Tim Murdoch: This is Tim Murdoch. You’re watching WhiteRabbitRadio live in Game Exotica, the interview series. We have on Blair Cottrell. He will be on hopefully for almost a whole show, but most likely only half a show because he’s on a phone and all these, I guess we can say foreign run convenience stores don’t have the right cord for him.

 

So his phones might run out of charge on us and probably will. So get your questions in. We’re here to talk about Joel Davis and things going on over in Australia. Joel can’t be on because of his crazy bail.

 

So how you doing, Blair?

 

Blair Cottrell: I’m doing fine, man! It’s nice and early here. Not that early. What is it, like 8 o’ clock in the morning? But rolled out of bed, frantically searched for the local convenience stores with friendly local neighborhood Indians. Trying to find the Right charger cord. And I bought one not to let you guys down, but then it’s the wrong one. So we’re just gonna have to see how long this lasts.

 

But the reason I’m in a hotel is because a friend and I traveled from Melbourne to Sydney last night. It’s like a nine hour drive. Australia is a big country like America, but when you factor in the couple of stops to get fuel, it ends up being like 10 or 11 hours. And we did that to visit Joel. First time I’ve seen Joel since he’s been released from prison. Been released on bail about a week ago, just less than a week ago.

 

He’s got stacked of new charges on him. He was initially. If you guys don’t know the story, Joel’s someone I stream with down here. Joel Davis, political commentator and streamer from Australia. He was charged with offending a politician [Allegra Spender], harassing or offending a politician in a Telegram post for a comment he made in a Telegram post that was posted to his public channel. And he was held in isolation as a “national security threat” for the last four months. He was finally released on bail by a Supreme Court justice, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. But he had to pay a lot of money to get there. I think he raised maybe 40,000 from his supporters to get to that point to be released on bail from the Supreme Court. But I think he’s like down to his last 4,000 now.

 

So that’s how much it’s cost him just to get bail for a relatively not less than serious charge. It’s not really a serious charge. It typically carries a pretty low imprisonment rate. I think 6.5% of people that get charged with the same offense that Joel’s been charged with actually end up going to jail at all! So almost 95% of people that get charged with this don’t even go to jail at all! Joel hasn’t even been found guilty yet. He’s not even been convicted. He’s just been accused! But he was held in prison because he’s considered a “national security threat” due to his ideology and various opinions that he shares while he’s streaming.

 

So I had dinner with him last night, and he hasn’t changed at all! If anything, he’s, like, sharper and clearer and even more intelligent than he was before. It’s not surprising because when you sit in jail for a while, you’re removed from all of the petty distractions and the quote, unquote, “degeneracy” of normal society, and all you can really do is read and write. And when you do that for four months straight, you come out quite sharp and clear.

 

So, yeah, he’s in great spirits. He’s very happy to be home. Very grateful to everyone who supported him. He is. Everybody who made it possible for him to get bail, who pitched into the fundraiser. That was huge! But yeah, we had a good laugh. We had some food. He’s feeling good. So that’s where he’s at right now!

 

But he’s banned from the Internet.

 

The reason I have to speak for him, I guess, or update you guys, is Joel is banned from the Internet! Okay? He can’t even have a smartphone, guys. The judge has ruled that he has to have an old brick phone that can’t access the Internet. He’s allowed to access the Internet by computer, but he can’t post anything to social media. He can’t comment on anything, and he can’t have access to the Internet from his phone. Those are his bail conditions imposed by the Supreme Court Justice.

 

Tim Murdoch: Can we petition? Can I pay a lawyer to petition to get him on WhiteRabbitRadio? I wonder how funny that would be. How would that go?

 

Blair Cottrell: I doubt it.

 

Tim Murdoch: I think they’d probably throw him back in jail or something, right? Try to throw me in jail, maybe.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Tim Murdoch: But anyways. I think that’s kind of funny, though. Well, it’s funny that they’re going to that extreme, but they’re just trying to make an example out of him, and they did. Is there any precedents for trying to keep him off the Internet or denying his civil, … This is denying his Civil Liberties in a modern, …

 

Blair Cottrell: We don’t really have., …

 

Tim Murdoch: Denying him the public square. I mean, he can’t come on a radio show and talk about his case. He can’t have a smartphone and post to his Telegram. Even if he’s not violating, … Telegram is not illegal in Australia. It’s not illegal for him to post on Telegram. It’s just illegal for him to say certain things which they’re constantly trying not to specifically define.

 

[07:18]

 

Blair Cottrell: There is some precedent. Look, this demonstrates the bail conditions imposed on Joel basically being banned from the Internet because the accusation against him stems from a post made on the Internet.

 

And so while the matter is still active and a conviction is yet to be found bail conditions preventing him from using the Internet. This kind of thing demonstrates the disparity between Australia and America. We don’t have Civil Liberties. We don’t have free speech rights down here. Like, so no one has the rights to be criticizing any government official, really. As long as you’re not being overly belligerent. You might be able to, but depending on the language you used, you can be charged with menacing or harassing or maybe something else. It’s getting quite tight down here, especially in recent years. But there’s been a significant shift in the past six months or so.

 

I mean, last year, after our most significant or our worst terror attack in the country’s history occurred on Bondi beach in New South Wales, a couple of Muslim characters opened fire on people on a beach specifically targeting jewish people. I think it was at a jewish festival of some sort. It’s like certain government bureaucrats were so disappointed that the shooters weren’t White guys that they just unleashed on Joel Davis! It’s like the Eye of Sauron was just completely focused on Joel Davis. And Joel’s, like, really surprised by it. When we were eating dinner last night, he was laughing! He’s like:

 

“How is this real? Like, I just posted one thing to Telegram and I’m being treated worse than the actual terrorist who shot those guys on the beach. I’ve been banned from the Internet!”

 

He’s almost struggling. He’s laughing at it, but he’s almost struggling to wrap his head around the logistics of it. And it doesn’t actually make sense.

 

So there is some precedent for people being restricted from using the Internet in a certain way if their accusation relates to something on the Internet in Australia. But the major point to consider is its very different from America. Here, basically, you can be just held indefinitely while your matter is being argued without any proof of guilt. You’re essentially guilty until you try to pay enough to prove yourself innocent. You know, so the whole concept of “innocent until proven guilty”, it exists in legal theory, but in practice it doesn’t exist because you get accused of something and then you sit in jail until the matter is finalized in court, until you pay enough money to prove your innocence, or do a deal and get out somehow.

 

So that’s how it really works.

 

Tim Murdoch: He can talk with his friends, he can talk with you and go to dinner with you. Not a problem. What he’s restricted from like former NSN because that’s been disbanded. For instance, if Tom comes and sees him, can he see Tom?

 

Blair Cottrell: I’m pretty sure he can, but the thing is, Tom has also been charged with a number of offenses which confine him to his state. And Joel resides in a different state right now, the neighboring state.

 

So you can’t cross state boundaries legally while you’re on bail for these offenses. And Joel can’t leave the state either.

 

Tim Murdoch: They basically have to have their cases done with, right?

 

Blair Cottrell: Correct. Yeah. So they can move through states freely again. And that’s very standard for any sort of indictable criminal offense for which you’re on bail. You’re not supposed to leave the state without permission. So technically they could call the police and say:

 

“Look, I want to go interstate to visit my friend and come straight back. Can I do that?”

 

But it just comes down to the whim of some police bureaucrat whether or not you can actually do that.

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah. Not a free country! But none of us live in a free country. Just some more than others at the moment, maybe. When does this, how long. What is the next step for him? How long will this take before he can get to court? Because now he’s released on bail. But the matters are still pending. These guys have all kinds of matters pending, technically, I guess.

 

Blair Cottrell: Right. While Joel was in what’s called Long Bay Jail, New South Wales, in isolation, being held without conviction as a national security risk, he was hit with something like nine other charges, or more than that.

 

I can’t remember what he said. There’s a whole bunch of other charges.

 

Tim Murdoch: Are they more or less serious charges? I remember this, but when it comes to these Australia charges these charges are serious, but they’re not doing it. I mean, these guys really aren’t doing anything! They’re just hitting crazy charges over Telegram posts or crazy charges for getting into an argument with the shitlibs or it’s just total insanity!

 

But nonetheless, the charges are there and the charges are very serious on the books. And the police treat them like these are major criminal offenses and terrorists and so on and so forth.

 

Blair Cottrell: Typically, for this kind of thing, the police wouldn’t usually get out of bed for something like what Joel posted on Telegram, it’s just because of his ideology. And that was more or less admitted by the court system in the magistrates level of court, which is a lower level of a state court in Australia. Magistrates were just like:

 

“Look, usually bail would apply, but because of his ideological connections and the sensitivity around that, given this recent terror attack, he needs to be held in prison.”

 

Basically. That’s what they were essentially saying.

 

But look, all of the charges that Joel has, I think there’s beyond nine of them right now! Nine or ten or maybe even more. They’re all in relation to streaming. Okay. They’re from things. I think he has six charges from one stream! From the things he said about other ethnic groups.

 

[13:05]

 

Tim Murdoch: These are streams with you? These are streams with Americans or you don’t know?

 

Blair Cottrell: Stream with me. Yeah, well, it was just a stream out of Australia with me. The one in question. The’s being charged with a number of offenses relating to “inciting contempt or revulsion of a specific class of people”, which is relatively new legislation under Australia’s Racial and Religious Tolerance Act.

 

Tim Murdoch: This is saying something about jews, probably.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, one I think is comments about jewish people. One is about Indian people and the other is about black people.

 

And all of the comments, there’s like six different charges I think, if my memory serves me right. But I know he’s definitely been charged a bunch of times in relation to one stream. And here’s the thing man, and this is what’s super interesting.

 

You probably heard Nick Fuentes have a crack at Joel and say:

 

“He’s just a Wignat. This was always going to happen to this guy. What an idiot! Whatever.”

 

But Joel has been charged for essentially being a groiper and streaming, like doing exactly what Nick Fuentes does.

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah, but he’s in Australia.

 

Blair Cottrell: He’s been charged for what he’s saying in streams, and then directing his followers to criticize politicians on X. He’s been charged with doing the same thing. Americans have the freedom to do this apparently, but we don’t.

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah, Nick actually said something that over his sentencing after the fact. But nonetheless, he can be on all sides of the ball, depending on who’s on his nerves on any given day.

 

Blair Cottrell: I think Nick’s great value. When he initially, his comments were:

 

“Oh, this was always going to happen to Joel!”

 

But I think when you look at the charges, …

 

Tim Murdoch: Liek:

 

“The charge this is bullshit!”

 

Or something. I forget what he said.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, it’s bullshit when you look at the charges. Initially, you’re like:

 

“Okay, Joel was pretty loose!”

 

Everyone can agree that Joel was pretty loose. He was going pretty hard.

 

When you look at what he’s actually being charged with doing. What he’s actually being charged for doing is basically the same thing that Nick does for a living. And you’re like:

 

“What? Hang on, it doesn’t., …”

 

Like I said, it demonstrates the difference legally between Australia and America, and it demonstrates how important it is to have legislation, constitutional rights to freedom of speech, because this is what happens when you don’t have that.

 

Tim Murdoch: Fascinating. So how long will this take before all this particular case is over with and all these other cases. What’s the lineup like?

 

Blair Cottrell: I’d imagine he’s got 12 to 18 months of court appearances, but his next move will be to, at his own convenience, try to get all of the charges heard in bulk in one or two matters, so he doesn’t have to go to court for every single different offense.

 

Tim Murdoch: It’s all the same.

 

Blair Cottrell: Otherwise. It’s just too, …

 

Tim Murdoch: Him running his mouth. It’s all the same stuff. Him live streaming and talking.

 

Blair Cottrell: And there’s the Telegram post, which is a different category of offending, but similar still. And there’s a bunch of other offenses in relation to other things he said. He’s even being charged in relation to private messages he’s had. Because when the police. This is what I forgot to mention. When the police arrested him, the Federal Police, they took his phone, they went through everything, and he’s been making jokes with friends in private conversations that he’s been charged for. Like, literal private conversations that were never public. Because he’s mentioned people specifically in some of those, like, comments, which was all in jest mostly because when you’re talking to the boys, you think it’s private. You say stuff. You say stuff that you don’t think other people would see. But the police have gone through all of it. And he’s got charges in relation to private DMs as well.

 

Tim Murdoch: That’s, its such bullshit! None of these politicians could hold up to those standards. And it’s absurd! But nonetheless, it’s something he’s going through. I remember his fundraiser. I remember putting up and his fundraiser was doing well. Does he have enough money for court? You guys have some good lawyers these days compared to like 10 years ago.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, 10 years ago I was relying on the sympathy, … When I was charged with “hate speech”, I was relying on the sympathy of one lawyer, one lawyer slash barrister, like performing two roles. And I paid him as much as I could, but it was never quite enough. These days there’s a lot more resources available, there’s a lot more sympathy internationally. And the lawyers that Joel has access to, the barrister he used at the Supreme Court, all very professional, top tier stuff. And having access to that for him right now is like indispensable!

 

Tim Murdoch: Plus, there was no such thing as, like GiveSendGo or anything like that, back in the day. There was no crypto.

 

Blair Cottrell: Shout out to GiveSendGo too, by the way. Like just standing strong in the face of all the pressure they must receive from governments around the world and saying:

 

“Look, we believe in free speech. If these people want to raise money, they’re not doing anything illegal. They can raise money.”

 

Like most platforms, most fundraiser platforms would not do that. So GiveSendGo, they’re top notch.

 

[18:26]

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah, I haven’t checked out his fundraiser. I’m assuming it’s still going or I know he hit his goal. That’s all I remember.

 

Blair Cottrell: I think maybe he was saying to me last night that he’s nearly spent at all! Just to get bail.

 

Tim Murdoch: I would imagine.

 

Blair Cottrell: But, I don’t know the details of when he goes to court next and what’s going to be necessary. So once that is known, I’ll help get the information out there and we’ll see what we can do to keep helping him.

 

Tim Murdoch: Okay. And Tom as well. Right. And who else? I know that there’s other guys charged, correct?

 

Blair Cottrell: Oh, there’s a bunch of guys with a bunch of charges. I don’t even know how many. I think the point, obviously is you’re probably understanding Tim. I think the point is just to bog you down.

 

The point is like to just throw this hooked net, this hooked net of just legal nonsense over you that you get entangled in for years. You spend your energy on it, you spend your money on it. And that just kind of holds you back from activism, politics and what you really care about. And that’s the way the Australian government deals with its dissidents.

 

Tim Murdoch: The “process is the punishment”, as they say over here. That’s the whole entire deal. You might get off because it’s all bullshit, but you’re going to have to go through money and it’s all big pain in the ass.

 

Hopefully everyone comes out smarter and more clever. But nonetheless, it sounds like he’s in good spirits. And now this particular program where you can’t be on a smartphone or anything like that, that’ll continue until that particular or trial is over?

 

Blair Cottrell: I think the intent generally, because he has 20 bail conditions, I think, that’s more bail conditions than I’ve ever heard anyone having! Even like the worst criminals don’t get that. I think that the Supreme Court Justice probably just wanted to demonstrate that she was taking everything seriously. She wasn’t just releasing him willy nilly. She wanted to demonstrate to the (((right people))) that she still considers him very threatening. Whatever.

 

Tim Murdoch: Why did he have to be released to his mother and not his wife and kid?

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, this is the funny, this is a weird thing. He’s been banned from Bondi, where his partner lives. And that’s public knowledge now because the media, like doxed her ages ago and, …

 

Tim Murdoch: Right.

 

Blair Cottrell: Literally took a photo on there. Yeah, she was coming out the front of her house. They literally was waiting for her, taking a photo, which I don’t know how that’s legal, is that stalking? The media seems to be able to do whatever they want here. So I don’t know.

 

Tim Murdoch: She’s being a public person now. But they do celebrities. Where there is no decorum, there is no decency in the societies we live in anymore.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s a good way to put it. Right. And that’s how it feels, definitely!

 

But in Bondi, that’s where the terror attack happened against members of the jewish community. And because of Joel’s public statements considered anti-semitic and because there’s a considerable population of jewish people living in Bondi, that seems to be the reason he’s been banned from that whole suburb. He can’t go to that suburb!

 

Despite the fact that his partner and child live there. And that was his previous residence. That’s where he lived as well. He can’t go home. He’s not allowed to go there because jews live there!

 

Tim Murdoch: Can they come and see him? Can they come to his mother?

 

Blair Cottrell: They can visit him, but I think it’s like an hour’s drive or something, so there’s a bit of a distance to travel. But they have visited him regularly since he’s been out. He’s building a relationship with his son:

 

“My son seems to like me. He’s happy when I hold him.”

 

Is what Joel said:

 

“You know, my son likes me.”

 

So that’s good news. It was just good to see him last night Tim. He’s happy. He’s the same old Joel, but kind of sharper and more energetic than ever!

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah, I know that when he first got in, it was really bad! Right. Did he have any stories from jail that he told you?

 

Blair Cottrell: So many! Too many to get into. It was really funny because even though he’s in isolation, he’s in isolation with other guys in other cells who can all talk to each other through the vents and the walls.

 

Tim Murdoch: Okay.

 

Blair Cottrell: And so, yeah, he met some very interesting characters. Very funny stories. Probably the funniest thing that I could share without stepping on any toes or upsetting anybody. I didn’t know this. I assumed that when Joel was arrested by the Federal Police in Australia, when he was arrested, he was arrested at a cafe while he was eating breakfast. And because it was just down the road from where his partner lives, I assumed that his partner was at the cafe with him.

 

But that wasn’t the case. He said to his girlfriend, who was due to give birth to their baby the next day, he said:

 

“Babe, I’m going to get breakfast. I’ll see you later!”

 

And he never came back! [chuckling] The day before his girlfriend was due. So she was probably sitting at home thinking:

 

“Has he ditched me? What the fuck?”

 

The timing of that [chuckling] was really ironic and funny. Like when he told the story.

 

[23:40]

 

Tim Murdoch: I remember him getting arrested. I didn’t know it was a restaurant. I didn’t know where it was at. I just remember seeing him getting arrested, the picture. I wonder what he was eating that morning?

 

Blair Cottrell: And I think even the cafe owner made a comment to the media, because the media rushed into the cafe, the breakfast cafe, and asked a bunch of questions and even asked:

 

“What was he eating?”

 

I think he was eating smashed avocado on toast. That was his last meal. That was his last meal! But look like credit where credit’s due. The police actually went, Joel said:

 

“Can you at least tell my girlfriend what’s happened? Because she’s going to think I just ran away!”

 

So [chuckling] the police actually went and knocked on the door and said:

 

“Yo, just so you know, we arrested your boyfriend. That’s why he’s not coming home.”

 

Tim Murdoch: It seemed like the media was there as he was arrested, which is kind of shady. They must have known about it or something. Or did they?

 

Blair Cottrell: I don’t think so. I think the footage of him being arrested comes from police body cam footage. Okay, maybe. I think they all have cameras on their chests and these days it’s part of procedure to actually document high profile arrests and stuff like that. So I think that’s where that footage came from. And the media rushed there after the fact.

 

Tim Murdoch: Fascinating. Okay, did he have any words of advice? Is he full of advice and knowledge now?

 

Blair Cottrell: He’s definitely acknowledging that there’s a shift in what is going to be possible in Australian political discourse in the future. Okay, that’s probably the best advice. He hasn’t given any advice directly, but this is what I’m projecting to you guys as what I think is probably the best advice given the situation. Joel’s acknowledging pretty much openly that the stuff they were doing before, stuff him and the NSN were doing, the kind of activism they were doing, has essentially been made a “hate crime”. It’s illegal now to openly criticize the jewish community is basically illegal in Australia now. You can’t do that.

 

And so you need to approach discourse in a way that appreciates that new reality. And Joel’s acknowledging that, everyone’s acknowledging that’s why the NSN has disbanded, to prevent their members from going to jail for 10 years for being a member of a hate group.

 

So that chapter of the NSN, the way it was, is done. And a new chapter in Australian political discourse is opening. But what that’s going to look like isn’t clear yet because the laws that have been imposed are so extreme, no one’s sure what’s going to be allowed and what’s not. And it’s going to come down to the whim of political bureaucrats.

 

Tim Murdoch: Sounds like a bunch of bullshit, that’s for sure! Let me get to a Superchat because this one’s for you, actually:

 

“Happy to hear of Joel’s release.”

 

Thank you White Bitch Triple Six. What a handle she has, eh? See what we’ve got here. Okay, up here:

 

“Happy to hear of his release. Hope him and his family, …”

 

Let me get this right here:

 

“Hope him and his family are doing well despite these bogus charges. Wondering if Blair does one on one fitness consultations. I would pay for an hour of his fitness wisdom.”

 

Actually, I think you have something going down that particular line. You’re lining up websites and stuff like that and that’s something you do know about, but go ahead.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, thanks for asking. I do provide. That’s what I do to support myself. And I think I’m pretty good at it. I can basically solve your problems in that regard. And I try to offer a lot more than most people do and I’m very pretty passionate about that. You’ll have to DM me on either Telegram or Instagram at the moment because I’m still setting up a more convenient way for contact. And that’s nearly finished.

 

But if you’re keen to get onto it straight away, just send me a DM on Telegram. It’s at Blair Cottrell. Just my full name. Or you can find me through my main channel, which is at Real Blair Cottrell. And that’s what I do. I help people burn fat and build muscle. I’ve been doing it a while.

 

Tim Murdoch: You can also email me White Bitch Triple six, since I know who you are and I will put up his information because I have all of it. I’ll send it back to you in an email if you didn’t get any of that or you need to know how to get a hold of him. I’ll try to hook you two up.

 

But yeah, that’s what he does. But go ahead, finish.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s fine. I appreciate it, Tim. Cheers. That’s basically. There’s not a lot more to say.

 

But before the show started, you were asking me about Ben Roberts Smith, the veteran who was recently arrested. That’s a big deal in Australia too, guys! Like this is like a huge deal! This guy Ben Robert Smith, if you don’t know, he’s like a 6 foot 7 chad, Special Forces SAS, Australian army veteran who in Afghanistan was basically responsible for rescuing his colleagues, which he was very good at doing. He’s known for storming significant numbers of enemy troops on his own and somehow winning! This guy’s like basically being hailed as a war hero ever since the war in Afghanistan. There’s certain situations where Australian troops were betrayed by members of the local army or police who offered to kill them in exchange for doing a deal with the Taliban at the time. And they were pinned down by enemy fire, they were betrayed, they were murdered in their sleep. And Ben Robert Smith was the guy who hunted those guys down to save any colleagues that had been captured or pinned down.

 

[29:18]

 

Tim Murdoch: He was in some type of anti-terror squad?

 

Blair Cottrell: I think SAS is kind of like a Special Forces or like a more serious, … I don’t know exactly! Tom Sewell would be much better explaining.

 

Tim Murdoch: I can tell you what the problem was in Afghanistan is that there was a continuous issue on the rules of engagement, where someone could fire at you, throw a grenade at you, throw a bomb at you, or do something like that. Then they would make sure the village they were hiding in they would drop the gun, run back to the village. They would basically make sure that they were unarmed at all times because you couldn’t really do anything with an unarmed individual. It became like a police operation for a lot of different guys. But there was various different teams hunting these guys down. Yeah, playing these games. It was very nasty!

 

Blair Cottrell: It was. And that’s the thing. Basically the Australian army was in Afghanistan supposed to be hunting terrorists, terror networks, members of terror cell groups, but they basically had an arm tied behind their back and their feet bound at most cases. Like they couldn’t actually do their job properly because the rules of engagement kept changing. You just described it in a great way. They would like fire on Australian soldiers, then drop their rifles and act like they were just citizens.

 

Tim Murdoch: Well, this was a problem. This is a problem with my friends that were there from America. So no, this is what they were doing. They were feathering or floating the rules of engagement, terrorists were to make sure that:

 

“Well, they can’t kill me because I’m unarmed.”

 

When they just basically killed one of their friends, you know, an hour for something like that they were constantly playing these games where they became a policing operation. You have to go in and fingerprint them and try to prove the crime. It was a fucking mess, it wasn’t a war, basically.

 

Blair Cottrell: Look the big drama is one of our war heroes from that time, from that era, from Afghanistan. The main one who became a bit of an icon was Ben Robert Smith. But there’s this huge, complex investigation that’s taken place behind the scenes, headed up by I think a combination of media and the Australian Federal Police, they’ve like sent people over to Afghanistan to try to get statements to use against their own soldiers. And the name Ben Robert Smith, that’s the one they kept targeting. There was a defamation case initially against media bureaucrats, specifically a journalist named Nick McKenzie who called Ben Robert Smith a war criminal without evidence. So Ben Robert Smith took him to court and said:

 

“That’s slander, I’m not a war criminal, I’ve got all these medals, what the hell?”

 

But the courts ruled in the favor of the media and they said:

 

“Well look, it could be true, so we don’t know the truth, so it’s not slander.”

 

So it’s like it basically just demonstrates that journalists can say whatever they want about anyone in Australia without any real basis. But now, a year or two after that finding, he’s actually been charged with five war crimes. With apparently either shooting people or commanding his comrades to shoot people who weren’t actually soldiers, weren’t Taliban or weren’t connected. That’s the accusation.

