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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

He said:

 

“Well I could always come on the show.”

 

So I thought:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[04:45]

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah, well, thank you.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Germar Rudolf: So what?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[11:49]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And then people are willing with their open mind:

 

“Wait, what’s going on here?”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“Okay, let’s do it!”

 

The sisters actually suggested a name, Holocaust Summit.

 

[17:30]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Mark Collett: Oh, okay. Sorry.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[26:02]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[32:54]

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[39:37]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[46:00]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Germar Rudolf: So Armreg.co.uk.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Mark Collett: Wonderful.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Thank you so much! Flying Dutchman gave $50.

 

Thank you very much. And said:

 

“Catching up. Happy New Year!”

 

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

 

“Hope and encouragement to those suffering in silence.”

 

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

 

“Qu huge respect to Mr. Rudolf.”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[53:13]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[59:57]

 

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

 

Mark Collett: No, I don’t.

 

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

 

Mark Collett: [uncertain laughter from Mark]

 

Germar Rudolf: That gets you in prison in Germany.

 

Mark Collett: Indeed, indeed.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Thank you so much! He said:

 

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

 

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

 

[1:06:17]

 

Germar Rudolf: Denmark? Regarding Denmark?

 

Mark Collett: Yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Mark Collett: Well, thank you so much!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

[1:09:08]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

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

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

3
0
Valkyria81
1 day ago
88

8
0
The Bee Sting
1 day ago
Wooden doors?

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

5
0
Sir Trancealot
1 day ago
14

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

5
0

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

5
0

@noreplacement
1 day ago
Thank you Germar

5
0

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

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

5
0

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

4
0

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

4
0

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

4
0
Hide replies

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

2
0
yes dear
1 day ago
God Bless Kamerades x

3
0

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

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

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

3
0

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

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

2
0
yes dear
1 day ago
One People

2
0
Echo_Harp
1 day ago
Thanks.

2
0
Valkyria81
1 day ago
hi from denmark

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

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

2
0
yes dear
1 day ago
God Bless Ursula x

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

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

1
0

@nationless8nationalist
1 day ago
just missed it

1
0
Secure the future of our people
1 day ago

@ForKamerade
wot???

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

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

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

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

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

1
0
yes dear
1 day ago
\0

1
0
Secure the future of our people
1 day ago

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

1
0
Secure the future of our people
1 day ago

@ForKamerade
o/

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

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

1
0

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

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

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

1
0
yes dear
1 day ago
Scientific & Engineering Impossibility

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

1
0

@Aunt-Sally
1 day ago
Good evening folks

1
0
Sir Trancealot
1 day ago
Evening gents

1
0
Secure the future of our people
1 day ago

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

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

SublimeBraid
1 day ago
the risks of multitasking, lol

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

danzimmons
1 day ago
it’s all of them.

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

Secure the future of our people
1 day ago
evening all

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

yes dear
1 day ago
test

yes dear
1 day ago
LOL

yes dear
1 day ago
110,000 at most

yes dear
1 day ago
Guten Abend Kamerades!

Hide replies

@nationless8nationalist
13 hours ago
thank you comrade.

0
0

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Blair Cottrell: If this is really ordinary quality, let me know and I’ll figure something out. I’m just streaming through OBS because the streaming services are really fucking annoying trying to work them out! Am I just a Boomer or are they really fucking annoying? They say you can sign up for free and stream for like 20 hours free or something, but then you sign up and I can’t fucking work out how to actually stream. If it’s good enough quality, I’ll just stick with this. If it’s good enough for you guys. Can you hear me okay? Give me some feedback on the audio.

 

I don’t usually stream by myself. Haven’t streamed by myself in probably three years. It makes me realise actually how much I was hinging off Joel’s initiative because I would just respond to Joel’s invitations. I wouldn’t set anything up. I don’t know how streaming works.

 

Okay, great! If the video and audio seems okay for you guys. God, every time before a stream starts, I can think of a hundred reasons not to do it. And I’m like, even when I was streaming with Joel.

 

But as I was saying, I was really hinging off Joel’s initiative because Joel had the Streamyard account. He understood how to set it up. He would just send me a link and I would just show up. That’s why I was always fine with Joel taking all the money that was raised through the streams. I didn’t care because he was the one who came up with all the talking points and did most of the talking as well.

 

But I’m basically just responding to requests that I should stream because he’s in jail now and people are used to seeing me on with Joel and they’re not getting their weekly fix of the Joel and Blair Show, right? Where else could I share the link for this? Is Gab still a thing? Does anyone use Gab? All the alternative platforms? [chuckling] I’m still completely banned from X. I was never emailed explaining why I was banned. If you ask Grok, X’s AI system why I was banned, it’ll come up with, oh, no, that’s not right. Hang on. It’ll give you some arbitrary reason about neo-Nazism, but they won’t give you an actual reason because there’s no reason accept ideology.

 

And I suppose that’s what I’ll begin talking about, ideology. Because that’s why Joel Davis is in jail! And that’s why pretty much everyone influential in nationalism is going to jail. Everyone’s going to jail1 Everyone you can think of in Australian nationalism will go to jail, myself included. They’re going to lock us up! And it was always going to happen. That’s not being black-pilled. That’s just observing things as they unfold. It’s just the objective reality.

 

Joel’s not in jail because of anything he said necessarily. No one was hurt. There’s been no serious crime committed. He’s been held in prison for ideological reasons. It’s pretty obvious, right?

 

I was thinking about playing the game that I usually play when I stream with Joel, so you guys could see what game I play. But I thought it might be too distracting. Usually it’s really helpful. It assists my thinking process to do something with my hands while I’m listening. Much to the dismay of school teachers. I was always told by school teachers that because I was scribbling on a book, I must not be listening. But actually it helped me to listen more. Can anyone relate to that? I found if I was looking at a schoolteacher as a kid, if I was watching the teacher while they said something, I was too busy picking up, like, intuitive signals, like facial expression, body language. I was reading how much they believed in what they were actually saying, whether or not they were feeling bored. All of that was coming through to me.

 

So in order to actually listen to the words they were speaking, not looking at them was important. Because if I was looking at the teacher, all I was getting was like, body language and facial expression signals, like intuitive signals. It was hard to listen to what the teacher was actually saying. Usually because teachers don’t believe what they’re saying. They’re just regurgitating bullshit from textbooks, right?

 

So here I was just scribbling in my book, trying to listen, and I’d be reprimanded for it. Obviously, I’m not listening if I’m scribbling in my book!

 

But it’s the same sort of situation when streaming with Joel or anybody else. I need to be doing something else in order to listen effectively.

 

Down? What am I down about? I’m not down. How do I seem down to you? Do I seem down in the dumps? Because I don’t really experience depression or any down sensation. To be honest, every day I wake up and I’m not surrounded by cops, every day I wake up and I don’t get dragged off to prison for hate speech or just some ideological reason, every day I’m not set up on charges and put in jail, it’s a great day! I get to be free for one nore day. That’s how I live my life. So I’m happy to be here, guys! [chuckling] I’m happy to still not be in jail despite believing the wrong things.

 

Yeah, I feel like I’m always pretty happy. I tend to be either happy or really angry! I kind of switch between those two states of emotion. It’s important that I’m kind. I have to make a strong effort to be kind because the alternative is not a great thing! Hasn’t produced great results for me. [chuckling]

 

Yeah, it does suck that Joel’s in jail. Did you guys see the article? I’ll actually post it here, if I can find it first. Hang on. Where? I sent it to a friend. Here it is here. Mainstream media creating paywalls, like expecting people to pay to read the shit that they write. Imagine paying for the Herald Sun or the Daily Mail! Check out that link there. If you guys haven’t read that already. We’ll go through this together actually.

 

[08:24]

 

Actually, if you guys are on your computer, phone, whatever, click this link. It should take you to a Daily Mail article. We have to use this link to get around the paywall because we’re not paying the Daily Mail to read this shit!:

 

“Crushing legal blow for the Bondi Nazi as we track down his girlfriend after she welcomed their first baby or first child while he was behind bars!”

 

The essence of this article is basically, should I bring it up on screen share? Does that make it better for everybody? It probably does, right? Let’s see if I can figure that out. What I’ve got to do is Joel usually does this stuff. What I’ve got to do is, I think, display capture.

 

Actually, I’m not going to bring it up on the screen because it has pictures of Joel’s girlfriend or the mother of Joel’s child. To be honest, I know so little about this relationship that I don’t know whether to suggest this is Joel’s girlfriend. So I’m just going to say this is the mother of his first child. And the pictures taken of her were taken without her knowledge or consent. How’s this? Right? How do we live in a country where a bunch of people with cameras can find out where you live, go out the front, go and wait out the front of your house indefinitely and just sit there taking photos of you and your house. You come out to put the trash out, they’re taking photos of you. They’re sitting there stalking you, waiting for you! Then they publish those photos publicly with personal information about where you live, personal circumstances about your family, your children. They publish all that publicly, and there’s no consequence. That’s really confusing to me.

 

There should be brutal consequences for doing that to someone’s family. Brutal consequences, man! I think it would do the mother of Joel’s child at disservice to share that article. But you guys can read it for yourself if you want. I just think it’s very disrespectful to hide behind bushes and take photos of someone’s partner. She’s just had a baby and you’re stalking her. That’s fucking weird, man! Who are these fucking journalists, actually, who wrote this article? I noticed some journalists don’t even put their names to their articles anymore.

 

Lucy Manley. Who’s Lucy Manley? I suppose I better be careful about what I say because I could be eroding. What am I doing? What are we all doing? We’ve been labelled “Nazis”, right? Everybody who’s ethnically White and believes that is significant and not negative. We’re all Nazis! And what are we doing?:

 

“We’re eroding the social fabric!”

 

Is that what that federal copper said? I’ve got to be careful because something I say may contribute to the erosion of the social fabric! Lucy Manley, senior news reporter.

 

To be honest, she probably didn’t take the pictures. It probably wasn’t Lucy Manley sitting at the front of this girl’s house, but she still publicly posted all this information. I suppose this is just like how paparazzi works, right? You can understand why people in Hollywood just hate journalists so much because they don’t have any respect. They’re like vultures.

 

But I think it’s always been that way, hasn’t it? It’s not really a new thing. I just didn’t expect this to happen so suddenly. Like, if you guys think about it for a moment, right? Joel is notorious for pushing boundaries with the language he chooses to use. Racial slurs are just part of Joel’s regular vocabulary, regular dialogue. I don’t think what he wrote on Telegram about that “rhetorical rape” comment, I don’t think that’s the worst thing he said in the past few years. I think he said worse stuff than that on streams. I actually think if he made that comment, the one he’s supposedly in jail for, if he made that comment, like, four or five months ago, I don’t think anyone would have bat an eyelid. I don’t think anyone would have cared. It would have just been standard Joel Davis. Because it is standard Joel Davis to say stuff like that isn’t it?

 

Everything’s just taken a dramatic shift since the government seems to have become very sensitive and frightened about this White Australia political party. The Home Affairs Minister after deporting that civil engineer guy, Matthew. What was his name? Matthew Gutter or Guther? [Matthew Gruter] He arrived back in South Africa recently. But Tony Burke said:

 

“If they’re going to put their numbers to the test (he’s referring to the White Australia party or community), then they will fail spectacularly!”

 

If that is true, then why not just let them put their numbers to the test and watch them fail? Why is it necessary for all the political policing and to put them in prison and to make laws that they can’t even express their ideology freely? If you’re so sure they’re going to fail when they put their numbers to the test democratically, why all the political policing? Why the aggression? I suppose political bureaucrats aren’t so sure that they’re going to fail spectacularly! They want to manipulate the system to make sure they fail, I guess.

 

I should solo stream more often. The problem is I don’t really like it, bro. I don’t think I like it anyway. Usually I get about half an hour in and I’m done. Maybe I’m fully like ADHD brain or something. It’s not that I don’t like streaming, it’s just before I’m about to start doing it, I can just think of more efficient things I can do.

 

Like right now I’m working on a video course which is going to be the primary product that I’ll be offering for my online coaching service.

 

[16:12]

 

But I want to make sure it’s an extremely good, polished product. What it basically is I’m thinking about every problem someone will have with getting their diet and their training right and I’m trying to solve those problems for the viewers, for people who actually download this product. I want to solve all your problems for you. I want it to be very good! And I’ve been working on that in my spare time. That’s just one of the things I can think of that I would rather do instead of stream. But I feel a bit of a duty, I suppose, to produce some stream content since you guys would usually watch Joel and enjoy what he’s saying.

 

Thanks for the donations, by the way. I don’t know how to access money through Rumble. I’ve never done it before. I don’t expect that it’s a good idea for me to try to extract any money from Rumble. My Australian bank account will probably just get deleted if I do that. I can tell you from experience, any money that comes from any overseas source, when you’re an Australian and you’re into ethnic nationalism like I am, your bank account just gets frozen and deleted, straight away, pretty much within a week of receiving the funds or before the funds actually clear. God, how many bank accounts have I lost? I don’t even know, I don’t remember.

 

But I think I was the first guy in Australia to have his bank accounts deleted because of his ideology. And now it’s just like a standard thing. Now it just happens every day to someone for some stupid reason. Maybe I should have tried to sue the bank or something to create a precedent. The problem is I’m not a court guy. I don’t want to go to court. I don’t want to take people to court and stand there and complain to a judge, you know, I’d rather just headbutt someone! Do you understand what I mean? I would rather just headbutt someone and crush their skull if I have a problem with them. I do not want to stand in court and say:

 

“Your honour, this person, blah blah, blah, I’m right, they’re wrong, please believe me. Have my money, have more of my money. $10,000, $20,000. Please rule in my favour, your honour!”

 

That’s really fucking gay in my mind! I can’t bring myself to do it. But that’s how the system works. If you don’t have money and if you don’t grovel to judges with a lot of money, well, you really don’t get anywhere, do you?

 

We have a problem in society though, don’t we? In post violence society. Everything still happens the same way it would when violence was a main feature of society. It just happens non-violently. So you still get humiliated, you still get targeted, people still get assassinated. It just happens socially and politically rather than physically. The problem with that though is everyone is just treating each other like shit because there’s no immediate physical consequence anymore. No one’s worried about getting their teeth knocked out. Nobody’s worried about getting their jaw broken and having to drink their food through a straw for three months. If people were worried about that, as they should be, everyone would be more kind. Everyone would be nice to each other. We would just have a more, how should I suggest? It would just be a more enjoyable place to live. It’d be a more tolerable place to live because everyone would be naturally kind for fear of having their jaws broken.

 

Everyone just does whatever they want because:

 

“Oh, you can’t touch me. That’s against the law. That’s a salt and pepper!”

 

That’s [chuckling] another aspect of modern society which is really gay.

 

Yeah. Interesting question, Oznat News:

 

“Do I have any comment on the Brisbane crew splitting from March for Australia? One of the organisers name dropping me.”

 

I have no idea what’s going on with that! No idea! Whenever there’s like drama and people are arguing and splitting and you know what I mean, I just back the fuck out! I can’t deal with that petty gay drama and people saying words because they don’t like each other online. It’s not my style at all, bro. I don’t know anything about that. I can’t comment. I don’t know why everyone can’t just have a rally against immigration. Like, shut up about this evil caricature of Nazis that everyone’s obsessed with. Just get over it. Have a rally to stop immigration. The subject shouldn’t be Nazis. Anyone who’s trying to divert the attention of the people interested in the rally to Nazis instead of the purpose of the rally, which is stopping immigration. They are an enemy of your country. They are a fucking enemy of your country! Everyone should just have a rally against immigration. Stop immigration! Anyone saying Nazis, they’re an enemy, ignore them.

 

The Nazis appear to be public enemy number one for the government in Australia right now! But what is that? What is a Nazi? What do you guys think? I mean, for the standard person, when you say the word “Nazi”, a certain image of something undesirable appears in your mind. That word “Nazi” is associated with genocide, is it not? Like the killing of large amounts of people through gassing and systemic execution of various kinds. But is that what history really tells us? And see, this is the issue.

 

I’ll tell you guys a story, right? I was at the gym yesterday doing some leg press and a guy approached me. And this happens all the time now. [chuckling] He’s about 6 foot 7, this guy. He’s really tall, but he’s only young. He tells me:

 

“Hey man, you look familiar.”

 

I said:

 

“Yeah, I get that a bit.”

 

And I outstretched my hand to shake his hand because he was just kind of staring at me. And he gave me a Roman handshake. And I’m thinking:

 

“Okay, this is one of the boys.”

 

And I noticed he’s wearing a T-shirt with a stencil of Hitler on it. This guy tells me he’s 18. For the last few years, he’s just been researching online and he’s on this trajectory. He discovers National Socialism and he explains it as just the truth! That’s what he says to me. He says:

 

“Mate, it’s just the truth! I don’t even see it as a philosophy necessarily. It’s just the truth of this world and how things are.”

 

And that’s when I realised, because this keeps happening, like young people keep approaching me and talking to me about stuff like this. Either they recognise me or they don’t. It’s literally just a subject matter in the public right now! It made me realise why the Australian government is trying to ban social media for people under 16 years old. The government will say it’s “for your safety”. [chuckling] Can you believe they’re still trying to sell that?

