Germar Rudolf: Thank you. I need to get my instruments ready here. Now they fall apart. There was a cap to it and somehow that fell off. I apologize for this. All right.

 

I have something positive to say about this country to just attach right to the speech you just heard. And that is the fact that we can do what we do right now in this country. Because in many countries where our ancestors came from, we would not be able to do this! So there’s freedom of speech and freedom of assembly in this country. So there’s something good to say.

 

Also, what I wanted to mention is when it comes to the war against Iran, the Iranians are an Indo-European people. The language is closer to English and German than it is to Arabic. And when we should talk about the victims that this war causes, we should talk about the thousands and thousands of people of Indo-Europeans of Iranian ancestry that are being murdered.

 

Now, my topic today, as you would probably guess, is on Holocaust, because that’s what I’m known for and that’s what I’m good at. Before I do it, I give a little bit of an introduction of who I am. I would assume most of you know, but probably not all.

 

I am a German citizen. I grew up, born in the mid-1960s, grew up in West Germany, had a normal lower middle class upbringing, went to a normal public school, eventually studied chemistry, graduated. And in the process of graduating, I stumbled over that topic, research that had been done here in the United States by an expert in execution technologies who was looking into the gas chamber question and had some chemical arguments which caught my attention. And as a chemist, I couldn’t look away down the rabbit hole I went and never came back.

 

Now, the persecution that has resulted from my activity, because Germany is not a country where free speech and freedom of science, freedom of assembly has led me ultimately to this country. And there’s another good thing. The government has tried hard to keep me out. They actually arrested me. I was married to a US citizen. I had a granted immigrant visa. They arrested and deported me anyhow, with the reason given “no criminal case”. So in violation of that, I ended up in Germany. And Germany, I was put on trial for the research that I had published over the past five years while in exile. And they sentenced me to 44 months in total. And I had to spend that time.

 

Now, I’m not a singular case and I’m not the worst case of what’s going on in Europe.

 

Anyway. I fought my way back. I won in court. What they’d done to me was wrong. It was remedied as much as you can remedy losing five years of your life in prison. Was reunited with my family and I got the status of a permanent legal resident now in this country.

 

So 35 years of research on that topic have a number of years ago raised the question to me, how do I get the message out to the masses? The first 30 years, I would say I was looking for answers myself. I wasn’t sure whether I understood everything and whether I really got this story straight.

 

And then at the end of the 30 year mark, I was pretty sure. And then the idea came up of how do I get the message out now? One way is of course writing something that makes the information accessible. A lot of you actually bought it today from me. So I wrote an encyclopedia because that’s what scholars do all the time.

 

Actually, no, they don’t!

 

But I was in the unique situation that I had this knowledge. 35 years of sitting at the helm at the core of this skeptical, scrutinizing research. And I decided it needs to be done. And in lack of support from others and due to a cataclysmic development in my private life, I had the time to do it and I pulled it off.

 

So we have the knowledge published, we have it concisely presented and made accessible. There is still a step of how do I get people to listen? Because we’re talking about a taboo topic and people don’t want to hear it.

 

You, most of you probably are open minded. Some of you are, almost many I don’t know are convinced already that the mainstream narrative is phony. But we want to reach those who sit on the fence or even on the other side of it. How do we do that? And I want to give you a little bit of a instruction by example of the best approach.

 

[05:23]

 

 

And the best approach you already have seen. Some of you coming by our book stand there seeing those signs here and marveling over these graphics and the information that’s on there.

 

The best approach for the normies into this topic is not talking about lies that they’ve made up like jewish soap. They all have admitted it didn’t happen or lampshades or what. No! What you want to talk to them about is massive violation of civil rights! It’s free speech, is freedom of assembly that doesn’t exist over there. And make them see in concrete examples what that means!

 

When we’re talking about this topic here, people need to realize, every person needs to realize that every historian on this planet to one degree or another, if he wants to write Holocaust historiography or talk about it or write about it, he is doing history at gunpoint.!

 

That’s the only topic in the world right now, more or less on a global scale, where historians are threatened with at least destruction of their career, if not outright prosecution and imprisonment.

 

 

Scholars, not just historians, scholars you can do physics, you can do psychology, you can do any science and you will not get in trouble if you say something that’s controversial. It’s only this one! This particular part in history that gets people in trouble! Even in this country we have free speech. But any historian who touches that is a third rail topic, he will find his career ended.

 

 

This is the map of Europe. You see in red the countries that have outlawed Holocaust skepticism, that have outlawed doubt! Doubt is the core feature of us human beings, that sets us apart from animals who cannot doubt their central input. We can doubt what we see. We can systematically look for the truth and communicate with our fellow humans what the truth is or what we think the truth is, and can even make it independent of ourselves by putting it down encoded so that everyone can see it. That is what sets us apart!

 

And a government that outlaws doubt, outlaws search for truth, outlaws communicating the truth with others, is outlawing humanity! These countries have outlawed humanity! Stalinist Russia, as bad as it was, had no laws that would proscribe the result of any scholarly research in any field by penal law. This is the first in mankind history that we have that the European Union forces members who have not yet passed laws in the European Union to do it or they are threatened with sanctions. Finland just passed earlier this year, the last one, because they said we’re threatened by the EU by some kind of sanctions or measures. And that’s why we introduced that law.

 

 

Now what does that mean? I’ve told you about my 44 months for the research. You can see that there are two books, Chemistry for Auschwitz, if you want to look at it. It’s my original forensic research and lectures on the Holocaust.

 

 

 

Having done what I’m doing right now here to academic audiences in Germany, talking about my research in the calm and academic style led to being sentenced. There were worse cases.

 

 

I want to focus here on Austria. Some of you have looked through a list of all the countries and some are not on this map. Actually, of course, Canada has introduced a law north of us and Australia uses a backdoor way of doing it. And Israel, of course, is the first country that has outlawed skepticism. And there are other countries who use other laws. They twist and tweak in order to send people to prison.

 

[09:23]

 

And in the Arabic world, unfortunately, we should think there should be an open mind there. A lot of governments in the Arabic world are bought by Europe and America and they prosecute dissidents on that topic with extra legal means. They are not democracies under the rule of law, whatever that means. Because in some aspects we are not anymore either. But for them it’s pure arbitrariness.

 

So this is a global thing, a global problem. We just had a censorship hit us, a company in China. We wanted to have merchandise produced with certain slogans on it on Holocaust skepticism. And they pulled a plug. Not even in China they want to do it anymore!

 

 

Austria, the worst case, 20 years! You can go up to 20 years in prison. If you combine it, the skepticism, quote, unquote, “denial” with statements that they interpret as re-engaging in National Socialist activities. If you were, for instance, to argue that the Austrians are just one tribe of the Germans and they should live together with other Germans in Germany, which was a normal thought up to 1945. In the 17th century, 18th century, 19th century, in the 20th century, as the people of Austria always felt. And they were for the longest time the core in the center of Germany. And they got kind of pushed out with Prussia taken over in the late 19th century. And then after the collapse of Prussian Germany and Austria, the Austrian Empire after the First World War, they said:

 

“Okay, we had it, now let’s get reunified.”

 

That was the idea of the Wilson 14 points for the truce to have everyone self-determination. And the Austrians got it denied. And after the war, Second World War, they had special laws enacted if you violate them, up to 20 years. Denial combined with demands for self-determination.

 

 

To put a face to it, Austrian engineer Wolfgang Fröhlich was arrested in the early 2000s for a paper he had written. He’s an expert for disinfestation technology and disinfestation gas chambers. So he knows the technique and compared it to what was said to have been going on in German extermination camp during the war. And said:

 

“That’s technical nonsense, it can’t be!”

 

And he got eventually indicted and put in prison. And he was upset about what they did to him. And he kept writing letters and arguments from within prison, got more and more indictments and got sentenced over and over again! At the end of the day, he spent 16 years in prison for his engineering arguments. And he came out just around Covid, caught Covid and died shortly afterwards.

 

Western politicians complain about Iran or China putting dissidents for four, five, seven years in prison. At the same time they put them for 16 years in prison! That’s the worst case.

 

 

This graph here shows you the initiation of criminal investigation for thought crimes in Germany. Since 1994 some 4, 500, up to the most recent data for, … The year 2025 comes out maybe next month. Getting a little bit of a feedback here. [humming sound] The blue one is Right-wing thought crimes. That’s what we are committing here right now! Okay? Then you have the Left-wing ones. These are usually Antifa communists who make some radical statements about blowing up Parliament or having a communist revolution. And then you have the green ones, foreign religious, that usually means Muslim, Muslim radicals who want to introduce Sharia law or something like that. So for these two cases you really have to make aggressive statements that are not peaceful anymore.

 

Whereas in these cases if you’re just against mass immigration, you say anything critical about the jews, any dissent on the Holocaust, or more recently anything critical about Israel’s policy in Gaza. This is the Gaza escalation that you see.

 

 

Germany has extended their law that they outlaw more and more both by case law and by actually written code. And now this past data we were up to 40,000, 35,000 of them. Stuff that people like we do, like what we argue and talk about. 35,000 initiated criminal investigations does not result in 35,000 people sitting in prison. I want to make that clear. Most people never get caught for the slogan they have sprayed on some wall or sticker they left somewhere. And if for first time offenders, usually it ends up with slap on the wrist. It may just be a summary offense with a fine that has to be paid. And for first time offenders it rarely ends with prison. But then you have the 1 or 2% of these cases that end up actually with prison cases.

 

[14:50]

 

Only minority of that is Holocaust skepticism. And I have no numbers, they don’t in their paperwork. This is data based actually on what the German government releases. And they are put proud of it! Because they call themselves a combative, defensive democracy! Okay?

 

So they defend themselves in combating anyone they consider to be an enemy. But they are actually the biggest enemy of democracy. I wouldn’t even call it democracy, but a state under the rule of law that respects human rights that they never get a mirror held against them to look into it because that’s the enemy that caused this kind of persecution.

 

Back to history. This kind of an atmosphere that you have in Europe, in most countries and even in this country where historians don’t go to prison, but immigrants like me, I’m currently constantly on an ejector seat and I can get thrown out any minute if the Trump government so decides, because they don’t respect the law either.

 

 

What effect does it have, actually concrete, on historians? Here you see the lovely face of Wacław Długoborski, Auschwitz survivor who was put in charge, as I say, the Billy goat that was put in charge of the garden. He was put in charge of the Auschwitz Museum’s historical research center. And for many decades he has been that boss. And under his auspices, the lie that 4 million people died at Auschwitz was maintained until the Soviet Union collapsed.

 

Then it did collapse, and they suddenly reduced the number from 4 million to 1 million and said:

 

“Well, we have known it all along.”

 

And then in an interview in 1998, this historian was asked:

 

“Well, why did you lie? Why did you make that up if you knew all along that it was wrong? Why didn’t you correct the number earlier when you knew that it was wrong?”

 

And he basically said:

 

“Well, there was a prohibition in place in the Eastern Bloc in the communist countries that historians who would not toe the party line could be facing.”

 

How he expressed it, “disciplinary measures”.

 

 

What does that mean? You lose your job, you’re getting demoted, you have to become a street sweeper, or a janitor. That’s what that means in these communist planned economies.

 

Ironically, 1998, that’s when he gave the interview. That was the same year Poland, pressured by the European Union, in particular Germany, introduced a law, 1998, that made Holocaust skepticism a crime punishable with up to three years in prison.

 

 

So from communist “disciplinary measures” to Democratic “three years in prison”. What’s worse? I’d take disciplinary measures anytime over prison term. So he said that:

 

“Now we can tell the truth! Back then we couldn’t because we had disciplinary measures. We’ve corrected. Now it’s 1 million. Because you need to believe us, because now we are only threatened with three years!”

 

Any mainstream person who thinks everything is kosher with the Holocaust narrative that we fed now must realize:

 

“Yeah, kosher it may be, it means the jews like it!”

 

But it most certainly doesn’t mean authentic and reliable, because historians who are threatened at gunpoint to write history cannot be trusted! He admits:

 

“We couldn’t be trusted! We have been lying. We knew we were lying. We did it intentionally, but we did so because we were threatened with getting demoted or losing our job!”

 

And now we should believe you when you are threatened with three years, with five years, with six years, with, 20 years! How much more do you need to teach people, to tell people, to realize you can’t trust these people! History at gunpoint does not give you the truth in no section of society!

 

 

So once you have opened up people’s mind and that they realize the dimension of persecution, of suppression, of oppression and the unique nature the Holocaust is unique in terms of the length governments go to and societies go to suppress dissent, to keep complete control over the narrative! Nowhere else in society will you find it. That shows you who is the main beneficiary usually is also the one who pushes most. And it shows you that this is for them the most important topic to keep total control over!

 

Once you have opened people mind:

 

“Something is fishy here! You can’t trust those historians because they have admitted they have lied when they were threatened even less than they are threatened today!”

 

Then we go to the pith, the center of the story. Now I handed it out to you guys, free of charge, a little brochure and I want to go through a few things here that you find actually in the brochure. If this thing is too far away from you, I apologize. But you’ll find some of this in this brochure.

 

[20:08]

 

 

And the first one I’m going to is actually on the last page, the back cover if you wish. You know that thing technically speaking has no back cover. You see a graph there, a bar chart that shows claims of death tolls for the Majdanek camp. Now I would assume that most of you, at least most of normal populace have not heard about the Majdanek! Camp. It’s not anymore a major player in the bigger picture of the Holocaust in terms of mass extermination. It used to be completely different. The Majdanek camp actually was officially called the Lublin camp in central Poland was overrun by the Red Army in July of 1944.

 

So it was first major camp that the Soviets overran. And in a press conference right after the conquest of the camp, and I say “conquest”, the Red Army never liberated anyone! So you will not hear the word “liberation” when it even comes to camps, when it comes to the Red Army.

 

 

So they conquered the camp. In the press conference they claimed 2 million people were murdered there. It was the first big, still doing the war propaganda campaign on extermination, claim that started in August 1944. Big show! With all the world media, invited journalists from everywhere and cameras rolling.

 

 

Now in subsequent events, the Poles later that year still during the war, by the way, December ’44 had a show trial. They claimed 1.7 million. That’s a little bit of a reduction, but they weren’t generous. It’s kind of the same order of magnitude.

 

 

The Soviets then during the International Military Tribunal introduced an expert report. They claimed 1.5 million. Still again, 500,000 difference is not immaterial. But in the bigger picture, looking at it scientifically, it’s kind of the same order of magnitude. We don’t want to be nitpicking here.

 

However, the frenzy of immediate end of the war or post-war propaganda comes to an end and things cool down a little bit. And a Polish investigative judge reduces the number down to 360,000. And this is a considerable drop!

 

 

We’re down to 80%! Now, as I just showed you, there is a rule in communist countries you have to toe the party line and the new party line was 360,000. Couldn’t really go underneath that, even though they knew again, they knew in this case too, it is wrong! I think the number of prisoners sent to the camp was around that order of magnitude. And that assumes that every single one of them was murdered. And there’s plenty of documentation shown that was absolutely not the case!

 

The Soviet Union collapses and the number gets reduced again by a new historian in charge of the museum. 235,000. Not all that extreme a drop if you compare it with Auschwitz, compared to these two. But here we have already almost only 10%.

 

 

But that wasn’t the end of it. We Holocaust skeptics went into the archives after the Soviet Union collapsed, 1994, 95, 96. And researched the whole material, published a investigation on it. And it was so devastatingly demasking the propaganda of the homicidal gas chamber story, that pressure on the Majdaneck museum became so big that eventually in 2005, a new generation, a new historian dropped the death toll to 76,000. And that is only not even 4% of the initial 2 million claim.

 

 

And actually from the beginning they had claimed seven homicidal gas chambers. They maintained that number until the end. But five of them were so ridiculously, obviously, technically impossible to have ever been used for what they claim to have been used that to throw propaganda ballast overboard.

 

 

 

Thomas Kranz, the new Polish historian, threw five of them overboard. So what we have is an admission:

 

“That okay, we exaggerated, we lied, we lied, we fix, we fix, we keep fixing, we drop more and more of these lies!”

 

And then that’s what the situation is here today. They keep shifting the goalposts, they keep reducing the claim. You see, something is fishy with their attitude in general. But now:

 

“They got it right!”

 

Really, when you’re threatened with three years in prison? Why would I believe you?

 

[24:48]

 

Now we could say:

 

“Okay, one camp. What does one camp prove? That’s the most extreme downward revision by the mainstream.”

 

I haven’t shown our number that would here in 98, we published the book.

 

 

We find in the historical record 42, 200 death cases and no homicidal death chambers at all! They were all fumigation chambers!

 

So I’m just showing you what the mainstream itself has admitted to have been wrong over and over again! Is it a singular case? People make mistakes. Corrections for other camps? If you go in the brochure, if you want to go on page six, you see the table there now the same table here, the major camps that played a role in Allied war as well as immediate post-war propaganda as claimed extermination camps.

 

 

You see the initial death toll here on the left numbers column. And the death toll that is claimed by the mainstream.

 

 

Again, I say in the mainstream, Holocaust skeptical numbers? What really can be documented and what is forensically possible is an entirely different story.

 

So I want to show you that if you just use their own arguments and their shifty way of moving goalposts, you should make every believer see something isn’t right. And you see it here, mistakes stray statistically from the true value. If I make a mistake, I may under or overestimate, but they should stray to both sides. Here you see only one tendency, extreme exaggeration!

 

 

That’s not called a mistake, that’s called a lie! Truth is always the first victim of every war. And why should it be any different with the Second World War? The victors write the history and they never write it objectively. And why should it be any different for the worst war ever fought that ended for the losing side in a major disaster that mankind has not seen all that often in history? Cathage and the Punic wars probably had a worse fate than Germany because they got completely wiped. But other than that, Germany was in pretty bad shape after the Second World War.

 

So you see here, these are lies! They have been lying systematically! They have been correcting and admitting in Auschwitz, I showed you here in Majdanek again and again they lied. They knew they’re lying. And now they are threatened even worse than they were before. The question.

 

 

So for my Majdanek, 96% of the victims were invented. 70% of the homicidal gas chambers were invented. They got it wrong repeatedly acting under coercion, still under coercion even worse so today! Why believe them uncritically now? You wouldn’t!

 

 

And it doesn’t stop with numbers. If you go on the second table of the page six here, we’re talking about invented methods. What the mainstream, again, what the mainstream has admitted, we’re looking in the second column here, of all the stuff that is actually has been invented.

 

 

And I actually added a few more here on this one. And here you see for Auschwitz, war gases, high voltage electrocution, gas showers, gas bombs, pneumatic hammer, conveyor belt.

 

 

Treblinka, you have machine guns, mobile gas chambers, stunning gas, unslaked lime, hot steam, high voltage, chlorine, ether, a death bridge, burning alive.

 

 

So it goes on and on for the other camps. Suffocation with human excrements as a mass murder method is claimed for Bełzec by one witness. It gets absurd at times. But of course, all this stuff, sometimes based on only one witness, sometimes based on tens of witnesses on all kinds of wartime reports, got dumped! Interestingly, the stories that prevailed during the war, hot steam for Treblinkaa, high voltage for Belzec, chlorine gas for Sobibor, all got dumped! You won’t find a word of it today anymore, even though they were the ones that were most commonly claimed during the war, and even during the International Military Tribunal, by the way. It’s all gone!

 

 

What we have left now is this. Zyklon B, and engine exhaust gases. For a long time they even claimed they were diesel exhaust gases, which are technically impossible because they’re not toxic enough.

 

 

Just recently, well, not too recently, 15 years ago, a mainstream toxicologist tried to move the goalpost there again:

 

“Okay, diesel doesn’t work. Why don’t we say it was engine exhaust?”

 

 

So murder methods claimed during and right after the war were highly contradictory. Even once claimed main murder methods were all abandoned! Polish Stalinist officials streamline the narrative against facts! And mainstream historians hide these extreme revisions and manipulations from you! Because they are writing history on gunpoint!

 

[29:58]

 

How was it done? To give you one example, and unfortunately I don’t think I have that in this brochure. You would actually have to go, because that goes a little bit more into detail for which this brochure doesn’t have room. I have that detailed example in this book here. Nazi Gas Chambers, which you can either buy there as a hard copy or you can find it on holocausthandbooks.com free of charge as an ebook.

 

 

The one case that shows everyone, and should show every normie that the story was faked, is the case of Sobibor! Now again, Auschwitz, everyone knows, Treblinka, some of you may have heard. Bełzec, maybe. Majdanek, unlikely. Sobibor also, not very often. Sobibor is one of the three so-called “pure extermination camps”. Actually four. Chelmno is a special camp. It’s a separate issue.

 

 

Treblinkaa, Belzec and Sobibor are the three big ones that were jews were shipped to be murdered and nothing else. That’s the claim of the mainstream. Sobibor was the smallest of them. Treblinka. The other here started out with 3 million. Belzec, 3 million claim and Sobibor with, 20 million. It’s down to 200,000 now, plus, minus. There’s always this kind of an average of the mainstream claim because they can’t really agree exactly on how much. But the other ones are way higher.

 

 

Sobibor is an interesting case. The same judge who after the war downgraded massively the death toll from Majdanek to 360,000 also investigated the Sobibor camp and the Treblinkaa camp and wrote the story for it for the Polish Commission for German War Crimes. He investigated a number of witnesses. They are listed here by name.

 

 

Right after the war, the inmates that were alive in summer of 1943 had a revolt in the Sobibor camp. There’s actually a movie about that. Not very historically accurate, but the revolt did take place and many witnesses, survivors or inmates, ran away and they ended up testifying in front of that investigative judge. This is Zdzislaw Tukaszkiewicz. Now the interesting thing is of what they told him. Right now for Sobibor, they claim engine exhaust gas as the murder method.

 

 

And they are supposed to have been murdered in just a normal chamber. One door. They walk in, they get killed with gas, the other door at the other end opens out and they get carried out to mass graves or pyres to be burned. That’s the mainstream narrative right now! However, if you look at what these witnesses testified, if they describe the alleged murder method, many of them said chlorine. Nobody said engine exhaust. Not a single witness!

 

 

What they claimed of the mechanics of the gas chamber is very interesting because they kind of agreed, with a few exceptions of witnesses who didn’t say anything about that.

 

 

That the floors in those chambers were hydraulically opened up, they collapsed downward, discharge the dead victims into two carts running on tracks below in some kind of basement area, and would then be driven out to mass graves or to cremation pyres. And they agreed on that you will not hear a single thing about that in the mainstream narrative! What Zdzislaw Tukaszkiewicz did when he wrote, based on his interrogations, that’s the only evidence he had, he said:

 

“Well, they were killed with engine exhaust and with just a normal gas chamber with doors.”

 

Invented out of the blue! With no basis in fact of any of the evidence! He threw out all the witnesses!

 

 

Now where did he get that narrative from? He actually copied it over. I just mentioned he had also investigated the Treblinka camp. He had copied it over from the narrative he had developed from the Treblinka camp!

 

 

And if you were to go there. I don’t want to go do that now again, you can find the list of witnesses and what they said on Treblinka in here. You find in Treblinka this chaos here! Electrocution, engine exhaust, gas, vacuum, steam, all kinds of claims. He cleaned that up, threw everything out, kept the engine exhaust and wrote the narrative according to that.

 

 

And then he copied it over to Sobibor. That is invented history with no basis in fact, none whatsoever in the case of Sobibor! The clearest case where you can absolutely pinpoint what happened.

 

So that is what you find if you go into the historical record, which became accessible to us only after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in the archives in the east became accessible. And we could actually go to these interrogation protocols and then see what narrative they made of it.

 

There is an interesting question that arises. Why was that done? I mean, it’s an obvious question. You want to look, make your enemy look as bad as possible. So whatever comes after the war, you can manipulate and destroy them as much as possible. Psychological warfare is just a continuation of warfare with other means. And ethnically speaking, the whole Second World War broke out because the actual tinderbox that blew it up, there were many more conflicts around the globe was the ethnic conflicts between Poles and Germans, mainly over the city of Danzig.

 

 

And after the war, as you may know, Poland gained huge territories from Germany and expelled the population. My paternal ancestry was expelled from Silesia, so they were part of the victims of that. And Germany was not willing after the First World War to accept the loss of Danzig, which was a 95% German city. How would you make them expect to accept the loss of a quarter of its entire territory and the expulsion of 7 million civilians from their homeland, where they had lived for centuries. And were not just a majority in large parts of the world, just only Germans, all gone! How do you accept Germany to this time accept it?

 

If you break the German spine with a guilt complex, you can make them accept anything as justified punishment. And that’s what the homicidal gas chambers are good for!

 

[36:49]

 

 

Now I’ve looked into all of the people who have done the investigation on those camps and who have written the history. We’re actually talking about only four individuals that were doing the investigation. I’ve mentioned Zdzislaw Lukaszkiewicz for Treblinka, for Majdanek and for Sobibor. Jan Sehn was investigative judge for Auschwitz. For Belzec we have an historian. There was no trial on Belzec. That was Eugeniusz Szrojt. And for Chelmno, which isn’t even on here, it’s a special case. There it is actually. It was Wladyslaw Bednarz.

 

So we have four Polish individuals all working for the Polish commission for the investigation of war crimes and Stalinist organization set up by Stalin to stick it to the Germans and to use all kinds of fishy methods, as I just said, and with the aim of destroying Germany psychologically and make them accept all that was coming their way. And it worked “beautifully”, quote, unquote.

 

If you present these things that way, I have found you can get people to understand first of all that it’s not some lunatic idea, but that there’s something profoundly wrong in a society that proscribes the writing of any scholarly field under the threat of punishment. And what that must lead to is untruthfulness of scholars. And then showing them, yeah, they have admitted over and over again to have lied, to have shifted the goalpost to hide facts from us, to completely change their story.

 

And then psychologically, very important, it’s not the jews who did it in a great conspiracy theory! That’s what I’m getting here. I’m not saying I want to win the jews over seeing how they were duped, they were. But you know, all those witnesses at the end of it, most of them are jews. They had an axe to grind. I can’t blame them. They were treated horribly. And in the frenzy of post-war propaganda, they were making stuff up!

 

And this is completely made up stuff here! And they even co-ordinated these witnesses. Coordinated, as they couldn’t have come up all with the same story. But the investigative judge couldn’t do anything with it. In other cases, they were so contradictory, they weren’t coordinating any of these witnesses. They were just inventing whatever came!

 

And in the complete frenzy of post-war anti-German hysteria, you can understand where they are coming from. It would have been the judge’s job to say:

 

“This is all nonsense! We can’t make head or tail out of it. And therefore, we need to say that!”

 

They didn’t do that. These judges were put in by the new Stalinist government. It was a Stalinist agenda. I couldn’t find any jewish backgrounds in any of those four individuals. I don’t know the chain of command. They did what they did on orders. Nothing of that kind of propagandistic political nature was left to chance.

 

So you can bet that there were orders coming from Warsaw and from Moscow. What type they were, this is the kind of investigation we have yet to do. Whether in that chain of command jews were sitting, I don’t know. But they are not needed. You can see here the Stalinist will to completely destroy psychologically Germany and to pit Poland against Germany. That is an important point.

 

Hitler had tried until 39, until the very last moment, to win the Poles over for an anti-communist pact against Stalinist Russia. And Stalinist Russia tried to conquer all of Europe. That was the declared concept of world revolution from 1918 onward. It wasn’t a secret! And Hitler tried to make a bulwark, a European fortress against Stalin’s plan to conquer all of Europe. Poland refused and went their way of poking the German eagle to the point where they lashed out. And the rest is history.

 

[40:46]

 

Pitting Poland against Germany.

Any other normal nation, if you imagine Mexico in a World War that breaks out between Russia, China and the United States, United States loses and then Mexico gets everything that they used to own and more. You name the States of Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, California. Give everything to the Mexicans and drive out every White American. Would America put up with it if they gain strength again? How do you get the Germans to accept that kind of calamity? It worked. What did not work, and I want to make that sure, even though my parents were expelled, my parental ancestors were expelled from that region is that today Germany and Poland are not pitted against each other anymore.

 

I’ve gone with my father to our Poles who had expelled him and his family in the 1980s and 90s. German expellees went back to Poland to party with our Poles in the house it used to belong to my grandfather! There’s no frontier, no border between Germany and Poland anymore. If I wanted, the German government not sticking me in prison for other reasons, I could go back and settle where my parental ancestors came from. That story is over in Europe! We don’t kill each other. We don’t kill White people over territory. That should be the case. Unfortunately, the Russians and the Ukrainians have yet to learn that lesson. That is over. Stalin did not succeed in pitting us against each other, we work together now.

 

I am saying these things in order to make you understand where this come from, how it was done, who did it, why they did it! Not in order to, say, give Germany its territories, they can’t even populate their current territory, nor can the Poles. The real biggest challenge for all of us in Europe is population collapse, which is something I will talk about tonight, by the way, and how this ties in to all these issues that I’ve been talking about historically.

 

So now we are not talking territories here. We’re talking about historical understanding and to make the jews understand, and the Zionists, we’re not coming after you. We’re not blaming you for having constructed this narrative in order to whatever. Sure, they took advantage of it, particularly since 1961 when the gravy train was already running with the Eichmann trial big time, and ever since have been profited from that.

 

But if you look in the first decades of the state of Israel and of the jewish community, particularly in this country, they were not riding the Holocaust train! It wasn’t even called that, way back then. The partial identity between Soviet spies in the United States and a religious jewish background was troublesome truth for the jewish community. They kept their head low in the early years of the Cold War and were not rocking the boat.

 

So this way you can make even the jews see we’re not out for revenge for what you did to us, psychologically. The story came from a different angle. And I think that is because people assume we are spreading these Holocaust “denial theories”, as they call them, in order to get at the jews, in order to say the jews have made this big conspiracy in order to get us and destroy us. Yeah, it’s being used now as such. This is what happens now with them manipulating us with this and saying in order to prevent anything like that happening again, we must allow and support them to pre-emptively kill everyone that even looks askance at them! Which is what’s happening in Gaza and what the conflict with many of these nations in the Middle East with Israel is about. That’s a separate story where we are today.

 

Historically seen as it started differently and it has taken on its own life. And we need to break that vicious circle we are in, using this presumed genocide, say what happens to the jews as we define genocide by the United Nations and in law, actually it was a genocide. You don’t need gas chambers to commit genocide. If you separate people so that they can’t reproduce, it’s already called genocide. And that’s what the National Socialists did in the camps, separating genders and putting them under living conditions that inevitably had to lead to many of them dying of disease and so forth. So technically speaking, legally speaking, how it is defined today, it was genocide. Now, that law didn’t exist back then. That’s a legal fine print.

 

So this genocide in its downgraded fashion without homicidal gas chambers, which didn’t exist, but the homicidal gas chambers being the foremost psychological weapon to traumatize the jews, young jews of new generation today and every one of us, we have gone through this education and know how shocking it is to see these bulldozers shoving corpses into mass graves at Bergen-Belsen and being told that’s what the Germans did to the jews. That was force majeure* of epidemics breaking out in camps that the Germans had no control over. They didn’t plan that. But you’re not being told that.

 

And the effect of it is that America for the most part is willing to go along, and Europe, to go along with what the jews and Zionists do in the Middle East. To break that vicious circle, to get a correct understanding, we can learn the correct lessons of history only if we get first the facts straight. And no matter what the facts are, morally speaking, you are never allowed to use past catastrophes of whatever nature to justify or foment current and future catastrophes! And that’s what’s happening. In order to prevent a new “Holocaust”, Israel is committing genocide.

 

[46:54]

 

So in order to prevent genocide, they commit genocide! There’s something wrong with this! And to see how we are manipulated with historical accounts being exaggerated and invented, to see it in this old example, the most extreme example, makes us see that happens all the time. What was it October 7, 2023, what happened there. Israel has a law outlawing, as I just mentioned, it was the first one outlawing Holocaust skepticism. And they have now introduced a law outlawing Gaza skepticism in terms of just what happened on the 7th of October. And they are probably in the process of making it a crime to accuse Israel of genocide.

 

All right, I’m having, as I mentioned, a second presentation tonight. We are talking about demographic collapse and where that leaves us, which options we have and what the various drivers are, which Holocaust propaganda actually is one of them. And I’ll explain that tonight. I hope I’ll get a chance to talk to you and maybe even discuss that with you guys.

 

 

If you want to look into this book, if you don’t have it yet, about how this core of the Holocaust, the homicide, gas chamber story, was created. As I mentioned there you can have it.

 

 

The encyclopedia also. I still have six copies floating around. Please keep the brochure. It is a short description and summary of Holocaust revisionist arguments with reference of all the books. You can find them all free of charge at holocausthandbooks.com. But you can also buy them from us on these websites and you’ll find links to purchase them.

 

And if you don’t want to keep it, leave it on the table and we’ll collect it later because this is advertising for our products, for our knowledge, for our insight, and we liked it to get spread.

 

So thank you for your attention.

 

[49:00]

 

[loud applause]

 

[Outro message]

 

 

If you want to learn more, here are a few suggested websites. At our Holocaust Encyclopedia you can find concise information on almost 600 related topics with references to further reading.

 

 

 

The results of 35 years of archival and forensic research into the Holocaust can be accessed free of charge at our Holocaust Handbooks website, where you can also access several documentaries as well as our Mini Series Holocaust Pocketbooks, which give easy to read introductions into various topics.

 

 

 

Printed copies of these and many other books can be purchased on our websites armreg.us and armreg.co.uk.

 

 

At our Holocaust Academy, we teach the ropes of skeptical Holocaust research.

 

 

 

It also features our growing podcast series named “Holocast”.

 

 

At the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, we lobby for free speech where it is threatened the most.

 

 

Most prominently with our periodical Inconvenient History.

 

And last but not least, Germar Rudolf’s personal website where you can learn more about him.

 

 

[50:22]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 6/23/2026 = 3)

Unlocking_Freedom
5 days ago
This video is so important. Discussing with a normie has many challenges, layers of brain washing, mind control by legacy media. https://www.printernational.co.uk/timmann2/history.htm#holocaust Approaching such a sensitive subject, especially with relatives is so hard. Yes the method of just sciences : Biology : Cholera, Tuberculosis (TB), Famine, Dysentery and Typhoid (Typhus) were at epidemic levels of disease Engineering : Wooden Doors, Floor Drains in a “gas chamber” Architecture : Swinging Doors Chemistry : Residue in the walls This video is a better beginning because the banning is a serious question for thought control. Exaggeration to Reduction in numbers comes from the authorities, which normies only will accept. Changing method of executions. There is no consistency.
1
0

Lueger
1 week ago
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10000207&FassungVom=2023-01-08 interesting history of the modifications of this “Verbotsgesetz 1947” in Austria

‹ Hide 1 reply
Lueger
1 week ago
The AI could not identify a legislative or political donor impetus for the 1992 amendment, but that the “1992 Verbotsgesetz amendment was adopted by the Austrian Parliament with broad cross‑party support; it was driven by government and parliamentary lawmakers (major parties including the SPÖ and ÖVP), backed publicly by Jewish organizations and civil‑society groups concerned about rising neo‑Nazi activity and legal inconsistency. Major identifiable supporters were: Parliamentary sponsors and supporters: members of the governing parties at the time (Social Democratic Party — SPÖ — and Austrian People’s Party — ÖVP) who voted for the amendment in Parliament. Wikipedia Civil-society and community backers: Austrian Jewish organizations and international Jewish groups, prosecutors and legal scholars who urged a clear statutory prohibition to close court inconsistencies and enable prosecutions.” I asked it to enumerate and identify the neo-nazi events, which it indicated would take 30 minutes. Bin gespannt.
0
0

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, yeah.

 

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

 

James Howe: Yeah, I know the guy.

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Yep.

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: You’re welcome.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: Literally, like, rip them out!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[05:17]

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, just—

 

Sam Bamford: Just giving birth to a dead baby.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah. Yep.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And I remember just thinking, like:

 

“What the fuck are you talking about!”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And then we got onto abortion and you started saying:

 

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

 

And I think I just said:

 

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

 

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

 

“I never really thought about it.”

 

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

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: You get brainwashed people from the Right.

 

James Howe: Yeah. 100%.

 

Sam Bamford: Happens with everyone.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And I asked around and—

 

Joanna Howe: Because he was Labor Right?

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: I don’t get this stuff.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Yeah, it genuinely tore me up.

 

James Howe: Yeah, it’s horrible!

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: The old‑school one from—

 

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

 

“Just the miracle of life!”

 

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

 

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

 

So, yeah—long story short!

 

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

 

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

 

James Howe: Yeah.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: Because we’re all busy working.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: Yep.

 

Okay, so when is it again?

 

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

 

[15:18]

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

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

 

“Are you gonna home‑school?”

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: Are you saying I’m short?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

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

 

“What am I going to talk about here?”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Yep. Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: Truly believe that?

 

Joanna Howe: No, I truly believe it.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[20:02]

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: Is that because of the One Nation—

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I guess I would say to people:

 

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

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah—

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: 100%.

 

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

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: What?

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: Over one in four!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[25:39]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: So it would have been 1988.

 

Sam Bamford: 1988. How old?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“Do you think I’m Australian?”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

James Howe: True.

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: Like, 100%.

 

James Howe: Yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: Same origins. Anglo‑Celtic.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[30:06]

 

 

Sam Bamford: So both of my family originated from the UK.

 

James Howe: So you’re Anglo‑Celtic.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. I think Dad’s family came here very early 1900s.

 

James Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: Mum’s was a little different—maybe around the war.

 

James Howe: Okay.

 

Sam Bamford: First or second? I don’t really know.

 

James Howe: Okay. But I find it hard to believe that—just tell me if I’m putting words in your mouth, I don’t want to misrepresent your position. But I find it hard to believe that you would qualify her Australianness based on her skin colour or her Indian heritage, but that you would look at a guy who is like me—say, for example. Now, it just so happens that I have Irish blood, so I am technically half Anglo‑Celtic, but my other half comes from Holland. Imagine if both of my ancestors were from Holland. But I’m still just sitting here in front of you talking with an Australian accent.