 

But this is the thing, guys, whether he’s guilty or not isn’t really what matters. What matters is the ripple effect that this has on our sense of national pride, the trust our soldiers have in each other and in our government and military, the willingness to actually join the military and go fight for the country. All of that gets pole-axed. That gets steamrolled now by the fact that they can’t even feel confident to go and kill their enemies to do what they’re trying to do without being thrown in jail for life for it when they come back. Because that’s a war crime! That’s the kind of feeling that this is created.

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah. When I first heard it, I thought it was like ICC. I thought it was going to be a big international deal. Then I looked and I’m like:

 

“Holy shit, they’re bringing him up on charges inside of Australia!”

 

This is like some kind of shitlib ordeal, where they actually put up billboards and had advertisements over in Afghanistan for testimony and stuff like that you know, they’re like drumming stuff up!

 

It is somewhat unprecedented now, I assume, because a lot of these guys from my experience, aren’t necessarily on our side. In fact, the ones I know I would kind of consider assholes. [chuckling] You know, our societies are heavily degraded. These guys aren’t necessarily hugs and cupcakes or nice individuals. Many of them you could describe as Zogbots to a certain extent. “Rah, rah”, you know, patriots. But they would line us up against the wall as well if ordered by the government. What is his politics like? Is he being targeted for political reasons or is he targeted because he’s just a military icon and they’re trying to degrade a famous White military icon? You know what is the deal? Because he’s on their side.

 

Blair Cottrell: Like most soldiers he probably doesn’t have politics. And even if he does, it doesn’t matter! When you’re a soldier, you don’t have politics. You’re [government] property!

 

Tim Murdoch: Right, true.

 

[34:25]

 

Blair Cottrell: So that’s like the way I see it. Even if the charges aren’t political, they might as well be, as I explained just then, because they really have a dramatic negative impact on our sense of pride as Australians and our trust that our army members of the Australian Defence Force have in our government and each other. It just makes people not want to fight for this country and not want to take this government seriously.

 

Tim Murdoch: I didn’t mean to interrupt you, but in America that’s already happened long ago. So I’m taking it, this is like we’ve got upset veterans handing in medals. You guys have never had anything like this before where people are saying:

 

“You know, fuck this! I’m not fighting for this government!”

 

This is like the next stage from Covid Covid was a big trust hammer in Australia. This is another thing that’s really putting the nail in the coffin, so to speak?

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. Like you said, there’s been really good articles put out there by Noticer News, which is huge source of news. Really good source of news in Australia. Probably the best source we have down here in Australia. And they just did a story I think yesterday or the day before, and war veterans all over the country are handing in their medals in disgust that the government has gone after this guy just for following orders, for being one of our best soldiers.

 

Tim Murdoch: It is years after the fact and you’re putting up advertisement. It’s years after the fact. It’s not like you’re dealing with fresh off Afghanistan and ICC charge or some type of formal investigation. Formal charge that this guy was doing really shitty things or unbecoming of an officer, so on, so forth, etc.

 

Blair Cottrell: Exactly! Why now? What’s the point of this?

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah. Years after the fact doesn’t make any sense.

 

Blair Cottrell: When something like this happens to him, like who benefits? What is Australia getting out of hunting or targeting its own soldiers? For, like, historical war crimes that probably didn’t even happen. And even if they did, where, … Let me ask you this question. Where’s the Taliban? The government there that’s still in place now. Where are they charging their soldiers with war crimes?

 

Tim Murdoch: They don’t give a fuck!

 

Blair Cottrell: Who are they investigating?

 

Tim Murdoch: They don’t have our standards. They don’t have our moral standards.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s what I’m saying, right? The Talibani government would never drag its own soldiers who did commit war crimes! There’s no doubt about it. It’s well documented. They’ll celebrate them as heroes! They’re doing the opposite. Right. So that just goes to show, …

 

Tim Murdoch: We’ve always had a very high standard for soldiers and soldier behavior. This is just years after the fact. This is Australia advertising they wanted to do this. And they’re doing it inside of Australia. And it all just doesn’t. I mean, hey, maybe he’s a piece of shit, Zogbot? Maybe he said, “kill all Nazis”. Whatever. I don’t know anything about the guy. But he’s being, you know, railroaded, giving the White nationalist treatment, as what I call it, really. And it’s all inside of Australia, and they’re kind of like, okay, you know, he killed a guy and drank out of his prosthetic or something like that. Well, why are they waiting so long if he’s doing all these terrible things?

 

Blair Cottrell: Exactly! It’s like, why now? Who benefits? What’s going on here? What’s the point? Is it really just bureaucratic procedure that took ages to roll around? And if that’s the case, it’s kind of female coded.

 

Because if you’re fighting a war and you’re holding yourself to certain standards of war crimes where you can’t actually even kill your enemies when they’re there, but your enemy’s not doing that, well, it’s no wonder we didn’t win that war. Right? But what was even the point?

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: I don’t know. But there’s this thing going on right now that’s the new head of the AFP. I think her name’s, [Krissy Barrett] I can’t remember her name. That’s that woman.

 

Tim Murdoch: It’s obviously political. This is the thing. We’re in a heavily degraded society, as I always say, and it affects everyone. And there is a problem of behavior amongst a percentage of Whites, especially in charge, especially in positions of power.

 

But there’s also a huge problem in this case of a White woman who obviously is targeting this guy, you know, would this be happening if it wasn’t for her? I don’t know. Seems like?

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, there’s this weird shift. There’s all these new task forces that are being created in Australia, specifically within the Australian Federal Police. There’s like, Task Force Against Anti-semitism, a task force to Promote Social Cohesion by targeting racism.

 

And all of that’s come about, Tim, in the last six to eight months. This is all really new stuff. So there’s these new like, it’s almost like the AFP was quietly overthrown. I mean, this is just speculation, but it was quietly overthrown.

 

And now it’s in the hands of someone. I don’t know, someone with hostile intentions. Because it’s like it’s being turned into a political police. And it happened very suddenly. It’s weird! I can’t explain it at this stage. All I know is that Australia is changing rapidly! It’s targeting its own citizens, its own veterans, its own people, to the benefit of (((foreign lobby groups))), foreign nations often and historically hostile to Australia.

 

[39:48]

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah, I saw one particular piece from the Daily Mail and the quotes were, … You know, they were analyzing, these particular departments and whatnot were analyzing all his tattoos. And he has a Christian cross tattoo, or we’re calling a crusader tattoo.

 

Blair Cottrell: That was a patch. Yeah, he had a patch. This is Ben Roberts Smith, the soldier who’s been charged. There’s this famous photo of him which was allegedly taken immediately after he just charged in against superior numbers and rescued a bunch of his comrades under heavy fire.

 

And as he’s walking away from that battle, he has a crusader knight’s cross patch, like a red Christian cross on a White shield. But the media in Australia edits the Christian cross out of the photo before they publish it in order not to offend Muslims or offend anyone who might not like that.

 

I mean, that just goes to show where we’re at! If there’s that level of political censorship happening in media, then it’s not unreasonable to assume that he’s being targeted for political reasons. That’s why he’s been accused of war crimes.

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah. They’re targeting Whites across the board, and he’s obviously a symbol and they’re going after him for that particular reason.

 

I mean, there might be something legitimate. I’m not going to say that the guy’s perfect. I don’t know anything about him. He might be evil. [chuckling] There are some badass veterans in the US Army that I wouldn’t want to live near, that’s for sure. So you never know! We don’t know anything about him. But what I think is shitty is that if he’s doing something and it’s that over the top and there’s all these charges, why are they waiting so long, and why are they doing it with inside of Australia, like they’re doing it?

 

So I don’t know. And putting advertisements, putting up advertisements?

 

Blair Cottrell: There’s appeals to Afghanistanis, … There are more Afghanistanis living in Australia now, who have come from Afghanistan recently who have served in the army. Right. Because they have to over. There are more of them living here now than they, than the amount of Australian soldiers that were ever in Afghanistan.

 

So it’s like we have this fifth column and what the government’s doing and the police, they’re putting out advertisements appealing to those people in Australia saying:

 

“Hey, if you have any information about Ben Roberts Smith or any other soldier doing something mean or wrong to you, come and report it to us. And we’ll put it into our investigation.”

 

So it’s mind boggling! It’s like, how is this real? How is this happening?

 

Tim Murdoch: This is within the military, the confines of the military justice system of Australia. Correct? Or is it outside of the bounds of that? Because they have these laws on the books, war crime laws on the books and I don’t even know how old they are. Australia has these laws on the books that they can go after soldiers for war crimes regardless of the international law or anything like that it’s just kind of like internal to Australia. Now there’s always been a court martialing and stuff like that in America and behavior unbecoming of an officer and so on and so forth, et cetera. We have a military court of law here, but I don’t understand how it’s going over into civilian. I guess I don’t really know Australian courts.

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s definitely an Australia internal thing, because it’s the Australian Federal Police that are leading the investigation. But they’re not really confined to the borders of Australia geographically. Like I said, they’ll send cops and investigators over to Afghanistan to get information from former Taliban fighters about Australian soldiers so they can go home and prosecute their own soldiers. I just think we need, regardless of this guy made some mistakes. I don’t care! This guy went to fight a war in another country against the enemy. That’s what he’s trained to do! And we need to stand with our own, even if they do make mistakes sometimes. It was easy to make mistakes in an environment where your enemy isn’t abiding by any specific rules of engagement. I’m not even saying he did make mistakes. I don’t know. I wasn’t there. The cops certainly weren’t there.

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah, I’m not interested in trusting the advice of Afghanis that you’re soliciting, that are known liars, that they’re soliciting advice from. We have to see the evidence. But I just don’t like the way they’re doing this years after the fact. If he’s that much of a bad apple as they’re suggesting, you should have easily done something when he committed these acts because supposedly this is like known stuff and he’s a bad actor and he’s this big asshole and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Okay, fine. Why are you waiting so long? And why are they having to solicit anything? Shouldn’t you have collected evidence right then and court martialed him or whatever? That’s normally what happens.

 

Blair Cottrell: Exactly! But look, guys, this is just what we’re going through down here in Australia.

 

I’m sorry to check out early, but my phone’s about to die. I’m just gonna give you guys the warning before it does. And like, look, we did kind of like a spontaneous drive up to visit Joel and have dinner with him last night. And so that’s why I’m like in disarray. I’d usually go sit with you guys for a bit longer. Yeah, thanks, Tim, for having me on. And thanks for the questions. Maybe in a couple of weeks or whenever you’re free again, we could say may, I could see up Tom Sewell. He could come on and he, Tom Sewell would be excellent at explaining the Ben Robert Smith Australian army situation because he spent a couple of years in battalion as a soldier. He has much more inside knowledge about how things really work.

 

[45:20]

 

Tim Murdoch: What blew me away is they’re doing this outside of the military, … Well, I don’t know how Australian military works, but they’re doing it, … I mean this is something that happened in a war, but they’re doing it outside military court of law, which I think is pretty crazy! But and they have their own little war crime, their own little war crime ordeal.

 

But anyways, I appreciate it, Blair, for coming on and being a good sport. Guys, I’m going to let’s see what I’m going to do here. Hang out here a couple minutes and look what’s going on in the chat. I thought he’d be on a couple hours obviously, but his phone ran out and what are you going to do when your phone runs out?

 

But this case is one to watch. It’s definitely a political trial. We’ll have to see what evidence there is and why they waited so long. It all stinks to me. But we do appreciate Blair coming on. His phone ran out and he had the wrong cord.

 

Let me see what you guys are saying here. Yeah, it sounds like Joel’s doing quite well. He’s doing okay. Bo Nilson, thank you very much for the sub. But I’ll stay around a couple minutes. Let me cruise around and see what’s going on and then I’ll let you guys go. And for the weekend I’ll be back on Sunday. Yeah, I’ll get those guys on again soon. I’ll get Tom Sewell on again. I have on Warren Balogh but I’ll try to get on Tom Sewell or I’m trying to think of who else. You know, Tom I think was in the military. So.

 

But anyways, I appreciate you guys tuning in and supporting the show. I will be back Sunday. I was planning on doing a two hour show with Blair but nonetheless these things do happen. We do appreciate him being a good sport and coming on for 45 minutes. I was hoping he’d make it on at least an hour but he got close. But I do appreciate it guys and I guess I’m going to go ahead and let you guys go. You guys have a wonderful Friday evening and Saturday and I’ll be back on Sunday same time, same place, about 5:30 PM. Need we’ll talk about everything going on. I know they’re meeting with, … Let’s go over to Drudge. What’s up? Crafty Booms. I know they’re meeting on, … Trump’s vowing complete decimation of Iran. They’re meeting with Iran tomorrow in Pakistan.

 

Okay, so get this. They’re meeting with Iran in Pakistan and Did Do Nothing Replay, bro:

 

“Catching live. Great show. Thanks for what you do, sir.”

 

Well, thank you for support. We got Crafty Booms. Thank you 14 for the 88. I do appreciate it. I appreciate you guys generosity.

 

But this whole entire Iran situation is not over with. It’s not over with. It might die down for a bit. But why Pakistan? Pakistan arranged the meeting. There’s a few different theories on it. They’re a Muslim country. It’s kind of like they’re not in the war and they arranged the ceasefire. Or maybe Trump, through a back channel, had it. I think what they’re trying to do is stall for a period of time to build up enough forces to try another angle. They’re not going to be happy, they being Israel, is not going to be happy until the IRGC, the current regime in Iran, is gone.

 

So they’re going to keep going at it, and they’re going to obviously stall by time, until they can degrade that regime enough and kill enough of them. What they keep doing, obviously, is killing the elites they’re meeting with. So really, how are you going to meet with them anywhere if you’re killing them other than a situation like this? I mean, Pakistan escorted the jet from Pakistan, when it flew into Pakistan’s airspace. The jet containing the Iranian dignitaries and Iranian authorities, negotiating authorities in Pakistan.

 

I mean, the Israelis just keep on killing. And so Israel is supposed to be backing down in Lebanon, but of course, Israel let loose, what, 100 bombs in 10 minutes, dropped 100 bombs, missiles in 10 minutes and totally destroyed Lebanon. It’s just insanity! So Pakistan was a neutral player and they’re trying to, … There’s probably more explanation than that. But the Iranians can’t go just anywhere and meet just anywhere. They just can’t. Because everywhere they pop up, the Israelis kill them.

 

So, I think what Trump wants to do is build up a force to break them another way or maybe take oil or do something. He’s pulling something! The Iranians so far haven’t trusted anything, though. They don’t trust the Americans at all! Let’s see what Field Marshall has to say:

 

“Thanks for getting our Blair on. Hi, Joel. Thanks. Good luck, everything. Congrats to you and yours. The birth of your first child. Done.”

 

Thank you very much, Field Marshal. I do appreciate it. And when Joel can come on, he’ll be on, that’s for sure. I guess he has to get back on Telegram first and get these cases over with. We’ll see.

 

Yeah, I don’t know. There’s like a long explanation on why they did Pakistan and there’s a few conspiracies about it. But the Iranians. Who are you going to trust if you’re Iranian? So now the negotiating team. The negotiating team is JD Vance and it’s Trump’s son-in-law and it’s the main negotiator. Hold on here.

 

Okay. Daily Signal:

 

“I’ll see Vance to lead the negotiating team.”

 

Yeah, we’ve got like four or five guys in the negotiating team. See here, Steve Witkoff. Yeah. Jared Kushner. They’re both going to be there with J.D. Vance.

 

[52:17]

 

But there’s a fourth as well. I want to say maybe it’s Ambassador to Pakistan. Pakistan has four dignitaries there. Pakistan sets modest goal. Let’s look at Al Jazeera:

 

“Pakistan sets goal. A deal to keep talks going.”

 

They want to keep conversations going. The problem with this particular war so far, one of the reasons that I think the English speaking world elite and sections of Europe really don’t give a shit is that it hurts the BRICS. It really hurts the developing countries. That has become very clear. The developing countries, the BRICS countries are being hurt by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which is kind of an interesting thing because Trump doesn’t like the BRICS countries.

 

But one of the side effects is they are hurt by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and only 15 tankers a day can get through. So the whole entire situation actually hurts the BRICS countries, which I find intriguing. They’re the ones suffering the most.

 

And so that’s probably one of the reasons behind it as well. Pakistan, developing countries. You know, these guys are all like:

 

“We’ve got to stop this war if we can.”

 

The Iranians, supposedly, what they’re saying is they’ve come a long ways in agreeing to various different things, supposedly, but I don’t know. Well, Iran doesn’t want to look like a bad guy internationally. They don’t want to play into the bad guy role. They’re not the aggressor. They’re defending their country, they’re defending their homeland. If Pakistan [Iran] would have shut down the Strait of Hormuz any other time, all hell would have broke loose. The whole entire international community would have came down on Iran and probably removed them somehow some way. But because of the way it happened, No one could really blame Iran. The blame would go to Israel, against Israel in the United States.

 

And Iran has the upper hand and they don’t want to lose that, which is very clever of them. They basically have been playing it very well. They’ve been doing a bang up job in handling themselves so far. I don’t think they’re going to make any mistakes. But they’re going to have to be ready to fight to the death, there’s no doubt about that. Because they’re not going to be happy until they get they get the particular uranium. They don’t want them to have nukes. And Trump wants to send them back to the Stone Age. He’s saying that again. He vows complete decimation and ceasefire warning to Tehran.

 

Now I am guessing he’s saying a lot of this shit just to get them to the table because this is hurting the American economy. But I do know in the back of everyone’s head these guys at the top don’t like the BRICs and they want a way to harm the BRICs. Having the Strait of Hormuz shut down harms the BRICS countries, more than anyone else. You know, the Chinese are prepared, the US is prepared more than most. Europe’s got issues, but the BRICS really has issues, that’s for damn sure!

 

But anyways guys, I’ll be back on Sunday. We’ll talk about it more, 5:30 PM. Thanks you guys for tuning in and I’ll get Blair back on when he can bullshit for a couple hours. White Bitch Triple Six get a hold of me via email if you need Blair’s contact information and he can hook you up with a fitness consulting. That’s what he does. And he’s very good at it.

 

But anyways, cheers guys and thanks for tuning in and supporting the show, as well as all the support out there.

 

[59:21]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 4/12/2026 = 21)

MountainMan1847
1 day ago
Australia for the white man o/ Heil to my Aussie brothers
17
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
xSTRAWMANx
16 hours ago
Ken oath mate
1
0

traceywilliams
1 day ago
Would’ve loved to hear Blair finish a sentence.
11
1

‹ Hide 1 reply
LiftWaffen
18 hours ago
He is really great at interrupting!

Tristan_Blixt
21 hours ago
you need to listen more and talk less. let blair do the talking
6
1

‹ Hide 1 reply
timmurdock
VerifiedAdminSupporter
20 hours ago
I had lots of questions and only an hour to get them in. Cut me a break or get your own show.
2
1

Correctifier
Supporter
1 day ago
Wotan bless me Aussie mates!
4
0

TheWhitenessoftheWhale
1 day ago
Do they want to humiliate SAS?
2
0

renunciate
Supporter+
22 hours ago
Ben R Smith is a war hero. His treatment is intentional demoralization.
1
0

BradC1988
6 hours ago
Its great to hear Joel Davis has been released on bail and that he hasn’t changed a bit! Hail White Australia! o/
1
0

renunciate
Supporter+
22 hours ago

KingTut999
1 hour ago
after Joel got released his Go, Send, Go or whatever fundraiser link got nuked. so not sure what happened exactly.

Spaceman69
1 day ago
ben robert smith is being crucified by hes OWN CREW testifying against him because he cross some big lines and deserves all that he is getting. rules of engagement brothaaaaaa. you aint above the law big fellow. imagine how bad things were your own crew ratted you out, and rightly so!!! dont take my word for it, go read the court transcripts for yourself or watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J896i3yrTbQ&t=2s come at me nazis, this is the only place you can exercise your racism these days…. prove me right. prove the hate speech laws right!
0
11

‹ Hide 1 reply
renunciate
Supporter+
22 hours ago
You couldn’t resist squawking buzzwords, could you? “Nazi” “racist”. Both propaganda terms used by communist agitators. Label someone with a negative name to justify persecuting them. GFY.
8
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
Spaceman69
15 hours ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA are we pretending like joel davis was not a self proclaimed racist nazi LEADER? blaire use to be as well till he got kicked out cause hes missus cucked him with another member of NSN, so he chased the guy down with toma hawks then burned the guys house down- hence went to max security prison.. ohh boy, ya cant make this shat up.. hey whitey.. feel free to white wash the information to your liking… but now its the age of the internet…. that hitler brain wash bullshat aint gonna float. the truth is out there. the internet never forgets
1
4

‹ Hide 1 reply
BradC1988
6 hours ago
Shut the fuck up retard LOL
Spaceman69
1 day ago
blair sounds funny. like he forgot to take meds or sumthin. joels arrest, that racists try to white wash is that the female politician he had hes nazi possy harass AKA “rhetorically rape”, well she ended up quitting her job and moving house for her families safety because of the degree of online treats and harassment she received. i imagine she also took out intervention order against him and hes nazi friends. so yeah its kinda serious!!! you cannot threaten people like that even “rhetorically” especially a politician. thanks to NSN nazis and racists, Australia has passed laws against hate speech. basically it is now ILLEGAL to be racist in Australia. which i think is freaking awesome! an example to the world. these dumb nazis seem to think their freedom of speech includes insulting people to their hearts desires on the daily! like a aussie magistrate has said, people have the right to go about their daily lives without being subjected to your vile hate filled racism. on behalf of immigrants here in aus, thank you nazis for making racism illegal!!! we couldn’t have done it without ya… now we sit back eat pop corn and watch the overwhelming avalanche of court cases these racist dickheads are about to face.. they make for a perfect example of why these laws are necessary. nazi racism destroys common sense!
1
16

‹ Hide 2 replies
bthor29
21 hours ago
Are you referencing the multi million dollar mansion she inherited then spent $800k renovating using her political influence to assist with council approval?
7
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
Spaceman69
15 hours ago
completely unrelated. next you’ll be talking about affairs and sex scandals… are you trying to justify rhetorically raping her with threats and harassment?!? because she had an opinion about NSN?
0
2

‹ Hide 1 reply
BradC1988
5 hours ago
Joel’s comments were totally justified, retard. However, your presence in a White country has no justification. You and the rest of the unwelcome brown/black hordes contribute nothing but crime to the host country.
BradC1988
5 hours ago
Again, shut the fuck up you antiWhite piece of shit. Also, you will be going home to your shitty country. Its only a matter of time, shitskin! LOL
0
0

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Mark Collett: Hello everybody, and welcome to tonight’s special stream. We are live tonight on Odysee, Rumble, DLive and Entropy. Please do share the links because we’ve got a very special guest here tonight that I’ll be introducing shortly. It is of course, Germar Rudolf. And before we do that, I’m going to give you a couple of updates.

 

Now, as I said, this is a very important stream. It’s because we’re introducing a special event that Germar Rudolf is hosting called, The Holocaust Summit. And this event is something that hopefully will be very big. And this is basically a bit of an advert for the event, a bit of a discussion about how it came about, but also a discussion about who’s trying to stop it!

 

So we’re going to go through all those things and many more tonight and at the end you’ll have a chance to ask questions.

 

Now, if you support my work, if you like what I do, please share the stream.

 

But also if you support my work and like what I do, you can give a donation, you can donate through Rumble, you can donate through Entropy. Anything donated throughout the show will be read out live on the show and any questions will be put directly to Germar Rudolf.

 

So if you ask me a question or pay for a question via a Superchat, I will read it out after the initial presentation and we will answer your questions. All donations are gratefully received. And as I always say, if everyone gave a small amount, $3, $5, $10, that would make a great, great difference. Some of my streams in the past few months have been seen by upwards of 75,000 people. Imagine if everyone had just given $3, what we would be able to do with that money would be almost limitless at that point. But everyone would barely notice that money leaving their account because it’s probably the price of an energy drink, probably less than a coffee house coffee, certainly less than the price of a McDonald’s double cheeseburger these days.

 

So if you can afford something, please do consider donating. You can also donate by crypto-currency. All the crypto links, as always, are in the description below and you can email me at mark@thefallofwesternman.com. And many of you will be saying:

 

“Well, how can I get in touch with Germar?”

 

And this is obviously all about Germar. You can get in touch with Germar via the Show Notes. The Show Notes have the link to his website about this very event. So you can find him there. You can also find him on Telegram.

 

So thank you so much to anyone who does donate in advance. And please do consider supporting Germar’s event, because that’s what this is all about.

 

Now, obviously, Germar is the special guest here tonight, and I did a special show with him a while back. It was an excellent show, and his ability to present his evidence and to tell his story is almost unrivalled! I couldn’t believe it! I asked one question and Germar sort of spoke very eloquently for about 58 minutes, at which point we went to Questions and Answers. It was sort of the least work I had to do ever in a show! I didn’t need to interrupt. I didn’t need to ask him any additional questions. He just has this skill of being able to tell his story in a timely way and weave it all together almost perfectly in the allotted space that we had on the show. And after doing that show with him, I was sort of really happy with the way it turned out. I was really happy with the reception, Germar got from my audience, and I really did want to have him back on.

 

So when he contacted me and told me he was doing this conference, this Summit, I was very happy to promote it. And I asked him:

 

“So, hey, sort of, what can I do to help you?”

 

He said:

 

“Well I could always come on the show.”

 

So I thought:

 

“Well, what better way to push this event than invite him back on and spend sort of 45 minutes to an hour talking to him about this event and also just having a general catch up.”

