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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, yeah.

 

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

 

James Howe: Yeah, I know the guy.

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Yep.

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: You’re welcome.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: Literally, like, rip them out!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[05:17]

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, just—

 

Sam Bamford: Just giving birth to a dead baby.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah. Yep.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And I remember just thinking, like:

 

“What the fuck are you talking about!”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And then we got onto abortion and you started saying:

 

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

 

And I think I just said:

 

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

 

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

 

“I never really thought about it.”

 

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

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: You get brainwashed people from the Right.

 

James Howe: Yeah. 100%.

 

Sam Bamford: Happens with everyone.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“I’ve never met anyone who is more hated by Labor Left than you.”

 

And I asked around and—

 

Joanna Howe: Because he was Labor Right?

 

James Howe: He was Labor Right, yeah, exactly!

 

Sam Bamford: I don’t get this stuff.

 

James Howe: Yeah, neither do I but anyway. And so she snuck into her office and shut the door and just Googled “aborted fetuses.” And some academic articles came up which had some photographs of aborted babies. And she could see that these were little people who’d just been sliced to pieces and ripped apart.

 

Sam Bamford: It genuinely affected me—our conversation. When we sat down, I remember sitting there, like, changing the diaper of my baby, like, an hour later, and I was like:

 

“Yeah, what the fuck’s going on here?”

 

Yeah, I genuinely—like, I was genuinely sitting there. I remember it was one of the only times I got teary on a podcast. I genuinely sat there and I was listening to this. I’m like:

 

“This is too much! We’re really doing this to babies, and everyone’s just going about their normal life.”

 

Yeah, it genuinely tore me up.

 

James Howe: Yeah, it’s horrible!

 

And the only reason it still happens is because people don’t talk about it. And the Left tries to silence you if you even raise it.

 

But it’s insane, man! Like, even last night we were just watching this movie, Knocked Up—

 

Sam Bamford: The old‑school one from—

 

James Howe: Yeah, same one. We’ve seen it before, but somehow we just found ourselves watching it again. And there’s the birth scene, and I’ve—like, each time we’ve had a baby and that baby comes out and starts crying, it just—it makes me teary, just because I’m like:

 

“Just the miracle of life!”

 

You just see—holy shit! There’s a person here on the scene. And I even had that experience just watching this movie last night. And I’m just thinking, man, that baby—it’s the same baby that was in there five minutes ago. It’s no different! It’s the same baby, so it can’t cry because its lungs are full of fluid.

 

But it’s the same baby. It’s capable of having all of the same experiences. It’s capable of having the same kind of sensations of pain. Same sort of comfort at the sound of its mother’s voice. Same child, same human being. And just the thought of killing that baby—it’s just murder like any other form of murder. And we just can’t tolerate it in a sane and civilised society. It’s just disgusting!

 

So, yeah—long story short!

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah. So I had to admit to him, maybe a fortnight later, that I’d changed my mind and that he was right and I was wrong.

 

Sam Bamford: It’s good, though. It shows you’re adaptable.

 

James Howe: Yeah.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

James Howe: And she’s just had to do that again and again!

 

Joanna Howe: That’s [chuckling] not true! He’s had to—

 

James Howe: No, it’s gone the other way pretty much ever since, …

 

Joanna Howe: No, it hasn’t. But we’ve just—I guess— Yeah, we fell in love!

 

James Howe: On every personal argument, it’s had to go the other way.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah. But I was a brainwashed Leftist and I’ve had to—I guess I’ve had to unpack all of the things I believed and realise which ones I still believe and which ones I still don’t. And that’s a journey that I would encourage other people to go on as well.

 

And if you are in South Australia, or even if you’re not, I encourage you to fly in for our rally on June 17 outside the South Australian Parliament, because that’s when we will be rallying and protesting for this bill. And I do think for these babies—after 25 weeks—we’re up against it. All of the peak medical bodies are against us; all of the media establishment; the Labor and the Greens like it; some of the Liberal Party, even.

 

And so you’re really up against it. But if we pass this bill, that’ll be the first pro‑life Bill to pass a House of Parliament in Australian history. But it’ll also be the first socially conservative Bill to have passed the South Australian Parliament—in history. So it’s big. And we do need—like, the Left is so good at turning up for evil. And our side, we’re just useless a lot of the time!

