Mark Collett: Hello everybody, and welcome to tonight’s Book Review. We are here tonight with Student X to review his book, Equal Training. And we are live tonight on Odysee, DLive and Rumble. The usual platforms. We’re also live on Entropy. If you can share this stream, that will be very, very much appreciated.

 

Obviously, I’m expecting there to be a bit of a hit in numbers tonight. I’m not expecting this to be the usual book review because sadly, the football is on, so unfortunately, what can you say? It’s gone into extra time. The very multicultural England team are taking on the very homogenous Slovakia. And I’m sure that many people are tuning into that.

 

But if you can help us get a few viewers in, as I say, we’re not expecting the usual numbers, but we shall soldier on regardless and hopefully a few people will pick it up on replay. So England are now winning two one as well.

 

Anyway, let’s get straight into things. Oh, by the way, we’re going to do the new usual format.

 

So if you like the book review, if you like what we do, please do send a Superchat. You can Superchat via Odysee or Entropy.

 

So let’s get into this and we’ll start by introducing our special guest, Student X.

 

Now, he’s written a book, it’s a different book to the sort of books we usually review. It’s more in line, I would say, with a textbook, sort of a self help textbook, which is aimed at students.

 

But I’m not going to say anything more than that. Let’s let him speak for himself. Student X, this is the first time we’ve worked with you. Do you want to tell us a bit about yourself, your personal journey, then describe the book and why you wrote it, before we get into things.

 

Student X: Yeah.

 

First of all, thanks for having me on. It’s a pleasure to be here with all of you. So, for me personally, background, I was born and raised in southern California, also called North Mexico, jokingly. And this journey kind of started out before I ever had a social media account or any online footprint. And I didn’t know that there was a broader, White positive community out there.

 

So a lot of this was done just from my own personal point of view, thinking, what’s the best impact I can have just as one person and what can I do? Right?

 

So basically, I graduated high school. My main focus was working. You know, I started working as soon as I could. And after I secured a pretty good job that would pay the rent and I had enough free time, I then said:

 

“Hey maybe I should go back and finish my degree.”

 

So I would try to attend evening or weekend classes at the local community college. And I was quite shocked by the type of material that I was encountering in there.

 

So at the time, I was pretty good at navigating bureaucracy and stuff. I had been working for large companies for a while now, and I thought:

 

“I’m going to file a formal complaint, and I’m going to go through their process and kind of see what comes of it.”

 

So I did that.

 

I would say off and on while attending classes, this probably ranged from about 2012 through 2015. Around that timeframe. I spoke with all top officials at the school location that I was going to. I escalated things to the state level Chancellor’s office. I spoke with the AA UP, which is the American Association of University Professors, and I wound up back at the school speaking with their attorney, trying to make sense of, you know what are the rules that you operate by, basically.

 

So what I encountered through this journey was a lot of gate-keeping. All these different levels of bureaucracy, they’re selective about who they enforce the laws on behalf of and who they don’t. A lot of times they operate by unpublished criteria or resort to using undefined terms. So after I go through this whole exercise, and it became apparent to me that they’re clearly stonewalling me and they’re using this giant barrier and this bureaucracy to avoid being held accountable.

 

So I’m going through this thinking:

 

“Okay, so this is clearly intentional. They’ve got some kind of agreement going on.”

 

So I thought:

 

“How can I bypass this gate-keeping? Like, how can I work around all this?”

 

And I was also thinking from the point of, I’m just one person. I have no network. You know, my demographic maybe was around 5% of the total school demographic, and those include people going during the day, which I don’t even see or interact with. So I truly felt really alone!

 

And I thought:

 

“Okay, what are my options? What can I do to kind of disrupt all this stuff? How do I work around the gate-keeping and the people who deflect and all that stuff?”

 

So I thought, if they use the literature and the academic material as a means of putting our population on trial publicly, then my strategy was going to be to draught the criteria and the terminology that can be used to put their literature on trial publicly along with its author. You know, the thought process is I don’t control that narrative. I’m not really giving a say, which stories or collection of narratives that get picked.

 

So that’s already in place. But what I can do is expose the tactics that are being used and try to cause them to backfire, and incriminate the people who use them. Right?

 

Around this time personal and work life got really, really hectic. I actually had to stop going to classes and pivot and focus on work.

 

[06:40]

 

And I remember coming across a story of a young boy who is about nine years old, and I think his name was Aaron Dugmore, and it says that:

 

“He was bullied for being White at school and he wound up taking his own life.”

 

And that’s something that stuck with me and really haunted me. So that stayed with me. And regardless of how busy life got or when I did or did not have time, I made a personal commitment, …

 

Mark Collett: Just to interject. That’s a UK case, isn’t it?

 

Student X: That is, yeah, I believe it was out of Birmingham, …

 

But that really solidified the commitment inside of me, Mark, that said:

 

“I have to do this or else it’s going to haunt me all the way to the grave!”

 

So this is something that’s for all of us world-wide. This is not just for me to say:

 

“Hey, I’m an author or whatever.”

 

Right? This is to begin the process of actually busting up that media cache and surgically taking it apart.

 

And that’s how my work is designed to operate.

 

Natty: And just a quick question. This was one institution, or did this start in one institution or., ….

 

And then you kind of played it out in local government or the local education body?

 

Student X: Yeah, good question.

 

So I was working full-time during the day. And at the time, the only option for me to attend college courses was at my local community college, and it was on nights or evenings and weekends. So I was going through classes in the evening and weekend and I was encountering this kind of stuff, and I just thought:

 

“Hey, this is something that should be confronted!”

 

So I took it upon myself to draught a formal complaint that I sent to Academic Affairs. I copied the Dean on there as well. So in addition to taking night and weekend classes while working full-time during the day, periodically I would have in person meetings with that Dean or members of Academic Affairs or whatnot. And it’s kind of sprinkled in wherever they could fit on the schedule.

 

So that’s what happened at that specific location.

 

And then when I was not getting what I wanted, when they were not being cooperative with me, I looked to higher levels that I could escalate. So that went to the state level Chancellor’s office. In California, they have a state level office for Chancellors. I then went to outside institutions like the AA UP, which is An Association of University Professors. And they pride themselves on “academic freedom” and “freedom of speech” and things like that. So it actually started local, but I went to, I basically exhausted the whole bureaucracy to say:

 

“Okay, I’ll go through this whole process!”

 

Because it felt like they were trying to exhaust me, so I quit.

 

And I’m not that kind of person. I’m like:

 

“Okay, you want to take the long way? We’re going to go the long way!”

 

So I kept notes, I kept all my emails. I kept all my communications, to this day. It’s all there. I have all the receipts for it, just so I can go back in the end and say:

 

“Hey, you gave me wrong information six months ago! You sent me down the wrong path six months ago. You said X, Y and Z.”

 

So that was the purpose of me co-operating and going through all that so I could really remove all of their excuses.

 

Natty: And to be clear, when you started this process, you weren’t ideological. You’d just seen some of this stuff and it was starting to weigh on your mind. And did you have any expectation that the process would actually work, or did you go into it knowing, kind of having some expectation that you were going to be stonewalled and you were going to get sent around the houses?

 

Student X: Well, I mean, I was already somewhat aware simply because of the location I grew up. Right.

 

So when I went to high school and stuff like that, there was like a lot of gangsters there from each population. I already knew that just from personal experience. The piece that got to me is, why are the teachers chiming in? Why are the teachers going on with this and doing it? Why is the administration and the faculty entertaining this? My thought process was:

 

“Hey, if you’re an employee, if you’re on payroll at this school, you have behaviour requirements that you have to meet as an employee. This piece shouldn’t be optional for you to go along with.”

 

Like, I expect it from the student body, but not from the people who are supposed to be the working professionals.

 

So that’s the piece that caught me by surprise. And that’s the piece that said:

 

“Hey, I’m going to bypass arguing with students and everyone else.”

 

I’m just going to go directly to the administration and say:

 

“Hey, what are the rules that you’re supposed to be operating by? Let me see those. I want to review those.”

 

And that was really the path I took.

 

Natty: And just one more question before we get into the kind of, the content of the book. You, in the first few chapters, you outlined that you didn’t have a lot of money growing up. Your family didn’t have a lot of money growing up, so you were kind of working class.

 

I mean, I know we’re in the UK, it’s a little bit different, but there are ways, if families have enough money, but they can avoid kind of racial schools and go to homogenous schools, whether, you know, White schools where the kids are well behaved. You didn’t have that option, presumably.

 

Student X: No.

 

Natty: And it’s very, it’s all very well to say:

 

“Oh, well, you shouldn’t have gone to that school!”

 

[12:12]

 

Student X: And, well, to clarify on that, though. My grandparents raised me. I was taken, … They took me into their custody. I think I was around one or two years old. I was very young. Simply because my parents were not fit for it, right? And in the area I grew up in, the only other White families were that generation of grandparents that was left. Everything else that had moved in was from different populations. So there may be like four or five other sets of grandparents in that whole community.

 

And this kind of just grew up around them. You know, they bought that house 40 or 50 years prior, and then it got socially engineered into a pretty ghetto atmosphere. But you also have generational differences too, because my grandparents generation were big on manners. They were big on like:

 

“Hey, if you mouth off, you deserve a fat lip!”

 

You know, they just handled things differently. And they wouldn’t understand if they were to encounter somebody behaving all nasty like these anti-Whites do, they would think:

 

“Oh, that’s just one person. Maybe they’ll work out of their system. Maybe it’ll stop one day.”

 

They don’t know that this is actually receiving government funding and academic support, and people are making careers out of this, and it’s not gonna go away!

 

So that’s not really something, … It’s hard to communicate something like that to someone in their generation. Because they don’t understand the reason why people want to engineer conflict like that, you know?

 

But going back to what you said, it was working class, they were older, they were fixed income. I didn’t want to request money or anything like that from them. I didn’t want to, like, burden them. I was kind of born into this. I grew up with it from grade school to high school. Started working on my own, and really just became independent and kind of just left without saying anything, you know, as far as the reasons why. And I just kind of operated independently. But it would not have been an option to relocate and go to different schools because any of the surrounding cities around mine, they’re all pretty similar in demographics, so, …

 

Natty: Sure. And before I hand it back to Mark, I will say this. What you’ve just said hearkens back to something that we talked about a few years ago, where it’s all very well running away and trying to find schools that are well behaved and homogenous and are White, but eventually the barrier to that gets more and more expensive.

 

So you have to be more and more wealthy to be able to afford that. And even if you can there are some people who don’t even know that’s an option, and working class kids who go to comprehensives. And this is true from what you’re saying. This is true in the United States. It’s certainly true in this country cwhere there are certain schools that are totally just non-White, 90% ethnic minority. And you can say that:

 

“Well, the schools enforce behavioural codes.”

 

And all the rest of it.

 

Now, this book exposes that that isn’t the case! But it’s also the case that kids are ruthless and will pick on differences.

 

When I was a kid growing up, it would be the slightly tubby kid or the kid with ginger hair or whatever.

 

But you can imagine a few White kids in a school full of blacks or Asians [Pakistanis, etc.] or anything like that, they’re going to have a really tough time of it. And the Aaron Dugmore case just exemplifies that.

 

So I think this book is very important.

 

But let’s get into it. I’ll hand it back to Mark on that one.

 

Student X: One thing I would add, though, is where I was at, they had what’s called “Busing”. So they would literally bus kids in from other cities to that specific school to meet quotas.

 

I don’t know if you guys have ever heard of those, you know, nineties rappers, like gangster rappers who talk about the city of Compton. People were bused from that specific city to the high school I went to!

 

Natty: That’s, uh. That’s pretty crazy!

 

Student X: Yeah.

 

Natty: And it’s like the schools require a certain amount of minority students in order to claim funding.

 

So they’re more, …

 

Student X: Federal funding. Yeah, yeah. And they create all sorts of false excuses like:

 

“Oh, the schools in their area are overwhelmed, so we need to offload to a different school or whatever.”

 

So it truly, even if I were to try to evade this and go to a different location, it’s impossible with busing and all the other quotas that are put in place.

 

Mark Collett: So obviously, this isn’t necessarily about the book, but I’m really interested in what you’re saying.

 

So when you go into one of these multiracial American schools, I’m obviously aware of busing and that this was a treacherous policy put in place by the American government to, basically integrate via the gun, because people were forced at bayonet point to go to these schools! I’ve seen the pictures of the National Guard literally forcing White children or White teens to go to these multiracial schools. It’s quite sickening! It’s absolutely horrendous!

 

 

 

Now here’s the interesting thing, or the thing that I’d like to get to here, or the topic that I want to sort of discuss. When these blacks, because you’re talking about ones like, gangster rapper types and they’re obviously black the ones from Compton, you know, that you mentioned earlier, they’re obviously being bussed into these schools, but what are they actually like? Do they stick together when they get to your schools? Are they basically acting as one homogeneous group or is there any attempt whatsoever for any form of integration? Or is that just doesn’t happen?

 

[18:21]

 

 

Student X: Well, I mean, if you’re asking like, hey, during lunch, does everybody group up and sit in their own space? I would say yes, for the most part.

 

Mark Collett: When you say “group up”? So when they meet blacks, …

 

Student X: Yeah, totally. Same way you see it go down in the jails, that’s kind of the same way it goes down [chuckling] in these high schools. And then as far, …

 

Mark Collett: Then there is racial segregation still then? But the racial segregation, rather than being segregated by school, you’re all in the same sort of, you’re all thrown in the same area, but they segregate in a different way, if you like.

 

So there is the segregation. There are the battle lines drawn. But rather than the segregation being in different buildings in different cities, the segregation takes place in one building in the same city. And I guess that leads to tension, does it not?

 

Student X: Well, I mean, everyone’s got their own lunch table in the cafeteria, so to speak. Right.

 

And a lot of times people they try to avoid conflict for the most part. In California, it’s well known people just don’t even make eye contact, and they don’t even say anything when they walk by each other. That’s just the norm. That’s kind of how I grew up. If you don’t know them, don’t, … You have nothing to gain by interacting with a complete stranger because it can just go to so many different directions. And then sometimes you would see the normal beefs between guys over girls or whatever, and sometimes it would cross certain lines. It would be one guy from this group and one guy from another group.

 

And then you have the few strays that go outside of their group and talk and mingle with others or whatnot. So.

 

But for the most part, if they don’t have us under forced interaction policies, we all tend to keep to our own. It’s just the best way to avoid conflict.

 

Natty: You know, funnily enough, there was a story that emerged recently, in the past month or so about Britain’s strictest head headmaster. And it’s an Indian or Pakistani lady. And she runs a school called Makayla Community School, and she’s been lauded as this new pioneer of education. This school has all different students, all different ethnicities. It has Muslims, it has Christians, it has, you know, Africans, Middle Easterners, all of these kids.

 

And on the surface, and they have lots of visitors who visit this school to see this model, exemplary school that really works. And the kids are well behaved and they get on with their work. But they have to treat them like prisoners. And they have some of the craziest rules where they not allowed to hold anything in their hands. They’re not allowed to look around. The parents who send their kids to these schools agree that there’s the detentions that they can be put under and they can be kept behind the school and all this stuff.

 

So for this multiracial, multicultural, [chuckling] utopian school idea to work, they basically have to treat these kids like they’re in some sort of forced labour camp! And it just puts a lie to all of this idea that it can work and it can be successful.

 

Student X: Yeah. You know, I remember being excited about graduating from grade school and going to high school. I was like:

 

“Wow! You know, you’re growing up!”

 

You’re like, you think:

 

“I get to have a locker now? I get to have stuff like that?”

 

Nope! They took the lockers out. My 7th grade year was the only year I had one. After that, they removed them over the summer. They put in just random checkpoints. There was a constant., … We used to call them “narcs”. They were just security, you know, that would be riding bikes around or walking the campus at all times. There was anywhere from, like six to ten of those. And they would have a wand on them if they wanted to search you, or they could just take you to the main office and say:

 

“Hey, we’re going to go through your backpack or whatever, because we heard X, Y and Z.”

 

So in reality, you are operating kind of like a captured population. And they have to put all those controls in there to kind of to force these interactions against free people, basically.

 

Natty: Yeah. One of the things that came out of this documentary about Britain’s strictest head headmaster was the kids would constantly have their things searched. And when [chuckling] they’re asked by this, the documentary maker, the kids are saying:

 

“Oh, they’re making sure we don’t have chewing gum and sweet wrappers and stuff.”

 

And it’s like:

 

“No, no! They’re making sure there’s not knives and switch blades in them.”

 

Student X: Yeah:

 

“Which one of you is selling drugs?”

 

That’s what they’re looking for.

 

Natty: Yeah, yeah. Exactly!

 

Mark Collett: Sally has now rejoined us. Sally, can you hear us?

 

Aunt Sally: Yes, I can. Yes, I can hear you. And can you hear me?

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, you’re clear and fluid. Would you like to give your., … I don’t know if you’ve heard anything of what we’ve been saying or if you’d like to join in, but it’s good to have you here and it’s good to have you on a proper connection. My blood pressure is now falling.

 

Aunt Sally: He said his blood pressure is falling. It’s great! Yeah, no, I have heard, because I’ve been listening on my old laptop, but this wouldn’t work tonight.

 

But, yeah, I have heard. No, and I like what you’re saying, so, yeah, I’ll say what I think of the book at the end. It’s great! It’s great! I just need to check my notes now and see what questions I had for him. So you just carry on, please.

 

[23:45]

 

Mark Collett: Yeah. Okay.