 

[22:27]

 

The fact that the government does anything for your safety. Like, imagine actually believing that! I suppose it’s comfortable to believe that if you’re a standard person:

 

“Government trying to protect me, keeping me safe. Thanks government!”

 

God, imagine actually believing that! Imagine buying into that, man. It freaks me out to think that people actually buy into that.

 

But anyway, the social media ban is, again, it’s about ideology, isn’t it? Because Hitler seems to have become this core feature of youth culture. A large section of the youth either think that Hitler wasn’t that bad or that he’s been lied about a great deal and he’s an interesting character. Like a massive amount of Generation Z, the Zoomers, they believe, they’re straight up. That’s what they believe to the extent where they’re in the gym, in a public gym, wearing Hitler T-shirts, and just talking to people about Hitler. I mean, you might think that this guy that approached me is unusual, but it doesn’t seem that way. It really doesn’t seem that way. It seems like these kids are everywhere.

 

And I think that’s what the social media ban in Australia is about. It’s about preventing new generation from accessing the nuance which leads to an appreciation for National Socialism and Hitler. Fundamentally that seems to be what it’s about.

 

Because the problem is, because I’ve read the Hitler’s book many times. To be honest, the first time I read it, I was really disappointed. When I saw it, I’m like, wow! I was only 18 when I first found it in a random bookshop in Fitzroy, which is a northern suburb of Melbourne. I was working there on an apartment building. I bought the book and was excited because I thought I was going to read, I was going to learn about the inner workings of this evil genius who mass murdered all of these jews and tried to take over the world. But then I’m reading the book and I’m like:

 

“Huh? There’s nothing in here about that!”

 

Okay. There’s a chapter on his early life, his service in the First World War, how propaganda works. Wow, that’s interesting. About race and how nation and race mean the same thing. How he wants to protect the Germans. Okay. There’s a bit in here about how the jews represent a threat to Germany.

 

And then there’s just a whole bunch of stuff on foreign policy. And I’m like:

 

“Where’s the genocide? Where’s the evil genius take over the world part? It’s not in here!”

 

But someone who’s still linked in with the Matrix might say:

 

“Well, of course he’s not going to admit that in his book, Blair. Otherwise, no one would have voted for him!”

 

Maybe you’re right. I don’t think that’s how it is.

 

But anyway, the reason I brought that up, because it is because in Hitler’s book, he writes. And first I’ll quote it word for word, then I’ll explain what he means. But he writes:

 

“As soon as an atom, or a glimpse of right is admitted on the opposing side, the process of doubting one’s preconceived ideas begins.”

 

I’ll repeat that so it sinks in. Right:

 

“As soon as an atom, or a glimpse of right is admitted on the evil side, or the side, the opposing side, the designated enemy side, then the process of doubting or beginning to doubt your own existing belief system begins.”

 

What does that mean? It means it is very important that an administrative government does not allow you to access any information which helps you understand the point of view of your enemy. You’re not supposed to understand your enemy’s point of view at all! You’re supposed to reject it as incontrovertibly evil! The moment any nuance is available to you that allows you to understand things from an enemy or opposition perspective, and the moment you’re actually able to understand even one thing that the enemy believes, the moment you’re able to sympathize with even one thing that the previously or an enemy stood for, a previously understood enemy stood for.

 

[26:59]

 

The moment you acknowledge that one thing an enemy did or represented was actually not that bad, then your whole worldview starts to tip. You eventually start to sympathize with an enemy, and you start to see what your previous beliefs were. You start to see them as potentially evil. That’s why when politicians talk about Nazism, they will not include even the slightest bit of nuance, ever! It will always be absolutely incontrovertibly evil! They will always associate Nazism with genocide, regardless of the facts. They will always reject Nazism as not even a real philosophy, but just a caricature of evil itself. Nazism and Hitler are evil incarnate, and you’re not supposed to look at it any other way. If you do, that’s a problem. And social media and the Internet, the age of the Internet has made it not only possible, but easy to see things from Hitler’s perspective. And the results you can see for yourself. It’s a whole fraction of the new generation which actually thinks that Hitler was the good guy, or maybe not even that bad. That’s like, some of them think he’s not that bad. The rest of them think:

 

“Oh, he’s actually the good guy!”

 

Right? That’s what happens when you allow free information, when you allow nuance. And naturally, if people start thinking that Hitler wasn’t that bad, then they end up thinking Hitler’s enemies might actually be bad. The people who oppose Hitler might actually be the bad ones. And that’s the mess that the social media system has created for the existing government. It’s allowed this nuance, which has transformed the perspective of the new generation. People are just kind of running wild with this whole new idea of recent history.

 

To summarize what I’ve said, just to wrap that up, there is a reason you will never hear a single government bureaucrat acknowledge that anything Hitler ever did, that anything the German National Socialist ever did was good. They will never acknowledge National Socialism even as a legitimate political ideology. They will always hold it up as evil incarnate. And they have to do that, because if they’ll contribute to a process where people begin to sympathize with National Socialism. Because that’s the way human psychology works. Everything is either good or evil. It’s either black or White. And the minute you allow nuance to enter that equation, everything begins to tip in the other direction. Black becomes White and good becomes evil. It’s really interesting process. And long story short, that’s what the social media ban is about, because all of the nuance, like, I’ll open up Instagram on my phone right now, for example, and I’ll see, let’s say three videos.

 

The first one will be about. It’ll be some girl who’s like 23 years old talking about how the Holocaust is just what they said happened with the Holocaust is logistically impossible. Then the next video will be about how the government murdered X amount of people with vaccines, how it caused heart conditions, nervous system disorders and premature deaths in infants.

 

And then the next video will just literally be a clip glorifying Hitler. That’s on Instagram right now! Like that’s what young people are being exposed to. 10 years old, 11 years old. Well, prior to the social media ban anyway. And that’s created a serious problem for administrative government, because all of that is going to undermine the dominating ideology of society right now, which is multiculturalism. It’s like the opposite ideology of National Socialism.

 

National Socialism represents the opposite to the current system ideology. It’s the opposite of multiculturalism. It’s the opposite of racial equality. Right. And that’s why people are in jail. That’s why Joel Davis is in jail. That’s why we’re all basically going to jail sooner or later. If you’re an influential person in ethnic nationalism, myself included, at some stage in the next year or two, the police are going to kick your door down at 4 in the morning. They’re going to take your computer, they’re going to set you up with some bullshit and put you in jail for political reasons, ideological reasons, because you represent a threat to the dominating ideology within government, media and police right now!

 

But, it can’t be any other way. I mean, just look at it the way it is. Put yourself in the position of the enemy and understand that they’re ruthless savages! They don’t give a fuck about your rights. You don’t have any rights. I’ve got no rights. I’ve got the right to die quietly and get replaced by Indians. That’s the way the government looks at it. That’s my foremost right as a White Australian. It’s to fucking shut up and die and get quietly replaced by an Indian family. One that won’t give this government as much trouble as we do. [chuckling] And that’s your right too. If you share my ethnicity and my viewpoints. That’s about as many rights as this government affords you right. Now if you think I’m wrong, just give it some time, man!

 

What can you do about it? Not a lot for the time being, I suppose. Like I said, every day I wake up where a gang of coppers haven’t kicked my door down and aren’t accusing me of some shit to put me in jail. That’s another good day. It was always going to come to this, though. It was always going to come to this:

 

“Have I thought about entering politics?”

 

In what capacity? Like, because I feel like I’ve been in politics for the last 11 years. Do you mean like official political process, like getting voted for and whatnot?

 

Of course I’ve thought about it, but it’s not really possible. You’ll find that Australian system is so corrupt, they’ll put you in jail before you can get to Parliament. But that’s part of a process that I think we need to pass through, that Australians need to pass through in order to work out or adapt to that environment, to work out a way where we can stay out of prison and actually arrive in Parliament somehow. I don’t know. I don’t like the idea of a Parliament. I’ll tell you right now!

 

[33:38]

 

I mean, look at Parliament. What is Parliament? It’s a group of hysterical women screeching about racism or other interpersonal nonsense which doesn’t actually matter. And if it’s not that, then it’s a group of men taking money from foreign lobbyists, climbing over each other to try to prove who can fill Australia with more immigrants faster. That’s what Parliament is! It’s just a snake den! It’s a rat’s nest! And anyone who goes into Parliament with good intentions will find that they have to become a snake, or a rat, in order to survive in that environment. I think we need to do away with Parliament as a country. It might be fun for someone like Joel to sit in Parliament because Joel really enjoys debating, doesn’t he? I mean, Joel thrives when he’s in an environment where he gets to argue his point with people who don’t like him. That’s why I think Joel would be excellent in Parliament.

 

But personally, I think I would get too frustrated by Parliament. I think I’m good at doing what I do now, which is just influencing from my small corner, what do you call people like me? Micro influencers? And I provide people with advice. I’m an advisor. I’m an advisor in the shadows. [chuckling] But I’m not really in the shadows, am I? I’m pretty public right now!

 

To be honest, since everything that’s happened in Australia over the past couple of months, like Joel going to jail, stacks of criminal charges being laid against activists left, right and centre, you know, nationalist activists, the Federal Police seemingly being converted into a political police, an ideological policing unit to prevent nationalism from taking hold. I’m not even sure what I should say! Like, I go to post something on Telegram and I’m thinking:

 

“Fuck, what can I even write that won’t just land me in prison right now?”

 

I don’t even know. I’m not really sure. The culture’s changed so quickly that I’m not really sure if I should write anything at all!

 

But then I think to myself:

 

“I’m probably going to go to jail anyway. So fuck it! I’ll just keep writing what I think. I’ll just keep doing what I’ve always done.”

 

All right, how far in are we? How long have I survived so far? I don’t think I can see. Oh, no, I can. No, I can’t see how long I’ve been streaming because I’m just streaming through OBS. I’m not using any of the streaming services. I couldn’t work them out man. I’m just going to close this blind. It’s like some brutal sun glare coming through there. Is that better or worse? Maybe I’ll open it again. Wow! Survived longer than half an hour. That’s nice.

 

Well, thanks for the appreciation, guys. Thanks for joining me. What else was there? There was another article or two that I wanted to discuss with you guys because there’s just been so much going on in Australia for the past couple of weeks, and I spend most of my time working and trying to, what do you call it? Trying to build this online coaching business. So my head hasn’t been as into the news as it should be. It’s like I have one day off. I get like a Sunday afternoon off every week, and that’s the time where I try to catch up on the news and what’s been happening.

 

I saw that Tom Sewell was streaming with, is it called the Fight Back podcast with Blizzerian and Jake Shields? That should be interesting. Isn’t it crazy The Times we’re living in where you can open a social media app and you got Dan Blizzerian talking about how Israel is the most evil thing in the world. And that guy is like, that guy’s watched by a lot of people. He’s someone who’s quite wealthy, according to my understanding.

 

Yeah, I know people want to speak to me about March for Australia, Queensland. Like I said, I’ve got no idea what’s going on with that. I know that there’s drama and there’s people on X who are like, and I don’t even know what’s happening.

 

As I said, I don’t know why everyone can’t just have a rally about a single issue. Single issue rallies are really easy! Anyone trying to complicate it to make it about something other than that single issue, in this case, stopping immigration. They’re an enemy. They’re an enemy! It’s that simple. Just keep them out, get away from them, don’t let them in, don’t let them anywhere near the organisation of the rally itself. Just stick to that one issue. It’s that simple! The moment someone says:

 

“Oh, but there’s Nazis over there!”

 

Shut the fuck up! Shut the fuck up! It’s about stopping immigration. It’s not about Nazis. Simple! Why can’t people figure that out? It’s like it requires the same kind of mental strength that is necessary to ignore arguing with people, or to not argue with people. Which is like when someone’s trying to compel you to argue with them, you literally just ignore them and go about whatever it is you’re doing. You learn to do that in politics. You have to be able to do that in politics. If you can’t ignore what people are saying, you’ll always be dragged into dirty little corners of tit for tat that are just going to waste your time. You have to be able to actually not care what people are saying. You have to actually be amused at people trying to derail you or detract you from your single purpose.

 

Politics is really simple and easy. You just have to stay on that one narrow, single purpose goal route. Very easy! It’s actually the stupidest business in the world, politics. I think Napoleon said that, because you’re literally in the business of influencing simpletons who really want and desire that one train of thought system, that one message that us against them dynamic. And the moment you make it more complicated than that with arguing about ideology and stuff, then you’re basically cooked. No longer are you appealing to the ordinary folk. You just need to keep things simple. It’s really easy.

 

[40:59]

 

 

I noticed I’m being called a “White supremacist” now in the press whenever I’m mentioned. I don’t know why I’m still being mentioned. I haven’t hosted or attended a protest in the capacity of actually participating in it in quite a while. All I do is appear on stream occasionally as a result of being invited onto it, but I still get mentioned in media articles on occasion. And I’m now White supremacist! I used to be far-Right activist, then I was far-Right extremist. Then I was accused neo-Nazi. Then they just took the word accused out and started saying neo-Nazi.

 

And now it’s neo-Nazi, but also White supremacist. It’s interesting, isn’t it? Because I’ve never actually described myself as White supremacist. It’s all very dirty language, curse language, designed to make you look, you know, evil, undesirable. Don’t listen to this person. What a horrible man. [chuckling] It’s probably illegal. I actually know that it is illegal. A former colleague of mine, Dennis Hutz, who was quite close to us during our early years of activism with United Patriots Front. I don’t know if it was Channel Seven or Channel Nine. It was one of the major media corporations, but they just called him a White supremacist after he did some sort of political activity. It was a stunt or something. He issued a legal notice or something like that opened up a lawsuit. And they settled with him before the court date. And they paid him out I don’t know, somewhere between 50 and $70,000. So he got a payout because they called him White supremacist without any basis.

 

I wonder what the basis for calling me a White supremacist is? It’s guilt by association, isn’t it? It’s because I’ve streamed or sat on a panel with people who might accept that identity. I don’t know. But what does White supremacist entail as well? It’s like if someone calls you White supremacist, right, what that means to the ordinary mind is they think that you’re the kind of person who walks around and just thinks you’re superior to everyone because you’re White. Like, it would mean that I would just walk past a Chinaman or something like that and just hate this person because he’s Chinese and not White. It’s like, imagine going through life like that. Imagine how exhausting that would be to have to hate everyone around you just because they’re not White all the time.

 

I mean, I’ve never really felt that way. To be honest, I don’t really feel anything towards people who aren’t White. I don’t really have any room to feel anything for them. It’s not like they’re not significant to me in any way. I don’t really live in a place where there’s a lot of people who aren’t White. So being a White supremacist is not really something that’s ever occurred to me. I’ve never really thought of myself that way.

 

But apparently Australian journalists, mainstream media journalists, they know more about me than I do! [chuckling] they get to decide my ideology and how to describe me, regardless of the facts. And that’s the country we live in, ladies and gentlemen. It’s also a country where you go to jail if you write the wrong thing on Telegram.

 

And if you go to a protest, a police approved protest, you don’t commit any crimes. You’re even a highly regarded civil engineer. And you’ve been in Australia for years without committing any crimes. But you went to one protest for ideological reasons the government doesn’t like, you’re getting deported! You’re out of here within a day or two. Well, I don’t think he was actually out of here within a day or two, but I know that he ended up in immigration detention within a day or two. God, that’s crazy, man! I don’t think that’s ever happened in the history of Australia. I actually tried to find another situation where someone was deported, like taken to immigration and deported that quickly. Not even serious rapists and murderers. No one in the history of this country has been apprehended and deported along with his family that fast! That’s never happened before.

 

Think about what that means. It means that a whole new precedent of political policing is now occurring in Australia. And it means everyone who was influential in nationalism is bound to go to jail at some point or another. That is the logical mathematical conclusion! So brace yourselves!

 

Like I said I was gonna play a game. I was gonna play a game for you guys that I usually play with Joel. You know what’s funny? Someone said in the comments on one of the last streams that I did with Joel before he was in jail, someone said:

 

“Oh, Blair’s losing hope! Blair’s so black pilled he’s even started playing a game while streaming with Joel. He’s not serious anymore!”

 

I thought to myself, bro, I’ve been playing a game while streaming with Joel for like three years. I just didn’t say anything because I thought maybe it’s rude.

 

[46:13]

 

But now I’m just being honest because it kind of explains why sometimes I’m a bit distracted. But that’s how I listen. As I explained at the start of the stream, I listen by doing something else with my hands. And so like some people do that. Some people need to be able to like do something else in order to intake information effectively. Like if I’m just sitting there staring at the screen, I get bored. It’s hard for me to actually listen. It’s easy to listen if I’m doing something else.

 

It is World of Warcraft hardcore, but it’s a private server called Turtle Wow! You guys know what that is? It’s like, how would you describe it? It’s like classic. Plus, it’s the original World of Warcraft, but it’s had all this additional content bolted on. It’s even got new raids and new dungeons, but it’s all at level 60. Because you can only play Classic World of Warcraft or Vanilla so many times before you know every single weapon that drops, every single item that drops. The good thing about Turtle Wow is its got like an array of new items and weapons and quests that you’ve never seen before added into places like Westfall and Elwyn Forest, and all the early human starting zones and beyond. There’s whole new zones as well. And it’s all based on what Blizzard was going to release with the original Vanilla, but they didn’t end up releasing it because they didn’t have enough manpower or time to actually implement those things into the game. But the original World of Warcraft, the original vanilla, that came out in like 2004, I think, or 2000, 2003, when I was like 13 or 14, it was basically an unfinished game.

