour ago
That might have been one bad day in Bahkmut. Ukraine has lost 600,000 and Russia less than 80,000 to date.

@letsplayretrogames972
8 hours ago
How were you a “judge” and you don’t even know the when where & how of 1st amendment is determined by the government or property owner

1 reply

@verilyze
8 hours ago (edited)
He ain’t a lawyer judges gave refrence manual

@dajo320
6 hours ago
Scott Ritter is wrong, his fake French accent is actually pretty decent.

@111CREWGO69ZEHZ
10 hours ago
GO NINJA GO Z 1 1 1 CREW GO69 Z

@marqbeatty2694
5 hours ago
If Scott Ritter isn’t making sense with his scary analysis and dire projections about the intolerable geopolitical danger being created by the West’s stance regarding the upcoming ‘death’ of NATO’s Ukraine project, then I’d really appreciate being persuaded to the contrary by someone who doesn’t come across as a total idiot when they tell me how and why Scott Ritter’s got all this badly wrong?!?

@markanderson9772
7 hours ago
Anarchy is not free speech.

2 replies

@77Love7
8 hours ago
The great and perfect President Putin NEVER runs out of patience. He is an incredible President. I love him so much. He’s amazing. He’s wonderful!

@scoutdog5551
10 hours ago
Doesn’t mean you can protest, out side of the law, hmmm, you would think a “judge” would know that…
1

@a.howell78
11 hours ago
Why is Bernie changing his tune. Is he now the voice of the college protests? Hmmm
2

1 reply

@w3s77
9 hours ago (edited)
I chuckled when you said Ukraine and future. Ukraine was cooked after the Obama coup in 2014.
2

1 reply

@skippyMcphat
36 minutes ago
Becoming a bit sensationalist

@hubbezoglu
10 hours ago
nato is finito…

@namur-iq6ih
11 hours ago
Zelensky has failed to achieve any of his goals and is leading his country into an abyss after losing many parts of Ukraine, its infrastructure and economy destroyed, and millions of people displaced after two years of war.
1

1 reply

@aidanmacdougall9250
10 hours ago
He’s just a puppet!

@vincetagleoficiar2860
9 hours ago
democrats still supporting war against Palestinians bernie supported it
1

@walterjohnson6357
7 hours ago
For more than 800 days, this guy has said it is over and Ukraine says not so fast.
1

@yvonneollivier7088
8 hours ago
I despise Bernie, because he impresses me as being almost as genuine as a three dollar bill. And I agree (w. Scott) that free speech is THE issue.
Yet, I am making a sour face and defending Bernie’s saying that the students were protesting against genocide and for freedom for Palestinians, not for Hamas.
I do not view Hamas as a terrorist organization, rather as military resistance to occupation. But if one wants to go that route, let’s talk about Irgun and the Stern Gang, and past Israeli prime ministers.
The propaganda machine constantly accuses the students of being pro Hamas “terrorist” supporters. I think it was fair of Bernie to address that.
He could have specified the two issues for clarity.
But maybe he didn’t want clarity. Maybe he wanted to do the obligatory “condemn Hamas” routine by the back door for the propaganda machine.
2

@donaldlasek3696
10 hours ago
They need to send there natsees

@plusspus
10 hours ago
Grownups acting like children…

@marcosvidal3146
12 hours ago
Just by seeing Scott and the copious amounts of diet coke he drinks, one has to conclude that definitely diet coke makes you thin. No, wait… Another capitalist lie?
1

@MsSweetlandofliberty
3 hours ago
I think we need Trump back immediately! Will Putin wait another 7+ months?
1

1 reply

@mydancinglife730
1 hour ago
Wait for what? This will be over by then.

@lifeisamovie4006
2 hours ago (edited)
Sleep tight people. Scott is dreaming the same frightful dream for the last 20 years. And will keep at it for the next 20.
Don’t be too judgmental. He’s just making a living.

@user-qi6tm2fb5x
10 hours ago
So right on Russia, yet so anti-Semitic.
1

@Mick-iv6mk
8 hours ago
Russian casualties at 500,000 now

@wanderingquestions7501
11 hours ago
It’s getting silly; Ritter ranting
2

1 reply

@user-db5ts2yt6o
12 hours ago
DUMB BUT HAPPY

1 reply

@NeoFreshair
11 hours ago
I disagree with Scott Ritter ….. Russia isn’t going to use nuclear if some NATO forces send soldiers to Ukraine …… Russia has the capability to target any foreign forces ……

@scaryginganinja6548
11 hours ago
Good Ol’ Scott “Unlawful contact with a Minor” Ritter. Always a pleasure.