 

One thing I will say about the American school system is when you see it from the outside looking in, you see it in movies and TV shows, they do touch on this sort of segregation. Were the schools you’re in, …. And this is the last question I ask. Were there metal detectors when you went in? And how regularly are there serious outbreaks of violence that either end with stabbings, shootings? Did those things happen? Were those regular occurrences? And how does being involved in that kind of very tense standoff, almost like a war zone, if you like, on a day to day basis, how does that affect White children? I mean, that’s a number one sort of priority here, isn’t it? How does this affect our people? What would you say? What would the long term mental stresses be on young White people in these institutions?

 

Student X: Oh, that’s a big question!

 

As far as metal detectors. You know, back when I was going to high school there, they didn’t have the doorway style ones that you had to walk through, but they did carry the wands on them. The narcs or security guards, they had those, and they could use you know, randomly or spontaneously if they wanted to. So it was really up to their discretion.

 

And as far as education, you know, education comes secondary to survival in that type of environment.

 

So really you’re not absorbing a lot of the subjects and stuff that you’re supposed to be. What you’re mainly looking out for is avoiding conflict, things like that.

 

I would say as far as fights, breaking out, physical fights. Yeah, you’d probably get one like every, you know, three, four weeks somewhere randomly on the campus, and the narcs would come and break it up like that. Don’t remember any shootings or anything like that when I was attending there, although it’s quite possible it’s just nobody did.

 

But I do remember that one time there was a pretty nasty attack where people, you know, resorted to using baseball bats out towards the sports field, which is just not good. But, yeah, that’s kind of the environment.

 

Education becomes secondary to the social engineering that they’re forcing on you, basically.

 

Mark Collett: Okay, so, … Go on Natty.

 

Natty: So I’ll just cap that off by saying that’s interesting, because secondary school, for a lot of people, I think, is where they become socialised and learn how to deal with groups and how to interact with other people properly without the kind of oversight that you get in primary education. I’m not sure how that breaks down on the American level. But like you said, group dynamics the social side of things, totally take over for a lot of people and become, like you said, become secondary to, like, academic studies.

 

So that’s very interesting that you’ve come to that conclusion as well.

 

Student X: Yeah, I mean, ideally, you’re just hoping not to get jumped when you’re walking home. And you’re hoping not to have your bike stolen from the bike rack or stuff like that.

 

Mark Collett: Can I just ask one last. This is another tangential question before we get really into the book, and I know we’ve been half an hour just discussing the sort of school system, but this is really interesting.

 

So how come more, I might be missing something here, but how come more White Americans obviously aren’t racially, ….

 

So one of the arguments that’s made in the UK, and this is, I think, you know, Natty, if I’m saying something wrong here, Natty, just let me know whether you agree with this.

 

One of the problems in the UK that we always hear is that things aren’t bad enough yet, that basically, here in the UK, things haven’t got to that awful point yet. Where people are fighting for their life, begging for scraps of food, and as such, unfortunately, people don’t accept there are problems because life is just too good.

 

But it seems to me that these young White Americans are growing up in pretty much a living hell in sort of this racially charged almost war zone in what should be a educational institution. How come more young Whites, or how come so many young Whites are still drinking the Kool Aid*, so to speak?

 

[* “Drinking the Kool-Aid” is most strongly believing in and accepting a deadly, deranged, or foolish ideology or concept based only upon the overpowering coaxing of another; the expression is also used to refer to a person who wrongly has faith in a possibly doomed or dangerous idea because of perceived potential high rewards. The phrase typically carries a negative connotation. It can also be used ironically or humourously to refer to accepting an idea or changing a preference due to popularity, peer pressure, or persuasion. In recent years, it has evolved further to mean extreme dedication to a cause or purpose, so extreme that one would “drink the Kool-Aid” and die for the cause.
While use of the phrase dates back to 1968 with the nonfiction book The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, [citation needed] it is strongly associated with the events in Jonestown, Guyana, on November 18, 1978, in which over 900 members of the Peoples Temple movement died. The movement’s leader, Jim Jones, called a mass meeting at the Jonestown pavilion after the murder of U.S. Congressman Leo Ryan and others in nearby Port Kaituma. Jones proposed “revolutionary suicide” by way of ingesting a powdered drink mix made from Flavor Aid (later misidentified as Kool-Aid) that was lethally laced with cyanide and other drugs.]

 

Student X: Well, regarding the argument of its just not bad enough yet, I remember hearing that years back and I kind of view that like a dismissive argument. Somebody who’s just being dismissive and not actually confronting things, because once they admit to things being bad enough, there’s not going to be much of a White population left to fight back. Right?

 

So to me, it’s kind of like:

 

“Oh, you know, eventually everyone will rise up and we’ll get someone to save the day.”

 

I don’t see that happening.

 

As far as networking on this particular subject. You know, Whites have been conditioned to pretty much accept what’s dictated to them and not speak up for their own interests and not organised based on their own interests. In addition to that, and I’m seeing this in the UK from afar as well now, because I know the tactics, I’m familiar with them at the institutional level. You know, the institutions are told:

 

“You only enforce the laws on behalf of minorities!”

 

That’s it!

 

“If Whites want to enforce the laws, it’s up to them to do on their own. Right? And stay quiet about this. Do not admit that you’re operating this way. Keep it a secret!”

 

So that’s where we’ve run into the gate-keeping and the stuff like that. So even if Whites want, let’s say, parents wanted to speak up to, who can they tell? You know, the institution won’t do anything. The police are ordered to stand down. The media, the mainstream media is controlled, and they won’t report it.

 

So, I mean, they can maybe tell the person standing next to them who already knows. Right? But there has been, somebody has disrupted our abilities to communicate. Kind of like they do at the military level when they’re going against other countries. They cut out their communications. They do certain things. Those are the tactics that have been used on our population.

 

And if you do ever get up to a media platform or anything like that, you’re going to have one of these radicals that are there to sabotage you and smear you and just call you all kinds of dirty names and stuff, and really derail your true purpose.

 

[30:19]

 

 

Following Transcript Quality = 3.5 Stars

1 Star — Poor quality with many errors, contains nonsense text 2 Stars — Low quality with many errors, some nonsense text. 3 Stars — Medium quality with some errors. 4 Stars — Good quality with only a few errors. 5 Stars — High quality with few to no errors.

NOTE: Users can help improve the quality of this transcript by putting corrections in the Comment section. Thanks.

 

 

Mark Collett: So all of this, then, was a inspiration for you writing your book. And your book, as I said, it’s quite different from things that we’ve had in the past because I would say that I don’t want to put people off buying it. That’s the thing. But this book has got more of a specific purpose than probably any other book that we’ve reviewed. It’s almost, if you like, if you’re reading a book on gardening the book has very little use if you’re living in a one bedroom flat, you know, four stories up, and you’re in the concrete jungle. And this book has a very specific use for a specific group of people. This is pretty much a textbook, if you like, but a self help textbook to help White students within these institutions. I would say not just to fight back, but both to understand what’s going on and to help orientate these students in some way so that there could be some fight back. Would you agree with that?

 

Student X: Yes. Think of this like a training manual. I already know that White students are being sent into an environment that’s hostile to them. I’m trying to give them the information and the language they need, not only to bob and weave as they go through it, but to actively de-weaponise that public school curriculum and defend themselves and be able to stand their ground on site in front of the teachers, in front of anybody else who starts using these hostile terms and things like that.

 

Mark Collett: Now, my first question is about the book in that thing, then I’ll let everyone go around the group. And this is really a major question. What would you say? Because it’s more of a potential criticism, but what would you say to people who, because a lot of this is, and I noticed its how to argue back, it’s how to use language, it’s how to frame things in a way that should be able to help people who are disenfranchised and angry with the system to get their point over. What would you say to the argument of, it’s better just to keep your head down, acknowledge the problem, get your diploma degree, whatever, get the hell out of there, and make sure you move to a White area before you have kids so your kids don’t have to go through this. What would be your answer to people who said:

 

“You know, fighting it in a university, or a college is fruitless.”

 

Student X: There’s nowhere to run this specific agenda. Once I’ve mapped out the tactics the way that I have, and I took a long time to map these out, just so you know, there’s a lot of strategy that went into it.

 

I started working backwards on the timeline saying, have I seen this used in other countries? And the answer is 100% yes. And it ran me back to a country that was called Rhodesia, something that was never taught to us here in American public schools.

 

But when I start pulling a lot of the scripting and the verbiage that was used on public platforms to kind of whip the populations up into a frenzy and get them to annihilate the White population there, that same canned language is here in America. It made its way here, and now I see it being used in the UK and even in Ireland, the laws are being changed the same way so that the government institutions only have a legal obligation to enforce the law on behalf of non-White populations, both that are here and that will be installed in the future, there is nowhere for you to go. I’ve already seen the articles, the random articles of, oh, the countryside is too White here in England, or just random stuff like that, when you say:

 

“Oh, well, I’ll just get my degree and move to a White area.”

 

Well, within your lifetime, long before you’re even going to retire, this will be brought to your doorstep courtesy of the people behind it. So that said, that’s not an option, in my view. I understand people want to avoid conflict, and that’s one of the elements I built into this book is dissent. The power of dissent. That is something that we can use immediately and we can use without getting in trouble. That’s the best and most effective way you can avoid conflict in this situation. But you are going to have to stand your ground. Your own institutions are being turned against you, the same way they have in America, same way they did in South Africa and what they originally did in Rhodesia.

 

Mark Collett: Okay, well, let’s let Natty and Aunt Sally bring up some stuff and make their points. You go first, Natty, and then we’ll go over to Aunt Sally.

 

Natty: So, getting into the meat of the book, I don’t think we’re going to have time to go through all of the all of the chapters and the sub chapters.

 

However, the first bit you get into is group blame, using colour. And you talk about the way that the word White is used versus the way that brown or yellow or, I can’t remember, black is not used, and how media reports and celebrities and politicians will use the word White.

 

Now, I guess I’d like you just to talk about that briefly, but I also wanted to ask you a question in that. Do you think that us as White identitarians, White nationalists, nationalists, whatever, however you want to term Us dissidents, have made a mistake in owning the term White when we refer to ourselves?

 

Student X: Yeah, good question. First off, the term White does have its proper uses among us. I believe all of us are. That is an umbrella term. Right. And within that umbrella, there are multiple different subgroups. Later on in that book I talk about, I prefer to use the term White ethnics. I like that because it both acknowledges our shared heritage, but also does not diminish or erase our different cultures and things that we have branched off to become. Right.

 

So in that respect, I like that.

 

Natty: Talk about that. Talk about that for a second, because when I heard that, I was a bit sceptical, because using a term like that, we’re trying to force a sea change or changing people’s opinion. You’re going up against a lot of pre-established ideas and ideology to.

 

Student X: I understand it’s very controversial.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah.

 

Natty: Add the word ethnic to a term that we use for ourselves, which is White, and ethnics is a term used to describe the other, especially in Western countries undergoing this change.

 

Student X: Yeah.

 

So let me first preface this by saying the first chapter took me the longest to write out of everything, out of any other chapter by far, because trying to convey that in a way that’s not confusing or to getting off into the weeds, so to speak, it took a while for me to really just be content with the way I wanted to write that out and convey to the reader, understand it this way.

 

Okay, so the first chapter even. Well, let me say this. White is one word. Yes.

 

However, there can be multiple different uses and meanings for this one word. So one way is to refer to people’s colour or their visual appearance. Right. You’re a White person, you’re a brown person, so on. That’s when you refer to people by what colour they are the second and the different way to use it is in the context of race. Right. So in America, our official census has a racial category of White, and that defines anyone from North Africa, the Middle East, the semitic populations, the original peoples of Europe, Hispanic and Latino, all fit into that White category. Right.

 

Natty: And this is the reason why the term Caucasian has very, very rapidly just completely disappeared from the lexicon. Right.

 

Student X: It’s possible. I didn’t really focus on that term, to be honest with you. I’m focusing on the way that they weaponise the word White and they vandalise it, and they maximize the amount of times they can use it in a negative way. So all within one piece of literature, you can see the word White used by its author, but they might be using it in the context of colour or flipping over to use it in the context of race. So they can maximize the amount of times they get to use the word White in a derogatory way and really install that into the mind of the general population or the kids in the schools. Right. And which leads into chapter three. So chapter one is colour.

 

Chapter two is race. It explains the difference between the way the word White can be used in these two contexts. And chapter three says, okay, now that you understand these differences, let’s analyze what you see in your school literature. Let’s analyze what you see in the media reporting. So, as an example, in America, when somebody is Hispanic or Latino, North African, semitic, or any of the other subgroups in there, when they commit a crime, since crimes are recorded by race, the blame gets shifted to White. That’s the official descriptor. These people are considered White when they commit crimes. There’s this giant criminal record that’s been exaggerated, and blame has been shifted over to our demographic for things that were actually not done by our demographic. These were done by other subgroups or members of special treatment groups or the special treatment class.

 

But this is needed, this understanding is needed for the readers to go this far in depth and understand the reason why certain materials I view as anti-White. Was this intentional? Was this their strategy? You know, so back to the term White ethnics. Like I said, in the racial category of Whites in America, anyone who is not classified as Asian or black is classified as White, basically.

 

And all of those different subgroups have an additional unique identifier except for us, the original peoples of Europe.

 

So the position that leaves us us in is we have no way to measure our level of access to our own institutions. We have no way to measure if we are proportionately represented at all levels of our own society. We have no way to document discrimination against our subgroup by other subgroups, which, by extension, locks us out of accessing our own justice system. We have no identifier we can use to gather the evidence that’s needed to access our justice system and present this in front of a judge. Right?

 

So it was a total lockout, basically. So without going that far into. I mean, it just goes deeper and deeper and deeper, right. But to try to keep it at a level where I don’t want people going too far off into the weeds, I say, hey, here’s some important reasons why I propose a unique identifier for our subgroup. Those of us who are not members of special protection or special treatment classes, those of us who are the original peoples of Europe.

 

I like the term “White ethnics” because, a, it shows a shared heritage, but be, it acknowledges our different cultures and things along the way. And there’s no active erasure that happens. You know, Italians can still be Italians. Same for Germans, same for Irish, same for French. You know, we’re under the umbrella of White ethnics and then under the larger racial umbrella of White.

 

Natty: Now, just two quick points to come back on that one.

 

So this is where British readers, British listeners, are going to struggle with this, because for us, the umbrella term White doesn’t cover anyone else apart from the White British at the moment.

 

Now, judging by what’s happening in America.

 

Mark Collett: Well, it does. I’ll be wrong there. I think you’re wrong there. I’ve got to counter signal you immediately on this, because if you look at our census, our census does have White British, White other, and then a series of sort of like European ethnic categories as well. And I would argue, and this is just to throw this out there.

 

I mean, look, I’m not bashing Americans per se, but the term White is generally more of an Americanised term than something that’s less used or was less used in Europe or wasn’t used in Europe until it was imported from America, because America is a White or was founded essentially as a White multicultural nation. You know, there were Germans, there were Brits, there were.

 

Student X: America was founded by White ethnic, right?

 

Natty: Yeah.

 

Student X: By different White fighting amongst each other. They said:

 

“Okay, we’re going to have this homogenised identity of Whites. We’re putting all of you different White ethnics in this category. Stop the infighting.” That’s my story.

 

Natty: So hold on a second.

 

Mark Collett: But wait, I just got to say one thing. Like, in Europe. So in our census, myself, Natty, and Aunt Sally would all be classed as White British, which is the ethnic group we would be.

 

But in Europe, it is far more common. And sorry for cutting in May, but in Europe, it’s far more common to hear people talk of themselves in terms of things such as, like here, I’d say, I’m English, I’m English, I’m English.

 

And then there’d be Scots who say:

 

“Well, I’m Scots, I’m Irish, I’m Welsh.” We are only termed as White in the sense that we are White British.

 

Student X: On the census, that’s changing, though, because now you have the other installed populations that are coming. And take Ireland, for example. You have people installed from Zimbabwe. You have people like what’s her name, chu, who have taken it upon themselves to deconstruct Irish identity. And now they’re saying, all of us are going to be called Irish, and we’re going to hyphenate wide in front of that. When we refer to you. To indicate that you are no longer one in the same Irish does not mean only this. There is White Irish, and this is the creeping agenda that you’re seeing. They’re first separating your population from its own identity and allowing foreigners to claim it.

 

Natty: Yeah, that’s absolutely true! And just coming. Coming back to the question I was going to ask, and I may have been missing something from when I read the book, but why use the term White ethnics when White Europeans has become fairly synonymous both in Europe and America? To refer to ourselves or we’re dealing with revision.

 

Mark Collett: Before you answer that, Dr David Duke is somebody that everyone knows, I work with with regularly. And Dr David Duke coined the term European American. And if you’re friends with him on Skype, that’s his name, on Skype, Dr David Duke, European American. And he uses that term to differentiate and say that you could be a White American, but he is a European American, so he’s American of European descent. So an African-American, quite obviously, is a is a American of Elon Musk. Yeah. And he would. Elon Musk. Well, you know what I mean?

 

Student X: Mark, did you, did you see, a couple years back, there was a black woman who took to a stage. It was like a performative, but it was very dramatic. And she said:

 

“Europe does not mean a Whiteman. Anyone can be European. I’m here.”

 

Natty: This is.

 

Student X: But here’s the problem. You can dismiss it as nonsense, but this shows you the formula and the steps they use to actually make the change permanent in the permanent record. Right?

 

So if I were to use the term European American here in America, and I have all of these migrants who have recently been sold in Europe who are told, oh, we get to identify as European now. You know, they go identity shopping or whatever you want to call it. A. If I were to use the term European American here in America, that could include anyone who’s been installed into Europe, whether they have a heritage based connection.

 

Mark Collett: Oh, that’s fine. Look, by the way, this wasn’t. This wasn’t.

 

Student X: No, I know, I know.