 

Sam Bamford: Because we’re all busy working.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, [chuckling] but this is after work. It’s 5:30 PM in the city. And so—

 

Sam Bamford: Well, most people have kids. Conservative families have kids.

 

Joanna Howe: Well, bring your kids. We bring our kids. Like, sorry, Sam, there’s not an excuse you can throw to me other than if you’re in Labor. If you’re in Labor or you’re dead, you don’t get to come. But you don’t have to come—you getta leave pass. But everybody else—like, these babies have no voice other than us.

 

And so if we don’t turn up, then the politicians just know we don’t care.

 

Sam Bamford: Yep.

 

Okay, so when is it again?

 

Joanna Howe: 17th of June. Tuesday, 5:30 PM to 6:30 PM, outside the SA Parliament, the City—North Terrace. Yeah. Really hope you can come by. Hope other people can come, too. It is really important. We bring our—we’ve got a six‑year‑old—and we’ve been bringing the kids to these things since they were just out of the womb—like, a couple of months old, three years old, four years old. They have to know what they’re up against in this society, in this culture. I think it’s important to raise them educated and awake.

 

[15:18]

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, definitely! Because the other side is doing it as well.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: But the thing with the other side is they’ve got—they seem to have—kindergarten, schools and universities to do that. As well, that’s why you asked me on the way in:

 

“Are you gonna home‑school?”

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: Did you ask me that question because—you know—because you’re know, …

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, you’re awake. And I guess in the public education system in South Australia, you’re being taught the gender bred person. You’re celebrating—you’re told to dress up in purple for IDAHOBIT Day. You know, so there’s all these trans ideologies, …

 

James Howe: It’s about trans—and yeah, I don’t know what it’s about.

 

Sam Bamford: Are you saying I’m short?

 

James Howe: No, I was just looking at your hairy feet.

 

Joanna Howe: If you send your kid to a public school, they’re gonna come out indoctrinated by this.

 

And so then, yeah, we had to try pretty hard to find a school where this sort of BS wasn’t happening.

 

Sam Bamford: Well, it’s also happening everywhere now because the government can’t even define a woman.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: I did a post about this the other day, right? And I sat down before I did the post—I’m like:

 

“What am I going to talk about here?”

 

And there was a clear thing there that I came up with: If you can’t define something, you can’t defend it. It’s like the “what is a woman” argument, you know what I mean? Like, same with the baby thing.

 

Like, if you just think that a baby, like you were saying before, isn’t the same baby when it’s born five minutes after, then you can’t define what that is, so then you can’t defend what that is.

 

And, I mean, the government at the moment—they do not have the capability to be able to control your economy that’s over a trillion dollars, while sitting there and telling us they can’t define a woman. Like, how are we supposed to defend women? How are we supposed to defend their rights, their spaces and their sports? And it’s good to see, actually, that although the Liberal Party for over a decade were in power after Julia Gillard—that stupid lady—decided to change the legislation around the definition of a woman, that they’ve finally come out and spoken out against it.

 

Do you think this will ever happen mainstream with abortions—fully?

 

Joanna Howe: Yep. Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: Truly believe that?

 

Joanna Howe: No, I truly believe it.

 

So I think if you look at anything, like how slavery was overcome or any kind of injustice, you’ll find that initially the people that are jumping up and down about it are seen as extremists and everything’s done to kind of attack them and marginalise them.

 

But eventually it becomes mainstream. So, 10 years ago—like Sal Grover—right now every conservative politician in the country is trying to get her for a photo shoot, and they’re tweeting about it.

 

Sam Bamford: I need to reach out to her to get her on the pod.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, but everyone’s doing it. But five years ago that wasn’t the case—10 years ago, you know, it was even more not the case—at the time when Julia Gillard changed the, …

 

Sam Bamford: I remember a couple of years ago they got her on—what’s that stupid show where that W‑lead dude was on, …

 

Joanna Howe: The Project. Channel 7. The Project.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. And they tried to grill her a year ago, but now it’s like:

 

“Whoa! We’ve changed! Yeah, we have. Changed!”

 

Joanna Howe: No, things have changed. People are awake. The One Nation vote is surging. So people can—even the mainstream media can see things are shifting. People aren’t listening to them anymore. They’re now trying to come along to the party. Like, we’ve even noticed—in the coverage of our abortion issue—they have changed somewhat from being openly hostile to now almost being fair in the coverage we had last week on the announcement of the bill.