 

Because the last show, as I said, it was so good and everyone appreciated it so much. I did want to get him back on eventually anyway, so this is a perfect time.

 

Germar, you have been a very busy man since we last spoke. How have you been? And what sort of led up to you wanting to do this event? Because you have an excellent website, you have a number of really good books, you’ve been busy with other content creators. I know that you went on Unity News Network and you’ve had sort of a little flurry of appearances, but if you want to get people up to date with what you’ve been up to and when, what sort of inspired you to decide to put on this conference, please tell us all about it.

 

[04:45]

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah, well, thank you.

 

First of all, thank you for having me on the show again. A short remark. If people want to get in touch with me personally, learn more about me, how they can support me if they are so inclined, the easy way is just go to my personal website, which is Germarrudolf.com. So you see my name there on the screen. Just put this together without a blank and a dot com at the end, and you’re on my personal website and you can browse it there.

 

Now, as to what I’ve been up to over the past year, the main work that I’ve been focusing on was getting the Holocaust Encyclopedia, the English edition of which had appeared in late 2023, out in several other languages. The Spanish and French are out. The Spanish came out in I think it was maybe of last year. And the French we got out, I think it was in November. So we are up now to four languages. English, German, which was done by a different company. It was not in my ballpark. But the French and the Spanish edition, and that’s a lot of work. I mean, writing an encyclopedia is one thing, then AI helps you translate. But at the end you have to walk through it. My Spanish and French is good enough. I could do most of the proofing and editing myself. And then came the big one that we’re preparing right now! It’s an Arabic edition.

 

So that’s like proofing a pot full of spaghetti, because that’s how that language looks like to me. [chuckling] No clue about it! But I have professionals working on it.

 

And so this is making good progress and hopefully within a few months that will hit the mark and we’ll see how that’s going to be received. What kind of ripples that we’ll have, if any. So that’s on that side.

 

Now coming to the actual event for which we have come together today. Holocaust sceptics have been organising conferences since the late 1970s. And the early, …

 

Mark Collett: Okay, I just ask a quick question before you go into this?

 

You mentioned that the books are available in French and Spanish, but aren’t the Holocaust sort of revisionism laws or laws and against revisionist literature in France?

 

Germar Rudolf: So what?

 

Mark Collett: I was just asking about sort of the legality of the sales. Really, I was just, … What you might have to overcome in that case.

 

Germar Rudolf: Yes, if I have the intention to abide by unjust and illegitimate laws that violate United Nations Charter of Human Rights, I wouldn’t have gotten into the topic to begin with. So I don’t give a rat’s arse about any dictatorship passing laws, prescribing the writing of history at government gunpoints. This is something that doesn’t go down well with me.

 

Now, when it comes to printing and publishing the book, that’s an international network and I’m not going to expose here or reveal here what kind of logistics we use. But it basically gets lost in the massive mail stream that goes into and out of every country every day. So we haven’t had any interference, be it getting literature, English literature, or French, also to Canada, to France, to, … You name the countries. If we had them by the bag or by the truck load going into the country that would be selectively subject to border controls, that would be a problem.

 

But it’s just going individual for every customer into the mail stream. And this just gets lost in the shuffle. So we haven’t encountered any problems yet. So knocking on wood. Fingers crossed. I hope I’m not going to jinx it now.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, I was just interested about the logistics of these things because there are draconian laws and I think what you’re doing is obviously very brave. And that answer of you’re not going to allow unjust laws to stop you. I think you’re a very courageous man. So sorry for the interjection. Please, please continue.

 

Germar Rudolf: That’s quite all right. So back in 1976, the first really scholarly book of Holocaust scepticism was published. That was Arthur Butz’s hoax of the 20th century. The first edition of which actually was published by Historical Review Press, kind of a small outlet that was established on occasion of that book appearing down in Brighton by Tony Hancock in the UK, even though the author, of course, is in the United States. That was the launching pad of people getting interested into Holocaust scepticism seriously, but also realizing that this is a serious School of thought that has to be reckoned with. And it led to the formation of the Institute for Historical Review in California. And they did have first conference was in 78 or 79 [1979], I can’t remember, I think it was in 79.*

 

 

[* See: The World’s First Anti-Holocaust Convention-Instauration Dec, 1979

https://katana17.com/2016/09/27/the-worlds-first-anti-holocaust-convention-instauration-dec-1979/.

[In this article, written for the Dec. 1979 edition of the revisionist journal,  Instauration, an interesting account is given of the first ever, “Anti-Holocaust” convention,  with speakers including:  Robert Faurisson from France; John Bennett from Australia; Udo Walendy from Germany; Louis FitzGibbon from Britain; Arthur Butz and James Martin from the US. This was held in Los Angeles and organised by the Institute for Historical Review  —  KATANA.]

 

And they had had subsequently, over the next two decades, conferences almost on a yearly basis, with a few exceptions. And unfortunately they had some internal strife in the mid-1990s, a kind of a schism there that led to internal fighting, unfortunately. That’s something that occurs on occasion. And that led to the whole School of thought and the Institute losing steam. And eventually those conferences petered out in the early 2000s.

 

And there hasn’t been any for the better part of 20 years now. And now I myself participated, since the first conference I attended was in 2000, I think so participated in the last few that happened, until I got arrested and deported back in 2005 and had a hiatus of six years in Germany, well, 44 months of them, full board at government expense. And after I came back to the United States a little bit shell shocked, got my feet wet slowly and eventually got back into the race.

 

But my family situation, I was married to a US citizen and we had a baby. And of course I was deported right out of this family. And she had to raise her daughter the first six years almost by herself. And so she was more traumatized by that event of government persecution. It was eventually decided that they deported me in violation of US law, and I had to litigate but eventually succeeded and came back. And now here I am in the United States, relatively safe from European style thought crime prosecution.

 

But my wife wasn’t happy in me continuing this kind of work, fearing that it would have another negative impact down the road for the family, not just for me.

 

[11:49]

 

So we had an agreement that I could continue my work privately but keep my head down and limit or try to not even at all have any public exposure. That also means I couldn’t do any conferences. I was approached during those years starting 2014, 15, something, that a conference should be held again and I would have been the person to go to with my connections, with my involvement in the various organisations and with my track record of productivity. But I waved it off. I couldn’t have pulled it off logistically back then.

 

A physical conference requires a lot of work of getting the venue, organising food and accommodation for all the people that want to attend and of course for the presenters themselves. And the costs, the overhead costs could be daunting! And it’s not clear that at the end you actually walk away with profit more likely not. Most of all because you always have to have a “Plan B”. The traditional enemies of free speech and freedom of assembly in the past have always tried to shut down events like that. And they most certainly continue doing this to this day. Not just when it comes to Holocaust scepticism, but anything that is considered Right-wing, whatever that be. Even though Holocaust scepticism is neither Right nor Left. It’s about accuracy in history. But it is something that finds interest in the Right-wing spectrum of the political spectrum more prominently than in Left-wing circles or libertarian for that matter.

 

Be that as it may, you have to have a Plan B, a second venue, in case the first bails out under pressure of the usual suspects, you have to quickly be able to switch over. So you always have to pay kind of for both. And if your contracts are not written right, you start paying through the nose. With all these challenges, I said I can’t do it, apart from the agreement I had with my wife.

 

Now Covid hit. With all the negative things there is one upside to Covid and that is that in the meantime everyone is used to and technically capable of attending virtual conferences.

 

So the kind of discussion we have now with a lot of people watching, we can have 10 people discussing something and 10 million people watching. It has become so common due to Covid that this is something that can now be pulled off. The platforms are there are plenty of them and the overhead costs are reduced. People have the software, have the gadgets to participate, to watch it. And they used to it. Particularly the new generation is very comfortable that kind of technology.

 

So last summer a friend and supporter of mine, actually a pair of sisters, approached me and said we need to do something with Gaza brewing there’s an opportunity opening with people opening their mind that who see that the Zionists and the jewish Israelis to a large degree, not all of them, are pushing and committing genocide. The United Nations Commission has officially recognised Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza with the justification that they have to pre-emptively wipe out the Gazans in order to prevent them from committing another holocaust against the jews.

 

So the Holocaust is used as a political weapon to commit mass atrocities, to commit a genocide. That has made people realise that the agendas and the historical narrative pushed by Zionists and it’s not just jewish Zionists, I always say there are more Christian Zionists in the world than they are jewish Zionists, is recognised by people as being illegitimate, as being driven by a Holocaust narrative that is misused for these ends. And they see how the narrative about what happened on October 7th back in when was that? 2023, right? So long ago already, wasn’t quite accurate what Zionist sources told about it either. So there is the distortion and misuse of history for political purposes.

 

And then people are willing with their open mind:

 

“Wait, what’s going on here?”

 

To look back in history and see other cases and then the to look at the big elephant in the room when it comes to historical narratives. And that’s the Holocaust used by pressure groups, not just jewish, not just Zionist ones, to push their agendas.

 

With that said, I couldn’t really bail out anymore. Unfortunately I had gone through a divorce in the meantime. And so my a home still agreement with my no ex-wife was no excuse anymore, that had evaporated. So my family situation also most of my children are now grown up and they’re out of the home. There’s only one left who needs a little bit more of tender loving care still.

 

So that argument is gone. The logistical nightmare of doing physical conferences doesn’t exist when you do a virtual one. And I had agreed:

 

“Okay, let’s do it!”

 

The sisters actually suggested a name, Holocaust Summit.

 

[17:30]

 

So I went online and looked whether the domain name is still there was. HolocaustSummit.com was available. I instantly reserved it and we started contacting people who would be willing to present it. Now the website is up. If we can share that screen with the audience. I’d like to go through a number of things we’ve put up there.

 

So as I mentioned, anyone can go there. Holocaust Summit.com, and it is organised and sponsored by a number of organisations. I’ve actually created a Holocaust Academy roughly a year ago, which I plan on and in the process of developing as a platform to teach sound Holocaust historiography to whoever wants to listen to give an accurate and holistic picture of the evidentiary situation when it comes to this event.

 

One of the first things that we’re now doing as the academy, major things we have already given private lessons, but the website itself is currently under development. So having a curriculum of a college style is somewhat daunting. But I’m working together with a retired Professor of humanities to get this going. And sometime later this year we will have that flying. But it will come now into the open as the organisation that will officially host the Holocaust Summit. So we are going to be independent, we’re going to be fearless, because unfortunately in this area you have to be! And we are not going to be censored if we can help it. And we’re not going to be constrained by politically correct taboos of thinking and asking questions and looking for answers.

 

So we’ll be tackling the most harmful ideology, undermining peace, truth and freedom world-wide. Because the Holocaust is used to trigger wars and genocides. That is used to enact censorship laws that suppress the search, the sharing of truth, and thus is used as a starting point for government to increase censorship measures. It’s easy to get a quote, unquote, “anti-Holocaust denial” law through Parliament.

 

And once the first fortress of freedom has fallen, then censorship like a cancer grows. And we see that in every country in the UK. You know it for yourself, what’s going on in your country. It used to be a stronghold of freedom of speech until they passed the new., … What was in 2002, I think the Public Communications Act. And now it’s completely escalating with the constraints they put on it.

 

So we need to be aware that the Holocaust is at the centre of the orthodox Holocaust narrative and its abuse, its misuse for political purposes, is at the centre of the problem of deteriorating freedom world-wide, or at least in the Western hemisphere.

 

Now we have picked the 27th of January, which, what is today, the 20th? I’m getting flustered here. Third. It’s already the 23rd, so it’s just in four days and next Tuesday should be. We picked that day for a reason. 27th of January 1945 was the day when the Red Army conquered the Auschwitz camp. And I choose that word wisely because the Red Army never “liberated” anyone. So they conquered the camp. And in 2005, if I’m not mistaken, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution declaring that particular day 27 January, International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

 

So the iconic camp of Auschwitz, which is the most known alleged crime scene of what is labelled the Holocaust, Auschwitz is also the reason why we have this day as the international day of commemorating this event. And we want to use that too. Commemorating the truth and the lies, the exaggerations and distortions and the victims of this Holocaust narrative. The Gazans are the most recent, most extreme victims of this narrative. But we will have people present their experience of persecution and prosecution. Victims, martyrs, dissidents thrown into prison or having their livelihood destroyed.

 

So there’s a lot to commemorate and remember for us as well, and we will do that as well.

 

So the event itself will start 9:00 AM Eastern US time, which if I’m not mistaken is 2 clock in the afternoon for the UK and 3 PM for the rest of the most of the, …

 

Mark Collett: I think 7 PM in the UK. 2 PM Eastern is 7 PM in the UK.

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah, but we started 9 AM so it should be 2 PM

 

Mark Collett: Oh, okay. Sorry.

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah. We actually may start the stream a little earlier to test things and make things sure that things are running smoothly and make few accommodations and have a few organisational remarks before actually the day picks up with the presentations that we have.

 

Now if you click on the second link there, that CCR list and timeline of presenters that gets everyone down to the actual table where we have the presenters.

 

So this is our day. How we plan on having it unfold. We have the day started out with a contribution that I’m giving. Originally we had hoped actually for Nicholas Kollerstrom to take that spot. He initially had submitted a paper but then he had to retract it because it came under pressure, has been under pressure for a long time. So he wanted to talk about the English eclipse of communications.

 

But anyway, it’s not going to happen. There’s already one casualty of censorship and suppression, which is mounting and increasing in the UK. So I’ve taken that spot. And I take the opportunity because that event, short side note here, that event of course is streamed live. We will have the links on that website where people can reach it. Actually at the top there is already one and we’ll keep that updated.

 

But it’s a Tuesday. Not everyone will be able to sit and watch an event like this all day, on a normal workday. We will of course record it will be posted and people will be able to watch it whenever they please. And we will have it not only on our holocaustsummit.com website, but the company that actually hosts it, as at least the plan, is FTG media.com, and they are an independent platform.

 

So when it comes to them, we will not be de-platformed because it’s owned actually by one of the board members of one of our main sponsors, which is the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust. And he’s on the board there and he has suggested we use that platform so that we can’t be de-platformed.

 

I will be talking about 80 years of Holocaust scepticism, whence we came and where we are. So I give a historical overview since we assume that a lot of people over time, as years go by and these contributions will be accessible, a lot of people will not know much about our School of thought, its history and its views, that an introduction is due. We haven’t had anything like this happen in 20 years.

 

[26:02]

 

So there’s an entire generation that has grown up which needs to be or should be given an introduction of what we are handling and what we’re dealing with here. So I will be talking about the main events and the main achievements of Holocaust scepticism over the past, well, since the end of the war, basically 1946 or 47 when it kind of started. And in the second half I will give a quick rundown giving the most striking, the most convincing arguments why everyone should be sceptical about the mainstream Holocaust narrative, and give resources in that context where people can learn more.

 

So with that, the event kicks off. Every contribution, full contribution will have 45 minutes. I hope everyone stays in that slot, but you know how it goes. There will be a time overrun, possibly. Followed by 15 minutes of question answers. There will be a chat feature, FTG media.com like any other, like Rumble, like YouTube has a chat feature. In order to chat you have to have registered with the platform that doesn’t cost anything. You just submit your email address and get a free account and then you can chat. Now for the question and answer series session at the end, the last quarter hour, people are requested to make a donation in order to submit a question like the Superchat and various other platforms. And in order to do that you have to have a wallet with FTG media and the wallet is just automatically set up. When you get an account, you just have to fill it with some funds, whatever resources you take it from, plastic money or crypto or whatever.

 

So that is the plan. My contribution is followed by a compatriot of yours, James Mosley, who is a Catholic priest from the UK. He has done a number of documentaries on the Holocaust over the past several years. Really good documentaries. And when he was working on his first one, he approached me and asked me a number of questions. So I became his historical advisor, if you wish. Each time he was working on one, he submitted what he was doing and I would make suggestion how to improve it.

 

And he will be presenting what he found about the evidentiary situation in one particular camp that he had investigated and done a documentary on. And that’s Treblinka. Now if you click on James Mawdsley’s name up there in the list that actually will get you to, for every one of the presenters will get you to where there’s a short bio, you can see a portrait and a summary of the presentation. If you scroll a little up or down, you can go back to the list, back to the timetable.

 

So this is James Mawdsley. We have actually grouped the European presenters first. UK comes first. James Mawdsley. Next one is Peter Rushton, also from the UK and he will be talking about also history between dogma and taboo. He talks about the British intelligence communications and interaction with the German intelligence toward the end of the war. Looking for evidence that the Brits were really thinking that the German intelligence community, which was under the rule of Heinrich Himmler, the supposed main architect of the Holocaust, that the British were actually acting and communicating as if they believed that Himmler was really murdering or had already murdered at that point of time six million jews is a very interesting contribution. I’m looking forward to myself the that the title of it, the Dog that Didn’t Bark is already an indication of which direction that will go.

 

We’re having a lunch break after that. It is scheduled to be 2 hours long now I expect some time overruns and maybe stretching into the hour between 12 and 1. But we will have enough time during that break and I have yet to announce it because we just finished up preparing for this. The lunch break will have will see the premiering of a new documentary we have just finished. And this is about an appearance of representatives of the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust in the public arena. And we had a little bit of an impact there and we want to share that with the community. That’s I think a 35 minutes so it will fit in there either way.

 

So in the afternoon the first session is actually shared by three individuals who will be talking about their personal experience getting into Holocaust scepticism, how that happened and then also to what degree they were exposed to persecution, prosecution, ostracism and that kind of stuff. Nathaniel Kapner has been a very active person on social media, on YouTube, and now on other alternative platforms going after self-chosen people and their capers and also critiquing the misuse of history for political purposes.

 

Leo Walls is a bookstore owner in the US who tells his story of how that went when he started offering books that most don’t like.

 

And Georges-Marc Theil is actually a French fellow who has had decades of experiences of exposure to persecution in France.

 

Which leads us then to the next contribution that’s a bigger one. Seasoned revisionist Vincent Reynouard from France has under his belt now already 30 years of activism and I would say historical scepticism in general on the World War II issue, not just the Holocaust. And he has been the main focus as of last two, three years of the French judiciary to lock him away for good. He currently has to deal with seven court cases at once. He will be speaking during his presentation primarily about his experience of the abuse, … No. Not the abuse, the misuse of the law and the judiciary to suppress dissidents, peaceful dissidents on historical issues.

 

[32:54]

 

 

And after that we go into abuse of power and politics based on history. Heinz Bartesch and Andrew Allen will report about their experience with the Office of Special Investigations, that’s the jewish branch of the FBI that was focusing on what they call informally, “Nazi Hunting”. Hunting down immigrants who had some association during the war with what the Axis powers were doing and the OSI was trying to deprive them of their immigration status or even citizenship and deport them to Europe to have them put on show trials there. The biggest case known is probably the case of Ivan Demjanjuk, John Demjanjuk from the 1980s. Bartesch and Allen will actually discuss a different case, that concerns Heinz Bartesch’s father, late father, who the OSI wanted to deport. And they got a bloody nose because they didn’t reckon with the stiff resistance and skilled defense that Andrew Allen, a lawyer from the San Francisco Bay area, was putting up. They were presenting some insight into how the FBI’s branch, back in the days, it has been disbanded by now, was violating the law, breaking the law left and right and forging evidence and so forth in order to frame immigrants, just to have a heyday for themselves or to push Holocaust propaganda.

 

After that we have retired Professor Dr. David Scrbina, who used to lecture in the humanities and philosophy at Michigan State University, if I’m not mistaken. He will be talking about early mainstream voices of Holocaust scepticism already during the war and right not too long after the war, which shows that back in the days, even mainstream people were sceptical about the narrative being pushed at war’s end.

 

And we wrap up the day making full circle what I started beginning the day, showing where we came from and where we are. Carlo Mattogno, probably the most prolific revisionist scholar and writer that we have, but in my opinion, also the most knowledgeable Holocaust scholar on the planet! The mainstream included! He is. He can’t speak English or understand it well, and he is currently in a besieged situation in Italy where they passed a law in 2016, threatening anyone voicing their dissent on the Holocaust narrative with up to six years in prison. Now they haven’t done anything against him, even though he kept publishing books by the truckload. I think he’s by now more than 50 books published on that topic. But he does that in a very scholarly manner and in a very low profile. So in Italy there are a few, 10 people and maybe buy the books, but they’re kind of shelf warmers. And he wants to keep it that way. He doesn’t want to gain a larger profile. He wants to do his work underneath the radar of public attention in Italy. And therefore he has submitted his paper to me to present it. And I have increased it by my own take of: Where Do We Go from Here? One part of it is what are the White spots on the map of Holocaust historiography, which still need to be investigated, explored. But also what else needs to be done to hand the relay staff over to the next generation. And there are some quite promising prospects when it comes to new people coming on board with new ideas, with the help of new technologies, bringing it to a new level and a different level. So trying to imitate or copy what Carlo Mattogno has done with his massive work is not what’s going to happen. The direction I think will go somewhere completely different. And I will be talking about that and hopefully this is going to happen. And with this I hope we will be closing the day.

 

Now, there’s always a possibility that things don’t run as smoothly as they are listed here. Just today we got information that a powerful group, international group, in the business of suppressing a free speech and freedom of assembly. They call themselves “Opponents Against Racism and Anti-semitism”. But basically what that means is they want to stifle anyone who has an opinion that certain ethnic and religious groups with power and influence, don’t want to hear!

 

So they are working in the background. We know of that and we hope hopefully will be able to prepare for there’s no way of telling from DDoS attacks to trying to get to the backbone provider and what have you. Anything is possible these days to just. And if it takes to turn off the power plant so you don’t have electricity, [chuckling] but that’s what it takes, that’s what they’ll do! So we expect something. They have noticed with the kind of exposure that our Summit has already received beforehand that we are there, what we’re doing and that we are reaching out and having a ripple effect and they don’t like it!

 

Now the kind of presentation that I’m giving here right now, I’ve done a number of them. If you scroll up on the screen here slowly, you can actually see listed on the right-hand side a number of presentations linked to of other platforms where I have given an introduction to this event. So if anyone is interested in listening to those, you just click on the image and go to the respective platform which is usually Rumble or Bitchute where this is posted. And because of this, I think, and you helping out now too, this event hopefully is going to be a success. It promises to be a success for us, and it threatens to become one for those who don’t want our voices to be heard.

 

[39:37]

 

So there is going to be in the background the usual electronic warfare from the traditional enemies of free speech, to be expected, and we will see how that goes.

 

This is by and large my narrative now we are here right on the screen where the organisation of that event is shown. We actually, when we submitted to people who were potentially able to give presentations, the invitation to do so, we said we basically accept papers on three main topics.

 

The first is Holocaust in History, Taboo Between Dogma and Descent. It just talks about new historical findings and insights and interpretations on the event itself. The next one is Holocaust and Politics History as a Weapon. And I mentioned we have one contribution in this regard which will discuss the weaponisation of immigration law against immigrants in order to get propaganda campaigns out of it. And the last one is Holocaust and Human Rights History as a Muzzle, Holocaust Used to Push Censorship. And we have a number of presenters as mentioned who will discuss their very private experience of censorship.

 

So it should all be civilised and decent and for no one to get overly excited about in either direction. But of course certain groups get extremely excited if they fear that voices be heard that can disrupt their main source of power and influence. And there’s a lot at stake for them and they will go to extremes if need be to shut us down. We’ll see who at the end will have the upper hand.

 

Mark Collett: So are you expecting the usual sort of suspects to try and put a stop to this? Have you had anybody threaten your platform or have you had any threats in the run up to this or any attempts to stop this already?

 

Germar Rudolf: Yes, yes! We just today we got information that as I mentioned, you can have your own platform which is a computer program, but it has to run at the end of the day. It has to run on a server and has to have the connection to the backbone with the Internet cables with enough bandwidth. And usually you have some company providing services from the telecommunications company that hooks you up to what we call today the Internet, the physical Internet, to companies who do server co-location or dedicated server renting. And along that line I’m not quite sure what it was and I wouldn’t necessarily want to reveal it either. We already had approaches from certain quarters of pressure groups to shut down any link in that chain that would get our voice from where we sit to the Internet to the world. So that’s going on in the background and we have to see how that goes. Nothing has been shut down yet, but they’re trying.

 

Mark Collett: And when you kick this off, what sort of attendance are you expecting?

 

Germar Rudolf: Well, the Holocaust Summit website itself, HolocaustSummit.com if you go to the top, you actually see a link there where people can jump to the sign up form and just submit their email address so that they can stay informed if there are any sudden changes in the timeline in whatever is going to happen. Because we never know. If we go by that the last time I checked and that’s a week ago, that’s not quite accurate. We had submitted 300 emails through that. But I would expect these are only the hardcore ones who are willing to share their email. And the other, there’s not really a need if you just keep to the website. Go to the website and look up what the link is to the actual event and we will have it posted on other websites as well. You don’t have to identify yourself. So I would assume that the vast majority will not identify themselves even with an anonymous email.

 

So we need to see how it goes. I don’t know. Sign up has really accelerated with my frequent experience appearances on shows like yours over the past two weeks. And I would assume by now we have probably harvested several hundred more. But there’s no way of telling, as I mentioned, how many people who, how many of those who will attend will actually have submitted their email address. I would assume it’s a minority.

 

So hopefully we are going to have several thousand which will most certainly exceed, far exceed the range we could have had in the past with physical conferences, which were limited to a few hundred.

 

And of course then we have it not just streamed, but we have it posted. So on the usual platforms that will reach many, many more thousands, ten thousands in days, weeks, a month and years to come.