 

Mark Collett: It was just genuine, a genuine kind of like, query. Just because I know, I do find these things quite interesting, although here’s what I’m getting at by what I said earlier about Americans being the ones that introduced the term White.

 

Student X: I know. No, no, no, I know. Here’s what I’m getting at, though. Why do I like the term White ethnics? Well, a the properties I said before, it acknowledges a shared heritage. It does not result in acts of erasure amongst the different subgroups within it.

 

But also, Mark, there’s now reclaiming properties. If I get White ethnics coded into law and an official identifier that can be used, I can now refer to you as a White ethnic English, or I can refer to someone in Ireland as White ethnic Irish or White ethnic Swedish or White ethnic German. It reclaims the identity that their population made with the intention for their heritage and it reattaches it to them by wording it that way. Sothere’s a lot. Think of language, kind of like you would mathematics. Right. There’s a certain end I’m trying to get to, and there’s certain things I’m going to do along the way to get there without even announcing it, because I don’t want to give anybody a heads up. But that’s the long answer to your question.

 

Natty: So in a way, the term White ethnics is like a lot of

Aunt Sally: The

Natty: Lessons and the experiments are not experiments, but when you ask people to go away and do something is like a judo move where you’re using their terminology against them and holding us under the same umbrella to basically turn us from the victim into.

 

Student X: Because we use these as a heritage based identifier. We always knew them to be that. Well. Silently, someone else came along saying:

 

“Hey, I want to start revising the category this is and make sure the whole world gets to claim this identity.”

 

I even saw a while back, like a year or two ago, there’s a black politician there in the UK. He said:

 

“I want the census English to be defined to where other groups can claim to be English because we are English.”

 

So he’s trying to take it away as an ethnic identifier and open it up for the west of the world to use, thereby leaving your group without a unique identity, thereby leaving your group vulnerable to being dissolved off into a giant tidal wave of global traffic. You know, that’s how this works.

 

So when I look at what way do I need to phrase this? What kind of a language lock do I need to put in the terms so that can’t happen again? I like the term White ethnics. It had all the properties I was looking for but now I didn’t even go into this depth of an explanation in the book because the point was:

 

“Hey, simply pointing out that we have no unique identifier we can use to document discrimination, access our own justice system, or measure, you know, our current levels of access should have been sufficient.”

 

I’m not going to tell everybody the real agenda behind all this stuff and how it’s going to perform.

 

Natty: Well, that’s a really good point, because it highlights the one of the differences between me, Mark, and Sally, and hopefully the intended audience of this book is that we are. We’re not. We’re not hatchlings. We’re not. We’re not young students.

 

I mean, I suspect that me, Mark, and Sally are all probably a little bit older than.

 

So this is. It’s been a while since any of us have been through the education system, and we’re slightly more well versed on the rhetoric and the propaganda and the marketing machine that’s kind of demonised us.

 

Student X: Good.

 

I mean, there’s those of us who have seen. Who have been in this a lot longer and thought our way through these things and see a little bit further ahead, and we’re just trying to bring on a larger part of the population and warn them, like, hey, you need to know these things. So I’m really glad to be in your guys’s company.

 

And like I said, I understand this is a very controversial topic as far as the use of the word White, but my aim is to show through explanation and through examples. Hey, this one word White is being used in all these multiple different ways. So when a radical who uses it as part of their strategy to continuously flip and I. People confused and refuse to define the terms that they use and whatever, this is one of those tactics and you have to know to watch for it, you know?

 

Natty: Yeah, sure. I wasn’t being condescending or anything like that, but it’s really interesting the way this, the way the ideas in this book are laid out. It’s like from all the, from the, from the years I’ve been aware of, like an anti-White machine that’s kind of set against us. This book does quite a good job of like, if you imagine those ideas being a mat laid out on the floor, this book kind of pulls in each individual Strand out and lays them out so you can follow each of them and look where they come from. So it’s not, I’m not saying it’s not for us. It very much is. And it’s very good at laying out the individual thought processes and the individual reasons why certain words are used and certain terminology is used.

 

Student X: Yeah, I appreciate that. And that really was my goal.

 

Let me tell you guys. Most of my work hasn’t even been shown to the public.

 

So what I did was I said:

 

“Okay, this obviously goes way deeper than I expected it, right?”

 

So I said, what are the, what are the concepts I can use in relay in a logical manner? What can I give terms to that are not derogatory, that allow people to talk about them without getting in trouble? You know, what kind of communication tools can I create and cultivate and disseminate for everybody else?

 

So these were the top concepts I pulled. These are the ones I said, this is what should be in this book and how they all tie in together at the end. After you’ve learnt each of these concepts, at the end, you’re going to have basically the playbook that these evil teachers are using against the student body. And you might just know these tactics a little better than they do and be able to wield them a little better than they do because they’re, a lot of them are operating under a lower level narrative just to get them to do what the administration wants them to do. They’re not fully clued in on a lot of this stuff. Right. I actually reverse engineer stuff. I own a giant dry erase board with the multicolor pin packs. I will literally sketch things out like you see on a movie, like where there’s a writing all over the wall. I will leave it up. I will go back, I’ll make adjustments. I’ll retest it. I’ll test my responses to certain verbiage and stuff like that. And all that is what went into this.

 

And a lot of the explanations as to why it’s designed the way it is, they’re not relevant. I just need to make it target the Right audience with it and say:

 

“Hey, here’s some instructions. I’m going to show you a roadmap. When they say this to you, ask these direct questions to kind of bust up their language manipulation tactics and stuff like that.”

 

So one other thing on that concept of colour is there’s a different chapter called denial of identity. Right? And in that chapter, I asked you, hey, would it seem strange to you guys if I personally were just to fly to Africa and flood their school system with literature that trains everyone to refer to everything as African except for black people? Would that seem like a strange way for me to train that population to talk? I think yes. And then I ask, is it equally strange that somebody has flooded America school system with material that trains everyone to call everything American except for White people? They’re referred to by their colour. I argue, yes, it’s strange. That tactic, denial of identity, is now in Ireland. I’ve seen it pop up and stuff from the UK when I’m, when I’m researching over there. So.

 

So they are actively detaching you from your I own heritage based identity and allowing the insurgent populations to claim that identity. And they’re all being trained to refer to you by your colour instead, visual observation. And this goes back to that first chapter. You know, when you refer to people by their colour, you’re impacting that entire colour category in a lot of ways without even fully realizing it. You’re engaging in-group defamation. You are incriminating all people on the planet at the same time who’s in that colour category. Right?

 

So we have been kind of desensitized to having national conversations about White people, right?

 

But we don’t have the same national conversations about yellow, brown, and black people, even though we’ve been desensitized to it and it’s been normalised to point it at us. No one else wants that exact same language structure pointed back in their direction. Right? So all this stuff intertwines, guys.

 

Mark Collett: Well, I was going to say this is a good point to throw over to Sally, because Sally hasn’t had a chance to say much, and she was sorting out her stuff. Sally, have you got anything to say on this or any questions that you’ve specifically got to ask up to this point or anything that you. You’d like to raise?

 

Aunt Sally: Oh, I want to raise this, but this is. Goes towards what you were all just saying. It’s something I noted on page 74. It says, the goal in destroying a recognised population of people and slowly revising them out of existence is first to destroy their group identity and ensure it’s no longer officially recognised, socially validated, or reinforced by the general population. This is because any population which does not have an officially recognised identity will no longer exist as a group and will be mixed away into a sea of global traffic, which sort of sums up what we, very powerful words there. But I ended up making so many notes about this book, I was basically rewriting the book in my own words. It’s just such a brilliant book.

 

And I actually strongly disagree with what you said earlier, Mark, that it’s a book more for the young. It isn’t at all, because it’s helped me tremendously. It’s opened my eyes to a lot of what’s going on now, but also what happened to my generation, how this crap creeped in. And my three children. I had a child in every decade. So I had one in the seventies, one in the eighties, one in the nineties, and actually could have gone on had one in the two thousands, because I was 14 in 2000, still fertile, but I didn’t. So I’ve seen it happen incrementally over the years in our country.

 

And I think the big thing that they did, and I noticed this, was to destroy the English identity in particular, while still letting the Irish and the Scottish. I’m not sure about the Welsh. I think they were on at them as well. But they’ve been destroying the English identity to the point now where we don’t exist, even on paperwork on a form you can fill in an online form, but English doesn’t exist, but Welsh and Scottish and Irish does. And I’ve actually typed in English, and it’s been deleted by the auto thing, so we don’t exist as a group.

 

And I think part of that was voluntary, where they portrayed the English as a bunch of football hooligans and their dwarf. Well, so that middle class English people didn’t want to identify with them. I don’t know if the Whiteman van thing with the England flag on it. That was all directed at anti-English. And literally the middle class population moved away from the label. And now no one really, no one says it anymore, that they’re English. And maybe they’ll do that with the Irish and the Scottish. I don’t know the Scottish. They have such a strong identity. I can’t seem ever getting away with it there. I’m not so sure about the Welsh.

 

Natty: Well, sal, you make a really good point. You just jogged my memory about something because I was going to mention earlier that the people who have put these narratives in place and have had a very long game plan with this stuff have used wedge issues and the grey area to push this stuff through. So in the United States, the history of slavery was used to create this divide and to drive a wedge in that all of this stuff could flow in, behind. And in the UK, I’m pretty sure, and this is just an idea and I may be wrong about this, but that divide was the class divide and that’s how they’ve done it, to make the middle class really find the working class, like you said, the White van man with an England flag hanging out his window as like, something utterly repulsive and say, we don’t want. We want to disassociate with that kind of person so much that we’re willing to welcome in the kind of middle class Nigerian dentist or doctor or whatever else is so these wedge issues that exist in societies have been used to create a gap wide enough to start forcing this stuff through until it just becomes like a tidal flood that you can’t stop.

 

Student X: Yeah, let me propose this to you guys, too, because there’s a lot of booby traps, so to say, that have been put in place before this agenda was targeting us. So back to, let’s say that an Irish person sitting in school and a Nigerian was recently installed. The teacher goes, okay, this is what Irish means, and points to the Nigerian kid. If the Irish kid said:

 

“Hey, you know, Africans or whatever group are not Irish, yada yada!”

 

They will then get slapped with a policy that school has on racism, discrimination and whatever, right? So a different approach is for the Irish kid to be trained to say:

 

“Hey, this is what we know to be denial of identity. When you’re using my population’s identity in an inside out way or in a way that distorts it and separates my population from it. So we want material that reinforces our Irish identity instead of material that revises it and takes it away.”

 

Phrasing it that way, giving them that term, denial of identity bypasses all of those little landmines and stuff like that, and they can say that directly to the administration. They can avoid naming any other groups. All of the policies on discrimination or whatever don’t even come into play. It’s a valid claim on the Irish kids part. They just need to be trained, like I said, to bob and weave. You know, you think of those spy movies when people drop down on that really thin little line and kind of blow cigarette smoke to see where the lasers are. This is what this book is aimed to train people to do.

 

And their parents, anybody outside who’s helping them and providing support to them, anyone who’s emailing the administrations, asking the correct questions and doing the data gathering, even people in the legal field who can draw on this verbiage and these frameworks to strengthen their arguments and increase their chances at winning when they challenge this stuff, this is all built in here, and this is what this is to do.

 

I’m basically showing you, hey, this is the enemy’s playbook. These are the main dirty tricks they’re going to use on you. Here’s how you respond, here’s how you move without getting in trouble. So.

 

Mark Collett: I don’t know if you want to follow up there, Sally. I didn’t want to jump in because you’ve not really had as much chance to talk as everyone else tonight. I was hoping that you would.

 

Aunt Sally: No, no, because I was just busy scanning my notes now, because I’ve got so many, and I’m just looking for the next question. A lot of the things that I actually did write down, you’ve already covered.

 

So I’ve just been. I’ve just been listening.

 

Mark Collett: I was feel guilty you sat here, though, because you don’t. Sometimes you don’t get as much time as everyone else. I was hoping to throw something more your way rather than. Because I think tonight. Tonight we’ve actually focused less on the book, and we seem to have. We seem to have focused more on probably other things about the themes of the book, rather than doing sort of a chapter by chapter breakdown, etcetera. But I have found it really interesting. But if there’s nothing else you want to add, I’ll throw it back over to Natty.

 

Aunt Sally: Yeah, I’m just looking at my notes, so I have got a few questions, so I’ll come back in a sec.

 

Mark Collett: Are you sure you don’t go now?

 

Aunt Sally: I’m sure. I’m sure. Like, you just carry on flowing. Sorry, Natty.

 

Mark Collett: Go for it, mate.

 

Student X: Natty, you mentioned slavery earlier. Yeah, yeah. Can I add to that?

 

Natty: I was going to ask you next about this idea of cropped narratives, because you talk about crop narratives, and one of the biggest topics in there is this idea of slavery. There’s a really good picture, actually, that describes it. And there’s pictures throughout the book, and they’re very. Not childish, but, like, they’re very simple. They’re very easy on the eye cartoons. Right? And this picture explains it perfectly. I wish I could bring it up on screen. If I’d had time, if I’d had the sense to do this, I would have sent it to Mark so he could show you.

 

But it’s basically the idea of slavery. There’s like a picture of Africa with Europe above it and the lines of where slaves came from and where they went to. So there’s obviously European slaves who got taken from the shores of Spain, France, and even England. Cornwall. The Cornishmen were taking slaves as well and sent to the Middle East.

 

And there’s also lines emanating from Africa coming up to Europe, which is where they were sent. But you have this, like, cropped on your iPhone, if you crop a photo, you get this little square that comes around it, and you can move it around, you can Zoom in, zoom out, crop it. And the part of Europe where the arrows are leading out of Europe, which is where slaves were taken from, too, is completely cropped out, so that all you see is Africa with the lines going out of it.

 

So maybe we could talk about cropped narratives a little bit.

 

Student X: Definitely! And this goes back to my strategy of, it’s more effective to name the actual tactic and confront the teacher for using that manipulation tactic than it is to speak about the subject at hand. Right, right.

 

Natty: So rather than, like, whining about, oh, yeah, but White people were taken slaves, too.

 

Student X: Right, right.

 

Natty: We were victims as well, rather than being on the back foot with that.

 

Student X: Say, right, because then they’ll try to hit you with their other policies, racism, discrimination, whatever. And I just. I, Bob. And we’ve all through that. I say, hey, you know, an example? In America, Washington, non-White slave owners and non-black slaves were cropped out of all school lesson plans nationwide for decades. And that level of precision does not happen naturally on its own. That requires coordination, that requires planning, that requires people at higher levels who disseminate to all of the different schools below them.

 

So that in itself is enough, gives us enough information to confirm it was then intended intentionally. Right.

 

And then we have these guilt monuments that are built in real life, like these museums about slavery, or these little, you know, monuments to pass slaves or whatever, to provide support to those crop narratives that were disseminated in school. Right? And slavery is not the only one, though.

 

Now, one thing I do touch on is there’s been this really big ruckus for we want reparations. You know, and my response is, you can’t. I don’t support reparations if they’re all based on cropped narratives. You know, if you’ve cropped out the fact that White people fought to end a slave trade that was started by elite black Africans, you don’t really deserve a penalty to be signed to our population. It’s misdirected. You have to focus it at the source. You have to send that to the people who arranged all this and who made it possible, which is to elite black Africans. You know, that’s where. That’s the proper way to direct it, you know?

 

But I think that when radicals try to activate different groups and try to engineer conflict and destabilise things, this is a very effective tool at turning different groups against one another. Right? Because when I was growing up in school, that left me under the impression that only White people owned slaves and only black people were slaves.

 

And then all of the social retaliation, the negative remarks, the if beatings ever came into play for other people, whatever, all of that was justified by citing these crop narratives, which were given lots of air time and lots of circulation, both in the schools and in the media platforms. Right? So, bypassing the most effective way.

 

And I thought:

 

“Okay, what strategy can I use to give your average person, or even a younger person, who is now challenging some older PhD who’s skilled in manipulation? What term can I give them to incriminate that teacher for trying it to show that all they’re doing is using a manipulation tactic and really to speak down to them.”

 

And I say, let’s name the tactic. Let’s call it a cropped narrative. Slavery is not the only subject. We see crop narratives used in other countries, like Germany. We see monuments put there. We see them all over, and they’re very tightly controlled. A lot of times, people recite these crop narratives or point to one of these guilt monuments, and then it’s always followed up with concession demands or extortion demands, transfer money to me, you know, things like that, and they’re really used as a money making scheme over generations to continuously milk the host population of that country and to freeload off of it, basically.

 

So to create a communication tool that’s simple, that stays out of the weeds, that people can use without getting hit by the discrimination policies or accusations of whatever ism, I said, let’s just call it a crop narrative and let’s teach people about this concept. And you’re absolutely right, Natty. I took that icon. I was inspired by the phone. Your ability to crop an image and determine what you want to be publicly visible and what you want to be cropped out before you present it to the public. And this is literally one of the communication tools.

 

Natty: I’m just thinking of your board with all the circles with things written on and lines going this way and that way, and the crop, like, you could crop out just one connection and focus on it and say this is the whole issue, whereas in reality, there’s all of these spider lines going everywhere and different ideas and different actions taken throughout history that feed into it. And before I pass it on, I just want to hammer on this again just one last time. Instead of being defensive, just ask why, when someone is talking this way, why they are ignoring it rather than saying, no, no, we. You know, I don’t think this is right, or I think this is no. Why you ignoring so much of this topic? Why have you only decided to focus on this one specific thing? I think that’s a really, really strong, strong rhetorical corner.