 

Sam Bamford: Yes. I like to always say as well, that the Anglo‑Celtic and/or European culture—because I think that’s what we’re built off. So Anglo‑Celtic, European culture.

 

A lot of people don’t think that. A lot of people just say Anglo‑Celtic. But I’ve been very upfront, in some of the stuff I put out on Twitter, saying Anglo‑Celtic, European, and Indigenous culture. Because I believe that’s what built us from 1901 all the way until—let’s say— When did mass, …

 

Joanna Howe: ’75. So ’75 was when the Racial Discrimination Act was passed. And then we officially developed a non‑discriminatory migration program. And then, in terms of mass immigration, it’s been growing since 1996 and it really took off in the 2000s.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, yeah.

 

Joanna Howe: And then post‑COVID, it’s been on steroids.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. And that’s where my sort of argument is, because, …

 

James Howe: But would you say that indigenous people built the country?

 

Sam Bamford: No! This is my argument with indigenous people. They had the land before we built all the shit! So they had the land; we built it; now we share it.

 

James Howe: Yeah, but Australia is about the people and the culture, not about the land. So just because they happen to be on the same geographical parcel of land, how does that mean that they’re Australian? Because she’s on the land too. But you would say she’s not.

 

Sam Bamford: No, she didn’t forge the land from 1901 all the way up until mass immigration.

 

James Howe: No, but neither did indigenous people. They just happened to be here, just like she happens to be here.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, but they were here. They definitely were here. And they did forge, …

 

James Howe: They were here but they didn’t do anything to build it. I mean, they did a little bit, but no more than, say, an Afghan camel herder might have done, and various other ethnicities.

 

Sam Bamford: I think they’re definitely a part of the people and the culture which has shaped this country.

 

Joanna Howe: But the Westminster, … James is not denying that. But if you’re thinking about the institutions that the Brits brought over the Westminster system of government, the courts, separation of powers—all of that’s come from a Judeo‑Christian foundation from the British Empire.

 

Sam Bamford: Christian foundation—not Judeo‑Christian! Christian foundation. I think we’ve got to be clear.

 

Joanna Howe: We can acknowledge that.

 

James Howe: Yeah, but, like, I would say that Aboriginal people had a small—a very small—role to play in building modern Australia, but so did some other races as well. Like, Afghan people helped to open up the interior. Chinese people helped to build the railways and whatever. So, yes, they had a small role, but by that same token you would also extend that to other cultures.

 

Sam Bamford: So do you think anyone can be Australian then?

 

James Howe: No, I feel like in order to be consistent in your position, you should also say that Aboriginal people are not Australian—and that wouldn’t be new. Like, that was the position up until recently.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, so they’re indigenous Australians.

 

James Howe: Yeah, but they weren’t considered to be full Australians until the ’60s. Now, I believe that they are, but I’m the guy who doesn’t base things on race.

 

Sam Bamford: So would Joanna be Indian‑Australian then?

 

James Howe: You don’t have to say Indian‑Australian anymore than, …

 

Sam Bamford: We’re calling indigenous people “indigenous-Australians”.

 

James Howe: I would just call them Australians. And they can call themselves indigenous if they want to. She can call herself Indian if she wants to. It’s up to her. Like, I’m half Dutch—I don’t call myself a Dutch-Australian. I think that’s just on the individual; they can choose what—

 

Joanna Howe: But I also think if you come here, you actually should identify as this country.

 

So if you come here and you become a citizen of this country—you’re lucky enough to get that—we’re Australian! Like, people have been asking me on Twitter:

 

“Who do you support in the cricket? Who would you support in a war, if India—?”

 

Sam Bamford: I literally saw one and someone was like:

 

“This will end the argument. Who do you follow in cricket, India or Australia?”

 

And they’re like:

 

“If she says whoever, then she’s that!”

 

James Howe: Well, she doesn’t even know what cricket is—

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, I don’t [chuckling] watch the cricket, but if I were to follow a team, it would be the Australian team. Like, in the Olympics or whatever. And if we’re at war, it would be Australia. I’ve only been to India once. And at home, the only language that was ever spoken other than English was Portuguese, because my mum and my grandmother, maternal side, speak it. I don’t—because I never spoke it. So we learnt English from day dot. Because I was born in England.

 

I think I do have a problem with the “ethnically Australian” thing that you’re banging on about now.

 

Sam Bamford: So what is it?

 

Joanna Howe: Well, because I don’t think it’s intellectually rigorous as a concept. Like, what is an “ethnic Australian”?

 

Sam Bamford: Anglo‑Celtic and or European, indigenous Australian. Because there’s a difference between “ethnic Australian” and then “Australian citizen.” The problem is now, if we cannot define what this is, then we cannot defend the massive flood coming in. Because Anthony Albanese [Aussie Labor PM] just keeps telling us that:

 

“Oh, these are people, are all Australian because their boots hit our shores.”

 

Joanna Howe: Okay, so we all agree, …

 

James Howe: We all agree that that’s bullshit, though. That’s not the question that’s under debate.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, we all agree that that’s bullshit!

 

Sam Bamford: So would you agree that if you can’t define that, then you can’t defend that.

 

James Howe: I agree but, …

 

Sam Bamford: Because by everyone’s logic, everyone should just be able to be put into Australia.

 

James Howe: We are not arguing on whether we should define it. We all agree that we should define it. What we’re arguing about is your definition of it.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, so what is your definition?

 

James Howe: Well, first, let me ask you a question.

 

Sam Bamford: No, no, no—you give me your definition. What’s your definition of an Australian?

 

James Howe: Well, I don’t necessarily have a coherent one. I’ve been thinking about it ever since this first came up. It’s not something I’ve given that much thought to. I think I don’t need to provide a perfect definition of what I think an Australian is in order to try and prove that yours is wrong. Do you understand? Like, I can, …

 

Sam Bamford: Should we both have a base‑level argument of what an Australian is to be able to prove what it isn’t?

 

James Howe: No—because we should, …

 

Sam Bamford: No, no—that’s how you start a debate. You can’t just come out and be like:

 

“Okay, this is your argument. I’m going to pick it to pieces.”

 

But you don’t even give me your definition of “Australian,”. So you have to give me a definition of “Australian”.

 

James Howe: No—don’t— Let me explain.

 

Sam Bamford: Well, then what are we doing here then, dude? If you’re not going to define what an Australian is—what are we doing here?

 

James Howe: Just let me finish.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

James Howe: Okay. If we find—say, like, we’re out digging a hole, right? We both dig a hole and we come across a large bone, okay? Now, if you say this bone came from, say a giant flying fairy, I can actually say:

 

“That’s not the case.”

 

And then you say:

 

“Well, what do you think it came from?”

 

And I go:

 

“I don’t fucking know! I just know it’s not from a giant flying fairy, because that’s a dumb theory.”

 

So—just me not having a coherent theory of my own—I try to be intellectually honest. I’m not going to sit here and go:

 

“Oh, well, here’s what I think.”

 

When I don’t know what I think yet. It’s hard to come up with this stuff. Okay. I agree with you that when people’s boots first land on the land, they’re not Australian straight away. I also don’t know if I think citizenship is the moment that that happens—although it could be, or maybe it happens sometime afterwards. It’s a vague line. I don’t know. It’s complicated!

 

It’s a little bit like when you start work at a new workplace. Right? At first, it’s a little bit awkward and you’ve got to, kind of, like—you’ve got to be a little bit submissive to the other people who’ve been there for 20 years, you know what I mean? But at some point you do become a true, like, fully fledged member of that company, you know what I mean? There is a point there and it’s a bit vague—like, it’s not necessarily super‑easy to nail down when that happens.

 

But I’m telling you this—I’m telling you this: If there’s one guy there who goes, you’ve both been there for 20 years, but this guy keeps on telling you that his grandfather started the company and therefore he has rights that you don’t have—you’re going to tell him to go get fucked, because it’s annoying, you know what I mean? Like, you’re like:

 

“We’ve both been here—we’ve both contributed—so shut the fuck up about your grandfather! I actually couldn’t give a shit!”

 

Sam Bamford: You’re getting angry that I’m calling your wife a non‑Australia.

 

James Howe: Oh, well, I’m not getting angry about that. I’m angry about—yeah, like, I’m angry at the theory because it’s stupid! Sorry—no offence. I think it’s dumb!

 

Look, let me ask you this question. Would you accept responsibility for White treatment of Aboriginal people in Australia if someone said:

 

“You’re a White guy, you should feel ashamed of yourself for the treatment of Aboriginal people!”

 

Sam Bamford: Not at all!

 

James Howe: Why? Explain.

 

Sam Bamford: Because it’s got nothing to do with me.

 

James Howe: Why?

 

Sam Bamford: Personally, I’ve done nothing to them.

 

James Howe: So then how come— all right, so you want to—as a White guy—you want to take the credit for building this country, but you want to reject all of the responsibility for anything negative that happened.

 

Sam Bamford: No, I’ve never said that.

 

James Howe: You want all of the rights but none of the responsibility! No, no, no—but do you understand the point that I’m getting at?

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, like—so do you think that I can just go to Japan, get a Japanese citizenship and then become Japanese? Is that what we’re saying?

 

James Howe: No, because—

 

Sam Bamford: Because there are definitions around this that we need to have a really tough stance on, and be like:

 

“Well, this is an Australian, and if we can’t define it, we can’t defend it.”

 

The same thing with the “what is a woman” argument. If we can’t define a woman, we can’t defend women. So if we can’t define Australian, …

 

James Howe: Dude, the way you’re defining an Australian is pretty much, bloody, the same as the Left’s definition of a woman!

 

Sam Bamford: How! How?

 

James Howe: Because you’re going all on superficial appearance*. The Left will define a woman as anything that looks kind of like a woman. You define an Australian as someone that you think looks kind of like an Australian. It’s the same shit!

 

[* Again racial differences are both superficial and deep.]

 

Sam Bamford: What, and demographics don’t matter? What, demographics don’t matter?

 

James Howe: I’m not saying, …

 

Sam Bamford: So you are literally saying that if we got 30 million Arabs here tomorrow—brought them all—and then just said they just adapted to our way of life for the next 15 years, that they’re all just Australian?

 

[40:04]

 

 

James Howe: Could be. You don’t know what that looks like.

 

Sam Bamford: You just said 30 million Arabs could be Australian if they came here tomorrow and adapted to our way of life over fifteen years!

 

Joanna Howe: Adapting to our way of life.

 

Sam Bamford: They could be. And then we just demographically change Australia, and we’re all just sitting here going:

 

“Yeah, that’s all right!”

 

Joanna Howe: Well, Italy might be an interesting case study for that.

 

James Howe: Well, hang on—you just brought up Japan. Okay. I think that Japan is a case that people always bring up because it’s, like demographically it’s just one race of people.

 

Sam Bamford: Or we could bring up India or whatever, if you want.

 

James Howe: Well, why don’t you bring up Russia?

 

Sam Bamford: We could bring up Africa.

 

James Howe: Why don’t you bring up Russia, right? Because you’ve got Sámi reindeer herders in the north; you’ve got, like, White people in the middle; you’ve got people that look Chinese down the bottom. You’ve got a whole range of different people.

 

But the other thing is, people always bring up Japan and say:

 

“Well, they don’t let people move into their country.”

 

It’s like the Japanese are pretty fucking bigoted! Like, they’re pretty racist and they’re a bunch of psychos! Like—no offence if there’s any Japanese listening—but I don’t have that much respect for Japanese culture. If you read about what happened in World War II, it was absolutely freaking horrific, man! They marched into China—into Nanjing—and they slaughtered 300,000 people*; they put 200,000 women into prostitution. No, but seriously-we don’t take cues from Japan!

 

[* This is highly disputed regarding the number and what actually happened. The Chinese themselves had no issue with killing millions of fellow Chinese during the early communist years.]

 

Sam Bamford: Like, yeah, but I’m not saying that. Yeah. So, like, you’re happily just sitting here saying:

 

“Yeah, you would gladly just watch Australians be demographically replaced in our own country because we’re not willing to sit here and define it.”

 

Like, this is the problem!

 

James Howe: I don’t think you’re defining it any more than I am. You just said it’s a White person.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, you haven’t even—I have not said it’s just a white person. Stop trying to put words into my mouth! This is what you’re trying to do. You’re trying to sit here and just say:

 

“He wants a white only Australia!”

 

Like they all try and sit out there and do—they all try and sit there and say that:

 

“You just want a White Australia!”

 

So you can pin me up as some type of Nazi. It’s pissing me off! And you’ve been sitting here doing it for the last 10 minutes, mate!

 

James Howe: Well, that’s because I think that you are, …

 

Sam Bamford: Do you think I’m a Nazi?

 

James Howe: I think you’ve got an ideology that’s on the Nazi spectrum.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah—for protecting Australia. For saying that Anglo‑Celtic, European and/or Indigenous Australians are, in my opinion, Australian. You think that is a Nazi? You think that ideology is being a Nazi?

 

James Howe: No, I don’t think you’re being a Nazi, but, …

 

Sam Bamford: No, no—you think that ideology is being a Nazi?

 

James Howe: Are you gonna let me talk?

 

Sam Bamford: No, you, …

 

James Howe: You’re asking me questions—every time I try and answer, …

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, well, you sit over there, sitting over me, trying to talk over me, weren’t you?

 

Joanna Howe: Okay, guys, …

 

James Howe: Don’t say:

 

“Okay, guys.”

 

I’m trying to answer your questions, but you’re not letting me answer.

 

Sam Bamford: You can’t even define an Australian, bro. What is an Australian? What is an Australian?

 

Joanna Howe: You’re changing, …

 

James Howe: Okay—no, shut up! You need to define what an Australian is.

 

Sam Bamford: How many times have I done it? I’ve done it four times now! An Australian is an Anglo‑Celtic, European and/or indigenous‑descent person. That’s what I think—demographically, …

 

James Howe: So, a white person! So then you say—

 

Sam Bamford: I literally said European. “European” covers, like, Italy, Greek—the majority of Europe—because a lot of people migrated from Europe.

 

James Howe: Okay.

 

Sam Bamford: And then indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians are brown!

 

James Howe: Okay. White people and indigenous Australians.

 

Sam Bamford: Indigenous Australians are brown! *

 

[* Unless there are freebies being handed out, then they can be blue-eyed Whites, with hundreds of thousands popping up!]

 

James Howe: Okay. So if someone comes—she’s been here for 20 years— If someone comes over from Europe 20 years ago and speaks with a broad Australian accent, then they just—purely because of their race—they’re an Australian, in your view. So, you asked me:

 

“Do I think that’s Nazi?”

 

Well, it’s not Nazi because you’re not talking about gassing jews* or whatever.

 

But it’s like a racist ideology!

 

[* As revisionists have conclusively proven there was zero gassing of jews by the Germans. It’s diabolical black “racist” propaganda against Germans and Whites in general. See the many links to this issue below.]

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, I’m happy to be called “racist” then.

 

James Howe: I’m not calling you racist—it’s the definition of the word!

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, well, I am happy to have a racist ideology then. That’s fine.

 

James Howe: Fine. It’s up to you. I don’t really care. But if you’re asking my opinion, that’s my opinion.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, so what is an Australian?

 

James Howe: I already explained. I don’t, …

 

Sam Bamford: Can’t answer it!

 

James Howe: No—don’t do this podcasty thing. It’s annoying!

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: What is an Australian?

 

Joanna Howe: In my view, an Australian is someone who comes here—because everybody came here. Right?

 

Sam Bamford: Yep.

 

Sam Bamford: So—even the Brits that came here—they’re ethnically British. Like, your parents are ethnically British, right? Like—you talking about “ethnically Australian” — I’m not sure that there is such a concept, Scot.

 

Sam Bamford: Sam.

 

Joanna Howe: Sorry, Sam. [chuckling] I think I’m talking to Scot.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, yeah.

 

Joanna Howe: But I think that—because I’ve had a lot of these arguments with him, too.

 

But I think one of the issues is—like, and this might be why James is positing that this is a racist position for you to take—is because you’re happy to include all the people—like, you’ve got indigenous Australians in there—but it doesn’t actually make sense with your— If your definition is “the people that build the institutions that make the country what it is” —that wasn’t indigenous Australians. That was, …

 

Sam Bamford: Oh, no, no, no—it wasn’t. But we sort of took the land off them.

 

Joanna Howe: So I feel—yeah—so I feel like you’re including them in because you sort of feel like you have to.

 

But at the end of the day, your position says that if you have brown skin like me—because you came from India—it doesn’t matter that you’ve never been to India, you never lived there. It doesn’t matter that, …

 

Sam Bamford: Are you proud of your Indian heritage?

 

Joanna Howe: Well, I’ll be honest, Sam—I don’t even really know anything about it. Like, I don’t! The curries [chuckling] that I’ve learnt to cook have been from a cookbook. Right? And I’m a Catholic, a Christian, so it just feels to me that what your definition comes down to is essentially—it’s people with White skin, because, …

 

Sam Bamford: Indigenous people don’t have white skin!

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, but I feel like you’re including them.

 

James Howe: Why would you include Indigenous people? It just makes no sense. Because they happen to be on the land.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, we had the land—sorry, they had the land. We took it off them and we built all the shit! And now they use all the shit that we built. I think they’re Australian.

 

[45:35]

 

 

James Howe: We [shouting] built all the shit! And she uses the shit that we built! But you don’t call her Australian!

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, but she came here in the ’90s, …

 

James Howe: That’s just arbitrary! Making an arbitrary rule, …

 

Sam Bamford: With her family from India. Originated from India. I know they came from Britain or from England, but they originated from India. We are denying basic origin and biology here for saying someone isn’t what they are! Like, we are literally being like:

 

“That person didn’t originate from India. That person didn’t originate from Japan. That person didn’t originate, …”

 

James Howe: But you said Europeans count. So if a person did originate from Germany, then they’re just as Australian as a guy who came from England, even though it was British people who founded this country!

 

Sam Bamford: But where did they originate?

 

James Howe: You’re denying basic biology, too!

 

Sam Bamford: Where did they originate from?

 

James Howe: They originated from Germany, bro! It’s a different country. It’s literally not even the same island.

 

Sam Bamford: No, no.

 

James Howe: Britain over here, island, Germany over here. Mainland!

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, yeah.

 

James Howe: Not the same country.

 

Sam Bamford: Anglo‑Celtic people actually started in Europe. You know that.

 

James Howe: Look, dude, we all started in Africa*, mate!

 

[* So the implied argument is that we are all the same, that racial differences are only superficial, etc., and therefore it doesn’t really matter who we bring into Australia as they can all become “Australian”. How would that work if Australia imported millions of pygmies from the Congo? Would they eventually act and behave as White Aussies now? It’s a ridiculous argument.]

 

Sam Bamford: I know. We all walked up, didn’t we?

 

James Howe: Yeah, we walked up and we, like, bred with fucking Neanderthals! You know what I mean? Literal fact—that happened. We had sex with Neanderthals. And so we all have a bit of that in us. So, but—like—

 

Sam Bamford: So this is—sorry, sorry— to jump in.

 

So this is my thing, right. And this is one of my arguments. I heard you say the other day, and I liked it. And I really thought about it:

 

“We’re all equal in the eyes of God.”

 

And I was like:

 

“I think he has a point.”

 

But from my point of view—let’s say Sudanese kids—they equate for maybe, what, 90% of machete crime? But they’re under 1% of the population. I would not want to live around a street full of Sudanese people, given the data.

 

James Howe: Yeah.

 

Joanna Howe: No shit! [chuckling]

 

James Howe: We are all on the same page.

 

Sam Bamford: So, like, for me, I’m not going to be like, … But with something coming out and saying:

 

“We’re all equal in the eyes of God.”

 

Well, I don’t know that all cultures are equal in this, …

 

James Howe: I couldn’t agree more.

 

Sam Bamford: In the same way.

 

James Howe: We’re all on the same page bro.

 

Sam Bamford: So how do we, …

 

James Howe: There’s a lot of White fuckwits as well!

 

Sam Bamford: 100%

 

James Howe: I would totally deport someone dickhead with pink hair and a septum piercing from Gertrude Street over a good Christian, nice person.

 

Sam Bamford: Where are you going to deport them to?

 

James Howe: Back to fucking England where they came from, mate!

 

Sam Bamford: Back to England.

 

James Howe: Because that’s the thing—you say:

 

“Oh, I’m ethnically Australian.”

 

No, bro, you’re ethnically British! Okay?

 

[James is showing an underlying animosity towards Whites here, i.e., a self-hating programming by mass media.]

 

Sam Bamford: No, no, no, no! I’m ethnically Australian because we formed the government in 1901.

 

James Howe: Okay, sure. So, but then, once again, you said that people who are ethnically Australian—then you wouldn’t give them that— But you would say people who are ethnically Japanese are fully Japanese, …

 

Sam Bamford: So you’re saying anyone now can be deported back to England?

 

Joanna Howe: No, no!

 

James Howe: If you gave me two people to deport, I would probably pick that one.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

James Howe: So—

 

Joanna Howe: But I think there’s some fundamentals that we all agree on. Immigration system’s out of control! We should deport the, …

 

Sam Bamford: This is why we’re having this argument in the first place.

 

Joanna Howe: We should deport the criminals. Right? Like, anyone that’s breaking the law who’s a permanent visa holder and does have dual citizenship—send them home!

 

But then I think—I guess my issue, Sam—is the argument that you and Scott Challen are prosecuting. To me, it’s really, like, it is problematic. And I want to work with you because I like you and I feel like there’s so much that we can agree on, but I do think this is going down the wrong path because James can’t properly define yet what is Australian. But I think what he can do is say that your definition excludes someone like me from being Australian.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, so if we, …

 

Joanna Howe: Should we talk about that? I’m not Australian in your eyes anymore?

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, but if we, yeah, you’re an Australian citizen.

 

So, if we move away from demographically what we are, do you think that moves into insecurity in Australia? Insecurity in our future?

 

Joanna Howe: Well, I think one of the problems we’ve had is that we’ve introduced immigrants at such a great scale that it’s been incredibly disruptive. There’s been no obligation to assimilate or integrate. No English‑language requirement. So there are so many, …

 

Sam Bamford: And why is that? Because we were the overwhelming majority in our own country. That’s why!

 

Joanna Howe: If you look at, …

 

Sam Bamford: So if we are the overwhelming majority in our own country when you came in, that’s fine. Integrated—fine. Now we’ve been slipping away from being the overwhelming majority in our own country. And I mean by overwhelming majority Anglo‑Celtic and—can I just say “Australian” when I, …

 

James Howe: Just say “White,” bro!

 

Sam Bamford: No! Anglo‑Celtic and or European, …

 

James Howe: Where the fuck are White people in the world? England, …

 

Sam Bamford: Stop trying to lure me in to be like:

 

“Can you just say White!”

 

Like, every single time, dude! Every single time! Anglo‑Celtic and or European Australians, indigenous Australians. How many times!

 

James Howe: You get annoyed at me for calling you on making euphemisms like the Left does. Just use the words, bro. I know you mean White. Okay?

 

Sam Bamford: Anglo‑Celtic and or Europe, … Anglo‑Celtic, … Anglo‑Celtic, … Angelo‑Celtic, … Anglo‑Celtic, … Anglo‑Celtic and or European, …

 

Thank you for letting me finish. Anglo, … I don’t even know where we’re at! Anglo‑Celtic and or European Australians. When we don’t become the overwhelming majority in our own country, then how are people meant to integrate? Because right now they’re just coming in. Anthony Albanese came out this morning, he’s like:

 

“I just want to say thanks to the Indian community for helping build modern Australia.”

 

Why isn’t he saying, “I just want to thank the Australian community”? Why is he referring to them as the Indian community?

 

Joanna Howe: Look, both of us, …

 

Sam Bamford: Because they originated from India?

 

Joanna Howe: Both of us don’t like Albo, so I don’t think we need— I would ask you—the Irish that came in the Global Financial Crisis. So in the mid‑ to late‑2000s, we had an influx of Irish people because their economy was tanking and they wanted to come here. They came as backpackers and then they switched to 457 visa holders. Then they became permanent residents.

 

So the same thing that Indians are doing now, the Irish were doing in huge numbers in the mid‑2000s. Should we send them home?

 

Sam Bamford: When were they coming?

 

Joanna Howe: Global Financial Crisis—between 2008–2016. We had a lot of White people from Ireland coming.

 

Sam Bamford: No, no, no, no, no! Well, what I’m saying—and what I’ve always been saying, true to my word—is these people aren’t assimilating. And we were the overwhelming majority in our own country. I think back then, in 2016, Anglo‑Celtic and/or European Australians were 76% of Australians.

 

Joanna Howe: What’s the policy prescription here, Sam? Is it, …

 

Sam Bamford: I don’t have a policy prescription*—why do I need a policy prescription?

 

[The policy prescription is to return to the original White Australia Policy and re-establish Australia as a super majority White country. Place the multi-culti, multi-racial destructive policy in the trash, where it should have always remained.]

 

Joanna Howe: Well, because I think language— I think that what you’re doing is really— It really concerns me as someone with brown skin.

 

Sam Bamford: I’m moving on and off this argument. After I’m having you on today, I’m literally moving on from it.

 

James Howe: You’re not going to be able to though!

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, well, that’s fine. People can say what they’ve been saying for years now, about it.

 

James Howe: I don’t think you realise just how big a thing this is.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay.

 

James Howe: I don’t think it is something that you can move on from. I

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah! Because I think it’s a mess.

 

Sam Bamford: Oh, no! Oh no! I can move on. You can say that an Australian is this, and I can define that. And I can say:

 

“These people are great Australian citizens.”

 

James Howe: You can’t define what an Australian is!

 

Sam Bamford: Dude, you can’t define what it is! I’ve literally—I don’t know how many times you have come out and said, …

 

James Howe: But you can’t even acknowledge that you can’t!

 

Joanna Howe: Your definition doesn’t work!

 

James Howe: Okay, let me ask you some questions.

 

Sam Bamford: You can’t tell me my definition doesn’t work. I just defined it—it is defining something.

 

James Howe: Let’s see if you can.

 

Sam Bamford: I’ve just defined it.

 

James Howe: Let’s see if you can.

 

Sam Bamford: Let’s see if you can! You first. What’s an Australian? What’s an Australian? What’s an Australian?

 

James Howe: I don’t know!

 

Sam Bamford: There you go! So don’t come at me!

 

James Howe: He won’t let me answer my, …

 

Sam Bamford: Don’t come at me!

 

James Howe: He thinks he knows what an Australian is.

 

Joanna Howe: Let, …

 

Sam Bamford: I just told you what an Australian is, dude!

 

James Howe: No, I’m asking—

 

Sam Bamford: This is getting ridiculous!

 

James Howe: He won’t let me ask him questions!

 

Sam Bamford: This is getting ridiculous!

 

James Howe: You won’t let me test your thesis!

 

Joanna Howe: Can we please, …

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah go, test my thesis!

 

James Howe: Okay—but you’re going to shut up and let me actually ask the question?

 

Sam Bamford: Pot calling the kettle black, mate!

 

Joanna Howe: All right, let James, ask some questions.

 

Sam Bamford: No. Well—no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no! If you’re going to sit here and sit there and insult me in my own fucking house, mate! This is getting bullshit! Actual bullshit! You can’t just sit there and have a crack at me and tell me my thesis is bullshit, when you can’t even define it yourself, mate! You can’t even sit here and define an Australian! Yeah—well, this is ridiculous! Get out of my fucking house then, mate!

 

Joanna Howe: Come down!

 

Sam Bamford: You think this is ridiculous?

 

Joanna Howe: Hey! Hey! Hey!

 

Sam Bamford: You want to sit there and have a crack at me in, …

 

James Howe: Your:

 

“This is ridiculous!”

 

Is it? Okay, what’s an Australian?

 

Joanna Howe: Let’s ask him.

 

James Howe: You are making fun of me for not being able to define what an Australian is!

 

Sam Bamford: Because you keep going, …

 

James Howe: Because you’re too scared for me to even ask you a question!

 

Sam Bamford: Just ask it then! Ask it then!

 

James Howe: But you won’t shut up, so I can’t.

 

Sam Bamford: Go!

 

Joanna Howe: Ask the question!

 

James Howe: You’re being ridiculous!

 

Sam Bamford: You’re being ridiculous!

 

Joanna Howe: Shut up! Stop calling each other names! Oh my goodness!

 

Sam Bamford: You are being ridiculous!

 

Joanna Howe: I should [chuckling] be sitting in the middle. Ask him some fucking questions! He will answer them!

 

James Howe: All right.

 

Joanna Howe: Deep breaths.

 

James Howe: A German person who arrived 20 years ago and has Australian citizenship. Are they Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: They are from Germany?

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay.

 

James Howe: Yes or no?

 

Sam Bamford: What?

 

James Howe: Are they Australian?

 

Joanna Howe: Have they come from Germany?

 

James Howe: Yeah, they’re from Germany.

 

Sam Bamford: Yes. Anglo‑Celtic and or Europeans. Have they assimilated into our society?

 

James Howe: Yes.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah—well, then I’ll probably class them as a German‑Australian.

 

James Howe: Are they Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: German‑Australian.

 

James Howe: Is she, what’s she?

 

Sam Bamford: Indian‑Australian! Okay, she’s of Indian descent with Australian citizenship.

 

James Howe: Right—so they’re the same amount Australian. Fine.

 

Okay, so an English person who arrived 30 years ago, …

 

Sam Bamford: I can’t believe, … Like debating basic biology here.

 

James Howe: It’s not biology. It’s your definition of what an Australian is! Because you were just mocking me for not knowing. And I’m testing if you know. So let’s go.

 

All right—a British person who arrived 30 years ago and has fully assimilated—has an Australian accent. What are they?

 

Sam Bamford: British‑Australian.

 

[55:07]

 

 

James Howe: They’re not Australian.

 

Sam Bamford: Sorry?

 

James Howe: They’re not “full‑blown Australian.” Are they as Australian as you?

 

Sam Bamford: Well—no, because I was born here.

 

James Howe: So you have to be born here to be Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: No, no, no—I didn’t say that.

 

James Howe: Okay—so what is it? At which point do you become an Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: Well, let’s say your kids, right? Your kids are half Indian, half Australian. That guy that came over—explain him again.

 

James Howe: Say—like—someone from 30 years ago arrived in the country from England. Are they Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: I would probably say that is an English‑Australian. And their kids would be Australian.

 

James Howe: Okay—what if they came over when they were two? They’re 50 years old, they speak with a broad Aussie accent, they work on a cattle station. Are they Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: From where?

 

Joanna Howe: England.

 

Sam Bamford: Well, he was probably born in England.

 

James Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: English‑Australian.

 

James Howe: So he’s not—so that’s what it is, just birth?

 

Sam Bamford: No, no—it’s not birth. It’s also origin.

 

James Howe: Okay, sure. So—all right—what about if she was born in Australia? Would she be Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: No, because she is from India!

 

Joanna Howe: What about my kids?

 

Sam Bamford: Your kids are Indian-Australian. What was our government built off? What was our government built off?

 

Joanna Howe: The Westminster tradition.

 

Sam Bamford: British law.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: European law. Is India European? No.

 

James Howe: Okay—so what are my kids then? What are they?

 

Sam Bamford: They are half Indian, half Australian!

 

James Howe: So, half Indian, half Australian, Australian.

 

Sam Bamford: Half Indian, half Australian!

 

James Howe: Are they Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: They are Australian kids born here, but they are of half‑Indian descent; half‑Australian descent. How are you not getting this?

 

Joanna Howe: Because, …

 

James Howe: Because we’re just asking about what it is an Australian!

 

Sam Bamford: Like, honestly, honestly. When we have to use, …

 

James Howe: Everyone has their own category.

 

Sam Bamford: When we sit there, …

 

James Howe: Instead of just one category, now we’ve got a million!

 

Sam Bamford: When we sit there, …

 

James Howe: I don’t think your system’s any better than mine.

 

Sam Bamford: Ha?

 

James Howe: I don’t think your system’s any better than mine. You mocked me for not knowing what an Australian is. But it’s like, …

 

Sam Bamford: You would, … You literally came out and said:

 

“If there are 30 million Arabs, and they all just came here and adopted our way of life, then they’re just Australian.”

 

James Howe: No—if they adopted our way of life. I don’t think it’s likely that they would adopt our way.

 

Sam Bamford: And they had Sharia law!

 

James Howe: But I’m just going with your hypothesis.

 

Joanna Howe: No, because Sharia law is incompatible!

 

Sam Bamford: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no! Australia is free from religious law. But you can practise your religious law! That’s in our, …

 

Joanna Howe: We’re built on Christian traditions. We acknowledged that at the start.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, I know, but that’s called freedom! If someone wants to come here and just practise their, … They do it all the time. Are you saying that we need to deport all Muslims?

 

James Howe: I don’t think that Islam is compatible with Australian values! I think it’s a fucking up religion! I think it’s barbaric and primitive and wicked. But we’re not talking about that—we’re talking about race!

 

Joanna Howe: And I think the thing is—can I say something now about this? So, I feel like—

 

So, first of all, Sam, I feel like this is— I feel like for the first time, people on our side of politics have an opportunity to take on the Left. And I feel—and I feel—like we’re winning. And—no, please, just let me finish for a second.

 

You boys have talked a lot. But I feel like we could do this—like, we could actually defeat them—and we need to! I work in a university system that is controlled by Leftists. The media is controlled by Leftists; the government’s controlled by Leftists. This is the first time in my lifetime that we’ve had this opportunity. And I feel like if we go down this path that you and Scotty are potentially trying to take us down—saying we need to be like the Japanese—when the Japanese are racist! *

 

I feel like that’s a dangerous path. Like, I don’t want, … My kids aren’t Indian, …

 

[* The Japanese are racist because being “racist” is the commonsense and healthy attitude that you look after your own kind first. Every organism on earth does this naturally, except (((brainwashed))) Whites.]

 

Sam Bamford: We’ve never said that, though.

 

Joanna Howe: My kids aren’t Indian‑Australian.

 

James Howe: Scott says that!

 

Joanna Howe: Yes—Scott said it to me in my interview.

 

Sam Bamford: Like what?

 

Joanna Howe: Like:

 

“The Japanese is a beautiful thing.”

 

Yeah—he said that.

 

James Howe: That we should do what the Japanese do.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, but—like—do you guys disagree that Australians should be the overwhelming majority in their own country? And then, by definition—not using—because you don’t want to do it, but by my definition?

 

James Howe: No. Look, bro—can I just say something? I understand your instinct. Just let me finish on this.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, I’m over the yelling.

 

James Howe: Okay, sweet—me too. I understand your instinct, okay? Sometimes I feel also fond of White people and—whatever you want to call it, …

 

Sam Bamford: Anglo culture.

 

James Howe: Yep, fine. And I don’t necessarily like seeing my own race disappear either.*

 

[* The (((agenda))) is to “disappear” the White race, yet he is really not concerned about this? He is acting as a race traitor unwittingly.]

 

But can I just make a point here? I don’t think that that part of me is the best part of me. Now—I don’t want to be a fucking Leftist, okay, and be like:

 

“Well, everybody’s an Australian.”

 

That’s not the answer either, okay?

 

But I don’t think that racist part* of myself is my best part, okay?

 

[* The (((brainwashing))) has created a contradiction here, He would be all for defending his “multiracial” family to the end, but doesn’t want to defend his actual racial heritage of being White. He’s been guilt tripped into hating being White by anti-Whites.]

 

It’s a little bit like—I have temptations to all sorts of bad ways of thinking and behaving—what I believe at heart. Now, the reason why we have a great country is not because of Whiteness or Anglo‑Celticness or Europeanness or anything like that.

 

The reason why we have a great country is because of Christianity! Christianity! It just is, okay? You won’t see freedom having arisen anywhere else in the world except for in the West, okay? European countries—you’re right—White countries—were Christian, okay? And they created the best legal system in the world, the greatest freedoms for people, the greatest conditions to live, the most prosperous, richest, scientifically advanced countries, okay? But not because they’re White—because they’re Christian! *

 

[* This is nonsense! Africans can become Christian and they won’t create Western civilisation in ten thousand years.]

 

Now, if we turn our back on those fundamental Christian ideas of all men being created equal* in the image and likeness of God, we don’t end up with what we had.

 

[* All men are not created “equal”. In every aspect of being human we all have different abilities as individuals and as races. Are Pygmies as good as Zulus in the high jump? This is just the physical realm, but it applies to all other realms as well.]

 

We end up with something more similar to the rest of the barbaric world, okay? The barbaric non‑Christian world: Genital mutilation, human sacrifice, cousin marriage, …

 

Joanna Howe: Widow burning, …

 

James Howe: Honour killings, slavery. This disgusting shit! All of these things that we have gradually taken out of our culture over many, many, many thousands of years. These things existed in Ireland, too. It’s not just isolated to the brown world or black world either. You know, we have transcended that because of Christianity! But the fundamental idea of Christianity is that all human beings are equally created in the image and likeness of God! You can’t turn your back on that and still hope to get back to what we had here in Australia. You end up in a dark place. That’s my fundamental problem with it.*

 

[* His fundamental problem is his religious beliefs have blinded him to hard racial differences that science observes. Christianity can be interpreted every which way to Sunday and he is promoting the “hate your own people” kind.]

 

[1:01:34]

 

 

Sam Bamford: So—but this is my counter-argument to it. Like, sometimes that gets weaponised against you literally just said again, like:

 

“We’re all equal in the eyes of God.”

 

But you wouldn’t want to live around a street of Sudanese people because they’re so, …

 

Joanna Howe: Of course not! Like—not everybody has a right—like, borders matter.

 

Sam Bamford: So—yeah. So the right to be here—what’s—

 

James Howe: But I wouldn’t like to live near a work fuckwit, who is White and is sending her death threats either—

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah—because I get that a lot of the time—and that’s—

 

Sam Bamford: I get the same thing—yeah. I get the exact same thing. And I don’t want to live around these people as well.