 

Mark Collett: And bearing in mind you said you are going to be doing donations and questions and answers on the day, sort of how do you expect or is there a way that people can sort of sponsor you in advance?

 

So obviously these events, they take a lot of time and effort to put together. I know it’s not a physical event and I know you’re not paying people to be there, but sort of, is there a way that people can actually sponsor the event and make donations in advance to help you guys with your infrastructure and to make sure the event goes smoothly?

 

[46:00]

 

Germar Rudolf: Absolutely! The HolocaustSummit.com website itself, if you were to go there and you go to the very end of the very bottom of the page, it shows the logos of the two companies who are the main sponsors and have officially declared themselves to be sponsors. You know, most actually want to stay anonymous. But there’s also a link that simply says, “Become an AMREC Holocaust Summit sponsor today”, which gets you to the shop of our Holocaust Academy where you can buy sponsorship packages and that actually has several tiers of whatever you want to invest in it. This would be the way to go. So holocaustsummit.com at the very bottom of the page, that’s where you could chip in to cover any costs. Most of us are actually working for free right now and there’s no payment. And FTG Media.com is a sponsor itself and their way of sponsoring is by giving us access to the platform free of charge. We don’t know what happens if, excuse my French, shit hit the fan with all kinds of attempts to shut us down and then we have to come to some more expensive ad hoc solutions to circumvent these things. There’s no way of telling right now!

 

Mark Collett: And one final question. So with it being on a Tuesday, it’s going to be difficult for some people to attend. Obviously it looks like it’s going to be a fascinating day and your lineup is an extremely strong lineup. And it’s rare to have a conference that is that well packed with guests, to start at 9 AM and go all the way through to 6 PM. It’s a big event. So where will this be posted for Replay? Is this going to be up on Odysee? What sort of places will it be available on replay?

 

And as a final sort of additional question, usually with conferences there are some kind of sort of, I don’t know, maybe a brochure, or some kind of physical keepsakes available. Is there any merchandise that people can purchase as well to support the event? So sort of two questions. There will there be sort of a full re-upload of everything? And is the like to commemorate this, any kind of physical merchandise that supporters could also purchase?

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah. So to the first question, once the event is over, it’s getting archived on our own website. HolocaustSummit.com will be moved to a folder 2026, and we will have there with posters and a short description, all the contributions listed. You click on it and you will probably have several options. They will be on Rumble and Bitshute and Odysee, and you can pick which platform you want to watch it on. We are probably not going to strain our own server because those platforms are good enough.

 

So this will all be available and the link to that archive will then be of course on the front page, on the home page, prominently displayed. When it comes to merchandise, we just started developing that and if I am not mistaken, … Let me have a quick look where we are with this.

 

The only company right now that actually has a merch contract is Armreg and we are developing, … Now if you were to go to armreg.co.uk as you know, the publishing branch of what we are doing is actually located in the UK. It is located in London. So if you go to armreg.co.uk and share that with the audience or do you want me to share it? Which way is faster?

 

Mark Collett: I’m just doing that myself now.

 

Germar Rudolf: So Armreg.co.uk.

 

Mark Collett: Just bringing that up. There’ll be two seconds. Just give me a couple of seconds just to get that set up. There we go.

 

Germar Rudolf: Okay, now at the top menu you see merch as the third entry. Yeah, click on that’s for merchandise and once that has loaded.

 

Mark Collett: Oh, it has loaded. Sorry, it’s just now I have to share that window as well. Well, just give me a second because it’s a pop out window. So two seconds. It’s weird how that works. Give me a second. Share screen. That’s the one.

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah, that’s the one, yeah.

 

So if you scroll down a little, we have our various merchandise there’s one for Armreg itself and general stuff and there you see some merchandise. We have a mug and a Tshirt right now that has the announcement of that particular event.

 

Mark Collett: Wonderful.

 

Germar Rudolf: So that’s how to go about it.

 

Now I have still to put that link more prominently on the Holocaust Summit website so people can get there directly. That’s a good point for you to make that and I will make that happen once we’re off here, and I will add that to the site so people can get to the merchandise easily.

 

Mark Collett: Well, thank you so much! We do have some Superchats so I’m just going to bring them up two seconds. We actually have a couple that hung over from the other night, so I’ll deal with them quickly. Covenant Soldier gave $10. Thank you so much! And said:

 

“Love the show with Rob Rondo. Hail the active clubs.”

 

Thank you so much! Flying Dutchman gave $50.

 

Thank you very much. And said:

 

“Catching up. Happy New Year!”

 

Well, thank you my friend. I’ve actually sent you a message today so you can pick that up on Telegram. Thank you very much. Nationless Nationalist gave $3. Thank you so much! And said:

 

“Hope and encouragement to those suffering in silence.”

 

Well, thank you so much! Some Guy 14 gave $10, thank you so much! Said:

 

“Qu huge respect to Mr. Rudolf.”

 

Thank you so much! And Aunt Sally gave $5 and said:

 

“Mark, how likely am I to get my door kicked in for watching this conference?”

 

In the UK you see, one thing I’ll say is like in the UK, if I’m correct, And I’m just getting this sort of as correct as I can. In the UK it isn’t illegal to actually deny the Holocaust or to engage in revisionism, as far as I know.

 

[53:13]

 

However, if you were to do so in a way that was seen as insulting or demeaning to people, it would be. So if you were making jokes or if you were saying things which were couched in the way that was meant to be insulting, that may be illegal.

 

However, if you were doing sort of academic work such as what you do, that would be seen in a different light.

 

So I think in the UK this would be legal, but it would be very hard for anyone to get into trouble for simply watching this at home. Would you agree with that?

 

Germar Rudolf: Absolutely! We have, with all the censorship laws we have not a single case where a country has stooped down to the point where they persecute people for just attending, listening and consuming. Even the countries with the harshest policies when it comes to this. That’s Austria and Germany. You can, for instance, you can buy Holocaust sceptical literature that is not illegal if you buy only one copy for your own use. If the government happens to intercept it, they can still destroy it, but they can’t prosecute you for it. The same with attending a conference like this. It is not an offence in any country of the Western world. And when it comes to the UK, case law says you can contest the mainstream Holocaust narrative until you’re blue in the face. What you cannot do is in that context, disparage victims, survivors, martyrs, whatever. So in any way talking ironically, sarcastically, humourously, or in any way that is considered offending toward the survivors, the victims and so forth.

 

Now the company, as I just mentioned, Armreg.co.uk that has published and republished all this material and before that we were actually in the UK since 1996. I was personally, I lived in the UK until 1999. And I started the whole operation there. And it was called Castle Hill Publishers has gone belly up in late 2023, and then we switched over to Amreg. So just a reorganisation basically. Almost at all times been in the UK except for a stretch of one and a half, two years, and we have never been harassed by anyone. So keeping it scholarly, keeping it matter of factly and civilised, as you should, any discourse anyhow, keeps you safe in the UK for now.

 

Anyone attending, when you are in the chat and you make comments in there that can be considered disparaging to jews in general or survivors or descendants and victims of the National Socialist persecution of the jews. And you do that with an account that for some reason, because you set it up that way, allows the authorities to identify you, which would probably not be smart.

 

If you want to go on FTG media or somewhere else, use an ID that doesn’t allow anyone to identify you. And if an email is required, if you want safety, use a burner email or someone, some email that is not officially traceable to you directly.

 

However, if you abstain from making those kind of comments, which I advise under any circumstances, because nasty language doesn’t reflect good on the community and I’m no fan of it. So if you abstain from these kind of comments, you should be good under any circumstances on any place on this planet.

 

It’s different for our presenters. Some of them come from Europe and as I’ve mentioned, when we’re talking about those coming from France, they’re talking about their persecution. They’re not going to make statements on history themselves because we don’t want to get them in trouble. And if we have the question and answer session, I would like the audience also to abstain from questions that corners those French individuals and putting them on the spot, because they need to fly home and don’t want to be arrested. Not fly home, [chuckling] because they are at home! They don’t want to get arrested the next morning or whenever.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, and I want to echo that. I mean, look, I believe it’s very important to talk about the kind of things that we’re talking about tonight. I think it’s important that we discuss things like this.

 

But I also think it’s very important to ensure that we do so in a productive and polite manner. Talking about this kind of stuff in a way that is disparaging or rude or ridiculous, it not only opens you up for arrest, which is a ridiculous position to put yourself in, but it also demeans the seriousness of the topic and it takes what we do out of an academic light.

 

Now, I’m not a revisionist. I talk about revisionism. I have revisionist guests on, but I’m generally speaking somebody who talks about demography and jewish or Zionist power and the way that jewish power affects the Western world. They’re the topics that I mainly specialise in. I do speak to revisionists. I’m interested in it. But obviously, if you are going to get involved in this, my suggestion is that you deal with it in an academic way for your own safety.

 

And also so the topic is held in the high regard that it deserves to be held in. If you’re there sort of cracking jokes and sharing memes and trying to be as edgy as possible, kind of undermines what people like Germar are doing. And there’s an awful lot of revisionists who have suffered greatly at the hands of the authorities over the years. And you don’t want to demean their suffering and their sacrifices.

 

We’ve got a five dollar Superchat from Mr. Smalls 14, who, regardless of what I just said, said:

 

“Germar, is it true you tried to sell soap in Sacramento with Pastor Eli?”

 

That’s obviously one of those jokes. You don’t have to answer that if you don’t wish. No.

 

[59:57]

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah. The UK’s attitude towards Germany is that Germans have no humour. And you need to understand that the chicken has come to roost. The UK, as a winner of the Second World War, has pushed Germany in a situation where Germans can go to prison for jokes. The shortest German joke, do you know what that is?

 

Mark Collett: No, I don’t.

 

Germar Rudolf: The German word for joke is “witz”. Okay. The shortest German joke is “Ausch-witz”.

 

Mark Collett: [uncertain laughter from Mark]

 

Germar Rudolf: That gets you in prison in Germany.

 

Mark Collett: Indeed, indeed.

 

Germar Rudolf: So Germans don’t have humour because they have to watch their back. And they had to watch their backs for centuries. The Nazis didn’t invent book burning and the current government didn’t invent censorship laws. Germany has been under the stranglehold in the medievals of the Holy Inquisition, the worst of all European countries. So it has been bred into the German and out of the Germans to make certain jokes. Jokes live from the tension of putting things together that are not quite acceptable, talking seriously about them. So you package them. And that is exactly the attempt that this fellow has been doing, pushing the envelope into the not quite acceptable. But making this joke.

 

And that has become a crime in Germany and in borderline areas, has always been. And now in the UK, people are getting in trouble for showing sarcasm, irony and so forth in that context. If and when jokes become punishable by law, you stop laughing! And I take that opportunity to make that clear. These kind of jokes. Make them when you’re sitting in the bar, but don’t make them publicly.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, I want to sort of echo this is a serious point. So I actually believe that when it comes to comedy, when it comes to humour, when it comes to making a joke, really nothing should be off limits.

 

And once you start making certain things off limits, it’s very easy to make anything and everything off limits. So then you get sort of the Edinburgh Fringe voting the joke of the year as “Why did the chicken cross the road?” Because no one’s allowed to actually joke about anything else.

 

And I think it was Jimmy Carr who made the remark, a famous British comedian, who made the remark that:

 

“He’s probably already made the joke that will get him one day cancelled and ruin his career.”

 

And that’s how it is, because we constantly see the mainstream media, liberals, sort of fans of censorship, spending hours, if not days, if not in some cases weeks, trawling through people’s back catalogue of streams, tweets, Facebook posts, searching for something that they can find offensive in order to cancel someone, or worse still, get them arrested. And I find this very interesting because I’ve wrestled with this myself. People might say:

 

“Well, look, Mark, I came to your shows and I’ve now watched 200 hours of them and I found these three things offensive.”

 

And my question would be, if you came to the shows of Britain’s leading ethno-nationalists, and you were looking to find something offensive, is that really my fault? You know, I’m not out there saying it in the street. I’m not shouting it through a megaphone into people’s faces. I’m hosting a show. People come to the show, they know what they’re gonna get when they come to the show. This isn’t something that’s being broadcast to every car and home and workplace in the UK. You come here and you seek this out, knowing that you’re going to get a discussion about things relating to our cause.

 

And I think the people going out of their way to dig things up on people and to, it’s like Germar’s conference. If you were to go there and to record everything that was said and watch it in detail, taking notes, looking to find something offensive, that kind of defeats the object of watching the conference in the first place or attending the conference in the first place, because you’re not going there in good faith and then finding it offensive by accident. You’re going there on purpose to look for a reason to be offended so that you can then report it.

 

And this is one of the widespread problems in the West that people, the people who claim they don’t want to be offended will go out of their way and go to great lengths in order to be offended, or so they can claim that they were offended in order to report people to the authorities, which is just essentially a charter for censorship, allowing this to happen. But I do always ask people to be respectful, to exercise caution, not to use racial stuff.

 

As I said to all my guests, you know, please abide by sensible rules so that we are always the polite academic group that talk about things in a sensible manner.

 

And one thing that impresses me with Germar both times I’ve had him on is the way he can speak so fluently and in such a way that I think it would be impossible for anyone to find him offensive unless they were going out of their way to do. Optics prime gave $5. Thank you so much! And said:

 

“This man is a national treasure. Thank you for your work, good sir.”

 

Well, thank you for that Superchat. Lars Aerback with AE, gave $15.

 

Thank you so much! He said:

 

“A positive story from Denmark today. Our Supreme Court acquitted a man for hosting a site with racist jokes. Old fashioned holocaust jokes amongst them. The case has been through all three courts and has been going for over six years. This is a win for freedom of speech!”

 

Well, that is certainly good news from Denmark, and I hope to see more.

 

[1:06:17]

 

Germar Rudolf: Denmark? Regarding Denmark?

 

Mark Collett: Yeah.

 

Germar Rudolf: Oh that’s good! Yeah. Denmark has been a stronghold in all those years. Some German holocaust sceptics and historical sceptics actually fled to Denmark and found refuge there over the past four, five, six decades.

 

Mark Collett: And I’d like to say as well, big thank you to Malibu and Coke for gifting 10 subs to the channel.

 

And as I always say, those who accepted the gifted subs. It would mean a great deal to me if you kept them up. You know, $5 a month means very little to most people, but if I had four or five hundred people every month subbing my channel, it would take a lot of weight off my mind at the beginning of every month.

 

And that’s the end of the Superchat so I’m going to bring the stream to a close now. You’ve been a wonderful guest as ever! The advert for the conference has been excellent and again you’ve done most of the heavy lifting tonight and most of the speaking, but is there anything you’d like to say as a final thought before we wrap things up?

 

Germar Rudolf: Not much more than holocaustsummit.com! So the ultimate link will be streaming and that can change any minute depending on what happens, will be posted there there. If you submit your email, you’ll get it also in an email. And I hope we all see you there! And we are going to build a new community that gets stronger by the day!

 

Mark Collett: Well, thank you so much!

 

I’d like to thank Germar for being here. He’s a courageous guy. He’s a very good speaker. We have interviewed him in full before. If you want to watch that interview, it is in my previous videos. Go and watch it. It’s well worth watching. It’s a two hour special, that one where we talk about Germar’s personal journey, what he’s been through, the incredible repression he’s faced and his incredible journey in his life. Please do that and also support his event, support his work. He’s a really nice guy. It was really kind of him to come on here tonight and he’s been, as always, the perfect guest.

 

I’d like to remind you all that I will be back on Sunday with the ladies from Return to the Land. That’s three housewives, mothers and home-schoolers from Return to the Land talking about women in nationalism and their roles as mothers and homemakers and educators. So that’ll be an interesting stream. Please join me then 7 PM UK time on Sunday for that. Until then, if you’re out doing activism at the weekend, please be safe, stay within the law and know your rights. And until Sunday, have a great evening, have a great weekend and I’ll see you all again soon.

 

Thank you to Germar, thank you to everyone who donated so generously. And as always, thank you to this wonderful community for supporting us, for supporting these shows and for supporting the good work of my guests. Thank you everyone. I love you all. Have a great weekend. Good night.

 

 

[1:09:08]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

(Comments as of 1/25/2026 = 60)

Mark Collett
1 day ago
Pinned by @MarkCollett
If you would like to contribute to the stream, please use Entropy:
https://entropystream.live/app/markcollett

3
0
Valkyria81
1 day ago
88

8
0
The Bee Sting
1 day ago
Wooden doors?

5
0
Alice1488
1 day ago
Watching replay. I’ve never heard this brave intelligent man speak before.

5
0
Sir Trancealot
1 day ago
14

5
0
Secure the future of our people
1 day ago
14 Night all!

5
0

@Aunt-Sally
1 day ago
Thank you Mark and Germar

5
0

@noreplacement
1 day ago
Thank you Germar

5
0

@noreplacement
1 day ago
One day Mark and Laura will be presenting a day time TV show. With guests like Monika Scheafer

5
0
yes dear
1 day ago
2mm glass and a wooden door, no in/out pipes.

5
0

@RonP1
1 day ago(edited)
This HMD is getting more unbearable with each year that passes. For starters, they start talking about it in the media a week or two before the actual day, that’s without all the other propaganda being inflicted on the public all year long. What a sick world we live in where a vile group, with the help of its puppets, think it is their God-given right to teach young minds of British children a load of old BS.
As Arnold Leese said..
“Fascism holds that education up to 14 is a half-measure with attendant
evils nearly as great as its benefits. It produces a population which can
read but which has not learned to think, and is accordingly open to every
kind of evil suggestion or lie, readily disseminated in print.”
Less

4
0

@noreplacement
1 day ago
Britons will not have humour for much longer. Just look at the liberal boneheads we have for “so called” comedians.

4
0

@tuer
1 day ago
the jews ethnically replacing their liberators in europe and america should be the eye opener gaza is

4
0
Hide replies

@Evola19
15 hours ago
That is a misunderstanding of history – the jews have been at war with Europeans their entire existence. WWII was a gentile uprising put down by other gentiles – no jews were “liberated” from anything, they won WWII and were still surrounded white Europeans whom they hate. Not for much longer though.

2
0
yes dear
1 day ago
God Bless Kamerades x

3
0

@BritishGammon
1 day ago
Sophie Duker can “joke” about killing White folks on the BBC and the police took no action

3
0
yes dear
1 day ago
Jailed for physically explaining how high his dog could jump!

3
0
yes dear
1 day ago
holes in the roof and chimney built after surrender

3
0

@nationless8nationalist
12 hours ago
Just figure all subscriptions giving a mere 12 dollars a year. 192000 dollars in a year. Do not get frustrated and be overwelled. We can help our activists.

2
0
jm
20 hours ago
Problem: if you order a book when you live in EU, you have to pay a lot in douane rights -I ordered a book from Antilope Hill from Irving en had tot pay MORE in charges and taxes than the book itself…

2
0
yes dear
1 day ago
One People

2
0
Echo_Harp
1 day ago
Thanks.

2
0
Valkyria81
1 day ago
hi from denmark

2
0
yes dear
1 day ago
Im looking forward to wearing my Flecktarn next week

2
0
Secure the future of our people
1 day ago
“I said to him, ‘Simon, you are telling a lie,’”

2
0
yes dear
1 day ago
God Bless Ursula x

2
0
Skyler Durden
11 hours ago
I have Germar’s encyclopedia.

1
0
Through it, not around it
13 hours ago
WTF is Germar promoting FTJMedia? That site is cringy basement soy larper central. It is the complete antithesis of Germar and represents everything he tries to distance himself from.

1
0

@nationless8nationalist
1 day ago
just missed it

1
0
Secure the future of our people
1 day ago

@ForKamerade
wot???

1
0
yes dear
1 day ago
British gammon, Turncoat Dlive Traitor lol

1
0
Valkyria81
1 day ago
ive just found out. and im out… so sad im beeing missing this

1
0
Echo_Harp
1 day ago
“Found 3 things of offensive stuff” sounds like a joke in its own…

1
0
yes dear
1 day ago
Not long Enough Valk!

1
0
Valkyria81
1 day ago
how long do u continue this chat tonight?

1
0
yes dear
1 day ago
\0

1
0
Secure the future of our people
1 day ago

@BritishGammon
you can say anything as long as you can make the cops run away showing up at your house.

1
0
Secure the future of our people
1 day ago

@ForKamerade
o/

1
0
yes dear
1 day ago
Thanks Merkal, Congratulations Kalugi

1
0
yes dear
1 day ago
Only in Deutschland 2026!

1
0

@noreplacement
1 day ago
The state can easily spin revisionism into anything they want

1
0
yes dear
1 day ago
Will look, Thank you

1
0
Secure the future of our people
1 day ago
https://www.timesofisrael.com/remember-the-11-million-why-an-inflated-victims-tally-irks-holocaust-historians/

1
0
yes dear
1 day ago
Scientific & Engineering Impossibility

1
0
yes dear
1 day ago
How dare you question history, Its got Laws protecting it Because Truth needs Laws or you go straight to the Gulag Goy

1
0

@Aunt-Sally
1 day ago
Good evening folks

1
0
Sir Trancealot
1 day ago
Evening gents

1
0
Secure the future of our people
1 day ago

@SublimeBraid
gassing 6 million jews and fighting a two front war at the same time?

Hide replies
Tomigun
19 hours ago
They decoded the Germans’ Enigma in 1941, yet didn’t intercept ANY message about a “holocaust” or “final solution” carried out.

SublimeBraid
1 day ago
the risks of multitasking, lol

yes dear
1 day ago
Dragged out, “One by One” LOL

danzimmons
1 day ago
it’s all of them.

Secure the future of our people
1 day ago
odysee chat ded?

Secure the future of our people
1 day ago
evening all

@Aunt-Sally
1 day ago
I don’t blame his wife, they’d probably take their child away somehow

yes dear
1 day ago
test

yes dear
1 day ago
LOL

yes dear
1 day ago
110,000 at most

yes dear
1 day ago
Guten Abend Kamerades!

Hide replies

@nationless8nationalist
13 hours ago
thank you comrade.

0
0

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[06:09]

 

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

 

Read out the specific part:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So either:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And then there is:

 

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

 

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

 

“Tough luck! Like, enjoy being banned!”

 

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

 

So:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[14:04]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Those offences are:

 

“Directing the activities of a prohibited hate group.”

 

Which can get you 15 years in jail.

 

“Membership of a prohibited hate group.”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So the conduct is:

 

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

 

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

 

[21:42]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[27:15]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Jonathan Duniam:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

He said:

 

“Just be the martyrs, bro!”

 

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

 

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

 

[35:20]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[41:19]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Gab Comments

top

(Comments as of = )

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Joel Davis: We should be live. It is the 19th of December, 2024, and another show for you guys this evening. Our big stories from last week seem to continue to be the big stories again. The war on freedom by the jews perpetuates. So we’ll be talking about that. And with the new laws that they’re proposing to bring it into Victoria because there was a synagogue fire that was allegedly, I think a jew did it. But they haven’t actually determined who did it. But that’s good enough reason, even though they haven’t determined who did it or why, to take away freedoms to politically demonstrate peacefully. Like, what’s the connection? So we’ll discuss that.

 

We’ll also discuss the development of the Parminder Singh Gate or Parmindigate, as it’s been called on Twitter, where, yeah, One Nation have been running this Indian candidate and it’s caused, I mean, the story., … There’s so many new elements to the story. I wrote an opinion piece on it a few days ago for The Noticer and there’s even more elements of the story coming through now. So we’re going to talk about that.

 

Also, there’s been another shooting in America that’s kind of gay and weird, but instead of was, I guess, at least it’s a different shooting than last week. But yeah, this teenage girl, you know, trying to be edgy, doing some dumb school shooting. The alleged manifesto that was her manifesto was, yeah, really like incoherent and weak. So we’ll be discussing that and some other things. Thomas Sewell will be joining us soon as well, so we’ll get his thoughts as well this evening on all of this.

 

But how you doing this evening, Blair?

 

Blair Cottrell: All right. I just worked out how to share this on an X account because on my phone I can’t see a lot of your tweets. There’s some sort of ban or layer of censorship on the posts that you make. And I still haven’t actually worked out how to get around that on my phone, I think I can see them on my laptop. So I was able to share for the first time, I’m sharing our show on X and I’m glad I figured out how to do it.

 

Other than that, yeah, I’m fine, man! Everything’s good. Been training pretty hard, which has resulted in me feeling a bit more stressed. Well, not feeling stressed, but my body is showing signs of stress. Like I have a little, a mini, little ulcer on my tongue, probably from training too much. But I’m getting more time to train because it’s coming up to the end of the year and clients are starting to drop off, people are getting ready for Christmas, and I have more free time. I’m glad for that you know, it gives me the time, the chance to get inside my own head and process my own thoughts, which I really enjoy doing. Actually, I feel like if I don’t get that time, I get very angry.

 

But, yeah, a little bit tired, but I’ll stay with it. Like you said, the news seems to be just further developments on what we talked about last week, but still interesting.

 

Yeah, just a little segue before we get stuck into it, before Tom arrives, I was just scrolling X as one does, and I saw a picture of what I thought was a young me. I’m like:

 

“Whoa, that looks like me when I was 16 and in construction.”

 

But then on closer inspection, it wasn’t me, but it was posted by Victoria police. They’re looking for a guy. Yeah, see if you can bring it up, because they’re looking for a guy in Balaclava, which is a suburb down in Victoria, Australia, which is heavily populated by jews. I think.