 

Student X: Them, Natty. Students should be trained to ask the teachers, hey, why are you using crop narratives instead of complete ones? What is your real intention in this class? Because this doesn’t seem like it’s education. Is that, like, a false cover argument? Are you really here to instigate trouble or incite violence? You can really push that teacher up against the wall or that activist and say, you need to explain your actions, and this is a way for you to word it and to do it that a, that teacher hasn’t seen before. It’s new material. And be, puts the power in the hands of the kid at the student level or the parent or the attorney, if they’re involved, or so on, know.

 

Natty: Yeah, absolutely! Fantastic! I really. I really like that. And I really like that chapter for that. For that very reason. I’ll let someone else talk.

 

Aunt Sally: Yeah. Can I just say with those, the cartoon through the book, they’re brilliant! They’re really, really brilliant! I just wondered, did you design them yourself or. Because whoever drew them knew exactly what you meant, so I just thought.

 

I’m just curious for that.

 

Student X: Thank you.

 

Aunt Sally: And another thing want to ask, I want to say is I love these little phrases like crop narratives. I’ve sort of started making notes of them. Guilt monuments. Brilliant! And there’s a few more I can see. Part time Whites. That’s a brilliant one. The minority privilege. Love that. Yeah. But, yeah. Please answer my question. Who designed them and how?

 

Student X: Thank you, Sally. I appreciate it. So, as far as finding people to work on this book, a lot of people were scared, so I had to search online, and I had to locate other folks that happened to be out of the country, but I think it was kind of fate. So I located a gentleman who was in Hungary, and I was able to supply him some good income streams and whatnot.

 

And what I would do is I would actually make the memes on my phone. They were kind of crude or whatnot, but he was the artist, and then it would give him a better idea of where I wanted him to take the picture and whatnot. The idea I was trying to convey and we worked together for a few months and all the pictures and everything the way I wanted them or were good enough and then I put them in the book. What was most important to me was that wording, this using simple language that I wanted to reach the lowest level readers out there that I could. Not just the intellectuals, right. But this, I want to be to reach as many people as possible.

 

But also, I’ve noticed that there have been deliberate attempts to make our population illiterate. Right. And to sidestep that illiteracy. Memes and illustrations have the ability to do that.

 

So I wanted to marry both of them in there. And depending on what type of reader dealing with, increase the chances of do you understand this concept? Do you understand what’s being directed at you? And do you understand how to defend yourself and stand your ground?

 

Aunt Sally: So I think that’s one of I really, really love this book. And that’s one of the things I like, is its a positive book in that it tells you what you can do in them in the most lawful way or the most agreeable way without causing conflict. I really love it. I can’t recommend it highly enough, I’ll say that at the end.

 

But, yeah, I love the way you give people the verbal tools and the backup, really, the wording to back it up with, to argue their corner. I just love it!

 

Student X: Thank you. I appreciate it. High praise.

 

One thing I think a lot of people need to realise is a lot of the mainstream terms that are marketed like discrimination or racism or whatever through various means. The definitions of those have been revised through academia or in the legal system, through case precedent. They’re revised so that they really exclude anything that’s directed at White people. And they’re therefore, by extension, do not offer equal protection to us. Right.

 

And I think this is where, this is one of the things that are exploited when we Whites engage in these conversations and say:

 

“Well, this is racist, or that is racist!”

 

Well, then the radical reply is:

 

“No, it’s not, because X, Y and Z.”

 

And these conversations just go on for forever, like semantics. So I do encourage the use of the term anti-White as a way of working around that and sidestepping the debate and actually moving forward and making progress.

 

And then I’ve tried to establish some kind of criteria or guidelines to say:

 

“Hey, these are the properties you can look for. And if you find these, you can say, yes, this piece of material or this remark is anti-White.”

 

You know, you’re levying charges or incriminating White people for things that are not even unique to White people. You know, and you could go the direction of, so did the other colour groups, so did the other racial categories, so did this sort of that none of that’s unique to us. You’re just really bringing about a public shaming session or trying to make extortion demands from our population. You know, it’s, it’s. We have to take the longer way and work around it because they’ve, they’ve got all these language locks in place, you know, so.

 

Natty: Yeah, it’s a good point. Just to. Just to cap that, we, the people who are teaching this stuff in schools have been trained to use. To use language as a weapon, whereas we’ve been trained to, or taught not to use language as a weapon. And the inherent politeness of White people is being used against us.

 

And I think to understand that words, words can be like a game of chess, or a judo match or something, is quite important. And this book does a good job of explaining that and giving you the tools to use it in that way.

 

Aunt Sally: Something I wanted to, something I didn’t quite get, the only thing I didn’t quite get is, and it might be because it doesn’t apply to us so much here in the UK, but the four colour categories are White, black, yellow and brown, where they’re all sort of being moulded into every ethnic group that’s yellow.

 

So the Chinese and the Japanese and the Koreans and whatever, they’re all yellow and they’re taking away, are they taking away their individual identities as well as they’re doing to the White population or European population? Or is it. They’re just doing it for other purposes so that because they’re doing it to Whites. I don’t know if I’m making sense. It’s a bit that I didn’t.

 

Student X: Yeah, I understand.

 

And like I said earlier, that chapter was the hardest. I had to work the longest on that chapter just due to that concept, trying to bring it, bring it to existence and show it to others, you know?

 

But one of the ways, you know, as you encounter people publicly, one of the ways you can refer to them is you can refer to them by their name if, you know, them, or you can refer to them by their cultural or heritage based identity, or you could refer to them by their colour. Right. Their visual observation. Oh, I saw this colour person or that colour person today on my way. So and so these are all options when we, when we phrase the remarks and the statements we want to make and the effect we want those statements to have as they reach the broader population.

 

So this one subject shows you, hey, when you’re referring to people by their colour category, because all of us can do it, and all of us, you know, can have it directed at us, this shows you an example, physical colour.

 

So that’s where you see above each of those colour groups. You’ll see the individual identities crossed out. Those are not being enforced anymore. Right. And you’re just referring to them by what colour they are. And then it kind of shows the reader, it walks the reader through the application process, the effect it has on the general population, the way they react. And then it shows the reader, this is how you can actually pivot this, make it your own and redirect it or wield it yourself. You know, this is how you can strengthen arguments, or you can assign blame to a colour group as opposed to an individual.

 

And most importantly, this is the way that 100% of the incoming populations, this is the standard way they’ve been trained to speak, think, and write about our population, but our population has not been given that same training to use that same language structure back.

 

Therefore, they’re not experiencing the same social climate or all of the negative social effects that they have created for ours. And this is really just pointing that out simply by the way you phrase things and structure it shows you the abilities you have to pivot populations and people without them fully detecting it. So.

 

Natty: Okay, unless Mark or Sally’s got anything to add to that, I want to move on to, very briefly, just touch on this because we. I think most people listening would have heard this before, and it’s one of the most prevalent kind of anti-White terms.

 

But there’s a there’s a very short chapter on White privilege. And you say something here that is like a perennial truth. You say there’s nothing White about the general concept of inherent rights that all populations have to their own societies and institutions. It’s a universal understanding. The unrelated populations around the world do not possess the same inherent rights or sense of ownership to the societies or institutions of other populations.

 

So maybe you could just touch on the building blocks that you’ve already laid out in the previous few chapters, how that comes into play with White privilege.

 

Student X: Yeah, definitely. So I encountered that argument firsthand, personally, and it took me a while to kind of detangle that riddle, so to speak.

 

And basically, first of all, there’s a number of things that intersect with this. Right? Right. In that chapter I explained. I start off by explaining a privilege checklist can be constructed and pointed at any group. Right. You just have to change the criteria that’s being put on that list, and you could redirect which group’s going to be targeted by it. So what is this exercise, truly? I think it’s one of those public humiliation rituals that are used in past communent movements or the struggle sessions or the public sessions. I think that truly is what this is. White privilege is just one of the flavours that comes in. Right. You can use different subjects, but this is what they get the group to surround you and do.

 

Secondly, it appears that all they’re doing is changing the name of White rights to a privilege for these incoming foreigners to be instructed to challenge. Right? Which, you know, for those who support globalism and borderless world and whatever this is, what they want those populations to do is they want to take away our sense of ownership to our own societies, our sense of protecting them. And they want to say:

 

“Oh, what you have is now the property of the globe. And you don’t have any special rights or you’re not more entitled to be here than foreigners are. You just have this privilege that we’re here to challenge.”

 

Right. And going through that chapter, I kind of talked about, okay, well, let’s say you know why don’t I fly one of you on a plane to Nigeria? I think I put an illustration in there that I don’t know if you saw that one, Nettie, but it just shows you this is how you can wield it. This is how you can turn it back on them.

 

Natty: There’s a brown guy standing here. He says:

 

“Why are you moving to Nigeria?”

 

And the little White kids come in, he says:

 

“To challenge black privilege!”

 

Student X: Yeah, simple as that.

 

So one of the questions, knowing that now, this was one of the subjects that came up when I was in one of my meetings with. There was more than one Dean at this meeting, and I had, I think, people from Academic Affairs there and someone from the curriculum committee. So somebody up there was feeling really important and saying, I have a PhD, and whatever. So I thought, let me ask them this. How are you, like, can you explain the difference between White rights and White privilege? Can you explain how you personally are differentiating between those two concepts when you recite the scripting and they couldn’t? And I phrased the question that way to basically stab it right then and there on the thing that all you’re doing is changing the name of our rights to a privilege. You’re telling invading populations to feel entitled to challenge White rights. And that’s literally all you did.

 

Natty: Now, when I heard this argument, this is one of the things I wasn’t so sure about, because I imagine that using, using that rhetorical language of saying, how are you differentiating between White privilege and White rights, that the people who are ideologically ingrained with this kind of anti-White narrative wouldn’t have a problem with saying:

 

“Well, White rights is something that we should oppose as well, because it’s White supremacy.”

 

And I know that’s a little bit further on in the book, but that seems to me. And now I, it’s all very well me saying this. You use this, you use this against. You use this in a proper conversation against someone who is using the term White privilege. But it seems to me like people who are ingrained and ideologically in tune with anti-White narratives wouldn’t have a problem in saying, I don’t care if it’s White privilege or White rights, we should be opposed to it. Does that make sense?

 

Student X: Yeah. And there’s like I said, I tested a lot of this literature out online in real life with just random, like, tweets at radicals and stuff like that. And I tested the responses I got back, and what I found was, they do they do engage in semantics, right?

 

So if I were to take a direct approach and try to argue, no, these things are rights and they’re not privileged, that argue would go on forever. Right? But if I say okay. If I know that they’re trying to flip flop, let me do it this way.

 

Let me ask them, can you explain the difference between these two concepts? Show me how you’re differentiating between these two. Since you’re the one talking about it, let me put it on them and take away their ability to flip flop when I. When I structure that way. Sure.

 

Natty: Yep.

 

Student X: And that even worked up. There was nobody in that meeting with the Deans, the PhDs, the act, the so-called academics and whatever. And I literally took down a room of eight people on my own, not even somebody with a degree. I just. I can cut through the, you know what? You know. So I take a different approach. When I notice manipulation tactics being used in lieu of honesty or intellect, I say:

 

“Okay, how can I disable this manipulation tactic?”

 

And I try to take that. So.

 

Aunt Sally: Can I ask something? And it’s not actually about the book. It’s a phrase that you see it a lot in Right-wing circles, I think, and I don’t like it because it doesn’t. The Kalergi Plan, you know, where they’re supposed. There’s this plan to get everyone to breed with and mix up the races and whatever. Yeah. As if it’s some sort of benevolent thing they want people to do so that we’re all one colour and one race, which is that implies that they really want us all to be all get on, which is nonsense! But I just wonder what you thought. How.

 

I think it’s nonsense, but it’s for me trying to explain to people, don’t go on about the Kalergi Plan, because it’s really the opposite. They’re bringing that it’s something that they use. People can use it as, oh, this is what they do. And they want us all to breathe. No, they don’t! They don’t. They want us all to conflict. That’s the thing. I just wondered what you thought of it.

 

Student X: So I do believe that agenda to be real and in motion. I personally don’t use that terminology. I took a different approach, and I kind of built that into the chapter on denial of identity, because it will function. Because to beat that agenda, to survive that agenda, we need the ability to reclaim our identity and reinforce its existence. Right? That’s how we do it.

 

So I don’t really need to go into, like, historical citations or discussions of older plans like that and walk people through a history lesson, a, because I’m going to lose a portion of them along the way, but be, there’s already verbiage surrounding that where they have names to call you and stuff, if you even try to educate people on it.

 

So I just took a different approach. I said:

 

“Hey, when you encounter material that uses denial of identity in it, as explained in this book, I showed people a number of ways that you can challenge that.”

 

We want stuff that reinforces our identity as the Irish. We don’t want you training everyone to call themselves the Irish and referring to us by our colour. Because what happens over time is if there’s no identifier for your population and you don’t exist on paper, you don’t exist in the census. The definition and the dictionary has been changed and legal precedent has been set. If there is no word for your kind and you get flooded, you know, 20 to one with global traffic, you will be dissolved off and disappear into that global traffic because there’s no name to call you, there’s nothing to keep you together, you know, that’s just how I understand it.

 

Aunt Sally: No, that’s brilliant! Yeah.

 

Natty: Just on that term, you say global traffic. Probably a more common term that we would use, or we, I don’t know, in the circles I move in would just be mass immigration. And I think, and I don’t know, maybe you’re going to say I’m wrong here, but I think mass immigration is a more. It has like a more negative connotation, and it sounds deliberate.

 

Whereas global traffic could mean just a natural occurrence, which is one of the things that the people responsible for this are. Try and argue that it’s just a natural movement of people. Why did you use the term global traffic?

 

Student X: Agreed. Like I said, as I tested a lot of this verbiage in terms, one thing I encountered was there were already people who had a pre-planned ability to counter argue it or to defame it.

 

So what I wanted to do was be able to convey things using verbiage or scripting or terms that does not have handles on it, allowing the enemy to grab onto, to really work with. You know what I mean?

 

So when I just say global traffic, I’m just talking about this tidal wave of people from all over the world. I have excluded, you know, any reference to ethnicity, colour, nationality, or whatever, because I. And I can still convey the concept and educate people, this is what’s going to happen. But I can word it in a way where the opponents don’t really have much to grab onto. And using the term global traffic doesn’t express negative connotation. It just. It’s a it’s expresses an overwhelming volume that’s just going to get dumped in a small space and kind of wash out the existing population there.

 

Natty: Sure, yeah, I understand that. I’ll pass it back. Mark or Sal, if you’ve got questions.

 

Aunt Sally: There’s another term that he says, don’t say diversity, use the term variety. I’m not sure about that myself, because variety. Variety is kind of its a nice word to me, it’s a positive word.

 

And now here, diversity is amongst the general population, the English people, we think of it as a bad word now. Like it’s dividing.

 

I think that’s the latin root for it, isn’t it? It’s a divisive word, but things like we’ll say where they put barriers up to stop the bombs and whatever going off. In London, we call them diversity barriers. You know, at Christmas, they put up these bombs. We call them diversity barriers. So now, diversity, the word is people associate it negatively here. It’s progressed to that.

 

So I’m not sure about it might be different in America.

 

Mark Collett: I’d agree with you on that, Sally, because we also have something here, diversity targets, and they are very unpopular amongst normal people.

 

So if you say to people, oh my company’s got a diversity target now. That’s something that gets people rolling their eyes.

 

Whereas there are.

 

Whereas variety. The thing with the difference between diversity and variety in England is diversity is something that now has a connotation of being forced upon you to cause an outcome.

 

So it’s not opportunity, it’s not, what am I looking for here? It’s not about bringing about equality of opportunity, it’s about bringing about an outcome. It’s not that everyone has the same starting block and everyone gets to come to the job interview, because a lot of people in Britain agree with that if you say to people in the UK, do you believe in equality of opportunity? They will say:

 

“What do you mean? Everyone should be able to attempt to get the job.”

 

People will say:

 

“Absolutely, we do agree with that. We believe that anyone should be able to walk into that company and sign up in the sense that they can attend the job interview.”

 

But they will then say:

 

“Well, actually, though, we believe that the person who gets the job should be the best person for the job and there shouldn’t be a forced diverse outcome.”

 

Whereas variety is something like, well, if you go to. If you go to an all you can eat buffer, you’d say:

 

“Oh, there was a lot of variety.”

 

And that’s like a good thing.

 

So I do think there might be some linguistic differences in the UK between the UK and potentially, obviously, America. And that might sound obvious to people, but I do think that’s an important thing to raise because diversity is a dirty word here. And I’ll just throw that back to you as soon. X. Is diversity seen as a positive thing still in America? Because, as I said here, it’s much more maligned to the point where if you see a headline in a newspaper that uses the word diversity, obviously anyone, chime in if you think I’m wrong with this. Usually if you see a headline in a newspaper that uses the term diversity or the word diversity, it’s one of those things where people will immediately be like:

 

“Oh, God, diversity!”

 

Student X: Same here. What the context that was put in. I think she’s referring to the chapter that touches on some of the top used terms, the higher mileage terms that we see in the media and whatnot. And there’s a couple of things that intersect here and come into play. One, one of the forms of manipulation that we are targeted with is the radicals will make up secondary or altered alternative definitions to words and when. And the radicals use that definition in their normal conversation and stuff without disclosing that they’re doing it.

 

So a lot of times it leaves someone on the other side kind of scratching their head and saying, is that really what that means? Or whatever, or it goes to debate and so on.

 

Right now in this book, what was explained to the students is the success of these radicals relies on the whether or not they’re successful at forcing you to participate, to validate and to normalise and to accept this type of scripting and stuff like that. And the way that you cause that to malfunction on the ground level is to opt out, to disrupt, right? So around that term diversity, it says, you know, we’re often told scripting to recite or say that we value diversity.