 

Joanna Howe: But see—I think between 1901 and 1975, Whiteness was like a proxy for Christianity, because the people that were coming from White parts of the world were Christian people—because those countries were Christian. They brought those ethics and morality—that system of morals—here. We built our value system on that.

 

Now, if you were to just say:

 

“Let’s open the world up to the White people, like to the Europeans.”

 

Like you saw at the opening ceremony of the Olympics—we’re gonna get total Leftists if we make it like a White thing again. This is more about values—like Muslims are incompatible with the Australian way of life because they believe that men and women aren’t equal. They believe in Sharia law.

 

Sam Bamford: Do you think we should deport them all then?

 

Joanna Howe: I think that what happens when someone’s a citizen it’s harder to get rid of them, right?

 

Sam Bamford: But do you think we should deport all Muslims?

 

Joanna Howe: But I don’t think we should be having—

 

Sam Bamford: In the perfect world, do you think we should deport them?

 

Joanna Howe: Because it’s incompatible—now, if they’re a bad Muslim but a good person—like a good Aussie—because they don’t actually subscribe to the teachings of Islam— And remember, Muhammad was a paedophile!

 

So if they don’t subscribe to that—so they’re a bad Muslim—then we probably could keep them because they’re not really Muslim after all. Right?

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, but where do you draw the line?

 

Joanna Howe: I think, at the end of the day, one thing we could do straight away is to say we’re not going to have immigration from Islam—like, people that are Islamic. We’ll have a values‑based test. There should be an English‑language test. You should have to speak English if you live in this country.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah—100%. I think we all agree on that. But what about, …

 

Joanna Howe: I think the point is—like—we can’t go back to the White Australia Policy, because, I know that’s not what you’re saying, Sam—sorry, please listen.

 

Sam Bamford: Like —no, no—I’m not saying to debate a White Australia Policy. I’m not saying that! I’m not saying the White Australia Policy, …

 

James Howe: You get so mad when people say:

 

“Oh, they’re misrepresenting me!”

 

But it’s like, what do you expect us to take? Like, what do you expect to take from it? Like, you say, “In order to be an Australian, you have to be White.” Now you use the word “Anglo-Celtic”.

 

Once again, you get so offended by that—

 

Sam Bamford: No, because I haven’t said that!

 

James Howe: Yes you have!

 

Sam Bamford: You’re putting words in my mouth. Anglo‑Celtic and/or European descent with indigenous brothers and sisters!

 

James Howe: White! It’s euphemism, bro!

 

Sam Bamford: Oh dude, don’t, …

 

James Howe: I never respected the Left’s euphemisms either!

 

Sam Bamford: Don’t worry about it bro! Don’t fucking worry!

 

Joanna Howe: How com we are back here again!

 

Sam Bamford: You can’t even define it! You can’t even define it, bro!

 

James Howe: Neither can you!

 

Sam Bamford: I just did—30 fucking times mate! 30 times! What’s the point? No, no, no, no! You’re trying to just sit here and get me to admit a word of being “White”! It’s like, …

 

Joanna Howe: No, Sam—are you, …

 

Sam Bamford: No, you are, … You come in here—you come in here with a fucking plan!

 

Joanna Howe: No, no, no, no, no!

 

Sam Bamford: And to try and set me up!

 

Joanna Howe: No!

 

Sam Bamford: You have! You fucking have!

 

James Howe: Okay—if that’s what you think—

 

Sam Bamford: I fucking think that, mate! That’s 100% what I think!

 

Joanna Howe: Sam!

 

And I think you can’t define shit! Just like you couldn’t even define what a woman is! If you can’t define something—you can’t defend it!

 

James Howe: You think I can’t define what a woman is?

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah! Go tell me!

 

“XXY chromosome. Adult human female.”

 

James Howe: Adult human female!

 

Sam Bamford: Well done!

 

James Howe: Silly sausage. Why are you being so aggressive?

 

Sam Bamford: What is an Australian! What is an Australian?

 

[1:05:05]

 

 

Joanna Howe: Could we agree? Could we agree? No! No. Hey! Let’s try and work, … Can we try and work this out now? Can we try and work this out? Okay—shut up, you two! Okay, so, Sam, …

 

Sam Bamford: Yes.

 

Joanna Howe: Let’s just answer this: Am I an Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: No! You are an Australian citizen!

 

Joanna Howe: I think that this is a problem—that you’re creating a demarcation between—

 

Sam Bamford: It’s not!

 

Joanna Howe: It is!

 

James Howe: Just have the moral courage to just admit it, bro! Like, what you’re talking about is racial discrimination.

 

Sam Bamford: No, it’s not!

 

James Howe: Yes it is! Like, your definition of an Australian is broken down on skin colour. All right— Is Denzel Washington an American?

 

Sam Bamford: Huh?

 

James Howe: Is Denzel Washington an American?

 

Sam Bamford: He’s an African‑American. I’m pretty sure he calls himself an African‑American, bro.

 

James Howe: So is he an American?

 

Okay—if you had only a yes or no answer—you’re only allowed to say “yes” or “no” and I asked you the question, is DenzelWashington, …

 

Sam Bamford: No, no, no, no! You can’t just throw that onto me. You can’t.

 

James Howe: Yes, you can—because you keep on throwing things onto me and saying:

 

“What’s an Australian? What’s an Australian?”

 

Sam Bamford: There’s no point going, … We’re just going to keep going around in circles. If you can’t define it, I can’t defend it!

 

James Howe: I reject that! But anyway, I don’t think you can—

 

Sam Bamford: You didn’t even define it.

 

James Howe: Neither did you.

 

Joanna Howe: It seems like there’s a hierarchy here.

 

Sam Bamford: Can we just get some common ground here? Do we want Australians to be the overwhelming majority in their own country? And when you came in here, you found it easier to assimilate— If there were so many people in here that were just of different demographics—from the age of, let’s say, from 2016 to now—they are struggling to integrate into our society because they are coming in their groups.

 

James Howe: No, I agree. So I agree on all of that. The problem is we keep on crossing lines because we’re not allowed to use words like “race”.

 

Sam Bamford: Because if you can’t define something, you can’t defend it.

 

Now, I have defined an Australian multiple times on this podcast.

 

James Howe: You’ve done a shitty job on it!

 

Joanna Howe: If you’ve got like, …

 

Sam Bamford: Cool! That’s your opinion!

 

James Howe: You haven’t provided a clear definition of what and Australian is!

 

Sam Bamford: That is your opinion! I have written this so many times on the internet, and I’ve said it so many times here. And, like if, …

 

James Howe: Yeah, but your definition doesn’t make sense! * It is low resolution!

 

[Sam has defined it multiple times as people of “Anglo‑Celtic and or European descent” and as a special category “indigenous (aka, abos) peoples”. Now this can only mean “Whites” and abos, as James understands it, but for his own reasons Sam doesn’t want to say “Whites”!]

 

Sam Bamford: No, but it does to me! It makes sense to me. I don’t have to tell you any further than my definition. I’ve told you that, bro, so many times!

 

And it’s like you’re just trying to lure me, …

 

James Howe: One more time, …

 

Sam Bamford: No, no, no!

 

Joanna Howe: If there’s 200 people, …

 

Sam Bamford: No. Like, what’s the point in going forward? That is my clear definition. And I am moving on from it after this. It’s fine—I can move on from it. People clip it up everywhere and I’ll just do what I normally do. I’ll sit there this afternoon and I’ll talk about how Phil Thompson—one of my good mates is in the army. They’re getting all the veteran budget ripped away from us and giving it all to immigrants. I’ll go back to talking about that!

 

And then this issue will just move on. Like, I’m done with this issue after today. I came out and said something a couple of weeks ago. We’ve debated it. It’s had good debate. And okay, now we’re just gonna go back to attacking the Left. That’s what I’m gonna do. And you’re gonna sit there saying, “It’s gonna stay with me.” All right. I don’t care!

 

Joanna Howe: I actually think that there is a moral imperative on us to find the areas of agreement and to also try and find the truth, right? Like, I don’t think any of us could be so arrogant as to say that we are the 100% holders of all the truth on this.

 

Sam Bamford: Of course not. Everyone is wrong all the time.

 

Joanna Howe: I think the problem I have with your position is that it allows anyone who’s come from Europe or Britain or who is indigenous to get the full word “Australian.” Like, on their Instagram bio, they can write, “I am Australian,” but someone like me—I write, “I am Indian‑Australian.” Or my five children that were born here “we are Indian‑Australian.” You know—I feel like this is carving things out.

 

Sam Bamford: That’s basically what I’m saying.

 

Joanna Howe: I know that’s what you’re saying, and, …

 

Sam Bamford: I’m not going to change that!

 

Joanna Howe: And I think it creates a hierarchy and it also, …

 

Sam Bamford: I don’t think it creates a hierarchy.

 

Joanna Howe: Well, it does!

 

Sam Bamford: How does it create a hierarchy*?

 

[* It identifies two types of “Australians”, the Anglo-Celtic/White type and the hyphenated “Australian”. A “hierarchy” implies a higher and lower ranking which for those on the lower ranking could be disagreeable, but reality is full of hierarchies, just like humans are not all equal in abilities, etc.]

 

Joanna Howe: Like, as a little girl growing up—and I have to turn around to my daughter and say:

 

“Look, you were born here. This is the only country you’ve ever known. You’ve never been to India. You’ve never been to any other country. You only ever speak English with an Australian accent. And if you go to the Olympics—which my older little daughter, that’s her dream—you are representing Australia. But actually, when it comes down to it, your mum has brown skin and was born in India, so you are an Indian‑Australian*.”

 

[* And what is wrong with that? The reality is the girl is half White and half Indian. A simple racial fact, along with all its implications. Joanna wants to have her curry and eat it too!]

 

Sam Bamford: Are you not proud of that?

 

Joanna Howe: I have no national pride in India! *

 

[* I could imagine some Indians calling Joanna a “self-hating Indian”, whilst James has aspects of being a “self-hating White”! Maybe that’s why they are a pair?]

 

James Howe: I wouldn’t be proud of that at all! If our kids started calling themselves Indian‑Australians, I swear they’d be grounded!

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah!

 

James Howe: That’s bullshit! Because they’re not, …

 

Sam Bamford: So they’ve originated from there.

 

Joanna Howe: It’s like, I think that’s—

 

James Howe: They’ve originated from here, mate! Like, this is where they were born! *

 

[* That old saying, “Being born in a stable doesn’t necessarily make you a horse”.]

 

Sam Bamford: But their mum originated from there. Her parents are Indian.

 

James Howe: Her mum was born in England!

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. Dude, we’re just going to keep going around in circles like this because I’m gonna have my opinions and you’re gonna have your opinion.

 

Joanna Howe: Sam!

 

Sam Bamford: At the end of the day, that’s all we’re gonna have. Dude, I’m not changing that.

 

James Howe: But I don’t mind you challenging my opinions. Why do you get so tense when I challenge yours? Like, I’m just trying to debate this. You don’t have to get so, like angry about it

 

Joanna Howe: Because we like you Sam. I think there are things we can usefully do together as well, Sam.

 

[1:10:05]

 

 

Sam Bamford: Like, of course there is. But I’m gonna have my opinions and you’re going to have yours.

 

Joanna Howe: But—okay, well, let me tell you—

 

Sam Bamford: And that’s where we’re going to sit.

 

James Howe: Sometimes you change those opinions—like, you might change my opinion on something. Like, you would totally be successful in that, I imagine, in many fields. Okay? And I would like to think that you could be open to having your opinion challenged on something, too—because isn’t that how we grow and move forward as people?

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, it has been. And after this conversation, my opinion still is that Joanna is a great Australian citizen, but she’s not what I define as an ethnic Australian.

 

James Howe: Okay, fine, sure! But I think it’s an incoherent position.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, cool. Yeah, I respect your position to have that position on my position.

 

James Howe: Okay, sweet.

 

Joanna Howe: And so when we say—like, I know you’re not Scotty—but he’s put up recently:

 

“Millions must go—deport them!”

 

Sam Bamford: Oh, yeah!

 

Joanna Howe: Who are you guys talking about?

 

Sam Bamford: So—anyone that hasn’t assimilated into our, … So I challenged you, Jullian Hill, to a debate the other day, and I said that anyone that hasn’t assimilated into our society.

 

So, people that haven’t assimilated into our society would be a whole bunch of Indians living in one house together, right? Sometimes there are 20 of them living in one house. It’s literally happening around the street of mine—I drive past every single day. Islamic extremists don’t assimilate into our society. Postcode machete wars—kids running around with machetes—that’s not assimilating to our society. And there’s probably a whole bunch of other—what’s the Iraqi dudes having the wars with the smoking shops over in Melbourne—that’s not assimilating. So we could literally get millions of people out of this country that have not assimilated. If you’re talking about deporting Muslims, there’s 3 million people there. So that means millions, …

 

Joanna Howe: To me that sounds like you’re deporting based on values. But they all happen to be … [chuckling] As in [brown?] like, that’s sort of what it sounds like.

 

Sam Bamford: Well—yes, so that’s, … Then it’s like—yeah!

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, but you’re deporting based on values. I agree, there should be a values test to come into the country.

 

Sam Bamford: So you’re saying that, then, there are different values with White people to brown people.

 

Joanna Howe: No, I’m not—but I’m just saying that I think it’s interesting because, … Okay, so one side of the argument is:

 

“Deport all the people that don’t support our values. They all happen to be brown. Let’s get rid of them.”

 

Sam Bamford: I would deport a whole bunch of people, …

 

Joanna Howe: In terms of bringing people in, …

 

Sam Bamford: If they were bikies—like, they’ve been deported. They can be deported back to New Zealand.

 

Joanna Howe: So then, in terms of bringing people in, where are we pulling from?

 

Sam Bamford: Well, going forward?

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: Back to our Anglo‑Celtic and/or European origins.

 

Joanna Howe: So you’re just bringing in White liberals?

 

Sam Bamford: Europeans.

 

Joanna Howe: Leftists. But, yeah [chuckling] think about France’s opening ceremony. Think about Europe. Like, it’s really messed up!

 

Sam Bamford: Okay. Would you rather deport from, let’s say, the Middle East, where there’s, …

 

Joanna Howe: Well, I’d rather have a Christian from Fiji than—I would like a Leftist from France.

 

Sam Bamford: I would rather just shut the gate on immigration completely and work on our birth rate.

 

James Howe: No, but we’re not going to do that. We’re talking about, if you did., …

 

Sam Bamford: Why not?

 

James Howe: Okay, so you want to have just zero immigration?

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. Yep!

 

James Howe: Okay, fine. So—well—and then we—like—

 

Sam Bamford: And if it—

 

James Howe: So then why are we even having a conversation about who you bring in?

 

Sam Bamford: Exactly right.

 

James Howe: Because you said you would bring people in from Europe. So we can only really refer to what you said.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, but I think, …

 

James Howe: So we’re saying if there were a choice between a Leftist from France, or a Christian from Fiji or whatever.

 

Sam Bamford: If Australians are the overwhelming majority in their country, I would take either.

 

Joanna Howe: But I think what I would define as an Australian, …

 

Sam Bamford: Do you sort of understand what I’m saying? Like, when we’re the overwhelming majority, we can be very picky on who we want to come in this country. We can get the absolute best! And I’ve said before—you know, Ronald, the guy from SBS?

 

Joanna Howe: Yes.

 

Sam Bamford: The perfect immigrant. That has come here, assimilated to our society. And he speaks Australian. He is Australian, but he still originated from India, and he comes here—assimilates perfectly. But I said the fantastic thing about Ronald was he came in under the right circumstances, with Australia, when Australians were the overwhelming majority. The problem is, with people coming in at the moment—we aren’t the overwhelming majority in our own country. We’re being, …

 

Joanna Howe: We don’t even have an expectation that you assimilate. We don’t even have an expectation that you learn the language.

 

Sam Bamford: Exactly right!

 

Joanna Howe: We don’t have an expectation that you move beyond your little ghetto of the people that are from the country that you’re originally from.

 

Sam Bamford: And that’s the problem!

 

Joanna Howe: We can agree with all of that, …

 

Sam Bamford: Because we were the overwhelming majority a long time ago. But we are not that anymore.

 

Joanna Howe: I think we can agree with all of that. I think the point where we depart is when you label me as not really an “Australian” because I’m an Australian citizen, but I’m not Australian like you.

 

Sam Bamford: Correct.

 

Joanna Howe: I’m gonna be honest with you, Sam. As a little girl growing up, like, that’s what my daughter hears. And little girls in the country hear. That’s really fkd! Like, really! That is, I, …

 

Sam Bamford: I’m sorrys But my position ain’t gonna change on that.

 

Joanna Howe: No, but it’s just like, …

 

Sam Bamford: But you’re just denying basically, …

 

Joanna Howe: So I can have the same accent as you. I can contribute more than you fucking do! I can, all of it!

 

Sam Bamford: 100 percent.

 

Joanna Howe: I can have more children than you do! So I’m helping the country grow and you’re not! You’ve got one, I’ve got five. [chuckling]

 

Sam Bamford: I’m hoping to have more.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah. All of that, I can even marry a White guy. But I’m never gonna be “Australian-Australian” like you! I’m always gonna be “Indian‑Australian,” which is something less than “Australian-Australian”.

 

Sam Bamford: It’s not something “less”.*

 

Joanna Howe: Well, what is it then!

 

[* Joanna won’t let the issue go because she is resentful that despite being a model Indian-Australian, a poster-child for assimilation, she’s not accepted as an ethnic Australian. Also what does that imply about Indians who haven’t really assimilated? She’s trying to brow-beat Sam into accepting an untruth to promote her own ethnic group interests.]

 

[1:15:00]

 

 

Sam Bamford: We just said that “we’re all equal in the eyes of God”. There’s nothing “less”. You’re just from a different background than mine! But my background were the ones that built the nation!

 

Joanna Howe: Okay. So I can acknowledge that—like, I know that. I know that’s the difference!

 

Sam Bamford: And then that’s the part where we look at each other—where it’s like:

 

“Okay, well, then maybe I am Australian, you’re Australian too.”

 

That’s not the part that I’m talking about though.

 

James Howe: Sam, what you’re saying is not even true. Because White people didn’t build Australia, British people built Australia! Germans didn’t do shit!

 

Sam Bamford: Anglo‑Celtics! People from Europe.

 

James Howe: You said that.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah.

 

James Howe: You’re just, … It’s White, man! What you’re talking about is White! She’s brown. And it’s really that simple. It’s just, like—it’s so skin deep. It’s no different to the Leftist definition of “woman”:

 

“Oh, does she look like a woman? Has she got a dick cut off? Like, does she have long hair? Maybe she’s had a surgery to get rid of the Adam’s apple, so she [it] just looks like a woman.”

 

Sam Bamford: Do you think I’m a racist?

 

James Howe: Yes—but I’m not judging you for it.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, okay.

 

James Howe: Like, you can be a racist. Like, I’ve got lots of flaws, too!

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, so do you—

 

So do you think, …

 

James Howe: Dude, discriminating* against people on account of their race is the definition of racism!

 

[* Discrimination is a positive and essential quality to help you succeed, prosper and live a long life as it protects you from making bad choices. You discriminate against individuals and also the group that individuals belong to. Unfortunately generations of propaganda and brainwashing has turned Whites to lose their commonsense about these matters, especially with race differences. James and Joanne have both drank the Kool-Aid and need to deprogram themselves from these really stupid ideas.]

 

Sam Bamford: Then I would say, sit down with her one‑on‑one and actually change my, … You actually changed my opinion on abortion.

 

James Howe: I think you would So, like—I’m not saying you’re a bad person.

 

Yes, but I’m not saying you’re a bad* person!

 

[* Well of course he is saying he is a bad person, unless he changes his views and becomes anti-racist, which in practice means being anti-White, as “racism” is always bad and evil except when it applies to Whites!]

 

Sam Bamford: Okay—then if people think I’m a racist because I’ve got that opinion, then that’s fine! People have been calling me a racist for a long time! I don’t care!

 

James Howe: Racism these days is seen as the capital crime. I don’t see it that way. I just think everyone’s a little bit racist, …

 

Sam Bamford: The Left have been using “racism and bigotry” from, like, for the last decade—on us.

 

James Howe: Exactly! But not everything that the Left says is wrong, okay? There is such a thing as racism. It does exist! What’s your definition of racism?

 

Sam Bamford: Judging someone upon the difference of their skin.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: But I’m not judging you upon the difference of your skin.

 

James Howe: You are judging her as being not Australian because of her skin colour.

 

Sam Bamford: I’m judging you upon where you came from. That’s not judging you upon your colour of your skin! It’s judging you from your origin.

 

Joanna Howe: But it just so happens that the people that you allow to be Australian are the people from the White parts of the world.

 

Sam Bamford: So—who are the people that built this country? Anglo‑Celtic—British!

 

Joanna Howe: But, you know, …

 

James Howe: British people.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, so the British people came here, they settled in 1901. They formed Australia—the Australian government. And they gave us our identity of who we are and what we look like. It’s like—guys—how we are moving away from that?

 

James Howe: Because it looks like that is irrelevant. That’s the same as the “what is a woman” question. If it looks like a woman, then it’s a woman. But that’s bullshit, mate! Like, if I present to you a guy from the Czech Republic—both of his parents are from the Czech Republic—he’s, like, third generation living here in Australia—hasn’t got any British blood in him at all—you’ll say that’s an Australian based on what he looks like.

 

But it’s skin deep, mate! It’s the same as the Leftist definition of a woman! *

 

[* Race is a scientific biological reality that is to the bone genetically, while the Leftist definition of a woman is non-biological nonsense, so they should not be compared.]

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, like I said before, if we had a whole bunch of people come here from India, and then they were just living here and assimilating, then they’re all just Australian, like that.

 

James Howe: But why do you have to go with “a whole bunch”? Why don’t we just go one person?

 

Sam Bamford: Because that means we were the overwhelming majority in our own country. If they come here, that’s fine.

 

But we need to ensure that we are defining what that massive bunch is—what that overall majority is if we can’t define that overall majority, then what are we? Are we Australia? Are we not?

 

James Howe: Well, look, …

 

Sam Bamford: Like, sorry, jumping in. This is the argument.

 

James Howe: Look, let me just, … Can I just say something just briefly? So “a whole bunch”, kind of confuses the matter.

 

Sam Bamford: Overwhelming majority!

 

James Howe: Yeah. But we’re not talking about that. We’re talking purely, … You could just say “one person.” Because, really, when we’re talking about her, it’s just one person. She’s not like your massive influx of Indians. She speaks with an Australian accent. She’s got an Australian name, …

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, okay, whatever.

 

James Howe: She’s married to an Australian. But in the Northern Territory, there’s a lot of people who are Chinese. They’ve been there for many generations. A lot of them are half‑Aboriginal, but a lot of them are still just Chinese‑looking people. But they speak with broad Aussie accents. They all work on cattle stations.

 

Sam Bamford: So they’re half Aboriginal, half Chinese.

 

James Howe: Not all. But some are half, …

 

Sam Bamford: But let’s say they descend from, let’s just say Chinese, half Aboriginal.

 

James Howe: Well, let’s just say there are also a few who have no Aboriginal because they’re just …

 

Sam Bamford: You’ve literally just said they have, …

 

Joanna Howe: Some are.

 

Sam Bamford: You literally said Chinese people, …

 

James Howe: Just let me finish. Okay—so a bunch of— Yeah, exactly! So a bunch of what you would refer to as Chinese people—but I would call them Australians. Would you call them Australians?

 

Sam Bamford: I would call them half‑Chinese, half‑indigenous Australians! [getting exasperated by James’ persistence]

 

James Howe: No. Okay, but would you, like because, …

 

Sam Bamford: That’s where they came from, bro!

 

James Howe: But they’ve been living up there for generations, right? And I’m going to ask you now. You’re the expert on how to define an Australian. You give me a yes or no answer. Are they Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: Half Australian, half Chinese!

 

James Howe: No. If you have a really good definition—which you claim to have—you should be able to answer yes or no.

 

Sam Bamford: They fall into that “half Australian” category. Because I say Australian, …

 

James Howe: A man who transitions into a woman, is he a woman?

 

Sam Bamford: Of course not!

 

James Howe: See, there’s a clear “no.” Okay—is this person an Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: Half Australian, half Chinese!

 

[1:20:00]

 

 

James Howe: No—you don’t have a good definition. You think you’ve got a great definition, …

 

Sam Bamford: Half, … Oh, no, no, no! Because, a little bit different, …

 

James Howe: Yeah, it’s no different.

 

Sam Bamford: Yes, it is.

 

James Howe: Same fucking thing! It’s just as woke as the Left. I’m sorry.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay—that’s cool! Because that’s fine. And you can have your opinion.

 

James Howe: You insist on euphemisms. You can’t give clear answers. You’ve got a garbled definition and you say that I’ve got no idea.

 

Sam Bamford: Dude, you can’t even define an Australian. So!

 

James Howe: Neither can you! [chuckling] I mean—that’s why I ask you a yes or no question. You’ve got no answer!

 

Sam Bamford: So many times I have defined “Australian” and I’m just not, … Okay, whatever, dude! That’s your opinion! Like, so many times, … And you just keep having these low shots. It’s like, all right—whatever!

 

James Howe: I don’t think it’s low shots.

 

Sam Bamford: Yes, it is.

 

James Howe: No—just because it makes you feel uncomfortable, it doesn’t make it a low shot.

 

Sam Bamford: Oh, no, no! 100%. So many times you’ve done that.

 

James Howe: No—disagree.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, well, then I disagree that you can’t even define what an is a woman, what an Australian is.

 

Joanna Howe: I [chuckling] wonder what people are going to make of this in the comments!

 

Sam Bamford: Well—yeah, but that’s the thing, though, right? I’m sure James is such a fantastic man—I’m sure he is! Yeah, you told me!

 

Joanna Howe: I like both of you, but I think I just, …

 

James Howe: I don’t think you’re a bad person in any way, shape or form. I just think you’re wrong on this issue. That’s all!

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, that’s fine! And I think you’re wrong on this issue.

 

James Howe: And that’s fine—you’re entitled to your opinion. But I’m not going to just sit here and not argue about it—like, we’re going to debate it.

 

Sam Bamford: Of course we are. That’s what we’ve been doing.

 

James Howe: Try and get to the truth!

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, well, and my truth is my truth!

 

Joanna Howe: No! Don’t say that. Because there’s objective truth. There’s objective truth!

 

Sam Bamford: No, no, no, no, no! Yeah, okay— There might be objective truth, but you’re not going to change me on this is my position.

 

Joanna Howe: Were you against The Voice to Parliament?

 

Sam Bamford: What’s that?

 

Joanna Howe: Were you against The Voice to Parliament?

 

Sam Bamford: No. So during this whole time, I didn’t even care about it. I wasn’t even really, …

 

Joanna Howe: But the concept of having an indigenous body that speaks into the Parliament—are you against that?

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. No, they can’t have that! And the reason we can’t have that is because we are Australian. We’re all one people. We are Anglo‑Celtic and or Europe‑descent Indigenous Australians. There shouldn’t be one of that—just representing a voice of Parliament—if what I categorise, an Australian, or Australian—so why should there be one of that category?

 

Joanna Howe: So I think that your definition—just like The Voice—divided Australians based on race. I think your definition divides Australians based on race and excludes people like me.

 

And so I think that’s the problem we have. We have a disagreement around this, but I think we can still work together. I think we can still, …

 

Sam Bamford: Of course we can. We need to defeat the Left.

 

Joanna Howe: I agree. And I think we have to model to the Left because we’re not able to do this in Australia anymore. We’re not able to fight and disagree and yell at each other and then still work together to defeat evil. Okay?

 

And so I think my problem with your position is—it is essentially the same problem of The Voice. It divides Australians based on race.*

 

[Joanna is desperate to be included in the “full Australian” club, and uses the argument that it “divides”. But even if she was admitted as an honorary full Aussie there would still be spectrum of newer and less assimilated arrivals who she herself wouldn’t call full Australians! So her “divided” argument only applies when she is excluded! So she’s only against the hierarchy when it doesn’t put her at the top.]

 

Sam Bamford: But it doesn’t! No, because I don’t want you deported. You’re about to bring in more Australian kids into this country than anyone else.

 

Joanna Howe: I know that, Sam, but I think that by calling me, … I can acknowledge that my heritage is from India and Portugal. I can acknowledge that my skin colour is brown.

 

But in my book, I’m just as Australian as you! And I think your failure to say that I am, to me it’s problematic*. But we can still be friends and work together.

 

[Yeah, it’s a problem for her, but it isn’t one for Sam!]

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. And this is my point—coming from a military background—if we cannot clearly define, if we don’t have the clear rules of engagement before I go out and kill some Taliban dudes—about who we can shoot, who we can’t shoot, and what we need to do if we get ambushed, what we need to do if someone tries to come and kill us, what are our orders of opening fire, what are our rules of engagement. If we don’t understand and clearly define what we can defend, then what’s the point?

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: If I can’t define anything to do with Australia or an Australian, then we can’t defend that. And that’s my position!

 

Joanna Howe: And I get it! I get it! Like, I get that’s important. I think my definition of Australian would be—again, I haven’t thought about it to the extent that perhaps other people have. But it’d be broader than yours. So it’d be something to do with being, potentially being, born here, plus citizenship, plus integration.

 

Sam Bamford: Well, this is something that can work with joanna Howe: Those are three attributes that as in, I wasn’t born here, but I immigrated here, but I am integrated and assimilated. I think there have to be some sort of three circles, and they coalesce onto that. And my children—born here; committed to here; represent here; assimilated to here. You know—I think we have to allow space and place for people like me in this definition. Otherwise, I think we end down a murky pathway that doesn’t quite work.

 

Sam Bamford: Because you could admit your heritage is coming from there. So maybe there’s a thing where we can say “heritage”.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah—I think I prefer that to the hyphenated “Indian‑Australian.” [chuckling] I would prefer to say, “I am Australian,” because, … I would prefer to just say:

 

“I am Australian!”

 

Sam Bamford: But this is where, like, I guess we’ve been, … I believe it’s been weaponised against us over the last, … And would everyone agree, like even you and me, would agree that anyone coming into the country they are just calling them “Australian”!

 

James Howe: Definitely!

 

Sam Bamford: And so, right now, that’s being weaponised against us right now!

 

[1:25:18]

 

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

James Howe: So there’s White people—that’s the other thing—White people have been fucking demonised in this country. And people might be watching this and sitting there going:

 

“Well, that guy’s really, like, woke or something.”

 

Like, nothing could be further from the truth! I fucking hate the Left! I hate the demonisation of White people! I think it’s absolutely disgusting! It’s demonic! It’s despicable! I have absolutely no part with it, okay? And it’s false—it’s a false narrative.

 

Sam Bamford: Anglo‑Celtic, mate.

 

James Howe: [chuckling] Anglo‑Celtic! No, [chuckling] I wasn’t— No, I wasn’t gonna— No, no, I wasn’t gonna— I wasn’t gonna start on that again! I was gonna say—Anglo‑Celtic people have done more for the world, I would say, than any other fucking race! They ended slavery, they created democracy. They brought science into the world.

 

Sam Bamford: I think the further we move away from that as Australia, the worse we’ve become as a country?

 

James Howe: Potentially. But not because of race! Because of values*, man! I think that it just so happens, …

 

Sam Bamford: So would you agree with me that we need to be the, … The Anglo‑Celtics need to be the overwhelming majority in our country?

 

James Howe: Absolutely not! Because you don’t have to be fucking Anglo‑Celtic to be a good—like, to be a Christian person and to embrace those values that came from the West.*

 

[* Values come from race. Different races have different values and cultures as result of their evolution in particular environments. Cannibalism and slavery was (which still exists) completely normal in Africa because it was part of a survival strategy for Africans and became hard-wired.]

 

Sam Bamford: Do you think that as Anglo‑Celtics get phased out in Australia, that we will lose our values that built this country?

 

James Howe: No! Because I don’t think that values attach to race! Because, you see, it’s not about race*, man! Like, this is the thing!

 

[It is all about race! Just as dog breeds have certain characteristics, or values, the same with humans. James has accepted the blank-slate nonsense about humans that says it is all about nurture rather than nature.]

 

Sam Bamford: But if we bring in too many people from outside Australia, then we completely change, right?

 

James Howe: Yeah—but if you bring in idiots from European countries, you completely change, too! It’s not about race! Like, look at her*! She’s the best freaking person I know! And she’s doing, like, so much good stuff!

 

[* Joanna is the exceptional Indian who has done her best to assimilate. It is all about averages and group behaviour. Millions of Indians or Africans, etc., have no need or desire to be like White Aussies as they will feel best and natural acting out their own genetic tendencies.]

 

Sam Bamford: 100%.

 

James Howe: And it’s got nothing to do with her fucking skin colour!

 

Joanna Howe: Because I’m Christian.

 

James Howe: Yeah—she’s brown! But ultimately because she has good values!

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. But—yeah, but like I said before, and I’ll go back—you came in when Australians were the overwhelming majority. And I’m not saying that you have, …

 

James Howe: No! But—no, no, no—stop with the “overwhelming majority,” because we are breaking things down on, whatever you want to call it, race!

 

Sam Bamford: Well, then how are we supposed to, …

 

Joanna Howe: How do we save the country?

 

James Howe: Stop talking about mass immigration. Because we agree with that! We agree on all of that.

 

Joanna Howe: I think that’s really kind of, … How do we save the country?

 

Sam Bamford: I would not be in a position where, like, I wouldn’t be saying anything if we had a birth rate that we weren’t importing two to three migrants per birth in this country.

 

James Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: And where are we mostly importing people from? It’s not really that European and that, …

 

James Howe: We’re bringing people in from the third world. They’re bringing their third world bullshit into this country. I couldn’t fucking agree with you more!

 

Sam Bamford: This is where the basic argument is!

 

James Howe: Couldn’t agree with you more!

 

Sam Bamford: And my point, …

 

Joanna Howe: You guys are so funny, because there are all these love–hate moments where you’re “I hate, each other!”.

 

James Howe: I think we are on the same page, …

 

Sam Bamford: We 100% are on the same page. There’s this one small definition. And the point of this, …

 

Joanna Howe: The thing is the country, Sam, I think that we need to get back to, …

 

Sam Bamford: Shut the gate! Remigrate! Deport the illegals, and then get our birth rate up!

 

Joanna Howe: It was Christians that built this country.

 

Sam Bamford: Sure!

 

Joanna Howe: It was Christians that built this country, and it’s Christians that will save this country!

 

Because ultimately, our belief in equal dignity, equality, human rights in current human beings, where does it come from? It comes from God. It comes from the Christian view of God. It doesn’t come from Muhammad, who didn’t think, … You know, who said that women can be, like, sex slaves! All that disgusting shit that’s in there! It doesn’t come from any other worldview other than the Christian worldview.

 

And so I know you want to save the country; I know James does; I know I do. But the answer isn’t trying to get back to what we once had*, because the world has changed!

 

[* The White Australia Policy was a founding principle at Federation. That policy was subverted by the jewish lobby (and its paid off Whites) in the sixties who across the West are the biggest promoters of destroying White societies through demographic change.]

 

Sam Bamford: Oh, we can get back there!

 

Joanna Howe: No. But unfortunately, like if you were to go to Europe now, …

 

Sam Bamford: We could deport a few million people, …

 

Joanna Howe: We could deport people without the, …

 

James Howe: Yeah, but in order to get back to, …

 

Sam Bamford: I mean, there’s four million Muslims, that you could, …

 

James Howe: In order to get back to what she’s describing, though, we’re talking about Whiteness. Okay? So, in order to get back to that, you’d have to deport every brown person.*

 

[* You would stop all mass non-White immigration and find good reasons to deport as many non-Whites that could be justifiably and humanely be done.]

 

Sam Bamford: No, I’m not saying that.

 

James Howe: Yeah—no, I know you’re not saying that, but I’m just saying—like—if we want to have a conversation about this, how do we save this country? It can’t be about race, because race and culture don’t always attach.

 

Now, what you’re noticing is a correlation—and that is true. Okay, so—like—a lot of people from the third world who have brown skin also don’t bring a Christian culture. Okay, but that’s not, … But I think that’s coincidental, okay? That those two things are not intrinsically tied. Okay?

 

Now, it just so happens that Christianity developed in the West, in Europe, but a lot of Europe now is actually really moving away from that. And what you’re seeing is a rise in that barbaric culture again—so, like, people killing their babies right up until birth; euthanising—first starting with the elderly who have terminal illnesses, but now moving into—like—teenagers who are struggling with depression. You know what I mean? You’re seeing that barbaric culture starting to re‑emerge*.

 

[* And those things are being promoted by jewish groups because they weaken White societies.]

 

And some brown countries are actually becoming very Christian and are actually showing values that are much more consistent with what we saw in early Australia. So I’m saying values and culture are not intrinsically connected*. Now, they are coincidental—they do coincide with each other.

 

[* This doesn’t make any sense. A culture has particular values otherwise it is not a culture.]

 

Joanna Howe: You are saying that races are intrinsically, …

 

James Howe: Sorry, values and race, right? So, now—my belief is that race is skin deep, just like a “transitioned woman” is skin deep—quote, unquote, “woman.” Okay? It’s not a real woman.

 

I think that culture and race are not connected. I think that race is just skin deep! At heart, we’re all human beings made in the image and likeness of God. You know what I mean? I don’t think race* has anything to do with it.

 

[* Completely wrong! Race determines culture and its values. He has a particular interpretation of Christianity that drives his distorted world view that we are all the same, and that racial differences are just superficial. The reason why generations of Whites have been brainwashed into thinking that race is just skin deep is to help destroy their natural resistance to being racially replaced by non-Whites.]

 

[1:31:05]

 

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, but culture does.

 

James Howe: Yeah, but culture and race are not the same thing, though!