 

If you look at the way the classes were set up, it wasn’t finished. Mage was finished, Rogue was finished, Warrior was kind of finished. The other classes weren’t finished and the game wasn’t finished, but they released it anyway and it still became an international phenomenon.

 

But it’s an easy game to play while you’re streaming because you don’t need to pay that much attention to it. It’s not a game like Doom Eternal, for example, where God, I’m like, that game requires 100% of your attention.

 

Nick Patterson. I don’t want to talk about individuals. I don’t want to talk about individuals. It’s not my style. What could I say, though in summary? I think Nick’s doubling down on his support for Israel because he probably got bullied for supporting Israel. And some people, when you bully them, they actually double down on what you’re bullying them for. That’s the way they respond. He’s probably copped a lot of shit online for being a bit of an attack dog for Avi Yemeni and the Israeli crew.

 

But eventually he’s going to realise, guys, eventually, you can’t stay ignorant forever. Eventually, Nick Patterson will realise that he’s not jewish and the jews laugh at him when he’s not there. Avi Yemeni would go home and laugh at him. He’s going to work it out eventually. It’ll just take him a bit more time. Bullying probably won’t work. Doesn’t work on everyone, bullying. Well, there’s probably a process people go through, but everyone’s different.

 

So the next March for Australia event is on Australia Day, is that right? It’s like everyone seems to be gearing up for Australia Day. Ever since the original March for Australia, there’s been some drama, hasn’t there? And it all seems to be, at the centre of that drama, seems to be this whole Nazi debacle! Like you’re sort of Zionist-conservatives trying to Reclaim Australian patriotism from the Nazis. That seems to be the main crux of the issue. I honestly just think it should be ignored and everyone should just get together again for the next march, like I said, for that single issue thing. If you consider yourself a conservative, if you consider yourself a Christian, even if you’re like a Zionist conservative Christian, if that’s still actually a thing, it shouldn’t be. But even if you are, if that’s what you consider yourself, or even if you’re a Nazi, or a regular Australian patriot or whatever, these are all just words! You’re just saying things.

 

At the end of the day, you’re still part of the same cultural, ethnic community. Like, just look at each other. It’s easy to tell who is one of us and who is not. And you should be, in my opinion, we should be united on that basis, not the basis of word identities. Like, I’m centre Right conservative and I’m far-Right Nazi and I’m centre kind of I don’t even know, like, what is this? It’s all just words. The political spectrum is just words. This is people saying words, making noises with their mouth, which, how is that more of an identifying factor than how we look, how we think and where we come from physically and biologically? To me, it’s just like I can tell who’s on my side and who’s not usually just by looking at them. That’s the way I tend to approach politics.

 

But apparently everybody’s more intelligent than me because they invest a great deal more in their political spectrum identities. That makes you smarter than anyone who’s using biology as an identifying factor first. It’s embarrassing how the tendency people have to believe they’re super intelligent can actually confuse the fuck out of them and can actually take them away from their fundamental identity because they’re so invested in the idea of their own intelligence that they end up identifying with something that is completely alien to their own biological identity because they’re so smart, right? They spend all of their time thinking about how to verbalise or structure their identity and how to explain it to people. I don’t know. I’ve always just thought, like, being a White Australian is not like a big deal. Well, it’s not a bad thing is what I’m trying to say. Like, what’s wrong with just being a White Australian? I don’t get it. I realise that the current system wants to kill you and replace you with a more manageable slave population from overseas if you’re a White Australian, I get it.

 

And so from the perspective of the administrative class, the institutional class, there’s a lot wrong with being a White Australian. If you’re a White Australian, you’re held responsible for everything bad that ever happened in this land, ever! Especially to Aboriginal people.

 

[53:21]

 

But even if you want to extend outside of Australia, you’re responsible for all suffering of the native Maori people! Evil White colonial barbarians are responsible for the suffering of South Africans! And the only way we manage to advance our civilisation as White people was by exploiting and dominating other cultures around the world like the cruel colonials we were. And for all the suffering we’ve caused around the world, we now have to pay! We have to pay by dying quietly and getting replaced!

 

That’s the attitude of the institutional class. And it’s kind of creepy, isn’t it, to live in an environment, in a civilisation where your own government essentially wants to kill you and they think it’s justified for racial reasons. There’s like this relentless race hate that’s motivating your own governing forces and they don’t even see it. Like, they don’t even realise if you’re someone who works for media, government, Ranking police officer, if you’re actually thinking this much, you won’t even realise that you’ve been spelled by race hate propaganda, which is anti-White in essence. Like, you’ll just look at White people and you’ll even look at yourself if you’re a White person with these kind of preconceptions, and you’ll just despise that ethnicity because of what you’re being led to believe has happened as a result of that ethnicity and colonialism.

 

So it’s interesting, isn’t it? They say that evil is a point of view and every way of man is right in his own mind. And that is so true. It is so true because the people in government who are actually in the process of punishing White people for being White evil colonials, they think that they’re doing a good thing. They think it’s justified because they do believe White people have caused all that suffering. So they think it’s all justifiable and it’s all just consequence of the evil things our ancestors did.

 

Every way of man is right in his own mind. It’s eerily similar to the story of Attack on Titan. If anyone hasn’t watched Attack on Titan, you should try to watch it. I understand the first season or two might be hard to get through and you might feel like you’re just watching some stupid cartoon about these weird looking giants, but god, as it gets into the final season, man, wow! I’m of the opinion that that show has the power to deprogram Leftists. It’s that powerful! It’s a story that teaches you about race hate propaganda and how it works and how it’s used as, or to establish an effective power dynamic to unite people against that single ethnic enemy. I don’t think I’ve ever watched a story as impactful as Attack on Titan. I can’t even believe some Japanese guy came up with a story that impactful. It’s fucking crazy!

 

Or maybe it’s just that I’m used to Western media just being so bland, just so full of pathetic propaganda. You know, I watched this movie, or I tried to watch this movie a couple of weeks ago called Frankenstein. Supposed to be a movie about Frankenstein. That was one of the worst movies I’ve ever tried to watch. It went for a long time and it’s like for perhaps for maybe two hours or at least an hour and a half, I just sat there waiting for it to get good. I’m thinking:

 

“Surely with this cast, surely with the material they have to work with the amount of money they’ve spent on this film, surely it’s about to get good. At any stage now it’s going to get good!”

 

But every decision made by the main characters doesn’t make a lot of sense. And every scene is just a crybaby story about poor Frankenstein! Everyone so mean to Frankenstein and he’s just so good and kind, the poor thing! And after you’ve just been hit with that scene after scene after scene after scene for almost two hours, you’re like:

 

“Where the fuck is this story going? I can’t even watch this anymore!”

 

I just turned it off. It is just so bland, uninteresting and weird! It’s weird!

 

And so you watch Japanese animation and you get really impactful, compelling stories about ethnic tensions and race hate propaganda and political power dynamics. And even involved in that is like time manipulation and shit on top of all that stuff put into this incredible, incredible story! And it really speaks volumes of the quality of Western entertainment when it’s being completely smashed in terms of quality, thoughtfulness, creativity by random Japanese cartoonists!

 

It’s getting really hot in this part of the house that I’m in the sun is beating down on this window in front of me. I’ve got the blind down, but maybe I’m just getting frustrated. I can never tell if it’s actually hot or if I’m just getting angry. I’m one of those people that when I get frustrated, my head turns bright red and I just start getting really hot. Mepola says:

 

“Yeah, Frankenstein was absolutely awful! I saw it with the missus. We both looked at each other throughout the film, cringing. It was insufferable!”

 

It was absolutely insufferable. It was. What else did I watch recently? I watched a show that was just absolutely miserable! And it had that Australian actor in it. What’s his name again? He’s in that movie Warrior with Tom Hardy. He’s Tom Hardy’s brother in the movie Warrior. What’s that guy’s name again?

 

[59:21]

 

Anyway, it’s a movie about this guy who loses his family. He loses his family and he kind of waits for his family to come back, but they never do because they died in a fire. And that’s basically the whole movie. It’s just really depressing. But there’s several elements of the film that I thought were interesting. You know what? I don’t remember it well enough to go through it. All I know is that was laced with low key propaganda. That was just “White man bad.” You know Joel Edgerton. That’s the guy. Thank you, Joel Edgerton. You guys might know the movie I’m talking about. I think it’s on Netflix or one of the major streaming services right now! It’s just the most miserable, pointless film laced with evil propaganda. I won’t even say evil necessarily. It’s just hostile propaganda. It’s hostile!

 

Like there’s one scene that doesn’t make a lot of sense. There’s just some guy because they’re all part of some tree logging company. And there’s a guy who’s just ranting about Jesus and stuff like that. He’s just some random White guy, kind of overweight. Then this black cowboy comes into the scene, asks if anyone’s seen this guy. And the overweight White guy, we’re talking about just starts running and the black cowboy shoots him and says:

 

“He killed my brother for no reason but the colour of his skin. Anyone got a problem with what I’ve just done, speak up and we’ll have it out now.”

 

And no one says anything. And the black cowboy just rides off. And that scene is just inconsequential to the rest of the movie. It was just completely fucking unnecessary! And you realise it’s only in the movie just to put that:

 

“Ha. White guy gets shot by a black guy for noble reason!”

 

I don’t even know, man! I won’t. Like I said, I don’t remember all the scene structure, the structures of each scene well enough to actually analyze it. I’ve noticed people get really famous from analyzing films. Like The Critical Drinker on YouTube. I always liked that guy.

 

I started watching him before he had the huge following too, that Scottish character. And it’s one of those things that I think I could have done quite well, analyzing films. I was just basically always so busy trying to afford rent, losing every job that I got after three months because someone would Google my name and some woman at the HR department of whatever company I was working for would take issue with me. I was too busy doing that to actually invest any time into analyzing film.

 

But it’s really easy to take a Western film and analyze it and just unpack the propaganda. In my opinion, it’s really easy. But there’s some good influences. There’s some good people on YouTube doing that right now! And yeah, I don’t like the heat. I’m not looking forward to summer this year. It’s officially summer in Australia, but it’s been raining a lot.

 

Anyway, again, thanks for joining me everyone. I expect that this stream will be available to watch after I’ve finished it. So if you have missed the start of it, I think it should still be there. I believe that I set it up in that way, but I’m not entirely sure. I’m here to streaming through OBS because I couldn’t work out Streamyard. And there’s this new one called Restream, I think. You connect it to your Rumble account and it says that it’s connected. But then there’s no stream key and there’s no source and there’s nowhere to put that stuff. And so I’m thinking how the fuck does this work? This is not intuitive at all! They pretend it’s like the easiest thing ever to set up, but it’s really not.

 

What’s a good movie? What’s a good movie? Give me a movie, guys, that’s worth watching, in your opinion. The last good show that I watched was called God, it’s getting so hot in here. I’m sweating. I can’t last much longer, lads. The last good show I watched was Ripley. Anyone seen Ripley? It was a black and white film, I believe, set in the 60s. I think it was on Netflix. I believe that Tom Ripley is almost like a folklore character in certain cultures, but it’s about identity theft. And it makes you realise when you watch the film how easy identity theft was or would have been in the 60s. It’s not so easy now due to all developing technologies, but in the 60s, all you needed was, yeah, you could just glue your passport photo on top of someone else’s passport photo and then that’s who you were.

 

Recommend anime solo leveling. I don’t know if I have it in me to sit there and watch another anime. It’s like after I did Attack on Titan. I’ve done Attack on Titan twice as well. Because I liked it that much. I watched it again gradually. Took me months. But, yeah, I don’t know if I have any more anime in me for another six months, but I’ll try.

 

When you get to a certain age, this is a sad reality, but it is a reality nonetheless. When you get to a certain age, it’s more difficult to intake new information. It’s not impossible, but it’s more difficult. So when you’re exposed to new things, it’s kind of like you get tired really quickly. Makes you miss being a kid where everything was just, your brain is just able to absorb everything so quickly and efficiently when you’re young.

 

[1:05:18]

 

I’ve heard about Nuremberg with Russell Crowe, but I haven’t watched it yet. I saw Russell Crowe on the Joe Rogan podcast. I actually clipped it. I clipped the part where Russell Crowe was talking about how, and this links back into what we were talking about earlier in the stream. Russell Crowe is talking about nuance regarding certain Nazi officials, specifically Hermann Goring, the chief of the Luftwaffe, the German Air Force. Nuance regarding him as a person looking into his life and the circumstances of Germany before and after the war. And I clipped that and tried posting it to TikTok, and it got instantly deleted! I thought maybe it was the song that I put on with it. So I deleted the song and tried to upload it without the music. Instantly deleted again.

 

And that takes me back to what I was talking about before, how nuance cannot be permitted by the existing administrative forces. The hand behind the government, you might say. It is their job right now to eliminate nuance, to ban nuance, or to limit your access to nuance, specifically on the subject of the Second World War and any revisionism or extra information that people are making available on the Second World War, on Hitler and the Nazis. Because nuance, once made available, is eventually and with mathematical certainty going to result in people having more sympathy for Hitler and the Nazis. That’s where nuance leads.

 

Have a cold beer. How the hell is beer gonna cool me down when I’m hot? You realise alcohol raises your body temperature. Beer! I shouldn’t judge people for drinking, though. Joel drinks. Joel enjoys a beer. He seems to handle it pretty well, too. Joel’s not one of those people who loses his shit when he gets drunk. He kind of becomes more entertaining. He loosens up a little bit, and it doesn’t seem to impact his intelligence at all! If anything, it just slightly sharpens it.

 

They’re incapable of allowing nuance. It’s not that they’re incapable, it’s that they’re absolutely unwilling because they understand the destructive power of nuance. That’s what I’m trying to get at. Anyone who is permitting nuance or encouraging nuance, that is more open discussion or objective discussion regarding Second World War and Hitler specifically, will be considered a dangerous enemy of the administrative forces of government right now!

 

It’s really important to understand that, too. They’re not just disregarding National Socialism as incontrovertibly evil out of ignorance. It’s not out of ignorance. It’s very deliberate. Because any open discussion on the topic is eventually going to lead to a broader and better understanding of the topic. And that is not in the interests of current government media alliance to have you actually understanding the Second World War in any broad capacity. You’re supposed to just write Hitler and the Nazis off as evil, and that’s it. You’re not supposed to look into it beyond that.

 

Basically, this whole society is built on not allowing nuance on this particular topic. [chuckling] Again, they’re going to lock down social media. I think I mentioned that, but I didn’t really unpack it fully. It begins with this whole:

 

“Oh, we’re protecting people under 16 by not allowing them on social media!”

 

That’s just them getting their foot in the door when they can work out how to accomplish that and force the social media companies to abide by that rule, they’ll take the next step. Not really sure what the next step will be, but the goal will be to lock down social media specifically. And the final goal will be to censor the Internet in entirety.

 

I actually saw a video recently of a guy who managed to get his hands on two smartphones from North Korea. And both of these phones were totally locked down. They already come with heaps of apps, but they’re several years behind the technology of the phones we have available to us. There is access to the Internet, but it’s like an internal Internet controlled by the government. And you have to put your details in. You have to punch in all your details before you can use it. So they know exactly who you are and what you’re looking at, even though what’s available is still censored and controlled by them. Just in case you find a way to use that Internet service to get beyond what they can control, then they know who you are and where to find you and I found it curious because when I was watching the video, the guy presenting this information to people, he was like:

 

“I wonder if we’ll ever see the fall of North Korea in our lifetime. I think we will?”

 

And I laughed because I thought to myself:

 

“Not only are you not going to see the fall of North Korea and the circumstances in North Korea, you’re going to see those same circumstances implemented in the West. It’s actually the opposite. You’re not going to see the fall of stuff like this. You’re going to see it becoming a widespread thing!”

 

But at least North Koreans have national pride laced into their particular brand of communism, which is kind of like. What do they call it? It’s like National Bolshevism. Nazbol. I suppose that’s how you would summarize the North Korean system. The kind of totalitarian system we’re going to end up with is an Internet that’s totally censored and controlled. But you’re also not allowed to express any national or ethnic pride because that exhibits opposition to the dominant ideology within Western society, which is multiculturalism, everyone’s equal, right? So national ethnic pride is a problem for the current ruling ideology. So that won’t be allowed.

 

It’s almost like North Korea will be a preferable alternative. The system of North Korea will be a preferable alternative to what’s around the corner for the West. But I don’t know, maybe even though we’re going to go through a time where everyone’s going to jail for no reason other than ideology. You’ve got America. I just saw in the news recently that America is like, probing Australia to try to gather as much information on how corrupt Australia actually is and how much damage like multicultural dogma and mass immigration has done to Australia, where that damage has been done specifically and who’s responsible for it, at an institutional level. America is apparently collecting data on that subject. I’d say they’re pretty late to the party. It’s been going on for a long fucking time!

 

[1:12:08]

 

And my guess is the reason they’re collecting data is to work out how bad the situation really is and whether it’s reversible. Well, certain elements of America, anyway. It could just be all like certain elements of American government pretending that they’re going to do something to help Western society, but really they’re powerless to do anything at all because they’re too under the thumb.