 

And I encourage the students to disrupt and say, we’re not going to say that. Instead, I could say I value variety, but I can’t say I value diversity.

 

And here’s the logic behind that. Diversity is just divestment by another name. There is no difference in the way a divestment policy impacts your country, then a diversity policy impacts your country.

 

So if I go to, let’s say, Korea, which they’re now being targeted, and I enter a diversity policy, I am divesting and the Koreans themselves and I am transferring all that stuff over to non-Koreans, right, to increase diversity.

 

Now, we’ve all seen recently in the news that certain boycott or divestment policies have been met with swift action, Executive Orders, media, you know, co-operation and all that. Right. They won’t allow a divestment policy.

 

So how do you skate through a divestment policy in a majority White country? You change the name of it to a diversity policy, and you kind of push it through the legal system that way, if that makes sense.

 

Mark Collett: Okay, well, we’ll move on, then. And we’ve got a Superchat here. It’s from Glen19. He says:

 

“Natty, I hear you’re in the military. Have you checked out the new Antelope Hill book, the 60 year Caucasian War? I think Russia shouldn’t have conquered the East Caucus because it. Because it cost more in political stability than it was worth. Russians hate Caucasians more than any other minority.”

 

Natty: Well, I was in the military. I’m not anymore, and I haven’t heard of the book.

 

However, I’m just very, very lightly aware of what he’s talking about.

 

And I think the if I’m not mistaken, the general idea is that the Russian country, by prosecuting a war in the Caucasus, allowed a certain ethnic group to foment the revolution that happened at the end of the or the beginning of the 19 hundreds, basically, and bled the Russian government dry.

 

Now, I might be wrong about that’s my very surface level understanding of what he’s talking about. But this book by Antelope Hill seems to go into that in some depth, so I won’t try and talk on it because I don’t really know much, but that’s my basic understanding of what he’s talking about there.

 

Mark Collett: Okay, well, it wasn’t based around the book anyway. So look, the book we’re reviewing, and we’ve got another dot. We’ve got a very generous donation from Wally Fender, who gave $50 and said:

 

“Cheers!”

 

Well, thank you so much, my friend. I’m pleased you’ve enjoyed the stream. That’s the donations for tonight.

 

So that was short. And to the.1 thing I was going to say is, does anyone have any last questions? Because we’ve got a maximum of 20 minutes left. We don’t have to drag it out. There’s no more questions or nothing else to say. I’ve really enjoyed tonight. I kind of regret doing this now as a book club because we get less viewers or fewer viewers, should I say, when we do a book club than we do if we just do sort of an interview? Because obviously people thought, well, I haven’t read the book. Why would I want to tune in etc. Etc. The football, bloody football was on tonight as well, and all that. And I kind of feel that Student X has given us something far more than a book review, which I don’t often say after these things. But for me, the most interesting part tonight was actually going through what it’s like being in an American school, the racial divides, how bad things really are. And I found that absolutely fascinating!

 

And to be honest, I could have probably sat for an hour or so more just talking about or asking questions about racial dynamics in a multiracial American school. You know, obviously, California is one of the most mixed race states, whereas there are probably other states out there which are largely White and retain almost a feel in their schools of sort of 1950s America or something like that.

 

But obviously in California, you’re not going to get that. And I found that really, really interesting.

 

So I want to thank Student X for that.

 

But I also want to throw out to you guys, is there anything else that you want to bring up before we go into summations and wrap things up.

 

Natty: I’ve got one question, and this might be controversial. I don’t know. It’s kind of related to modern, where we find ourselves at the moment, where there’s this war going on in the Middle East between Palestine and Israel, and it’s basically an ethnic cleansing that’s been carried out on behalf of Israel, and it’s generated a schism, as if there aren’t enough schisms on the dissident Right, the Right-wing, whatever you want to call it, where people are saying we shouldn’t be supporting one side or the other. If you’re going to be pro-White, just be pro-White.

 

Now, I just want to ask you, student time, do you think pro-White is the most valuable route to go down, or do you think there’s some value in recognizing that sometimes the enemy of your enemy is also your friend?

 

Student X: Well, I’ve actually been kind of passionate about this and recently, first of all, I don’t. I agree with you. It’s a cleansing.

 

Regardless of the semantics of what you want to call it’s a cleansing, number one.

 

Number two, anytime young children are getting taken out, there is no arguing about that it’s wrong.

 

Regardless of which way it occurs, young kids should not be involved in that. But third, I think we need to use this as leverage both in America and in the UK, because what I’ve seen is deliberate acts of disrespect. I’ve seen the government show in so many ways that they won’t defend the White population. Well, then we need to say, don’t ask us to defend you. If you’re not willing to explicitly outlaw anti-White ism, then best of luck, you go fight your own wars.

 

But you can’t ask us to defend you if you don’t defend us. Right?

 

So that’s a stopping point. I personally don’t want us to get into that. And it feels like it’s unfortunate, but the level of corruption, it actually takes this level of an ultimatum during this time to force them to cooperate and do what they should have been doing this entire time. That’s just my opinion. And if racial equity wants to come into it, then we can say, hey, we fought the first two.

 

The other groups have to fight the next two World Wars. You have to make an equitable contribution. You don’t just get free equitable asset distributions. You know what I mean?

 

So there’s a number of ways I tackle this, but a, we should not be involved in its not ours. And be, we need to use this as leverage against the government to force them to outlaw anti-White ism, restore self representation in all of our institutions at every level, and give us oversight and legal enforcement abilities, and restore our media reporting because we need the ability to report on attacks. You know, that block has to be removed and reversed.

 

So that’s my stance is a little tougher, so.

 

Natty: Okay. Yeah, thank you for that. I’ll hand over in case or Mark has got.

 

Aunt Sally: I’ve got a question I just want to ask. I really love the book. Are you writing anymore?

 

Student X: Oh, well, thank you. This was the first time I ever attempted to write a book. And I did it because, like I said, I’ve got something that needs to be said. And then I was motivated when I saw another kid and harmed by this stuff.

 

So this was the one that was the most important to me. I do have enough material to probably do three or four more. And this will be original works, new terms, new concepts, new strategies that no one’s ever seen! I already have a lot of it written out and sketched out, but I didn’t know how much went into writing a book, Sally. And I honestly don’t know if I could put myself through that again. But if the time arises and if I think I can coordinate it, the answer is yes. I already know the title. I already know what the chapters are going to be called. I already know what’s going to be in a lot of its just a matter of framing it correctly, testing some of the verbiage in terms, getting my artists back and getting this out there. You know, I would say, may I touch on a few other things, guys, that I wanted to cover while I had you? But we did.

 

Mark Collett: Sure, sure.

 

Student X: Go for it. This has to be done at the student level because there’s so much gate-keeping and so many policy changes that parents and outsiders are locked out.

 

So it’s only somebody who’s within the belly of the beast that can initiate this process. Right?

 

So this is why I’m speaking directly to the students. I’m bypassing all faculty, all politicians. Like, if they’re not even there, I’m saying:

 

“Hey, I’m speaking directly to you. Wherever you are in the world. This is something for you.”

 

And I’m going to show you this. You need to know this. Okay? So I want them to look for options to dissent, right? Because dissent and disrupt. Because these radicals, if they can’t normalise things through repetition or forced participation, then they can’t. They can’t really get certain stuff off of the ground, and it causes their agenda to fail. So dissenting is something students can do at the student level and cause it to malfunction without getting in trouble. Right?

 

So if you get. You know, if they want to force you to participate in a public shaming session, whether they call that cultural appropriation or White privilege or whatever other flavour they’re doing, the student can simply say, we’re not going to participate in a public shaming session. I don’t see anywhere in the guidelines or laws that say schools have the authority to force us to participate in these type of sessions.

 

So we’re opting out. We want something different. That’s all you got to say. It goes directly to the office of the administration. They don’t have recourse. They have to let you go. Right? So that doesn’t give the teacher the satisfaction. We already covered denial of identity. When you encounter material that uses this property, you can say, hey, this has denial of identity present in it. We want something different. This is not adequate for us. And you can dismiss a good chunk of their entire curriculum. You can disqualify a large portion of it just using this one topic.

 

But it’s really about chipping away. And at schools that have taught it’s impossible to be racist to White people, this one will give you a foothold on campus because they say all students and all people need to know to identify racial discrimination. How to confront it and how to defend themselves when they’re targeted. Right. So if White kids are at a school that says:

 

“Hey, we use the definition that it’s impossible to be racist to White people.”

 

Fine. White students won’t learn how to defend themselves or identify racial discrimination by attending your conference on racism. White students will now need their own dedicated conference and training on how to identify race based exclusion, how to challenge it, how to seek justice, and so on.

 

And this gives a really good example of dissenting right there on the spot, establishing a space that’s only for us, and it gives a valid reason, you know, so dissent, definitely very important. Political. Once these concepts and terms float out to the general population, which I don’t see how they’ll be stopped. They can’t call them derogatory or anything, but once this stuff floats out and more and more people become aware of it, you can now get active in the political arena. You can bring up old tweets or old news clippings of politicians who have used these tactics on public stages and call for them to be removed. Name the tactic, call for them to be removed and replaced with politicians who will pledge to fight against anti-White discrimination and represent us using White positive politics. You can kind of marry those two things together and put them out there in a publicly visible way, in a way that’s palatable to the general population. You don’t have to use negative verbiage words. You don’t have to mention the other groups. It’s really more about the skill and how you word it.

 

And like I said, in each of these chapters, at the end, there’s a dedicated section for students of what they can do pertaining to that one subject.

 

And there’s also a dedicated system section for politics and how you can start weaving this into your political action and the way you can phrase things and stuff like that. Like I said, view this more like a training manual the enemy’s playbook. I’m going to open this up. I’m going to show you what their next or what their common moves are. I should say show you how you can kind of get through those, still convey your message, what to ask for, and really start making institutional changes and start rolling a lot of this back.

 

So that’s what I wanted to say.

 

Natty: And just to cap that off, the last thing I’ve got written in my notes is how the situation we’re in and the reason that these narratives have been allowed to spread is because we’re not in power as a group.

 

However, this book gives you some degree of personal empowerment to fight back against it.

 

And I think that touches on what, basically everything you’ve just said, student time.

 

For that reason, it’s a really useful, non-worthwhile piece of literature.

 

Aunt Sally: Can I add to that that nati, that I think it is really important for everyone to read it’s not just for students, because as a parent or my children are all out of the school system now, but as a parent, quite often if your 15 year old is in trouble at school, you’re the one that’s got go and back them up. And if you’ve read this book and you’re behind your children, then that gives you the tools as a parent to go in and help your children child or argue with the teachers of just backing up your own children.

 

So I think it is an important book for everybody, even this old boomer here, because I can use it in my life and help my grandchildren now, very subtly or whatever.

 

But, yeah, I think it’s important that parents read it, too, because I know whenever my children were trouble at school and all my children were good children, but if there was a conflict, it would be me to back them up and I would. And it would help for that.

 

So, yeah, carry on.

 

Student X: I appreciate that, both of you. It means a lot to me. One other thing I wanted to add is we have to change the way we’re approaching this because we know that on the inside they’re corrupted and they’ve also been instructed not to acknowledge it verbally or to disclose that they’re operating that way. Right.

 

So we need to change our Angles and think about as far as existing politicians, what are direct questions you can ask them that you can’t get in trouble for? So one is will you work to outlaw anti-White discrimination? Ask that question in a public microphone and put them on the spot. Let’s see what they answer. Think about the optics. For a politician who resists the request, they have no win. When you ask it that way, you haven’t offended anyone and you can bring up a piece of paper or literature from a nearby school that says you can’t be racist to White people or whatever. So to show that it is valid. And we need to know, you know, we have to know how things are going to work here if we’re going to live here. So just that one other thing.

 

And then two, like I said, I greatly appreciate the feedback this was done more to get this off my chest and help as many people as I can, really, around the world, what’s been fashioned here, and once they’ve polished their rhetoric, so to speak, and gotten the recipe right, that finished product is now getting sent to the UK as a finished product is going to Australia. It’s going all over and it’s just blindsiding people that aren’t ready for it. So I’m hoping this is racing along behind it to help them. And if all of you could, once you get it, once you get time, if you could leave a review on the Amazon or like, a book review online or something to let you know, other people know, it would help make it more visible to all of them, and I would appreciate it.

 

Mark Collett: So not a problem.

 

Well, look, let’s do our final thoughts. We’ll go around the group, Natty, Aunt Sally, then me, and then Student X can have the final word and we’ll shut things down.

 

Natty: It’s very clear that Student X is a very intelligent and well thought out individual. I think there are lots of people on whatever you want to call this dissident Right, the far-Right, who are criminally underrated and have been shut down by a system that doesn’t want their ideas and thoughts out there. And Student X is obviously belongs to these people. This has been a more foreign, in depth and educational stream than I thought it was going to be. I should have known, reading the book, really. But everything you’ve said speaks to your level of intelligence and knowledge on this subject and how far you fought into it.

 

So it’s been an absolute pleasure and I think the book is an easy recommend for anyone, really. But thank you for being on here and I appreciate it. And go and buy the book, guys.

 

Aunt Sally: Yeah, I’ll just try. Mean, I wrote that down, too, Natty, about his IQ, because I’m suspicious that he’s got levels of Keith Wood’s IQ, but he’s more relatable for me anyway. Definitely! I love the book. It’s my favourite.

 

Now, how many have we done? And I love them. I love quite a lot of them, but this is one that I find very, very important that everybody read it. He focuses on solutions and counter tactics as well as explaining how the current agenda works, works, and he does it all in a relatable way. I learnt a lot, also reflected on how it’s been done to my generation and the other generations of my children. I’ve learnt so much from it. I can’t recommend it enough and yeah, definitely. I’ll go and write a review. I might buy a couple more to give away. It’s that good a book. It’s really impressive. Please write some more.

 

Another one. I’m going to put Mark on the spot now. Please invite this guy on to PWR. He’s just too good to let him go.

 

I don’t know if you have a

Mark Collett: I think that’s what I was getting at earlier, Sally, when I said that it was wasted to simply have him on the book review because he’s been so good!

 

Aunt Sally: Sorry, I pre-empted you there.

 

Student X: All right.

 

Aunt Sally: Anyway, but just saying, everybody buy this book, please. It’s a diamond of a book. It’s really. It’s worth its weight in gold. I think someone said it’s only $6 on Amazon. It’s really worth buying.

 

So thank you, Student X, for coming on the show. We never know when we get an offer because some of them are really, especially when it’s the first book, some of them are frightened we’re going to. We’re going to be awful or. And some of them just aren’t very talkative. And it’s just so nice to have someone who knows his stuff and is able to just speak about with so much enthusiasm and written such a brilliant book.

 

So it’s been great. It’s my favourite one, I think so, even though I’ve not said much, as usual.

 

Anyway, I’ll go. But thank you. Thank you so much!

 

Mark Collett: Thank you very much, Anthony. I’m going to give my final say. Maybe I was wrong about this because I said it was sort of a book for specifically one group of people, but an Sully got a lot out of it and it is extremely well written. It’s got some great debating skills in there. It’s one of those books that if you pick it up, it will teach you maybe nothing new in terms of some big reveal on an ideological level, but it will teach you an awful lot when it comes to how to approach these topics in public. And I like these books because they are practical. And practical things are useful. You can spend hundreds and some people spend thousands of hours listening to podcasts, listening to productions which deal with issues on an ideological level. But very rarely do they teach you how to frame an argument so that normal people understand it and so that those who enforce rules against us are stopped in their tracks. And this book does that.

 

So if you want to think of it as a book, that’s great! But you could also think of it as a shield. If you will as a defensive tool that you can use to essentially turn back the fire that is breathed at you by the anti-White dragon.

 

So if you are in an institution and it might not be a school, or a university, could be a workplace, you could be advocating, as Sally rightfully said, not even think of this on behalf of your children or your grandchildren. This book is, as I said, it’s not that ideological book that explains it all the people behind it, but it is the book that gives you the arguments and the common sense and easy to understand ways to frame a rebuttal to the things used against White people on a daily basis in all manner of institutions. And because of that, this is a very, very useful book and I can’t recommend it enough. I will say it is cheap on Amazon. Go and grab a copy. The link is in the description below and it’s been a joy to do this stream. Tonight we’ve got a couple more Superchats. Anti Mattoy gave $25. Thank you for your generosity. He says equal training sounds like an excellent guide to navigating and combating the language games that are relentlessly played on us. Student X mentioned Rhodesia earlier. Can he say something more about what he learnt about how manipulative tactics were used in Rhodesia? Would you like to say something about that, Student X?

 

Student X: Yeah.

 

First of all, thank you all so much for even having me. This has been great and I love having these conversations and helping anyone of our population in any way that I can. Like I said, I do this because it comes from the heart.

 

As far as Rhodesia, you know, from what I’ve investigated, it was the anti-White scripting or the scapegoating of the White population which riled up the other populations to a point where they outnumbered and collapsed that White population and even massacred a big portion of them.

 

And then the instruction was given to the government, do not respond to attacks on White people.

 

Therefore the Whites were left to defend for themselves and they were outnumbered. And that’s the same playbook that is already at work in South Africa. It’s now here in America, it’s now in Australia, it’s in Canada. And I now see the exact same thing, copy and paste strategy being introduced in the UK and in Ireland. So I even have an interview saved to my phone, a video of a young black lady who was in Rhodesia at the time and she spoke about this firsthand. She goes, yeah, this was, this was intentional to word remarks using these tactics because they want to incite violence and retaliation against the White population. Knowing it’ll be overwhelmed, and the government can just stand down, and then the destruction is complete. You know, they walk off with whatever they want, you know, cash be it, or whatever.