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, so culture and race aren’t the same thing?

 

James Howe: Yeah, I don’t think they are. Look—let’s look at her, right? She has race, brown race.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, but what did she grow up around?

 

James Howe: Yeah, she grew up here. But that’s my point!

 

Joanna Howe: That culture, my culture is an Australian culture. Yeah—like a Christian culture.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah.

 

Joanna Howe: But my race might be a heritage from India.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. So, like, how was that culture formed? How did you fit into that culture?

 

Joanna Howe: Well, I only ever knew the Australian culture.

 

Sam Bamford: You grew up in that culture.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: And what was that Australian culture built off?

 

Joanna Howe: It was based on Christian values.

 

Sam Bamford: Anglo-Celtic and or European descent people that built this country. That’s what it was built off!

 

Joanna Howe: But nowadays those countries, Europe and Britain, they are heathen. They are not Christian anymore.

 

James Howe: Why do you keep saying “Anglo‑Celtic”. Like it’s got nothing to do with their fucking race? It’s to do with their culture and their religion that they brought over here. Like, it could just as easily have been brown people.

 

Sam Bamford: We would be a lot different if like say the Japanese came over here, or say the Indians came over here. We would be a lot different, …

 

James Howe: I’m not talking about that!

 

Joanna Howe: But imagine if they were Christian countries and they, …

 

Sam Bamford: Then Australia would not be Australia. I’m sorry.

 

Joanna Howe: But if they were brown, …

 

James Howe: Why?

 

Sam Bamford: No. We would not be this Australia that we love. No way we would be!

 

James Howe: We would be a different Australia that we love, though.

 

Sam Bamford: We would be a Japanese-Australia or like an Indian-Australian.

 

Joanna Howe: But they’re not Japanese, as in, …

 

Sam Bamford: But what I’m saying is, …

 

James Howe: But why does it matter so much what people look like?

 

Sam Bamford: Because that’s their cultural background! That’s who they are!

 

James Howe: So what!

 

Sam Bamford: Australians are generally like on the world stage—what do you expect to look at as an Australian? Like—say, if we were just to pluck one random person out—what does that get?

 

James Howe: But, well, it, … These days, who knows, mate?

 

Sam Bamford: Exactly! Right? And where are we going now? So—like—Australia that we’re moving into— Saying “Who knows?” It’s like—I don’t like that! Because it is dangerous!

 

James Howe: But, my question. Why does it matter? *

 

[* Because when you bring millions of non-Whites you fundamentally change the nature of your country and it becomes a copy of those cultures that have been imported. If you import the third world you become the third world. And why should generations of White Aussies hand over all what they have created to strangers rather than their own kind? If you build a house should you hand it over to your own family or to strangers down the road that did nothing?]

 

Sam Bamford: Because we are moving into a place where the young generation are getting priced out of the housing market! We’re moving into a place where there are postcode machete wars! We’re moving into a place where there are Islamic extremists at every single corner! I know, but that’s what I’m trying to say—the more these people come in from different cultures and different races, they are changing our culture that was built off our origins, of who we are!

 

James Howe: The first thing you said is right—the more people come in from different cultures—yes, they are changing. The more people come in from different races—I don’t think that does change us.

 

Sam Bamford: Race is culture!

 

James Howe: No! Race and culture, … And here’s the problem—that is a statement that just perfectly sums up, I think, the problem, …

 

Sam Bamford: Well, that’s okay then.

 

James Howe: That you have. Because I disagree!

 

Joanna Howe: That’s where the disagreement is, …

 

James Howe: I disagree because race and culture are not the same thing! Because my race, you would say, is Indian—but my culture is Australian. I didn’t know anything about Indian culture. I wasn’t raised, … You know, maybe if my dad had lived, because he was more into that. I’m from Goa in India and he was part of the Goan Association. And so maybe, but he died when I was four and a half, like, six months into coming here.

 

So, really, I was raised with an Australian culture. So my culture is Australian. My race—my heritage—might be Indian. I would say I’m Australian. I think that, … We probably have to go pick up the kids soon. But these are big, I think that’s where the disagreement is.

 

[The meaning of culture coming from race isn’t about how individuals from any race can assimilate into a different culture, if they want to, it’s about how large groups of people from a common race will produce and feel best in their own culture. So large groups of Indians will have no need to assimilate and will feel best acting out Indian culture in Australia.]

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, and that’s fine. Like I’ve said as well, I’m literally just going to move on and then go to talking about other stuff, because I’m over it—and that’s my position! My position isn’t going to change.

 

Do I think that Australian citizens are any less than your ethnic Australians? No! Look what you’ve been able to do. I don’t think you’re any less than me. I don’t think there’s any difference. But I just think one is an ethnic Australian and the other’s a great Australian citizen. That’s just my opinion. And I don’t know why we can’t coexist on the right side of politics about this. Like, clearly we can. I mean, you guys are very level‑headed about this—like, we agree on 99% of stuff except this. I just don’t know why we can’t fight the same fight with me having my beliefs and you guys having your beliefs.

 

[1:35:19]

 

 

James Howe: Well, because they’re fundamentally in opposition. I think, at the end of the day. I don’t think it is one of those things that we can just coexist on. Because ultimately what you’re describing here is a method of racial discrimination. And, like—either we’re fighting conservatively for, … Like you say how clear it is to define the vision—and I couldn’t agree more. But the vision for me is that we fight for conservative values. And the conservative value that I see as being important is one of our Christian origin of this country. It’s not of racial purity.

 

Sam Bamford: I think conservative values have got this country to where it is, …

 

James Howe: And that’s right, …

 

Sam Bamford: I think we need a more nationalist approach.

 

James Howe: You don’t think that we should be looking to what made this country great in the first place?

 

Sam Bamford: Which was nationalism!

 

James Howe: No! But it wasn’t Whiteness! It was their Christian values. That’s what made this country great. It was not Whiteness!

 

Sam Bamford: I think that you’re, … I think these Christian values are going to get, … And I agree, I’ve been having my own experiences over the past six months about my relationship with Jesus and still working on that sort of stuff. But I think sometimes that can be taken advantage of and these Christian values of, “yeah, we need X, Y and Z”— I don’t really know too much about it. But trying to learn it. But I think these things can be, from just a very broad perspective, I think they can be taken advantage of.

 

Joanna Howe: Like a toxic empathy type thing?

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. Like a suicidal empathy type thing, right? Like, being like:

 

“Oh, we need to be Christian. That would just fix everything.”

 

When, in reality, sometimes you need to pick up that sword and be the knight to fight for Christians.

 

Joanna Howe: Well, that’s what I’m doing for the babies.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, I understand that!

 

James Howe: If you’re picking up the sword outside of Christian values, then you’re picking it up in a way that takes you into a dark and barbaric place! Because the whole world is dark and barbaric! Except for the Christian world!

 

Sam Bamford: And we need to protect ourselves from that.

 

James Howe: So like in order to protect yourself from that, …

 

Sam Bamford: No, but you guys are literally sitting here saying that we need to deport all Muslims!

 

Joanna Howe: Because they’re antithetical to, …

 

James Howe: I don’t know about that one. I don’t know if I’m arguing for deporting all Muslims. Now, I don’t know!

 

Once again, you’re gonna hate me for saying this, [chuckling] but I don’t know what exactly my position on Islam is. I don’t think it’s compatible with Australian culture. Should you be free to practise your religion in Australia? I would say, yes. I think there might be an exception for Islam because I think it’s such a horrific religion and it teaches great evil.

 

And so I, but at the same time, I don’t know if I’m on board with just going around rounding up all the Muslims and throwing them out of the country.*

 

[* Muslims were brought into the country, just like all the other non-Whites, for the very purpose of creating division and conflict and to destroy White Australia. The same thing has been occurring throughout all Western countries, engineered by their organised jewish lobbies.]

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

James Howe: You know what I mean?

 

Now, that being said, I don’t think that we should be importing people from the Islamic world. I think it’s kind of suicidal, to be fair.

 

Sam Bamford: One hundred percent!

 

James Howe: But I do think that if we don’t proceed in the same manner that made Australia great in the first place—which was not by being White, but was bringing Christian values and the benefits that have come from that to this country—then we end up in a dark place, because that’s where we’ve come from. We’ve come from a dark place.

 

Sam Bamford: Who were the majority of people that hold Christian values?

 

Joanna Howe: Which country in the world at the moment?

 

Sam Bamford: No. Well, I would just say, like, from the early 1900s to early 1950s. Who were the mostly, …

 

Joanna Howe: When it was the West, but now it’s not.

 

Sam Bamford: I know it’s not now, but it doesn’t mean we can’t protect what we have, to be able to cherish and go forward with that. Do you know what I mean?

 

James Howe: No, no. But you’re not talking about, you’re talking about going against Christian values by embracing Whiteness and rejecting Christianity. Do you understand that? Because Christianity requires you to accept all people as being equal.*

 

[* That’s his particular version of Christianity, which would lead to the elimination of Whites be being submerged in a sea of black and brown people.]

 

Sam Bamford: No, no. I’m saying, who were the people that came here?

 

So, the people that came here that were Christian, were they of that origin that I’ve been speaking about, of those Australian people?

 

Joanna Howe: They were from Christian backgrounds, yes.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. So they were from what I was pretty much saying what an Australian is: The people that came here that built this country of those values. So isn’t that what we should be aiming for?

 

James Howe: Well, no. Because race and religion and values are not intrinsically connected.

 

So I think that we should be aiming for Christianity. Well, yeah Christianity basically if we’re talking about migration.

 

Sam Bamford: So if we had 30 million Indians rock up tomorrow—and they were all Christians, would it be fine?

 

James Howe: No. Why do you always say “30 million”? I wouldn’t want 30 million people from fucking anywhere, including India!

 

Sam Bamford: If we only just had people that were rocking up—and it doesn’t matter based on their cultural background or any of that—and they were Christians, everything would be fine?

 

[1:40:04]

 

 

James Howe: All right, so well, yeah, sure, let’s do this hypothetical.

 

So, let’s just say you want to bring in 10,000 people, and I’ve got a choice between, like, 10,000 random people, … Let’s just say we had a choice between, like, 10,000 people from France, you know what I mean. Or 10,000 Christian people from India. If they really did have the same sort of Christian values as the people who built this country in the first place, I would choose those.*

 

[* Those 10,000 Indians would not be the same as the Christian Whites who built Australia. The only thing in common would be some form of Christian belief, while the fundamental significant difference would be race, resulting in Australia becoming ever more Indian in character.]

 

Sam Bamford: Which ones?

 

James Howe: The Christian people from India.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. Over what, sorry? Over?

 

James Howe: Just a bunch of randoms from France who are likely to bring fucked up woke ideas into this country. We don’t need more of that bullshit! Yeah, I would take the Indians.*

 

[* Well, simply select for non-woke White French for the immigration criteria.]

 

Sam Bamford: So can we have this debate, because I just want to see immigration shut down completely. I want a five‑year pause. And I think a lot of people are pushing this. I want to remigrate the ones that haven’t integrated with society. This is their “millions must go!” When there are literally millions of people that haven’t integrated with our society. There would be millions! There are literally postcodes where there are just different cultures. I don’t buy this multicultural bullshit!

 

Joanna Howe: No, neither do we.*

 

[* it obvious that they do believe in a multicultural, multiracial Australia, since that want to import anyone who calls themselves “Christian”, whether they are black, brown or whatever.]

 

Sam Bamford: I don’t!

 

Joanna Howe: We think one Australian culture.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. So, like, I think there would be millions of people that would—actually, over a four‑ to five‑year period—you go:

 

“Okay, you’ve got five years to go remigrate back to where you were.”

 

Then you obviously deport the illegals and get rid of anyone that’s overstayed their visa, right?

 

But, like, I would just love to see our government—and this is— A lot of people say this is going to fail—but, like, I think we need to at least try. And then, if we fail, then we can go this multicultural avenue—because we’re not having babies. But just putting all our resources into the next generation to have kids. Like, wouldn’t we want a birth rate of 3.5 in this country?

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, we should.

 

James Howe: Yeah, I’m down with all of that. I mean, Hungary has a pro‑family, pronatalist approach. Like, we should have a pro‑family, …

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah.

 

Joanna Howe: So, like, I wouldn’t— But I would say we’re not increasing the birth rate significantly. I don’t think the answer is then to turn back to multiculturalism. It’s failed! This idea that you bring people from all over the parts of the world and have no expectation that they would assimilate, but that all the cultures would coexist. That doesn’t work! So we never go back there. We can’t go back there!

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah.

 

Joanna Howe: I do think that there has to be an expectation that if you’re in Australia you integrate, you assimilate, you learn the English language. That’s got to be, …

 

James Howe: Yeah. And renounce your previous affiliations.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

James Howe: Like, when my grandpa came in, he forced all his kids to speak English in the fucking house, even though they were Dutch‑speaking, because he said:

 

“We’re in Australia now mate!”

 

Sam Bamford: Right, yeah. And I just go back to my point. That all happened because Australians were the overwhelming majority in our own country. That’s my argument here. Like, I’m just seeing my country that I went and fought for, against them fucking retards, the Taliban. I’m seeing it forever change from when I did fight in 2012.

 

I came back here and it’s changing, and I don’t like the change. I don’t think the change, …

 

James Howe: We are all on the same page.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, but what I see about the change with my eyes is the demographics changing!

 

James Howe: Yeah, but that’s because I don’t think you’re thinking about it deeply enough! You’re just looking at what you see on the superficial, on the surface.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah I know, but what I see and what I touch is real!

 

Joanna Howe: Because it’s more than just the fact that, …

 

Sam Bamford: You know what I mean, man?

 

James Howe: Like, yeah, I get it. And as a White guy, I like White people, too. But sometimes you can’t just go on what your initial instinct is, because, mate, I think we’re, like, tribal at heart*, you know what I mean? But I don’t think that’s the better part of who we are. It’s the same as like, …

 

[* Being tribal is what allows a group to survive and prosper, because if not your group will be taken over by other tribes. Joanna and James’ worldview of “we’re all the same”, etc., will cause Whites to go from about 10% of the world’s population to zero.]

 

Sam Bamford: Like, sometimes we’re going to have to be brutal to fix this country, bro!

 

James Howe: No, I disagree. Because I think then you become brutal and you just become the next fucking Nazi party, right?

 

Sam Bamford: No, …

 

Joanna Howe: You’ve still got to be moral.

 

Sam Bamford: No. We’re in weak times where they’re creating hard men. We need hard men to then create good times.

 

James Howe: But you don’t want evil men, you want hard men.

 

Sam Bamford: No, it’s not evil! Dude!

 

James Howe: Discriminating against people on account of their skin colour!

 

Sam Bamford: Dude! I’ve pretty much come out and said:

 

“She is a great Australian citizen!”

 

But there is a difference between an ethnic Australian and an Australian citizen. Like, if people call me evil for that, I’m very happy to be called evil for that!

 

James Howe: You just set a straw man position. I didn’t say “ethnic Australian.” I just said “Australian”.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay. Australian. Yeah. So Australian and then Australian citizen, right?

 

Joanna Howe: I think that we need, …

 

Sam Bamford: Dude, we’re not gonna change each other.

 

Joanna Howe: Maybe not today, but I think that we need to have a more, in my view a more sophisticated definition would be to say that there’s assimilation and integration. You’re either born here, or you’ve come here—and that’s what makes you Australian.*

 

[* It’s not a “sophisticated definition”, it’s just let all races come to Australia and replace all the Aussies, which BTW has been the real agenda of successive (((governments))) since the 60s.]

 

Sam Bamford: Can we just agree that anything over the past, like 15 years, that they just haven’t assimilated? Because we’re now, …

 

Joanna Howe: But you can’t even speak as broadly as that, Sam, because there would have been some, …

 

Sam Bamford: There definitely be some groups.

 

Joanna Howe: Like, there’d be some that have come that have assimilated. So I think, yeah, …

 

Sam Bamford: But they probably did assimilate when potentially they were going to neighbourhoods when Australians were the majority, …

 

[1:44:59]

 

 

Joanna Howe: Like, we work at Pizzateca, so we go to Pizzateca, an Italian restaurant in Adelaide. And there’s a beautiful girl there who’s come from— Where’s she come from? Spain or Italy?

 

James Howe: Italy.

 

Joanna Howe: But, you know—like—she’s working hard, she’s contributing, she’s just got permanent residency. She’s warm and open. You know, I feel like there are people that have come even more recently that are trying to assimilate*.

 

[* Yeah, she’s European, White, therefor easily able to assimilate.]

 

But I think—like—just like Jordan Peterson talks about the fact that we’ve raised young men in this environment where they’re being raised as little girls—like, the education system, the deck—everything is stacked against them. They’re being told that they’re the cause of all the problems in the world. But the solution to the fact that we live currently in a culture where all the institutions are run by woke Leftists—and all of its kind of stacked against us—isn’t necessarily to say, like:

 

“We’re going to divide Australians based on this.”

 

Like, that we have to go back to this. I think we can acknowledge our Anglo‑Celtic heritage and the fact that these Brits came and they built our Democratic institutions that we have today—without saying that the route back there is only to have people from Anglo‑Celtic countries. I think what really made us great was the contribution of Christians, and it will be Christians that save this country*. That’s what I think.

 

[* So Christians from darkest Africa or from White Christians?

 

Sam Bamford: So you seem to follow someone like Pauline Hanson. She said in early days:

 

“There are too many Asians and whatever coming.”

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: Like—would you agree with that?

 

Joanna Howe: So—I think there can be a point where, yeah, there’s just too many people coming. And so if you’ve got too many Asians or too many Indians, you’re going to change the nature of the country—if they don’t have the values that we have, which are Christian values.

 

Sam Bamford: That’s my argument!

 

Joanna Howe: Because what Pauline said was, …

 

Sam Bamford: Because who was the majority in the country when these people come in?

 

Joanna Howe: But what Pauline was talking about was the fact that they didn’t integrate or assimilate. You know, she has no problem with immigrants who could assimilate, …

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. No. And the reason they couldn’t assimilate is because Australians were the overwhelming majority in their own country back then. This is my argument.

 

Joanna Howe: But back in 1996–97, when she was talking about this.

 

Sam Bamford: We were the overwhelming majority.

 

Joanna Howe: But she still had a problem with the lack of assimilation, right?

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah.

 

Joanna Howe: Because that’s the issue.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, massively!

 

Joanna Howe: I would say that’s the issue. And I would say that the migration program’s out of control! And I would say that our country’s been run by woke Leftists.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, 100%!

 

Joanna Howe: Universities, all of it.

 

Sam Bamford: It’s been, like that since 2010.

 

Joanna Howe: So, I think there’s a lot of agreement there. I think there is this point of disagreement around race and culture. But I also think that what we’ve demonstrated today is how to have this conversation. I always knew it would get fiery between [chuckling] you two—when I said, …

 

Sam Bamford: Be a little bit angry?

 

Joanna Howe: I wonder what people are going to make of it. I knew that when you two met, like you’re going to be great mates, but you’re also going to probably end up wanting to punch each other!

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. But, yeah, but that’s fine. Like, dude, if me and him can’t sit here and have a crack at each other, and then we can’t sit down and calm ourselves down and then have a chat about it, then who the fuck are we?

 

James Howe: Yeah, I agree. And at the end of the day, you do have to just hash this shit out like men, you know what I mean? Like, you might as well fucking just sit down and say it to each other’s faces and hash the issue out and try and get to the bottom of it. And I think actually, we need more of that, not less.

 

Sam Bamford: So I thank you for sitting there and letting me hurl shit at you without slapping me in the face. I actually do. [chuckling]

 

James Howe: It’s, like, same goes in reverse.

 

Sam Bamford: I could see you getting angry and I was like:

 

“Oh, shit! I think he’s a foot taller than me!”

 

James Howe: Yeah, but you’re a trained soldier, mate, so, …

 

Sam Bamford: No, man, when it comes to fighting, I’m terrible! When it comes to shooting people, … So there are no guns here. Don’t worry!

 

James Howe: Yeah, all right.

 

Joanna Howe: So James will probably win that, in that context.

 

James Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: But you probably know I’m pretty stubborn about what I am and what I think my opinions are.

 

Joanna Howe: Started to hear you thinking about Jesus!

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. That happened after Charlie died.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: And I had a thousand people message me and be like:

 

“I just want to let you know I’m praying for you.”

 

Every few days, someone will send me something about— via email— I don’t really open my message requests—but via email, they’ll send me something about some scripture verse and they’re like:

 

“This is you.”

 

And, I don’t know, you just keep pushing me down somewhere, thinking. You know what I mean?

 

Joanna Howe: Have you tried praying yet?

 

Sam Bamford: No.

 

Joanna Howe: You should.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah.

 

Joanna Howe: Just try.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. I don’t know, it’s there. I don’t know. Who knows? Who knows what’s happening? But, yeah, any final thoughts?

 

James Howe: Yeah, well just briefly on that subject I’ll tell you what’s there. God, man, like, Jesus! Just pray to Jesus and just say “g’day” one day—and just say his name—and just see what happens. I think it’s worth it.

 

But also in terms of final thoughts. No, man, I’m glad that you had us around. Thanks for having us. It shows a lot of courage, I think, especially given how knotty this subject is. And I know you’ve been copping a lot of flak and it’s always wild when everything kicks off on the internet. So I commend your courage in having us here, and we really do appreciate the time, so thanks.

 

[1:50:12]

 

Sam Bamford: You’re welcome.

 

Joanna Howe: And I appreciated that you had me on the first time and now second time to speak about the abortion issue. I feel like we can do business.

 

I feel like it’s interesting that, in Adelaide, all of these people are being assembled—people like yourselves or people like Alex Antic as well. Things are happening here. And, for the first time, we now could pass a pro‑life Bill in the South Australian Parliament. This is exciting. And I guess my only anxiety, after seeing everything blow up about me on X on the weekend, was just that I don’t want us to splinter. I want us to find a way to work together.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, of course.

 

Joanna Howe: Because the real evil is the Left. And we have to remove Albanese in 2028.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, like I said before, I’m literally just going to put this up and my definition is staying. I’m sorry if that offends you, but I’m not going to change that. So, my definition is mine. I’m just going to move on tomorrow and that’s, …

 

Joanna Howe: No, it’s good.

 

Sam Bamford: You know, maybe my outburst today was the culminating point of my mum calling me up and being like:

 

“Why are they calling you a racist on the ABC? Why are they doing this?”

 

And I had my uncle calling me up and sending me a thing being like, I can’t even remember what they said. It was pretty violent.

 

Joanna Howe: Well, don’t believe anything in the ABC!

 

Sam Bamford: No, I don’t.

 

Joanna Howe: The amount of hit pieces that have been written about us!

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. But I guess maybe that was just a, …

 

Joanna Howe: A trigger point.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, maybe. And I just unleashed on you. Sorry for unleashing [chuckling] on you!

 

James Howe: Not at all, mate. I unleashed on you as well.

 

Sam Bamford: Good.

 

James Howe: And I feel zero animosity towards you, honestly. Yeah, I just appreciate the chance to be here and hash this out.

 

And, yeah, it’s been really good to hang out. And, honestly, I’ll tell you this as well, we work with people who have all sorts of ideas that are different to us, you know what I mean? Like, Pauline Hanson is totally chill with most abortion! [chuckling]

 

Joanna Howe: She’s against late term, but we still work with her because we just have to find a way to work with people.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah.

 

Joanna Howe: I think she might be coming closer, James. I think she might.

 

James Howe: And we like Pauline. She comes around to our house for dinner. We’ve had her around, like, two or three times.

 

Joanna Howe: And we feel like, yeah, that’s important. We should probably have dinner together.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. I just feel like this subject, over the past two weeks, people have tried to force it upon me that I don’t like someone because of the colour of their skin.

 

Now, someone might say—you might say—that my views are racist. That’s okay. But I’m not, like, racist towards someone.

 

James Howe: I believe that!

 

Sam Bamford: And, if someone thinks my views are racist, then I’m happy with that. I really don’t care. But I know, personally, I’m not. But people are trying to put me out as a “racist”*. But I just think, and it might be more my military background, and my fighting self, thinks that if I can’t define it, then I can’t defend it. And that’s my argument going forward.

 

And, look, if that labels me to whatever it is, then that’s fine. But it doesn’t mean we can’t fight for the same things. It doesn’t mean that we can’t fight to drastically reduce immigration; to look at where we’re immigrating from; to ensure that the people coming in are 100% assimilating to our society. It’s just we have a little bit of a different version of that!

 

[* A so-called “racist” is just someone who puts their own kind, race, first. Just as like someone will put their own family first, above other families. The term “racist” is a psychological warfare tactic that has been created by anti-Whites to harm Whites, and is used only against Whites.]

 

Joanna Howe: I wouldn’t mind working together to improve* the definition.

 

[* Yeah, to get him to agree with flooding Australia, and the West, with “good” non-Whites!]

 

Sam Bamford: Of course we can!

 

Joanna Howe: We would like to, over time, do this again.

 

Sam Bamford: 100%.

 

Joanna Howe: We do have to go get the kids.

 

Sam Bamford: You guys are always welcome back on this podcast.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, no—I think it was good. We should have one of these fights every week!

 

Sam Bamford: Maybe not, … Maybe my wife’s just like:

 

“The baby’s trying to sleep.”

 

But anyway guys, James and Joanna, thank you very much for your time. James, thank you for, I don’t know, I actually think it’s going to be the start of a friendship.

 

James Howe: Yeah, I hope so!

 

Sam Bamford: All right, thanks for listening to the 2 Worlds Collide podcast. If you guys enjoyed the episode or you just enjoy what I do in general, then you can head to my website—link is in the description—where you can buy some merch or jump on my Patreon program. What are your thoughts?

 

 

[1:54:23]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Youtube Comments

top

(Comments as of 6/10/2026 = 1,052)

1,052 Comments

@Kateeheel7
11 days ago
I nearly broke my leg running to the comments
66

@aussiegypsywarrior
11 days ago

3

@blakekirkham4561
5 days ago

2

@mclanarooma
10 hours ago
Good one.haha

Hide replies

@WinstonRugman
11 days 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.
84

@adza88
5 days ago
You’re Australian. Not English Australian. The English conquered, settled, created goverment and built a nation here. You are the founders of this country.

@travismitchell4281
4 days ago
​ @adza88 he’s still an English Australian tho. Just because hes from the same place that is the foundation of our nation doesn’t automatically make him an Australian by ethnicity and thats fundamental point to this. Whether someone is Australian, English Australian, Chinese Australian or indian Australian doesnt make you any less of a person but ethnically doesn’t make you Australian.

@adza88
4 days ago
​ @travismitchell4281 To me the founding nation’s citizens are automatic Australians. I am Maltese White/European (Born here)and I do not consider myself ethnically Australian because I have no ties to the founding nation or its people. I have no problem with any type of Australian. If the bloodlines and race are identical then they are simply Australian by default. The land was conquered by Anglo Celtic’s. Their people established a settlement and created a nation. They inherit the land and it’s name.

@jessewaite
9 days ago
Australians are Anglo-Celts, you are an Australian.
7

Hide replies

@warrensmith6478
11 days ago
5-year immigration pause and clean out the country get us back to the great country we are with ONE NATION running the country
61

@AustralianRevival
4 days ago
One nation is doing really well with their stance on immigration. How do you reconcile their relationship with Israel though?

Hide replies

@HeatherClark-f5b
11 days ago (edited)
I really admire Sam’s ability to stick to his guns.
91

@raewynowen2206
10 days ago (edited)
I’m a New Zealander married to an Australian, raised children here and called Australia home for 40 years but I’m not an Australian, I’m an immigrant just like Dr Jo!
38

@draylensimeon1574
6 days ago
Were you 4 when you moved here?
1

Hide replies

@jacobeldridge5038
11 days ago
Great job Sam. You’re correct, stick to your guns
38

@Thehugomac
11 days ago
Sam thanks so much for standing strong for what really is an Australian. Just remember what you are saying was literally the same as the Australian Government post WWII.
25

@jasontudehope5518
12 days ago
You’re right Sam, we Aussies need an identity to protect, defend and fight for.
113

@Toastmalone6192
11 days ago
Exactly nothing wrong with acknowledging your origins or heritage
18

@davidataturk4357
11 days ago
We have an Australian identity,
Sams definition describes the majority that should be preserved but that doesn’t describe all Australians.
14

@JR1993WA
11 days ago
@davidataturk4357 Spot on! The Howe’s haven’t spent very long thinking about this topic. There is a difference between a naturalized Australian and an ethnic Australian. It doesn’t make you any less of an Australian, but it’s important to understand.
14

@ItsMe-vy1wt
11 days ago
@JR1993WA exactly this!!
3

@treewhisperer07
11 days ago
@JR1993WA do you think Joanna is a fully naturalised Australian ? My opinion is that she is the poster child for naturalisation, she sets the bar high and we must expect all non native borns to meet this high standard. In the meantime we have to close the gates.
9

@JR1993WA
11 days ago
@treewhisperer07 She absolutely is!
I am also a naturalized Australian. I was born in Scotland and my parents immigrated to Perth when I was 6 months old.
Australia is all I know and if you were to take me on face value, you would assume I was ethnically Australian due to being Anglo-Celtic, until of course you hear my story.
People need to understand that there are 8th and 9th generation Anglo-Celtic European Australians who’s ancestors literally built this amazing country from the ground up and they should remain the overwhelming majority in Australia, or else you set a precedence for demographic replacement, which is what’s happening all around the west with mass immigration.
It’s proven that the best assimilating immigrants are from Anglo-Celtic European heritage as there are deeply historical ties in culture and religion.
But, this doesn’t take away the fact that other people from other countries don’t assimilate either.
It’s really about volume and quality intake, a little bit of historical knowledge and conservative decision making is what is required but the gates have been left open to anyone and everyone which is why Sam’s comment about a Nationalist approach is needed to get us back on track and i couldn’t agree more.
7

@southern-samurai
11 days ago
@JR1993WA so if I assimilated into Japanese culture as a white person, am I any less of a Japanese? The Japanese, and we, would say yes, as I am not ethnically Japanese which is th4 primary trait determining identity, so why are we so cowardly to say so about our own?
6

@travismitchell4281
4 days ago
​ @JR1993WA explained perfectly! Completely agree

@Leigh666XF
8 days ago
@davidataturk4357 Our identity is not for others. It’s ours. They can live here, but they cannot simply adopt our identity. If everyone can be an Australian, nobody is an Australian.
A literal immigrant doesn’t get a say in our identity. Especially when that immigrant tries to call the Australian identity “problematic”.
1

@thefieldtrippers3646
8 days ago
Yes it does

@MilkmanJ213
11 days ago (edited)
Ethnic Australians are born in Australia, to parents also born in Australia, someone who can say their family’s allegiance belongs to this country and trace their family history alongside the history of Australia.. If you are born somewhere else, if your parents are born somewhere else, your not ethnically Australian. As much as you want to be, and want to cry because this may exclude you, everyone cant be included in everything. Saying im “indian” Australian, says everything, give it another generation, your kids kids will call themselves ethnic Australians.
4

@et12sun
11 days ago
Yes we do. Our Aussie culture no matter the colour of your skin or ethnicity. Assimilation is the key here

@southern-samurai
11 days ago
@et12sun so if whites became a minority and Australia was made up of mostly Indians and Chinese, it’s all good so long as they assimilate? I don’t think that’s what our Anzacs fought for or our founding politicians intended. National identity is rooted in ethnicity. People in a society may hold different values. Our politicians demand we value multiculturalism to be considered Australian. Most don’t, so are we not Australian now? Assimilation doesn’t define us.
1

@Sickoftheinternetbutwontleave
5 days ago
@southern-samurai mate, there were plenty of Indian soldiers who supported and fought with the ANZACS

@southern-samurai
5 days ago
​ @Sickoftheinternetbutwontleave so bloody what?!

@claremonea872
11 days ago
Oh man. That was very exciting and interesting. Glad you guys are still on speaking terms.

Hide replies

@user-uu2ty6xs8l
11 days ago
Sam much respect.
25

@aussiegypsywarrior
11 days ago
36 minutes in and this is getting awesome. We definitely need more of these types of conversations
25

@aussiegypsywarrior
11 days ago
Just gave 2worldscollide a whole new meaning.
45

@Steve-HIMSELF
11 days ago
Dead set lol
1

Hide replies

@GovernYourself
8 days ago
Japan is right to protect their own race, culture, traditions & language, as all nations should.
13

@deanc9623
10 days ago (edited)
A great conversation.
You’re not Australian when you come from another country and culture and you want to change the laws and culture of Australia so it’s the same as the country you left.
If you come to Australia, you do so accepting the laws and culture of Australia.
22

@corinneperegrini6003
10 days ago
Exactly
It’s very simple, an Australian is
*someone who is born in Australia.
*Someone who immigrate to Australia and is given a citizenship.
If you have an Australian passport than you are Australian.
The colour of the skin has nothing to do with it.
I immigrated to Australia 33 years ago from France.(born and raised in France).
France consider me a French citizen residing overseas.
I took the Australian citizenship around 29 years ago, therefor I am an Australian citizen.
I am both an Australian and a French citizen.
My English was very basic 33 years ago, now I am fully fluent in English and the way of life in Australia.
What ever country we live in, we must obey by the laws of this country and adopt their way of life as a respect for the country we live in.
Western countries are founded on the judeo-christian faith, morals and values.
The problem has arised when Australia has started to import people that have a very different belief system, an ideology that is not compatible with the Australian’s way.
We never see anyone perpetrating an act of te—-ism in the name of Buddha or in the name of Jesus…it’s always in the name of A–ah, and that is a fact around the world.
4

Hide replies

@pacific49gr
11 days ago
I came here from the UK in 1988, happy to be called an English Australian as i was born in England and I am proud of my heritage.
25

@thefieldtrippers3646
8 days ago
Our founders said only people of European descent can become Australian.

@PittieRooChew
5 days ago
Nationality is a qualitative variable. The best you can argue is that someone is either more or less Australian across multiple dimensions. However, it is ultimately not discrete/quantifiable.

Hide replies

@jacintaheley7816
10 days ago
We need to make the point that Christianity is dying in Europe and rising in Asia ( India ) and Africa. It is more important for us to stay a Christian country than to be a country of European descent.
9

@traceycrystal
11 days ago (edited)
Sam is making perfect sense. Agree with some parts of James but he was mostly rambling.
29

@tasd5673
10 days ago
The way james talks worry me wow
I feel like his nasty behind doors
9

@traceycrystal
5 days ago
@tasd5673 Yes to tell his wife to shut up on camera knowing it will be out for people to watch and the way he disrespected Sam in his own home is just disgraceful, so i am concerned also how does he speak when no one else is listening.
1

@petecabbie7516
9 days ago
Sounds like James didn’t know but wouldn’t give up on what he didn’t know.
5

Hide replies

@lisamareepritchard6375
10 days ago (edited)
I agree with you Sam, it’s important that we have a definition of what an Australian is in order to preserve the history of the founding of our country. This is not to exclude people coming here but to provide a framework for integration & spell out our values. I don’t like that our government is ignoring our history & only celebrating other cultures & immigrants.
12

@propagandapony
11 days ago
Anglo – Saxon is the term to describe British / European ancestry. The Royal Family are Anglo – Saxon. You’re 100% right about this Sam.
30

@cp-dsqo34
10 days ago
Indigenous + Anglo-European Christian People who speak English
Full stop
2

@Misonagleran
10 days ago
Majority Anglo Saxon and Celt, British Commonwealth were who built the foundations of the country. Maybe around 10 percent ethnic minorities and indigenous people also shaped the country more so so for their trade/ skill and societal contribution.So up until around the 1940s,there was more of a push to globalisation and exchange migration to add to the labour pool., in many countries.The white Australia policy ended in the 70s, but the difference is from then and now is percentile of ethnic minorities from everywhere in the world has rapidly increased from the 1940s. Ratio is now about 50/50. The demographic changes leaves a feeling of unfamiliarity to what once was.
1

@travismitchell4281
4 days ago
Which the royals have German heritage aswell. Neither angles or Saxons or Celtics originated in the British isles. Just like a large percentage of the European countries origins are germanics tribes like the Visigoths of Spain and the franks of France and Franconia.

Hide replies

@jackiedines5229
9 days ago
Australians were never asked if we wanted to be a multicultural society. It has been forced on us!
17

@Spikeefpv
5 days ago
indigenous Australians were never asked as well if they wanted to be a multicultural society. British colonial was forced on them.

@CrouchingSoup
4 days ago
@Spikeefpv Boohoo, they lost. After that Australia was granted an identity, after the white australia party, indigenous people became a part of that identity. Now the Australian identity is being challenged by those who have not contributed to building & creation of this great nation

@frankryder9325
3 days ago
@CrouchingSoup You hit the nail on the head Mate Well said !!

Hide replies

@JohnSmith-z4s
11 days 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.
30

@micphoenix8200
11 days ago

1

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

@JmrpF92
11 days 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.
1

@JohnSmith-z4s
11 days ago
​ @JmrpF92 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!
5

@micphoenix8200
11 days 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
11 days ago
​ @JmrpF92 All first world Western nations (Australia, Canada, USA etc) share a common ethnic and cultural heritage. Ethnically European and culturally Christian.
3

@JmrpF92
11 days 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

@ausbushman2347
11 days 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.
3

@SueMurphy-l2n
11 days 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
21

@Dio-2027
10 days ago
Our outward appearance is generally speaking a reflection of who we are on the inside. The true self
1

Hide replies

@brodienunn8638
9 days ago (edited)
I think an australian through and through depends on culture and identity. But someone who has multiple generations of bloodline here cannot be refused the truly australian title should they contribute and embrace it like the rest of us
4

@ricpateman7473
10 days ago
It would be better to describe an immigrant Australian as someone who lives in Australia for a long enough time to adopt without reservation, and who understands and assimilates with the language, values, cultural and social mores of Australia, where they would willingly claim citizenship and side with Australia and render their allegiance over and above their country of origin.
Then they would be Australian.
6

@francisrivero9537
10 days ago
Say G’day to Jesus! A great Australian way to nudge a fellow Aussie towards God . Definitely need to define an Australian but Joanna hit the nail on the head when she said “we need to work together to improve the definition”
6

@marleymeathook1975
11 days 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!
7

@grannyannie2948
11 days 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.
4

Hide replies

@davidataturk4357
12 days 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.
34

@PixieTinsel
9 days ago
‘Ken Oath!