 

So I believe that on abortion this will happen. It takes time. But if you just think about—like, two years ago, we were at the Olympics and you’ve got a male boxer punching on a female in the women’s division and then getting gold.

 

But then Trump gets elected, does an Executive Order, that biology is the basis of male and female. The Olympic Committee’s now changed its tune and said they’re going to be checking birth certificates and doing tests to make sure that female sport is for women—biological females—only. So things take time. And in Australia we are quite behind—like, behind whether you can—three to four years.

 

So I think on abortion the fundamentals are there. This is a child in the womb who’s a human being. If you’re on the side of abortion, you support killing human beings. We’ll eventually catch up. We’ll eventually get there. It just takes time.

 

Sam Bamford: And how many babies do we abort in Australia per year?

 

Joanna Howe: So, close to 100,000. The most recent data suggests 88,000. But that data is a bit old.

 

And so it’s a lot. We talk about a migration, a population crisis and a fertility crisis, but part of that crisis is that we’re killing so many babies and we’re not replacing our population.

 

Sam Bamford: Yes—which is where my main argument comes in, right? Where we’re importing two, three migrants per birth in this country. Our birth rate is at one point—if it goes below 1.4, that’s generally, like, an extinction‑level event. And I guess this is where my glaring argument has come out over the past few days about stuff. But I don’t want to get to that yet. I want to stay on your stuff.

 

So, what’s your next step after this Bill passes in the SA Parliament?

 

[20:02]

 

Joanna Howe: Okay, so to get it through to law, it has to pass in the Upper House and the Lower House. We think we’ve got the numbers for the first time to pass it in the Upper House.

 

Sam Bamford: Is that because of the One Nation—

 

Joanna Howe: Yep. And so that’s really significant!

 

But then to get it through the Lower House, which Labor runs, that’s going to be tough.

 

But having said that, their MPs are now going to be forced, for the first time, to put on the record their support for killing babies after 25 weeks. Literally, they’ll have to say:

 

“We’re on the side of injecting these babies with poison into their hearts.”

 

Now, many of those MPs live in electorates where the people would not be with them on such an extremist position.

 

And so I think it’s going to be interesting. I think we’ll have a mountain to climb to get it through the Lower House. But I think we could. When they sold abortion up to birth in South Australia, they stood on the steps with this sign that said “decriminalisation”.

 

And so the lie that they sold was that we need this new law because we need to stop women going to jail. But no women had been jailed for abortion in anyone’s memory—like, that just had not happened. It was a total lie! What they were really doing was removing all upper gestational limits on abortion so that it could be available up until birth and for any reason.

 

So the good thing about this campaign is, for the first time, we can now have this debate on our own terms and we can say:

 

“Are you on the side of killing babies older than 25 weeks, or are you not?”

 

And if you are on that side—of killing babies older than 25 weeks—then you’re really an extreme person! Like, you’re a murderer. There’s no other way to describe it, because you support injecting that baby with poison and then delivering them dead when you could just induce that baby early, deliver them alive and place them for adoption. Like, you could do those babies have to come out. They either come out dead or they come out alive. You guys are on the side of bringing them out dead! And so I think having that debate publicly is really significant!

 

But then beyond that, once you have that debate—and whether we pass that law or we don’t—we keep having those debates then. Because I think, as James said to me when we were debating this when I was 21, was:

 

“Well, what’s the difference between a baby five minutes before birth and five minutes after?”

 

I guess I would say to people:

 

“Well, what’s the difference between a 24‑week‑old baby and a 25‑week‑old baby, or a 20‑week and a 25‑week—and so on and so on—that they are human from conception. And at any point in human history when we’ve taken human rights away from a group of humans, it’s always ended in a pretty bad place.”

 

Sam Bamford: But what about the right of the baby in the womb?

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah—

 

Sam Bamford: Like, what about their right of living? I know you’re talking about taking away the rights of someone else, but the right of that baby when they’re conceived?

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah. I would argue they have human rights because they’re human beings.

 

Sam Bamford: 100%.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah. And so, even from the moment of fertilisation, you have a new and distinct human person that is created and, if left alone, will develop and grow and contribute to our society.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. And this is where—this is where we’ll probably flow into the argument of immigration as well. Like, we—I always talk about importing the next generation when I’m sitting here and we’re aborting the next generation!

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: We wouldn’t need high levels of immigration if we didn’t abort the next generation*.