 

Joel Davis: Police are investigating a report of racially motivated offensive behaviour.

 

Blair Cottrell: I don’t know what that means exactly, but that looks exactly like me when I was a teenager. Look at that. This looks like skinny, younger me coming home from work.

 

Joel Davis: Pre-steroid Blair.

 

Blair Cottrell: Come on man! Anyway, scroll down. Scroll down because police.

 

Joel Davis: I got my cop coming in. He didn’t do nothing!

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, I know. I saw that. And I think it’s one of the best, but keep scrolling down. I mean, everybody, this is a serious story, right? Offensive behaviour, racially motivated offensive conduct. Should read the comments for more information.

 

Joel Davis: What is the charge? Speaking of slur, a succulent ethnic slur! [chuckling] Being White in public is now illegal! Where’s his energy? Motivated violence against Whites by Sudanese immigrants at train stations. Comfy, friend with the big comment there? Yeah, what the fuck is offensive behaviour?

 

Blair Cottrell: There’s got to be a list.

 

Joel Davis: Even if I knew him, I wouldn’t report it to you fucking pigs! All the boys in there and the girls. Yeah, look at this guy. He’s just photoshopped a jew’s face. Arrest all people who look like this. People are just going hard in the comments.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s what community pressure looks like. That’s what a legitimate, organic community response to a police story looks like. If you give everyone free speech, this is what happens. That’s why free speech is a great thing! That’s why we support free speech, because that gives us the ability to speak. And this is what happens. A lot more people out there have more based opinions than you realise. And threads like that demonstrate that reality.

 

[05:30]

 

Joel Davis: Quite funny. Well, I hope they don’t catch him.

 

But if you do have any information on this individual. Please forward it to the NSN contact bot. We’d love to recruit him. We’re pretty racially motivated ourselves.

 

But anyway, [chuckling] that is a funny story. I mean, hopefully doesn’t get in trouble. I don’t know what happened there, but it’s obviously a nothing burger. Offensive behaviour is the most ridiculous crime. Like, how is that even a crime? We should have a right to behave offensively in this country. I mean, what the hell, we’re Australians! This is ridiculous! But I digress.

 

As I said, there’s a few big stories to talk about the first thing I want to talk about, Blair, you were shutting me down last week because I was talking about how that Luigi, I can’t remember his last name, some Italian shit! That Luigi guy in America who shot the CEO of some health insurance company or whatever. I was saying that the terror, it was kind of gay and boring. You know, his terrorism was boring. It wasn’t interesting. This is a far cry from the interesting terrorists of yesteryear. You know, like Ted Kaczynski or whatever. I’m not going to rattle off all the names. And you were trying to shut me down. You know, you were saying, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Hey, that’s a pretty rough way to put it. I wasn’t trying to shut you down.

 

Joel Davis: Just trying to cancel me. I wasn’t being politically correct enough. The “woke” were coming at me.

 

Blair Cottrell: We need to be smart. If you’re going to start talking about sensitive topics, we need to skim across the surface of them without getting too analytical, you know, sharing opinions. You know, that’s the way things are. I don’t want to be, …

 

Joel Davis: Like I said terrorism, but I was saying the opposite. I was saying that this particular piece of terrorism is gay. And it’s like the, like terrorism has lost its way. And then I think that was an accurate call because then an even gayer form of terrorism happened in America this week, or a few days ago with this 15 year old girl who’s a little edgelord retard decided to shoot up her school and then kill herself for literally no reason. I read the manifesto this week.

 

Blair Cottrell: What is this? I haven’t seen any information on this. Have you got something to bring up on the screen?

 

Joel Davis: I can find something in a sec.

 

But basically she’s a 15 year old girl. Can’t remember her name. But the manifesto was just like deranged rambling about how she doesn’t like her parents and like life sucks! And it was like this like nihilistic yap that had no like discernible point. Like there’s no political message. There was no real existential message. Like it just seemed like she was like moody, like some emo moody chick. And then she’s gone along and like done something crazy like that. Terrorism has just become gay now. I said something on Twitter, like:

 

“Terrorism is like where rock music was in the late 2000s.”

 

You know, it’s just gay and lame at this point. And the only people that take it seriously are like retarded teenage girls. She was obviously trying to do some kind of like Columbine shooting, you know, homage. But at least the Columbine guys had cool clothes and stuff. They were retarded as well. But at least they had like an aesthetic. They had like an energy.

 

The point that I’m making actually is ASIO [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation] should be happy about my message. My message is that terrorism has become gay. Don’t try terrorism because you’re going to come off like a fag. Like everyone that’s trying to do this stuff lately. That [guy] set himself on fire for Palestine. I can’t remember his name. That was lame as well. It’s all become very like played out at this point. It’s been done. Plenty of others have got the headlines and they’ve done it cooler than you and more interestingly than you. And it’s old at this point! You know, it’s like trying to make a grunge band. It’s like the 90s was like three decades ago. What are you doing? Like, it’s over! No one’s gonna care. You know what I’m saying?

 

Blair Cottrell: I suppose so.

 

I don’t have a lot of thoughts on the matter. I just think shooting or killing random people because you’re mad about something in order to make a statement and have an impact on society or to attempt to have an impact on society. I just think it’s deranged bullshit, man! I always have. I don’t really find any sort of terrorism interesting. I’m not one of those people who’s like:

 

“Let’s study these psychos and work out the way the psychology of a pervert, or a murderer, or a paedophile!”

 

That’s what modern psychology does. It’s like:

 

“Let’s deconstruct and understand them.”

 

No, you don’t have to understand these people. You just execute them. They’re defective and you just execute them. You know, I have to say that. I can’t say anything even remotely in support of politically motivated violence. Very sensitive times in Australia.

 

[10:28]

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, well, I mean, that’s what I’m saying. I’m criticising politically motivated violence. I’m saying every time someone seems to engage in it just keeps getting gayer and gayer. Like, I mean, terrorism is either gay or it’s totally fake! Like this fake jew firebombing on the synagogue. I mean you had 9/11 where the jews blew up the Twin Towers, [see links below re 9/11 being a ZOG false flag] and then like, blamed it on, … Apparently we had to invade Iraq for some reason because an Israeli think tank commissioned by Benjamin Netanyahu in the 1990s, transplanted itself into America, called itself the Project of the New American Century [PNAC]. And then Richard Perle, this dual citizen, ends up saying:

 

“Hey, this idea that we had in this Israeli think tank about invading Iraq in the mid-90s, we’re going to like, dress it up in neocon language and then try and sell it to conservatives in America in 1999.”

 

And then he gets put into the Bush administration and then the jews do the fake 9/11. And then even the official story is that there was Saudi Arabian terrorists. What the hell does that have to do with Iraq?

 

 

But that really pissed everybody off. And then boom, da, da boom! Apparently Saddam Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction and he’s friends with Al Qaeda or something. And then the CIA literally said to the Bush administration:

 

“Well, that’s bullshit! Like, our intelligence doesn’t say that.”

 

And so they created a whole sub-dimension of the government called the Office of Special Plans run by the Zionists and jews in the Bush administration to create all this fake intelligence as a pretext to invade Iraq. We invade Iraq:

 

“Oh, there’s no Weapons of Mass Destruction!”

 

But Israel’s plan from the mid-90s to invade Iraq gets achieved.

 

So this is the jewish playbook. Fake terrorism is a jewish playbook. And you know that basically was used as a pretext to destroy, to basically bring in all these new laws that facilitated mass surveillance and anti-terrorism legislation that is now being used against nationalists and all the rest of it. And they’re doing it again. The jewish playbook of fake terrorism where you know, they burn their own synagogue and then the solution to your synagogue getting firebombed isn’t a task force against political firebombings or religious firebombings or something. That would actually solve the apparent issue that was created. But we haven’t even figured out who did the firebombing. I don’t think we ever will because I think the Counter Terrorism police know that the jews did it to themselves. But apparently the solution is to ban masks at public demonstrations and to prevent people from doing rallies within 150 meters of religious buildings, which by the way, there’s churches all through the centre of Melbourne.

 

So that means that like major landmarks in Melbourne, like I think Flinders Street Station, we’ve done rallies before over the years. I remember watching a video of you, Blair, from I think Tom might have been there too. This is like from like eight or nine years ago you guys did a rally at Flinders Street Station. And obviously we did the ‘Mass Deportations Now’ rally earlier this year, you know, at Flinders Street Station or partially at Flinders Street Station. So that’s a very significant landmark in Melbourne, right across from Fed Square. But it’s within 150 meters of a church. So now you can’t do a demonstration there? Oh well, not now. But when these laws inevitably get passed. What the hell does that have to do with firebombing? Firebombing is already illegal. Why can’t you just prosecute the firebombing?

 

But what this shows is that what jews are afraid of isn’t actually terrorism, but they’re afraid of his criticism! You know, every time jews do a fake terror attack, all the laws that they get passed and the agenda that gets passed has nothing to do with the original thing. It’s just an excuse to violate your rights and to direct the government into doing things that the jews already wanted to do prior to the alleged act. And we’ve seen now as well, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Why do you think jews are afraid of criticism?

 

Joel Davis: Well, they’re afraid of criticism because they’ve committed crimes on like a societal scale. They subverted this country. They have incredible power, way more power than they should have as 0.4% of the population.

 

And also they use that power to siphon off resources and support for Israel even though Israel’s got nothing to do with Australia. Why does Peter Dutton do press conferences with the Australian flag and the Israeli flag behind him? Why? Why is Israel even an issue in Australian politics? It’s on the other side of the fucking world! What relevance does it have to us? Nothing! The relevance it has is that jews control Australia. Jews control Australian politics. Like what the Jacinta Allan, the Premier of Victoria, said in a press conference is:

 

“This is what we’re going to do for the jews.”

 

And then outlined a whole series of laws that they’re going to pass. She literally said:

 

“This is for the jews!”

 

That’s crazy! They’re 0.4% of the population. Why do they just have the major parties? Because the Liberals love the jews even more than Labor. Why are they falling over themselves to prove how much they love the jews and prostrate themselves before them and say:

 

“We’re doing as much as we can to pass as many laws to make it impossible for the people you don’t like!”

 

Which isn’t just us. They’re coming after us to try to destroy our ability to protest, but they’re also going after the pro-Palestine Left. They want to shut down any kind of political activity that jews don’t like. And this is somehow relevant because if people do political activity that’s critical of jews, someone might want to go and firebomb a synagogue or something. And so like, you can’t just have a law against firebombing. You have to completely control how people think and how people act so just ban all criticism of jews from society entirely. I mean, it’s ridiculous! It’s tyrannical!

 

But nevertheless, what the government is showing is that to them, jewish feelings matter more than our freedoms or any kind of modicum of fairness. I mean, there was a church in Geelong that was burnt down a few weeks ago. Where’s the anti-Christian task force? There was a priest stabbed in Sydney earlier this year in the middle of a church service by a Muslim terrorist. You know, like it’s only the jews that get these special protections.

 

[16:47]

 

Blair Cottrell: Not just interject for a moment to draw attention to Tom Sewell’s new moustache. Looking great, mate! Kind of reminiscent of Mosley or something. What made you go with the stash?

 

Thomas Sewell: Hello, can you hear me?

 

Blair Cottrell: Loud and clear.

 

Thomas Sewell: This is the first stream that I’ve done for the Joel, … Sorry, let me just mute all my shit!

 

Blair Cottrell: … For a few weeks, man! What’s happening?

 

Thomas Sewell: Well, I needed some time to process, you know, digest. There’s a lot going on in the world, obviously. But, yeah, I got a new cam and a new mic, so hopefully I’m coming through nice and clear. The MO was just “Movember” for last month, and I decided to keep it because my dad had a MO when I was born. So I figured I’ll keep it until the next one’s born. I got a baby on the way, so could be anytime soon. I won’t say exactly how soon, but very soon.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, congratulations, man! It’s exciting stuff! Lots of boys having babies in the community throughout Australia, I’ve noticed. Lots of new families being started. Some guys quite young, too. They’re getting started young. They’re like 22 years old. Punching our kids already, which is awesome to see. I think it’s better off having kids when you’re younger. They’re bound to be healthier when you’re younger. What do you guys think?

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, I do regret in some ways not starting younger. And the main reason for that is. Yeah, it’s the first six months especially is really hard, and it takes up a lot of your time. It all works out, I think, anyway. At the end of the day, you either have kids early and then you develop that part of your life while you’re young. And then when you’re older, you can develop deeper parts of your understanding philosophy. You have more time to yourself.

 

I mean, I know a lot of Boomers and a lot of that generation, once their kids grow up, they kind of just go on holiday. But I think what you’re meant to do is leave some sort of intellectual legacy. You’re meant to do something worthwhile. A lot of people just, it’s sort of career or holiday. They don’t really think about anything more than that.

 

But the other way of doing it, rather than having kids and then developing that stuff later, is you develop in your 20s and 30s, your world view and your philosophy, your personal constitution, and then you have kids later, in which case you’re going to then struggle to have time to continue to develop, but hopefully you’ve laid enough of a foundation. So I think it balances out. But I would have preferred to have been changing nappies and going through screaming babies in my early 20s than my early 30s. So I sympathize with those in their 40s that are doing it. I can certainly think of better things to be doing in my 40s than dealing with screaming babies. Because you just want peace and quiet.

 

As a man, I think the most important thing for developing your personal constitution is peace and quiet. And if you’re just in constant baby family chaos, you can’t really develop like your drive, your mission, your focus. You kind of just caught up in the feminine chaos of the babies. So it makes me think a lot about our ancestors and our ancestral culture. A lot of ancient Germanic and Celtic cultures. They didn’t! The father didn’t really have much of a this is what I’ve read. I don’t know if this is fact, but what I’ve read is that the fathers didn’t have much input until the sons turned 10 and there was sort of a transfer of ownership. Men sort of stayed out of the mums and bubs club, so to speak, and the toddlers and all that. Obviously you’re still there, you’re still present, but you know, there’s a water fight usually. So yeah, not until a boy’s around 10 years old is there that one on one time consistently.

 

Blair Cottrell: I could imagine you would feel once you’ve had a child even more of a drive to make a difference and to do something that makes you useful. Do you find that’s a sensation you’ve experienced after having a kid?

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, absolutely! It’s what ties us to the infinite.

 

So I believe that our children are our afterlife and that we heal this world by making better humans. I think that’s the primary point of what we’re doing. We make better humans. We’re in this mess because of shit humans. We can talk about the jews, we can talk about the Africans, we can talk about all these horrible circumstances, economic pressures. But all of this, in my opinion, is secondary to the quality of humans we’re producing. And if we produce better quality humans in terms of environment, stock, that software, you know what operating system, what personal constitution are you plugging into them? How are you explaining the world to them? And how are you helping them grow and adapt and overcome this dystopian society that we live in?

 

So to me that’s absolutely crucial and it’s extremely motivating because. Yeah, it’s like when you have kids, then you’re trying to create a better world for them, not just like your motivation is now rooted to the centre.

 

[22:01]

 

Blair Cottrell: And why wouldn’t you make better quality versions of yourself if you could? Why wouldn’t you make copies of yourself? I mean, our own lives in the span of all existence, eternity, are absurdly short. Our lives are like a blip on the screen. And we are here now because our parents, their parents, all made copies of themselves. We are just copies of our forefathers, forebearers. So I’ve always believed the same thing too. Like, what is a greater purpose than trying to breed a higher humanity? At the end of the day, that’s the only real meaning of life that in this physical realm we can understand to be true and worth pursuing.

 

Thomas Sewell: Absolutely, yeah.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah.

 

So anyway, onto the news stories. I think I’ll just play this clip, actually. I’ll get you guys to react. I know a lot of people have probably seen it, but this is the Premiere of Victoria, Jacinta Allan announcing these new laws that they want to pass.

 

Jacinta Allan: Today, the government of Victoria renews its promise to jews and to everyone of every background. Whoever you are, whoever you pray to, you deserve to be safe and welcome here in this state. Today too, we support that promise with strong action, strong action to fight hate and help Victorians heal! Action that I will now outline. We will be setting a standard, a standard that we do not tolerate anti-semitism. We do not tolerate anti-semitism! Just as we do not tolerate any form of hate, racism or discrimination against a jew, a Muslim, a Sikh, a Hindu, a Chinese Victorian, or against a woman, against a gay, lesbian or trans person. It’s all despicable! All racism is wrong! All racism is evil! It’s hateful, it’s corrosive. And anti-semitism is racism! And there are too many, there are too many who want to qualify anti-semitism or make excuses for it. And I want to make it absolutely clear that I never will!

 

We’ve also had enough of the protests that have caused division and disruption in our streets. Now, peaceful protests can and must be protected in this state. Protests that harm others cannot!

 

Firstly, we will ban the flags and symbols of listed terrorist organisations in public. That includes Hamas, Hezbollah and several other groups, including White national extremists and radical, racist, violent extremist Right-wing groups. We will also ban the use of face masks and balaclavas at protests. We know they are being used to conceal identities, shield agitators from crowd control measures, like capsicum spray. Well, face masks aren’t a free pass to break the law. And there should be no place to hide in this state if you’re a racist stirring up hate on the streets.

 

And we’re also going to ban the use of glue, rope, chains, locks and other dangerous attachment devices that protesters use to cause maximum disruption and also endanger others. There was an incident that occurred, an incident that was both rightly condemned, but also an incident that became the Genesis of the work that we have released on introducing stronger anti-vilification laws to the Victorian Parliament. But we know it’s rearing its head again and we will act. We will legislate to protect the right for people to gather and pray free from fear, free from harassment and free from intimidation from, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, she only mentions enemies of the jewish community. Like apparently anti-fascist violence is fine. One of the boys had his car firebombed about a year ago around Christmas, a year ago. That was Leftist extremism. But apparently that’s not a problem because they don’t cause any issue for the jewish community, they only target the enemies of jews! An important point, I think.

 

Joel Davis: No, of course! Also you notice there, she didn’t mention in these list of protected groups Whites or any religions that Whites practice in any serious number when she was mentioning religions. So it’s typical, but it’s nevertheless exposing what we say is true, it’s revealing, the system is showing its face that, yeah, as you just said quite accurately, the number one protected community is the jews. No one is allowed to criticise them.

 

And then the number two protected communities are basically everyone who isn’t White. And yeah, the banning face masks thing, that will be interesting. Obviously we use them at demonstrations, but we also get criticised a lot for using them. So now we’re just going to have to, probably when they pass these laws in Victoria, we’re going to have to do demonstrations without face masks.

 

Blair Cottrell: I gotta say this, you guys could look cooler without the masks. I mean, you’re good looking boys. This could be a beautiful blessing in disguise.

 

[27:14]

 

Joel Davis: We’ve had internal debates about it. Like a lot of us want to take the masks off. And I think it will make us look more human to the public.

 

So yeah, it could backfire. Like the jews have banned the Roman salute, they’ve banned the masks and everyone says:

 

“Oh I like what you guys do, but the balaclavas and the Roman salutes that not going to appeal to normies.”

 

Well, the jews are forcing us to have normie appeal! So if this is how they’re going to play it, I guess we’re going to have to play it by these rules. You know, it is what it is. It’ll be interesting to see if it ends up backfiring on the jews and they just end up making us more popular with the public.

 

So I think also the jews are making themselves less popular with the public because they’re making this very explicit, like for a very long time, when you start talking about the jews in Australia, people are like:

 

“What are you like? This is crazy talk!”

 

And also it’s very abstract. You’re talking about the banking system or international finance or things happening in America, things happening in the Middle East, things happening historically in Europe, doesn’t feel very real and important to average everyday Australians and their average everyday lives. But this is very explicit. This is the jews coming after your freedoms in Australia in 2024. This is the jews attacking you! Flexing on you!

 

And so now the jewish problem isn’t just some abstract problem. It isn’t just some thing that fringe people talk about. Now. This is actually something that everyday Australians have to be confronted with, which is that they live in a jewish dominated society. And why does 0.4% of the population get to order the government around? Why does the government, why are the major parties falling all over themselves to grovel to this group? They’re not a significant voter base. There’s barely any jewish voters.

 

So the only reason that they could be groveling to them is because they have money and power! It’s the only reason! They have a lot of it! And that should concern you that your government is beholden to a tiny ethnic group with incredible money and power that can essentially, according to the whims of its hysteria, trash your rights!

 

But what’s interesting is that I’m seeing a lot of criticism for these new laws from the far-Left. And also maybe I don’t mind that Antifa’s not allowed to wear masks anymore. You know, they also going to bring in anti-doxing laws in Australia, which the jews pushed for because some jews got doxed by pro-Palestinian activists or whatever.

 

So they’re going to ban doxing, they’re going to ban face masks. What’s Antifa going to do now? Like their whole strategy is kind of fucking! Like they can’t go, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Disguises aren’t banned. You just wear disguises. As long as it’s not like a face covering.

 

Joel Davis: Well, what kind of disguise can you wear that isn’t a face covering?

 

Blair Cottrell: There’s like stockings that change your face, but they’re not really a mask or you could wear. And they don’t even look like you’re wearing a mask.

 

Joel Davis: I think the law might still cover that. I mean, we don’t know the exact legislation right now, but I would anticipate they wouldn’t leave any of those easy loopholes like that.

 

Blair Cottrell: You never know.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, I guess we’ll see. But I think, it’s interesting, Antifa’s gonna have to take the masks off. They can’t dox people anymore. Now you’re gonna be able to start, you’re gonna be able to sue the Left. If they dox you for being a White nationalist or something and try and get you fired from your job, you can go after them now. Media too. So that’s interesting.

 

Blair Cottrell: No one on the Right seems to sue anyone. Well, there’s been a couple of, …

 

Joel Davis: Well, they should we need to try and make use of these laws and because doxing is one of the main weapons the enemy uses to keep people scared, to speak out or even to maintain anonymous accounts or whatever.

 

So there’s been plenty of people over the years that I know of that have been advocates for our way of thinking to some level or degree that have been doxed and they’ve been taken out, wiped off the Internet or had their careers ruined or their lives ruined in one way, shape or form. So that’s interesting. But that’s a little bit, that’s a bit of a separate issue.

 

But the point is that the rules are changing. Yeah, like I’m annoyed at the rules changing, but it isn’t actually the worst set of rule changes. Like we can adapt to these rule changes. It’s not going to stop us.

 

So you know it, all they’re doing is showing their hand. But they’re not really getting a huge win out of this. Like it seems to me to be a misstep where they’re pissing everyone off. I’ve seen the Left is pissed off! Libertarians are pissed off!

 

A lot of people that are kind of more pro-Israel or whatever that are on the conservative side, they’re really struggling to defend this. You know, they look kind of silly at this point because now it’s not just about being pro-Palestine or it’s not just about being pro-this group or that group now. It’s like:

 

“Well, our freedoms!”

 

I thought the whole point of being allied with Israel is that they’re a liberal democracy and the Judeo-Christian values and our rights and freedoms and all this bullshit! Well, they’re just showing that’s all nonsense and doesn’t mean anything.

 

Blair Cottrell: Did you actually think that?

 

Joel Davis: Well, I never thought that, but I’m talking about what conservatives think. I’m saying like the narratives are kind of collapsing to defend the jews from a lot of corners ideologically and they’re losing a lot of support from all corners. You know, when I’ve been making anti, … I’ll go and leave comments on Twitter that’ll be calling out the jews, but they’ll be some anti-Israel comment. And then I see all the likes are all Leftists. Like a lot of Leftists are genuinely like anti-semitic at this point. They aren’t just anti-Israel. Like, I don’t know, The Times are changing. The jews don’t have a lot of friends and they’re rapidly destroying their friendships in a lot of corners. And they’ve just got all this power they’re holding on. They’re kind of ham fisting through the power and influence that they have on the basis of their finances and their elite institutional power. But they’re not doing it very good of selling it. Their optics is terrible, their public relations is terrible!

 

So it’s a perfect environment for us to spread our message against them. So I invite them to make missteps like this to be honest, I’m not. I actually think it’s in a certain way, like it’s a bad thing that they’re doing. Obviously we don’t want these laws, but in a certain way I invite them to do things like this because it’s only proving our point and strengthening our position politically in a certain way.

 

What do you think about that Tom? Do you agree or disagree?

 

[33:31]

 

 

Thomas Sewell: I’ll let Blair go first.

 

Blair Cottrell: I was just thinking maybe in the long run it will create strong sense of dissatisfaction, disloyalty in the general community, or maybe they can downgrade the quality of the people so much that kind of fear Police State will be enough to administer them long term. I just think like in the immediate future having laws against anti-semitism which, it’s quite a vague basis for any set of laws, which leads to the police kicking your door down because of some comment you made on the Internet that’s offensive, racially offensive, whatever, probably isn’t a good thing in the short term.

 

Joel Davis: The anti-vilification laws are concerning. Those are different laws than these ones. But yeah, those are the more concerning ones. Those were going to have to fight hard in the courts.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah it doesn’t feel like there are enough people with the right sort of stuff and legal prowess to actually put up a good fight. But I could be wrong. The Clive Palmers out there might have a building full of lawyers that may be useful for that purpose.

 

But it’s probably about time some people who still believe in protecting Australia dedicate some resources to defending the rights of Australians. I don’t have any power. I’m just sitting down here in the suburbs trying to run my business and doing my best to pay my taxes. I’m not the sort of person that knows lots of lawyers and that has a lot of influence in this field. But I don’t know, hopefully people out there get the message sooner or later.