Hide replies

@brentdundee
6 days ago
You cannot compare what Japanese done during ww2 and what they are doing now which is protecting their sovereignty…Sam is right Australian is Anglo Saxon by history but having said that I have friends who are Indian who I consider Australian Of Indian heritage taking on Australian values and being commited to this great country is what is of most importance.
1

@ela7893
11 days ago (edited)
Sam is right. He makes perfect sense. The Australian flag is literally the embodiment of what Australian identity is. The people who created the flag literally gave birth to the identity. There is nothing wrong with the hyphenation.
31

@RajNaidoo-b4e
11 days 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.
34

@moniquebeer-korver1107
11 days 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
6

@kiskebear
11 days ago
@moniquebeer-korver1107 That’s because Australia follows British common law, which follows Jus Soli – Citizenship by the Land. not Jus Sanguinis – Citizenship by the Blood.
Jus Soli is a fine system, because Jus Sanguinis doesnt work in countries with such deep and sophisticated ethnicities. (Ex colonial nations). Coming up with another system hasn’t ever been looked at because Jus Soli works for the most part, due to strict immigration control.
1

@gpumn1
11 days ago
Totally agree
3

@PittieRooChew
5 days ago
People struggle with the concept that Nationality is effectively an umbrella term for a variable that is multidimensional/defined by meeting a number of subcategories/criteria. I’m surprised she doesn’t have a better understanding of this for someone out of academia. However, the further you go out on the Arts end of the spectrum at university, the less likely you are to study statistics comprehensively.

@MSummaz
11 days ago
So basically, no one is Australian Australian because we all have heritage from all over the world! This make no freaking sense Sam
3

@nothappyjan05
11 days ago

@MSummaz that’s not what Sam said. 1. Indigenous to the land 2. Anglo Celtic-European settlers who forged a nation and society with shared culture and built systems of governance and economic independence. They literally built the nation that is. 3. Born in Australia.
4

Hide replies

@aussiegypsywarrior
11 days 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.
15

@RenA70707
11 days ago
The Anglo/ Celtic, European cultures that came here initially were from a Christian background so it worked. We have opened the door to all religions now. It’s a mess.
1

Hide replies

@unlikelyoption
10 days ago
The descendants of the people responsible for developing the unique Australian culture and creating the cities and infrastructure within the country are ethnic Australian. The rest are people who have immigrated into a nation already developed. I cut it off arbitrarily at the 1970s because that’s right when multiculturalism was forced onto those already here.
I accept people have moved here and embraced our culture and are therefore culturally Australian, however those people can never be ethnically Australian.
2

@nathantmf
6 days ago
Anglo-Celtic, European and Aboriginals were all here at federation
3

@quietstrengthstudio-t4s
10 days ago
An Australian is a person who calls Australia home and shares in the nation’s democratic values, freedoms, laws, and community spirit. Australians come from many different cultural and ethnic backgrounds, including the world’s oldest continuous cultures, and many of the country’s traditions, institutions, and historical development have been influenced by Christian values and heritage.
3

@becomng
11 days 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.
8

1 reply

@HoldenBogan
10 days ago (edited)
Sam is right, but Joanna is very Australian, more than many Australians because of her actions in helping to fix Australian values. Being Australian is more than heritage, it’s actions, values, mindset, and probably a handful of other things as well. Being a native Australian is one thing, but being a bloody good Aussie is another, which qualifies you as Australian.
If we want to protect Australia better, there should be zero foreign ownership of any Australian land, by a person not born in Australia if their birth country doesn’t allow Australians to majority own land in their home country, Australia should be for Australians, and 100% owned by Australians.
14

1 reply

@FairyBreadforbreakfast
11 days ago
Nah James, you’re off the mark. If you test a Chinese person’s (or Australian descended from Chinese) DNA you will find they are ethnically Chinese. If you test a trans person’s DNA you will find they are a male. Sam is just not eloquent and James is over simplifying what is being said. It isn’t about colour of the skin. It is literally race/ethnicity. It just happens to be that Australians are predominantly descended from white people. Which is no less bad than being descended from brown people so we do not need to apologise for it. Nor do we need to admit “racism” because of it. It just is.
Wanting to protect your country, your nation, your home from people who do not share your love for it or understanding of Australian culture is not wrong.
We are under no obligation to dilute our way of life by allowing people into our country just because they want to come.
21

@corinneperegrini6003
10 days ago
It’s very simple, an Australian is
*someone who is born in Australia.
*Someone who immigrate to Australia and is given a citizenship.
If you have an Australian passport than you are Australian.
The colour of the skin has nothing to do with it.
I immigrated to Australia 33 years ago from France.(born and raised in France).
France consider me a French citizen residing overseas.
I took the Australian citizenship around 29 years ago, therefor I am an Australian citizen.
I am both an Australian and a French citizen.
My English was very basic 33 years ago, now I am fully fluent in English and the way of life in Australia.
What ever country we live in, we must obey by the laws of this country and adopt their way of life as a respect for the country we live in.
Western countries are founded on the judeo-christian faith, morals and values.
The problem has arised when Australia has started to import people that have a very different belief system, an ideology that is not compatible with the Australian’s way.
We never see anyone perpetrating an act of te—-ism in the name of Buddha or in the name of Jesus…it’s always in the name of A–ah, and that is a fact around the world.
2

@FairyBreadforbreakfast
10 days ago

@corinneperegrini6003 I agree, the government is giving out citizenships to people who should not receive them. A citizenship means you are legally Australian. There’s more to it than that. There is a definite difference in someone who attained citizenship at the age of 20 and someone who was born in Australia to 4th, 5th, 6th generation Australian parents. There just is. It’s a link to the nation that can’t be created for a person by giving them a piece of paper.
In saying that, my Mum came over from Italy as a small child, my grandparents couldn’t speak English either but they learnt to. They worked hard and they raised their children as Australians. My Dad is 5th gen Australian descended from English and Scottish people. My husband is a Kiwi.
Most Australians are fine with immigrants as long as they love the country and live in it as we do. Many Australians now want immigration stopped, and possibly reversed for some, because we can see what is happening to Europe and it is sad and terrifying. We would actually be stupid to continue as we are with immigration.
2

@corinneperegrini6003
10 days ago
​ @FairyBreadforbreakfast
I agree.

@ML6103
10 days ago
​@corinneperegrini6003 so let me get this straight. You think you have the right to come here and tell us what we are and are not, because the government gave you a piece of paper?

@corinneperegrini6003
10 days ago (edited)
​​ @ML6103
Like it or not, I am Australian
“Australians all let us rejoice,
For we are one and free;
We’ve golden soil and wealth for toil;
Our home is girt by sea;
Our land abounds in nature’s gifts
Of beauty rich and rare;
In history’s page, let every stage
Advance Australia Fair.
In joyful strains then let us sing,
Advance Australia Fair.
Beneath our radiant Southern Cross
We’ll toil with hearts and hands;
To make this Commonwealth of ours
Renowned of all the lands;
For those who’ve come across the seas
We’ve boundless plains to share;
With courage let us all combine
To Advance Australia Fair.
In joyful strains then let us sing,
Advance Australia Fair.”

@ML6103
10 days ago
​@corinneperegrini6003 I didn’t say you weren’t.

Hide replies

@deniablenick
11 days ago
As a Portugese-Irish-British-Indian-Russian-Nigerian-Sudanese-Iranian-Japanese-Chinese-Neanderthal-Australian I agree with Sam. This is a much better system.
6

@Numptee86
11 days 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.
15

@MagicManintheSky-j9q
11 days ago
Sam is right. These people don’t understand the difference between ethnicity and citizenship. It’s not rocket science.
18

@nathann6482
11 days ago
There is no Australian ethnicity though. This will not come up on a DNA test.
1

Hide replies

@SonicBoom12345
11 days 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.
47

@gabrielallen790
10 days ago
Joanna is. Her career to-date was as a fed. govt immigration adviser
1

Hide replies

@fpenman
11 days ago
Podcast episode of the year
13

@Toastmalone6192
11 days ago
Aussie Logan Paul being triggered for 2 hours
9

@DrJoannaHowe
12 days 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.
168

@Stankyfrtz
12 days 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.
15

@domburton
11 days ago
You’re an aussie to me mate.
15

@jasonwolfe5787
11 days 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
14

@micphoenix8200
11 days 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.
13

@BLESSED2XS
12 days ago
Please don’t let any of this upset Your Marriage, Dr. Jo
7

@anthonyleighton2536
11 days ago (edited)
You’re a super Australian Jo.
Great discussion btw.
Sam is on an intellectual journey that you guys are just further down atm.
Sam’s intentions are good and I think his good character will eventually lead to him coming around.
As soon as I hear that Aussie accent
5

@et12sun
11 days ago
James. Culture and race are 2 different things
3

@robthompson1
7 days ago (edited)
Joanna yr definition of an Australian at the end of this debate was spot on. All of what Sam said plus being an Australian citizen. We took an oath and made a decision to adopt Australia as our home and we adhere to its values and respect its culture as per our decision and the oath. I friggin served 15 yrs in the ADF for this country! I fucking am Australian! And so are you, as per the mentioned criteria. Sam has to understand that what we believe is a SOLUTION that is more acceptable to people than his sole unreasonable opinion. He needs to take us into consideration before he comes out with his short sighted opinion. So you are both right. But he needs to amend his opinion to fucking include us! I’ve lost blood, sweat and tears for this country! As a kiwi, I’m proud to be called an Australian and since 1948, smarter people than Sam have allowed immigrants to become citizens. Therefore, since 1948, we have thought it a good thing for this country to grow. And I’ll be dammed if he’ll label me as not Australian considering what I’ve contribution to this country.
3

@Oey_jay
7 days ago
​ @robthompson1 Sam’s a grunt, and so was I in the Army. We’re not known to be smart, we leave that up to the officers LOL. But in all seriousness, Sam should know that in the Army, the brown bloke to your left and/or right, aren’t just some brown fella anymore. They’re the same color green as you, because they serve the same nation and values as you. You call them your mate, your bother/ sister. It goes the same for anyone that pledges their loyalty to become citizens to this nation. We’re all Australians as long as we uphold the Australian values, and way of life.

@JessicaWright-t6b
11 days 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.
2

@DaleUnderwood-e2y
8 days ago
Jo, James, and family, in my opinion, are great Australians.
1

@Sickoftheinternetbutwontleave
5 days ago (edited)
Charlie as in Charlie Kirk? he was talking when he violently died…

@SKW-12
5 days ago (edited)
@Sickoftheinternetbutwontleave What Charlie [Kirk] said, and probably what Dr Jo is referencing here – is “When people stop talking [to each other] THAT’s when violence begins.”
What he intended with opening a space for conversation was that people could [a] feel heard, [b] see something from someone else’s perspective, [c] realize we have more in common than we thought BEFORE we started talking to each other, and [d] see that there IS a way to work together to find reasoned and reasonable solutions.
If the individual who silenced Charlie had talked to him instead …

@Sickoftheinternetbutwontleave
5 days ago
@SKW-12 outside of some of his views
which I agree with, most of his conversations were aimed at dividing people imo I’m sorry, even one’s who shared similar views. My initial point still stands, he was not open to a back on forth, he was more interested in asserting his ideological views
which according to him was the be all and literally end all unfortunately

@SKW-12
5 days ago
@Sickoftheinternetbutwontleave So – you knew what Dr Jo was meaning – but your comment seems to mock his passing?

@Sickoftheinternetbutwontleave
5 days ago (edited)
@SKW-12 definitely not mocking, I was just pointing out the irony and logical contradiction of that sentence, especially as she referred to him as “Charlie” like there is a personal connection or discourse amongst them, definitely don’t want American politics infiltrating us in our lucky country

@SKW-12
5 days ago
​ @Sickoftheinternetbutwontleave – whatever your original intention, your follow up makes your first comment seem like willful misunderstanding – as you demonstrate you KNEW she was referring to Charlie – and also implied is you KNEW what his full statement is – but you still felt the need to leave THAT comment on this already-charged debate … there’s no need to insinuate an opinion about whether or not Dr Jo and Charlie had a personal connection – that doesn’t dis/qualify HER message … there is no ‘contradiction’ since you are avoiding the full phrase … there is NOTHING ironic about that horrendous event … Dr Jo is appealing to us to be reasonable … whatever nation or political climate – that’s probably the wisest way to go. Please consider that.

@Sickoftheinternetbutwontleave
5 days ago (edited)

@SKW-12 @SKW-12 ct Dr Jo and the basis of her stance, unfortunately Sam or “Charlie” would never fully accept her from the basis of their stance, all well and good to have an open discourse and take what’s for you but idolising false prophets and being a microphone for them is unfortunately the issue in today’s society, we’d rather pander and stand for beliefs but not actually do things for the betterment as a whole, not talking about Dr Jo in this case, she is making it happen but some of her rhetoric also causes division, but then again she is a product of colonisation so dividing and conquering is a familiar strategy, just doesn’t fully work when you’re not undoubtedly accepted by the ones you cater to Just not a fan of Americanism infiltrating us but it’s too late now, the division is here now and seems like it’s staying for a while

@SKW-12
5 days ago
@Sickoftheinternetbutwontleave I appreciate your summary. And that you have stepped away from a divisive comment re: Charlie’s passing.
I agree: if I glean correctly what you imply (a belief system that can be emphatic and therefore divisive). It is intensely frustrating to hear some express a sensible approach – something people could be on board with, and take action on – and then the speaker adds their qualifier of ‘this way is the ONLY way’.
Minus the belief system, Sam has done so here. Dr Jo and James have not, and generally are not emphatic, though their foundational belief is no secret – they don’t make it a requirement for anyone else. Charlie was loud and proud about it – and his expression could be interpreted as evangalistic – there was a nuance in his interaction – when he stated in conversation that he thought someone was wrong – he was asking them to dig deeper for the foundation of their logic – and that’s usually where that person’s debate point was shaky.
Christopher Hitchens summed it up – to uphold life is an objective truth – and you don’t need a belief system to convince you of this. Thus, it is simple to approach anything with that qualifier: does this affirm or steal from Life?
There is no insisting. If anyone is inspired to take action, and/or live by something that aligns with this – however they get to it for themselves – then there IS common ground – and thus possibility for collaboration.
A willingness to come even close to that – an openness to avoid rejecting anyone who is willing (even if they don’t hold the same beliefs) – then we’ve got the beginnings of actually building solutions.

@SKW-12
4 days ago
@Sickoftheinternetbutwontleave SIDE NOTE: I just listened to Dr Jo’s Sydney rally. One of the guest speakers was Charlie Bakhos, who hosts The Stand For Truth Podcast. Her comment about what “Charlie” says, could well have been referring to Bakhos.

@awawlion
4 days ago
Ok whats a south african who has been there for 4 generations lol

@LD2022-g7t
11 days 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.
11

@SKW-12
7 days ago
@LD2022-g7t THANK you!!! What was missing in this debate was the parameter of VALUES. It’s not Christianity – but Christian VALUES on which western and thus 1st world countries are built. There has been a uniquely identifiable quality to UK culture, notably different from AUS culture, notably different from US culture – the three countries founded on these values. So, by extension – to be Australian is to uphold AUS VALUES. This has nothing to do with skin colour, ethnics, length of time on a piece of land (be you a baby, a generational, or a migrant).
Sam has this all twisted up because his definitions are wrong – and by extension – potentially harmful.
Ironically – he prioritises British as being more Australian – than his boxing Joanna in to being ‘Indian-Australian’ – India was PART of the British Empire, LONGER THAN Australia – initially since the 1600s via the East India Trading Co – and formally from 1857 to 1947. So – by Sam’s argument, Joanna is MORE Australian (by India’s longer relationship with Britain). The entire premise of his definition is a house of cards. His low emotional IQ outbursts demonstrate he is NOT secure in his theory. This was shameful behaviour for a host.
1

@Oey_jay
7 days ago (edited)
​@SKW-12 too right, mate. I’ve honestly lost some levels of respect for Sam on his views
with what an Australian is, he kept beating around the bush when it came to the word ‘white’ – I was initially drawn to following his content, because of his earlier commitment in uniting ALL Australians (regardless of skin color, as long as you have taken up the Australian culture, to him you were an Australian). But now his new views
are only just going to create more division, he obviously doesn’t see it that way because he’s a white fella. But people of color like myself, see this as a clear attack.
He’s clearly way out of his league when it comes to debating against high intellectual people like Jo and James. There was only one thing I could only really agree on with Sam in this whole debate – That was the fact that too many people of the same heritage are living in one area. It makes it near impossible for these people to assimilate and integrate, when they only interact with people of the same heritage and/ or religious views. The prime minister of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew’s solution to cultural and religious segregation, was to have everyone scatter around, so that not one group of people live in one area.
Just like Singapore, Australia is still a very young country. We have a small population in comparison to land mass. I believe that compulsory national service in the defence force, will engrave national pride and patriotism into our new citizens.
2

@SKW-12
6 days ago
@Oey_jay Great points. I’m sorry you felt the brunt of Sam’s prejudice. That censure in itself is so UN-australian. To see Jo brought to tears, understanding what she had to deal with, as a child, and what her children would be corralled into based on Sam’s version – just heartbreaking.
He leant so hard into the Anglo-European aspect – but founded in Christianity – what about the Nigerian Christians – and those in the Congo and Kenya – being attacked, kidnapped, massacred? What of the Christians of the Middle East – and those of South America? Sam’s theory has massive holes. He sounds just like the pigs in Animal Farm: “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”
Let’s hope he is on a journey – and instead of doubling down with “I’ll never change on that point” – he DOES realise the value of VALUES is the key.
I agree – integration is vital. It’s a tough gig being a migrant – often escaping trauma – so pathways to integration should be required – but ensured as positive achievements for them to proudly embrace and contribute to their new homeland.
1

@Oey_jay
6 days ago
​ @SKW-12 this concept of Sam is nothing new of what he’s heard from other political content creators. This in itself is starting to become one massive echo chamber. “I’m 5th generation Anglo-Celtic Australian”, is starting to sound like the woke leftist with their pronouns. Mine would be “I’m 1.5 generation Austronesian, Ibero-Romance, Han-Tibetan, Mediterranean Australian citizen” Very tiring. I wish people like Sam would stop being so divisive, and actually unite people like they originally set on doing.
I see more racism being on social media for 5 minutes, than I have ever seen in my 38 years of living in Australia. Surprisingly enough I didn’t even cop any racism in my service in the Army. The fella to my left and right were no longer black or white – they were green. We all served this nation, for all who lives within it.
I do hope that Sam does change his perspective on all this. He seems like a great bloke, that is open to positive change.
2

@SKW-12
6 days ago
@Oey_jay Howdy, fellow Aussie! Great observations. I agree. This topic has become such a ‘fox among the chickens’ that is seems like a psyop.
I thought we’d all be past this naïve labelling [like Sam’s] by now and be forging ahead with a more united connection.
In UK, Tommy Robinson and several others from different ‘freedom’ groups got together and hashed out – what do we actually agree on – then they put all else aside and together focused on how to promote that, educate people what actions they could take around that.
A common ground approach is impossible while we’ve still ego extremist, exclusive, and egoistic b.s. making the most noise.
I’ve reached out, tried to be a part of, several action groups – and only struck same/similar exclusivity in one way or another.
I’m exhausted now. This is what perhaps Sam and his peers don’t realise: we are ALL ALREADY sick of the politicians b.s. – we don’t have the patience to wade through podcast b.s. as well.
Keep it ‘green’!
1

@nunoza
12 days 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.
10

@351SVO
12 days ago
Joanna, you think and sound like an Aussie, you are an Aussie!
10

@BLESSED2XS
11 days 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!!!
21

@andyrew127
11 days 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.
5

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

@deewilson3208
11 days ago
​ @treewhisperer07 different words with different meanings
2

@Toastmalone6192
12 days ago
34:53 you don’t have problem with it, you just don’t want to accept it
2

@jacoblowe4247
11 days 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…
7

Hide replies

@jacintaheley7816
10 days ago
Yes Dr Jo! The white people used to bring Christianity – great point. Now Christianity is coming through India, South East Asia and Africa ( parts of it). I love my Indian Jesus Youth friends here in Australia.
6

@tanztrueblue
11 days ago
Love this firey debate this is the conversations we all need to hear. Brave of you all!!!!!
10

@Itsmevgc
11 days ago
My mum has been here since 77, she’s still British
11

@LucienCanon
11 days ago
Exactly. And yet she would be innately more Australian than any non-British immigrant
3

Hide replies

@Makeaustraliagreatagain-h8u
11 days ago
Pretty intense conversation debate.
14

@tasd5673
10 days ago
They done well good on them to turn up
Australia needs this debate
5

Hide replies

@BrodieJamesBuchal
11 days ago
Refreshing to see that on the right side of politics you can get heated without threatening to kill someone.
Take note lefties.
54

@claytoc2RAR
11 days ago
Welll done team great debate, love the passion this is what we need to get Australia back on track. Agree with both sides but we do need have temporary pause on immigration and get our country back on track and sort out who we are going to allow in this country.
12

@MazDavis-f6t
10 days ago (edited)
Great debate. Jo is a very articulate Australian. James & Jo have given some great points on being Australian. Lots of good talking points. Especially around Christian values. Real Christian’s aren’t wimps. I think that’s where the answer lies. We’d all do well to mull these things over. Even you Sam
8

@amennamaste9173
11 days ago (edited)
Im not an aussie, im creole seychellois background that has an australian cultural outlook, having being raised here! Proud citizen
11

3 replies

@liampsaila1483
11 days ago
Was great to see Sam sticking to his guns and not letting them overpower him.
I occasionally listen to Dr Jo’s podcast and I can say that her husband James gets more insufferable with every episode. He adds absolutely nothing to the convos besides sly remarks, useless hypotheticals and childish insults. Just like the woke left he “claims” to hate.
8

@lynndonharnell422
10 days ago
Who remembers the Vietnamese boat people in the 70s.
7

@ItsMe-vy1wt
9 days ago
Yep!

Hide replies

@NikkieMaguire
8 days ago
Sam you’re doing us Aussies proud. Speak, even when your voice shakes.
4

@seikochako
11 days 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.
11

@RenA70707
11 days ago
But the more people we bring here who don’t identify with those values the more we have pushback on them.
This is why the people who came originally were of Christian background and Australian culture was more cohesive. Unfortunately we’ve lost that since the doors have opened to other religions, especially Islam.
2

Hide replies

@josefthomas-t6x
11 days ago
i love the way this podcast takes grey and demands that listeners draw lines to define what is white and what is black. discussions like this can only happen on the right side of politics. cudos with being in agreement on 95% and being able to debate the remaining 5% so passionately.
3

@trevglenda
11 days ago
Thank you Joanna for what you are doing for the babies I was born in Australia as were my parents and their parents so I am 100% Australian in my book. People that come here and after a short time go to the council and be made Australian citizens are not true Australians. However in Joanna’s case she has been here since very young and if you could not see her you would not know she has Indian heritage she clearly has assimilated loves our country so deserves to call herself an Aussie. Her children in my book are Australian they were born here and don’t have duel citizenship. It may not be exactly the same as me but I still regard them as Australian.
11

@corinneperegrini6003
10 days ago
It’s very simple, an Australian is
*someone who is born in Australia.
*Someone who immigrate to Australia and is given a citizenship.
If you have an Australian passport than you are Australian.
The colour of the skin has nothing to do with it.
I immigrated to Australia 33 years ago from France.(born and raised in France).
France consider me a French citizen residing overseas.
I took the Australian citizenship around 29 years ago, therefor I am an Australian citizen.
I am both an Australian and a French citizen.
My English was very basic 33 years ago, now I am fully fluent in English and the way of life in Australia.
What ever country we live in, we must obey by the laws of this country and adopt their way of life as a respect for the country we live in.
Western countries are founded on the judeo-christian faith, morals and values.
The problem has arised when Australia has started to import people that have a very different belief system, an ideology that is not compatible with the Australian’s way.
We never see anyone perpetrating an act of te—-ism in the name of Buddha or in the name of Jesus…it’s always in the name of A–ah, and that is a fact around the world.
1

Hide replies

@yeanahyeamate
8 days ago (edited)
Hi Sam
I’m a big fan of the work that you do and I thank you for fighting for Australia. I agree on pretty much all your stances, but sit differently on defining an Australian.
I was born in Australia 30 years ago and I am Australian who so happens to have asian heritage. Growing up here, I feel like I was never “taught” the Australian values, but rather the Australian values ingrained into me because of the contagious way everyone around me lived it in their every day life. I love this country, and it hurts so see where this country is headed, and my only desire is for this country to prosper and uphold its Australian values. Yes, I am proud of my deeper roots in the Asian culture, but would happily renounce all cultural memberships to prove myself as a proud Australian (and, like you, South Aussie).
I think Joanna and James have made a good point in one of the arguments. Like you, I’ve been blessed with the recent birth of my daughter – but based on your definition of an Australian, I would find it hard and unfair to know that you would be able to call your daughter an Australian because of your deeper Anglo-Celtic background, yet, because of my ethnicity, my daughter would have to adopt an asian-Australian label, when all I want her to know growing up is that her identity is an Australian. As a first time dad, I want to commit everything I have to teach my daughter to put this country first as an Australian because I believe this country deserves nothing less, but I feel your argument somewhat discourages that.
Definitionally, I think your points are a bit contradictory. You’ve defined an Australian as an Anglo Celtic/European and/or indigenous descent person – by that definition, Anglo Celtic descent is a prerequisite to be an Australian. Meaning, it is impossible to be any variation of Australian if there is an absence of Anglo-Celtic/European in your blood. If you labelled me as an asian-Australian, you would be stating a contradiction, because I have absolutely no Anglo-Celtic or indigenous blood in my family. I absolutely agree with you about having to be able to define something to defend it, but with that, I disagree with your definition of an Australian because you would only be defending that ethnicity of people. However, unlike James, I do have my own definition.
I think an Australian is a person that holds an Australian citizenship, which sounds like a very loose term, BUT I say that with the belief that Australian citizenships have been too easy to obtain, hence cheapening the value of being an Australian. To me, being an Australian is a privilege, not a right. People wanting to become Australians should show they want nothing else but to be a contributing patriot. People might think I’m extreme, but rather than 4 years, I reckon someone should have lived in Australia for at least 10 years before even earning the right to apply – I want to see commitment to the country before I can call you a fellow countryman. Additionally, although I don’t have too many ideas on how to achieve this, citizenship testing should involve applicants showing that they would uphold Australian values above all other cultural values/practices, which would preserve the Australian culture. That, or you’re born in Australia to at least one Australian parent.
With all that being said, I 100% agree that the birthrate of Australians (specifically Anglo-Celtic/European descent) is far too low – and I hope that ethnicity remains the predominant ethnicity here. I only am the Australian I am today because of my upbringing with my mates of Anglo-Celtic descent being around me, and I cherish that fact.
Thanks Sam for posting this podcast. I hope your good work continues to reach out to the nation as we (as Australians) fight for our country. I am, you are, we are Australia.
7

@MrWrightLarsenite
11 hours ago
Well said mate.

Hide replies

@gpumn1
11 days 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.
4

@kimeccleston5586
12 days 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

@jirvin623
11 days 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
39

1 reply

@JmrpF92
11 days 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.
Lineage also matters. If you come here from somewhere else and you go 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, those children are Australian. No prefix added. If you are a naturalised Australian citizen and you have a different country of birth, I don’t think it’s a stretch or offensive even to say that you are “English-Australian” or “Dutch-Australian” and so on. My grandmother immigrated here from Holland, became an Australian citizen and has been here since the 50s. She definitely sees herself as what you could say is “Dutch-Australian”. She still recognises that she is a dutchie that has came to Australia and called it home. But as for her kids and her grandkids (me) and her great grandkids all of which were born in Australia and have no ties to Holland, we are Australian, no prefix added. We have no land that we can “go back to”. So lineage and birth matters.
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 had a structured civilisation there for thousands of years. As such, you would expect it to be a homogeneous society demographically. To compare a society like that to Australia, a country that by comparison is still in its infancy 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. I also believe that a native born Australian citizen should be awarded some benefits a naturalised citizen doesn’t have access to. Tax concessions, housing benefits, and a higher standing in government office should they run could be a few. This creates a greater incentive for those immigrating to Australia to become citizens, integrate into our society, lay roots and have kids. Being able to give their children the gift of being a native born Australian citizen. That needs to mean something. That is how you create Australians who love this country. That is an incentive to attract people who are serious about seeking a better life and to start a family.
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.
6

@corinneperegrini6003
10 days ago
It’s very simple, an Australian is
*someone who is born in Australia.
*Someone who immigrate to Australia and is given a citizenship.
If you have an Australian passport than you are Australian.
The colour of the skin has nothing to do with it.
I immigrated to Australia 33 years ago from France.(born and raised in France).
France consider me a French citizen residing overseas.
I took the Australian citizenship around 29 years ago, therefor I am an Australian citizen.
I am both an Australian and a French citizen.
My English was very basic 33 years ago, now I am fully fluent in English and the way of life in Australia.
What ever country we live in, we must obey by the laws of this country and adopt their way of life as a respect for the country we live in.
Western countries are founded on the judeo-christian faith, morals and values.
The problem has arised when Australia has started to import people that have a very different belief system, an ideology that is not compatible with the Australian’s way.
We never see anyone perpetrating an act of te—-ism in the name of Buddha or in the name of Jesus…it’s always in the name of A–ah, and that is a fact around the world.
2

Hide replies

@robynmconville4028
10 days ago
Wow Sam, Joanna and James, that was an intense interview. I can see the passion behind all 3 of you and I think it is great and very important to be able to have these sorts of tricky conversations. It takes guts to speak frankly like you all did, which is very much lacking in the political class bar a few good ones who are willing to tackle tough subjects. A lot of people will probably picks sides, but I can see different bits of merit in all three perspectives and I look forward to you all getting together and talking again. I think these conversations are really important and we need to keep having them. And agreeing on some of the key points is a great starting point. And as Jo said, we cannot have Labor get back in.
4

@sgunx9854
11 days ago
Tough subject to talk about but thanks for having the guts to tackle it God Bless all of you
3

@treewhisperer07
11 days ago
Great debate
5

@triciamears7338
11 days 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
4

@justintarczon3347
11 days ago
That was very well done and I sympathise with both sides but the main enemy is the labour government. Don’t forget that!
8

@nick168jetski
8 days ago
100%

Hide replies

@robertrhaine9290
8 days ago
Love that Jordan Peterson got a mention
4

@zoeymiddleby5846
10 days ago
Wow, what a rollercoaster!
3

@jaggity
11 days ago
John Howard started the high mass migration, mostly chinese at the time, in order to suppress wages.
6

@petecabbie7516
9 days ago
Hawke gave residency to 20,000 Chinese students at the time of the uprising in China. I wonder how many used residency to buy property even though many went back.
1

Hide replies

@joffa397
10 days ago
My question would be if tourist came to Australia what kind of people would they expect to see? If I went to China what people would I expect to see, If I went to India what kind of people would I expect to see? Australia was a British colony and that’s the foundation of our nation. James is happy with #multiculturalism by the sounds of it. Back in the 50s,60s and 70s we use to call immigrants New Australian.
2

@jimini_crikit322
11 days 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
3

@dayno82
9 days ago (edited)
when Dr Jo drops the Fbom everyone pulls their head in
1

@Thecarnivorecoachkymbullen
11 days ago
Such an important conversation. 3 strong personalities, you all did well.
3

@Cappuccino-ph7rp
11 days ago
Fair call. You can’t criticise one person’s answer while being unable to answer the same question.
22

@nathann6482
11 days ago
He literally said why you can and gave an example. If you said I saw the tooth fairy yesterday, as I felt something on my pillow. I can say no you didn’t. I don’t know what you felt, but it wasn’t the tooth fairy.
2

@Cappuccino-ph7rp
10 days ago
@nathann6482 Could you pinpoint where James clearly defined his definition of an Australian ?
1

@ricpateman7473
10 days ago
​ @Cappuccino-ph7rp James clearly said he hadn’t came to a conclusion on that as he hadn’t had time to think it through. Once he had time to think it through and do his own research, I’m sure he would be able to.
He doesn’t need his own definition to debate someone else’s definition and test it to see if it holds up under scrutiny.

@Cappuccino-ph7rp
10 days ago

@ricpateman7473 Exactly & yet he badgered Sam on multiple occasions for his definition of which Sam complied.
1

@ricpateman7473
10 days ago
​ @Cappuccino-ph7rp because Sam stated at the start that he had done the research and a ton of reading to find his definition, but he expected James to come up with his definition on the spot. Instinctively we might know what an Australian is, but to define something, in your own opinion, accurately, requires considered thought. James response was quite a mature response, he didn’t know. They weren’t comparing dicks, they were considering if Sam’s dick was the correct dick. Doesn’t need another dick in the mix to debate it.

@gabrielallen790
10 days ago
@nathann6482 That’s very reductionist. “If it cannot be proved with material evidence, I presume it isn’t real.” Asimov is as narrowly-minded as anybody else. Even our very reality (laws of physics, etc.) avoids proper measurement and definition – ‘soul’, God, ‘free will’ lack evidence, yet are intuitively sensed or are believed in.
Race and ethnic data is especially hard to come by, given it has been deemed too ‘taboo’ to research for decades. The same still applies, though.

@ricpateman7473
10 days ago
​ @gabrielallen790 you just mixed ‘laws and physics’ with ‘thought, belief, philosophy and religion’.
Not the same thing. I agree there are things that on a gut level, later prove to be something more. But mixing those definitions up doesn’t help.
And physics is defined and measurable and has clear definitions of what they are and how they are measured. Law can be ambiguous and broadly defined, but it can also be exact, depending on how you want society to behave. As for the others, they are more thought and belief systems that govern behaviours. Not the same thing.

Hide replies

@tonypalmer9575
11 days 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.
6

@kimeccleston5586
11 days ago
Well said

Hide replies

@racerx2797
10 days ago
Agree with most of what you say Sam, but where you or your parents were born or what colour your skin is doesn’t matter if you come here, assimilate and uphold Australian values then you are an Australian. It’s a privilege to be called one and if you tick those boxes as Joanna has gone above and beyond most Aussie born Australians then you deserve the title Australian with no qualifications.
4

@DB-in3jy
11 days ago
Brilliant episode!
4

@MaySpecials
11 days ago
Fair debate
3

@BoulevardRDKN
4 days ago
I came from the dreamtime from the dusty red soil plains
I am the ancient heart, the keeper of the flame
I stood upon the rocky shore
I watched the tall ships come
For forty thousand years I’d been the first Australian.
I came upon the prison ship bowed down by iron chains.
I cleared the land, endured the lash and waited for the rains.
I’m a settler.
I’m a farmer’s wife on a dry and barren run
A convict then a free man I became Australian.
I’m the daughter of a digger who sought the mother lode
The girl became a woman on the long and dusty road
I’m a child of the depression
I saw the good times come
I’m a bushy, I’m a battler
I am Australian
We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We share a dream and sing with one voice:
I am, you are, we are Australian
I am, you are, we are Australian.
I’m a teller of stories
I’m a singer of songs
I am Albert Namatjira
I paint the ghostly gums
I am Clancy on his horse
I’m Ned Kelly on the run
I’m the one who waltzed Matilda
I am Australian
I’m the hot wind from the desert
I’m the black soil of the plains
I’m the mountains and the valleys
I’m the drought and flooding rains
I am the rock, I am the sky
The rivers when they run
The spirit of this great land
I am Australian
We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We share a dream and sing with one voice:
I am, you are, we are Australian
I am, you are, we are Australian.
1

@Shallowchal
12 days ago
What did I just watch -holy heck.
9

3 replies

@tahniab8950
4 days ago
Also Sam, Joanna emigrated at a time when Australia could accomodate migrant families and it was beneficial for the economy
1

@leonmiller4774
12 days 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
9

@therig.88
11 days ago
Bring it back asap.. I’ve even heard aboriginals saying they want the white Australia policy as well.. I think that says a lot. Even they can see the perks of it
1

@leonmiller4774
11 days ago
​ @therig.88 thankyou we need more that think this way it is not racist it is just allowing the right people we get along with and will assimilate
1

@MagicManintheSky-j9q
10 days ago
Anglo-Celtic and European. That’s you bro. Australian.