 

Yeah, people like Avi Yemeni won’t go to jail. Yeah, I’m talking about, like actual Australian nationalists, not T-shirt salesmen. Not your (((dual citizens))) who really just are champions of Israel and some sort of subversive foreign policy. Would I even consider Avi to be a champion of subversive foreign policy? I don’t know. All I know is that this guy, you can’t compare this guy to an actual someone like me, for example, we’re totally different.

 

I actually watched Avi Yemeni kick Hugo Lennon. Is it Hugo Lennon? Auspill. Try to remove him from a rally. He claims that it wasn’t him removing Hugo. It was Nick Patterson removing him.

 

But it’s clearly Avi standing there arguing with him, coming up with reasons why he should leave:

 

“You’re a Nazi. You’re wearing a Helly Hansen jacket. That’s Nazism. How dare you!”

 

I thought it was amusing how Hugo accused Harvey of schizophrenia because I think there’s a high rate of schizophrenia in the jewish population. I think that’s statistically fact. It’s got something to do with their breeding patterns, or a genetic variation that produces higher levels of schizophrenia on a per capita basis.

 

But I don’t know, I’ve got to watch that again. I haven’t actually. I don’t have in my mind an effective memory of that video. I’ve only watched it once, so I did notice that not many people were on his side, though. Not many people appreciated Avi just yelling “Nazi” at Auspill because of a jacket brand he was wearing and having him removed from a rally when he was just standing there on his own, not bothering anyone, trying to listen to the speakers. Yeah, everyone in the comments was against him. That’s understandable why.

 

As I said, any real Australian nationalist is going to be focused on a single issue right now, which is stopping immigration. If they’re focused on anything else, especially “Nazi hunting”, you should just treat them as an enemy to the cause, because all they’re doing is diluting and detracting from that single issue, which is going to unite everyone! People can only be united by a single issue. The moment they detract from that issue or they’re detracted from that issue by someone trying to drag their attention away elsewhere, then the whole cause begins to crash. It’s very simple.

 

Well, thanks for joining me, guys. First solo stream I’ve done in several years. MaybeNextTime I will play that game. But funnily enough, to my surprise, I didn’t have any trouble talking this long. Usually I would have gotten bored 40 minutes ago.

 

So we got Superchats, don’t we? Is that how it works? We read out Superchats. I think I’ve got them all here, but I’m not entirely sure. Philip Mellor gave $5 and says:

 

“Hail Boomer Tech. I’ve missed my fix of the Joel and Blair Show.”

 

Am I Boomer Tech? I am pretty old now. Neil tells me that all the time. Neil Erikson, if you guys know who that is, an old friend of mine. He keeps reminding me that:

 

“Bro, we’re old now. You realise that there’s a whole new generation of activists. We’re the old guys now!”

 

I’m thinking:

 

“Yeah, I suppose he’s right about that. Fuck, when did that happen?”

 

Pedro Escobar gives $20.

 

Thank you very much. He says:

 

“Shekels for you. Hail Australia. You are the vanguard for us all.”

 

I’m just a guy, man! I’m just a guy in a room right now! But thanks. I do what I can. The Queen’s Guard gave $5 and says:

 

“Do you ever think you’ll inevitably have to take up a more free frontline position in nationalism again? Like starting up UPF again or becoming a politician or something?”

 

First we have to get through this period of going to jail for what we believe and surviving the political policing. We need to adapt to that and work out how bad that’s actually going to be. So first we need to get our doors kicked in early in the morning, get arrested, go to jail for ideological reasons. Work out how we’re going to get out of jail and then develop a strategy for stopping them doing that to us in the future.

 

So that’s what’s in the immediate future for us activists of the nationalist cause. We’ll talk about taking more frontline positions up again after we’ve been through that and adapted to it. Queens Guard again says, Gives $2 and says:

 

“Tell us about UPF days, Blair. Staunching pedos, [word unclear], bashing Antifa, etc.”

 

What do I say specifically? It was all very, it was all very impulsive. The United Patriots Front, I’ll be honest, on my behalf at least, it was all very impulsive. I didn’t really have much of a long term plan. I just had a Facebook page. We had that idea, that single issue, as I mentioned several times in the stream beforehand. And we just ran with it. We ran with it and we tried to affect public discourse as much as possible. And we knew eventually we had to build a political party.

 

But interestingly, as soon as we segued into building a political party, that’s when all the trouble started. That’s when I got charged, me and two of my colleagues, actually, we all got charged with what was essentially a speech crime for a Facebook post, “intent to incite ridicule” on Facebook. My bank accounts got frozen and deleted. I got blacklisted from Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, all within three months. And I couldn’t even communicate with my supporters to tell them what was going on in court. And suddenly due to all that random intervention, the political party was basically bust. And we didn’t really know what to do, because we didn’t have like a physical place where we all went. We didn’t have a physical membership necessarily. All it was a Facebook page. We just had social media and that was it.

 

And that was the mistake we made, I suppose, because at the end of the day someone just pushed a button:

 

“Delete them off Facebook, delete their bank accounts, charge them with hate speech. Done!”

 

[1:19:23]

 

 

It was that easy for them to get rid of us back in the day. I gotta be honest though, actually, I’ll tell that story another time. That’s a little bit too much for how much brain power I have remaining. The Queens Guard again sends $2:

 

“You should start vlogging, Blair. I was just thinking of whether Nick Patterson would have the same balls to confront and try to kick you out if you decided to attend one of his Zio-Christ coming events.”

 

Personally, I’ve never had an issue With Nick Patterson. And I went to his gym once. It was probably three or four years ago. I went to his gym and we did some training. Kickboxing training. He used to do kickboxing, I think it was kickboxing or maybe some form of MMA. And, yeah, he used to rant about Christian stuff back then, too. So he’s always been into the same stuff. But I don’t know. I’m not really in a position where I’m attending protests in the capacity of participating. If I was going to attend something, it would just be to listen. But Hugo Lennon just did that. He attended one of these rallies these guys had, just to listen to the speakers. And he was ejected because Avi decided he was a Nazi as a consequence of his jacket brand [Helly Hanson], which is the same brand I’m wearing, by the way. It’s becoming quite popular. It’s good stuff, actually.

 

It reminds me of Kathmandu before Kathmandu got shit! Kathmandu used to be good, quality merchandise, but then it’s like they sold out to some cheap shit! There’s different qualities of Chinese merch, right? There’s some good factories in China, and but they’re only like 10% of the factories, then 90% of the factories just dirt shit!

 

And it’s like Kathmandu started in the top 10% and then they ended up in the 90% ones. And now. Now it just sucks! Their merch doesn’t really feel good anymore. But this stuff feels like the way Kathmandu merch used to feel. It’s good shit!

 

The Bearded Indian sends through $8. Thank you. He says:

 

“Nazi smears. I respond, the National Socialist German Workers party dissolved in 1945. So does that make you a commie? And people usually shut the fuck up!”

 

Right. Are you saying you call people a communist when they call you a Nazi? I don’t think that’s powerful enough, personally. You’re better off calling people, anyone who says you’re a Nazi you can presuppose that they support mass immigration into the West. And so you should just call them a rapist! Because the immigrants that are coming into this country are, per capita, they’re committing more rapes than, like, standard Australians would, by and large.

 

So if you’re an advocate for mass immigration, you’re an advocate for rape. So you need to use language which is a little bit more potent than communist. You see, Nazi and racists. Racist doesn’t carry the same weight as it used to, which is why the media stopped using it. Because it’s been overused. But Nazi, or neo-Nazi and White supremacists. These are curse words which have a particular bite to them. And you can only match that level of bite with something like rapists or murderer! Rapists might be a better one. But you don’t need to concern yourself so much with whether or not the word can be applied logically or truthfully, because your enemy is not concerned with that, you just need to be concerned with the impact the accusation has and the effect it has on your opponent in an argument. So they call you a Nazi. You say:

 

“Well, you’re a rapist. You’re a rapist dog!”

 

You know what I mean? You can practice stuff like that you need to use language which is just as strong or has an even stronger impact on them than the Nazi phrase or smear has on you. Broden Nielsen sends $10. Thank you and says:

 

“Hail from Sweden!”

 

Well, hello back to you from Australia, Sweden. The only person I know from Sweden is Marcus Follin, also known as the Golden One. I can’t say that we talk all the time, but we occasionally nod to each other from across the pond, that is almost the rest of the world. We’re very far away. But he’s always been someone I’ve appreciated and sort of looked up to, Marcus. So whenever I think of Sweden, I usually think of Marcus because he’s the only person I’ve spoken to from Sweden.

 

I’m not sure what “gifted subscription” means, but thank you. Thank you to Broden Nielsen for that. And look, guys, I’m like, roasting in here! I’m cooking, so I’m gonna go pretty soon. I hope the stream has been comparably as entertaining as it would have been with Joel. I know that I can’t provide the same level of intellectual discourse that Joel can. It’s funny, actually, when you sit on stream with Joel, you feel kind of dumb when you listen to Joel’s platitudes and how excellent he is at actually phrasing or piecing together an explanation or argument, especially when you already agree with him, by and large, you kind of just feel like nothing you can say is going to match the level of intelligence that Joel’s put out there or expressed.

 

[1:25:18]

 

So usually what I do is actually try to play devil’s advocate with him and act like I’m opposing him on a few things because that actually tends to open his mind up even more.

 

Well, thanks, guys. I suppose that’s it. Cheers for joining me. Was there anything I didn’t touch on that I wanted to? Well, I hope no one is like, disheartened or believes what I’ve said here is like a black pill or something like that it’s not that way at all! When I say that everyone who is influential in nationalism is going to jail, it’s not that much of a big deal. Like, we have good prisons in Australia and it’s relatively easy to spend time in prison. It tends to be a bit of a holiday in my experience. However, I’ve never been to jail in solitary confinement as a result of my ideology.

 

But when you look at everything, the way it’s happening, what the Federal police are saying, the way they’re targeting influential people who are advocates for our kind of ideology, the ideology that I’ve always advocated for, then you just need to be objective about it. You need to be honest with yourself and you need to be like, okay, we’re going into a new threshold of political policing where just being me is going to be illegal! You know, just being a nationalist of the ethnic kind is basically going to be illegal.

 

And I don’t think anyone should be too concerned about that, though. It’s just part of how politics goes throughout history. Things get pretty bad and then they sort of settle down and then they get pretty bad again. And you shouldn’t take things too seriously like that because, I don’t know, life goes on for most of us, [chuckling] but it doesn’t concern me that much. Like I said, it’s all just part of the game. I just do what I can to make sure that it’s not too easy for them to throw me in jail for ideological reasons. As you guys know, I’m pretty careful with the way I word things and I keep my nose clean, so that’s about as much as I can do.

 

I hope the quality of this has been okay. I hope the quality’s been okay. I use one of these little Bluetooth mics because, how strange is this? I have this huge Rode microphone which is like, it plugs into your computer, like, USB attachment so it uses your computer’s power supply.

 

But then you’ve got this little thing here, this little Bluetooth mic, which is it operates through a receiver and stuff. But that little thing is like, significantly better quality and more powerful than this. How does that work? That’s like alien technology, lads. I don’t understand it. I remember how much I was astounded by our technology had developed after I got out of jail when I was younger. I went to prison in 2011, I believe. I think it was 2011. I believe it was December 2011, and I got out for the first time. I got out November 2012, right before my birthday, I think. And before I went to prison, I was working for a building company and we just had work phones with buttons on them. Just your standard, like, button phone. The company gave everyone these phones. It was just part of working for the company. It was the deal. And then I’m remanded in custody for a while and I’m out on bail, but then I’m back in jail, whatever.

 

And then a couple of years later, I’m out of prison, I’m on parole, and everyone has these smartphones. A friend of mine gives me an old apple iPhone 4, and for the first time I’m exposed to Instagram and Facebook on a phone. And I’m like:

 

“Fucking, wow! Where the fuck did this technology come from? How does this even work?”

 

You know how people speculate that during the Second World War, Hitler must have been in touch with aliens or something, because how did he manage to develop all of this crazy technology that no one else has heard of? How did they build jet planes for the first time? And I don’t even know. There’s like a long list of technological developments that the Germans were responsible for during the Second World War.

 

And it’s like I feel the same about the development of all this micro technology, the smartphones, and how much data that they can actually fit on a solid state drive these days, which is like as big as your finger. Considering how fast it developed, it’s fucking incredible! It doesn’t make a lot of sense how we went from like Nokia brick phones when I was like 13 or 14 to literally like five years later, everyone’s got an iPhone. Like, how did it develop that quickly? I think the way, you know, someone in tech would explain it is everything just got like, shrunk down and multiplied, and they just kept shrinking things down and things kept multiplying, shrunk and multiplied over and over again!

 

All right, well, I’m glad the quality of the stream was good. I didn’t expect it would be going through just OBS. But 65 Stoney sends $20. Thanks, mate. And he said:

 

“Drop Turtle Wow Server and Faction Blair currently on classic anniversary.”

 

Hang on, I’ll have to look it up. Have to look it up. I’ll have to log into it. Hang on. What server am I in? Definitely I play Alliance because I’m not a degenerate mutant. Yeah, I’m Alliance Master Race.

 

[1:31:20]

 

I’ll probably show you guys actually. Let’s jump on. If I go display capture and I put this down here like that this is my hardcore character. I’ve got a few characters. I’ve been playing this server for about. I’ve been playing the server when it first came out, I think. Oh, shit! Hang on. Let me make sure I kill this guy. Just going to move my streaming thing over here to this screen so I can see what I’m doing. I’m getting lag. I don’t know. My bags are full.

 

So, yeah, this is my Paladin. He’s level 37. I made this character probably about two or three years ago. That’s how much chance I get to actually play this game. But I’ve had to be really careful. Had to be very careful with this character because if this character dies, he’s gone! It’s just over for me. As you can see. If you play actual Vanilla World of Warcraft, you might notice that the talents are slightly different and my abilities are slightly different too. In this one, you get a combination of strikes which actually make playing Retribution Paladin a little bit more interesting. You get Holy Strike and Crusader Strike, which share a cooldown. So you choose between them and they provide unique buffs. So you ideally want to use both of them when you’re fighting something. I’ll give you an example here.

 

So this is the best Seal you get, which is Seal of Command. It basically gives you a chance to do double damage on an attack. And because I just used. Because I just use Crusader Strike, it increases my attack and casting speed by 3%, which stacks three times. And then Holy Strike gives you strength increase, which is also stackable. I’m gonna die, man! What am I doing? Imagine if I died. This character, that’s years old, you forget how much. Oh, don’t heal! Fuck you! Don’t worry. I still have ways out here. I’ve still got bubble. Oh, I’m out of here. You can’t take any chances, guys, on these hardcore characters. Let’s get the fuck out of here before she comes back with her mates.

 

I really should do some work. I’ve got to start making money. Yeah, see, she’s coming back with her mates. I told you. And look at my health. This is what they do. These fucking mongrel half breeds! Look at them! Half horse, half human. What an abomination! I shouldn’t be here anyway. I don’t know what I’m doing around Moradin. Let’s head back.

 

I’m about to close the stream. I think of I don’t think I want to become one of those video game streamers. Someone said once, actually, that the day Blair starts streaming a game is the day Australia, …

 

[stream ends]

 

 

[1:34:14]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 1/12/2026 = 57)

goyslopdesigns
2 days ago
blair is chronically correct and early on censorship and overreach. been a month tho buddy give us a stream

katana17
2 days ago
[Blair Cottrell – The Joel Davis Situation – Jan 9, 2026 – Transcript] https://katana17.com/2026/01/09/blair-cottrell-the-joel-davis-situation-jan-9-2026-transcript/ [In this video Australian pro-White activist Blair Cottrell gives us an update on Joel Davis, a political prisoner being held in Sydney’s Long Bay Correctional Complex, in a punishment cell without basic amenities, all for making a social media post critical of the politician Allegra Spender who had called for him and other NSN members to be jailed for a peaceful legal protest urging that the all-powerful jewish lobby in Australia be abolished. That lobby has had Davis denied bail and held in detention since he was arrested on Nov 20, 2025, at Bondi. – KATANA]
1
0

Delete
TheHender
1 week ago
I notice that you ask Joel obvious questions or devil’s advocate questions (the ones people think are ‘black pill’) so that Joel can lead off from there and expound on that topic. There is a reason for this and it seems a lot of people just don’t get that. It is that or you’re just a dumb dumb, Blair hahaha
1
0

TheHender
1 week ago
I enjoy playing games while listening to podcasts. Currently on a spreadsheet-like game, Football Manager 2024. Or I will be on Turtle WoW while listening to the backlog of you and Joel. Add me if you want: Waughloch

TheHender
1 week ago
The moment I heard about the Social Media Ban for young people, I knew immediately they were aware that the “H*tler Youth” is rising and the government knows it. They’re trying to get ahead of the game.

kitsubot
VerifiedSupporter
1 week ago
The far right whites worldwide should converge on the only white nation left with free speech and gun rights – namely the United States. We are the only nation with a chance, our right wingers are out breeding liberals, we out voted them several times recently, and the Australian stock are descended from people who left England and Ireland to build again. It is your heritage to leave when the government oversteps their bounds. As a heritage American myself i welcome the real Aussies to come build with us here where we still have a shot. We can always come back and conquer Australia with u again in the future but for now you are welcome here.

goyslopdesigns
2 weeks ago
one stream a month? I thought this dude was an influencer

leibekohne
3 weeks ago
Blair I would blame Australian melting Pot non-white situation women not because they are weaker vessel but because they are evil by not having children. Those young unvaccinated white bitches who hate men =misandry should fuck them and have every year child,saying “I do not know who the father is, there were few of them it was one day stand, I was drunk”. gov. will pay them and give housing at least that way they will blocked street shitters and other non-whites scum savage aboerectus out of free housing market. I know is bad advice but better then die young of alcohol drugs and be replace. Perhaps bastardized children will fight for us those treasonous filth politician and feminists.

leibekohne
3 weeks ago
Is jew? word allowed, Hitler is banned??in Australia??