 

[* The promotion of abortion fits in with the anti-White agenda that is pushed throughout the West by (((those))) that hate Whites and want to get rid of us by all means possible.]

 

Joanna Howe: Twenty‑eight percent of Gen Z is aborted.

 

Sam Bamford: What?

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, 28%! So we are—because it’s one, …

 

Sam Bamford: Over one in four!

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, because it’s the most unsafe place for a child to be, it’s not like on the playground unsupervised and a paedophile might come and grab him. It’s actually just in the womb. Like, that’s— we just—we are killing babies for any reason in this country. And yeah, it has to stop! This is the West—the West is doing this.

 

And so they’re importing—we’re importing—people and we’re killing our own babies. And it is having massive cultural disruption.

 

Sam Bamford: It’s even having the most massive cultural disruption now that people are, for the first time in history—and this is where we spoke about the other night—we’re debating between what’s an “Australian.” Like, this is a cultural division now that immigration is causing. I wouldn’t be having this argument if I was—five years ago—and, like, immigration wasn’t so high, right? No one had these arguments.

 

So before we have a discussion about this, I just want to say that the people that are doing this to us is the Labor government—through high levels of immigration, through their unsafe practices of immigration, through their terrible laws of aborting babies.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: And now they’re making people on the Right jump and fight and disagree with each other, which is healthy to have debate. But we’re at a point now where—what I’m trying to say is—everything’s been pushed down to us by this Leftist, communist government that are trying to replace us in our own country, and they’re actually allowing the abortion of the next generation coming through.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

So I would say abortion up to birth, radical trans ideology in classrooms, the eSafety Commissioner, the erosion of freedom of speech, and the migration mess that we find ourselves in—I think it’s a both‑sides issue. So I recognise that Labor is far worse than the Libs! But the migration blowout that’s happened since 1996 until the present day—that is a both‑sides issue.

 

And it’s only now that we’ve seen Pauline Hanson kind of force it open and that—and she somehow managed to break through since Bondi in a way that she wasn’t able to beforehand. Australians are awake now, or they’re awakening.

 

And now you see Angus Taylor and the Libs talk about:

 

“Well, we need a values test; we need a clampdown on mass migration.”

 

But they weren’t saying this before. I’ve worked with both governments, in my position as a researcher at Adelaide Uni in migration research. They both have always been on the side of a “big Australia”. And it’s only Pauline Hanson who’s consistently said, from her maiden speech in the ’90s, that if we have immigration, we need to have integration and assimilation, and the programme needs to be managed in a coherent way. Yeah.

 

[25:39]

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, I’m sort of going one step further than her and saying—and this is where my argument is— like, I think Australians—let’s say your Anglo‑Celtic and/or Indigenous Australians— where we’re being replaced at a rate that is glaringly obvious! Right? I’m walking around, I’m seeing different cultures everywhere, where five years ago we didn’t really see that.

 

And my sort of argument at the moment is that there are so many people coming in at such a rapid rate. And the government are telling us that all these people are “Australian”. And I’m sitting back and I’m being like:

 

“Well, no! They’ve been here since breakfast! They can’t just be Australian if they’ve been here such a short time.”

 

Someone like yourself—this is where the debate is, right? Like, are you Australian? When did you come here?

 

Joanna Howe: So it would have been 1988.

 

Sam Bamford: 1988. How old?

 

Joanna Howe: I was about four years old. And my dad, … So this was before we introduced temporary work visas. We only had permanent work visas. So we came as permanent residents.

 

There was an IT need. My dad was highly skilled. He was able to bring over his wife and his three children. We settled in suburban Sydney, bought a house, made it our home. He actually died six months after. We didn’t get booted back because he was no longer able to do that job. We stayed because we were all permanent residents by that point. And we’ve made Australia our home. You know, we’ve got five children.

 

I guess—in our last conversation—I asked you:

 

“Do you think I’m Australian?”

 

And recently I’ve been seeing on X that your position on that has changed somewhat. Yeah—why have you changed your position? And what would be your answer now to that question? Am I Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: No—not ethnically. Values, culturally wise—this is where the argument is because there’s so many people like you that have come in, and you’ve come in when Anglo‑Celtic and/or Indigenous Australians have been the overwhelming majority. So you’ve been able to come in and assimilate to our culture pretty easily, and you’ve sort of left your culture at the door.