Hide replies

@dippy9119
9 days ago
There is no clear and agreed definition of “Australian” beyond the citizenship definition. This whole podcast proved it.
1

@debbiemcquillan8225
10 days ago
Agree with you Sam.
3

@ThePatriarchTV
8 days ago
I get Sam’s view. When he says ‘Australian’ he means culturally, based on who immediately pre/ post federation built this country. If someone is outside of these parameters, they are XXXX – Australian …which is more a definition of their culture rather than a class/ certificate. Personally, I’ve always seen myself as Australian (i.e. an Australian citizen that has grown up here despite being born overseas), but culturally not ‘Aussie’. We’d always say in friends groups, we had Asians, Indians, Arabs and Aussies….and we all knew what that meant. We meant this culturally , despite us all being Australian. Great conversation regardless, and I think robust discussion about anything is what this country needs more of. Love the pod Sam!
2

@johnrogers5825
11 days 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.
4

@brontepetropoulos4755
12 days ago
Great video
3

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

@Desp.007
11 days ago
U Jo! Stay strong.
2

@ColdPatterns
12 days ago
Well hopefully I can go over to India as a white woman and be considered an Indian
10

2 replies

@unipartywonagainstthepeople
12 days ago
Great stuff
2

@scooter183
11 days ago
South Africa and Rhodesia, Take a look at the 70s and take a look Now.. Australia is Next . Case Closed.
3

@ShaneCooper-b2u
11 days ago
thank you very much

@h.epeterjohnmanthey6295
11 days 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.
7

@RosalynHeitonga
23 hours ago
I like everyone’s take on this… Great debate guys everyone is entitled to their opinion it’s what we do moving forward to make AUSTRALIA GREAT AGAIN. May God bless Australia and by his Grace and Mercy we can all work together to make this country great again

@mic4788
11 days 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.
5

3 replies

@LucienCanon
11 days ago
Jo’s husband attacks Sam in the most arrogant, rude, and personal way – inside his own home, and still thinks he can take that moral, holier than thou tone.
30

@petecabbie7516
9 days ago
My thoughts too. Disrespectful in my book.
2

Hide replies

@jonathanprinsloo717
10 days ago
Loved it mate
2

@Emmyaus19
11 days ago
Sam, your’e losing me with your “Anglo-Celtic and European” definition when you apply it specifically to Joanna. Born in rthe UK to yes, an Indian father however you’re forgetting that she is actually part Portuguese as well, therefore European as well — or is Portugal not part of Europe?
The real issue is with incompatible cultures – that mean Islam and yes cultures incompatible to Western, CHRISTIAN culture of which Anglo Celtic culture is a sub-set. Christians from the Middle East also share a large percentage of this culture. Think of all the Christian Lebanese , Assyrians etc which migrated to Australia before the Government recklessly opened the immigration program.
No – I do not have any Lebanese or mid-east heritage. Yes, I was born in Australia. Australia is too young a country also for anyone to be defined as “ethnically Australian” as is the US, Canada and New Zealand.
5

@silvanacamilleri1919
9 days ago
Totally agree

Hide replies

@Howdnz
11 days ago
That escalated quickly

@davidcole4229
11 days 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!
20

@hamish2884
11 days ago
Cant wait to watch this!
2

@kiskebear
11 days ago
Only watched to 43:00 so far, but felt the need to chime in. Its worth noting that racially, southern Europeans – while being “white appearing” are not “Caucasians”. Were Mediterranean. That’s true for Greece, Cyprus, Malta, South Italy, and South Spain.
We weren’t treated as whites in any ‘western’ nation until the 60s – until which we were largely considered “half black”.
So Sam’s assertion of “What is an Australian” can’t really be on the “nazi spectrum” – because its fundamentally not about racial superiority, its about ideological cohesion. Sam is saying “People who have the same work ethics, people who have the same belief system, people who have come from the same location on earth, with the same rule of law, influenced by Christianity, all deserve to come and be Australian” There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that position.
I think “What is an Australian” is not an easy question to answer. Let me explain with my situation.
I’m an ethnic Greek, born and raised in Australia. I identify as a Greek – because that’s what my DNA is. Therefore, I’m not Anglo-Saxon nor Celtic. So I dont believe I can ever call myself “Australian”. I do however, at every opportunity tell people im from Australia, because Im proud of the country I was born in, and (generally?) still proud of what it stands for.
So its kind of this weird limbo, You’re of 2 nations at all times. I think it would be easier if there were multiple nations of the ethnicity I came from in the world.
I think to double reinforce Sam’s point. Hes basically saying all the things I said above, and then at that point, that’s “Good enough”. Because definitely, if you could import 500 million Greeks, or Polish, or Hungarians, that would completely change the face of what Australia looks like. But if we selectively take immigrants from all of Europe, and trust that they embody our western values, and for all intents and purposes, naturalize, then that’s “Good enough” for the future generations of Australia.
Sidebar, a note for referencing nations:
Japan is not worth referencing, because “ethnic Japanese” are truly Chinese colonists. Indigenous Japanese, called the Ainu, were similarly treated to our own indigenous.
2

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
Yep we have to define it

@markusharalius5129
11 days ago
I follow you Sam and like most of what you have to say. I listened to this podcast. As a South African who grew up under apartheid lived in Australia for over 30 years. A son who served in Australian armed forces. I felt the same way hearing your definition of an Australian as when the welcome to country is performed. A half Australian and nor will my children ever be Australian. How sad that every hard working migrant will never be fully accepted. So all you folk out there who love this country like I do I think there needs to be a serious discussion with your children whether they stay or leave. Home is so important.
4

@corinneperegrini6003
10 days ago
It’s very simple, an Australian is
*someone who is born in Australia.
*Someone who immigrate to Australia and is given a citizenship.
If you have an Australian passport than you are Australian.
The colour of the skin has nothing to do with it.
I immigrated to Australia 33 years ago from France.(born and raised in France).
France consider me a French citizen residing overseas.
I took the Australian citizenship around 29 years ago, therefor I am an Australian citizen.
I am both an Australian and a French citizen.
My English was very basic 33 years ago, now I am fully fluent in English and the way of life in Australia.
What ever country we live in, we must obey by the laws of this country and adopt their way of life as a respect for the country we live in.
Western countries are founded on the judeo-christian faith, morals and values.
The problem has arised when Australia has started to import people that have a very different belief system, an ideology that is not compatible with the Australian’s way.
We never see anyone perpetrating an act of te—-ism in the name of Buddha or in the name of Jesus…it’s always in the name of A–ah, and that is a fact around the world.
1

Hide replies

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
Good stand up to him Sam
1

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

@sharonobrien4844
10 days ago
Oh, I agree! I could feel myself getting unnerved

@tasd5673
10 days ago
It was what Australia was founded on hard debate but we lost it and we need it back

Hide replies

@FairyBreadforbreakfast
11 days ago
I agree with Sam. The ethnicity of Australians is Anglo-Celtic and European.
Joanna has assimilated and is a wonderful for Australia. Her children are ETHNICALLY half Indian. That doesn’t make them less Australian because they were born here and are being raised here as Australians with an Australian father.
This is a huge topic of discussion in the UK. There are some great channels whose hosts are very articulate on the subject.
They are well worth a watch. https://www.youtube.com/@Con_Tomlinson and Carl Benjamin
James is right on Christianity, but Sam is right in his thinking about how we need to protect Australia.
If you call yourself an “Indian-Australian” then you’re not Australian. If you call yourself an “Italian-Australian” then you’re not Australian. Imo.
2

@RajNaidoo-b4e
12 days ago
Abortion is murder!
5

@morkoblooper7991
7 days ago (edited)
we have to categories Anglo-Celtic Australians as AUSSIES being the defined group of what is an Australian and everyone is is accepted as a so called Australian but at least we have a defined group that is categorized being Anglo – Celtic Australians as Aussies
1

@anthonyleighton2536
11 days ago (edited)
Very good discussion guys.
We need to be able have these type of discussions. It will lead to the best outcomes…..eventually!
Sams intentions are good and he will come around – I think he is just on an intellectual journey that you guys are further down atm.
2

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
Yes working together is the way

@clintanthony1779
11 days 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.
11

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

@MagicManintheSky-j9q
10 days ago

@MSummaz No. Ethnicity INDIAN. Citizenship AUSTRALIAN.

Hide replies

@Prodaybtc
7 days ago
I was listening that discussion and i must say that i am extremely happy seeing younger Australians who are different in thinking but still able to openly talk because this is extremely important for the future of this country . I am coming from the country which was a social experiment with mixing races, nationalities and religions which haven’t been so different as they are in Australia but still failing and ending in the bloody war . Multiculturalism doesn’t work especially in combination with radical islam as we have down under however we shouldn’t never surrender to 4 % population which is terrorizing all the others, never!! Demographic future of Australia will be formed as a society of different entities or enclaves based on religion , race and religion and hopefully collaborating for the benefit of all and God help us finding the way!

@bryce222nice
11 days 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
21

@mojo-2025
7 days ago
But he is? He’s saying that no person outside or whites can be classed as Australian’s. Do you not understand how racist and dangerous that ideology is?

Hide replies

@joshuaward8819
11 days ago
Is that a cobra radspeed limited driver in the background?

@Butcherbirdsarecool
12 days 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!
20

@GoranRadovanovic-m4b
11 days 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

@CircumambulationMaedia
11 days ago
3:50 potassium chloride isn’t poisonous, it’s required for life and it’s naturally occuring in water, it’s why it’s in electrolyte etc. What they’re injecting is TOO MUCH potassium which stops the babies heart.
3

@hogrider1508
10 days ago
everything is poisonous. this is a stupid comment. if you drink 15 litres of water you’ll die, if you have 25 shots of coffee youll die. not sure why this is an important detail?

@CircumambulationMaedia
9 days ago

@hogrider1508 no is not. Potassium chloride is literally required for you to live, like sodium and other electrolytes, giving you an overdose of something you require doesn’t make it poison, the caffeine in coffee is a poisonous neurotoxin and it’s not in any way required, so that’s purely a poison. Ironically your comment is stupid because of your ignorance.

Hide replies

@ItsMe-vy1wt
11 days ago
I’d absolutely LUV to see that “Fuck the ABC” sign done up all nice & professional…..& LARGE!
1

@RichardJohnson-nq9ys
11 days ago
Calm down James or you will have a coronary.
4

@greeningfam8359
11 days ago
You’re right, that did get a little heated
1

@therig.88
11 days ago
Every country that isn’t white wouldn’t accept a European as Japanese, Nigerian or whatever.. non whites move to a white country we are expected to say they are Australian.. German, British.. its watering down our our culture and communities. We have every right to push back just like sam is doing. Calling him racist just showed you’re argument is emotional and based on feelings.. it doesn’t work like that
3

@rivercity2006
11 days ago
Majority is the point!!
1

@yogibighouse1
12 days 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
7

@damachinen
11 days ago
Sorry to hear that, bro. That’s tough. I pray things work out for you!
1

@MagicManintheSky-j9q
10 days ago
Make abortion adoption again!

Hide replies

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
Yep good debate guys

@slash1989
11 days ago
Two against one not fair and there waxing
3

@colin76545
11 days 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

@crockofbs
11 days ago
Always have loved your work Sam and whilst this “debate” got a little unhinged on both sides I am still worried your treading in the race side instead of considering values and culture as what built this country. The fact you can’t say Johanna is Australian without using a race hyphen is a bit odd. Is she Australian or not. You say she is an Australian citizen yep so is she Australian or not ? Even near the end after saying she isnt less than you but you then said she was indian australian but you were a “great australian” Not a great look even if thats not your intention. I think you should safely say anyone that assimilates can be Australian. Forget the ethnic hyphen that just gives that below me perception.
6

@nathann6482
11 days ago
Yep and when does it end with his half half bullshit. If her kids have an Australian partner, and they have kids are they 1/4 Indian and 3/4 Australian. And their kids, 7/8 Australian, 1/8 Indian. It’s not living in the real world. Insanity
4

@corinneperegrini6003
10 days ago
Agree with you there mate.
It’s very simple, an Australian is
*someone who is born in Australia.
*Someone who immigrate to Australia and is given a citizenship.
If you have an Australian passport than you are Australian.
The colour of the skin has nothing to do with it.
I immigrated to Australia 33 years ago from France.(born and raised in France).
France consider me a French citizen residing overseas.
I took the Australian citizenship around 29 years ago, therefor I am an Australian citizen.
I am both an Australian and a French citizen.
My English was very basic 33 years ago, now I am fully fluent in English and the way of life in Australia.
What ever country we live in, we must obey by the laws of this country and adopt their way of life as a respect for the country we live in.
Western countries are founded on the judeo-christian faith, morals and values.
The problem has arised when Australia has started to import people that have a very different belief system, an ideology that is not compatible with the Australian’s way.
We never see anyone perpetrating an act of te—-ism in the name of Buddha or in the name of Jesus…it’s always in the name of A–ah, and that is a fact around the world.
1

@Misonagleran
10 days ago
​@corinneperegrini6003Stop spamming for the love of god

Hide replies

@rachelolorenshaw99
10 days ago
Sam never said you had to be white to be Australian, what are aboriginal Australians. This has not helped Jo’s cause denying her Indian heritage. Pretty sad. Of course her children are part Indian and part Australian and Dutch. They are all Australian citizens. We need to be discerning about who comes to Australia and prioritise Christians.
2

@BrettNorman-iu6wj
9 days ago
We are One , but we are many and from all the lands on earth we come,we share a dream and sing with one voice..I am you are we are Australian “
1

@amennamaste9173
11 days ago (edited)
Love the howes, but hubby is in an emotional disposition
5

@MellyGoodrock
11 days ago
He cant debate. He only responds emotionally.
5

@LucienCanon
11 days ago
He is an arrogant fool. He also doesn’t know any history.
He is not the right guy to debate these questions with.
3

Hide replies

@dripdripriprip
8 days ago
Great conversation with some good difference of opinions. We shouldn’t be scared to voice what we believe
1

@petecabbie7516
9 days ago
I wish James would call his wife by name and not ‘her’ I find it disrespectful.
2

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
Its good u still aired this Sam

@MellyGoodrock
11 days ago
James can’t debate without getting angry. Why so angry, dude? I’m with Sam on this debate. Well done Sam!
20

@RenA70707
11 days ago
Yes it’s a lesson on how not to debate.
2

Hide replies

@petard6172
11 days ago
Topkek – how are people who worship false idols equal in the eyes of GOD?? No one knows what to think anymore. Well done everyone.
2

@SKW-12
7 days ago
Absolutely shameful behaviour as a host.
James said from the outset – in an effort to establsih reference points – that he did NOT want to put words in your mouth.
His line of questioning was to try and understand for himself what you are promoting. When you stooped low, you gave him no option but to meet you there. And then you claim victimhood.
If you are confident in your theory, why the triggered defensiveness?
What you express here is tribalism. Which completely overrides the defining point of what makes ANY culture recognisable – which is VALUES.
As Aussies – what VALUES do we respect, uphold, use to define ourselves?
Get some nuance:
Define for yourself the difference between Christian VALUES – not Christianity.
Australian VALUES – not Australian tribalism.
What VALUES are being imported that conflict with our Australian VALUES?
Start there, and you might create healthier more productive discussion – and – give people something they can then present to others.
The version you currently promote is exclusive, easy to tear down, and verging on cultish closed-mindedness.
It will only keep people angry (as you’ve demonstrated), divided – and leave the real villains laughing, passing the popcorn, while we tear each other apart.
3

@THESENATOR27
5 days ago (edited)
Sam’s point which they seem to keep missing is WHAT ARE PEOPLE COMING TO ASSIMILATE TO TODAY? It’s not what it was. They wouldn’t even know anymore what they are supposed to assimilate to? Because there’s an argument there’s no predominant culture anymore. Sam’s argument is we need to re-establish traditional Australian culture. It’s not hard. And any international that comes in knows what values and culture to assimilate to. We stand for something as a nation.
1

@maxyorke2453
11 days 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.
3

@stephaniebowater9600
9 days ago (edited)
Sam,
I think James exposed a major flaw in your argument.
You said Joanna isn’t really Australian despite being born in England, growing up in Australia, speaking with an Australian accent, sharing Australian values, raising Australian children, and contributing more to this country than most people ever will.
I’m only a first-generation Australian from English immigrants. I’m not English. Joanna isn’t Indian. Ancestry and nationality are not the same thing.
People of Chinese heritage who are second and third-generation Americans consider themselves American. Most people consider them American too. Their ancestry may be Chinese, but their nationality, culture, loyalty and identity are American.
If ancestry is the deciding factor, then by that logic Aboriginal people are the only true Australians because everyone else ultimately came from somewhere else.
You accused James and Joanna of insulting you in your own home, but you were the one who told his wife she wasn’t Australian. By extension, you were also saying their children can never be fully Australian either, regardless of where they are born, how they are raised, or what they contribute.
James didn’t insult your family. He defended his wife and children after you applied that definition directly to them.
The British founded modern Australia and Christian values helped shape the country, its institutions, laws and culture. Nobody is denying that. But Australia is only about 200 years old. Every generation since has continued building it.
The part I think you, James and Joanna actually agree on is the real problem: mass immigration, rising violence, poor integration, a lack of assimilation, and governments that have brought in huge numbers of people without expecting them to adopt Australian values or become part of the broader community.
That’s the issue.
People like Joanna are not the problem. People who come here, assimilate, contribute, embrace Australian values, raise families and help build the country are not the problem.
The problem is mass immigration without assimilation.
To me, being Australian is about Australian values, loyalty, contribution and assimilation, not ancestry alone.
1

@KathyRan
11 days 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.
4

@LucienCanon
11 days ago (edited)
Not true. I happened to have studied the history if these groups at univerisity. There was one reclusive Chinese man related to those early centrury Chinese miners and market gardeners etc…he died in QLD in the 2000’s.
Almost ALL of this era were returned to China

@domburton
11 days ago
​@LucienCanonthat’s bullshit. Gallipoli service man, yans store kiandra. The chemist in my own home town was a catholic with a chinese last name.
1

@nnmm1775
9 days ago

@LucienCanoncompletely wrong, many Chinese families lived and worked in Vic during the gold rush at sovereign hill and have been here since before federation and stayed
1

@domburton
11 days ago
You’re absolutely right.
1

Hide replies

@hendricksarwom8471
9 days ago
I think I’d be the only one in these comments to have to agree with James here, Sam’s arguement has racism undertones because it does impose a racial hierarchy on australianism, if Jo and James’s kids end up having kids (3rd generation aussies) they’d still have to identify as Indian Australian because they’re melinated and at the same time a 2nd generation polish person who’s parents migrated here has the right to just be Australian!?! Do you not see the fallacy here? No matter how long you stay and contribute to the Australian society, you will always be questioned on your Australianism if you don’t have the same ethnic characteristics, whilst a German person can get the pass within a generation. Am I understanding this correctly?
2

@aussiegypsywarrior
11 days ago (edited)
Holy moly. This was brilliant. I can see where both sides are coming from.
12

@akingsroad
11 days 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

@jodymckenzie3526
9 days ago
Australians like Dr Jo are exactly the type of people we want as immigrants who 100% integrate & uphold Australian values & culture. But I agree with Sam absolutely. Great conversation.
9

@fastforward-f7p
6 days ago
Guy in the green hoodie was absolutely floundering..

@raelaris
12 days 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.
5

@MazDavis-f6t
10 days ago
I hope everybody watching this podcast really took in what was said about the babies being brutally tortured while they were being murdered. That they will truly search their conscience & speak out about this abhorrent practice that is being done with introduced legislation, thereby making murder of the most vulnerable, legal.
1

@MattGray-c9v
11 days ago
To me Jo is an Australian. But Sam is right about being an Australian
11

@puggs1
11 days ago
So then what is an Australian?
3

Hide replies

@tasd5673
10 days ago
Look at the numbers
1

@KathyRan
11 days 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.
7

@damiencooper1050
8 days ago
I love the way they call themselves craftsmen, they’re labourers the craftsmen built the slab and framed the house they’re simply lining the shell of the house they don’t even have a set of plans to work too they’re like painters! All the thinking has been done for them I mean even brick layers work to plans

@leonmiller4774
12 days 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
13

@grannyannie2948
12 days 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

@reubensrichardson
11 days ago (edited)
Great interview. Defining something is the first step in protecting it.
1

@saqaleka
12 days ago
1:02:58 why did her response about deporting muslims get cut out?
3

@Trunka34
11 days ago
Why do you think haha
1

@grannyannie2948
11 days ago
She explains it in the comments
1

Hide replies

@danielc2869
11 days ago
One can be obstinate in one’s argument, but it doesn’t make it any less vapid.

@slash1989
11 days ago
If you leave islam you could be assasinated by shari law
3

@Alessandro-b4k
11 days 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
1

@alldayeveryday0166
11 days ago
Sam’s definition of an Australian is the the correct definition. There are ethnic aussies being the Anglo Celtic/European. Then there are Australians who are like Joanna because she is culturally Australian. But at the end of the day Australia NEEDS to remain a large majority Anglo Celtic/European or else is just isn’t Australia anymore.
8

1 reply

@LandomRoon
11 days ago
41:00 Japan resisted ANY foreign boats of people coming to their country for hundreds of years, often ended quite violently for the visitors. eg christian missionaries
1

@overpotato4133
12 days ago
This guy is clueless lmao
4

@upstreamchats
8 days ago
Australia faces persistent concerns about migration and social cohesion. The country has evolved into a migration system the public has not fully scrutinised, with millions on temporary visas and a growing “permanently temporary” population.
A society’s cohesion depends on more than GDP growth. It relies on shared civic norms, social trust, institutional legitimacy, and a realistic capacity to integrate newcomers successfully. Migration depends on maintaining public confidence, which erodes when settlement systems, housing, infrastructure, or labour standards fail to keep pace.
The core question is not whether migration is morally good or bad, or whether migrants are to blame. It is whether the speed, scale, and composition of migration exceed a country’s capacity to integrate people into a shared civic culture while maintaining functional housing, services, and labour markets. When change happens faster than institutions can adapt, social trust and legitimacy come under strain. Wanting migration to occur at a pace compatible with state capacity and long-term cohesion is not anti-migrant; it is a question of governance and stability.
Australia should prioritise protecting and promoting its shared national culture, while encouraging unity, integration, and participation in a common civic identity. A cohesive society built around shared values, institutions, and cultural norms offers the strongest path forward for the country as a whole. In the long run, this approach produces better outcomes for social trust, stability, and national solidarity.
This principle should apply broadly, while also recognising Australia’s unique Indigenous heritage and working to ensure historical challenges are addressed in ways that strengthen national cohesion rather than deepen division.
A stronger emphasis on integration may not appeal to those who prefer to remain primarily within separate cultural communities. However, Australia is ultimately one nation, and successful multiculturalism depends on a shared foundation rather than a collection of parallel societies.
Demographics are one factor shaping cohesion. Social trust, national identity, assimilation, and shared civic norms are generally easier to sustain when demographic change occurs at a pace that allows newcomers to integrate into existing institutions and communities. Rapid demographic transformation can weaken the mechanisms that promote integration—such as social mixing, intermarriage, common schooling, and workplace inclusion—potentially leading to parallel communities and identity-based politics.
Celebrating diversity can be positive when it exists within a shared national framework. However, when diversity centres on competing identities, group interests, or power dynamics, it can encourage social fragmentation rather than unity. A society organised around separate identity groups does not eliminate divisions; it simply recreates them in a different form. Human beings naturally form groups and boundaries, and without a strong shared identity, those boundaries can become sources of competition and conflict rather than cooperation.
Some visions of migration frame borders as irrelevant and expect global populations to mix freely without regard for national institutions or civic cohesion. In practice, the world is not prepared for such rapid, unregulated change. Borders, migration policies, and gradual integration exist not to exclude, but to ensure that societies can maintain functional housing, services, labour markets, and shared norms. Attempting to bypass these structures risks social fragmentation and weakens the very foundations of national stability that make migration sustainable and beneficial.
The debate is often framed as a choice between open borders and hostility to migration, but this is a false dichotomy. Every successful nation maintains borders and regulates migration. The real question is how migration can be managed in a way that preserves public trust, social cohesion, economic opportunity, and a shared civic culture while continuing to welcome newcomers who wish to contribute to Australian society.

@Cappuccino-ph7rp
11 days ago
He shouldn’t be able to ask questions he can’t answer himself.
4

@LucienCanon
11 days ago
James was a total hypocrite throughout this discussion.
2

@MellyGoodrock
11 days ago
Who? Sam or James?

@Cappuccino-ph7rp
11 days ago

@MellyGoodrock James was the only one struggling to identify what makes a person Australian.
1

@LucienCanon
11 days ago
​@MellyGoodrockJames obviously
1

Hide replies

@batesmate5510
11 days ago
53ish mins bro, bloke would’ve been on the ground for telling me to shut up in my own house
1

@MickDewson
11 days ago
You nailed him Sam
12

@Barbara-i6s3v
9 days ago
Keep speaking the TRUTH, Sam!

@nothappyjan05
11 days ago
A bit arrogrant throwing the ‘racist’ ‘naz!’ labels due to his lack of comprehension. Out of line. Sam’s position makes perfect sense. Ethnicity doesn’t fall into 2 neat buckets – there are shades of grey. People identify themselves as ‘half’ all the time. My husband is born in Aus, but half German. His parents have been Aus citizens since childhood, but still recognise that they are German. Why take offense at ‘Indian-Australian’… if your parents are in fact, Indian? It’s just ancestry, not an insult. I don’t think someone is Australian just because they feel like it, when they weren’t born here. Just my opinion.
3

@MagicManintheSky-j9q
10 days ago
Indeed. Also Anglos originated in Germany.
1

@corinneperegrini6003
10 days ago
The way I see it is very simple, an Australian is
*someone who is born in Australia.
*Someone who immigrate to Australia and is given a citizenship.
If you have an Australian passport than you are Australian.
The colour of the skin has nothing to do with it.
I immigrated to Australia 33 years ago from France.(born and raised in France).
France consider me a French citizen residing overseas.
I took the Australian citizenship around 29 years ago, therefor I am an Australian citizen.
I am both an Australian and a French citizen.
My English was very basic 33 years ago, now I am fully fluent in English and the way of life in Australia.
What ever country we live in, we must obey by the laws of this country and adopt their way of life as a respect for the country we live in.
Western countries are founded on the judeo-christian faith, morals and values.
The problem has arised when Australia has started to import people that have a very different belief system, an ideology that is not compatible with the Australian’s way.
We never see anyone perpetrating an act of te—-ism in the name of Buddha or in the name of Jesus…it’s always in the name of A–ah, and that is a fact around the world.
1

Hide replies

@wotslife
11 days ago

@dianecook6622
10 days ago
Australians are people who embrace Australian Culture and love our country, nothing to do with ethnicity.
6

@joeyroz649
8 days ago
I am a proud portugese Australian that immigrated here 30 years ago my best mate is robbo his grand father was born here, Robbo is simply Australian! Period queen

@mic4788
11 days ago
Sam, on that point I think you’re incorrect. Their children are Australian. They were born here
9

@batesmate5510
11 days 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.
1

@Samsy22
11 days 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.
2

Hide replies

@gregsags3364
11 days ago
F-ing good podcast.
1

@weezy2263
11 days ago
Spanner in the works here:
My good Christian Indian grandma is darker than dr howe who has been here for over 70 years this country is all she knows, she has Australian accent lives like an Aussie she is dinky die to me, 1 side of my family is darker than dr howe and the other is white.
I also have ancestory who were sent here as prisoners and were also involved in sowing the eureka flag.
if my Punjabi Indian grandma didn’t come here, me a white Australian wouldn’t be here today.
You’re an Aussie to me Dr
Coming from someone who is voting for one nation and believes immigration should be based on values and willingness to assimilate.
6

@MrBradboy2
7 days ago
You slam dunked on him Sam.
I agree with you 100%.
Good podcast mate.
Dude. I want my Orange podcast coffee mug. How can I get hold of one?

@APP1E5
11 days 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.
6

@blakewaugh2536
11 days ago
could not sum it up better

@MSummaz
11 days ago

Hide replies

@theMISSIONARY257
10 days ago (edited)
people seem to forget the “angles” came from the coast of holland/northern Germany. the real problem is “Australian” is a branch of “English”, the way to fix it is cultural assimilation and that Culture is “English based”

@LucienCanon
11 days ago
Jo’s husband’s arguments are very primary school level. I’m sorry you had to endure that, Sam.
He doesn’t know what he is talking about.
17

@MrHuz89
11 days ago
Race and culture is not the same thing
2

@sharonobrien4844
10 days ago
Oh dear LucienCanon, you mistaken, Sam needed to hear the argument, Sam needs to grow & mature in his thinking. James was very emotional but his argument was sound, deeply thought out, perhaps he could of expressed it bettet but he definitely knows what he was defending. Bless you Lucien
1

@MajesticStuff
10 days ago
​@sharonobrien4844 if you are emitional and name call. It’s not a great argument to begin with. Also, zero respect in another person’s home. Not really christian values..

Hide replies

@brodienunn8638
10 days ago
Wait, she said who shed support in war, then reference India as home..?

@metgirl5429
11 days 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
7

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

Hide replies

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
That war was then this is now

@johnryan1386
12 days 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
10

@nathann6482
11 days ago
And her DNA test would show 0% Australian.

Hide replies

@jasonwolfe5787
11 days 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.
2

@jessiejordan2853
11 days 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.
4

@MellyGoodrock
11 days ago
Same here. I’m 7th Gen Aussie. I agree with you.
1

@damachinen
11 days ago
Half my ancestors arrived in 1854 from Ireland due to potato famine. I totally agree with you, mate.
1

Hide replies

@danogamez5250
8 days ago
I agree with Sam 100 percent
1

@maxyorke2453
11 days 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.
7

@LucienCanon
11 days ago
This is why it is a shame the centre-right took the term “woke right” and applied it to the nationalist right, because in fact there is a “woke right” and it is them.
1

Hide replies

@kforkent
10 days ago
English speaking, Christian Country respecting and embracing the Westminster system, loving our neighbour and valuing equal opportunity, grit, determination and aspirations. We are Australian

@leonmiller4774
12 days 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
11 days 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.
2

@Snappernose
11 days ago
She’s Indian/austalian
If I mirrored her life in China would they say I’m Chinese?
Didn’t think so
2

Hide replies

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
YES!!!! PLEASE GET SAL GROVER

@MaySpecials
11 days ago
She’s good
9

@kingdizzle8925
11 days ago
The thing about saying your less of a person because you’re not full australian, ie indian australian. That is an internal battle or your own mental battle. Because it’s not Sam saying your less of a person because your Indian Australian, he is simply identifying that you have other heritage as well as aussie. Which doesn’t mean you’re less of a person, everyone is equal. It’s not a race issue, the people that Sam would deport just so happen to be of brown skin, I’m sure if all those “bad people” that he would deport just so happened to have white skin, you would have the same answer. Let’s look at the groups that need deporting lets overlook the colour of individuals.
2

@disgruntledunicorn007
10 days ago
Exactly. They need to remove the emotion from it. These two speak like they’re the first biracial couple in the world

Hide replies

@walkabouttrek6718
9 days ago
Someone should tell the host he is not ‘ethnically Australian.’ His ethnicity is English/Scottish from Britain, not from Australia. Doesn’t matter if the white man made Australia or whatever. Your ethnicity is based on where your ancestors were indigenous to. That’s a biological fact. He sounds really foolish talking like this.
5

@raphaelbotelho91
11 days ago
What a fcking great episode, guys

@Steve-HIMSELF
11 days ago (edited)
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.
P.S Next time, get a mediator lol.
15

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
Omg James let Jo reply

@grannyannie2948
12 days ago
Ban abortion And ban immigration. Problem solved.
5

@jasonluttrell-e2h
7 days ago
jo is of Indian descent and shes Australian because shes living here and a citizen, as im English descent and Australian citizen . Only indigenous people are native first people, so its irrelevent basically as long as you want to strive and do well here.
1

@danielpearce7585
11 days 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.
4

@crackdogg
8 days ago
lol race isn’t just “skin colour”
1

@andytheo5387
9 days ago
Sam I like you but you are wrong on this she is Australian
2

@daveJCIK
11 days ago
James is terrible a debating
2

@Leigh666XF
8 days ago
They constantly talk about how bad the “left” are, but then try to claim race is just skin colour and it’s “problematic” to claim it as part of our identity. She literally sounds like a leftist from 2015. I know, I was there.
A literal immigrant doesn’t get a say in how we define ourselves. Sorry if that hurts her feelings. It is OUR identity, not hers.
Race is the most fundamental thing to who we are as a human being. The idea that it’s “just skin deep bro” is idiotic. It’s your literal DNA passed down to you by millions of ancestors who made decisions and sacrifices to give you the life you have.
And the fact this absolute clown thinks it’s just total coincidence that Western values were created by White people in Europe is hilarious. Culture comes from people. Our culture did not, and could not, originate anywhere but in OUR countries. Australia has the culture it does because of the people who made it. The more and more those people are pushed aside, the less and less “Australia” we become and the more and more our culture will change. “Assimilation” is pure mythology.
And no, it’s not religion either. Unless you think the Congo (from memory the second most Christian African country) is the same as any random European country?? I think I’d rather take my chances in Islamic Bosnia than Christian Congo.
1

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

@lukemagro6060
11 days 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.
1

@BillaBored21
10 days ago
1:13:18 Joanna Howe tries to guilt shame sam with tears because sam called her indian Australian which she is.
1

@readie10145
8 days ago
I am going to move to India or Islam next year. Do I say I’m a Indian or Islamic and take there money? No
1

@unlikelyoption
10 days ago
Pretty sure we were a Christian nation when we had the white Australia policy. Australia was fantastic because of the white Australia policy, not because of Christianity. Yes it was fascist, but it worked. The modern day moralistic thinking is what’s gotten the west into such a shit state of affairs.
2

@discombubulate2256
9 days ago
I get that the heritage of Australia is Anglo Celtic. It’s not about the colour of your skin it’s your values that makes you Australian. If you come to Australia, integrate, and want to be Australian including becoming a part of Australian society, then you will become Australian.
Joanna is the prime example of this.

@gabrielachouja4524
4 days ago
My kids then will be half South American , 1/4 Irish and 1/4 Syrian.
But they were born here…
So they’re not Australian?
Oh wait!
They might still be able to say they’re 1/4 Australian because they have 1/4 Irish blood, Irish are Anglo Celtic…
I can see how this can go in so many ways, and I’m not sure if I complete agree with this statement.

@keez-j5v
7 days ago (edited)
Sam is protecting and including the indigenous people he is definitely not a nazi or a racist
1

@PixieTinsel
11 days 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

@BoulevardRDKN
4 days ago
To me Joanna is an Australian as she has assimilated into the basis of the Australian way of life and adds to Australia not taking. I don’t like the words Indian Australian, or English Australian. I was born in England at immigrated here with my family when I was 6 years old, I’m now 65 as far as I’m concerned I’m Australian.

@TheLell123
5 days ago
My mum came to Australia from England as a young girl – When asked what nationality I always said. English Australian – I just say Australian now, but I know, I’m English Australian, with a mix of Irish and Scots thrown in from waaay back on my father’s side. Everyone in Australia is an immigrant including indigenous – everyone of us immigrated here – Culture is a set of norms, values, way of living that that society accepts. I do not accept any culture who’s values do not align with mine (Islam)

@adammcdonald1839
11 days ago
Racism… is all the other religions… but the Templar’s were warriors fighting for Christian values and were kick ass

@adensticher6842
11 days ago
You killed it Sam, the amount of times you repeated yourself was painful mate
3

@tommyparker1983
8 days ago
Dr Jo is a great Australian, culturally not ethnically.

@pattisampson7367
11 days ago
Why does racism trigger everybody?
1

@benkhosh
11 days 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

@ASB1824
8 days ago
In the 80’s and 90’s early 00’s I lived in western Sydney very multicultural public High School in the 80’s topics today we’re not main stream then.
School friends from all war torn countries and then stating! There is no wars here! I love Australia!
I would think over the years why is Australia different! why now in the information war recognition of what was what gained what is unique and in this nation is not celebrated more? how different to rest of the world.
If attention and constant focus is advertised in the information age it creates a positive collective!
Why Australia was then good.
Now not is the question? Congratulations to your neighbour or classmate getting a fair go and respecting you as a neighbour.
We need such values also be allowed to call out manipulation and narratives by so called groups and elected officials who are influenced by economic and politically motivated decisions which is creating further divide due to personal gain

@RajNaidoo-b4e
12 days ago
James & Sam sound like long lost mates! Love it. (saying this 18 mins in, we’ll see how it goes)
4

@damachinen
11 days ago
Lol. Still reckon your framing holds up?
1

Hide replies

@Guska95
11 days 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
4

@justinwolff1416
10 days ago (edited)
The Vibe: ‘Hunting Season’, starring Yosemite Sam, Daffy Duck, and Foghorn Leghorn – But seriously, 3 good people in a somewhat often tense debate, no bloodshed… something left for each of you to think more about… and the common enemy agreed upon. Good outcome.

@GraemeOsbrough
10 days ago
First I absolutely love DR Joe, I think being an Australin should be judged on attitude not skin colour, The British have done nothing but exploit this great country for centuries and think of the citizens as convicts. I don’t care where people are from as long as they want to be part of team Australia, that is how we make our country strong, we need to embrace good people and exile the bad.
3

@FrogBlasters
11 days 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

@damachinen
11 days ago
That’s some civic propaganda you got there, mate.
1

Hide replies

@fourpipes
11 days ago
Ballsy video! Well done for posting it. Unite the right
6

@tasd5673
10 days ago
Yes very very bad

Hide replies

@Numptee86
11 days 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

@Eravide
11 days 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.
4

@johnrogers5825
11 days 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.
7

@MellyGoodrock
11 days ago
Agree 100%!

@aussiegypsywarrior
11 days 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

@DrJoannaHowe
11 days ago
James is the most honest, strong and kind-hearted man and I am very blessed to be married to him. Please don’t say those things about him.
2

@RenA70707
11 days ago
@DrJoannaHowe he’s a good man but you have to admit as a Christian man he has to learn to bridle his tongue. The swearing is very off putting.

@damachinen
11 days ago
​@RenA70707 mate, Australians use cuss words all the time. It’s fine.
1

@RenA70707
11 days ago
@damachinen yeah they do. But I find it vulgar when someone swears all the time. That’s my view. Be intelligent and use words to make your point.

Hide replies

@victorgomes7585
11 days 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.
6

@silvanacamilleri1919
9 days ago
Joanna you are well and truly an Australian with an Indian heritage just as any person who comes to live in Australia, totally integrates into the Australian way of life which has a christian base attains Australian citizen is an Australian regardless of skin colour.