 

And I’m not seeing any great effort right now in the courts to actually establish, you know, boundaries, freedom of expression for Australians to challenge this legislation that is used to justify hate speech crime and stuff like that. But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe this kind of stuff is just hushed up and I don’t know about it. I’m just saying that I think in the short term all these things can be bad.

 

However, I understand what you’re saying. It’s clear overreach. And it lends to the criticism or observations that we’ve already made and we’re trying to make other people aware of that the jewish people do have a great deal of power in our country. Undue power! How did they get it? Who’s allowing them to have it? And how do we take back power for ourselves and establish a destiny, a future existence for ourselves as Australians. Because right now we don’t seem to have one.

 

Joel Davis: No, exactly! But what you were saying though, there was a lot of coalescence of support around Jacob [Hersant] and his court battles and that’s going up the courts. We don’t expect the lower courts to strike down laws and rule in our favour, but we do expect to have a strong case going up to the Supreme Court and then particularly in the High Court. And the same thing with this anti-vilification legislation. What is key is that the first people that get charged with this stuff, which will probably be our guys in a lot of these situations because they’re going to come for us with these laws, is riding it all the way up to the High Court. And for that we need community support from the nationalist community in general. But not just that, we need to go out beyond that and get libertarians and other adjacent factions that care about defending these rights.

 

Blair Cottrell: Here’s the thought. How long will White Australian cops willingly enforce these laws? Is there always going to be people who are willing to trade the future of their country for a meagre wage? Or eventually are most cops going to fall off and be replaced with Indians, Chinese and so forth?

 

Joel Davis: That’s already happening, isn’t it, because of Covid? I mean a lot of the all the good cops left during Covid and now they’re bringing in foreigners as police. And they’re not just like immigrants, they’re literally recruiting from foreign countries.

 

Blair Cottrell: We’re going to have a significant physical advantage over the police force if it ends up being completely Indian, for example. And so it’s like that’ll be interesting times, that’ll be sporty times.

 

Joel Davis: No, I would definitely like a situation where NSN’s on the streets and we swell up. We’ve got like some better than like bigger numbers and, …

 

Blair Cottrell: We’re the police now!

 

Joel Davis: These cops show up and it’s on. That’d be a funny interaction, if and when it happens. What a juxtaposition.

 

Thomas Sewell: It’ll make more people support us. More White Australian support us. When they see that it’s Indian cops versus the White lads that have to be mask off and maybe have to carry Australian flags and all the other sort of optics cuckery we’re forced into by the State, I think that’s just going to Garner more and more public support. So in a strange kind of accelerationist or anti-accelerationist way, the government is strengthening our position in the eyes of the public. They’re doing all these things in hopes that we give up, but we’re actually not going to give up. We’ve picked this strategy because it’s the most effective at creating that juxtapositional, that shock and awe strategy to wake the public up into action. And over time we’re going to become more and more legitimate. But it’s very hard to create legitimacy when no one puts up any opposition. And if they do put up opposition, it’s so tame that it doesn’t even get any attention.

 

[39:01]

 

So you have to get the people’s attention first. I’m not saying you get attention and then you start mellowing out your message. You maintain a strong message and everyone knows what you’re about. And most people have a decent memory. Even if they get confused by the current thing every two weeks, they still have a decent memory as to:

 

“Well, those are the racists!”

 

And we’re normalizing racism, we’re normalizing White nationalism and White people are overall getting to the point where they’re just upset with how the state of the country is.

 

And then they’re about to have Christmas and they want to just relax and wind down and celebrate. And it’s a spiritual and it’s a cultural time of year for White people and they turn on the news and it’s just jews complaining that there’s not enough laws against people that hate them.

 

And as a White person, you’re watching that and you’re just like:

 

“When are these jews going to shut up? Are they ever going to be happy?”

 

And then you hear that more money is going to them and we’re in a cost of living crisis. And if you’ve been paying attention, you know that they already get hundreds of millions of dollars a year for their so-called “security”, which they funnel into their fake security companies that they launder money back into the synagogue and probably do all sorts of dubious things with it once they’ve got it there.

 

And on top of that it goes into CSG [Community Security Group] here in Victoria, which is a Mossad front group which is funded by the Australian taxpayer and the Victorian taxpayer. So on top of that, the way that the politicians are handling it is the worst possible way to handle it. I guess they’re just not equipped with any sort of nuance. But I personally am sick, and I say this almost every stream with you guys when you put a politician up like the video up. And my initial instinct or reaction was I feel like I’m in primary school! Like listening to this Jacinta Allan:

 

“We do not do anti-semitism!”

 

[Blair putting in some eye drops] What’s going on there? Clear us. You’re right, Blair? We’re back.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yes. My eyes get a bit dry. But while I’m interjecting, don’t you agree though that it’s like the jewish version of rioting. I said this to Joel the other day. The jewish response to the synagogue fire is like the jewish version of a riot. It’s not physical. It’s like complaining:

 

“Give us money, give us rights, give us more laws!”

 

Joel Davis: Because they’re a feminine race, passive aggressive response.

 

Blair Cottrell: If the government could learn, see the way the Assyrians reacted to a terror attack against Bishop Murray, the Christian Assyrians they physically rioted. And the government’s response to that was:

 

“No tolerance!”

 

They arrested the Christians and made a strong effort to demonstrate themselves, you know, controlling the situation, containing the situation:

 

“This riot’s not acceptable!”

 

Why doesn’t the government take the same position towards the jewish version of rioting, which is just, as I said, kvetching.

 

Thomas Sewell: Because they’re all just a bunch of primary school teachers. These politicians aren’t leaders, they’re just primary school teachers. And they just lecture the public the way a primary school teacher lectures a small child. Like:

 

“We do not do anti-semitism, we do not do anti-semitism!”

 

I mean, who are they talking to?

 

And then the other thing that I noticed was the it’s a little bit of a will to power, to be honest, to give them a bit of fairness. Not that they deserve it, but they haven’t passed these laws yet. But they always speak as if they’ve already passed them or that they’re going to pass.

 

So they’re saying:

 

“We’re going to, …”

 

Well, that’s technically not correct. Not to sound like a conservative, but you’re going to “try to change the law”. That’s what they’re planning on doing. You’re going to try. What the accurate statement would be is:

 

“We’re going to try to change the law to strengthen these religious vilification laws.”

 

But they didn’t say that, they said:

 

“We’re going to change the law.”

 

So although it’s got a bit of a will to power and there’s a bit of strength to that, it’s the only strength they really portray is when jews are under attack. All of a sudden the government are very strong. But the problem is that that might work on some people, but the average Joe wants to at least pretend that we live in a democracy. And when that is no longer the tone at which they’re being spoken to by their leaders, they’re not going to be looking for Democratic or liberal means to counter the way that the centre Left is speaking to them. They’re going to be looking for a slightly more authoritarian tone amongst the centre Right, which I guess goes into our next point, doesn’t it Joel?

 

The self implosion of One Nation. [chuckling] Where the centre is going now is in two places. You know, the Left are just doubling down and the Right doesn’t know what to do and doesn’t have any representation within The Liberal Party or Labor Party or One Nation for that matter. And they’re absolutely begging now for a semi-authoritarian centre Right, that has that same kind of tone. Because there has to be a balancing. There has to be this harmony, for politics to survive as a democracy, there has to be equal weights on either side of the centre. And otherwise it keeps tipping one way until the Left take total state power and just tell you what’s going on. They don’t even consult.

 

[44:33]

 

 

Joel Davis: But we talked about on the show last.

 

Thomas Sewell: Do you want to move on to the next subject or was there more?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, I’ll bring it in. But I’m just going to reiterate what we were talking about last week. I don’t know if I use the term “Bitchocracy”. It’s like, whoever bitches the hardest rules. But I use the term like that. And I was describing how like Anthony Albanese, when he gave your statements last week, he was like:

 

“Jews need to feel safe!”

 

And I was like, politicians didn’t used to talk like this, even back in the 2000s, where they talk about “feelings” like it’s a total like, feminisation of the language. Like you said, when you use the analogy of the primary school, that’s basically the level that public discourse is at now.

 

But it’s obviously very effective because when you move the discussion into feelings, then you don’t actually need to like, back it up with any kind of fairness or facts or whatever. It’s just like, I think I made the analogy on Twitter. Like, our relationship with the jews is like a shitty marriage where nothing you do is ever good enough and nothing they do you can never like, bring up. Otherwise you’re mean and you’re making them feel horrible and so on and so that’s what the jews want. They want to classify all criticism of their behaviour as “anti-semitism”. No criticism of jewish behaviour is tolerated, full stop, end of discussion!

 

But at the same time, they want to then dictate policy. They want to basically run society. How can you be in charge but then at the same time also demand zero criticism? And then play the victim, like:

 

“Oh, like, I can’t believe you would say that. That’s just like another ‘Holocaust’!”

 

You know, it’s ridiculous! But that’s literally the situation that we’re in, and that’s fundamentally unstable. Like, yeah, they’re trying to brute force it, but ultimately you need to rule with carrots and sticks.

 

And at the moment it’s all stick and no carrot. And jews don’t know how to rule. Just it’s like having a single mom. Single moms don’t know how to raise young boys because they don’t understand how to, they don’t have that innate ability basically to know when to basically go hard and when to go soft. If you are just constantly, when you’re raising a child, I mean, I’m not a father, but this is obviously true. If you’re just constantly super strict and just like being like:

 

“Don’t do this, don’t do that!”

 

And constantly like bitching and moaning and everything that they do, they’re not going to take any of it that seriously because it’s no matter what they do, you’re just reacting in the same way. And it’s really more, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Dogs are the same. If you keep giving dogs incessant stupid commands, they stop listening to anything.

 

Joel Davis: Frivolous. They don’t take you seriously.

 

If you want to instil fear in a population, you wait until you’re very upset about something. You have your red lines and then you get really angry! But otherwise you’re chill. And that’s how you, that’s how people respect your rules. Because they know, like, okay, those are the red lines, they’re very clear.

 

But this is the complete opposite. In our society today, all the lines are ambiguous. All these new laws that they’re bringing in, they have all these ambiguous definitions. There’s all these double standards and triple standards based upon feelings:

 

“Well, if this group does it, it makes this group of people feel upset and they’re victims for this reason. And so we have to care about this, but when the roles are reversed or like, …”

 

It’s just retarded! So there’s no legitimacy or coherence to any of this. All they’re going to do is push people into more sympathy to our position when we call it out.

 

But I will say:

 

Secondarily, the main reason why the Left is winning and the conservatives are losing in general., … The jewish issue is different. On the jewish issue, the conservatives are even deeper up the arsehole of the jews than the Left, frankly. The jews completely just own the conservative movement. It’s grotesque! But on every other issue, on these issues of free speech and political correctness and wokeness and anti-White double standards and so on the conservative attitude is always, … Because in politics you got a Left-wing position, a Right-wing position, and everything that happens is centrism. You never get what the far-Left and the far-Right want, never actually happens. Within a democracy, everything that happens is always, is always basically at the centre, in perpetuity.

 

Now what Left-wingers do is they run away from the centre towards the most radical Left-wing position they can possibly go for. And what that does is it then stretches the Overton Window and then the centre then shifts towards the Left. What Right-wingers do is go, hey, or conservatives, I should say is:

 

“Oh, hey, the centre always wins. So let’s go and jump in the centre and occupy the centre and be like, we’re the reasonable people in the centre. We’re not like these fringe lunatics. And then we’ll win because the centre always wins.”

 

[49:42]

 

But what they do by jumping in the centre is they then push the centre away from them, in between them and wherever the Left is. And so when you chase the centre, you’re constantly chasing the centre and you’ll never grab it because you’re constantly pushing it away from yourself while you chase after it. You have to run away from the centre to drag it in your direction. That’s the basic mechanics of a liberal democracy.

 

And this is why they always lose. Even if they win, conservatives win most elections. Like Liberal Party was just in power for like a decade. There was a brief period where you had like Rudd and Gillard for a few years. Then you had Howard in charge for ages. If you go through Australian history, the conservatives pretty much are always in power. The Left barely gets power. But when the Left gets power, they completely change the entire country, initiate all these new reforms, and then the next conservatives are getting in, basically have the same policies and just like entrench them.

 

So even though the Right wins elections, the Left always wins on the issues, all the big issues. Unless it’s the jews. Then when it comes to the jews, then that goes out the window. Right?

 

But I want to bring the reason why I articulate that because I want to bring up this story. So we talked about Parminder Singh on the show last week, who is a Sikh guy who can’t speak English properly. Yeah, he speaks with this broken English. And he’s being run for the Upper House in the upcoming Western Australian election by One Nation. And a Twitter account popped up a few days ago just after I wrote my opinion piece in The Noticer, which by the way, go check it out. It’s called One Nation Goes Full Retard. [https://www.noticer.news/one-nation-goes-full-retard/] I articulated basically the state of things with the Parminder Singh issue earlier in the week, but now all this new stuff has come to light.

 

 

So this page dropped called Parminder Singh One Nation Exposed. This guy says he’s a disgruntled former One Nation candidate and member with direct information over the coming days on Rod Caddies, who is the leader of One Nation in Western Australia and Parminder Singh.

 

Now, what he exposed was this. Well, one of the things he exposed. So Parminder Singh has a company called Punjabi Properties, and you can see on the back of these shirts, which are official One Nation merchandise. Punjabi Properties is displayed all across the back of these shirts. So, like what? One Nation is now sponsored by Punjabi Properties? This is all happening while Pauline Hanson is posting about how we’ve got to end foreign ownership and immigration is too high and all this kind of stuff. Yes, he’s posting here about how Rod Caddies is blocking everyone. He blocked me. He’s blocking all of everyone who’s asking questions. He’s not going to take accountability for his actions.

 

Blair Cottrell: Who is Rod Caddies?

 

Joel Davis: The guy who runs One Nation in Western Australia.

 

Blair Cottrell: Right.

 

Joel Davis: He put up a video. I think maybe he put up the video actually, after we did it on the show last week. I’ll pull up that video soon. And in that video, he basically wheeled this Parminder guy out to explain that he agreed. No, he agrees with all of Pauline Hanson’s policies, even though we’ve got him on record saying the exact opposite, even as like earlier this year on his Facebook account.

 

And also he ran for office. When he ran for office in local government, I believe Canberra, which level of government it was. When he ran without the One Nation endorsement, one of his policies was “repopulating rural areas with immigrants”. His policy was to bring immigrants into country towns to help build up their population. That doesn’t sound like anti-immigration to me. It sounds like the exact opposite. And he actually reiterated that statement on his Facebook account in his customary tortured, broken English with terrible grammar. It barely makes sense, but you could at least get that’s what he was saying. He also defended the student visa thing, saying:

 

“Oh, well, if we don’t bring students in on student visas, how are universities going to make money?”

 

And when he was talking to What’s News on a video that we watched in the show last week on a phone interview, he was like:

 

“Oh, Indian immigrants are good because they bring money into Australia.”

 

And he even made the point that:

 

“Oh, well, White Australians they don’t want to work hard enough. They don’t want to work on weekends, they don’t want to work 80 to 100 hour weeks. They expect to be paid over $30 an hour.”

 

And this is why they, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Need to give this perspective. He actually did say that? He said he thinks Australians are lazy because they won’t work 100 hours a week. 100 hours a week is over 14 hours per day, every day of the week. That’s the idea of a normal working week for this dude who’s running now Western Australia, in One Nation as a candidate.

 

[54:22]

 

 

Joel Davis: This is like the slave mentality of Indians. This is why the globalists, the big business, the jews, that’s why they want to bring Indians into, or one of the reasons why they want to bring them in. I mean, for some groups like far-Left and the jews, they just want to replace us out of like racial animus towards the White race. But from a business standpoint, one of the reasons they want to bring it in, and from a political standpoint is because they’re a slave race.

 

You know, every time I’ve had a conversation, unfortunately in my life, when I’ve been subjected to Indians through my employment, whenever I’ve had the misfortune of having to make small talk with them, all they talk about is how to make money and how to spend money. That’s literally the substance of everything that they want to talk about every single time! They have purely economic mindset, like, of a slave. They don’t have like a sense of freedom, a sense of like higher spirituality or any of these things that White people have. A sense of high dignity or honour or any of these things. And so that makes them easier to rule.

 

That’s why we could show up to India during the British Empire with, 200,000 Anglos and run their whole continent of like hundreds of millions of slave browns. And we did it for hundreds of years and it was easy, because they’re a pathetic race. And this is why they want to bring them in because they’ll accept shitty conditions and they’ll work long hours and they’ll work three different jobs because all they care about is money and the quality of life in India sucks! It’s still better than back home and this is great for big business, but it’s depressing your wages and destroying your quality of life. And that’s the whole point of voting One Nation right? They’re the one party that’s going to shut down the borders and stop this shit! But now they’re running this guy.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s exactly why the financial sector lobbies the major parties to bring in as many Indians as possible because they’ll live in little Jeet boxes, as Joel calls them. They’ll work for less and they’ll work longer hours. And all big business cares about is people working more for less.

 

Obviously the quality of the goods being produced isn’t going to be as good, but they don’t care about that. People are going to still have to buy it if they’re the only ones offering it.

 

So, yeah, it is all just about replacing the Australian working class with a more manageable slave race. I’ve been saying that for years, actually. What do you think Tom? Do you think they have souls? Do you think Indians have souls?

 

Thomas Sewell: I do.

 

Joel Davis: We’re going deep here.

 

Thomas Sewell: I do. But I believe that souls aren’t really a binary. I believe that they’re a spectrum. So I believe dogs have souls. So of course Indians would have them as well, but they’re just not very large, they’re not very high. Yeah, they’ve got a very mediocre soul. There would be maybe one in a million that would have a very high soul, like a high Aryan soul. White people have huge potential in their soul, but they don’t use it. White people are like the stereotype of the talented person that never uses what they have. White people don’t, …

 

Blair Cottrell: They’re just capable of so much, … Has Tom cut out or have I cut out?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, Tom’s frozen up for me.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, he’ll be back.

 

Joel Davis: His connection was a little bit dodgy before. Hopefully he gets it sorted. While we’re waiting for him to figure that out. Oh, you’re back Tom?

 

Blair Cottrell: I like hearing these takes, though. I like hearing these deep esoterics.

 

Joel Davis: He still seems kind of frozen up there.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. Am I back? Can you hear me?

 

Joel Davis: You’re back.

 

Thomas Sewell: We’re in the first world country of Australia. I pay the top rate for the Internet.

 

Blair Cottrell: Apparently the NBN maintenance crew is Indian now as well.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, I think One Nation has been taking tips or the NBN have been taking tips from One Nation on their hiring policies. You know, they got the $25 an hour Jeets doing maintenance.

 

Anyway, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Infrastructure will fall apart in our lifetime. I guarantee everyone that.

 

I mean, I have friends in South Africa and they tell me that you may as well live rurally as long as you’re protected. Because in the cities there’s just constant blackouts. There’s just constant infrastructure issues. Yeah. With what Elon Musk is doing with the Starlink, it doesn’t matter whether you’re rural or in the city anymore.

 

So the infrastructure is garbage! I can’t believe how much the Internet drops out. But back on topic, prior to your question about whether Indians have souls or not, just the blatant, it’s like some strange form of corruption I’ve never personally seen., …

 

Blair Cottrell: He’s gone again. That’s really frustrating. He was going to say something good. He was about to say, …

 

Joel Davis: He was cucking. Yeah. It’s annoying.

 

Thomas Sewell: This is a pain in the ass.

 

Joel Davis: Be back.

 

Thomas Sewell: What an absolute pain in the ass.

 

Joel Davis: I don’t know.

 

Thomas Sewell: I’m gonna drop off. I’ll just make my last point. But the Internet is just intolerable and you guys are all blurry for me. I thought it was your Internet’s playing up. And I was like, sweet, my Internet’s fine. And then I clicked on the stream. I was like:

 

“Oh, it’s actually me!”

 

Joel Davis: I’m gonna blame ZOG.

 

Thomas Sewell: It’s just excellent! It’s excellent to see that One Nation. This won’t be forgiven. Especially in WA [West Australia]. It might be forgiven in the rest of the country because Noticer News is not Sky News yet, but one day it will be.

 

Thomas Sewell: But in WA, this is not going to be forgiven. And it’s good to see that it even led to or impacted or pressured the one sitting MP or Senator to actually drop off. I don’t know if that’s been covered on the stream yet, but I saw that recently as well.

 

[1:00:26]

 

 

Joel Davis: No, I was gonna bring that up Yeah. Is he gone again?

 

Blair Cottrell: Seems that way.

 

Joel Davis: The elusive Sewell. Yeah, I think ZOG have taken him out. You’ve taken out our boy. We’re gonna have to ride this one, the two of us.

 

Blair Cottrell: We have to keep marching forward, guys! We have to keep going. There’s going to be casualties.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, well, yeah, we’ve got to keep moving forward.

 

So I’m going to go through. I’m going to like unpack all the details to fill everybody in on some of the updates to the Parmindergate, if you will, and then we’ll do some analysis.

 

So this flyer came out. So there was a video which I will pull up in a second. And in the video Parminder Singh was Rod Caddie’s, the guy who runs One Nation WA, he got Parminder Singh on and said:

 

“There’s a lot of people online that are spreading all this misinformation saying that Parminder Singh is pro-immigration. And I’ve got him here to say that no, he’s not got those views.”

 

And basically Parminder Singh just more or less said:

 

“I read all the One Nation policies on Pauline Hanson’s website and I agree with the policies.”

 

He didn’t actually like articulate anything specific about him agreeing with those policies or why he agrees with those policies, which kind of gives itself to the accusation that he’s a grifter, basically. That he’s identified One Nation as the biggest party that is stupid enough to give him the nomination.

 

Because if he tried to rock up to the Liberals or whatever and throw around his curry shop money, it wouldn’t go very far. The Liberals are getting that big like jew money coming in from the property developer jews and the banks and all the rest of it. So they wouldn’t be interested. He doesn’t have that kind of high roller money.

 

If he went to the Labor Party. Well, the Labor Party they would run Indians, but they’ll run Indians that can speak English properly, that have been to university. They’re actually a serious professional political outfit to a degree.

 

And so I don’t know how big the Greens are at WA but again, they’re going to run people that actually are ideologically competent. This guy can barely string three sentences together that make any sense. Like he has like a really superficial understanding. He’s probably got like an 80, 80 to 85 IQ. Like he’s not smart, he’s not well educated, he’s not a good speaker. And so anyway, the next option then is One Nation. That’s the fourth biggest party. And he’s obviously bought his way in. There’s a it’s alleged that he made a twenty thousand dollar donation which sounds like nothing. If that’s all it costs to buy your way into One Nation maybe we should try and like do a GoFundMe to like buy the nomination for Blair or something! [chuckling] Because we could crowdfund that from you guys in like two days.

 

Blair Cottrell: No, they wouldn’t take it. They’re too concerned about optics to take me.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, they’re too concerned about optics to take you. A well spoken White Australian that people actually like that’s actually a nationalist, but they will take some fat hairy Sikh that can barely speak English correctly and can barely articulate what policies he supports.

 

Anyway, he put out this document here. It says down the bottom authorized by Parminder Singh.

 

 

So this is put out on behalf of One Nation from his office and it says here:

 

“We want One Nation not a divided nation.”

 

And the key beliefs:

 

“Key belief one, support for immigrants.”

 

You know, immigrants are great basically:

 

“Key belief two, balanced immigration. One Nation is not anti-immigration but we recognise allowing too many people in too quickly constrained services.”

 

This is a really big watering down of One Nation’s policies from:

 

“Immigration is causing a housing crisis. We need to cut it down to Net Zero.”

 

Like when Pauline first got elected to Parliament she gave a speech saying:

 

“We’re in danger of getting flooded by Asians. We’re losing our culture.”

 

Now look at One Nation. They’re being cucked by some curry shop owner. Apparently as well, it says here:

 

“All the One Nation WA merchandise at events had a logo on the back that said Punjabi Properties. The logo is bigger than the One Nation logo. Ask anyone who attended the event in Mandurah November 9th. And the food at the event was curry supplied by Parminder Singh’s curry company or restaurant.”

 

 

So you go down to the One Nation rally. Look at all these White Boomers. They’re going down to the One Nation rally because you know there’s too many immigrants coming into this country and they want something done about it. And they get given their One Nation shirt with Punjabi Properties on the back and served curry!

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s [chuckling] bad!

 

Joel Davis: And then some fat Sikh gets up there and speaks in broken English and doesn’t even understand the policies of the party that he’s joined. That’s the state of One Nation! That’s the state of One Nation. I mean like it’s bad!

 

Blair Cottrell: Sad!

 

 

Joel Davis: This is levels of cuckservatism previously not thought possible. I mean it’s not even competent cuckservatism. It’s just embarrassing. What I said on my opinion piece was its actually more respectable if they were paid off to run this guy. It was purely a financial decision. If they thought this was a good idea on any metric, that’s actually more embarrassing than just being like shills. In my opinion, that’s how bad this guy is.

 

[1:06:03]

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, I was just going to ask you a question. Do you think they’re foreseeing an increase in the Indian population and they want a piece of that they can see that a lot of that’s going to go towards either Liberal or Labor and the strategy is:

 

“We need a piece of the Indian voting bloc that’s going to be set up in Australia.”

 

Already is being set up in Australia by the other parties. Has it got something to do with that. What do you think?