SolarStormMan
3 weeks ago
Been waiting for you to do a solo stream while Joel is locked up. Hopefully the Joel and Blair show can return in early January
1
0

whitehonkymonkey
3 weeks ago
the thought police have arrived so its up to us to be smarter and find some other way to get around there BS laws.

goyslopdesigns
3 weeks ago
bro is an influencer but can’t stream once a week and only pulls up for an hour on other streams

Gabe0007
4 weeks ago
I’m at 31 minutes mark. Blair! YOU’RE WRONG..!!!!!!!! WRONG!!! >>>> There’s another way, big man! THE ONLY WAY FORWARD OR YOU, AS WHITE AUSTRALIANS WILL BE NO MORE!!!!!!! CLICK ON THIS PICTURE!!! : https://i.imgur.com/50D5YeO.jpeg You WHITE Aussie boys either UNDERSTAND this or you, as White Australians will be no more. ( I cannot type it more simple as this. ) And I don’t want it, you don’t want it, none of us WHITE MEN want it..!! But there will be no other peaceful option.

Gabe0007
4 weeks ago
Meanwhile here in the f.cked up UK…. : Woman’s little daughter was denied by LEFTIE ( all schools are fkn’ leftist here! ) SCHOOL, – because of her mother’s hurty words! LINK : https://freespeechunion.org/lucy-connollys-daughter-banned-from-new-school/?v=7885444af42e

TACTICALBOY88
4 weeks ago
Merry Christmas Heil Brother o/ 110

MigC
4 weeks ago
I could listen to this man talk all day. God bless you, Blair.

Sinagoglies
4 weeks ago
Oh, that’s why downplays Israhell and MoSSAD, glorifies war and unjust invasions; and doesn’t like conspiracies!? Occultist Joel & co always plays down soviet fake Israel and glorifies war Kosher Collett and Joel Davis (Antifa Man) https://www.bitchute.com/video/XsI7RgOHpdVG Joel Davis Baphomet Tattoo https://www.bitchute.com/video/ijm47i4rYBkd Thomas Sewell admits to Snitching (and Black and Tans in his family (British Bolsheviks) attacking and invading Ireland. https://www.bitchute.com/video/hoOljtlDj2vb Occult Forces (1943) National Socialist Anti-Freemasonry Film https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW4NzVxhnUg The hard-line anti-occultist faction within the NS movement was concentrated in the SD, the Sicherheitsdienst or “security service” of the SS under Reinhard Heydrich (Roman Catholic). They were largely kept in check from 1933 to 1941 by other NS officials including the staff of Rudolf Hess Thomas Sewell wants esoteric Hitlerism! I see now– Joel loves his trance techno non music! Psytrance music bridges the divide between secular and religious Jews in Israel https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/community/articles/dancing-on-common-ground https://harvardindependent.com/kleztronica-how-techno-raves-modernize-traditional-jewish-music/ Jewish Techno Party https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep_35FTnYVA&list=RDEp_35FTnYVA&start_radio=1 https://supertravelr.com/en/trip/israel/heres-ultra-orthodox-jewish-sect-israel-rave-trance-music-7E4A9E9D97/ In 1933, the Vatican signed a Concordat with the Hitler & the Nazi Party. This made the Vatican the first state of officially recognise Nazi Germany. Find out more on our online resource https://www.concordatwatch.eu/showkb.php?org_id=858&kb_header_id=752&kb_id=1211 HITLER SPEAKS OF CHRISTIANITY AND HIS AND GERMANY’S CHRISTIAN FAITH https://www.bitchute.com/video/vBiW14nRKDNI/ https://www.wikiart.org/en/adolf-hitler/mother-mary-with-the-holy-child-jesus-christ

IcarusWax
4 weeks ago
We will win.

jonkvh
4 weeks ago
Great stream Blair.

Bigboy6669
4 weeks ago
hail

DonaldDucktator
Supporter
4 weeks ago
Wow, you really nailed the ending of this solo stream Give yourself some credit this was very enjoyable.

TVR_
4 weeks ago
Great stream Blair

amundsentb
4 weeks ago
Great stream!

wyrdweasel
4 weeks ago
Haven’t seen the recent ‘Frankenstein’ but the director Guillermo del Toro is a leftist so not surprised it’s a fail with no balls. Try the 2014 film ‘Unbroken’ for the true survival story of a WWII airman who went through hell (surprisingly well directed by Angelina Jolie but don’t let it put you off).

loosifur
4 weeks ago
https://www.linkedin.com/in/lucy-manly-8a2aa851/

shorterboy
5 weeks ago
Use TOX or SimpleX to create online spaces

› Show 1 reply
shorterboy
5 weeks ago
Frankenstein was written by a woman, your supposed to feel sympathy for the alien because female sex preferences

shorterboy
5 weeks ago
buy yacht a starlink mini and make them work to catch you while sail the coast

TinyHatRemover
Supporter
5 weeks ago
“You’ve had too much to think” -Australia police
9
0

SomerledsBlood
5 weeks ago
here’s a movie recommendation for you Blair: The Proposition (2005)
3
0

› Show 1 reply
Goraxium
5 weeks ago
The funniest part of Joel’s arrest is that ASIO has warned the government about men who do not believe that there is a political solution to the bullshit the government is forcing on people, and the government is proving it. “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable”. ASIO needs to start arresting politicians for their deliberate attacks on social cohesion, because if there is no political solution…
3
0

Girnigoe
5 weeks ago
Good to find you streaming! Greetings from America. Joel will be avenged and return to erode the social fabric again! Here’s to the White Australia Party. The ZOG knows how popular it will be, and what a problem it will be for them, probably even more so than what happened in Germany recently. Hail!
8
0

Tachibana88
5 weeks ago
I watched The King on Netflix recently, and it was actually really good. it’s from 2019, about the rise of Henry V.
2
0

charliebrownau
5 weeks ago
Gday Blairs Solo Sunday Stream was really good I hope he continues it each Sunday No Victory without Struggle _________ Regards Charlie b * Email – charliebrownau@protonmail.com * Videos – https://poast.tv/c/charliebrownau/videos * Telegram – t.me/s/Charliebrownau
2
0

DJTriumph
Supporter
5 weeks ago
Blair watch Mr Inbetween, its a great Australian series
4
0

› Show 1 reply
WhiteBitchTripleSix
Supporter+
5 weeks ago
I prefer to fidget while learning as well. Especially when I had to sit in a class for 8 hours a day..
3
0

CovenantSolidier
Supporter
5 weeks ago
Hail from Montana brother
9
0

FellowComrade
Supporter+
5 weeks ago
I love how Blair is so measured in his perspective. He has seen shit and created things. Been through a lot, but still comes across as a good guy who has his mind in the right place. Gotta appreciate anyone who can handle the world coming down on them and retain the twinkle in their eye.
11
0

DJTriumph
Supporter
5 weeks ago
I genuinely sense a sadness in you Blair like you really miss your friends when they’re locked up, as a man you wanna be surrounded by your mates building something positive
5
0

TraskJackson
5 weeks ago
Heck-yeah. Glad to be here.
9
0

Cardiff4
Verified
5 weeks ago
Great Talk Blair. I empathize with your frustration of technology, it gets to me sometimes as well. Your mic/sound and video quality were really good. For a minute I thought you were in a jail cell…. solid white walls. haha. Glad your not. Cheers Mate. Looking forward to hearing from you again. FREE JOEL….. Helly Hansen
13
0

GreenGladeAryan
5 weeks ago
The Iron Claw 2023
1
0

Ethereal1562
5 weeks ago
Good to see you Blair. You mentioned the rapid development of technology after you got out of prison, and WW2 etc. You might find Diana Pasulka’s research on ‘human satellites’ and NASA’s secret programs, where they receive ‘downloads’ of information, interesting. Sounds schizo, but she is a legit professor and researcher.
2
0

TheShowgun
VerifiedSupporter++
5 weeks ago
Fuck i didn’t know you were streaming!! If you do this regularly I’ll definitely be here and donating my guy. I’ll pay attention to telegram for noti’s from now on. o/
15
0

AngloSaxon88
5 weeks ago
Even here in Scandinavia Blair and Joel are missed. It’s great to hear from you Blair!
30
0

Greatsouthern
5 weeks ago
Is anyone else being asked to “verify” their rumble account?
2
0

› Show 2 replies
Greatsouthern
5 weeks ago
Great to hear from you Blair.
33
0

› Show 2 replies
LachlanMD
5 weeks ago
Heil
14
0

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yes, Sunday morning. Yeah.

 

Greg Johnson: Okay.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So the first point that he makes is:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[07:17]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[13:19]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[20:10]

 

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

 

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

 

I started thinking, you know:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[26:52]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[33:24]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, of course.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[39:51]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Which historically is what nationalism generally means.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Okay, so what’s your critique of that?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: It’s imperialism. Right?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[47:24]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[53:49]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:00:10]

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:07:22]

 

Greg Johnson: What’s stopping us?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And that means that, …

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

But the point is that, …

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:15:07]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: They pose no threat!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:21:40]

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Will Germany and France fight it out?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

[1:27:09]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

That’s what politics is about.

 

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

 

[1:33:57]

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Absolutely! Absolutely!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

That’s fantastic!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:40:47]

 

 

Greg Johnson: Absolutely, yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:46:16]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Well, I would agree with that.

 

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

 

“We need to step over this.”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:53:28]

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yeah.

 

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

 

So that’s not a reasonable:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And right now our race is being genocided! Right?

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, yes and no.

 

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

 

[1:59:26]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Absolutely.

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: I absolutely agree with that.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And there’s no way of doing that!

 

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

 

[2:06:39]

 

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

 

[2:50:10]

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

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

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

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

18
0
Hide replies

@v0lum3
6 months ago
Hitler dindu nuffin

2
1
Show reply

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

Hide replies

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

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

Continue Thread

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

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

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

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

16
2
Hide replies

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

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

4
1

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

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

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

9
1
Hide replies

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

4
0
Earthling Carl
6 months ago
Easy Joel W.

10
3

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

9
2

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

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

10
3
Hide replies

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

7
0
Hide replies
ThinRedLine
6 months ago
it does

5
0

@Arilando
6 months ago
Of course you can.

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

2
0

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

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

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

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

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

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

6
2
Hide replies

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

2
1
ThinRedLine
6 months ago
Hail Joel

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

5
3

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

2
0

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

5
3
Hide replies

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

Hide replies

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

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

Hide replies

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

2
0

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

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

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

4
3

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

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

1
2

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

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

6
0

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

2
3

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Graham Connolly: The concept is kind of like, to rehumanise the dehumanised.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s what I’ve always tried to do.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: But the government is always trying to do the opposite. The government’s always trying to paint you as a monster!

 

Graham Connolly: Yes.

 

Blair Cottrell: And what’s concerning now is the threshold of political policing. As I’ve already mentioned, there’s nothing they won’t do to paint you as a monster! There’s nothing they won’t cook up.

 

Graham Connolly: That’s right.

 

Blair Cottrell: So it’s like I’ve had everything, almost everything under the sun thrown at me at this point.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: You know, but I’ve tried to keep my chin up and just take it all in my stride. The thing is, as long as you can always explain, as long as you have the ability to still communicate with your audience and explain your point of view then you’re generally okay. But that’s the problem with censorship. They shut down your ability to explain the full story.

 

Graham Connolly: And that kind of leads me, actually, to something I did want to ask you about, is that for a while, you seem to take a back step, or you took a step away a little bit, or maybe not a step away completely from fighting. You’re always been a fighter. From Tom’s approach, maybe, like, you might not necessarily agreed with his approach for a while and maybe took a back step or stepped away from it. Would that be a fair way of putting it, or?

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. It happened sort of especially as we moved into the pandemic and the Covid fiasco.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And it just seemed like there were new priorities at that time. It seemed like the whole public consciousness moved away from political ideology and was focused more on vaccine conspiracies and survival.

 

And so that’s kind of where I refocused myself for a while.

 

But then when all of that settled down and kind of people realised that it was all just smoke and mirrors, most of it, then the priority became politics once more, and it was mostly about that.

 

Also initially, I didn’t believe the ninja outfits. The black block.

 

Graham Connolly: Yes.

 

Blair Cottrell: I didn’t think owning the neo-Nazi label would work. I thought that people were potentially too Hoodwinked into associating Nazis with a certain bogeyman, with a certain evil, and that was so ingrained in the consciousness of people, I doubted they were able to ever accept Nazism as anything other than evil.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. And you’d never get past that first sentence, almost like you literally, it’s just cognitive dissonance kicks in straight away and you can’t break through that wall.

 

Blair Cottrell: Pretty much. And I spoke already about the government’s internal counterinsurgency efforts. Part of that is also to when they isolate groups like Tom’s group, groups like White Australia, National Socialist Network. When they isolate, they try to radicalise it further. So they try to push you into taking more radical position, doing more radical stuff, saying more radical things, because that, in their view, isolates you more from your resource base, which is the public.

 

And so I saw going down the trajectory, initially I thought taking on more radical position was giving the government what they wanted.

 

But what I wasn’t, or what I underestimated was the ability of Tom, of Jacob, Jack Eltis up in Sydney, their ability to still appear cool and stay popular even while being more radical. I underestimated that. I didn’t think that was really possible. But I should have, because you remember Ziz? Ziz was this Australian cultural phenomenon who was like super aesthetic. He gave birth to the bodybuilding aesthetics movement. His brother’s still alive.

 

But anyway, he said that if you look good enough, you can basically sell anything. You can get away with anything. And I was kind of trying to push that message for a while, too. I was trying to get the guys to be as healthy as possible, get fit, present themselves well.

 

Graham Connolly: Yep.

 

Blair Cottrell: Not only to present a more professional appearance, but to appear as something that was respectable to the public and it was a good way to sell any message is to look good. But I think by putting that out there and by Tom basically understanding that, in essence, he was able to incorporate that, and he’s almost made Nazism cool somehow. I didn’t think it was possible.

 

Graham Connolly: When I first started, I was still at the stage where I was calling myself National Socialist, but when somebody would call me a Nazi, I thought I was very clever. When I turned around and I’d say:

 

“Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! That’s just a derogatory name for a National Socialist. Like, you’re the type of person that doesn’t use derogatory language, I thought, but here you are, the media is calling me a Nazi. I’m a National Socialist. That’s just derogatory!”

 

And I said this to the boys, thinking I was all clever and all that. The boys, like:

 

“Nah! Just own it! Like literally just own it!”

 

[05:20]

 

Blair Cottrell: And I think there’s an effort to rebrand Nazism or to reclaim National Socialism as a genuinely popular counterculture to the current system. And there’s been real progress towards doing that. I initially, I was wrong. I initially didn’t think that was possible. And there is still a large part of me that isn’t sure if it’s possible in the long term.

 

If you look at what’s actually happened in response to the attempt to popularise National Socialism, there’s been, as I’ve explained, even a higher threshold of political policing.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Tom’s in jail now.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: The guys in his group are experiencing all sorts of legal problems. There’s charges left, right and centre. A lot of the charges are just cooked up out of nothing.

 

Graham Connolly: Absolutely!

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s vicious corruption and it’s going to probably go further.

 

Graham Connolly: Yep.

 

Blair Cottrell: But at the same time, I don’t think that’s a reason to give up because that would mean, well, every time the government cooks up a bunch of bullshit you’ve just got to give up. It doesn’t make sense.

 

Graham Connolly: So yeah, historically it that that sort of policing has its limits too.

 

Blair Cottrell: It does because they can’t. The problem, the government right now is walking a tightrope. They’re running the risk of delegitimizing their own system in order to take out a rising popular nationalist group. And there’s kind of, there’s arguably only so far they can go before it basically threatens the foundations of this so-called democracy. I’m under no illusions about living in a democracy. I don’t believe that the concept of a democracy is anything solid, anything like truly observable. It’s kind of like a catchphrase that people use to try to pretend that they’re representing freedom and air system of opinion or representative government. But what I’ve experienced since the beginning of my political activity is just nothing but discrimination, corruption, lies and just constant bullshit basically.

 

So I haven’t experienced any democracy.

 

Graham Connolly: No, you haven’t.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. No, but I don’t think there’s any limits, put it that way. The boys seem to think that the government has to work within a certain threshold of rules. They pretend they do,

 

Graham Connolly: They don’t.