@aphaseelec
11 days 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.
3

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
Watching Hanson closely i will be watching to see women are supported

@quietstrengthstudio-t4s
10 days ago
Dr Joe and James know their shit, best Center Right couple going around at the moment, good debate, Sam took a big L on this one, but it happens. Thanks for sharing.
4

@MajesticStuff
10 days ago
I disagree. James was unbearable. Raising your voice and name calling isn’t a solid foundation for an argument.
2

@tasd5673
10 days ago
​ @MajesticStuff yeah agree and in sams house

Hide replies

@darrenparsons5299
11 days ago
Christianity is the key fundamental
5

@boags9098
11 days ago
This is wicked

@jittmet7766
11 days ago
James – the GREEKS created democracy.
4

@thebigw3377
11 days ago
Put some windex on it !
2

Hide replies

@thebigw3377
11 days ago
Sam’s right however I believe the better term for her is… absolutely she is Australian however she’s Australian with an Indian background
3

@corinneperegrini6003
10 days ago
It’s very simple, an Australian is
*someone who is born in Australia.
*Someone who immigrate to Australia and is given a citizenship.
If you have an Australian passport than you are Australian.
The colour of the skin has nothing to do with it.
I immigrated to Australia 33 years ago from France.(born and raised in France).
France consider me a French citizen residing overseas.
I took the Australian citizenship around 29 years ago, therefor I am an Australian citizen.
I am both an Australian and a French citizen.
My English was very basic 33 years ago, now I am fully fluent in English and the way of life in Australia.
What ever country we live in, we must obey by the laws of this country and adopt their way of life as a respect for the country we live in.
Western countries are founded on the judeo-christian faith, morals and values.
The problem has arised when Australia has started to import people that have a very different belief system, an ideology that is not compatible with the Australian’s way.
We never see anyone perpetrating an act of te—-ism in the name of Buddha or in the name of Jesus…it’s always in the name of A–ah, and that is a fact around the world.
2

@vitod4263
10 days ago
Western countries are founded and based on Christianity, not judeo-Christian. We have extremely different values to Jews.
1

@corinneperegrini6003
10 days ago (edited)
​​ @vitod4263
No so different values than the Jews.
Remember we share the old testament.

Hide replies

@rachelolorenshaw99
10 days ago
James thinks he’s calm and not getting offended
1

@tasd5673
10 days ago
Yeah odd he thinks sam is rage but sam waits until James is bribg an arse

Hide replies

@jocelynbridget00
3 days ago
Sam I appreciate how calm you are. I have heritage back to convict time. Technically speaking I would say Australians are both Aboriginal and the convict settlers that came here. Anyone else has integrated into society and can be called Australian by culture as long as they themselves identity as Australian and not their heritage. When pressed that could say their heritage is Indian as such but ultimately they are Australian, they know no different.
Joanna to me is Australian and she has Indian heritage

@Pauly-v9j
11 days 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

@dustyrhoades12345
6 days ago
Murders and child rapists get more human treatment than an unwanted baby we don’t execute them.
1

@BLESSED2XS
12 days 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
11 days 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!!!
2

Hide replies

@NicholasWitham
11 days 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

@domburton
11 days 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.
4

@chriscasey5772
8 days ago
Geez that was a hard watch
1

@jovincent1965
7 days ago (edited)
Watched from NZ, yes, alot of the same shit.
1

Hide replies

@leonmiller4774
12 days 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

@MathewCurth-m5y6q
7 days ago
Holy shit what a ep talk about a episode that makes to you and fro your thoughts. Sam i agree with so much of what you are saying but I can absolutely see joannas passion around that Indian Australian label and her passion in what she said around that needs to be meshed somehow in what you were saying about defining an aussie and if you guys work together holy shit I reckon you can hash out the perfect definition of an Aussie, great episode.

@jacoblowe4247
11 days 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?
3

@Citraz62
11 days ago
NO.
2

Hide replies

@bennelong
8 days ago
joanna is 100% Australian
1

@ChristineMeyer-hs9rg
10 days ago
Australian is Anglo Celtic. Why are people so offended by this? It’s just a fact. For goodness sake just deal with it. It’s not up for debate. Yes welcome some immigrants but we are who we are. Keep it going and being Australian actually means nothing. Its so insulting to the people who built the bloody country. Why not show US some respect? Our ancestors worked themselves to death for what you now walk in and claim as your own. Try it on anywhere else in the world and see how far you get.
Just acknowledge who we ARE. Its not hard. Just use your brain.
Shout out to all the immigrant families who helped us BUILD Australia. They joined us. They have never argued they ARE us. They still hang on to their culture and we’re happy that they do. THAT is how you get along in our Country. Argue us out of existence and we will fight back and why the hell should’t we? My identity is not up for debate or annihilation thanks very much. You all need to grow up!
1

@gogeorgia707
12 days 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
12 days ago
I can’t understand how any mother chooses this instead of placing the baby for adoption. Pure evil.
2

@gogeorgia707
12 days 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
11 days 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

@darrenparsons5299
11 days ago
WELL SAID JO
5

@RenA70707
11 days ago
Good on ya Sam for standing your ground. I agree with your definition. We don’t want the culture that was built by the Anglo/celtic Europeans to be replaced. And that’s what is happening through mass immigration. James was angry and defensive. Sam I admire the way you handled yourself.

@Stella-iy4zf
4 days ago
True That Sam.

@nichollasoros9445
5 days ago
Loved the debate guys, my 2 cents worth, Sometimes rigidity can be labled ” racist” for instance, but without that rigidity how do we define something? I have never given much thought to what is an Australian, but most likely because I never had to until now.

@dustyrhoades12345
6 days ago
100% Australia is the people.

@Unitryderz
11 days ago
Well fuck me that was a wild time!
i couldn’t do that intro tho jfc!

@nick168jetski
8 days ago
I totally agree but we need all the support on the right as possible as the problem we have here is very serious and discussion like this is going to give the left ammo and create division on the right as a lot of people who support you are second or third generation Australian.( this does not help our cause)
united we stand divided we fall
If only all people from around the world had assimilated as well as Dr Joanna has done there would be no need for any discussion to take place nor would we have the issues we are having now in this country.
Personally I think she’s more of an Aussie than a lot of the Greeks or Italians I know.

@aussiegypsywarrior
11 days ago
53 minutes

@hamitbulut9302
9 days ago
So in other words would you also say BigChocky is also not Australian? If he is, then what makes jennifer howe and bigchocky so different?
1

@adammcdonald1839
11 days ago
Well done

@JustJoshofficial89
11 days 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

@rachelolorenshaw99
10 days ago
Sam’s right…end of
1

@Aussiemutt
11 days ago
This was great! I like everyone in this conversation. In my opinion being Australian is not about skin colour but ancestry. I do think that Johanna’s kids are aussie as they have Australian ancestry through thier dad. A nation is a people. If an Irishman and woman moved to China and had kids there and those kids completely adopted Chinese culture it still doesn’t make them Chinese as they do not descend from Chinese ancestry.
2

@LucienCanon
11 days ago
Well said. Though our ancestry happens to be overhwlmingly Anglo-Celtic settler/convict stock so race is relevant

@damachinen
11 days ago
​@LucienCanonOP is correct, and so are you.

@corinneperegrini6003
10 days ago
The way I see it is very simple, an Australian is
*someone who is born in Australia.
*Someone who immigrate to Australia and is given a citizenship.
If you have an Australian passport than you are Australian.
The colour of the skin has nothing to do with it.
I immigrated to Australia 33 years ago from France.(born and raised in France).
France consider me a French citizen residing overseas.
I took the Australian citizenship around 29 years ago, therefor I am an Australian citizen.
I am both an Australian and a French citizen.
My English was very basic 33 years ago, now I am fully fluent in English and the way of life in Australia.
What ever country we live in, we must obey by the laws of this country and adopt their way of life as a respect for the country we live in.
Western countries are founded on the judeo-christian faith, morals and values.
The problem has arised when Australia has started to import people that have a very different belief system, an ideology that is not compatible with the Australian’s way.
We never see anyone perpetrating an act of te—-ism in the name of Buddha or in the name of Jesus…it’s always in the name of A–ah, and that is a fact around the world.

Hide replies

@sharonobrien4844
10 days ago
My response to this is huge, but Iust try to b concise. 1stly, how awesome is Jo, (a true Aussie) to keep calm in the midst of that! Dear Sam, seriously I pray u don’t get stuck where u r now, in a loyalty to a construct, almost a delusion of what a true Aussie is ( I noticed u said Diaper, not nappy, no big deal but clearly an Americanism) At the end of the day Jesus will return to this earth – Israel, not Australia & take His people home Study history much more to understand the roots of Christianity. My opinion- put yr focus & energy on Jesus more than yr desperate need to keep Australia more Australian by yr definition & u will live a life considerably more full.of love, grace & peace. This was a hard podcast to get thru but it has truly helped me to identify some of my own bigotry. Sam strive to make yr definitions align with the God of the Bible & u will live a better life.
I’m praying 4 u & yrs Sam. Clearly James could stop all that swearing but he & Jo r people of honour, Christians, I’m praying 4 them too!
Nothing compares to truly knowing Jesus & I will embrace the blackest Nigerian Christian, persecuted 4 their honour of God b4 anyone just because they r of Celtic European decent.
Bless u & yr family Sam
1

@neil4981dd
10 days ago
Jo is as Australian as I am.

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago (edited)
One thing to consider is if its banned people would find other ways like Dv

@brodienunn8638
9 days ago
Bit contradicting sam
1

@Joelembiiiddd
8 days ago
1:05:19
1

@CoenKR
11 days 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

@anthonyplaysbass
9 days ago
Set a land speed record running to the comments

@LynScott-u6v
9 days ago
She has a name

@bryce222nice
9 days ago
We love Pauline
1

@damachinen
11 days ago
This was interesting and enlightening to watch.
I, an ethnically australian person, based on my heritage and ancestry, english/irish back to 1850’s, agree with you, Sam. Even my black, South american wife doesn’t understand the argument that Dr. Joanne and James were making, though they made many good points…
As far as I can see, ‘Australian’ is a cultural, religious, ethnic, linguistic reality. There are so many factors and points that point to ‘Australian’ being a unique and specific identity. Given that part of what constitutes an ‘Australian’ is ethnicity, not anyone can be an ‘Australian’ to the fullest extent that a native Australian can be…
This is so obvious it’s frustrating. If I was born in China, spoke Chinese, dressed Chinese, ate and behaved like a Chinese person, participated in cultural Chinese events, joined their military, participated in their political and governmental system, but was ethnically british in ancestry, would I be Chinese? No!
‘Australian’ DOES NECESSARILY include ethnicity, ancestry, and heritage as a constituent part.
With respect to Dr. Joanne, this doesn’t make her of any less value! It doesn’t make her a 2nd class citizen! She’s clearly a wonderful person, and it’s good to have her in Australia! But, she can’t say she is something that she isn’t… Chinese aren’t Australian, Australians aren’t Japanese! Dr. Joanne can assimilate and participate, be respected and cherished as an important member of Australian society, and even be called an Indian Australian, which is a great honour. But, Dr. Joanne does NOT have the right to say that ethnicity, ancestry, and heritage play no role in the identity and constitution of what an Australian is. What hubris and arrogance! She doesn’t believe this because she believes that an Australian is just values, principles, beliefs, language, and behaviour. These, however, are all mutable characteristics… But, race and ethnicity is IMMUTABLE. It can’t be picked and chosen, only given and without choice. Indians aren’t of less ‘value’ before God or ‘less than’ when compared to another race.
Difference doesn’t mean inferiority! She needs to remember this! India wouldn’t be india if they were all kicked out and replaced by chinese. There’s no magic dirt! Culture is a product of the people!
1

@nathann6482
11 days ago
Doesn’t work in the real world big fella. If your kids then their kids have ‘ethnic Australian’ partners and have kids, no one says 1/8th Chinese 7/8th Australian etc. when’s it end? We all walking around doing DNA tests? Nah mate, not how it works
1

@damachinen
11 days ago
​@nathann6482 why would anyone do what you’re saying? No one does that, it’s not necessary… try thinking about one thing I actually said, and respond to that.

@nathann6482
11 days ago

@dam @damachinen exactly they don’t, because they become Australian. Regardless of %s.
1

@damachinen
11 days ago
​@nathann6482 lmfao.
Here’s what you’ve done:
1. You created some weird bullSh.. hypothetical.
2. I said, ‘literally no one does that, bro. What are you talking about?’
3. Then your like, ‘yeah… see what I mean..?’
But to be charitable to you, I think you are trying to say that because there are exceptions, the general principle doesn’t hold. But that’s silly.

@nathann6482
11 days ago

@d @damachinen ere’s more exceptions than rules is my point. Like you and your partner – there is no clear ‘Australian’ perfect ethnicity/dna. People mix genes, especially now and having to say half half and then next generation that becomes quarter this quarter that etc is absurd. No one seems to know how to define an ‘Australian’ without all of these additions.

@nathann6482
11 days ago
For example this lady’s kids sure are ‘half Indian half Australian’ – but then next generation if they’re with an Australian, are we really having to say quarter Indian, three quarters Australian etc or is that when someone becomes an Australian without the add ons?
1

@damachinen
10 days ago
​@nathann6482 I literally explained what constitutes Australian identity and it necessarily includes specific ancestry and ethnic heritage…

@damachinen
10 days ago (edited)
​@nathann6482 I wouldn’t argue that way, mate. At some point, not too far down the line, any distinction would probably, more or less, become irrelevant. If my mixed kids marry and have kids with an ethnic of my background, they’ll slowly be assimilating their genes, through their kids, in that direction. The same goes for if they get with a black person of some description.
However, none of this changes the fact that the identity of ‘Australian’ is made up of a particular people, particular culture, from a particular place, at a particular time. Not anyone can lay claim to that.
Like a footy team… you can support Carlton, or Essendon, pay money, go to their games, barrack for them, etc. But you can’t say you’re a Carlton player unless you’ve been on the team and played a game.
Additionally, I’d agree that Australians are typically welcoming and accepting and generously invite people into our culture and way of life. But for these people to then turn around and attempt to tell us that anyone and everyone is Australian, is beyond offensive, and ridiculous.

@nathann6482
10 days ago

@dam @damachinen thanks for your take mate – appreciate your thoughts

@damachinen
10 days ago
​ @nathann6482 fair enough, mate. You ended up being reasonable. So, sorry if you felt disrespected in any way. Cheers.

@corinneperegrini6003
10 days ago
The way I see it is very simple, an Australian is
*someone who is born in Australia.
*Someone who immigrate to Australia and is given a citizenship.
If you have an Australian passport than you are Australian.
The colour of the skin has nothing to do with it.
I immigrated to Australia 33 years ago from France.(born and raised in France).
France consider me a French citizen residing overseas.
I took the Australian citizenship around 29 years ago, therefor I am an Australian citizen.
I am both an Australian and a French citizen.
My English was very basic 33 years ago, now I am fully fluent in English and the way of life in Australia.
What ever country we live in, we must obey by the laws of this country and adopt their way of life as a respect for the country we live in.
Western countries are founded on the judeo-christian faith, morals and values.
The problem has arised when Australia has started to import people that have a very different belief system, an ideology that is not compatible with the Australian’s way.
We never see anyone perpetrating an act of te—-ism in the name of Buddha or in the name of Jesus…it’s always in the name of A–ah, and that is a fact around the world.

Hide replies

@bowman1248
11 days ago
This got heated. I don’t like James’s style of argument at all and I think most the population don’t either even though I lean more on his side then Sam’s. I choose not to enter these discussions because they seem so ridiculously draining and I credit Sam for taking a stance, defending his position and then at the end saying it is good that we had the conversation. We all know that has been sorely missed for so long now and undeniably dangerous from the Left wing who have gotten a myriad of terrible ideologically charged policies through with barely any challenge even from their own side.
I’ve had the strategy thrown at me before and I think Sam took the right course, just don’t answer 50:50 (yes/no) questions because everything has nuance. That’s also why taking a hard stance on defining a nation can put one self up for so much scrutiny so easily because people can identify the nuance that doesn’t align with that definition.
So here’s my take and I’m a few whiskeys down so I might get a few specifics off and I welcome corrections. I understand Sam is trying to define an Australian on the basis that we need to define one in order to defend the demographic of Australians, I think that is difficult to do and if you try to seek purity you will find that has been muddled. So people think that my ancestry comes from X location, but i don’t think people are properly considering how large their ancestry is. If I recall correctly Sam said his heritage comes from his lineage that migrated to Australia in the early 1900s (I genuinely apologise If I got that wrong but Sam is also only the example the point I feel applies to everyone) so If they migrated here as children lets just say infants to be conservative were looking at 120 yearsish of living in Australia, so they grow to their mid twenties have babies and so on so forth. 2020 -1900 is 120 years, take 20 for them to grow up so 100 years and lets say they all had kids, the next generation at 25 years old. So Sam’s Great Great Grand parents conservatively, four generations.
Assuming no incest that is 16 Great Great Grand Parents, Do they all have the same ethnic and cultural story behind them? They might do, lets say all 16 of them fit within the category of Anglo Celtic Australian and their kids also hooked up with the same so on so forth. But what if one of them in that line was Aboriginal? That would still fit the category of Australian but now because one of the 16 Great Great Grand parents, 8 Great Grand Parents, 4 Grand Parents, 2 Parents is aboriginal would that person get to call themselves aboriginal? The left genuinely says Yes to that and without a DNA test which to me is Bonkers!
And on the other side Joanna who has Indian Heritage Born in England migrates to Australia and Marries an Angle Celtic Australian and has Children with that man. Those children have Indian heritage too, ok. But if those kids keep having kids in Australia to Australians at what generations are those kids considered Australians and renounced of their Indian heritage?
The difference here between this and the Trans Argument is that an individual has DNA and you can observe (the latest key word that gets changed it is not ‘assigned’ it is observed) the chromosomes and sex of that baby before they are even born and determine if the child is male or female. But the definition of Ethnicity can get easily muggled, and a big part of that is because of Australia’s migrant history for sure.
I don’t know what the correct words to use are, but you are not wrong. The government should not be able to get away with demographically replacing a nation with migrants to correct a fallen birth rate, you really do not get a much better example of failing it’s own people.
2

@corinneperegrini6003
10 days ago
It’s very simple, an Australian is
*someone who is born in Australia.
*Someone who immigrate to Australia and is given a citizenship.
If you have an Australian passport than you are Australian.
The colour of the skin has nothing to do with it.
I immigrated to Australia 33 years ago from France.(born and raised in France).
France consider me a French citizen residing overseas.
I took the Australian citizenship around 29 years ago, therefor I am an Australian citizen.
I am both an Australian and a French citizen.
My English was very basic 33 years ago, now I am fully fluent in English and the way of life in Australia.
What ever country we live in, we must obey by the laws of this country and adopt their way of life as a respect for the country we live in.
Western countries are founded on the judeo-christian faith, morals and values.
The problem has arised when Australia has started to import people that have a very different belief system, an ideology that is not compatible with the Australian’s way.
We never see anyone perpetrating an act of te—-ism in the name of Buddha or in the name of Jesus…it’s always in the name of A–ah, and that is a fact around the world.

@bowman1248
10 days ago

@corinneperegrini6003 I tend to agree with you mate and I think you’re siding more Joanna and James’s point of view where it’s the culture that needs to maintain the hierarchy where as Sam is arguing it’s ethnicity which is what my comment was directed at.
You migrated to Australia adopted its values and became a Citizen now calling yourself French Australian (I’ve put it in that order because it rolls off the tongue better)
Sam is saying Ethnicity needs to take precedence to stop the government importing individuals and fast tracking them to citizenship at a faster rate then our current birthrate. And I don’t think he is talking about the colour of ones skin there I think that is a trap that hinders debate.
My issue with Sam’s take is that if you try to define an Australian (or any group for that matter) by their ethnicity you might find you don’t meet your own requirements within that definition and part or that is because out culture is so free as opposed to other cultures such as that in many islamic nations where inbreeding is common.
Thanks for your reply

@corinneperegrini6003
10 days ago
​ @bowman1248
You’ve got a point.
Also, an other point is that the government needs to bring incentive in place that will encourage Australian to want to make more babies.
Sadly, at the moment, the government gives financial incentive to kills babies in the wounds, very sad indeed.

@bowman1248
10 days ago
​@corinneperegrini6003
I whole heartedly agree. What a crazy example of a failed government (both major parties) system that created a nation where it’s own citizens feel discouraged to procreate.
A nation doesn’t exist without it’s own people so basically a system that’s killing itself

@corinneperegrini6003
10 days ago (edited)
​​ @bowman1248
Yes indeed, well said. And now, they’re working on allowing assisted suicide.
Death and sickness is a profitable business in Western nations now.

Hide replies

@Alessandro-b4k
11 days 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.
1

@peregrineh1620
11 days ago
Nice sign in the background Sam…

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
Even if your raised here Jo your family culture is indian even if u grew up in Australian culture i should know i experienced a very similar thing

@sharonobrien4844
10 days ago
Aussie vernacular- Nappy NOT diper

@broke3008
11 days ago

@jacintaheley7816
10 days ago
Sorry Sam – generics are far more complex than saying people are half Chinese or half Australian. Have you taken a look at the DNA tests out there? The results come back with bits of genetics everywhere. My sister did the test – we are fourth generation Anglo Celtic Australians. The results came back with 85% Irish 10% Nth England and Scotland and little bits from other places – even 1% GREEK – no wonder I tan well
1

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago (edited)
Agreed speaking English should be mandatory

@darrenparsons5299
11 days ago
And im not religious

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

@peterrichards1058
11 days ago (edited)
Multiculturalism policies and their definitions are the issue Sam .I am first generation born Australian on my father side ( he was from England ) I could have dual citizenship but I don’t mate and like you I served this nation for 32 years in the Army. My kids were all born in Australia and like me they know no other home. Jo was born in England and migrated to Australia,her ethnic origin has not changed her English born nationality her Indian ethnicity is just skin colour that’s it’s ,yet Jo is now a proud passionate Australian identified by her Christian based values which has defined our Australian culture. The country we live shapes us and Jo and James kids are Australian, as they were born Australians and they know no other home. Skin colour has nothing to do with nothing to do with it mate and you like me served with mates from many different ethnic backgrounds ,but the fact they chose the Australian culture and way of life and cared for it so much that they were willing to risk their lives for the country , well that’s Australian to me regardless of their background.
Jo has taken on many risks in her professional life and is staunch supporter of Christian values and Australian values ,I wouldn’t look at Jo in other way than to call her Australian. Being an Australian goes much deeper than ethnic background mate it’s a feeling of belonging to culture shaped by the unique land we live in and the unique Australian cultural identity that eventually dominates all cultures.
Yes we have problems with certain cultures values and assimilation, but I see certain cultural identities have adopted the most Australian of sport AFL football and they have embraced it to become Australian,that to me is Australian culture right there and those same people will honour ANZAC day and not all ANZAC were Anglo Saxons we have Chinese ethnic ANZACs and they served the nation ,but I don’t see them as anything but Australians ,as I would their offspring who were born in Australia afterwards. Get past the the stereotypes of how we look mate and get into weeds of who we are as a culture . Culture and race are different Jo and James are right there. Australians cultural values are what make us Australians and it was Christian based values and the ANZAC traditions that shaped that culture identity what is to be an Australian. Multiculturalism policies and politics has muddied the waters here mate ,but rest assured Australian culture will win out in the end.
https://www.chinesemuseum.com.au/chinese-anzac-soldiers-honour-roll
1

@4litrespoolyboi206
11 days ago
42:41, bro just literally told his wife to shut up because she tried to speak…
2

@DrJoannaHowe
11 days 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.
3

Hide replies

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

@space78224
5 days ago
Convict / Australian here

@changesintime8139
4 days ago
lol, the only normal comment

Hide replies

@TheCaffinatedAcademic
6 days ago
You know what, at least Sam had the courage to put forward a definition for the purpose of the debate. James just wanted to argue, his intentions were not open to understanding.

@SwayziRadaRR
6 days ago
sam is spot on

@Maximus.Hexperience
8 days ago
Saying that muslims are barbaric while married to an indian is peak comedy. Bro has such a narrow worldview its actually hilarious.
1

@ItchiusScrotus
7 days ago
That isn’t a conversation the public is ready to have yet.

Hide replies

@jackiedines5229
9 days ago
Has to be Anglo Keltic and EU background. Most of Australia was Christian, most of the people who migrated in the early days have assimilated, what governments have done over the years have allowed migrants to not only not assimilate but to be able to change things in this country that we do not agree with.

@Tharasamrav
6 days ago
According to Sam’s own logic, he is not Australian, he’s British.

@kevo6942
8 days ago
You dont get to buy a house or buisness in Australia till you’re an Australian citizen. See who wants to come here then. They all want to come here now because the Government looks after them with our tax money and thats treasonous!
1

@crackdogg
8 days ago
reading through the comments the only people who disagree are foreigners or married to a foreigner

@MrDemasi1
9 days ago
The worst podcast produced by you Sam. An Australian is someone whom assimilates,obeys our laws, and does their best, stop complicating this issue, a good person is just that
2

@ricpateman7473
10 days ago (edited)
I enjoyed the lively discussion. But I think that you, Sam, are stuck on the wrong thing. You can’t define any person from anywhere based on their place of birth, except for their nationality. That’s a basic truth of place of birth, ‘I was born here, therefore I am…’
Birth wise, Jo was born in India. I’ve been to India…Jo’s definitely not Indian. There is not one iota of her personality that’s Indian. She is and sounds more Australian than some Australians that I know.
So the question isn’t about place of birth or even ethnicity.
If Jo’s kids are born here, raise with Australian cultural values, they are 100% Australian. But was it because they were born here? No, it’s because they were raised with the Cultural values and mores that define how an Australian acts and behaves.
From the age of four, Jo has assimilated through natural growth as an Australian, she is a citizen, not by birth, but by completely adopting the cultural values and social mores of the country she lives in, regardless of where her birth originated from. An Australian isn’t just your place of birth or your original ethnicity, it can be if you’re born and raised here as an Australian, but that is a natural progression of time and place.
It would be better to describe an immigrant Australian as someone who lives in Australia for a long enough time to adopt without reservation, and who understands and assimilates with the language, values, cultural and social mores of Australia, where they would willingly claim citizenship and side with Australia and render their allegiance over and above their country of origin.
Then they would be Australian.
Jo, is definitely an Australian. I don’t care what you call it, assimilation, adoption, culturally absorbed or acceptable. If she has met the criteria sincerely, cultural, socially, language and values to the point of choosing Australia over place of origin…she is Australian.
1

@kimmcgregor7411
9 days ago
I find it very uncomfortable listening to this guy keep referring to his wife as “she” and “her” it’s actually extremely UnAustralian
1

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
Omg what sam is saying is correct

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
Its not evil

@dippy9119
9 days ago (edited)
1:03:20 was a sloppy answer form Joanna. She was asked about Muslim immigration and ended her answer by saying you should be able to speak English to live here. Uhh.. what’s that got to do with being Muslim?

@thefieldtrippers3646
8 days ago
No she’s not Australian, she’s an Indian with Australian citizenship.
1

@jovincent1965
7 days ago
Same NZ.

Hide replies

@trg3761
9 days ago
Sorry I’m not a fan of James or joanna, James thinks rising his voice using swear words in someones home will change someone’s opinions and position, i think he’s a rude!
He reminds me of an enraged greenie who screams racist at the first opportunity when having a heated conversation.
Well done Sam for sticking to your position i agree with you.
1

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
So what what wrong with being Indian Australian Jo

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
Agree with Sam about being Australian

@adammcdonald1839
11 days ago
So lucky in a British Democracy we can debate this … we need to simply tighten up immigration and make sure we have committed people .. if you are born here your Australian… if your a citizen here your country or heritage is half and your New country is the other half and we should make all new citizens give up their passport from where they came … dual citizenship means not Automatically Australian..

@pamh5441
8 days ago
I’m Anglo-Celtic but I have no real attachment to England or Ireland

@BillaBored21
10 days ago
1:04:10. Sam roasts James hard

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

@LucienCanon
11 days ago
Both

Hide replies

@sinaimbriano8317
11 days ago
His trans argument is going against him, I think there’s a middle ground
2

1 reply

@rogermacgowan9248
9 days ago
Defund the ABC.
1

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago (edited)
It may have been hard to grow up indian in Australia Jo but your kids wont go through that first of all their dad is still alive to defend them you have money theyre born here your English is good obviously because you’ve been here for a long time and times have changed since then so u need to get out of the trauma mindset youre in and realise u are what u are and let your kids feel proud of who they are and where they come from and their heritage

@JohnClark-l5p
11 days ago
At some point in the future Australia will be renamed
1

@jackiedines5229
9 days ago (edited)
Every human came from somewhere. Where did Indians come from? How many people from different countries invaded England? So the argument that we have all migrated here is rubbish. We from Anglo keltic and EU have settled here and created a society that we were happy with, but now our government is allowing people from dramatically different societies to live here and impose their values and customs on us. That we do NOT like.
1

@MelB-e4s
5 days ago
Struggling with this one… have to say.

@dianejohnson2501
4 days ago
James expects his opinion to be respected but will not give Sam the same respect. I have lost count of how many debates I have had with people because I hold to my opinion

@sarahmee776
7 days ago
Their kids are Australians with Indian decent

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
Hmmm truth Jo only accepts the truth if its what she wants to hear

@dfry6
8 days ago
100% agree with Sam. One thing I personally believe was not correctly articulate in this debate is the half Australian, half ‘fill in the blank’. White children of parents from another country are still half Australian, half… However, if they said they were Australian, they wouldn’t get any push back because they look like Australians. This is unfair to half Australians from brown/black countries, but it is what it is. It’s a con to people of colour who live here, and they, and their children, just have to live with it.
I genuinely believe Sam, morally, considers Joanna an Australian. But for the sake of a clear definition in this debate, and for a clear threshold, Sam has to say Joanna is an Australian – Indian.
There isn’t ill intent, it’s not meant to be derogatory. There just needs to be a strict criteria built into this country, so that we can then defend and protect those Australians. Person opinions aside, this is an Australian. What you or I consider someone, or what someone considers themselves is completely up to their interpretation. But legally, this is an Australians

@gabrielachouja4524
4 days ago
Well I guess I’m out of the group of identifying like an Australian.
My parents are South American I have dark features, but I was born and raised here.
I’m Australian as they come.
I have no connection to my parents heritage and if I was to go back to South America I would be considered a foreigner.
I may look like them but i don’t have the culture or way of life.
Not to sure how I feel about Sams view.
Now Greeks and Italians are more Australian than myself due to their skin colour and their forefather’s contribution into building this nation.
Even though an Italian can migrate tomorrow to Australia have an ethnic accent, would not have a clue about Australians culture and way off life and would be considered more an Australian then myself, because of his/ her skin colour.
Great!

@carriestangroome1907
8 days ago
So Sam, you seem to have your definition of an Australian. Pretty much worked out as to your opinion. So what am I if my mother is Indian, My father is German but he was also born in the UK. They emigrated to Australia where I was born. What does that make me?.

@2simonthomas
11 days ago
SAM!! IRON THAT FLAG!

@ricpateman7473
10 days ago
Sam’s missing the point of defining an Australian, apart from indigenous Australians who claim to go back 60,000 years, the argument I’m pointing to is the half Chinese ancestry half indigenous Australians.
How many generations do you go back Sam, before you can claim Australian heritage? There are generations now, of these people who look Chinese or half Chinese, who’s people arrived here possibly before YOUR ancestors did, and you claim they are still Chinese/indigenous Australians, rather than just Australians? And they very well might have ancestry that predates your line in Australia? And before you confuse the arrival of the British as to the arrival of Chinese, no, I’m not saying that, I’m saying YOUR personal ancestry may have begun long after some of the Chinese ancestry.
Simply because the British Anglo Celtic Europeans established nation, parliament and law here?
If that’s the case, then no one, not even the Aboriginals, can claim to be Australian, because we all came from somewhere around Mesopotamia in the middle east as a point of origin.
So to be French, English, Italian, Iranian, Greek, Russian, Croatian, American…etc, is the language, cultural, social and values behaviors that are defined in that geographical region over a period of time. The majority of people rarely traveled outside of their comfort zone 300 years ago, because of those constraints and over the millennia this is how skin colour consolidated into DNA ‘types’, but it’s not immutable. Just as DNA alters depending on who breeds with who, so do behaviours, depending on who you mix with and for how long.
I’m 100% behind Sam on controlling immigration, even a temporary stop on it while we work out how we want the future of our country to work out, without traitorous politicians defining that for us. Australians DO have a very distinct cultural identity that is worth preserving, but it’s not based on place of birth, skin colour or ancestral origin.
If Australia holds a cohesive cultural identity, then being born here automatically assumes you will grow up absorbing that cultural identity, you will therefore BE and Australian because you ACT like what is expected of an Australian.
Let’s use that behaviour, the cultural, language, (Christian) values based societal norms that people used to assimilate to pre 95, all the quality values, not the idiot components, to define an Australian. Let’s come to an agreement on exactly what those are, then we will have a genuine base of what an Australian is, one that’s not based on categorising people into separate definitions, but by the very overriding values that unite us into a comprehensive society that we define as ‘Australian’.
1

@Lexnbert
10 days ago
Sam, respect mate, but I think culture and ethnicity are two different things.and we shouldn’t conflate the too. It will get confusing in the conversation.
It’s a fact that there are Australians with many different ethnic backgrounds and ancestries. That’s why I don’t think ethnic nationalism works very well in Australia. There are too many groups that have contributed to building this country, and it becomes difficult to define who does or doesn’t belong.
What Australians can unite collectively around is culture. Culture isn’t ethnicity. Culture is the shared an agreed religious heritage, values, traditions, customs, language, humour, behaviours, and way of life that helps hold a society together.
If we focus too heavily on ethnicity, it can become divisive and create social categories that separate people. A stronger approach is to focus on a shared Australian culture and common civic values.
For example, Joanna Howe may be ethnically Indian, but if she embraces Australian culture, contributes to the country, and is committed to Australia, then she’s Australian in my eyes. Her ethnicity is part of her heritage, but it isn’t what determines whether she is Australian or not.
I hope that explains my position and how I understood the debate

@TheCaffinatedAcademic
6 days ago
Ahhhh James, the rules of argumentation is to take an arguments best possible position.

@bluedog9601
8 days ago
The biggest immigrate support was from Italy’s and Chinese.

@slash1989
11 days ago
Not hard men we need strong men

@adammcdonald1839
11 days ago
I think our problem is defined by Christian values … we cannot demographically abuse this … colour is not the issue … assimilation is the big problem … history in every European, Asian , middle eastern or African country is vital , we can’t have a mass movement of any religion unless they are Christian valued … Christians accept all religions , but all religions don’t respect or accept Christians … its a difficult discussion, but facts are facts and religion has been proven to divide many countries over 2000 years … we need a delicate balance and a more defined policy … all governments have abused Immigration for GDP .. cheap labour … all European countries and USA did the same and has always caused problems.. FACT ..
1

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
What bothers me is the insinuation that if someone has to be Christian to be a good person but in saying that i$lam is completely inc0mpatible because its an ide0logy entrenched int0 their culture

@MISSMLS1944
6 days ago
I was born here. I am Australian. I feel connected to the land/country. I am 5th Generation. People not born here say I am such-and-such and very rarely say they are Australian. They will say, e.g., Italo-Australian, Greek-Australian, etc.
Why did you have these two on? They are awful people, he says; she was brainwashed before she met him. I say he’s brainwashed her now.
I am sure – no pregnant woman wakes up one day at 6 months saying I don’t want this baby anymore, I’ll get rid of the fetus. Decisions like these are not made lightly, and there are medical reasons for them. Stupid discussion, to make women feel bad.
Australia will probably be – No Religion in the next 10 years – Christianity is the most common religious affiliation (43.9%), closely followed by “No religion” (38.9%). Australian Bureau of Statistics
Democracy was invented by the ancient Greeks

@GovernYourself
8 days ago
Why is the abortion ban bill set at such a high threshold of >25 weeks when a baby’s felt kicking around at 20 weeks. Once, abortion between 10-12 weeks was considered unthinkable in Australia – oh how far we’ve fallen although in fairness the people were never consulted!! The obsession of politicians, big med & other interest groups in killing well-developed babies up to the point of birth is sick & psychopathic – they aren’t human. Fact is the abortion industry brings in big bucks around the sale of organs, tissue & blood & needs to be exposed .. FYI … fall of the cabal series (sequel) give you the answers.
ps. and btw, who are these women doing this & why?

@TheCaffinatedAcademic
6 days ago
Unlike James, I am prepared to put a definition out in to the either for the purpose of debate.
What do you think @Sam
Ok, I struggle with this as I think it is more values based rather than ethnic. I would call an Australian a person who has lived in the country for an arbitrary period of time, that has fully assimilated to the Australian ways of life, is Christian or at the very least culturally Christian and tries their hardest to advance the national Interests (in saying this, I reject anyone who says they are something but does not act out their belief)

@victorgomes7585
11 days 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!
1

@NocRok
10 days ago
This whole conversation is a distraction from the core of why we all watch these people.
The government is the problem.
1

@Prodaybtc
9 days ago
But after all it is only one important thing and that is accepting existing cultural norms in australia after arrival and not trying changing or replacing them as our middle eastern friends are trying to do and this is also the point when ALL Aussies regardless of skin , race and religion should say stop to such people and accept existing rules or leave. And this is not happening neither from people or government and that is wrong!

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

@roxannemysko
2 days ago
We stand with you Sam. My grandparents and their siblings were in world war ll – we that have multiple generations BORN HERE and indigenous people are AUSTRALIAN !! You new people are not Australia

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago (edited)
Maybe he should have decided before coming on the show if he wants to argue the point

@zerotolerance2679
1 day ago
The ancient Greeks weren’t Christian. They definitely informed our culture.