 

So also, I did intercept that hate law that was going in Ireland around December and January. I emailed a number of Senators. I emailed the school curriculum committee in Ireland directly because I’m outside of their legal jurisdiction and I can do what Irish people cannot.

 

And I also found that people from Zimbabwe have been installed in Ireland. There’s a lady by the name of Donna Vuma. There’s another guy I came across who was supporting the EFF, the land back movement, and his Twitter listed him as being in Dublin.

 

So the people that are already trained in this scripting, they’ve already used it to destroy a White population on another part of the planet, have been relocated to Ireland, and the laws are being changed in Ireland, or they’re attempting to where the government only protects those populations and the White population or the Irish population. So it’s there. It’s going to happen rapidly. But anything you want to look up on Rhodesia and stuff, I personally have looked up on YouTube. I’ve talked with people in South Africa, maybe like AfriForum or Africon or networks or something like that could tell you because they’re a lot closer there. You know, they probably saw stuff firsthand. But there. This goes back to what you guys said earlier about, can I just move to a White area? Can I run from this? I argue no. This is all planned. It’s all centralised. It’s, you know, multiple supposedly independent countries are all following one playbook, which tells us it’s coming from a centralised location. People who’ve already done it are being relocated through immigration, diversity, Visa programs, whatever. And it’s gonna hit guys, and I’m giving it five to ten years max, so.

 

Mark Collett: Okay. And we’ve got another Superchat. RoryHerbert gave $5. Thank you so much, my friend. He said:

 

“Dear Mark, I just learnt that General Sir Rowley Walker is just been appointed chief of the general staff of the British army. Not only did he go to my old school, but he’s also a member of my old regiment. If you or Natty were in command of the British army, what would you do to ensure its future? Natty, what would you do to ensure the future of the British army?”

 

Natty: At the risk of starting a long discussion that’s not on topic and also FED posting, I think I’ll skip this.

 

I mean, there are some pretty obvious and easy steps you could take but.

 

Mark Collett: I’ve got the best step. Natty.

 

Natty: Yeah, go ahead.

 

Mark Collett: You won’t have even thought of this. What we need to do is pull. Pull all the military R & D, that’s research and development money, and pump it into making a real life gundam. Once we’ve got a fleet of real life gundams, nothing would stand in the way. The UK military forces, it would absolutely shake the world.

 

Can you imagine it? It’d be, you know, where do we go first? You know, not even the not even America and the White House would be able to withstand the firepower of one single gundam. But nobody’s thought of this yet.

 

Natty: I think there’s a good reason for that, buddy. You can keep dreaming.

 

Mark Collett: No, no. If I was. Look, it’s very simple, really, joking aside, because this is the guy Superchatted and we appreciate that. But joking aside, I would definitely. I would definitely do a couple of things that would reform the army and it’d be very, very simple. And without sort of going off, off topic for 30 minutes, you just really need to get back to what makes a proper, professional army a good thing, which is proper training, proper standards and proper discipline. The fact the British military isn’t what it was is largely due to it losing the things that ensured a good intake, vetted that intake.

 

And if you remember, I remember this from when I was a kid. I’m sure Robbie remembers this. I’m sure you do, Natty. But the old British army slogan was be the best. That was it, wasn’t it?

 

Natty: Yeah, we used to have a joke when we were in the army.

 

When I was in the army, it wasn’t be the best, it was be depressed.

 

Mark Collett: Oh, God. Well, be the best was always on the army army advert. And I used to like that slope. And I like the idea that you go through this rigorous selection and the British army would choose the best and then turn them into the best of the best. And we were a professional military nation that had an army that selected for the elite. And the whole idea of the British army post Second World War, the ethos of the British army was, we’re not the biggest, but we punched a so far above our weight. And it was almost seen as if the Royal Marines, and I know the Marines, some people view them as an elite regiment, but they’re not an elite regiment in the same way as sort of the SAS or Special Forces. But the Royal Marines at one point were seen almost on the same level as other nations Special Forces units. And that said a lot about the British army, that we had sort of a regular regiment that was trained to that level, a mass regiment that was trained to that level that the rest of the world feared. And I don’t think we’ve got that anymore.

 

And I think if we started just doing things as we used to, selecting for the best, stripping out the diversity, stripping out the we need women here, we need women there. Oh, look, we’ve got a midget in that unit, but we can’t get rid of him because we had to abolish the height restrictions, you know, same with the police. I was walking through the city centre the other day near where I lived, and there was a police officer, and she must have been under five foot tall and as wide as she was tall.

 

Now, how this butterbean was going to stop anybody committing a crime, I mean, if she’d have tried to chase you’d have probably ended up being dumb for some kind of involuntary manslaughter, because in giving chase, she would have had a heart attack and they’d have blamed you for causing her to give chase. These people aren’t fit for duty. And I genuinely think it’s simple stuff like that that could, you know, people seem to think that because we face big problems, the solutions must be, you know, big and complex, and I simply don’t think they are. And I definitely know somebody’s going to clip that Gundam thing out and make it as if I make it as if that was a serious problem, but it wasn’t. But I’ve kind of always wanted to say that imagine being like, mark, you’re in charge of all the money. What are you going to do with it? And I just say to Natty, let’s get the Gundam programme underway.

 

Natty: I will just. I will just add, I mean, the army. The army is just an institution in this country. Yes, it stands alone, but the problem is where it intersects with politics and who pulls the levers of power in this country.

 

So whether it was the army, whether it’s schools, which is what we’ve been talking about, hospitals, whatever else, where it intersects with this anti-White power system is where you have a problem. The army, the British army itself is probably still made up, mostly professionals, people who are capable of problem solving and getting things done. But unfortunately, like the rest of us, we’re ruled over by people who absolutely hate the native population, so it suffers like everything else.

 

Mark Collett: Agreed.

 

Well, look, that’s the end of the show. Thank you to everyone who Superchatted tonight and we will throw this. Oh, open borders for Israel gave five odds. Can you review the horror cause narrative or The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit by Michael Jones? I’d love to do that. Yeah. I’ll email him. Okay. That’s a good suggestion. I will email him tomorrow morning.

 

So that brings us to the end of the show. Everyone’s highly recommended this book. It’s been a really entertaining stream. I’m sorry about the slightly depressed numbers because the football was on, but it is what it is. Student X, have you got any short final words? Because we’re ten minutes over.

 

Student X: No, just again, thank you all for having me on. It’s been wonderful talking with you. Anyone in our population can reach out to me. If there’s anything I can do to help or if you want to know further have further discussions or whatever, I’m here. I’m on standby, so.

 

Mark Collett: Well, thank you so much! Thank you for being on.

 

I will be back next week for Patriotic Weekly Review on Wednesday, and I’ll have my German friend Sasha Ross Muller on with me. People have been asking for a European to discuss what’s going on in Europe. We’ve got one, obviously, the general election next week as well. Stay updated with my thoughts on that and all the latest news on my Telegram and gap.

 

Thank you to everyone who’s been here. Thank you to Natty. Thanks, Ansali. Thanks to Student X. Massive. Thank you to everyone who donated so generously. But the biggest thank you, as always, goes to this incredible community. I love you all.

 

Thank you for being with us and we will see you again next month. It will be for another wonderful book review and I’ll be back on Wednesday. Until then, stay strong. Keep fighting. Thank you so much! Love you all.

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

(Comments as of 7/2/2024 = 89)

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

2
0

@Aunt-Sally
1 day ago
It was one of the best streams we’ve done. I highly recommend you listen to it.

12
0
Hide replies

@Mcavoy
1 day ago
Thanks Sally, it was a great show!

3
0
Based and Rempilled
21 hours ago
Thank you Sally.

@LottaSense
1 day ago
great guest

7
0
MagicManintheSky
1 day ago
Weimar Britain

5
0

@Glen19
1 day ago
Those who say that they’re anti-Imperialism aren’t really. They ignore all Non-European imperialism. It’s just a way to attack Europeans not imperialism

6
0

@What3
1 day ago
FINNALLY. Someone in the white dissident sphere who’s smart and gets it! Just got the book.

5
0
Vettekid1488
1 day ago
damnit …I’m getting notifications after the streams are finished

5
0
Hide replies

@Apollo
1 day ago
Same

2
0
Based and Rempilled
21 hours ago
Phenomenal book to have on hand for any parent. It’s entirely moral and I’ve heard of people using it at school board meetings. If you attend I highly recommend it. It’s cheap and effective to help stop antiwhite indoctrination at schools.

4
0
Natty
1 day ago
Check out White Student T. on X. Resource offering a combination of Podcast, tutorials & literature to counter #AntiWhite’s. #White #Student #Learn #College #University #America #Europe #School
https://x.com/WhiteStudentT

4
0

@LottaSense
1 day ago
funny how climate crap goes on and on about nons being displaced while they purposely displace White people from their own homelands

4
0
Hide replies
Vettekid1488
1 day ago
so much projection smh

1
0

@WhiteLightKnight
7 hours ago
Sorry but couldn’t make this live. Not because of sportsball but family commitments. Now listening on replay. Absolutely incredible stream. As usual

@Natty
is making excellent points. Especially why has the word Caucasian disappeared?

1
0

@MississippiCoops
6 hours ago
Just ordered his book. Thanks for introducing me to the author and to all your other guests Mark. Great stream.

2
0
Randy McDowell
6 hours ago
Can’t believe I watched Kalergi FC vs SLOVAKIA over this. Riveting stuff

2
0

@AlbionForever
1 day ago
You used to have to be at least 6ft to be a copper, didn’t you?

1
1
Hide replies
Wizard
22 hours ago
Had to be 6ft 2in to be a Florida State Trooper. Which is highway patrol.

@Rixille
1 day ago
Are there alternative online vendors for this book? I deleted my Amazon account.

2
0

@RoryHerbert
1 day ago
“Rhodesians never die”.

2
0
MagicManintheSky
1 day ago
Jews are not “White”

2
0

@EndJewishPrivilege
1 day ago

@LottaSense
White Genocide by the Juden

2
0

@LottaSense
1 day ago
GREAT STREAM

1
0
MagicManintheSky
1 day ago
Please make this book available at pro-White booksellers.

1
0
Bianca Fights The Zombies
1 day ago
this speaker is so fantastic

1
0
Bianca Fights The Zombies
1 day ago
grassroots, decentralized

1
0
WarpSpeedJudas
1 day ago
The Jews will never just give that up. It must be taken back by force.

1
0

@AprilRainFilly
1 day ago
Would be good to get Student X on a full show – so interesting to hear what’s going on in the US and the parallels with what we are seeing in the UK

1
0
Anti Mattoid
1 day ago
$25.00
Equal Training sounds like an excellent guide to navigating and combatting the language games that are relentlessly played on us. Student X mentioned Rhodesia earlier – can he say something more about what he learned about how manipulative tactics were used in Rhodesia?

1
0

@Glen19
1 day ago

@LottaSense
The climate agenda is a massive scam. The carbon trading system Korea implemented isn’t doing anything to stop climate change

1
0

@Glen19
1 day ago
Japan was doing colonialism in the 1500s in Korea

1
0

@GaelicNord
1 day ago
Saw that yea. She said “EUROPE IS NOT WHITE!” In a loud bantu voice. And all the stupid White shitlibs applauded to her. sickening

1
0

@RoryHerbert
1 day ago
$5.00
Dear Mark, I just learned that General Sir Roly Walker has just been appointed Chief of the General Staff of the British Army. Not only did he go to my old school but he’s also a member of my old regiment. If you or Natty were in command of the British Army what would you do to ensure it’s future?

0
2
MagicManintheSky
1 day ago
^

@RoryHerbert
1 day ago
I still have a friend who is serving in the SBS,

@MarkCollett

@FashyChad
1 day ago
butterbean lol

Bianca Fights The Zombies
1 day ago
get the kindle version for $6

@LottaSense
1 day ago
or maybe that is S&H fees to be sent to where you are?

@LottaSense
1 day ago
omy gosh. gatekeeping it already?

MagicManintheSky
1 day ago
This book is listed at $52 in Australia on Amazon.

@Aunt-Sally
1 day ago
You won’t regret it

@keribou
it really is brilliant

Bianca Fights The Zombies
1 day ago
buy it while you can, can’t trust Amazon

Keribou
1 day ago
have just bought it!

@RoryHerbert
1 day ago
Good evening

@Chief_Moody
Sir.

Chief Moody
1 day ago
Evening troops

MagicManintheSky
1 day ago
Will Amazon allow this to go forward?

Natty
1 day ago

@BIANCA
he really is

@Glen19
1 day ago
Japan has a plan to be net zero carbon by 2050. All it has done is raise electricity prices. I suppose it will make us produce less carbon by forcing us to use less electricity

Hide replies
Vettekid1488
1 day ago
all nations will do this …raise costs for our modern conveniences to ween us off of them

Bianca Fights The Zombies
1 day ago
$6 on Amazon, well worth it

@LottaSense
1 day ago
nothing wrong with strategizing and doing tactics

MagicManintheSky
1 day ago
He wants to do an “end-run” around the Jewish gatekeepers.

@LottaSense
1 day ago
the jews did give that up in america technically. They got a supreme court decision a few years ago that says they are not White

@LottaSense
1 day ago
every time you do something it gets easier- look, you already know the title and chapter names

@LottaSense
1 day ago

@Natty
lol i know its a massive scam! saying “climate crap” was unclear,,, haaa cheers

@Glen19
1 day ago
I think it’s a way to get less developed countries into the global market for more profits.

@Glen19
1 day ago
Its just a redistribution scheme

Natty
1 day ago
of course, and it would be easy to weigh in but ultimately, language and narratives have to be understood as tool and weapons used by certain groups of people in certain ways. it benefits the Chinese government to use that language and narrative

@Glen19
1 day ago

@Natty
In Asia you will hear more complaints about Japanese imperialism than European imperialism. The CCP in particular uses as a foundational myth.

@LottaSense
1 day ago

@EndJewishPrivilege
exactly

Natty
1 day ago

@Glen19
yes, its an example of a cropped narrative

@LottaSense
1 day ago
If you research it, there is nothing benevolent about the Kalergi plan. And it is an actual plan that was put forward by the usual suspect group

@LottaSense
1 day ago
OMMMMG you are so right! I never thought of that before! They are just changing the name of our rights to “privilege”

@LottaSense
1 day ago
but then again, public school employees are teaching the same tactics along with the media

@LottaSense
1 day ago
africans are taught the tactics from day one in africa and then they are shipped into our countries

@Insightful_World
1 day ago
Student X sounds like Mike Enoch

@LaylandSue
1 day ago

@SomeRandomBloke
I second that.

@LottaSense
1 day ago
VERY good point whoever just talked about words as weapons and how White people are conditioned to NOT use words as weapons

@Glen19
1 day ago
$2.00
Natty, I hear you were in the military. Have you checked out the new antelope hill book, The Sixty-Year Caucasian War? I think Russia shouldn’t have conquered the East Caucasus because it cost more in political stability than it was worth. (Russians hate Caucasians more than any other minority)

@EndJewishPrivilege
1 day ago
Perhaps Jonathan Greenblatt and the Knesset should be asked for reparations, considering the jewish role in slavery?

@Glen19
1 day ago
Slavery was the economic model prior to the Industrial Revolution. I would say it held back industrialization. Either way it was going to be made obsolete

@RoryHerbert
1 day ago
:heart:

@Aunt-Sally
xxoo

@LottaSense
1 day ago
ty Natty

@LottaSense
1 day ago
It is very strange when you have children many years apart, to see the differences in society that your children have to navigate.

Natty
1 day ago
Check out White Student T. on X. Resource offering a combination of Podcast, tutorials & literature to counter #AntiWhite’s. #White #Student #Learn #College #University #America #Europe #School
https://x.com/WhiteStudentT

@LottaSense
1 day ago
is Student X/WST on x or gab or does he have a website?

@LottaSense
1 day ago
This guy is amazing

@01123581379
1 day ago
mass deportations must happen or Trump is a traitor

Natty
1 day ago
joe*

Natty
1 day ago
hey jo

Joe Marsh
1 day ago
yo guys

@Aunt-Sally
1 day ago
Hi everyone, won’t be long… just setting up on a borrowed laptop

@Amalek61
1 day ago
All sports ball is GAY!!!

Natty
1 day ago
evening all

@Amalek61
1 day ago
Equal training does not guarantee equal learning

Hide replies

@What3
1 day ago
Not the sharpest tool in the shed i see.

@AprilRainFilly
1 day ago
looking forward to this

Open Borders for Israel
1 day ago
5
can you review the holocaust narrative or the jewish revolutionary spirit by e michael jones and have him on as a guest?

0
0

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

See Also

top

Damien Richardson: Welcome back to Damienrichardson.online where we are continuing, definitely today we’re continuing to have the difficult conversations. We’re talking to retired academic Frank Salter. Once we hear the title of the book that he’s recently published with a colleague of his, Harry Richardson. I think we might wonder whether he actually retired if he was thrown out of academia because the name of the book is Anglophobia, the Unrecognized Hatred.

 

Frank Salter, welcome to the show.

 

Frank Salter: Nice, nice to be here.

 

Damien Richardson: Now, Frank, what prepossessed you to even be to begin to write a book with that title?

 

Frank Salter: Well, what began it was I received a 6,000 word email, in effect from my co-author Harry Richardson. And he said:

 

“I’ve got an idea for an article.”

 

We thought it would be maybe about that long, 6,000 words. It went to almost ten times that.

 

And he had this argument, which is the structure of the book, which is talking about everyone else can have their home country but not us. Anglo Australians and all other European nations are not permitted to have their own country where they remain the super majority. Not just a 51% majority, but an 85, a 90% majority, which most other peoples aspire to. They might not have it, but they aspire to it. They can lobby for it, they can agitate for it and they’re not called Nazis. Right?