 

Joel Davis: It can’t be for the Indian voting block. They’re not that significant of a voting block. And the reality is, I mean we’ve done, …

 

Blair Cottrell: I don’t know man, there’s a lot of Indians in India. How many Indians are in India?

 

Joel Davis: But I’m talking about here.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, but they’re going to keep coming in. There’s going to be hundreds of thousands every few months. It’s going to end up being millions.

 

Joel Davis: One Nation’s supposed to be stopping them from coming in. Isn’t that the whole, …!

 

Blair Cottrell: They’re not! They must be thinking:

 

“Well they’re going to come anyway, we might capitalise on it anyway.”

 

Joel Davis: The majority of Indians, … They have done the studies. They vote Labor and then Labor are going and making deals saying:

 

“We’re going to bring in shitloads of Indians and we love Indians!”

 

And then Liberals come out and say:

 

“We love Indians just as much as Labor, actually!”

 

And they’re going and making deals with the Indians and so on.

 

So why is One Nation? Is it really think that it’s going to convince the Indian community:

 

“Hey, we’re the anti-immigration party that everyone calls racist and everyone in the party, everyone who votes for us are all like one White bogans.”

 

Or whatever according to the common, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Just trying to make sense of it.

 

Joel Davis: Vote for us instead! Like we’ve done the studies, we’ve gone through them on the show. Like the majority of Australians want immigration cut. They want immigration lowered, and they don’t have anyone to vote for basically except One Nation to do that.

 

So One Nation, if they sell themselves as the anti-immigration party. Well yeah, okay, Indians are coming in but over fucking 70% of voters are White! So selling “keep the Indians out to White voters” and WA has got a higher than 70% White ratio. I think it’s like almost 80% White. So trying to sell an anti-immigration message to White voters, people that actually vote for you, do you think that should be the priority? Not trying to market yourself to the 4% of the population that’s Indian that’s already voting for your political enemies that don’t like your policies anyway. That’s just fucking retarded politics! Like, it’s insane!

 

This is what I was saying before about like conservatives running to the centre to try and occupy the centre, but the centre escapes them. Like One Nation’s job is to run away from the centre and to stretch the discourse out, force the Liberals to justify themselves. Like the Liberals right now, the majority of Liberal voters want immigration cut, but the Liberals are avoiding the issue.

 

One Nation, if they did a proper anti-immigration campaign and sold themselves the true Right-wing party that’s going to shut down the borders, they’d get shitloads of votes that’d be very popular. But no, they want to try and prove how not racist they are by running some fat Indian. And he was the guy, by the way, we talked about on the show when Pauline went to the Sikh temple over in Perth. It was this guy’s Sikh temple. He organised all that. Pauline in that head scarf, turban thing.

 

Blair Cottrell: He must have given him more than 20 grand. It must have been more than 20 grand! He must have given him something else.

 

Joel Davis: I hope so, because it’s embarrassing, man! It’s embarrassing!

 

Blair Cottrell: It seems like he’s bought out the whole party. That’s what it seems like.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. In WA at least. And people were saying:

 

“Oh, it’s not Pauline’s fault because it’s the WA wing of the party and they don’t control it.”

 

But it’s like that’s bullshit! She controls it.

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s her party. She’s ultimately in charge of everything that happens. She should just pull the pin on him. She should just pull the pin on him and say:

 

“Get rid of this guy. What’s he talking shit for about wanting more Indians? We’re against that. People are voting for us because we’re against that. Get rid of this guy!”

 

Why can’t you do that, Pauline? That’s what everyone’s waiting for.

 

Joel Davis: The party’s literally called Pauline Hanson’s One Nation. Like her name’s in the name of the party. Like, you know what I mean?

 

Anyway, I’ll pull this video up for everyone’s viewing benefit. This is what I was describing before. This is that Rod Caddies joke who runs WA One Nation. A lot of nationalists have spoken to me privately, by the way, who were involved in Western Australian One Nation and they hate this guy. Like, this guy and others involved have been advocating for moderating and cucking for years. And alienating a lot of the true nationalists in the party over there. Cucking to the Aboriginals, now cucking to the jeets. I mean it’s embarrassing! But anyway, I’ll play this for everyone’s benefit.

 

 

Rod Caddies: Hey guys, just wanted to jump on here and have a chat with Parminder. I mean there’s been a few things put around on social media lately about immigration and how Parminder wants to flood our country with Indians and I know for a fact that’s not true, but I wanted to show you guys and let you have a listen to Parminder for himself and where he stands with One Nation and immigration.

Parminder: So hi everyone. Before I joined the One Nation party, I read the all policies, whatever the Pauline stand for and I fully support the Net Zero the immigration policy. And if some people lucky enough to come here, I request all those people that respect the Australian culture, Australian values and Australian constitution. And the English is my third language. So and I try to make a videos, that’s why it’s a little bit like I think in my own language first, then I speak in English. So that’s why it’s bit slow. So I [word unclear] One Nation policies.

Rod Caddies: So there you have it.

 

[1:11:50]

 

Blair Cottrell: Wow! I mean he just said something I’ve always said and it’s something. Hang on one minute, I’ve got music playing and I shouldn’t have music playing, stupid. I’ve always said that you’ve got to be careful when dealing with foreign people because even though they may learn your language and churn out sentences in some form of your language, they’re thinking in their own language and they have words and phrases for things that we don’t even conceptualise often, especially if they come from a more mercantile, ruthless kind of society and culture. So he just basically admitted that in that video. He’s like:

 

“I’m thinking in my own language but then I’m speaking in yours. So what I’m actually thinking, who knows? You’ve just got to trust me guys!”

 

That’s [chuckling] pretty heavy stuff.

 

Joel Davis: The excuse that he used is that he’s incapable of articulating his true beliefs correctly because he can’t speak English properly. How does that qualify you to be a politician in Australia if you’re incapable of articulating yourself correctly in the language that Australians speak? That’s immediately disqualifying, immediately! Like it’s ridiculous!

 

But secondarily what he said there, like the grammar’s horrible, like “I supported the Pauline” and so on, like it’s embarrassing! But as he was describing, he’s like:

 

“I fully support the policies of One Nation.”

 

Now we’ve got all of these statements that he’s made that are contrary to those policies on immigration. So he’s changed his mind. Doesn’t he owe us an explanation for why he changed his mind? Because he’s acting like, as if, it’s not like he’s always had these views. He’s just signed up to this party that has different policies than what he’s advocated before in his public statements and his previous attempts at being an independent politician. So you would owe us an explanation for why you changed your mind and why we can trust you now.

 

But instead, what this was just like, wheel him out, say he agrees, tell everyone to shut up, gaslight everyone, and then just block everyone on Twitter that’s saying the opposite. I mean, absolute PR disaster for One Nation! Good work to all the boys putting pressure on. I tried to do my bit to force this kind of reaction. And then what we saw today, and, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Absolutely! And that video, let me interject quickly, is a direct response to the pressure you guys have been putting on these people. So it goes to show how influential we are as a community. They have to play ball with us because we are the people who vote for One Nation. We used to be anyway, people watching this video, that was supposed to be the Nationalist Party. So good effort for everyone or good effort by everyone putting the pressure on as a result of this stupid decision.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, I see a Superchat from Ukrainian groiper saying, “Naan Nation”*. That’s pretty funny.

 

[* Naan (Asian flatbread) Naan is a leavened, oven-baked or tawa-fried flatbread, that can also be baked in a tandoor. It is characterised by a light and fluffy texture and golden-brown spots from the baking process. Naan is found in the cuisines of Iran, Central Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Caribbean. Composed of White or wheat flour and combined with a leavening agent, typically yeast, naan dough develops air pockets that contribute to its fluffy and soft texture.]

 

But anyway, so this is the article in The Noticer just dropped just before we went live:

 

“Western Australia’s only One Nation MP suddenly quits the party.”

 

This is Ben Dawkins. He presumably joined the One Nation party to keep the likes of Parminder out of the country. Like that’s the whole point of One Nation. It’s an anti-immigration party.

 

 

https://www.noticer.news/ben-Dawkins-quits-one-nation-western-Australia/

 

Anyway:

 

“He’s been a member for the southwest region since March 2023 and is according to The Noticer, pro-freedom and anti-woke. He formally tended his resignation from Pauline Hanson’s party on Tuesday, saying on Thursday that he made the decision ‘reluctantly’. His resignation comes amid controversy over One Nation selection of Sikh businessman Parminder Singh as the third Upper House candidate in Western Australia due to his support for mass immigration from India.”

 

And this is like the original video. By the way. Go check out this article on the Noticer dot News. It’s the number one article at the moment because he just got put out.

 

And then you can watch this video by What’s News here where he interviews Parminder Singh on the phone and you can hear for yourself of what he said. The quotes here from Mr. Dawkins:

 

“I hold Pauline Hanson in high regard as a courageous advocate for everyday Australians. Indeed, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation should be the party with the guts to say what you’re thinking. As an independent candidate, I will continue to have the courage to speak for those who feel unheard.”

 

Blah, blah, blah. Who’s obviously amicably leaving the party. But the fact that he’s decided to quit right now, I mean, what other reason could it possibly be? Surely he’s quitting because of this. Surely this is the final straw. What do you think Blair?

 

Blair Cottrell: All we can do is speculate about that. I’m sure I don’t know the man, I can’t speak to his motivations.

 

[1:16:26]

 

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. Someone says here:

 

“Joel, with all due respect, this is like saying that a dog owes us an explanation for chewing issues. He’s a fresh off the boat jeet. There isn’t any explanation. He couldn’t articulate one in English regardless.”

 

Well, yeah, I mean, what I was articulating.

 

Blair Cottrell: We don’t care about his explanation. We want an explanation from Pauline Hanson. What’s going on with the party?

 

Joel Davis: Yes.

 

Blair Cottrell: They’re supposed to represent the Australian people. That’s what we’re waiting for.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, like how are you going to keep immigrants out of Australia if you can’t even keep them out of your own party? I mean, it’s pretty basic.

 

But keep the pressure up, all of you on Twitter. Every time Pauline Hanson tweets, Malcolm Roberts tweets, any of these other One Nation accounts from anywhere in the country, get in the replies, post the links to all this stuff, keep the pressure up, keep asking the question and just keep making it a nuisance for them because they need to, as you said, they owe us an explanation. We are nationalism in this country. You need to explain yourself to us!

 

I saw some rumours coming out that the Libertarian Party’s immigration platform is not going to be too crash hot. Then I asked some people that I knew in those circles and they said:

 

“No, actually it’s going to be better than he says.”

 

Or whatever. I said:

 

“You guys have to get your immigration policy together and you need to come out and you need to explain to us nationalists why it’s better than One Nation’s.”

 

And they said:

 

“Yeah, we’re going to do that.”

 

So we’ll see if they cuck or don’t cuck. We’ll cover it live. We’ll break it down. Will they end up bringing out a policy better than one nations? I don’t know. I’m sceptical. They’ve got elements in the party that seem not to care as much about immigration as an issue as others. We will see who wins out. We’ll see when the formal policy comes, comes forward.

 

But you know, One Nation’s in danger here. If the Libertarians put out a good immigration policy that’s better than theirs, they’re going to steal their votes off them and deservedly. So and if the Libertarians don’t put out a good immigration policy, I’m not going to advocate for voting for One Nation while they’re running these jeets. There’s no fucking way, there’s no fucking way! I’m going to be telling all of our audience to not vote. If our vote has to be earned. And at the moment, none of these Jokers are earning it. Like, none of them are taking this issue, even like a quarter of percent seriously compared to what they should be taking it. This is an existential issue. Our nation is being destroyed. And it’s also the number one issue destroying the average Australian’s quality of life. The housing crisis, wage stagnation, et cetera. Immigration is being rammed down the throat of this country by big business interests, big corporate interests, big finance interests, so that they can keep making ridiculous profits while in an economy that’s faltering. We’ve been in a per capita recession every quarter for the last, you know, two years basically. Australia’s fucking! Everything is getting worse on every level and immigration is the reason why.

 

So the average Joe on the street definitely wants the border shut down, definitely wants something done.

 

Blair Cottrell: What about those people who are saying:

 

“No, it’s not immigration, it’s landlords putting up property prices. It’s capitalism, it’s greedy capitalists, that’s what’s destroying Australia!”

 

How do you respond to that? It’s not immigrants, it’s capitalists!

 

Joel Davis: Well, the way that I would respond to that is simple.

 

Number one, these big capitalist lobby groups, like the property developer lobby, the finance lobby, the big corporate industry lobbies, they ask the government, they fund the political campaigns of the major parties and they demand higher immigration. Their public representatives that they pay to come and advocate for their interests want more immigration.

 

So when they say it’s not immigration, it’s the capitalists, it’s like, well the big capitalists are the ones that are deciding that they want the immigration. So you can’t actually divide the two things from one another. This is ridiculous! Like the capitalists are telling us immigration is good for them, so it must be good for them.

 

And if you have a Marxist worldview where you believe that the capitalists make profits under the exploitation of the working class, well everything the capitalists do driven by that profit motive must be to exploit the working class, including the fact that they’re pumping all this money into politics to keep immigration high, against the public will. Because it’s not the Democratic will. We’ve seen the polls, we’ve gone through them on the show every time they do one, every time they do a poll on immigration is wildly unpopular. So liberal and Labor don’t have the immigration policies they do because of what their voters want. They have it because it’s what their donors want. And their donors are the big capitalists. So it’s just a complete non-starter of an argument.

 

Blair Cottrell: Would it be fair to say that shutting down discussion on immigration on the grounds that it’s “racist” is protecting the profits of the capitalists?

 

Joel Davis: Absolutely! 100%! It’s not even in question.

 

Blair Cottrell: That really throws a spanner in the works, doesn’t it? I wonder what came first, the chicken or the egg? Did the capitalists dream up this whole anti-racist movement and use it to usher in this new slave class that’s going to live in smaller spaces, work long hours and for less, like for lower wages? Or have they just kind of adjusted themselves to that culture that already established itself as a result of subversion? I would lean towards the second scenario.

 

[1:22:10]

 

Joel Davis: I think it almost doesn’t really matter! What matters from our standpoint is going to Leftists and saying:

 

“You claim to be against capitalism, yet the social values that you put forward are the social values of the big capitalists.”

 

The big capitalists are fine with gay marriage and they support transgenderism and they support mass immigration and all the rest of it. They support political correctness, they support wokeness.

 

So if they support all of those things, clearly all of those things are compatible with capitalism. Clearly all of those things are beneficial to capitalist power. Otherwise why would they support them? And we can actually explain why they benefit from capitalist power. Because what those things do is they destroy the fabric of the nation, they destroy national loyalty, they destroy patriotism.

 

And that’s why Leftists attacked them. Because Leftists decided after World War II that, well, probably earlier, but they particularly decided this after World War II, that nationalism was their main enemy. Nationalism, National Socialism, fascism, that whole suite of ideas, that’s their main enemy. And that was more important, fighting that was more important to them than advocating for the working class.

 

In fact, a lot of Leftist theorists said:

 

“Well, the White working class betrayed us because they supported National Socialism and fascism. So fuck the White working class! We’re going to replace them with a brown and black working class and a gay working class and so on, that will support communism.”

 

So they made the decision that destroying nationalism was more important than destroying capitalism. And capitalists then looked at the world and said:

 

“You know what? The biggest threat to us actually isn’t communism, its nationalism.”

 

And you can see that in World War II. Because in World War II the Liberal capitalist West allied with the Soviet Union to destroy National Socialist Germany. So clearly they made a decision then that they were more threatened by National Socialism than Communism, otherwise they wouldn’t have allied with one against the other. That’s just a brute fact of history that communists and Leftists cannot argue away. That’s reality.

 

[Capitalism and Communism are both jewish systems so their co-operation, both overtly or covertly, is natural-K]

 

Then they then set upon systematically funding and supporting the destruction of nationalism and anything approximating nationalism in every Western country under their control.

 

So why would capitalists want to do this? Well, nationalism is the greatest threat to an international market system because nationalists, when they come to power and they take over the government, they go and look at what’s happening in international markets and they say:

 

“Well, hey, wait a second, this capitalist over here is making a profit at the expense of my nation. He’s taken jobs to other countries, he’s importing goods from other countries and he’s doing all of these things that are good for him to make extra profits, but they’re actually bad for the strength of my nation. And so I’m going to start creating all these laws that protect local industries, keep wealth and resources in my country to build up the national strength, make sure there’s good jobs for my people.”

 

But international finance, they didn’t want to do that because at the end of the post-war globalisation that we’ve had, they wanted to go and exploit the cheap slave labour in China and other foreign third world countries and then import all that cheap crap into the West and sell it to us. And they took away all the manufacturing jobs.

 

Like back in the 1960s or the 1970s, over 30% of Australia’s economy was manufacturing. We used to make cars, we used to make computers, we used to make everything here. Now it’s only 6% of the economy, we make nothing here. And that’s one of the reasons why people are doing it tough. Because there isn’t good quality jobs for the working class anymore, because they sent all those jobs to foreign countries.

 

And the people that would stop that are nationalists, which is why they attack the White Australia Policy, which is why they attack nationalism, which is why they attack your identity. Because they don’t want White Australians supporting a political leader that’s loyal to them before he’s loyal to big business. All the biggest companies in this country, the top 20 countries, sorry, the top 20 companies in Australia are majority foreign owned. It’s all Wall Street, jewish banking firms and shit that own all of our shit! Like all of our shit has been sold to all these like foreign interests. Our country has been completely sold off. All the jobs have been shipped offshore. We had so much wealth in this country. We were one of the wealthiest countries per capita in the entire world. So much has been shipped overseas to the benefit of large corporate interests at your expense.

 

And if you had leaders that were nationalists like they used to be before World War II in Australia, who put White Australian people first, they wouldn’t have let that happen.

 

So that’s why they had to destroy that ideology to facilitate this. That’s what international finance wanted and that’s why the world that is run by international finance, these big capitalists, attack people like us and our ideas hard rather than the Left. They fear them less than us because we are the true enemy. And the Left is complicit. The Left attacks us harder than it attacks them even though they have the power and we don’t. So their entire worldview is bullshit! They’re complete frauds!

 

Blair Cottrell: What you seem to be saying there is the Left are larping as class communists, like they’re not actually against the bourgeoisie or the rich. They’re actually race communists, like race and race hate, punishing White people is at the centre of all of their politics.

 

[1:27:31]

 

 

Joel Davis: Yes! Yes, they care more. And we see this in their revealed preference. They care more about attacking us than they care about attacking capitalist power. Why is the Left, their number one focus is anti-fascism. Why isn’t anti-capitalism? Why aren’t they going after the enemy in a serious way? Because number one, that’s hard. Because you’re going after the people that are actually powerful! That’s what we do. And we get locked up in jail and we get dragged through courts and horrible things happen to us. People get fired from their jobs. When you go after the real power, real power goes after you!

 

Blair Cottrell: No bank accounts, no monetisation, no Patreon, no YouTube.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. The only time the Left do anything that really goes after the power, serious power, is when they go after Israel.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. And then they feel some consequences finally, for the first time in their lives.

 

Joel Davis: The only time they feel any consequences. And that also proves the other aspect of what we say, which is that capitalism is jewish! The capitalist elite, a lot of them are fucking jews!

 

And if you look at the history of capitalism, capitalism was developed, the entire logic and structure of capitalism was developed by basically jewish practices subverting medieval European society. We talked about this on the show a few weeks ago. Werner Sombart’s work, the book is called jews and Modern Capitalism. And Werner Sombert wasn’t just any old anti-semite or something. Werner Sombart was the greatest theorist of the German historical School of historical economics in the late 19th and early 20th century. He was a genius! He was a genius!

 

And as he was writing his work, basically trying to articulate the whole history of capitalism, how it came into existence and why, he realised that the jews played such an important role that he had to write a completely separate book just on the jews and their involvement in the development of capitalism. And in that book he describes how in medieval Europe, merchants had a completely different ethos.

 

So if you were a merchant in medieval Europe and you went out into the public square and you started praising your wares and talking about how great the stuff at your shop is and how low your prices are and all this kind of stuff, that was considered immoral. If you tried to get customers off the other shop owners, that was considered immoral. If you charge a different price than the other merchants, if you tried to like sell your stuff extra cheap, that was considered immoral. Everything had a set price. You sell it at that price. You don’t big up your goods. You are a Christian. The people who made it are Christians. Everyone should just trust that the quality is there, that’s that! There’s no Hoodwinking, there’s no marketing, there’s no manipulation that was permitted. There’s basically, it was just a fair, equitable system and it was completely mediated through charitable, good faith Aryan society.

 

Then the jews come in and the jews will come in, they’ll get. Jews had international networks. They they’re an “international clique” as Hitler described. They would be involved, particularly in early colonisation. They were going after the gold mines and the silver mines and stuff over in South America. But they were very involved in these international trade networks also all the trade networks that ran through the Middle East into Europe as well. And they were an international ethnicity, every other ethnic group was in one location. The jews had people everywhere.

 

So the jews could use the fact that they were one international group to build all these relationships with the other jewish merchants all around the world and to facilitate international trade.

 

And then, as a result, they could then import goods and bring them into your community and sell them cheaper than the stuff made in your local community. And they didn’t have laws against that kind of stuff back then or any kind of regulations back then, because it was an honour system.

 

And so they’d come in and they would sell stuff at half the price, and they’d destroy local industries. They’d be haggling people on the street trying to sell stuff. They’d be advertising their goods. This is why the jews took over the media, because the jews were the first people to get into advertising. It was considered immoral to advertise for Aryans. But jews didn’t have any issue with advertising.

 

And so they then got into that industry. And that the advertising industry is the backbone of the printing, you know, print media. Print media makes a lot of money off the advertising on the papers, in the newspaper. So as newspapers were invented in the early 18th century and widely distributed, jews played a leading role in financing a lot of that, because jewish merchants would advertise through those.

 

And then that gave them a lot of control over media and therefore public perception. But jews innovated in these industries, and so they were able to undercut the opposition. That’s why jews are getting kicked out of all these different cities and countries all across Europe all the time, because they would come in with their investment practices and destroy the livelihoods of local industries and local merchants, completely upset the whole apple cart of the local community. And eventually there would be enough public resentment that they’d run them out of the city and demand that they’d be kicked out of the city. And then they go to the next city and they do the same thing and so on. And the process kept repeating.

 

But eventually they were able to become normalised in Europe because they made so many deals with elite political actors and traitors that got in bed with these jewish merchants and were making a quick buck.

 

[1:33:18]

 

And I’m not even talking about usurious lending as well, which is a whole other aspect of this, that eventually jewish mercantile behaviour became normalised. And now it’s considered normal to have advertising. Now it’s considered normal to try and undercut and compete with other firms and try and sell things cheaper and import goods from all over the world.

 

And instead of like buying things from like local producers and you know, we’ve got this completely globalised, marketized, corporatized, consumerized society.

 

Now this all came from originally the impact of the jewish mentality and jewish culture on Aryan Middle Ages Europe. Without that maybe we wouldn’t live in this fucking shitscape. So capitalism is fundamentally and inherently jewish in a certain way. You could argue according to Sombard’s theories, which I think are really compelling, the history that he describes in that book.

 

But then secondarily we can see that jews are very, up to this day. Like I’ve talked about on the show before, how look at the property development industry which is a massive supporter of mass immigration because more immigrants means more demand for property. So they can build more high rise fucking ZOG [Zionist Occupied Government] slave high rise apartments and sell them for you 800 grand a pop like in some overcrowded part of like inner city Sydney or Melbourne or something. And a bunch of Asians and pajeets will buy them or want to rent them or whatever. And that’s a great business model for them. It doesn’t do anything for our country, it just clutters our cities, makes traffic worse, depresses wages with cheap labour and so on, but drives up the price of rent and all this kind of stuff. But for them it’s great! They’re making millions, they’re making billions.

 

And the biggest property developer in Australia is Harry Triguboff. The jew. And the jews have always been instrumental in high rise development in this country because before World War II we didn’t allow high rise development in Australia because our culture said if we have all these high rise apartments in the cities, what this is going to encourage people to do is to move in there, move out of their parents home when they’re in their 20s, move into one of these apartments in the city and they’re not going to have children, they’re not going to get married, they’re going to start having frivolous sex, they’re going to start developing this kind of cosmopolitan Left-wing culture, they’re going to become basically soy Jack Reddit libtard types. We don’t want that! That’s happened in Europe and it’s created all these revolutionary communist movements and it’s been a mess in Europe. We don’t want that in Australia.

 

The Australian dream is going to be we’re going to have, everyone is going to have their own quarter acre block and have their own home that you can fit a family in. And they’re going to get married young, they’re going to have children and they’re going to have a dignified existence and you can go and work at the factory before we send the jobs overseas and you can earn enough to be able to support a wife and three kids and so on.

 

And that’s how we’re going to build our society. It’s going to be healthy. The tallest building in town is going to be the Church. Nothing’s going to be bigger than the Church. No high rise development. Everyone’s going to have a backyard, everyone’s going to be out, kids playing outside, healthy, blah blah, blah. That was the great Australian dream. And the jews came in after World War II, started building high rise developments. The first high rise developments were in the jew areas of Sydney and Melbourne, in Bondi, in St Kilda.