 

Blair Cottrell: But I don’t think they actually do. I think they’ll just cook shit up at the end of the day.

 

Graham Connolly: I think that’s why you got to, in a way you got to stay the course because the longer you can stay the course like you have done, for example, the more chance there is for more eyeballs to see you and I think that boils down, down to. If you take, if you boil down National Socialism to what it really is, and that is you’re a working man, I’m a working man, right? We go out, we pay our taxes, we do this. I want my taxes to go to the benefit of my family, my extended family, my people, which is a socialism to an extent. I want to work. I want to work to help those less fortunate. I want to work to help women to stay at home and raise their children. I want to do these things. I want my taxes to go to that sort of thing. I don’t want my taxes to go to millions of Indians coming in to turn my people into a minority here, Ireland.

 

Blair Cottrell: No sensible person would want that.

 

Graham Connolly: Nope. So deep down, most people are not just White people, most people are National Socialists! Like, if you boil it down to what it actually is, most people are socialists for their own people. Like most people are nationalists. And then the most generous of those nationalists are National Socialists.

 

Blair Cottrell: You know, what does socialism mean to you?

 

Graham Connolly: Well, that’s what it means to me is basically that the strong, the healthy are willing to go. I’m willing to work and for the fruits of my labour to go towards my people, my family, my neighbour, my extended family, etc, but that’s who I want to benefit from it. Otherwise it’s slavery to me. Otherwise what I’m doing is slavery.

 

Blair Cottrell: But so what you’re saying is you’re happy to work for an extended community. As long as that community is yours.

 

Graham Connolly: As long as it’s mine. Yeah. And it starts with, I think like when you look at loyalties, how Right-wing loyalties go. So it starts with your immediate family, your extended family, your neighbour, your street, your neighbourhood, your town, your, etc, etc. It grows like that. But it starts with family and then grows out from there. I think that’s my hierarchy of loyalty. When it comes to the Left-wing, their hierarchy of loyalty is whatever the government tells them. Basically. They have no loyalty to their own family, they have no loyalty to their own tribe, their own people.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, they kind of represent an international socialism. What we call Leftists. I don’t like to use the phrase Leftists, but I do because it means something to standard viewers of podcasts like this. But really all a Leftist is someone who has been effectively conditioned by the system into buying into international socialism.

 

So they’re thinking along the similar lines we are in essence, but to them the group is all of mankind and all the races of mankind. So what they need to do is work for the benefit of other races before their own in order to create this global equality system, which in essence is going to destroy their race!

 

Graham Connolly: Exactly!

 

Blair Cottrell: But in their mind that’s a good thing because their race, … And it’s most exemplified by statements made by Australia’s Indian born race discrimination commissioner. He believes that you can’t be racist against White people. It’s not possible because White people have social power. Therefore racism isn’t possible. Like it’s not possible to ethnically discriminate against the power class of White people. Not only is it not possible to do it, but you still should do it because when you discriminate ethnically against White people it brings them down from their position of power and creates a more even playing field for all the other races to compete. So it’s not possible, but you should also do it at the same time. It’s good! [chuckling]

 

[11:24]

 

Graham Connolly: So based on that logic, Nazis can’t be racist because Nazis have the least amount of political power in the current system. Yes, we’re White.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s an interesting thought! [chuckling]

 

Graham Connolly: Yes, we’re White. Yes, we’re White. But as a group we have the least amount of political, …

 

Blair Cottrell: You can be racist because the only victims of racism is anyone who’s not White. That’s what he’s saying. It’s because you can only be a victim of racism according to far-Left theory, people like race discrimination Commissioner. You can only be a victim of ethnic discrimination or racism if you’re not White because you don’t have social power.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And this is coming from a guy who’s on almost half a million dollar salary paid by the government to sit in Parliament and say that. [chuckling] Yeah. So who has the social power?

 

Graham Connolly: But you could take the logical cs. I’d like to take that logic to him and say:

 

“So Nazis have no social power in the current climate!”

 

Blair Cottrell: No institutional support.

 

Graham Connolly: No institutional support. The least amount of support from anyone. Nobody’s going to help them out.

 

Blair Cottrell: Their bank accounts get shut down! So much power do they have? [chuckling]

 

Graham Connolly: So thank you! We can’t be racist! That’s bullshit though, because I’m racist as fuck!

 

Blair Cottrell: What is racism to you?

 

Graham Connolly: It’s just tribalism. It’s just another word like, everybody is tribal!

 

So I think it’s since the dawn of time, since the first villages. Would you protect your village from an approaching warring tribe?

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, you’d probably be kicked out of the village if you refused to. So there’d be certain incentives.

 

Graham Connolly: You’d be considered a coward!

 

Blair Cottrell: Or you need the village anyway, so you need to protect it. Because most people depend on a community network. There’s a saying that anyone who doesn’t need anyone else to survive is either a wild beast, or a God.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And none of us mortals down here are gods. So and there’s not many people that really qualify as wild beasts either. So we all depend on each other to some extent.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: Let’s say you’re an isolated tribe. Let’s say go back as far as you want to go. Like, put yourself in the mind of a caveman, and you’re in the first village. You haven’t even met any other villages, so you don’t even understand war. And then a warring tribe comes and starts to ransack your village or whatever.

 

Blair Cottrell: Obviously, you’re gonna fight.

 

Graham Connolly: Your instinct straight away is to protect your children, to protect your wife, to protect your neighbour, protect your, …

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s necessary in order for a village not to fight amongst., … In order for a tribe to actually maintain cohesion and not split apart, it’s necessary to have an outside enemy.

 

Graham Connolly: It is.

 

Blair Cottrell: Every civilisation, nation in history has had an enemy that has united people against that enemy.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Even our civilisation today, the global civilisation that we call this egalitarian multicultural society, it has an enemy which unites everyone against that enemy. And that enemy is White people!

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, White people.

 

Blair Cottrell: You see? So there always needs to be a collective opponent to any civilisation structure. And right now, the creepy thing is that you and I are sitting here, we are that enemy! The society considers us an enemy.

 

Graham Connolly: Well, you do The Joel and Blair Show, and Joel actually tried to introduce us to a book. Carl Schmitt. What was the name of the book? I’m forgetting, but it was basically the “friend and enemy distinction”. That’s what the whole book was about. It was exactly that. It was exactly that! Every group has an enemy.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, it almost needs it. That’s if you’re going to unite a series of different nations, it’s much better for them to have a common enemy than it is for them to have a common interest. Because humans are more easily motivated by their negative impulses rather than their good nature. Because humans are more bad than they are good. And the religions of the world understand that better than anyone. Because the way the religions organise people is if you don’t do this, we’re going to torture you. Or if you behave this way, you’re going to burn in hell for all eternity. So it’s fear and self interest which motivates humans. Like, let’s say you’re going to get a few different tribes together and you’re going to say:

 

“Oh, hey, if we all work together, then we’re going to be able to build a really nice civilisation on that next hill over there.”

 

People will be like:

 

“Yeah, okay.”

 

But then if you come and say:

 

“Let us all band together and destroy those evil bastards on the other side of that hill!”

 

Everyone’s there with bells on, you see!

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

[15:52]

 

Blair Cottrell: So it’s like, that’s just the way we’re geared. It’s human nature to be more motivated by your negative impulses.

 

However, when you’re aware of that, you can become more. Yeah, you can develop the self control. You can have developed the consciousness to not always give in to your negative impulses. Right. But that’s something for the individual to explore and, it’s in the realm of self mastery.

 

When we’re talking about collective politics, we’re kind of discussing methods where we can actually motivate large groups of people by appealing to their negative impulses, which is essentially what politics is. You’re trying to unite people against a common threat, whether real or imagined. The benefit we have is the threat that we face as a people in this country is a real one! And we don’t have to lie to people. The situation we’re in is a bad one. Our enemy is there. It’s real and it’s aggressive! It’s working against us. So all we have to do is tell the truth! That’s all I’ve ever done is tell the truth!

 

Graham Connolly: Exactly!

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: And then you don’t have to worry so much about being judged by the enemy either. Like the enemy who has all the power to judge you and to smear your name and to do all this sort of thing. All you have to do is use truth as your shield.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s as simple as that.

 

Graham Connolly: You asked about racism. What is racism? Racism to me is as well, just to come back to that, is that it’s in my interest to defend you.

 

Because if you lose, I lose kind of thing. If you get beaten. Like, if we’re no difference between on a night out, let’s say we’re on a night out, and you get jumped by three or four guys. It’s in my interest, and like, I’m with you. It’s in my interest to defend you, or else we both get bashed. If I defend you, we might lose. We also might win.

 

Blair Cottrell: Right.

 

Graham Connolly: And to me, it’s the same thing on a tribal level.

 

Blair Cottrell: So what the opposite of racism would be running away to save yourself.

 

Graham Connolly: Yes.

 

Blair Cottrell: What would you call that as opposed to racism? Individualism?

 

Graham Connolly: Individualism, I suppose.

 

Blair Cottrell: Nihilism?

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Not believing in anything but yourself.

 

Graham Connolly: There’s a cowardly aspect to it even. Not being racist there’s the cowardly aspect to it.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. It’s normal to be interested in self preservation.

 

Graham Connolly: And self preservation expands to the preservation of your tribe. It has to. Because if your tribe survives, you have a better chance of surviving. You know, you survive in numbers.

 

Blair Cottrell: Especially through the winter.

 

Graham Connolly: Especially through winter. And we’re Europeans.

 

Blair Cottrell: Have you seen, whose philosophy. Whose idea was it? It might have been David Duke. His idea was that the reason different races developed on the earth was mostly due to climate conditions.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, I agree with that. Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: You do agree with that?

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, 100%. Yeah. So we had to figure out how to survive winters. Do you know how dark it is in Ireland in the winter?

 

Blair Cottrell: And cold.

 

Graham Connolly: You can’t grow anything.

 

Blair Cottrell: You got to work together to stockpile food. You got to keep the food protected.

 

Graham Connolly: You got to figure out how to make that food not go off.

 

Blair Cottrell: You got to make weapons, you got to make shelters.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Whereas if you’re in the eternal summer where you can just pick berries all year round. [chuckling]

 

Graham Connolly: Exactly! Just open up your teepee and fucking shoot a deer on the way past.

 

Blair Cottrell: It makes sense. However, I don’t believe the different races of man are purely the result of climate conditions.

 

Graham Connolly: Probably not. I think it’s more IQ. I think IQ is probably, has climate as a big factor, I think.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, because I said earlier on in the show that I lean towards creationism, I think we all did stem not from the same organism. I Think we’ve stemmed from slightly different, either experiments or organisms.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, I agree with that as well. Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

So there’s a multitude of reasons why there’s different races on the world on the earth.

 

Graham Connolly: Like this out of Africa theory is complete nonsense!

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s already been debunked.

 

Graham Connolly: The out of Africa nonsense, absolute garbage!

 

Blair Cottrell: It was a lie from the start. It was just a lie to try to get everyone mixed race, basically. And why would, like, why do you think? Because we were talking about that before the show started, I remember. What’s this big urge to sell the mixed race person as like a desirable thing? What’s that about?

 

Graham Connolly: I think it’s the “ultimate goyim”.

 

Blair Cottrell: Why is that?

 

Graham Connolly: Because it’s the ultimate slave race. Because you end up having no tribal instincts. So there’s less opportunity for uprisings.

 

Blair Cottrell: No national loyalties.

 

[20:14]

 

Graham Connolly: No national loyalties. No racial loyalties. No tribal loyalties. Get rid of tribalism altogether. If everybody’s just the same shade of brown, then, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Everyone’s a number on screen.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. And I think you’re still going to have this ruling class of jews more than likely. Fake jews. And what they’re trying to do is they’re trying to create their promised goyim. Like they’re the ultimate slave, really isn’t it? Beasts in human form. That’s what I think it is. I think, the whole point is to create the goyim, like to create this biblical goyim.

 

Because right now White people don’t fit that they don’t fit into that. Like you can’t be sending rockets into space and shit and be considered a goyiom. [chuckling] You know what I mean? To be considered a beast in human form, we don’t fit the mould.

 

And so we need to be put in our place. We need to be downgraded. We need to be devolved into a goyim, like into a beast in human form. Into a slave to serve.

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s curious though, because in Judaic religious text it says that’s what non-jews are already.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: But it, as you said, it doesn’t really fit. That story doesn’t really add up at the moment. So there’s an urge to make that a reality.

 

Graham Connolly: That’s my theory. I think that’s right. I think they’re trying to fulfill that, like as if it’s a prophecy rather than what’s there at the moment.

 

Blair Cottrell: In Mein Kampf, Hitler writes on this subject that if there’s only one race on the earth which preserves its identity while all the others interbreed, the race which preserves itself must, with mathematical certainty, rise to become master of the Earth.

 

Graham Connolly: Absolutely! I agree with that. Yeah. And makes sense, doesn’t it?

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, Hitler was a big, I don’t want to say enthusiast. That’s not the right way to describe it, but he was big on encouraging people to read The Protocols of zion, which. Have you read those?

 

Graham Connolly: Parts of yeah, over the years. Usually in blog posts and stuff like this.

 

Blair Cottrell: And it’s of course called a forgery. They say that it’s not real. But what the Protocols are if you’re watching this and you have never heard of it, I’d be surprised if you haven’t. I mean, if you’ve arrived at the Offaly Offensive podcast, you don’t know what that is, I’d be surprised.

 

But for the odd viewer who doesn’t, it was said to be the written minutes of a meeting of jewish intellectuals who basically detail their methods and plans for taking over human society, or non-jewish human societies.

 

 

 

Graham Connolly: If it’s forgery, how is it so accurate? [chuckling]

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, that’s what was said by characters like, I believe, a US President, or perhaps it was even Henry Ford, but don’t quote me on that. Someone said they read it and they thought it was very informative. And he was critiqued for it by a journalist at the time saying:

 

“Oh, it’s a forgery. Didn’t you know it’s a forgery?”

 

And the way he [Henry Ford] responded was that he said:

 

“Well, even if it is a forgery, it seems to explain in precise detail exactly what’s happening in the world.”

 

Graham Connolly: Exactly what’s happening! Yeah, that’s what’s crazy! But forgery?

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. You can look it up online.

 

Graham Connolly: Who went to the effort of forging such a thing?

[See: Guide to Kulchur – The Protocols of the Elders of Zion – Andrew Joyce – Nov 22, 2020 — Transcript]

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, apparently it was stolen. The way it was explained to me, it was originally in, I believe, either in Hebrew or Russian, or it was translated into Russian from Hebrew by someone, and it was stolen by a Russian prostitute who was in cohorts or in contact with the people in the meeting somehow.

 

And then that prostitute ended up selling it to somebody else. And it eventually made its way through Europe and was translated into different European languages.

 

And that’s how it came into the hands of Adolf Hitler. And it’s curious because Hitler mentions the protocols specifically in his book Mein Kampf, and he says:

 

“Once The Protocols become the common possession of every German. (In his own words) the jewish menace will be considered as defeated.”

 

So he believed if he could get everyone a copy of the Protocols, to get them to read it and understand what it meant, then they would basically reject Judaism for a thousand years in Germany. They wouldn’t accept it again. They would understand the threat that the jewish people posed to the Germans.

 

Graham Connolly: Because it’s not good enough to just defeat the people. Their ideas have to be defeated.

 

Blair Cottrell: But what I’m saying is Hitler was influenced by the Protocols, big time. He believed them. He didn’t think they were a forgery. And that’s got to be one of the primary motivators which drove Hitler to take the action that he took. Which is pretty significant when you think about it. It’s arguable, but if Hitler never came into contact with the Protocols of zion and never believed it, then would he have been the man he ended up being? Who knows?

 

Graham Connolly: Interesting!

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. But the point is that that document has had an extraordinary impact on many men throughout history who have ended up being notable, whether it’s in American politics or European politics.

 

So if you haven’t browsed that document, I recommend you do! You don’t have to believe it’s real. Go into it with an open mind. Read it for yourself and see what you think.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, read that and read the Talmud. [chuckling] You don’t have to read the Talmud! I just mean that when you take the two of them together, though, it’s like, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Do you know what the Talmud is? It’s a series of books, like 13 different volumes.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. Wasn’t it written by rabbis? It’s much more recent than Bibles or anything like that.

 

[25:22]

 

Blair Cottrell: Certain classes of jewish rabbis basically believe that they’re gods in human form almost, that they argue with God and win, and that they have the most extensive wisdom and big jewish brains that no goyim could ever dream of containing within their small goy skulls. And they basically just write down laws and rules for jews to follow in order to keep them a separate people and make them believe they’re the master race of the world. And that over the last couple of thousand years or so has kind of collected over the time and different rabbis have added to it. Some rabbis have challenged other rabbis and been killed for it.

 

So they’ve really fought to try to keep this pure version of jewish law, which isn’t really pure at all! It’s just like a collection of arguments and claims made by different respected rabbis who had the power and influence to make those claims in their respective times. And it’s put all into these volumes, which is like, there’s like 13 different volumes. And there’s a lot of stuff in there. It’s very specific stuff. But if you want it all summarized in something readable there’s a book called The Talmud Unmasked*.