4 replies

@aidanmacdougall9250
10 hours ago
Bit sad to keep bringing that up, it was dealt with ages ago
3

@scaryginganinja6548
10 hours ago
@aidanmacdougall9250 Bit sad to engage in unlawful contact with a minor.

@mydancinglife730
1 hour ago
Set up by the feds, yo! and poor judgement on his part for falling into it…

@niblet112
1 hour ago
@scaryginganinja6548 and yet certain people on a certain list to a certain island still walk free. You seem to be unconcerned about the fact the people in this list run the west

@Milleeee
11 hours ago
Traitor
1

1 reply

@mydancinglife730
1 hour ago
Who? Biden? Trump? Mike Johnson?

@carolynzaremba5469
9 hours ago
Please don’t make us listen to the charlatan Bernie Sanders.

@NoelOKeeffe-pq3pq
10 hours ago
Scott is on the Kremlin payroll
1

1 reply

@JDOG1974yes
10 hours ago
This Russia sponsored channel is out of control !

2 replies

@rodneypennington1086
10 hours ago
What r u smokin
4

@cyberspore00
9 hours ago
It’s called, “Cognitive Dissonance.”

@andrewackerley9985
11 hours ago
This program is totally fatastical. Ritter eeds to be set to a secure hmetal istition.

2 replies

@michaelashley2855
11 hours ago
Proof read
2

@wkgurr
11 hours ago
Proof read

@NoelOKeeffe-pq3pq
10 hours ago
A spoofer … why are you taking him as an expert …. A convicted sex offender has zero credibility

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

See Also

top

 

John Mearsheimer – Why is Ukraine the West’s Fault? – Sep 26, 2015 – Transcript

Mark Collett – NATO is to Blame for the Conflict in the Ukraine – Mar 4, 2022 – Transcript

Putin Explains the Military Situation and Why Ukraine Might Lose Its Future – Mar 7, 2022 – Transcript

Red Ice TV – How Jewish Activism Transformed the West, Who Benefits from Ukraine-Russia War? – Kevin MacDonald – Mar 27, 2022 – Transcript

John J. Mearsheimer – Who (Really) Caused the Crisis in Ukraine – Mar 2, 2022 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Mark Collett vs Greg Johnson – The Ukraine Debate – Oct 17, 2022 – Transcript

The Z Blog – A Ukraine Primer – Jan 13, 2023 – Transcript

Judge Napolitano – Putin & Xi Have Met – Now What in Ukraine? Col Doug Macgregor – Mar 22, 2023 – Transcript

Douglas Macgregor – The US Want Russia to Collapse – Feb 1, 2023 – Transcript

 

 

 

911 – The Jews Had Me Fooled: A Jewish Engineered Pearl Harbor

Organized jewry Did 9/11

Organized jewry Did 9/11 — The 16th Anniversary, 2017

Know More News — Christopher Bollyn, The Man Who Solved 9/11 — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report with Christopher Bollyn – Sep 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

Guns and Butter interviews Christopher Bollyn — The War on Terror – Dec 18, 2019 — Transcript

AE911Truth – Exposing Those Who Covered up the Crime of the Century – May 28, 2023 – Transcript

 

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

PDF Download

top

Total words in transcript = 4735

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

Use your browser to download/export a PDF of this post.

 

Version History

top

Version 5:

Version 4:

Version 3:

Version 2:

Version 1: Tue, May 7, 2024 — Published post. Includes YouTube comments (1,355).

Tucker Carlson: The following is an interview with the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, shot February 6, 2024, about 07:00 pm in the building behind us, which is, of course, the Kremlin.

The interview, as you will see if you watch it, is primarily about the war in progress, the war in Ukraine, how it started, what’s happening, and most pressingly how it might end.

One note before you watch, at the beginning of the interview, we ask the most obvious question, which is:

 

“Why did you do this? Did you feel a threat, an imminent physical threat? And that’s your justification?”

 

And the answer we got shocked us! Putin went on for a very long time, probably half an hour, about the history of Russia, going back to the 8th century. And honestly, we thought this was a filibustering technique and found it annoying and interrupted him several times, and he responded he was annoyed by the interruption.

But we concluded in the end, for what it’s worth, that it was not a filibustering technique. There was no time limit on the interview. We ended it after more than 2 hours.

Instead, what you’re about to see seemed to us sincere, whether you agree with it or not. Vladimir Putin believes that Russia has a historic claim to parts of western Ukraine. So our opinion would be to view it in that light as a sincere expression of what he thinks. And with that, here it is.

—————