 

The places that still to this day are where the jews live. That’s where the first high rise developments were. And they got money from their international jewish finance buddies to finance them because they have the international networks that give them low interest loans to then build their high rise developments. And this is where the money for a lot of these wealthy jewish families that are now controlling our government came from is from setting up shop, basically subverting our society, building these high rise developments, developing these giant corporations that now control our government and are forcing immigrants down our throat. And these have been a lot of the money that’s been behind multiculturalism and so on has come from these developments and they’ve completely subverted Australian society.

 

Now we do have these cosmopolitan communist Leftists that are like they don’t have any children and so on and live in the inner cities and perpetuate this Left-wing ideology, just like it was predicted.

 

And so you can see like the same jewish infection of our society, kind of like what I described in medieval Europe has happened here to create this current problem.

 

But a lot of people don’t know understand this or know about this, but this is just history, this is just how it works. So you know, when we’re talking about the problems with capitalism, it’s not just an abstract idea, we’re talking about fucking jews!

 

So anyway, I went on a bit of a tangent there, but I thought it was important.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, you sometimes do that. I tend to try to just let you go. But it was all very good stuff. That’s the thing. It’s a lot to unpack for the average person. But because people can go back and they can re-watch it, they can replay these little segments. I think it’s all really good stuff. I’ve got to jet. I’ve got some responsibilities to see to. But it’s been a great stream so far. You’re gonna stay with it Joel, I suppose, and, …

 

[1:38:26]

 

Joel Davis: No. We’ll end it there.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s okay. We can do some Superchats then. I can stick around for that, I suppose.

 

Joel Davis: All right. There’s not that many. Clever Name said:

 

“Never get to catch you live. The moustache needs a badge and some brutality to go with it. Solid 7 out of 10. Congrats on the little one.”

 

That’s obviously directed towards Tom. And I agree that Tom kind of has a cop physiognomy. Tom does kind of look like a cop in a way. Maybe in a healthy society, he would be a cop.

 

Blair Cottrell: Whoa, Are you talking about Thomas Sewell?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. Don’t you think he kind of looks like a cop?

 

Blair Cottrell: Maybe with a moustache a little bit. But I always thought I could be a good cop if I was living in a society where that was feasible. Obviously, it’s not feasible now, …

 

Joel Davis: Like, seven years, … Cops that wear the aviators and …

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, you used to have to be a guy like me to be a cop. You have to be as big and as tall as me. They were like the basic physical standards to be a police officer because you had to command respect in the community. You had to be intimidating to a certain degree, but also respectable. So, like, my physiognomy was the one they used to go for. But now there’s all these equality you can’t discriminate, that kind of stuff.

 

So I wouldn’t last as a police officer because I wouldn’t be able to toe the line. I wouldn’t be swearing allegiance to feminism and the LGBT community. And so I’d quickly be shunned by the rest of the force.

 

But, yeah, once upon a time, I think I could have been a good cop.

 

Joel Davis: No, in a healthy society, yeah the NSN would be the cops and we’d keep the streets safe. You know, that story the other day of that fat nigger that raped that poor young girl, and they had the CCTV. I posted it, Noticer News posted as well, this fat, disgusting nigger!

 

And I think I said in the replies to when the mainstream news posted the video, looking for the suspect, I was like:

 

“Why the fuck do we have negroes in Australia? Like, why the fuck are they here?”

 

Like, if you just stop and think, like, take a step back.

 

Blair Cottrell: They are a bioweapon!

 

Joel Davis: Just think how ridiculous that is! Why the fuck are they here?

 

Blair Cottrell: They are bioweapons!

 

Joel Davis: Why did we build planes and boats and transport fucking savage rapist beasts halfway across the fucking world into our country? You know, give them like Centerlink bucks and like feed them full of KFC hormones and just let them roam the streets, like with no supervision, like not even putting them in a cage or anything! They can just roam the streets! It’s like, what next? Like chimpanzees, lions? What other wildlife are going to bring from Africa? I mean, it’s fucking insane!

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, no comment. We want to start with the Superchats. We’ve got a few from Rumble. We’ve got the Shogun 21. Thanks very much:

 

“Violence prevails when democracy fails.”

 

Said Molotov Solution:

 

“If you enjoy metal and are red pilled, they are a must listen.”

 

Oh, it must be a band, Molotov Solution.

 

All right, Molotov Solution. It sounds interesting. I’m actually I won’t talk about that.

 

Anyway, next is Ukrainian groiper, sends through 10 bucks. You went through that one already, “Naan Nation”. Yeah. And Fellow Comrade, regular supporter of the show, sends through $10. Thanks, mate. He says:

 

“I wonder if the face mask ban will cover people wearing Groucho Marx glasses as a disguise?”

 

Maybe, but they said one of the reasons given for banning the face masks was it was protecting people from capsicum spray, which I don’t think face masks do very well.

 

Joel Davis: No, they don’t work.

 

Blair Cottrell: You need to have like a full gas mask with like airtight goggles to protect your eyes. It burns your skin too. Like, so it’s not really. It incapacitates you. I’ve been hit by mace once at a fair distance too. And it doesn’t matter who you are, that stuff incapacitates you for 10 minutes.

 

Joel Davis: If you have good goggles, you can deal with it. Like it’s kind of real spicy and that’s not great! But, excuse me. [coughing] Thinking of capsicum spray just like fucked me up then.

 

But if you have good goggles that keep it out of your eyes, it’s tolerable. It’s tolerable. It’s like eating like fuck loads of chilies or something. Like, if it gets in your nose or whatever, unless you get like straight in your mouth or something, then obviously.

 

Blair Cottrell: Do you like spicy food, Joel? Do you like spicy food? Is that your thing?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, to an extent, but I’m not like, crazy about it. You know what I mean?

 

Blair Cottrell: I love the stuff.

 

Joel Davis: I mean, yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: I don’t look like he sort of guy who would like spicy food, but I can’t get enough of it. Makes me salivate just thinking about spicy food.

 

Joel Davis: I’m not a huge fan of the Indian, maybe it’s just I’m so racist. I can’t bring myself to enjoy Indian food, but, …

 

Blair Cottrell: I don’t eat Indian. Indian curries are just created to disguise the fact that the meat is off and really poor quality. That’s why Indians curried their food. They didn’t have refrigeration for a long time. So Indian cuisine is just rotten, poor quality food mixed in slop to disguise how bad it actually is. Like, I don’t know why people go to Indian restaurants. The fact that Indian restaurants even exist is ridiculous! I don’t know.

 

[1:43:55]

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. I mean first of all, the premise, an Indian is going to cook you dinner? Doesn’t matter what they’re making, that’s fucked! Anyway, Mexican food. I don’t mind the burrito, but from what I understand the burrito that as we understand it, is actually an American invention that’s White people improving Mexican cuisine and like upgrading it from, like, schlop to something like, actually edible.

 

So that’s not really a Mexican thing. It’s like fake Mexican. Tex Mex. I think it’s Texan. So, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Aussie autist 88 sends through five bucks. Thanks, mate. He says:

 

“Happy midsummer. It’s two days time.”

 

Oh, someone knows. I won’t divulge anything about that. There’s nothing crazy going on. It’s just like a little private Christmas party.

 

But yeah, you guys might see some photos of that after the fact. We’ll see.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, no, Midsummer’s good to celebrate. We don’t celebrate it properly in Australia because unlike the Europeans, it’s like so close to Christmas where the Europeans is like the opposite side of the year.

 

Blair Cottrell: So. Hang on, isn’t Midsummer that movie. Is that the name of the movie?

 

Joel Davis: I’m sure there’s a movie called Midsummer I can’t think of, …

 

Blair Cottrell: I was thinking of the direct Shakespeare’s, …

 

Joel Davis: The Midsummer’s Night Dream. That’s like a play.

 

Blair Cottrell: No. Okay, well I was thinking of our Christmas party in two days time which has a Midsummer dress theme. I might as well just give it away now.

 

Joel Davis: Dude OPSEC! OPSEC [Operations Security]! We can’t be divulging our private, … On our online show.

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s just a dress code. [chuckling] Who cares like whatever. I hope we get some photos.

 

Joel Davis: We don’t. I don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

Blair Cottrell: I’m just excited about it. I’ve already bought my get up and I’m excited!

 

Joel Davis: Why don’t we like go through our criminal records again on stream? And go through all the horrible things, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Well okay, where do I begin? [chuckling]

 

Joel Davis: [chuckling] And then on Odysee I got a Superchat from Clever Name. Oh no, I already read that one. On Entropy I’ve got a Superchat from the Gump. He said:

 

“White people need to start to favour our own kind in business. That’s the only way to generate and keep resources in our group interests. Big contracts, fundings, positions. They all have diversity requirements to weaken us.”

 

Well I agree with that. Insofar as you can do business with Whites and work with Whites and so on, you always should. You absolutely should! And I think that’s quite clear and obvious a good thing to do. Personally I hate working with non-Whites, and your goal should be to work with them as little as possible, and if possible not at all do business with them. Not at all if you can. But I understand that a lot of industries it’s unavoidable so it is what it is for some people. But that should be your objective.

 

But also yeah like if you can source your produce from like local farmers, if you can get milk from local farmers, eggs from local farmers, etc. Meat is like not only is it going to be high quality and better for you, better for your health but also that’s so much better than going down to like you know the ZOG options of Woolies or Coles and like dumping your money into some foreign jew owned you know megacorp that is importing half the from overseas and injecting the other half of the with fucked up hormones that are bad for your health and screwing over Australian farmers etc. Etc. So yeah definitely always try and do your business locally and within the race.

 

But I think that’s more or less all the Superchats.

 

So thanks for watching the show this evening. It’s been a good chill stream. Unfortunately, Tom. Yeah suffered ZOG DDoS attacks and they took him out. They took out our boy. So RIP to the big man!

 

But I think next week we’ll figure out whatever was wrong there. We’ll fix that up. Hersant [Jacob] should have his setup sorted as well. He was supposed to be on tonight, but then some things came up.

 

So we’re gonna have Hersant and Tom on more again in the future, like it used to be. Well, Hersant’s been on a few times, but Tom used to be on more regularly. I do like doing the show when it’s like three or four of us a bit more because it’s kind of like often we cook up like a more intense conversation sometimes. What do you think?

 

Blair Cottrell: I think it was pretty intense. Oh, well, it wasn’t as intense as some of our conversations, but we’re building on it.

 

Joel Davis: Some of the best shows, when we go up on tangents for like an hour. That’s some of the best content in my opinion.

 

[1:48:58]

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. Well, people watch the show in the background a lot of the time. The benefit of long streams is you can put them on while you’re doing other stuff. So people sometimes only catch glimpses of what you’re talking about, then they go back to it later if they’re really interested.

 

And that’s the point of these shows. It’s to kind of replace your standard television programme so you’re not being brainwashed by bad propaganda. You’re getting the good kind of propaganda from us. Because whatever you’re going to watch, it’s propaganda to some degree. Whatever you expose yourself to in the realm of entertainment information, it’s always propaganda to some degree. So choose the Right propaganda and you’ll know it’s the Right propaganda if you start if your life starts improving. I think like, one way to gauge the quality of the content you’re exposing yourself to is how your health shifts or develops or declines over time. Like, if you start watching a new type of political, ideological content, you get into that kind of thing, you’re into it for a few years. Compare the way you look and feel. Compare your physical health and your mental health to where you were three years prior, before you were into that stuff. If it’s worse, it’s probably shit for you. If it’s better, it’s good for you! And I seem to be getting healthier. So nationalism is good for you guys. Take my word for it.

 

I don’t know if I’m making no sense there. I’m getting to the point where I’m getting really drowsy.

 

But it’s been a good show, guys. Thanks for joining us.

 

Joel Davis: Before you go, that Ben Dawkins, who just quit the One Nation Party in WA, he just tweeted:

 

“I’ve been following some of the fallout from Parminder social media, but my press release says what I’m saying on my resignation from Pauline Hanson’s One Nation. I’ll post it tomorrow.”

 

So the fact that he mentioned it means it’s probably something to do with that. We’ll see tomorrow what comes out.

 

But yeah, keep up the pressure. Parmindergate has only just begun! Keep the pressure up on One Nation. If you’re not on Twitter, make a Twitter account. I’ve said this the whole time on this show. There’s a way to do online activism. You can make an impact online because everyone who’s speced into politics, works in politics, is in political media. They’re all on Twitter. If you can push narratives and direct conversations on Twitter, you can actually create an effect in actual politics if you do it effectively and aggressively with a big enough group. So get on there, help support the initiatives. And yeah, should be a Merry Christmas to everyone.

 

By the way, I know we’re still a few days out, but we probably won’t do another show until after Christmas. Maybe we will, maybe we won’t. Probably not. It’s a lot on, a lot of stuff with the community, with family and stuff I got to do personally. And that’s what you should be doing this time of year. Hopefully people have got time off work and you can spend it with your close friends, with your family in particular. And tis the season. Enjoy yourselves and we love you all. We’ll see you all in the next episode. And White fucking Power!

 

Blair Cottrell: See you guys.

 

 

[1:52:15]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 1/1/2026 = 63)

akdjfhgpjksdnkjnsdfg
1 day ago
You must worship the JEW, or you are a national security threat.
2
0

Jak_85
Supporter
25 weeks ago
The aesthetic argument against terrorism is very true! It doesn’t all have to surround logic or false logic, but cool or not cool, gay or not gay.

XYZezima
1 year ago
Know what sucks? I can’t shit right now. I’m sitting here with a log that is apparently just too wide to pass. It’s honestly stressing me out. Why the fuck do we have all these weird health problems? My body can’t even regulate the size of its own turds and now I’m going to have to go to the hospital or die of a blockage. It’s not even funny, this honestly sucks. I am barely 30, I don’t smoke, drink maybe two times a year, diet could be better but I always feel like shit. Fuck I hate this world. Went and bought a little bottle of milk, it had 21g of sugar. 21g of fucking sugar for some 2% darigold milk. The chocolate milk had as much sugar as a Pepsi, almost 50g. Insane. Absolutely insane to pump us full of so much sugar. And now I can’t even shit. You guys understand I’m sitting here and I’m going to die from a prolapsed asshole (look it up, not a joke) and my cats are going to eat my fucking body. These jews got my body to sabotage itself, choking on its own shit. .. I hate this world.

BuckinghamPhallus
1 year ago
ON being run by a retarded fat bastard versus the polished opposition Indian bastards is part of the ruse. if you’re talking about “your” Indian you’re not talking about why he is even fucking there. brilliant movement of Overton window

masklophobix
1 year ago
Can Joel please just spend 80 bucks on a webcam already?? Potato-vision needs to go.

Napoleontas
1 year ago
I understand you are Australians, but if you want to attract the attention of a wider audience, you need to focus on broader issues. Just a friendly advice.

‹ Hide 1 reply
Jak_85
Supporter
25 weeks ago
Gay

Napoleontas
1 year ago
I like how the neurotic harpy excludes specifically White MEN from her “discrimination” and “racist” list. “Laws” legitimize the state employees to use violence against you, physical violence. That’s what “Laws” are.

Motion937
1 year ago
Balaclavas would be totally acceptable to them if it were only left-wing activists wearing them.
1
0

kitsubot
VerifiedSupporter
1 year ago
Banning face masks at protests? Lets see them ban makeup – u can use face paint to obfuscate ur identity too
3
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
Motion937
1 year ago
Ban left wing activists & politicians.

palacepony
Supporter
1 year ago
EMJ addressing similair themes; https://rumble.com/v62kcve-chicago-talk-show-host-emj-interview-5-translate-hate-the-catholic-edition.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp

palacepony
Supporter
1 year ago
Merry Christmas Joel. Don’t let the bastards get you down.

palacepony
Supporter
1 year ago
Merry Christmas https://rumble.com/v5zbhph-the-xmas-song-2024.html?e9s=src_v1_upp

‹ Hide 1 reply
palacepony
Supporter
1 year ago
Xmas larf

palacepony
Supporter
1 year ago
‘JEWS HATE FREEDOM’. That is a great op when you objectively look at the power these cunts are abusing in parliament in Victoria. Well done Joel & lads.

‹ Hide 1 reply
palacepony
Supporter
1 year ago
Melb- Canberra-DC-City of London

fdgrdfg
1 year ago
55:25 So India’s population in 1858 year was 203.000.000 of Indians and 20.000 British soldiers conquered them? That’s like 1:10000 ratio wtf.

BradC1988
1 year ago
White Fucking Power! o/
2
0

Rumbolinawave321
1 year ago
It’s a simple question How many immigrants are India taking? And if they aren’t taking any, why is it so?
3
0

newgerman
1 year ago
Talking about terrorism as she did without a peep about Israeli massacres.. then mentioning “anti-Semitism”… GOD IT IS FUCKING ENRAGING!!!!!
3
0

shovelheadamy
1 year ago
…nice shiner, btw

shovelheadamy
1 year ago
I heard this saying once, “In youth, wisdom and beauty is rare”. I think that this applies to you Joel. I am always impressed by your deep insight into such a wide array of subjects, fringed with a decent sense of humour, for someone so young. Always stay humble and hold fast. Thanks, from a Canadian. Blair and Tom are equally interesting to listen to. You men all seem to embody the spirit of our common gentlemanly ancestry with your decorum and manners.
2
0

Bumble_Bee
1 year ago
Anders Breivik, JDL confederate shoots up a bunch of boycott Israel Labor supporters on an island after the U.N voted to give Palestine a spot in the E.U parliament…. Brenton Tarrant the very year of the Pandemic did a hollywood style performance art that mirrors Wendy Scur’s account at Port Aurthur in which not only was there a ammo mag left in the hallway as Brenton Enters, the bodies laying by the chairs move by the time Brenton re-enters the mosque… All the bodies were not ripped apart by high velocity rounds nor at point blank range…also, Firearms experts show that nato rounds will go right through walls and produce smoke in enclosed spaces like that, Brenton was using an airgun and those “Muslims” were actors and the whole operation was a Mossad public relations excercise…. all in time for the pandemic…. which I’m sure they knew was coming… because Trump went to China and what a perfect place in China’s corrupt and disorganized system to launch a controlled release of a virus…(even it was even a virus since they’ve never isolated it nor shown what “covid 19″ actually is”

› Show 1 reply
FJB6666
1 year ago
Again. FFS. Joel your a LEGEND. I love your rants. They are the best..
3
0

FJB6666
1 year ago
Joel, your a LEGEND. I love your rants. There the best.
7
0

Pincermovement
1 year ago
Go black face
3
0

FJB6666
1 year ago
Thomas should shorten his moustache, he’s needs the Adolf look.
6
0

LordVividColours
1 year ago
Blair was for sure on to something when he was talking about choosing the right propaganda to consume I became a nationalist about 2 years ago and in that time I quit smoking weed & tobacco, I stopped being a total degenerate, I got more & more active, I learned to see the bad propaganda clearly, I lost a shit tonne of weight and slowly my life has more meaning giving me more drive to actually have a life instead of an existence. I’d rather kill myself than go back to the way I was
23
0

‹ Hide 2 replies
UncircumcisedCircus
1 year ago
The system relies on people being doped up/down for people to not notice. The more sober I have been the easier it was to see through the lies.
4
0

newgerman
1 year ago
good for you man
2
0

MadHatterAU
1 year ago
Les Dawson could model that face on churches as a gargoyle.

› Show 1 reply
jjbeez57
1 year ago
Elephant in the living room…. Tom’s moustache looks gay. Sorry to say this as the guy’s a legend, but the people around him need to let him know. Like the intervention of an alcoholic by friends and family, they do it because they love them.
0
2

palacepony
Supporter
1 year ago
The stream breaks up with Tom’s very contentious exam into the racial nature of souls. Coincidence? Australian disrupt law?

TheShowgun
VerifiedSupporter+
1 year ago
You have officially lost your freedom gentlemen.
0
3

ProvingNihil
1 year ago
Those laws for wearing face masks are ridiculous, they’re desperate at this point to find out our identity.
1
0

RoseRock444
Supporter
1 year ago
There is no such thing as a soul, Blair
1
2

‹ Hide 1 reply
Jak_85
Supporter
25 weeks ago
Soul from from Old English sawol from Old Norse sala from Proto-Germanic *saiwalō. “It has been suspected to have meant originally “coming from or belonging to the sea,” the supposed stopping place of the soul before birth or after death [Barnhart]; if so, it would be from Proto-Germanic *saiwaz (see sea). Klein explains this as “from the lake,” as a dwelling-place of souls in ancient northern Europe.” [etymonline source] Our soul is our “gene-lake” or “gene-pool”

bush_bash_boy
1 year ago
for an extremely smart fella, joel does the cause and himself, a disservice by talking about sensitive subjects, such as terrorism, and using words like “it’s gay” and “edge lord”. completely fine to say between mates, but it’s hard to take you serions when you talk like a troll.
8
7

‹ Hide 5 replies
EnglandAwake
1 year ago
Shut the fuck up with your unearned critiques.
6
0

‹ Hide 3 replies
HKeithVarange88
1 year ago
It was authoritative and humorous, don’t be a boomer
5
2

‹ Hide 1 reply
NaziGoering
1 year ago
He’s right. Joel talks like a troll because he thinks it sounds “edgey” but it’s just cringey.
5
2

‹ Hide 2 replies
whitehonkymonkey
1 year ago
agree, this podcast below , clearly states how hitler respected other cultures,yet preferred to separate. spoke about what was beneficial to germany and the messaging, he agreed with goebbels, talking down the others was of no benefit to the movement. why joel and some others fall for this denigration does not benefit the national socialist movement, if such people continue on this path,the jews win. comment below not aimed at you nazigoering. do as the fuhrer would do, FFS. yes your feeling a bit hurt by these comments, but please get on board we need to win over the masses. keep the denigration at home if you cant control it. be like the fuhrer. thank you. HH.https://rumble.com/v5jtq51-all-the-lies-you-have-been-told-about-hitler-part-1-x-space.html?playlist_id=watch-history
0
1
newgerman
1 year ago
This was an excellent WN discussion by the Three Aussi-teers. Where’s “Numero quatro”? Hope he’s not in jail or some shit. Above all, heartfelt congratulations on the upcoming baby, Mr. Sewell
1
0

LaborCorruptionCommission
1 year ago
Those guys are doing so much damage. Islam is the immediate problem. STFU and let their terrorism be front and centre. This shit just lets people be diverted to the Far Righht boogey man. IQ is not one of their qualities.
1
1

thorne91
Supporter+
1 year ago
Last comment I promise. But it seems like that fat jew cow on TV was talking directly to you guys. o/o/o/
1
1

thorne91
Supporter+
1 year ago
Jews always pass anti-“hate speech” laws right before they do a white genocide. It’s textbook for them, just like 9/11 and October 7th. It’s impressive how they have this shit down to a tee
9
1

‹ Hide 1 reply
thorne91
Supporter+
1 year ago
Main reference for this would be the Bolshevik Revolution, which I believe was simple a prototype of the worldwide cabal they intend to form. And they’ll mobilize their mud golems to carry it out against their white “oppressors” but I’m not worried because a few whites always crawl out of the ashes and rebuild. It’s just a condition of our existence to repeatedly overcome Jews and their golems.
4
1

thorne91
Supporter+
1 year ago
“His terrorism was boring and gay” hahahahaha
2
1

thorne91
Supporter+
1 year ago
I’m kind of surprised we still have a first and second amendment in USA at this point. It’s like the only based thing about living in this gay empire
2
1

Boonske
1 year ago
LIKE AND SHARE THE STREAM ITS THE LEAST YOU CAN DO
7
3

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yes, Sunday morning. Yeah.

 

Greg Johnson: Okay.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So the first point that he makes is:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[07:17]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[13:19]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[20:10]

 

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

 

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

 

I started thinking, you know:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[26:52]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[33:24]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, of course.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[39:51]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Which historically is what nationalism generally means.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Okay, so what’s your critique of that?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: It’s imperialism. Right?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[47:24]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[53:49]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:00:10]

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:07:22]

 

Greg Johnson: What’s stopping us?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And that means that, …

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

But the point is that, …

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:15:07]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: They pose no threat!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:21:40]

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Will Germany and France fight it out?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

[1:27:09]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

That’s what politics is about.

 

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

 

[1:33:57]

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Absolutely! Absolutely!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

That’s fantastic!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:40:47]

 

 

Greg Johnson: Absolutely, yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:46:16]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Well, I would agree with that.

 

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

 

“We need to step over this.”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:53:28]

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yeah.

 

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

 

So that’s not a reasonable:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And right now our race is being genocided! Right?

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, yes and no.

 

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

 

[1:59:26]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Absolutely.

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: I absolutely agree with that.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And there’s no way of doing that!

 

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

 

[2:06:39]

 

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

 

[2:50:10]

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

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

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

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

18
0
Hide replies

@v0lum3
6 months ago
Hitler dindu nuffin

2
1
Show reply

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

Hide replies

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

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

Continue Thread

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

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

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

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

16
2
Hide replies

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

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

4
1

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

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

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

9
1
Hide replies

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

4
0
Earthling Carl
6 months ago
Easy Joel W.

10
3

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

9
2

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

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

10
3
Hide replies

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

7
0
Hide replies
ThinRedLine
6 months ago
it does

5
0

@Arilando
6 months ago
Of course you can.

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

2
0

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

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

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

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

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

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

6
2
Hide replies

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

2
1
ThinRedLine
6 months ago
Hail Joel

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

5
3

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

2
0

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

5
3
Hide replies

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

Hide replies

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

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

Hide replies

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

2
0

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

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

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

4
3

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

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

1
2

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

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

6
0

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

2
3

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

See Also

top

 

 

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