 

So territory is homeland is a basic one, or control of immigration and so on and so forth.

 

And I thought this is rhetorically really powerful.

 

So between us, his concept of the book became a book project, took us a year. And with my academic training together, it was a great combination. And we came up with this book that I think covers a lot of the sensitive areas.

 

Damien Richardson: The book was only recently published, wasn’t it?

 

Frank Salter: Yeah, earlier this year [2023]

 

Damien Richardson: Earlier this year. How’s it been received in academic circles and also by the broader public?

 

Frank Salter: Not one review! It’s just been ignored, except on the dissident side of politics. It’s dissident Right. It’s been acknowledged, been reviewed. It was published initially in Quadrant magazine, which is Australia’s premiere intellectual magazine for conservatives. Quadrant magazine’s been running for 50, 60 years.

 

So it was published in a huge, you know, series, four long articles with other part of the book.

 

So that was good. And we had good responses from readers there.

 

But in academe, no, I think I can’t think of one review.

 

Damien Richardson: So why is it being ignored? Talk us through that process. Why would it be ignored? You have fine credentials, you worked overseas, as part of academia as well as in Australia, as well as your colleague, so why would it be ignored?

 

Frank Salter: Well, for the same reason that I could not find a job in Australia! I had to work overseas at a research Institute in Europe for 20 years. I couldn’t find work in Australia. Why? Because my field of study, it’s not Right-wing or anything, but I study human nature and how that underpins political systems.

 

So I’m a political scientist trained at Sydney University, PhD, Griffith University in Brisbane. My doctoral dissertation was published by Oxford University Press. You can’t do better than that. And my supervisor, [chuckling] my Professor said:

 

“You’ve got it. You’re home and hosed, Frank. You’re home and hosed! This is it!”

 

I mean, if Oxford publishes your PhD dissertation, you can just sort of name your position. It’s great!

 

No chance! I had just no chance. And for that same reason, the book is just ignored. Books on the Right are just ignored.

 

Damien Richardson: So it proves your thesis in many respects, doesn’t it?

 

Frank Salter: It does. It does!

 

Damien Richardson: And what is your thesis?

 

Frank Salter: That there’s been a Cultural Revolution which became manifest, it started earlier, but it became manifest in the 1960s with the student rebellions across the West. And then went through the 1970s. It’s called the Counterculture. I mean, it was pretty easy to notice. And it was called a Cultural Revolution, but it went much deeper.

 

And what it reflected was a change in cultural elites right through the West’s history and the history of other countries. Their intellectual elites have reflected, have belonged to the people, they’ve been part of the people, they’ve come from the people often, and they haven’t critiqued or sought to tear down the basic society, the structure of society and so on.

 

They’ve actually been loyal to it, although critical here and there, of course, being intellectuals got to be critical of something, I suppose. But they wouldn’t want to tear down the whole structure. That changed.

 

Now there’s a literature on this. Eric Kaufman, for example, his 2004 book, The Rise and Fall of Anglo America. Eric Kaufman, still alive, valuable colleague, Harvard University Press. This is mainstream academy.

 

And he pointed out that by the 1950s, the cosmopolitan Left had captured elite American universities. The American university system at the top, not the bottom of it. There is like two or 3,000 American universities, most of them low powered two year colleges. But the elite ones, Princeton, Harvard and the big state systems, those universities were in effect captured by the late 1950s.

 

Ten years later, you have the student uprising, hating America, hating its history, hating their ancestors! Which really peaked in the 1970s. And people look back and they think:

 

“Oh, yeah, that’s interesting. But it’s gone now.”

 

No, it’s not gone! The rebels are now Professors! The rebels became the Professors. The rebels change the curriculum so that our school system now in Australia, this trickled down to Australia, because all these academic disciplines are global.

 

So you have the Society for Political Science, for example, has international connections. They’re all linked.

 

[07:15]

 

Damien Richardson: As a result of our connection to the US Empire, because we’re part of that empire, a suzerain, I would say of the American empire, and as a result, that Civil Rights Movement that you talk about, that really took hold in the sixties, then we got it, by Corollary, to just to maintain, to be part of that empire. Is that right?

 

Frank Salter: Yeah, I think there is a connection, but it’s deeper than that there are civilizational connections. So Australia was traditionally connected with Britain, and Britain had the peak academic bodies, and then Australian universities would hire them.

 

Now, as we matured, we trained up our own academics. Fine. But any serious scientific or academic discipline will be global, will be international, because it doesn’t matter who comes up with an idea. It can be black skinned, White skin, could be Asian, could be whatever. If it’s truth, it’s truth! If it’s science, it’s science! So these disciplines are fundamentally international in their outlook.

 

And so when you have dominant metropolitan powers, such as Britain during its Empire days or America during its empire days, it has tremendous ability to capture that, to influence the overall flavor of disciplines and also of culture.

 

So America also was a major, the global major exporter of popular culture, Hollywood, musical culture, and so on.

 

And part of that, Britain became part of that power structure. So these ideas flowed down. So Australian, for example, Australian immigration policy has roughly remained in sync with American immigration policy.

 

So America opened its doors to third world immigration in 1965, a piece of legislation which dismantled what they had in place, which basically forged, made America what it was, which is an extension of European civilization. 1965, that was dismantled. In Australia, it was 1969.

 

So there’s been a rough correspondence.

 

Why? Because these trends are international. And it’s not just because of who is currently in power in America. It’s deeper than that it’s more Deep State. It’s more Deep State, or establishment power involved.

 

Damien Richardson: Yeah, because it’s not party political then, is it at all? Because the 69 would have been a Liberal prime minister in Australia.

 

Frank Salter: Exactly!

 

Damien Richardson: [Harold] Holt. Yes, to brought about this cultural change.

 

Frank Salter: Exactly! So it began mildly, and then it became more and more radical, and you had Whitlam. And already Whitlam’s 72 to 75 were his years. Already he introduced political multiculturalism as the official ideology, which from then on, more and more governed immigration policy and also domestic ethnic policy.

 

Who’s on top? What is the ethnic hierarchy? Well, it wasn’t us on top anymore, I can tell you! [chuckling] It flipped the hierarchy to be minority centric!

 

Damien Richardson: So the White Anglo Saxon Protestant was on top previous to this cultural shift. You’re saying that occurred post Second World War?

 

Frank Salter: Yeah, and this was the case from the beginning. The Australian immigration policy made Australia. It forged what we are, our basic identity, which is at its heart, its Anglo, but in the broader sense of being Western civilization and so on.

 

So it encompasses Irish, encompasses Scottish, and goes beyond the British Isles to people from a broad European background.

 

Now, we had a shock to the system in the mid-19th century during the gold rushes, when there was, for a time, unrestricted Chinese immigration. And the Chinese being what they are, hardworking, studious, and they went overseas. There was a gold rush. Why wouldn’t they? But it didn’t work out culturally. It was a disaster, actually, culturally! And that really shocked the six colonies because several of them had their own gold rushes at different times. It was a shock!

 

And so when the Federation movement began in the 1890s and then culminated in 1901 with the Commonwealth being created, the first piece of legislation, the first was the Restrictive Immigration Act. That was the first, the most important thing that they had on the table. And they said:

 

“Well, obviously, we must have, …”

 

The point wasn’t, as the Left would say:

 

“Oh, it’s Anglo supremacism!”

 

The point was assimilation. That was the point! The point was to bring people in who would readily assimilate.

 

And in the great speeches leading up to Federation and immediately after Federation, they pointed at the United States as a negative example of where not to go if you want to have a cohesive country. They pointed to the civil war. They pointed to slavery, the terrible conflict over freeing the black slaves. And this terrible conflict, which killed 600,000 Americans, it was. Tore America apart during the civil war in the 1860s. And they said:

 

“We don’t want that!”

 

So they were determined. So Australian immigration policy can be taken back, actually taken back, right to Arthur Phillips, the first governor, or Hunter immediately after him. When it was put to him:

 

“Listen, we need more women. Let’s bring in some women from the Pacific islands, from the South Pacific. We can find lots of women there!”

 

And [chuckling] he said:

 

“No, I think we’ll do it ourselves. I think we can bring women.”

 

If he’d made a different decision, our history would be different. We’d now be a different people.

 

Damien Richardson: We’ll be paying a lot more reparations to another group of people, too. [chuckling] At this particular point in time.

 

That Restrictive Immigration Act that you’re talking about now is, there’s no subtlety or no understanding of where it’s actually come from historically, like you’ve just talked us through. It’s just used, it’s weaponized now against the nation as just being inherently “racist” from its inception.

 

Frank Salter: Exactly! And what is not taught is that this goes back to some pretty wise people contributed to that policy. My favorite, I have two favorites. One is the great English scholar, what was his name? John Stuart Mill. The father of liberalism, by the way.

 

Damien Richardson: On liberty. Yes.

 

Frank Salter: Yeah. And the father of women’s rights. He wrote the first major essay on saying:

 

“This is outrageous, that women don’t have the vote!”

 

And so on.

 

So he was a really fundamental pioneer of liberalism. He wrote another book that the Left never talks about, [chuckling] which was called On Nationality. I think it was called On Nationality. And he said:

 

“You know, if you want to have a cohesive country, you need to have it formed from people of the same background.”

 

And you put it differently. He approached it from the point of view of individual rights, which you’d expect a liberal to do. What would a person with liberty choose? And he said:

 

“If you just look at the world, what people choose to do is live among their own kind. They choose that.”

 

And by the way, that’s true in Australia, now! It’s true in every multicultural society. You get people clustering! Clustering together! Not because they’re whipped there, but because they choose! They want it. They live among comfortable people.

 

Now, as intermarriage happens, that blurs, of course, and you get integration happening. But sometimes you don’t get integration happening. Like the American racial scene is a disaster! Because the intermarriage rate between black and white, it’s there, but it’s very low, at a very low standard.

 

Damien Richardson: So you talk about these things. What explains the inconsistencies? Because I think of many instances now, like India seems to remain predominantly Indian. There seems to be no problem with that. I guess they would point to the British Raj and they would use that as an excuse to say, you know:

 

“Look what happened when we let you guys in.”

 

Japan remains ostensibly Japanese.

 

And of course, the nation state you’re not allowed to talk about is made as ethnocentric as Israel, and that seems to maintain its ethnic identity without a problem.

 

So why is it a problem, as you outline right from the get go, that a White nation cannot identify itself as being such? Where’s that inconsistency coming from, that hypocrisy?

 

[16:43]

 

Frank Salter: I’m not sure, I’m not sure.

 

But this is a field of academic research that’s ongoing. I’m not sure, but I have some insights, I think. Some facts we can point at.

 

To begin with, multiculturalism is a “mongrel theory” or is a “mongrel movement”. I’m using that term advisedly, because we’ll call it an unholy alliance between the far-Left, radical, (((cosmopolitan))) Left.

 

On the one side. And they’re the master, the power center.

 

But they have as clients, minorities, typically immigrant minorities, but sometimes indigenous minorities. That’s the truth in Australia as well.

 

So multiculturalism is a combine of the far-Left and the far tribal Right, but limited to minorities.

 

Now how can such contradiction hold together? And the reason it holds together is they have a common enemy. Who’s that? It’s us! It’s Western nations who have brought in immigrants. And it’s based on a partly on a Marxist, fundamental Marxist critique of the West, of Western nations. Globalists and globalism is a strong thread in this. Globalism is opposed to borders per se. It’s opposed to identity, religious, cultural, ethnic, it’s opposed to all that it’s saying:

 

“It’s the brotherhood of man and sisterhood of mankind, utopia.”

 

So the utopia is:

 

“Oh, we’ll have a world government, and once we’ve had that, and once everyone’s mixed together and no borders, no more war! War will go! We won’t have any more war!”

 

So you have Mr Brown, the ex-head of the Australian Greens, for example, has been repeatedly calling for a “Global government”.

 

Damien Richardson: Yes

 

Frank Salter: Without thinking:

 

“What is in the interests of the Australian people?”

 

And the last thing we want is a global government elected on proportional representation.

 

Because if I lived in the third world, the first thing I would vote for is stripping Australia of its wealth and spreading it across, around the third world.

 

Of course, of course that’s what I want.

 

These Western societies, not all Western. Japan has done the same. South Korea has done the same. So Singapore has done the same. Have created a law governed basically with human rights, civil rights, tremendously wealthy, generous welfare systems. These are attractive societies. And other people are naturally they’re envious. They’re envious of that. And they want to be there if they can. Many of them want to be there.

 

I think a figure of something close to a billion people around the world want to move to the West, that would like to move to a Western country.

 

Damien Richardson: It’s an impossibility, isn’t it?

 

Frank Salter: No! It’s absolutely possible!

 

Damien Richardson: To have a billion people move to the West and for it to maintain its sense of self.

 

Frank Salter: Oh, you’ve added, you’ve added some conditions there! Yeah. Absolutely agree with you. It’s impossible if one wants to preserve the West.

 

But if you set that aside, as our cultural elites do, because our elites are not., … Our elites are, in effect, hostile. I think they’re more cold than hostile. They just don’t care. They don’t have a sense of identity.

 

There’s a great book written in Britain about ten years ago called The Somewheres and the Anywheres, that the fundamental divide in politics is between people who identify with the local.

 

Damien Richardson: Yes

 

Frank Salter: Identify as Australians or poms, or they identify as Germans or Hungarians or Chinese or whatever it might be.

 

And then you have this very small (((elite))), the 1% who could be anywhere.

 

[20:49]

 

Damien Richardson: Cosmopolitan, urban elite, internationalist in their understanding of place and location. Yeah.

 

Frank Salter: Exactly! And they send their children to whatever, international schools. And they’re so wealthy these people, are typically billionaires, or with wealth in the hundreds of millions. But not only they are financially secure, not only their children are financially secure, as the money trickles down, their grandchildren and great grandchildren will be financially secure! So they feel, and they live in gated suburbs. The children go to private elite schools.

 

So these are the modern citizens of the world. Basically they don’t care about anyone.

 

Damien Richardson: So it’s a new feudalism, isn’t it? It’s a new feudalistic class!

 

Frank Salter: Yeah, absolutely! So it’s becoming a mainstream view in the United States political science discipline, now that America has not been a democracy for quite some time. It’s a plutocracy.

 

Damien Richardson: And you talk about the Civil Rights Movement, you talk about it coming to Australia, particularly born in the US and coming to Australia around 69. Harold Holt is the so-called conservative prime minister, Liberal [Party] at the time.

 

So is democracy a shame? Is it just, there’s a bureaucratic global elite that is actually in control? It makes absolutely no difference who you would vote for, it’s just window dressing. It’s just a pretense to democracy, because it’s going to dominate no matter what this urban global elite want to happen. And it’s rolling out, as you say, rightly, across the West. It doesn’t matter who’s in power?

 

Frank Salter: I think there’s a lot of truth in that. I wouldn’t go that far, but I’m in that direction. I think that it’s getting that way. For example, it does matter who we vote for. There’s Left globalists and there’s Right globalists. The Right globalists are these very wealthy billionaires and so on.

 

The Left globalists are the Marxist, neo-Marxian, utopian thinkers. So it does matter who you vote for.

 

For example, just to give one recent example, in Australia, if one voted Labor, if Labour had continued to rule from Keating [Paul-Labor Party] on, the boats would not have been stopped. Labor was slow to drag themselves kicking and screaming to the realization:

 

“We must stop the boat people.”

 

Howard [John-Liberal Party], to his credit, to stopped that. Howard still in effect, a globalist, though. Because the legal immigration policy was flooding Australia, creating all these minority communities that didn’t have to be there. So he was a disaster for Australia! But a disaster of a different kind to Labor. You see what I mean?

 

Damien Richardson: But the trajectory was still the same. There was still an increase in net immigration to Australia under Howard from what had happened previously. You even say under Keating.

 

Frank Salter: Exactly! And what’s missing in all these policy areas is the “majority founding nation perspective”.

 

So that is blocked out in the West. By the way, not in India, where the Hindu nationalists have been ruling for many years now with Modi as their prime minister. Not in China, which has realized that Marxism is just rubbish and they’re moving to legitimize their rule, rather dictatorial rule, with ethno-nationalism.

 

Damien Richardson: Is it a National Socialist country, China?

 

Frank Salter: Yeah!

 

Damien Richardson: With the Han Chinese as the pre-eminent, …

 

Frank Salter: Yeah. The problem with using a term like that is you conjure up Nazi Germany and it gets, you know, it confuses the issue. But one might argue, technically they’re National Socialists. But that term itself is loaded. It has a lot of baggage. But they’re an ethnic nationalist, authoritarian government.

 

And Australia is not forming its immigration policy according to what they are. Australia’s immigration policy is being conducted as if we know nothing about ethnicity or nationalism! As if we know nothing! We know a lot! The social sciences have come a long way.

 

We know, for example, that ethnocultural, especially religious as well, diversity is negative. There are serious costs to social cohesion and to economic growth of diversity! But you wouldn’t know that if you look at Australian government policy, you wouldn’t know that they talk about the “joy of diversity”. They talk about “diversity as our strength”. That’s a complete lie! That’s a complete lie!

 

We know diversity is costly. And in the end, it lowers the threshold to civil war.

 

So there have been illustrious studies done by political scientists, have shown again and again, diversity is a risk factor for civil war, for breakdown and so on.

 

Civil conflict!

 

Damien Richardson: I’ve heard some people say that that’s potential for the US in particular, for there to be Civil War 2.0. Is that something you could envision happening?

 

Frank Salter: Well, it’s absolutely horrific if it happened! A way to approach it from a Political Science perspective would be the break-up of the United States. Is the United States heading in the direction of a break-up? And it is in that direction.