@corinneperegrini6003
10 days ago (edited)
It’s very simple, an Australian is
*someone who is born in Australia.
*Someone who immigrate to Australia and is given a citizenship.
If you have an Australian passport than you are Australian.
The colour of the skin has nothing to do with it.
I immigrated to Australia 33 years ago from France.(born and raised in France).
France consider me a French citizen residing overseas.
I took the Australian citizenship around 29 years ago, therefor I am an Australian citizen.
I am both an Australian and a French citizen.
My English was very basic 33 years ago, now I am fully fluent in English and the way of life in Australia.
What ever country we live in, we must obey by the laws of this country and adopt their way of life as a respect for the country we live in.
Western countries are founded on the judeo-christian faith, morals and values.
The problem has arised when Australia has started to import people that have a very different belief system, an ideology that is not compatible with the Australian’s way.
We never see anyone perpetrating an act of te—-ism in the name of Buddha or in the name of Jesus…it’s always in the name of A–ah, and that is a fact around the world.

@rileymanaarikicecil8736
4 days ago
Bang on christianity is a key principle in defining us as aussies

@benhunt4598
9 days ago
I think you guys need to focus on values and not heritage
1

@philipho5635
10 days ago
I agree with Sam, I love Dr Jo and her podcast too but James did not get the point, and when the argument got heated, he started losing the plot and even insulted the Japanese, I think that’s not a great argument bringing up what they did in WWII and said they are not good people, same argument the lefties use all white people are bad becuase of something they did hundreds of years ago… sounds racist to me…
1

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
Older than 25 weeks should be kept in agree but provide women more support and protection. My friend ended herself cause of DV no one took her seriously

@tasd5673
10 days ago
There was 80-120k irish people that came in Joe.
This is a small amount of pwoplw

@h.epeterjohnmanthey6295
11 days ago
Yeah those who get angry know they are wrong.
1

@LucienCanon
11 days ago (edited)
James and Jo were the only ones doing that, in Sam’s house, as their guest.
Shameful.
2

@blakewaugh2536
11 days ago

@LucienCanon if he is insistent on definitions, his definition is wrong and has no logical flow.

@blakewaugh2536
11 days 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

@Tharasamrav
6 days ago
What made this country get is, good wages, unions, first country to let women vote, progressive social housing, Medicare.
None of them are conservative values, they are all progressive values.

@Free-j3t
11 days ago (edited)
This is as stupid as it gets. I don’t care who comes to this country or how many of us are there. All I care about is if I can afford to live here and co exist. With the current housing crisis mass migration is a big player in making it worse.
1

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
so hes arguing because hes taking it personally

@renaehodgson5113
7 days ago
52 years old
Born in London
Spanish dad Scottish mum
Lived between England and Spain
Moved to Australia at 30
Good Australian citizen
Aussie wife
2 Aussie daughters born here
I would love to be Australian but unfortunately I’m not
Im Definitely an Aussie but
Love Australian life although I’m worried for its future for all our children
Would be happy if Union Jack was removed from flag
Can’t stand London
Loved Spain
Wanna die here in Australia !!
Aussie Aussie Aussie
Cheers

@uebergangster
11 days 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
11 days 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

@LucienCanon
11 days ago
Massive oversimplification.

@uebergangster
7 days ago

@LucienCanon Thankyou for your informative response.

Hide replies

@jacintaheley7816
10 days ago
The birth rate is the problematic part. As a child of the 1970s my two best friends had NINE children each in their family and we had a small family of SIX girls. ALL AUSTRALIAN. Abortion from the 1970s onwards promoted by the white liberal boomer feminist women killed this country’s birth rate. The blame lies firmly at their feet.

@dippy9119
9 days ago
So according to this guy, do Chinese Australians count as Australian? They’ve been here since the first gold rush, and their numbers were on par with the Greeks until the post WW2 European migration boom.
1

@brentdundee
6 days ago
They are Chinese champ

@dippy9119
6 days ago
​ @brentdundee Why aren’t they Australian like the Greek Australians?

Hide replies

@aussiematt52
9 days ago
I’m not religious at all i’m atheist and I’d say thats less dark than even christianity.

@mannus7776
11 days 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
1

@blakewaugh2536
11 days 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

@Sickoftheinternetbutwontleave
5 days ago
Someone please define our “Aussie culture” can’t compare with Japanese or Indian culture

@LeighSayer
4 days ago
I can’t imagine why someone would abort a child that late in a pregnancy do you have example cases?

@MickDewson
11 days ago
This bloke not has Dutch heritage and Dutch courage
1

@samg8313
11 days ago
Ok god squad, Christians will not just save this country because half the country are non religeous.
1

@TwoDarkMoons
10 days ago
Sam is definitely the right one, james and his misses were speaking emotionally instead of logically, but their whole islamic view its pretty dumb, they speak like they know what theyre talking about, spreading more fake propaganda.. do some research before having a public opinion should be common sense.
1

@CrouchingSoup
4 days ago
Brother he is saying demographic Aussies should reproduce to keep the Aussie identity. If a british person came in tomorrow he can’t decleare himself an Australian off the bat. He is English

@blakewaugh2536
11 days 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

@MaryAnzac
11 days 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?
1

@peterrichards1058
10 days ago
Multicultural policy is the problem as it blends race with cultural identity.
The Australian cultural is historically made in hard times especially after federation as nation and the ANZAC culture is what defined us as young nation. To be Australian is derived from that time as many ethnic identities made up our forces in WW1 and WW2 and even right up until today and being Australian is identified by those sacrifices. Ethnically diverse culture is influenced and constructs a dominant culture,this lead to our unique Australian culture especially that of ANZAC traditions and values. Australians were proud to treat everyone as equals and certainly didn’t tolerate any culture acting in a superior way to Australian especially the British in WW1 and WW2.
Multicultural policies trying to tear down what it means to be Australian especially our ANZAC heritage is what is wrong with this government and the left side of politics. Our ANZAC heritage was born out of supreme sacrifices made by those in WW1 and many were not Anglo Saxons in heritage,but they died for their mates and the country and that shaped us as nation regardless of ethnicity.
To be Australian is to except that history and value of sacrifice in becoming a nation with a national identity born out sacrifice and many who have come here from all over world have shaped Australia,but remember those that shaped the nation before us ,that’s what it means to be Australian

Hide replies

@nicktakos9526
10 days ago
I found these guests arrogant and getting stuck on irrelevant details
1

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
Theres plenty of Australian born people who recognise were a Christian country but are not Christian i will support and stand with Christians to save our country as long as they support my right not to be Christian. I do however believe certain cultures and religi0ns have no ability or intention fitting in here.

@robthompson1
7 days ago (edited)
Ol mate can’t even define his idea of an Australian. Therefore he should hold his tongue as he can’t offer an argument on the subject as he has no position. All he is doing is denouncing yr position and arguing about yr stance when he has no stance to offer. Therefore, he’s a dick.
An Australian is what you say Sam, I agree with that, but also an Australian citizen that has obviously assimilated with the culture of the country and embraces and acknowledges the Christian and indigenous culture this country is founded on. I’m nzer by birth but have been a citizen here for 30 yrs and been in the adf 15 years. So I would class myself as Australian. But you would not call me an Australian? Maybe you could refine yr definition a bit mate.
1

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago (edited)
Im always disappointed when I see strong intelligent people get roped into religion because I feel it dulls their spark and controls them some what but if people keep coming at u with it every few days I suppose its bound to wear u down till u give in

@qldsafari
11 days ago
Your arguments & tactics really need work Sam
1

@buildmotosykletist
11 days ago
Is lamb the problem.

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

@lockpickingengineer7458
7 days ago
you all have missing the point of are problems, people which come to Australia the first generation are normally grateful and can go back, the second generation goes back on holiday and still has ties to the old country, the third generation get told how good the old country was but has now lost all ties and ends up despising this country now they have no way of going back. the fourth generation are full integrated and no ties to the old country are full part of this country.

@nicktakos9526
10 days ago
This guest is rude and defensive
1

@tasd5673
10 days ago
“She is your wife ” she has a name man how do you live with that

@CrouchingSoup
4 days ago (edited)
I’m half Canadian half Australian by Sam’s account. Before that is Celtic-Gaelic I’m fine with that

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
Mum loves Australia more than India. If anyone wants Australian rights and benefits give up your citizenship to your old country but u wont because u have assets there but are living off centerlink here

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
5 year pause fix the country financially then u can expect children theres too many homeless children now

@Full_Metal_Angel
10 days ago (edited)
I don’t understand the comparison to the n*zis. In my eyes anyone who brings in that argument has done the same thing that saying far right extremist has done. Its not lost all credibility, but it does make me think very carefully about what you actually say and debate. I don’t think he meant it as name calling but it doesn’t sit right with me. I also think Sam could reword his position to not immediately get that reaction. I do admire how well both sides stick to their points here.

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
James shouldn’t yell at people to get his way he doesn’t even have a definition of Australian

@jessifox1364
9 days ago

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
Too many people

@flexo-c
11 days 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

@Oey_jay
11 days ago (edited)
This new mindset that Sam has recently adopted is a step closer, to where he starts talking against interracial marriages of white with colored folk.
1

@deancooke513
11 days ago
One issue with the large number of Indians coming here is that they aren’t assimilating.(not only them of course) The reason the country prospered in the early years and with the large migration of Italians and Greeks later on was because of a Judeo-Christian foundation in those countries and ours. Assimialtion was much easier. Not to say all were Christian but those biblical foundations were lived out and expressed in those countries. Unfortunately since the 1960’s cultural revolution we (the west) have kicked God out of our institutional systems and society and we’re reaping the results. We’re all made in Gods image but unfortunately the majority do not reflect that truth.
I watch both programs (Jo & Sam) and love the debate with opposing views
on certain issues. Hey Sam, there is no Christianity without the biblical Jewish foundation. I’m an ex grunt Sam Delta Coy 4RAR second tour. Might see you at BRS day.
1

@THESENATOR27
5 days ago
She doesn’t get it. IT’S ABOUT CULTURE.

@MrWrightLarsenite
16 hours ago (edited)
I was ignorant of this abortive practice of live functioning baby’s.
Thank you for opening my eyesight.
Wy cant we compare crap and healthy parts of cultures, take the best leave the rest. Accumulative evolution of bringing many of similar items together into introspection, then make fewer better items with more efficient practical application.
What i don’t like is protecting crap inefficient not practical application that will harm or stop humanity being healthy-and efficient.
Current Australia is a mix of people I’m pretty sure thats factual. That can not be changed without serious organised social engineered infrastructure. Where is the modern day workable model in the world or are we being stuck in some type of time warp? Who sorts this out who makes the choices to socially engineer Australia? Who has the credentials to socially engineer Australia.
Was this a division of ethnic nationalism, civic nationalism with a division of religion or non-religion or different self religion?
Thank you mate, need more talks or different ideas discussed and even argued angrily.
James did resort to low shots and name calling.

@Gharyanni
6 days ago
She wants Sam to accept all the Indians as Australians because of her, but she thinks all Muslims aren’t Australians despite Muslims arriving to Australia on 1850s

@Christisking-iy1pp
8 days ago
Always been a fan of Joanne but her husband will be the demise of her
1

@TrishOwen
11 days 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.

@LucienCanon
11 days ago
Very reductive, non defintion that one
1

Hide replies

@rachelolorenshaw99
10 days ago
Sorry, although I am a Christian, not every Australian is Christian. You can’t only base it on values.

@jzjzx-in6yw
11 days ago (edited)
The greater issue is the volume of people that is coming in is throwing off the balance
And to make it worse they aren’t being selective with the people coming in at all
I am Anglo Celtic but I don’t believe someone that is born in Australia that has yellow or brown skin isn’t an Australian.
Some of the greatest Australian’s are from foreign descent
Look at Ahn Do
some definite holes in both sides
1

@LucienCanon
11 days ago
Exactly. Jo and James do not understand the concept of scale.
Sam absolutely conducted himself brilliantly
1

@LucienCanon
11 days ago
No. Race and culture are exactly the same thing at scale. Race and religion matter. Origin matters at scale
1

@jzjzx-in6yw
11 days ago (edited)
​@LucienCanon brilliantly said

@Misonagleran
10 days ago
​@LucienCanonI wouldnt say thats entirelytrue.. My family migrated from South Africa, in the 70s,we’re mixed race people, my mum married my dad who’s Italian. Migrants like my parents worked very hard to assimilate and dedicate their lives to the progression of Australia- left everything behind to be part of a great country. It took probably ten years to fully adapt to Australia,culturally we are Australian which had nothing to do with race.

Hide replies

@adammcdonald1839
11 days ago
The Knights Templars were brutal Christian warriors.. read up on it James , you and your wife are Australian warriors for babies and the left ideology Sam your a great warrior for this Country , bless you for your service bith arguments in conservative values is a vital discussion.. it can’t be had until One nation maybe the LNP will allow the debate .. the left will lock us up for debate … ASIO and no legal rights

@marx2000-y8v
6 days ago
An example of the ridiculousness of it all. A purity test to see if you are Australian. Mate, Sam, brother. You have come to an opinion and then wrapped any reason feasible to yourself to justify it , cognitive dissonance. Just read mate, Post-WWII migration program “Populate or Perish”, facing low population numbers and security concerns over Japan. Australia to rapidly increase its population to ensure economic growth and defend the continent. Initially, the government aimed to recruit 90% of migrants from Great Britain. When this proved impossible, they moved to Europe. Eventually the government was forced to accept migrants from non-English speaking backgrounds to secure the country’s defense and address workforce shortages. Now, if you want a whiter Australia, you have that right for an opinion. But the 90’s I lived in as a Gen X, they were great, and I heard the same bullshit your saying now, expect it was referenced to the 70s. You can feel, how you feel, but just like our Australian Coat of Arms, the Kangaroo and Emu, they can’t move backwards, and so shouldn’t Australia. This Australian purity conversation comes from a place of fear, you have nothing to fear, no one is taking over Australia, it’s the same playbook over history. I think you already know, but you’re going along with the grift.
1

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago (edited)
If women dont feel safe and protected they wont have children. Society wants children change our country and make it safe again

@kak8788
10 days ago (edited)
If you are born here and you have 2 Australian parents you are Australian. If you are born here and you have one Australia parent and a parent from another country say china you are (chinese Australian) if you move to Australia and become a citizen you dont lose your origin (come from india – you are a indian Australian.)
These two just dont seem to be able to comprehend that you dont lose your origin
Deportation – its about values not colour the fact that majority of people who arent assimilating are people of colour, it literally is what it is.
1

@peterrichards1058
10 days ago
Wrong if you’re born in Australia you’re an Australian by birth ,if you choose to abuse that privilege and go against your country of birth then you don’t deserve to call yourself an Australian ( ISIS brides as example). Race has nothing g to do with it if you’re proud to be an Australian and serve the country and your fellow Australians then it shouldn’t matter where one comes from. We have had many ethnic groups serve as soldiers sailors and Airman in since WW1 and federation. Chinese ethic people served in WW 1 and died for our country ,but I wouldn’t consider them Chinese Australians, they are simply Australians as are their offspring who would’ve been born here.
I served along side many immigrants who became Australians and put on the uniform and they are Australians to me regardless of their ethnicity.
The Australian culture is ANZAC culturally and uniquely us as a nation and why because it bought many people from different backgrounds and cultures together in times of war to protect our values and our home of Australia. Those that embrace the ANZAC traditions and values are Australians and those that don’t and want to change it even ban ANZAC day including some born in Australia don’t deserve to call themselves Australian. Being Australian goes beyond skin colour and ethnic identity,Sam has got it wrong here and he shaped his debate based on race not cultural identity and the two things should never be confused.

Hide replies

@MarkSkwarlo
9 days ago
….. I am an Australian…. It’s amazing how good/great it is to say…. say it yourself….. I am Australian…..!!! I love it…. I look at these three champions….. real champions….!!! real fantastic Australians…. But….all three of them sucked in by the left….. all three of them will now be considered as….. I don’t know…. but the left will find something…..!!! We all know what’s happening to / in the country…. don’t get side tracked…. Don’t get sucked in…. You’ve given then ammunition…. I ll say this again….. I am an Australian…..!!!

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
Far out hes just arguing for the sake of it

@southern-samurai
11 days 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.
1

@LucienCanon
11 days ago
100% correct

Hide replies

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
religion

@LootandBoot
6 days ago
Its easy to single out the Australians. Simply ask them – where are you from? They’ll tell you more often than not the truth on what they think. Having gone to school with 1st Gen ‘Aussies’, still alot of them will tell you “oh, I’m 1/2 italian or full Macedonian, blah blah blah”. Sure – they’re Australian citizens, but they don’t tell you they’re Australian. Same as new Australian citizens, if they are Australian – they’ll tell you, although alot don’t say they are even if Australian citizens. That tells us all we really need to know.

@julianshalders6047
11 days ago
We broke from england in1901 and identified our selves as australians under parlimentary law. Its called federation. The immigrants do not reconise this.
1

@blakewaugh2536
11 days 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

@tasd5673
10 days ago
FiJI has a small population you dont want to take good pwople away from small community Jo less that 1million live there

@benhunt4598
9 days ago
James got goofy and silly with some of his questions and statements

@kaneedwards9465
6 days ago
Just because you become an Australian citizen doesn’t make you ethnically Australian it’s simple !!

@kak8788
10 days ago
Its funny when someone doesnt have a valid point they resort to calling someone a racist

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

@marleymeathook1975
11 days 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.

@Userwallanpb12b
7 days ago
hypothetical speaking if in 2028 Australia brings 3 million people from German Europe England definitely not from India Pakistan Bengaldesh Africa but only white would they b German English or European Australian or Australian…? I guess’s they ll be called only Australian

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
Heaps of people have coloured hair and are conservative

@Skye23-t9m
9 days ago (edited)
Im an english australian, ppl born here are more australian than me simple
Whats wrong with being indian australian
Her husband is denying reality

@Spudicos
8 days ago
I align with James’ point of view but I think he gets stuck on a point and is quite poor at bringing across his message.

@MrSirBlockchain
5 days ago
Sam, I agree with a lot of your stuff mate. But you got absolutely folded on your identity arguments.

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
The Japanese arent racist

@tamaraharris5476
6 days ago
Having seen the clips that you removed I can understand why they requested it, but if I were you I wouldn’t have obliged. James needs to take accountability for his increasingly unhinged behaviour that is damaging Dr Jo’s cause.

@franklynch1234
9 days ago
First 2 seconds were such unalderated crape I exited

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago (edited)
Its n0t r@cist my mum comes from india shes brown and has the same view as Sam

@Stella-iy4zf
4 days ago
If James went to live in India im pretty sure he’d still be Australian.

@marleymeathook1975
11 days ago
Idont think the immigration restriction act had nothing about WHITE in there

@BrianNeilsen-d1e
8 days ago (edited)
James is a very level headed man, lucky Jo.
2

@mackyegabriel5583
7 days ago
He actually dug his own hole

@benhunt4598
9 days ago
James has his opinion. He thinks his opinion is right. If people don’t agree with him or wants a yes or no answer, he talks louder when he wants to push his point.
James your major fault is that you listen to respond, you don’t listen to understand

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
Have to disagree with Jo my mum is Anglo indian and even though I was born here all I knew as a kid was them so it made it very difficult for me and it took them a good 40 years to integrate even though her family had to prove their “whiteness” . Now my generation are actually white my son was attacked in school by a Pakistani who got away with it not even the law would deal with it so ive seen both sides of the coin. My mum says Australia should do what India did and nationalise the country apparently it sorted alot out

@sarahmee776
7 days ago
STILL Not Australian , KIDS ARE AUSTRALIAN WITH INDIAN DECENT

@vince-qp1nx
10 days ago (edited)
Sams Australia where Anglo Saxon are majority is probably not going to happen because Angols are not making enough babies or maybe are aborting them. Every Nation has a mindset, so we only need to agree on a Aussie mindset. Christian beliefs fit best and a persons skin color does not matter and no Fabian communist.

@Natsoc04
4 days ago
Race is more than skin deep. It’s neurology. 80% of your genetics account for your brain. And hence IQ and race are related.

@JohnClark-l5p
11 days ago
The only Australian is an Australian with an Australian accent

@Ayden-Y19
9 days ago
Australian= European Anglo/Celtic

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
Please homeschool my kid was brain injured in a bullying incident in school . There was never any consequences

@travismitchell4281
4 days ago
My grandparents on mothers side are German migrants and Australian born anglo on my dad’s side and im still half German half australian. It’s pretty simple if you don’t have some internal issues with the heritage of your bloodline. I don’t understand why she has such shame with her indian heritage and her husband’s European heritage. My heritage is associated with societies benchmark for evil yet I’m still proud of my heritage

@stevenponte6655
2 days ago
I’ll tell you why. Because people like Sam insist immigrants from non white countries have to completely ditch and disown their heritage in order to prove you have integrated and become one of “them”. So Jo is saying ffs look at me, I have turned my back on my entire heritage and generations of people who made me what I am, and after all that, you’ll still only consider me 1/2 Aussie!!

Hide replies

@brodienunn8638
10 days ago
I think majority of us are pro life, the problem is our grubberment r#pes us to the brink of financial, mental and physical struggle we cant afford to support the children we want to thanks to the scum grubberment. Creating corporate women who have no interest in being a mother, both parents NEEDING to work to afford to literally survive. The enslavement of usury loans to purchase house then have children isnt possible, you choose between food or fuel, pay back 2x interest than principle, we should be toppling the government

@AussieGgc
6 days ago
Bad debate the guy in the middle can’t define anything

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
Disagree with jo its sad but sometimes necessary I dont agree with late term

@Oceanhenry
7 days ago
Well let’s be factual, Brit’s did not invent science n democracy. A sound historical argument would be that they globalised it

@Livvvvy1
11 days ago
Abortion is child sacrifice, it’s really that simple. There’s a whole theological aspect, I encourage high IQ individuals to do their due diligence.

@LonelyGamr
11 days ago
all by design to get votes

@ericsyd0
8 days ago
This show is a good reason not to watch 2 worlds colide and I’ll stick with Dr Jo (and James).

@DustinDouglas-f6q3n
7 days ago
Look can i just say this he goes on about all these other cultures coming here adopting n becoming australian n they aint because they came from somwhere else but true fact wither u like it or not “austrailians” baisically did that when the brittish came here back way when… n that the austrailian religion culture and whatever is just made up by people that thought they can have something because they named it built on it n whatever else but really aboriginal people was here before the first ship came here n that it was already claimed built lived thrived on for years leave ur “australian” made house walk out bush n tell me if u see house already there made straight from the land… so in my personal opinoin a australian is a indiginous aboriginal person!

@errolbaxter4988
10 days ago
Alot of unnecessary discussion about skin colour and race. I haven’t picked up any racism from all the previous stuff of yours i have seen. It is all about ideology and culture of people and how that effects their ability/willingness to assimilate.

@acegts7829
7 days ago
I think old mate is getting confused with Racism and Patriotism

@sarahmee776
7 days ago
If she is born in England by India and portagal decent she is English with Indian Nd Portugal decent NOT AUSTRALIAN SORRY NOT SORRY

@APP1E5
11 days 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.
2

@unlikelyoption
10 days ago
Joe, love, you are not an ethnic Australian. You are ethnically indian. The whole point of this debate was trying to determine what an ethnic Aussie is. I have given my definition in another comment so won’t repeat it here, but you cannot be ethnically Australian if your heritage doesn’t trace back to Europe. Full stop.
Aboriginals aren’t ethnically Australian either. They are ethnically there own people. They are Australian by default, not ethnicity.
1

2 replies

@rivercity2006
11 days ago (edited)
Sam, DON’T EVER! Invite that James in your show again! Rude and thick head! Sam your definition in Australian is 100% correct. Jo, IS AN INDIAN! Australian citizen
2

@AdamMcCoy-p2n
1 day ago
Can an Australian go to India and become a citizen and then run for politics? No…… so how are we always the bad guys

@dianejohnson2501
4 days ago
Sam. You had every fucking right to defend your opinion. 42 minute mark saying you are a Nazi omg Sam kudos for staying in your chair.

@tommyparker1983
9 days ago
Minimum 3rd generation before you can be an Aussie.

@Its_raining_jen
11 hours ago
Please be careful with the topic of abortion. Women that have chosen to have abortions for whatever reasons carry with them lots of pain and a heavy weight for the rest of their lives Some women feel relief, many women carry regret. Some women were unable to keep their babies because of partner abuse or lack of means. Most women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant feel very alone. Hearing privileged women, who grew up with money and have loving supportive partners weighing in on such personal choices of those less fortunate is not cool. Dr Howe should stop protesting outside of abortion clinics and create a program to financially and socially support women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant.

@Rob-e7n
3 days ago
Dr Jo, with massive amounts of love and respect for you, your husband, and your incredible movement, adoring your husband is beautiful, but he’s not good for branding. This is a clear overview of a man who listens to speak – not listens to understand. He’s a support person and a strong protector of you, great husband, but he’s not who God called to be the speaker of your movement. Arrogance needs to be matched with a required charisma and articulation – you’re also Christian’s, his swearing does not make you both the lighthouse on the hill we are called to be. You’re constantly the saving grace when he’s in the room – think about it like this, if your husband had his own show would anyone listen? Of course not. Keep him as your protector, not your speaker, and you’ll both be much happier.

@zz3OPEN
5 days ago
Defining “Australian” as an identity is the easiest way to determine whether someone is right-wing, or just a slightly more reasonable liberal who still holds fantasy beliefs.

@bluedog9601
8 days ago
So this a husband supporting his wife. You’ll never win.

@ionechisholme7552
7 days ago
dont watch cricket

@supermanHH-i8j
10 days ago
The mediator is an absolute simp.

@rivercity2006
11 days ago
Culture and race ARE intrinsically the same thing. Didn’t assimilate at all where culture is concerned

@Misonagleran
10 days ago
I wouldn’t say thats entirely true.. My family migrated from South Africa, in the 70s,we’re mixed race people, my mum married my dad who’s Italian. Migrants like my parents worked very hard to assimilate and dedicate their lives to the progression of Australia- left everything behind to be part of a great country. It took probably ten to years to fully adapt to Australia,culturally we are Australian which had nothing to do with race.

@Misonagleran
10 days ago
I wouldn’t say thats entirely true.. My family migrated from South Africa, in the 70s,we’re mixed race people, my mum married my dad who’s Italian. Migrants like my parents worked very hard to assimilate and dedicate their lives to the progression of Australia- left everything behind to be part of a great country. It took probably ten years to fully adapt to Australia,culturally we are Australian which had nothing to do with race.

Hide replies

@Fish-c1c
1 day ago
Good bloke…but too late. Ive said over n over again for any patriot Aussies’ in our military, asio, signals directorate, fed police, state police etc..hurry the fuck up. No it is fire time…not water A. So be it. Amen.

@marekfilipski2599
10 days ago
Not cool losing your shit Sam telling your guests to get tf out your house because you dissagree, healthy discussion remember. Good passion from you both but makes for a bad pod yelling over eachother. Well done on kiss n make up, I think you both have a bit of middle ground to get to.
And I think Joanna, and her kids are Aussie, its all she’s ever known. Cultural background is second when you love this flag as number one.

@neilrwatts
11 days 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.

@Sickoftheinternetbutwontleave
6 days ago
The righties coming together Sam got checkmated multiple times, instead of spreading your insecurities and causing clear hate and division, start producing an economic vehicle which helps our country, blabbering away to muppets

@jackman_25
11 days ago
Finally calling out the Right Wing bs…. And they’re both Right Wing

@Relithraxas
11 days ago
Joanna is the EXCEPTION. The very fact that she is recognized as an “exception” proves that a widespread standard or expectation exists. The simple answer to this debate and the issue at large is the “Singapore model” – Set guidelines defining a specific ratio of demographics/ethnic makeup with anglo-celtic europeans as the majority (e.g. 75%) and the rest can be everyone that shares our values and wants to assimilate to our culture whether they are black brown yellow purple or blue. In fact we could bring in millions of great people from all over the world as long as the ratio allows. This really isn’t that complicated. Singapore, China, Japan, Hungary, Israel and most Persian Gulf states have been doing this for a long time with zero controversy.
1

@brentdundee
6 days ago
Dr Jo is cool the husband needs some therapy sessions

@peterbooker6221
11 days ago
Joanna is the best!!!!!
She is more Australian than the room
1

@zz3OPEN
5 days ago
Joanna is still a leftist, she just doesn’t know enough about neoliberalism vs. classical liberalism, or enlightenment philosophy. She still holds fantasy beliefs derived from neoliberalism.
I wonder if she would concede that women must necessarily appeal to men for their rights.

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

@kingofthepiratesmrhatt2695
11 days ago
I don’t see the point they are saying. Your acknowledgment of someone’s background is not racist it’s just fact.
I’m Egyptian Italian born in Australia why is that a problem ? I don’t see what the big deal is. I love Australia and am grateful for Australia creating a safe place for my family to make home and my loyalty will always lay with Australia, but saying I’m just Australian and ignoring the history of where my family is from is just not true and I don’t see what the big deal is. Conversation about different culture is a completely different. Pauline hansons says it the best, we can be multiracial just not multicultural.
2

@disgruntledunicorn007
10 days ago
Agree completely!
1

Hide replies

@chriskind9523
10 days ago
Nothing wrong with a big Australia, nothing wrong with different cultures. We needed targeted migration, not open borders. We need to deregulate housing construction to keep pace with population growth. Japan is in serious decline due to demographics and strict cultural citizenship rules. Their declining birth rate is now a fundamental risk to their future sovereignty and prosperity. You’re not sufficiently informed and arguments too emotive.

@LucienCanon
11 days ago
It is not just Christianity OR “values”. It is mostly about cultural origin, which largely corresponds with geographical origin and therfore with race/ethnicity.
Jo’s husband is out of his depth. But being a mid wit, he doesn’t realise this.
2

@EquanimityLogic
11 days ago (edited)
Love the heated debate! However, one thing missing…100 thousand years ago no humans existed on our Australian continent because Homo-sapiens only started migrating out of the African continent…All humans in all geographies are migrants when defined in our modern day geographic boundaries! Although, Australia’s third major migration stage involved another demographic change that has significantly enhanced our quality of life beyond other nations; and is definitely something worth defining and preserving……
1

@Kingxr6t
11 days 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

@matthewleonardi247
11 days 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.
2

@adammcdonald1839
11 days ago
What’s a Jewish American black person ? What’s an Islamic American black person ? Blacks in the USA regularly refer to there African heritage … so do our aborigines.. who came here 60,000 years ago apparently from India / Asia.. but Great Britain improved the world with democracy and Christian values … Fact India also improved with democracy from The British… doesn’t mean the Indians think they are British because they were introduced democracy, do religious values in India cause separated societies within india.. ie Hindi / Siks / muslims … so they all live harmoniously? Just asking

@Maxarlie
11 days ago
Sam you crashed out and it was embarrassing. Saying Anglo / Celtic and European (with Aboriginals) is essentially saying white people + aboriginals. The fact you refused to own this position and had a childish tantrum is very telling, you are not ready for these sorts of conversations.

@WandaRosie
1 day ago
Can we stop saying God/Christians are the answer and they are “good” Christians. They are equally responsible for the bad things. The Woke are just the modern version of Christianity trying to take control of the world. Get religion out of politics.

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

@fastforward-f7p
6 days ago
As if these idiots hadn’t said enough stupid crap……along came the Jesus talk…

@Kat_The_Qlder
11 days ago
Fantastic debate guys. Love the three of you
In my opinion, there are three key components missing from both arguments that weren’t discussed by them but might be worth considering:
1. We must consider migrants from a point in time – 1995/1996, just before the time 467 visas were introduced and the system was starting to be abused – this would be a baseline for when Australian was still, Australia. From here, a values test should be performed and assessed by Australian born indigenous and non-indigenous people.
2. A values test should be designed by Australian born people, indigenous and non-indigenous.
3. Assimilation and ethnic influences from indigenous and non-indigenous Australians and not in other ethnic enclaves is imperative for someone to be considered as Australian, whether by birth or citizenship. Other visa classes and categories are not included.
Love Sam – honestly, he is not racist. He did state his position a number of times. It is sad that he has to justify his birthright to people that quite don’t understand his argument and tell him he is being racist or the other N word. The reality is that many Australians don’t know their exact heritage but assume they are Anglo-Celtic or Anglo-Saxon or European or from another ethnic origin. Most of their ancestors have been here for a number of generations. The argument that this country is not an Australian born persons country is flawed, as is the argument that people migrating here are now suddenly Australian.
In my opinion, I love Jo I would absolutely consider Joanna Howe an Australian. Her behaviours, values, contributions, her loyalty to the country and way she able to relate to Australians, she is Australian. Using the addition of these components above, she would be Australian without question.
Australians do not judge skin colour, we discern based on behaviour, values, loyalty, honesty, respect, productivity, character and ability to speak English.
1

@simonvanwyk6479
10 days ago
We are not a Christian country. We are guaranteed freedom of religion by our constitution. We are all equal as guaranteed by the constitution. This is an argument rooted in ignorance. You have to at least start with the facts. If we did what Japan did we’d be old and poor. It’s a difficult topic but understand the facts. Also the real enemy is ignorance.

@mhill__2283
10 days ago
I’m not religious but Christianity comes before any other religion
1

Hide replies

@Makeaustraliagreatagain-h8u
11 days ago
Dr. Joanna Howe,
One cannot be Catholic and Christian, two separate denominations and separate backgrounds.
Catholics basically originate from pagans.
2

@MrHuz89
11 days ago
You have no idea. Catholicism is the only true Christianity. All other denominations were started by imperfect man
1

@Makeaustraliagreatagain-h8u
8 days ago
​ @MrHuz89
Again, catholic and christian are separate denominations.

@damachinen
11 days ago
Only Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have rigorous historical foundations for their theological beliefs that extend all the way to the Apostles. Please do some research on the early Church. God bless.
1

Hide replies

@Howdnz
11 days ago
We just need Jesus
2

@aussiegypsywarrior
11 days 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

@blakewaugh2536
11 days 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

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

@grannyannie2948
11 days 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
11 days ago
Elaborate on these reasons?

Hide replies

@jacoblowe4247
11 days 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.
2

@jacoblowe4247
11 days 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…
2

@grannyannie2948
11 days 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.
2

@jacoblowe4247
11 days 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
11 days 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
11 days 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

@DS-ql2iy
10 days ago
Sam leans into identitarianist politics just as much as those he claims to loathe. Low-grade takes.

@DS-ql2iy
10 days ago
Insists on ‘ethnic’ Australians, that he is conveniently a part of – but can’t quite grasp that the limited net he’s cast over “Anglo-Celtic, European & Indigenous” as the real Australians, are a myriad of ethnicities.

Hide replies

@EquanimityLogic
11 days ago (edited)
your debate may have become intensive, borderline hostile, but TRUE DEMACRATIC in terms of freedom of thought, belief, expression and speech to allow ideas to collide. When people close their open thoughts, societies collapse – more open debate is necessary for a true open healthy democracy, provided does not escalate to violence….the sharing of conflicting ideas without violence is the hallmark of tolerance and democracy……Great to see..
1

@martincoyle-o3b
11 days ago
Jo is all Aussie the type we need

@jimhaggerty2741
11 days 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?

@77Coddie
11 days 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?
1

@damachinen
11 days ago
What?! Any other country thinks of Australians as what Sam and James look like.

Hide replies

@peterscudds7299
11 days 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
11 days ago
100 percent mate. He’s aussie as.

@LucienCanon
11 days ago
Your friend is not a representative Australian from an ethnicity standpoint is what Sam is saying.
Scale matters

Hide replies

@slash1989
11 days ago
No foul Langauge
1

@cerberus_
10 days ago
That How cooker is completely consumed by emotion. He just arguing with people rather than ideas and defending cultural decline – not convincing at all “bro”.
Anyway the debate is flawed at the core trying to define “Australian” through ancestry, ethnicity, culture, citizenship, values, geography and history all at once. Even Britain struggles with these questions.
The Norman conquest fundamentally changed the ruling class and identity of England nearly a thousand years ago. History is messy.
Sam, I respect that you’re trying to think through this in real time, but I don’t think this path leads anywhere useful. If the framework itself is broken, arguing harder inside it won’t solve the problem. Especially with emo soy boys.
1

@trishwilson8141
11 days ago
I agree values are Australian

@peregrineh1620
11 days ago
Oh dear….these two need to look at Mabo decisions and learn about monoculture. And have a peep at the JCAPP report 509 tables to parliament in 2025….yep the Robodebt platform infosys company also responsible for the visa processing system that was chucked in the bin because it didn’t work- replaced with nothing and allowed serious internal processing constraints run…high volume of applications little to no checks…on hundreds of thousands- check out the report. These two are using low hanging fruit for some of their arguments and that’s a shame. Sam stand your ground.
1

@leonmiller4774
12 days 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
11 days 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

@LucienCanon
11 days ago
Shut up. Sam was the hist and they vraught this to his house. THEY were abusive and rude to him. Disgusting

Hide replies

@breban18
11 days 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

@Coke_Addiction
11 days 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.

@NicholasWitham
11 days 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
1

@gabrielallen790
10 days ago
Australians are one unique ethnicity of the wider White/European race. Just as Aborigines are their own race and had (and still have) unique nations/ethnicities. To ‘discriminate’ is to ‘discern’

@et12sun
11 days ago (edited)
Sam…you’ve gone too far mate. Jo is as Aussie as you and me. My ancestry is a mix of everything and most ancestors came on the first fleet in chains, and indigenous. Jo is as Aussie as you and me.
Have a better look at assimilation. Thats an Aussie
2

@APP1E5
11 days ago
James has a good point. Half man half woman.
1

@simdavis4830
11 days 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
11 days ago
I couldn’t agree more…

@damachinen
11 days ago
Except that Judeo is a referent to Judaism and not ancient Israelite and 2nd temple period theology and cosmology.

Hide replies

@darrenparsons5299
11 days ago
Jo n james overwelming win sorry sam
2

@chrisdavis6436
11 days 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
1

@LucienCanon
11 days ago (edited)
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Sam destroyed both of them.

Hide replies

@slash1989
11 days 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

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

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

See Also

top

 

 

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