 

I can’t remember who authored it, but I know it was translated, I think, by a Roman Catholic priest who ended up being executed by the Bolsheviks during, …

 

[* “The Talmud Unmasked” is an 1892 work by Justinas Pranaitus. Generally regarded as anti-Semitic, it is a collection of quotes from the Talmud and Zohar that the author claims illustrate that Judaism promotes hatred towards non-Jews to the point of promoting murder. Contents include: “Justinas Pranaitis”, “Jesus Christ in the Talmud”, “The Christians”, “Christians Must Be Avoided”, and “Christians Must Be Exterminated”. Justinas Bonaventura Pranaitis (1861 – 1917) was a Lithuanian Catholic priest who worked as Master of Theology and Professor of Hebrew at the Imperial Ecclesiastical Academy of the Roman Catholic Church in Saint Petersburg, Russia. Available as PDF download: https://archive.org/details/talimud-unmasked-by-prenaitis-the-justinas-bonaventura-pranaitis]

 

Graham Connolly: The jews hate when the goyim know about the Talmud.

 

Blair Cottrell: You’re not supposed to, … Apparently communicating the secrets of the Talmud to the non-jews is akin to the murder of all jewish people. Because if the goyim knew what the jews taught about them, the goyim, then the goyim would just kill jews openly. That’s what they say in the Talmud!

 

So basically what that means is they’re desperate to keep their holy religious teachings secret.

 

But then there’s, … Look, it depends on who you believe, because some jews will tell you that the Talmud isn’t the most holy texts to Judaism, it’s the Torah.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: There’s Talmudic Judaism and then there’s the more Orthodox Judaism, which is the Torah. But apparently that’s what they do to lie. Because apparently the Talmud is revered as the most holy text among all their different sects. However, it depends on who you believe.

 

Graham Connolly: It does. Yeah. Because you do have these Orthodox ones that even seem to be against Israel and stuff.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. But you get that in every community, you’re always going to get offshoots. Like, we have plenty of White people who hate White people and want them to basically cease to exist.

 

Graham Connolly: It’s true, isn’t it?

 

Blair Cottrell: And they’re in government! [chuckling] So in every race, there’s people who don’t like their own race. But I think the norm for the jews, you know, 90, 98% of jews do believe that they’re a special and separate people and they want to remain that way. They’re a fascinating race, the jews.

 

Graham Connolly:

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: In fairness, you kind of almost have to take your hat off to them. Just done a good job at trying to achieve what they’re trying to achieve. Like, if you laid out a goal to literally eradicate their White race, like 100 years ago, it would have sounded like an impossible task. Like a fantasy! Like how could it possibly be achieved?

 

Blair Cottrell: A lot of the methods, if, …

 

Graham Connolly: Deception!

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, a lot of the methods used by jewish intellectuals to deceive European or European extension nations today have been repurposed from what’s been observed by British colonials and the French Revolution and empire.

 

And so even though there’s always been jewish intellectuals living through, or not always, but living throughout European society, for the last couple of thousand years, they’ve been able to watch and learn a great deal from the warlike nature of the Europeans. Because we are a race that conducts war in a way that’s very effective. The Anglo specifically. We’re good at war. And the jews have been living in our societies watching us be good at war.

 

Graham Connolly: And so the most effective thing they’ve done, though, is make us war against each other.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yes. If you want to put it down entirely to jewish influence. But there’s always. How should I describe “complicit individuals”?

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. Oh, yeah, absolutely!

 

Blair Cottrell: Who, like Churchill, for example.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Who are playing a very dirty role. And I don’t know if it’s for their own gain. I don’t know whether they’re in on it from the beginning. I do know that Churchill was critical of the jewish people early on in his political career, but ended up. I don’t know. I know that people, for reasons of tribalism, like we’ve discussed, to some degree, they can be easily pitted against each other as a result of that tribalism.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And I know that Churchill, at least at some point in his life, was an English patriot and he was worried about the expansion of the German empire. Right. He wasn’t pro-German at any point in his life.

 

Whereas the Prime Minister before Churchill, who was, … What was his name again?

 

Graham Connolly: No, I wouldn’t know. I’m, …

 

Blair Cottrell: He visited Germany and he was an admirer of Hitler. It was Chamberlain, I think.

 

Graham Connolly: He was admirer of Hitler?

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, he was. He visited Germany.

 

Graham Connolly: Well, I know that a lot of the English people at the time, like the version of history we get now that we think was always the case. Was not always the case. Apparently Hitler was pretty popular among the English people.

 

Blair Cottrell: He was Time magazine’s Man of the Year at one point. And this is before the war because he was considered a bit of a phenomenon before the war because he was able to turn Germany’s economic situation around.

 

[* Hitler as Man of the Year by TIME magazine, Jan. 2, 1939. From TIME magazine (https://time.com/5573720/hitler-world-influence/): “Hitler appeared on the cover of TIME on multiple occasions — most famously perhaps on Jan. 2, 1939, when he was named Man of the Year. That choice abided by the dictum of TIME founder Henry Luce, who decreed that the Man of the Year — now Person of the Year — was not an honor but instead should be a distinction applied to the newsmaker who most influenced world events for better or worse. In case that second criterion was lost on readers, the issue that named Hitler dispensed with the portrait treatment that cover subjects typically got. Instead he was depicted as a tiny figure with his back to the viewer, playing a massive organ with his murdered victims spinning on a St. Catherine’s wheel. Underneath the stark, black-and-white illustration was the caption, ‘From the unholy organist, a hymn of hate.’”]

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

[30:58]

 

Blair Cottrell: Which wasn’t an easy thing to do at the time because Germany was in peril before, when Hitler came to power. And one of the reasons Hitler came to power was because Germany was in such peril.

 

Graham Connolly: The Weimar Republic.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. And Hitler just actually beat the communists at their own game, because it seemed like the communists were capitalizing on Germany’s situation to try to take power at the time. But by observing how the communists were conducting themselves, Hitler basically repurposed their own methods, but for the cause of National Socialism. And he beat them at revolution. He did revolution better than the communists. But he learnt it from the communists at the same time.

 

But I think the communists were seen almost as a foreign force in Germany, maybe. And Hitler was a soldier. He was a proud German. He was a racialist. And the Germans at the time, especially with Hindenburg, who was considered a bit of an icon by Hitler. Hitler actually really respected Hindenburg. Hindenburg was a German ethnic nationalist, a racialist. I think that racialism really appealed to the Germans at the time, and they weren’t ready to accept communism for that reason. And that’s just evidence that having a strong ethnic consciousness, an understanding that you are an exclusive race and that is important, actually protects you against international subversive movements like communism. Which is another reason they probably want to destroy race. Right?

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: What do you think? Do you think they can achieve it? Like, I mean, they’ve obviously made great inroads in the last hundred years, but what do you think about these movements like Tom’s, like ours that’s grown here in Australia, growing world-wide? How do you think it’s going to go, going forward? Do you think we’ll. Do you think we’ll see a sort of a rebirth of nationalism coming back? You know, history to say is cyclical? Do you think we’ll start to make inroads? Do you think we’ll start to take bites out of this big communist apple that we’re fucking fighting against?

 

Blair Cottrell: There’s two immediate obstacles that I sense.

 

The first one is increased lawfare, so more police harassment being targeted with even worse accusations, that kind of thing. Basically trying to stay out of jail.

 

But the second, I don’t think anyone’s kind of safe from that either. You don’t necessarily have to be National Socialists, just have to be effectively critical of the government and feeding nationalism somehow.

 

Graham Connolly: Well, there’s a guy in Brisbane who’s not one of us at all who was charged for throwing Romans at the March for Australia.

 

Blair Cottrell: There you go.

 

Graham Connolly: And he hasn’t been charged with the state laws. He’s been charged at the federal level.

 

Blair Cottrell: They want to put him in jail.

 

Graham Connolly: One year minimum.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: The judge has to put him in jail for one year minimum.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s what they’re investigating me for. And they raided me on no evidence. They had no evidence! They just came up with the idea that I did it and they raided me. And I don’t know what they hoped to gain, but there’s that happening in the immediate future and that can take many ugly forms, because if they’re going to be raiding people on no evidence, that’s not much different from just inventing evidence to get you in the courts, to get you in jail, to screw with your reputation.

 

Then I sense that not too far away either is another crisis of some point of some sort.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: That will be imposed by the international system.

 

Graham Connolly: Yep.

 

Blair Cottrell: I think Covid will have been a warm up compared to what the next one will be.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, I think you’re probably right. Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: I think they will try another pandemic type situation, only this time it will be worse and there could actually be a virus which is worse. I do think they’re going to aim for a culling because there’s actually just too many people. There’s too many people to effectively manage at this point.

 

So the idea is to like just fill the Western nations with as many people as possible from around the world, create chaos, then impose this crisis. Use the crisis to significantly reduce the population and then impose a more totalitarian regime on the remaining people who survive. That seems to be the only mathematical way forward for the international system.

 

Graham Connolly: When you see the international system acting like they’re acting right now, do you also see an increase in the amount of people that are pushing back against it? Like as in people are starting to go, whoa, hold on now. So even people that were just completely blind to it, completely asleep to it all, completely just cognitive dissonance and all that sort of thing. Do you think that there’s a certain threshold where more and more people, even people you wouldn’t have normally expected, will start pushing back?

 

Blair Cottrell: Definitely!

 

The problem is when people are left to their own devices and to try to figure things out on their own, they go down their own rabbit holes. And in order for people to effectively revolt, they need a sort of a centralised movement to follow. Yeah, people don’t revolt on their own if there’s not an organised or pre-planned system they can follow.

 

Everyone just ends up in their own head and thinking they have all the answers.

 

[36:10]

 

Graham Connolly: And I’ve noticed this with a lot of people that get to the Truther movements and the anti-establishment movements and the conspiracy movements, a lot of people know instinctively that something is not right. They’re not being told the truth on most things.

 

But then a lot of people don’t have what I would call “discernment”. And it’s almost like a superpower in these movements to have discernment. It’s so important to be able to discern between the disinformation that’s been fed to people in order discredit you. Because it’s so easy to discredit yourself these days, if you represent any position that is wrong, like if you tell the world that Blair Cottrell is Shane Warne’s son, cuckg for example, you lose your credibility. [chuckling] Right.

 

Blair Cottrell: You know, well, this is one of the reasons why United Patriots Front blew up in popularity, because there was already a lot of discontent in society surrounding immigration, specifically Islamic immigration, due to certain cultural factors and incidents.

 

But then I came along and said:

 

“Well, here’s our enemy. Here’s who we are for a start. We’re Australians, we’re patriots, and these people over there, they’re our enemy. Down with them! Let’s go!”

 

And so then everyone gets on board because someone comes along with a simple explanation that’s very hard to disagree with, …

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: That no one can really disagree with. And everyone’s preconceived ideas of what the problem is, it all fits into the broad space that I’ve left by making such a simple explanation.

 

So everyone feels represented and so everyone begins to move in the same direction.

 

So what you want to do as a revolutionary or as someone who wants to create a populist movement or can even just contribute to it in a small way, you’ll know you’re making success when you’ve got you can spot conspiracy theorists, your truthers, your Nativists, and then your nationalists and then your National Socialists. All these different groups which only have loose connections but are all going in their own direction and arguing. When all of those groups start to move together in the same direction, following one man’s message, then you’ve got a movement!

 

[issue with the audio]

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, we had a little sound problem there.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: But I think I was asking you if you see any similarities between the recent March for Australia on August 31 that we just had, and the UPF.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, March for Australia is much bigger. Much bigger! Much more sudden!

 

Graham Connolly: Because you were just talking about how bringing together all these different groups, the Nativists, the National Socialists, the truthers, conspiracy theorists, and it just made me think of that because it kind of felt like a little bit like that.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. It’s happened organically, which is interesting. It means that people are experiencing pain, social, financial pain, and they’re associating that pain with immigration.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Now the government is trying to gaslight people into believing it’s not the source of their pain. It’s all of these mathematical economic factors that just need to be fixed by crunching some numbers.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: No, it is immigration. And everyone knows it! And so that’s what’s driving this phenomena. So there’s opportunity there for anyone who wants it.

 

Graham Connolly: And no one can deny that almost every person at March for Australia was White!

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

I mean, there were some people who weren’t, but it’s almost like the people at March for Australia who weren’t White, it’s like they’re kind of spiritually White or something. They have the same mindset, and they’re kind of connected to the movement, regardless.

 

That’s probably because, I don’t know, there were some weird people I saw in other states, you know, celebrating their multicultural. How should I put this? I’ll rephrase that. Celebrating their foreign brothers. Did you see the picture of that old guy with his arms around the black people looking up to the sky with a smile on his face?:

 

“I’m such a good person!”

 

You know, the other day I was at the gym and I noticed something. There’s always that guy at the gym who talks really loudly to the black guy, as almost like a way of signaling that he’s a good person because he’s talking to the black or his friends with the black guy.

 

Graham Connolly: He needs everybody to hear him. He’s talking louder than he would normally speak.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. And he’s being, …

 

Graham Connolly: And he needs everybody around him to see him.

 

Blair Cottrell: That, and he’s being unnecessarily, unusually kind to the black guy, to the point where even the black guy is kind of like:

 

“What are you doing, bro?”

 

Graham Connolly: It’s really a feminine trait, I find.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. And I think I’ve inspired it sometimes because I think some guys in the gym might know who I am.

 

And so someone feels it’s necessary to go over there and have a really loud, friendly conversation with the black guy, in spite of me or something, as though I care! [chuckling]

 

Graham Connolly: Do your thing there!

 

Blair Cottrell: But anyway, weird people at March for Australia. Some weird people. But overall, it was a cultural phenomenon which is very similar to UPF. Funnily enough, it’s happened almost exactly 10 years afterwards.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And then 10 years prior to that was the Cronulla riots, which would have happened before you arrived in Australia, when I was still a young fella.

 

So it’s like every 10 years there’s some sort of organic cultural response to the foreign presence in Australia.

 

Graham Connolly: Do you have any thoughts on how we could keep it alive this time, not let it peter out and have to wait 10 more years for another? Sort of like how to capitalise on what’s just happened.

 

Blair Cottrell: Register a political party! Get everyone to support the political party.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

[41:46]

 

Blair Cottrell: Make it cool. Make it popular.

 

Graham Connolly: Like you were saying a few minutes ago, where it has to get be all these different groups coming together, but they have to be behind somebody. Like, they have to be led by, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Something legitimate, something tangible has to result. Something permanent has to come as a result of phenomena like this.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: If you’re just going to use it like I did with UPF to try to start this Facebook page which turns into a protest group, then it can kind of just be shut down.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Like all they did was censor me from social media, take me to court on Trumped up charges, close my bank accounts and that’s it! Its done.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And for the government, that’s not that hard. And they also learnt that they can shut down future protest groups the same way.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Which they will.

 

Graham Connolly: Well, a lot of these March for Australia people are all just online personalities. Like they’re not, they don’t have any structure or any organisation. We are the only ones that actually have some organisation, some structure, some community like events that we put together. A political party that we’re putting together.

 

Blair Cottrell: Sorry, I just like some nuts. So they’re all in my teeth.

 

Graham Connolly: Oh, [chuckling] that’s all right. Yeah. So we do have that structure this time. Or at least we’re almost there. You know, we’ve got the numbers for the political party. Almost. I’m sure if we pushed hard for it, we could get them pretty much.

 

Blair Cottrell: I do think the March of Australia should be leveraged to get a political party registered.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Because then there’s something tangible and permanent and official that has resulted from the phenomena. The problem you’re going to have though is the bureaucracy of the current government is basically set up to make sure you fail.

 

So they’re going to come up with reasons not to register your party, …

 

Graham Connolly: Absolutely!

 

Blair Cottrell: And you’re going to have to basically take them to court and you’re going to have to spend the time, money, labour in the courts, basically suing the hell out of them for discriminating against you. And that’s the mistake I made going into politics. I didn’t have any money when I started criticising the government. And it might sound superficial, but unfortunately, you can’t do anything without money.

 

So when the government closed my bank accounts, censored me, took me to court for hate speech, I couldn’t defend myself. I couldn’t sue the bank for closing my accounts. I couldn’t sue the government for discrimination. I couldn’t sue the social media companies to get me back up. And I couldn’t develop any sort of method because I had no money! Right. I needed a building of lawyers to sue the fuck out of everyone who was screwing with me!

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: To push back and create a precedent to say:

 

“You can’t do this again!”

 

Instead, I was just a poor guy. I was just a carpenter from the suburbs with a phone.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And so I was easy to squash. If I could have my time again, I would get rich first. Because I’ve actually figured out recently that’s quite easy to make money in the current system, with social media and the kind of technology we have, it’s not hard to make good money if you’re really focused.

 

Graham Connolly: I was actually going to ask you about that the cost of being you. Like and being a truth teller.

 

Blair Cottrell: You know, it’s cost me everything.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s cost me everything. But it’s forced me to learn how to make money through alternative. It’s forced me to be more entrepreneurial, you might say.

 

And so I’m using an online coaching service right now! I’m building an online coaching service, and already I’ve started making decent money through it. And I’m also providing a very valuable service to people that improves their lives as a result of it, too.

 

But I’m not going to plug that. I’m not here to plug that at the moment because it’s still in the works. It’s kind of operating behind the scenes. And it will be something that I’ll be plugging in the future once it’s completed and in full swing.