 

Now, the reason I’ve changed recently is because I’ve sort of done a lot of inner thinking, I’ve done a lot of reading, reviewing, and I think that if we can’t define something, we can’t defend it! And I purely think that Australia isn’t Australia without the Australian people. Just like Japan: Japan’s not Japan because it sits on the island of Japan; Japan’s Japan because of the Japanese people.

 

And I think that the culture comes from the people. And that if we replace the people, we replace Australia. And Australia then is some, …

 

James Howe: True.

 

Sam Bamford: Fluid—or some non‑binary, whatever it is—and it can just be changed. And I don’t want that change.

 

James Howe: You have to define what Australia is. But at the same time, we’re talking about her—who has everything that a White Australian would have, except for the colour of her skin. Would you agree with that?

 

Sam Bamford: Like, 100%.

 

James Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: Completely came into this culture, completely adapted, and would arguably probably be doing more for Australia than anyone else in the history of Australia, given the [anti-abortion] Bill that she’s about to pass.

 

James Howe: Yeah. So we’re talking about Whiteness then, at the end of the day—not culture per se—because culture—that would just cancel out the culture issue, because culture’s the same. So we can just tick that off the list. We share that—share the same culture. So the only thing that you and I would not share with her would be her skin colour*.

 

[* Skin colour is just an obvious sign of racial difference, which are extensive including personality, temperament, general intelligence, propensity for violence, etc. Racial differences are not just skin deep, they are to the bone. And different racial groups have different cultures because of these innate racial differences.]

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. Okay. So what built this nation then, from 1901 all the way up until 2001?

 

James Howe: White people! Yeah. So—hang on. Just to understand, though—you would say your ability to call yourself Australian would be that you share the same skin colour as the people who built the country?

 

Sam Bamford: Same origins. Anglo‑Celtic.

 

James Howe: Anglo‑Celtic, though—but that’s specific to the British Isles.

 

Sam Bamford: So who were the people that formed government?

 

James Howe: The Brits. So—but what I’m saying is, what’s your heritage?

 

[30:06]

 

 

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

 

 

[1:54:23]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Youtube Comments

top

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

7 replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

@fpenman
7 hours ago
Podcast episode of the year
8

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

@micphoenix8200
6 hours ago

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

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

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

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

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

@jaydenMRPF
3 hours ago

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

Hide replies

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

@gpumn1
5 hours ago
Totally agree
2

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

@aussiegypsywarrior
7 hours ago

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

@MaySpecials
7 hours ago
She’s good
7

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

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

@kimeccleston5586
7 hours ago
Well said

Hide replies

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

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

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

@treewhisperer07
2 hours ago
Great debate
2

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

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

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

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

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

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

@MaySpecials
7 hours ago
Fair debate
3

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

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

@darrenparsons5299
8 hours ago
Christianity is the key fundamental
3

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

@blakewaugh2536
4 hours ago
could not sum it up better

@MSummaz
14 minutes ago

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@domburton
5 hours ago
Crazy aye

Hide replies

@DB-in3jy
4 hours ago
Brilliant episode!
1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ShaneCooper-b2u
3 hours ago
thank you very much

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

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

@Citraz62
9 minutes ago
NO.

Hide replies

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

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

@nomoremaybes
6 minutes ago
She did the meme lol

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

@brontepetropoulos4755
9 hours ago
Great video
2

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

@wotslife
6 hours ago

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

@gregsags3364
2 hours ago
F-ing good podcast.

@Howdnz
8 hours ago
That escalated quickly

@trishwilson8141
5 hours ago
I agree values are Australian

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

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

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

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

@Itsmevgc
7 minutes ago

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

Hide replies

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

@broke3008
3 hours ago

@unipartywonagainstthepeople
9 hours ago
Great stuff
1

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

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

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

Hide replies

@slash1989
1 hour ago
No foul Langauge

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

@Howdnz
7 hours ago
We just need Jesus
2

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@darrenparsons5299
8 hours ago
And im not religious

@boags9098
8 hours ago
This is wicked

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

@aussiegypsywarrior
7 hours ago
53 minutes

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

@Trunka34
8 hours ago
Why do you think haha
1

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

@Kateeheel7
8 hours ago
Elaborate on these reasons?

Hide replies

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

@darrenparsons5299
7 hours ago
WELL SAID JO
5

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

@overpotato4133
10 hours ago
This guy is clueless lmao
2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

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!