 

Graham Connolly: But your whole adult life has been you unfiltered, basically. No matter how much pressure to put on you stayed unfiltered. You stayed true. You stayed telling the truth! And you have suffered because of that.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s all I know how to do, though.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And life is suffering. If you don’t suffer, you get weak.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: So you have to go through some threshold of suffering in order to stay strong and sharp.

 

Graham Connolly: You and Tom have known each other a long, long time. You had the UPF days, You had the Lad Soc days. What sort of thoughts went through your mind when you were watching Tom give his speech from the steps of Parliament?

 

Blair Cottrell: I was proud of him.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: I was impressed by how far he’s come, by how steadfast he’s remained in what he believes, no matter. No matter what! No matter what’s comes, he’s just held his head up high and he has refused to stop believing in the victory of Australian nationalism for a single moment. He hasn’t spent a single moment thinking, this isn’t going to work.

 

Graham Connolly: No, no.

 

Blair Cottrell: He is completely dedicated to the goal of victory.

 

[46:21]

 

Graham Connolly: I was in Brisbane that day, and when I seen the video start coming through of Tom with the podium. With the speakers on the steps of Parliament with that crowd there, it was a surreal moment. I was like fuck!

 

[See: Thomas Sewell’s Speech at the March for Australia Rally in Melbourne – Aug 31, 2025 – Transcript]

 

Blair Cottrell: I was worried for him, I gotta be honest. I was thinking:

 

“Are the people ready for Tom Sewell? Are they gonna accept this?”

 

And I did give him some advice, prior, because he told me he was planning on giving a speech. And I said:

 

“Mate, I don’t know if it’s the right decision, to be honest.”

 

But he told me:

 

“I’m doing it. I don’t care!”

 

And I’m just like:

 

“Ahhh.”

 

And he said:

 

“No, I don’t care! I’m doing it!”

 

And I’m like:

 

“All right, do what you want.”

 

But I’m thinking:

 

“Fuck!”

 

I was so nervous seeing him walk up there, because I was thinking:

 

“Are people going to scream at him? Are they going to, …”

 

But then everyone cheered! Everyone loved it! And I was just like:

 

“Whoa, whoa. He did it!”

 

Graham Connolly: What a moment, man!

 

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. And it’s like I realised in that moment that I might have been wrong about everything. I might have been wrong about, as I already said, about National Socialism always being a demon to society. Maybe it won’t always be that way. And maybe things are already changing.

 

Graham Connolly: Maybe if the people that are representing that aren’t demons. Maybe if the people that are representing it are actually the ones fighting the demons! [chuckling]

 

Blair Cottrell: Correct. But that’s the thing. They’re going to take new measures to make us out as demons now.

 

Graham Connolly: Absolutely, they are!

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. And so that’s why we have to stick together, I guess. Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Anyway, it’s been a good night.

 

Graham Connolly: I was just about to say that sounds like a really good spot to end it. Yeah, that was awesome!

 

Blair Cottrell: It was. It’s gone really quick. And it was a very conversational podcast.

 

Graham Connolly: It was. Yeah, look, I thought a lot about this. I was going home. Like, do I do this really structured thing? Like, I went back and forth with different ideas and how I should do it.

 

But really, it’s because I was talking to a few other people and we’re kind of putting ideas in my head and stuff like that. But really all I want to do with this is talk to people.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: That’s the truth! I don’t know if you’ve ever, … You know, I had the idea the Offaly Offensive 20 years ago, man!

 

Blair Cottrell: Really? You just sat on it?

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. I just sat on it. Because this is before I was National Socialist, but I was like since 9/11 kind of thing, and after that and stuff like that, because trying to wake up your own family and it didn’t seem to be working. I was like:

 

“Maybe there’s a way to do good work like this and get the word out there to more people and stuff like that.”

 

But I just never seemed right or whatever.

 

And I remember recently, I don’t know if you ever heard of a guy on YouTube called The Leather Apron Club.

 

Blair Cottrell: No, I haven’t.

 

Graham Connolly: He does lots of videos, but he did one on Joe Rogan and he literally just data! He breaks down all. Every guest. Like, out of thousands of guests Joe Rogan has had on, actually, I think it’s thousands of episodes, but it works out to be about 900 guests because some of them are repeat guests. And not including MMA, not including, like action guys like mountain climbers, stuff like this, all the political guests, comedians and stuff like that, people who comment, who have basically an influence on how the world thinks 48% of them or 46% of them or something are jewish!

 

Blair Cottrell: Really?

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: I didn’t know.

 

Graham Connolly: And he goes through all the data. He goes:

 

“Look, I’m not going to draw any conclusions. I’m gonna leave that to you guys. I’m just going to present the data.”

 

It’s called The Leather Apron Club. Really, really great video. Brilliant video.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, what conclusion do you draw from that?

 

[See: Nobody knows that HALF of Joe Rogan’s Guests have THIS in common.]

 

Graham Connolly: Well, he’s [Joe Rogan] not really alt-media. Like, he’s, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Or maybe the people who are influential in society a lot of them are jewish.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: So they’re the people who you would bring onto a podcast.

 

Graham Connolly: Maybe. Maybe. Yes. But yes, true, true. But there are 2% of the population, 46% of the influential guests?

 

Blair Cottrell: Like there’s probably a similar threshold in the ruling class.

 

Graham Connolly: The guy actually draws a good comparison. He goes:

 

“You might not think much of that. But let’s do a comparison here. The Native American population are also 2% of the population. If 48% of the political guests of the Joe Rogan podcast were Native American, you would ask the question. You’ll be like, Jesus! Like, it seems like a lot of these guys are Native Americans.”

 

Blair Cottrell: You got to admit, though, like, jews are more interesting to listen to than Native Americans.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And that’s it. They’re just like, they’re usually more influential, more powerful, more wealthy, or they’re at least interesting to listen to because they know how to turn a phrase. They’re mercantile people, the jews. And part of being mercantile is being able to speak well.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: To sell.

 

[50:49]

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, true, true. But I still think there’s more to it than that.

 

And also then he does not just Joe Rogan, he does Russell Brand. He does all these top podcasters. All of them. And every one of them is the same story across the board.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: And I remember when I seen that, and that’s a few years old now, but when I seen that, it was kind of like another inspiration to do it.

 

And part of the inspiration was to only have people on my podcast that Joe Rogan wouldn’t have on his.

 

Blair Cottrell: So the 2% of the population were Nazis. You’re going to interview all them? [chuckling]

 

Graham Connolly: I’m going to interview people that Joe Rogan would never interview!

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, fair.

 

Graham Connolly: And I don’t think Joe Rogan would interview you, for example. He might because, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Because I’m not like, big enough, I don’t think.

 

Graham Connolly: No, but even if you, … I don’t know, man, but even if you were, I don’t think he won’t interview Tom. He’s not going to interview. Like, Tom could get as big as he wants. Maybe by the time Tom is that big, it would be more acceptable to interview him. But I can’t see it happening. Like, there’s a lot of well known nationalist people that he’d never have on.

 

Blair Cottrell: You know, the truth is I know how to build a YouTube channel. I know how to make videos that’ll get a lot of views.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: I know how to do it.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And I could do it pretty much anytime I want to do it.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And sometimes I do dabble in it a little bit. Sometimes I’ll make a little clip.

 

Graham Connolly: You’ve made some really good videos recently.

 

Blair Cottrell: But there’s something holding me back, and it’s the concern of where the culture’s at right now! And I feel like I’m just a sitting duck basically because I don’t have any money. So the idea is that before I build that platform and before I make the videos I want to make, I want to be able to protect myself legally.

 

Graham Connolly: The truth is, I think that was partly what was holding me back for ages as well. And I’ve done the same thing. I was like:

 

“I want to get myself financial freedom, this, that neuter and blah, blah, blah, blah.”

 

And I think eventually, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Maybe it was excuses? For me it’s not an excuse though. Like for me, I’m genuinely focused on making money right now! Like that’s what’s taken up most of my consciousness.

 

Graham Connolly: About 10 years ago, I got to a point where for the first time in my life, I wasn’t what I would consider a broke person. I was like:

 

“I had money. I wasn’t worrying about bills.”

 

I got to that first stage of wealth is what they call. The first stage is where your bills come in and you just pay them.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: And I ain’t there anymore! [chuckling] Since Covid things have taken a downturn.

 

Blair Cottrell: Wasn’t it disappointing. Like I lost pretty much everything of the small amount of stuff I owned. I just like sold most of the stuff to keep surviving.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Because I worked for myself. I didn’t qualify for any sort of like jobkeeper that everyone else was getting. I didn’t take anything from the government during Covid I just sold stuff. Then I started a personal training business because I was thinking to myself:

 

“Well, everyone’s sitting at home getting fat. So everyone’s allowed out an hour a day. I’ll offer people 45 minute training sessions. We’ll go out into parks and do group sessions. I’ll make some money that way. Everyone’s being paid money by the government to sit at home and do nothing and get fat.”

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: So I’ll offer them something where I can make some of that money for myself and in return give them something to do.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s how I started my personal training business.

 

Graham Connolly: Wow!

 

Blair Cottrell: And so that’s how I built my first clientele. But I’m glad it happened in a way because it got me away from construction. Even though my family’s pretty big into construction, it was never that interesting to me. I was always more interested in people and working with people.

 

Graham Connolly: It seems like a natural draw for you.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Graham Connolly: All right, Blair, well, thanks many for coming in.

 

Blair Cottrell: Good on you, mate. Well, thanks for inviting me. It’s a wonderful setup you’ve got here. Really impressive that you’re getting it started and I hope it goes well for you.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah, thank you very much. Thank you very much. Any idea who I should have on next time?

 

Blair Cottrell: I’ve had a think and I think maybe Matt Trihey. He might be a good one.

 

Graham Connolly: Yep, he might be great to have on.

 

Blair Cottrell: Matt Trihey is an influential guy in the March for Australia movement.

 

Graham Connolly: Yep.

 

Blair Cottrell: He definitely has some sway there.

 

Graham Connolly: He’s interesting as well.

 

Blair Cottrell: He is. And I’d love to see. I don’t know if you’ll do it, but I’d love to see the Damien Richardson. I’d love to see him jump on and hear his side of the story.

 

Graham Connolly: I love to interview Damian Richardson.

 

[54:51]

 

Blair Cottrell: He’s got that Nazi salute charge going on and I haven’t heard his side of the story. I know why he was charged and what it was for. And it was really unfair.

 

Graham Connolly: Really unfair.

 

Blair Cottrell: Bullshit!

 

Graham Connolly: Unbelievable, man!

 

Blair Cottrell: And he needs some support.

 

Graham Connolly: He does.

 

Blair Cottrell: And I think the lawyers are going to tell him:

 

“No, no, no, don’t talk about it!”

 

But it’s after the fact, so it doesn’t matter what you’re saying.

 

Graham Connolly: Yeah. I think he’s been keeping his head down for that reason probably too. And I feel bad for the guy, man! It’s fucking, …

 

Blair Cottrell: He’s a good bloke.

 

Graham Connolly: He’s a really good bloke, man! Yeah, just a down to earth, honest. Honest to God. True blue Aussie. A good bloke. Yeah, I’d love to have him on. I might try and contact him and see if he do it.

 

But look, if he wouldn’t, maybe he do it in the future. But he’s definitely one I’d love to have on.

 

Blair Cottrell: Once he gets going he’s the kind of guy who’s, this is my opinion. He’s the kind of bloke, he’s like:

 

“Oh, you know, …”

 

But then once he gets going there’s a fire in him! There’s a passion and he just goes crazy! He just goes off! And that’s what I love to see. I want to bring that out of him more. So yeah, we’ll see.

 

Graham Connolly: Awesome! Awesome!

 

All right, man! Thanks a million! Thanks for coming in.

 

Blair Cottrell: Good on you, Graham.

 

Graham Connolly: Cheers.

 

Blair Cottrell: Cheers mate!

 

[55:52]

 

[Outro video]

 

[56:12]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 10/25/2025 = 25)

katana17
just now
[The Offaly Offensive – Blair Cottrell – Part 1 – Oct 12, 2025 – Transcript] https://katana17.com/2025/10/19/the-offaly-offensive-blair-cottrell-part-1-oct-12-2025-transcript/ [In this video Australian pro-White activist Blair Cottrell joins Graham Conolly on his The Offaly Offensive channel for an in-depth discussion about the cost of right wing activism in Australia. Items discussed include:
1. The host introduces Blair Cottrell as “one of the most notorious and scrutinised figures in Australian activism” for a discussion about his decade in public activism.
2. The conversation begins with confusion over Blair being mistakenly identified as “Shane Warne’s son” during Covid-19 discussions about vaccine theories.
3. Graham reveals he recently had his first child, born at home without midwives: “We had her here in this very living room. Just me and Katie. No midwives even.”
4. They discuss unvaccinated children, with Blair noting: “I have noticed that the kids that don’t get vaccinated and so forth, they don’t seem to have many problems.”
5. Graham explains his background: “I grew up in Ireland. Moved here when I was like 23”, and describes his Catholic upbringing.
6. He describes sectarian divisions in Ireland as cultural rather than serious: “It was light hearted… You still snipe at each other… It’s a tribal thing.”
7. Graham discusses getting a dog during Covid and the responsibility it entailed: “When the novelty wears off a dog, that’s when you find out who you are.”
8. They explore the unnaturalness of suburban life for both humans and dogs, with Graham noting dogs on medication for anxiety in Western suburbs.
9. Blair traces his awareness of pharmaceutical manipulation back to 2008, observing depression advertising: “Are you feeling down today? It could be depression. Call this number… Trying to convince everyone they were depressed.”
And more, …

Delete
Snow_Whitee
14 hours ago
I think the Offaley offensive is a great name too by the way and love the intro to this podcast!!
1 like

Snow_Whitee
14 hours ago
I unfortunately still feel like that most people wouldn’t be able to accept Nazism as anything but evil. I think the black bloc is really effective though. In my opinion those boys look exceptional, gives a vibe of strength, discipline and organisation. Solid
1 like

TTFOLEY1914
3 days ago
Most interesting convo heard in years
1 like

JillKews8841
4 days ago
Fantastic content, thanks to both of you.
1 like

Gailmaree
4 days ago
It was a pleasure meeting you on Sunday and look forward to your next interview
1 like

‹ Hide 1 reply
KineticKelticKlansman
Admin
3 days ago
Lovely meeting you too. And your little puppy.
0 likes

ThomasB1986
5 days ago
Great interview. The mic volume was much better this time. Can’t wait for the next one.
1 like

TheQueensGuard
Supporter
5 days ago
30:26 why does blair pronounce it chamber “lane”
1 like

Anaximander1488
Verified
5 days ago
it’s great to listen to Blair, always filled intellectual curiosity
1 like

Jenny3819
Supporter
6 days ago
Another great show guys!!! Thanks for properly entertaining me. I do appreciate it.
2 likes

StonePony88
Supporter
6 days ago
Pretty good so far. Thanks.
2 likes

Angelalee0
6 days ago
What great chat. Blair is just a wealth of knowledge, could listen all day. Blair starting the ball rolling 10 years ago and Tom has taken the ball and ran with it. I hope NSN takes off and continues to gain traction. Australia needs it.
3 likes

somethingforthisbox
1 week ago
Forgery, like a painting as close to an exact copy of the original
2 likes

Dimma1313
Supporter
1 week ago
Hey my man! Fine tuning the flow as you go! Loved it. Could have listened to 3 hours of this! Great work buddy!
5 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
KineticKelticKlansman
Admin
1 week ago
Thank you brother. I appreciate that very much.
1 like

mrwordsworth
1 week ago
this was the coziest chat with some of my favorite racists. thanks fellas
10 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
CountFrogDeFroggyFrog9000
1 week ago
Fake Punch? https://youtu.be/gYQXawHJLCg?si=Pg_hZUr1-vp54tmT
0 likes

MonThirteen
1 week ago
I have a huge problem with this discussion….. it just didn’t go long enough. I could have listened for hours and hours. Can’t wait to see who your next guest will be.
16 likes

‹ Hide 3 replies
GigaChud7
1 week ago
I hope Rob Rundo
2 likes

SirChrisWilson
5 days ago
Exactly. I was just settling down into the “groove” of the conversation. Oh well, I have some new stuff for the reading list
1 like

Gailmaree
6 days ago
I would Matt to be interviewed.
0 likes

KINGMAGNUSMUISC
1 week ago
HEIL GRAHAM
3 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
KINGMAGNUSMUISC
1 week ago
Punchin’ darts with Jimbo and Graham at the Pig n Whistle watching the vid of Tom’s speech at parliament was a night to remember!
3 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
KineticKelticKlansman
Admin
1 week ago
Wasn’t it just brother. Magic. Thanks for watching. Looking forward to catching up again soon.
0 likes

wilson75590
1 week ago
I recently watched two of your videos and really enjoyed them great job! If you’d like to grow your channel, increase views
, and attract sponsorships, I can help using my experience on Rumble; I’m a bit busy with office work now, but please share your channel link via my email (wilsonchris4632@gmail.com) or Telegram (https://t.me/Wilson1336) so I can review it and guide you on what to improve.
0 likes

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

See Also

top

 

 

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