 

But I think there are tremendous barriers to a real civil war getting underway.

 

But its heading in that direction. For example, and it’s not just America. Around the West, trust in the government is just collapsing. Trust in the major political parties is falling away.

 

So in Australia, the major political parties have never enjoyed a lower, never had a lower support from the population. All these minor parties popping up, right. People are just losing confidence, losing trust in the government. I think belatedly. They should have lost his trust 50 years ago when it became obvious that the nation was no longer favored by the broader political system. Instead, minorities are being favored.

 

[27:25]

 

Damien Richardson: But it’s an impossibility to lose faith in it because what can you do? There’s a compulsory voting system and if you don’t vote, you’re outside of the system anyway.

 

So the system still continues on as a result. Because through the two party preferred system, it’s almost an impossibility to bring about any realistic change. And because weaponization of the media, of the corporate media, it won’t allow any voices to operate outside of the very particular Overton Window it creates.

 

That’s why your book is being ignored. And that’s why this conversation we’re having now, if it was to ever gain any mainstream traction, we would be dismissed as being “fascists”!

 

Frank Salter: I think you’re wrong, … Luckily! I think you’re wrong, gladly!

 

Damien Richardson: Yeah.

 

Frank Salter: What you just said is based on a lot of unfortunate facts.

 

But there’s another side to it. That the solution is not political, it’s cultural. Because what we’re suffering is the downstream effect of a Cultural Revolution in the sixties and seventies. So it’s cultural.

 

Next we have the Internet. So technological change has made it more and more difficult for elites to monopolize the means of cultural production and distribution against Marxism.

 

Damien Richardson: And that’s a real concern to them. That’s what their Misinformation, Disinformation Bill’s about, I’m sure.

 

Frank Salter: Absolutely, absolutely!

 

Now, one thing that’s fascinating is the closer we, especially the Anglo-sphere, comes to the majority being demographically submerged, so we can’t fight back politically because we’ll be in the minority. In America, it’s in 20 years time. 20 years time, they’re predicted to be minority White.

 

And Australia, we keep such poor records, it’s not difficult to know what the ethnic proportions are. But we’re on a similar track, I’d say maybe a bit longer. In Britain, it’s not as bad.

 

What’s strange is that the closer we get to that submergence and that final defeat, the more totalitarian the establishment’s becoming. We get these draconian laws coming in! With these so-called, it’s ironic, “Human Rights Commissions”! It’s quite ironic, Human Rights Commission. What are they there for?

 

Basically to crush the free speech of the majority! They’re essentially an anti-free speech organization!

 

Damien Richardson: Or the anti-White, aren’t they, in their underpinnings?

 

Frank Salter: Especially White! Especially White. They’re there to crush!

 

So why is that? Why are they becoming more draconian? And how can it be that every major social media company was on the side of, for example, the Covid lockdowns? They censored anyone, any Dissident Voices saying:

 

“Oh, hold on, what about the antivirals? Couldn’t we use it? Just use well tested antiviral?”

 

“No, no! You’re a terrorist! You’re a denier!”

 

You know, why is it happening now? And I don’t know why. But just to speculate. It could be that because they have the power, they’re doing it.

 

But that doesn’t explain. Elon Musk is a standout because he’s taken over Twitter time now. He’s taken it over and he wants more free speech in that area.

 

But why is he a standout? Why aren’t social media companies across the political spectrum? What you would expect. Some on the left, some on the Right, some of the most clustering in the middle. No, they’re all on the cosmopolitan Left! Censoring patriots, censoring people with different views on Covid or whatever the topic might be. How can that work?

 

Damien Richardson: Elon Musk is in a battle at the moment, isn’t he? With the ADL, the Anti-Defamation League, which is a jewish organization. And they’ve really gone after Musk because he’s opened up the people that can now engage with his social media platform, Twitter, now known as X. Platform X. That’s a really seminal fight, isn’t it? That’s a fight I would have never seen happening, even four or five years ago. That someone would take on the power of something like the Anti-Defamation League.

 

Frank Salter: Yeah, I prefer to call it the “DL”. The Defamation League. That’s what they define, destroy people’s careers and lives. They’re basically a hate group. ADL is a hate group!

 

Damien Richardson: That’s what they do now, isn’t it? They weaponize, … Take away your livelihood, …

 

Frank Salter: People don’t realize, that, for example, the de-banking movement, who was it? The, who’s the who’s the politician in the UK was just de-banked?

 

Damien Richardson: Oh, yeah, Nigel Farage.

 

Frank Salter: Yeah.

 

Frank Salter: But he’s just the latest.

 

Damien Richardson: He’s the tip of the iceberg as someone, that one that they’re willing to actually talk about. But there’s others have been de-banked, including Australian dissidents, for many years before now.

 

Frank Salter: One might not agree with their politics, but it’s typically on the Right. They don’t debank (((cosmopolitans))), they don’t debank people on the left, they don’t debank feminists, LGBTQI plus, whatever it might be! No, no! They wouldn’t be de-banked. It’s only patriots and people on the Right. Others on the Right.

 

But about the ADL, they’re not much of a jewish organization anymore, I can tell you. They have in the leadership, there’s severe criticizms of Israel. From their cosmopolitan perspective. Israel does not really have a right to exist as a jewish state. And if it’s not a jewish state, it’s really the whole Zionist mission has been frustrated. So Israel is also suffering from., … And it’s ironic because there’s a jewish contingent on the left. I understand that. But they’re often not friendly to Israel at all!

 

Damien Richardson: Jonathan Greenblatt heads it, doesn’t he?

 

[33:36]

 

Frank Salter: Jonathan Greenblatt! He’s no great friend of Israel, if you ask me. I don’t see that.

 

So they’ve become rogue in a way. They were initially a jewish organization, but they’ve become rogue. They’re not really friendly to Israel. Israel can only survive by controlling its borders, its immigration policy, for example. And making sure that they have a super majority within the country, not 100% majority, but a large majority.

 

The same thing goes for Hungary, for China, for Australia, for any country! If the state does not reflect the interests of the majority. Protecting minority rights, of course, that’s liberal democracy. You protect everyone’s individual rights. But group rights should be protected. The majority founding group should be protected, it seems to me.

 

And that’s what’s changed in Australia and America and Britain and across the West. The state apparatus has, since the 1970s, say, not supported the interests of the majority.

 

Now that’s an incredible statement! Because what would you expect in a democracy? Rule of the majority! With minority rights protected. That makes it a liberal democracy, not just democracy. Democracy can be savage, democracy can be unpleasant.

 

But if you have liberal democracy, you have individual rights protected constitutionally and legally. Separated, …

 

Damien Richardson: Equality under the rule of law. Equality under the rule of law.

 

Frank Salter: But that doesn’t mean that you can ignore the interests of the majority. Then it’s not even democratic anymore!

 

So this is what’s happened. And we need to somehow take back our countries and find a way to reverse this Cultural Revolution that’s occurred, where that has given us hostile elites!

 

Damien Richardson: How can that happen? How could it happen that the majority would be subsumed by a minority and the minority would have a whip hand, morally end up having a whip hand? It’s only because of the compliance of the majority, isn’t it?

 

So somehow it’s been weaponized against us through the institutions, particularly through education, where you feel a sense of guilt. They pick on Australia particularly and probably get to talking about The Voice debate that’s upon at the moment. The guilt that we’re given for our inhabitation of this landmass in the first place.

 

But somehow anyone that comes post Second World War is okay. They’re forgiven for inhabiting the land mass, but those with any antecedents before the Second World War are not forgiven.

 

Frank Salter: Exactly! And it’s universal.

 

So when I was living in Europe, my colleagues in Europe couldn’t believe. They said:

 

“Yeah. But France is especially evil because we had the we had the empire!”

 

Damien Richardson: Yes.

 

Frank Salter: Or the Germans would say:

 

“No, no, no! You’re okay. But we had the Holocaust in World War Two!”

 

And I said to them:

 

“Guys, you’re not special! We’re all in the same boat. In Australia we have the Aborigines, we have this. We were colonialists and we had the White Australia Policy! The White Australia Policy!”

 

And they looked at me, and I said:

 

“You’re not special. Every country, the majority, is demonized!”

 

Now, how can that be? Is Europe such an evil place, that uniquely evil? All the European countries must be replaced by other people! That’s the implication.

 

Damien Richardson: And that’s why the other people want to go there in the first place! Because inherently evil, that they can’t wait to get out of their own country and come potentially to start a new life with more prosperity in a Western democracy.

 

Frank Salter: That’s right. That’s right. I don’t know the answer to all this, but there are some strange things happening. You ask me how? Well, I can give some micro information on that.

 

For example, let’s consider, say, two prime ministers, Malcolm Fraser [Liberal Party PM 1975 to 1983] and Bob Hawke [Labor Party PM 1983 to 1991], absolutely instrumental in installing multiculturalism against the wishes of the Australian people.

 

Whenever the Australian people were polled:

 

“Would you want more Asian immigration?”

 

Or whatever it might be. And they said:

 

“Well, no, we’d actually prefer to remain who we are, actually.”

 

There was no great hatred involved, just normal human ethnocentrism! Ethnocentrism is an adaptive psychological state. It’s where you’re self regarding. You like your own children, doesn’t mean you hate other children. You just like you care mostly for your own children and for your own family.

 

And then it goes out to your neighbors and so on to your nation. It doesn’t mean you hate other people.

 

And if you don’t think that way, you can’t invest in anyone!

 

Because if you’re giving to the world, what does that mean actually, to give money to the world? It means nothing! It’s incredibly, incredibly selfish, in fact! Because you give to no one!

 

So Bob Hawke once admitted in an interview, he said:

 

“Look, it would have been impossible to establish multiculturalism, a nation, of non-White immigration, if both parties had not co-operated.”

 

Cooperation of the parties, a bipartisan policy. Before him, Malcolm Fraser, who many on the left see as some sort of hard Right figure. The guy was a, in effect, a neo-Marxist! He was a traitor to his class. He was a traitor to his country, in effect.

 

And he wrote in his memoirs, he said:

 

“I don’t believe the Australian people should be permitted to vote on immigration, because they always get it wrong! They just get it wrong! They get it wrong! Why can’t they be like me?”

 

Bob Hawke came along and gave us a famous speech, the Bicentenary. The tall ships are about to sail into Sydney Harbour, right? 200 years since 1788. So 26 January, the prime minister of the country stands up and gives this great speech and he said:

 

“There is no ethnic hierarchy in Australia. How do we define an Australian? There’s no ethnic hierarchy.”

 

“Ethnic hierarchy”, hat’s a really ugly, loaded term. What he meant was, what is Australian identity? And he said:

Damien Richardson: Unusual! Not a great cohort. Not a huge cohort. [chuckling]

 

Frank Salter: And say he falls in love with The Country Doctor, with A Country Practice, or whatever it might be.

 

Damien Richardson: Oh, yes, yes, yes, sir.

 

Frank Salter: Just imagine that. And he thinks:

 

“Wow, what a great country! I feel a real commitment to Australia!”

 

According to our prime minister, he’s an Australian. But contrast him with an Australian who’s not happy with some area of our policy, like our stance towards immigration laws.

 

Damien Richardson: Say, for example, … [chuckling]

 

Frank Salter: A lot of Australians are unhappy with current policy. And Bob Hook might say:

 

“Well, you’re not an Australian. You’re not an Australian! You don’t feel a commitment to Australia!”

 

But the person from Inner Mongolia is an Australian.

 

So the reason I’m reminded of this speech, because I hate to admit that I was alive at the time, but sees.

 

Damien Richardson: So was I Very young. Very young.

 

Frank Salter: [chuckling] Yeah. An interview given by John Howard recently, like three weeks ago, in which he referred to that speech and said:

 

“Yeah, everything he said was true.”

 

So John Howard did not have the intellectual nous to think this through for himself.

 

Now, how can that be? Well, the problem with this sort of micro approach of looking at this little example and what he said and what she said, is that it can miss the big picture.

 

The big picture is that every prime minister since Gough Whitlam [Labor Party PM 1972 to 1975] has basically been minority centric, has put minorities first, for example, in immigration policy. Every one! They can’t all have had bad character. It can’t be:

 

“Yeah, but he was selfish or he was nasty or he was a recovering alcoholic or he was haughty!”

 

No! There must be some systemic reason for it. There must be some, … And it’s to do with the Cultural Revolution. Again, it comes back to culture.

 

Damien Richardson: And it comes back to that globalist enterprise that we talked about earlier on. And it comes back to legacy for people that particularly say, Howard, for example, who got into so much trouble over the apology, etcetera, refused to apologize. Indigenous people turning their backs, painted in the media very much as being a racist, etcetera. Now think of his legacy. His legacy will be painted within the apparatus of state, which demands a multiethnic understanding of the West!

 

Frank Salter: Yeah.

 

So, I mean, if a politician wants to survive and work his or her way up through a major political party, there’s going to be screening, screening, along the lines you just stated. And if they get it wrong too often, they’ve got no future. They’ve got no future.

 

Damien Richardson: Well, they have no future within the political structure itself. It’s very clever, because there’s someone, you’ll have a colleague that can use it and weaponize it against you, to get rid of you as a potential opponent within the apparatus, whether it’s the Liberal Party, Labor Party, Greens, wherever, it makes no difference.

 

Frank Salter: Yeah, yeah. It’s a savage system!

 

Now, this can’t be explained without understanding the role of the media. The media have been very important. That’s why there’s such battles going on now, like Musk taking over Twitter and so on, we were discussing.

 

So this is another aspect that is not fully explained from my point of view. But the facts are there, that without the co-operation of the mainstream media, which began as just newspapers. The mainstream media was once just newspapers and there were very few universities, this sort of thing with that level of book reading and so on.

 

So it was the newspapers. And then you got newspapers and radio. And the newspapers, radio and television from the 1940s, fifties on. Why were they on side with this?

 

Well, one, from that theory of corporatism, corporate globalism, it sort of makes sense, that the big media companies were all bought by large global corporations.

 

Damien Richardson: They’re owned by them, they’re an extension of them, they’re an arm of them.

 

Frank Salter: I think the solution is going to be in that direction of corporate ownership and so on.

 

And this is why we’re having such turmoil right now, because the Internet has upset that power structure. To some extent.

 

Damien Richardson: To some extent. Because you get banned off the Internet very, very readily, very quickly.

 

Frank Salter: Exactly! And they began to look for ways to control access to the Internet from an early, … They realized this was a danger to them, and they began looking for ways of controlling that.

 

So again, along this line, which is sort of neo-Marxist, by the way, it’s sort of focusing on economic processes. So they began looking at that and buying up the major media companies, the major social media companies, I mean, big tech and so on.

 

So, the example of Musk is the exception that proves a rule. The example of these thousands upon thousands of small scale media, … Oh, such as yourself. You’re using this medium to get around this censorship and so on.

 

They’re the exceptions that sort of prove the rule, in a way.

 

Damien Richardson: Musk is an interesting figure, isn’t he? Because he wants to neuro link us all, he wants to microchip humanity.

 

Frank Salter: Well, I don’t know whether he likes to, but he’s got this corporation that’s working in that direction.

 

[46:19]

 

Damien Richardson: I’ll just say we’ve been here before, haven’t we? Like as a culture, Australia, there was a huge antipathy between Protestantism and Catholicism. Catholics need not apply for government jobs for a long period of time. Somehow we’ve seemed to have moved to a point beyond that. Is it a possibility. Like:

 

“Oh, what are we talking about with this? Because Australia is a multi-ethnic state now, you can’t unbake the souffle.”

 

Is there a possibility for us to move forward as a cohesive entity? Are you saying that demands a predominantly Anglo population and therefore that’s the defining identity of that community?

 

Frank Salter: Yeah, my approach is different. And in Anglo-phobia book, the position we take in that is the reality is, as you say, we have a diverse Australia, so that’s the reality. So Australia after World War Two 98 percent Anglo-Celtic. Was 98%. There was some lingering friction between the Irish Catholics and the Protestants, yes, and so on.

 

But that’s largely been overcome. Perhaps not in the New South Wales Labor Right, but it’s still largely overcome. That’s not the case anymore. So we’ve been diversified.

 

Now, because the nation is so diverse, one can’t talk about a single united interest always applying in Australia.

 

So, for example, in immigration policy, one might argue immigration policy should reflect the interests of the nation as a whole. Okay? That sounds noble. That sounds noble, and I support that.

 

But also, it’s difficult to have immigration policy without it favoring one group over another.

 

So, for example, every group wants access from its own group. Chinese, Australians, we don’t want discrimination against Chinese immigrants, Burmese, Greek, whatever it might be. Well, they can’t all be pleased! Unless we have an open door policy. We have an open door policy, it’s suicide for Australia! But if we do begin to restrict it, well, however we do restrict, it’s going to favor one group over another.

 

So what I think is necessary as a starting position is for Anglo Australians. And that’s a very broad category. It’s very broad. Anyone who’s assimilating into the mainstream Australian identity is for them to say, what about us? What about us? All these policies, multiculturalism, open door immigration policy has been formulated without our input!

 

In fact, the result of opinion polls, have just been ignored! They’ve just been ignored. There’s willful ignoring of Anglo interests in Australia!

 

And I think if Anglos are brought into the multicultural system, which theoretically is Democratic and fair, theoretically, multiculturalism says:

 

“Well, people should be able to express their own interests.”

 

Damien Richardson: Yeah

 

Frank Salter: That sounds reasonable. People should be able to vote and lobby according to their own interests and the interests of their religious or cultural community. Yes, that seems fair. Why shouldn’t they be able to do that?

 

But in reality, that’s not, … In reality, they say:

 

“Yes for all, except one, the Australian majority, except one group, can’t talk!”

 

Damien Richardson: But as you say, it’s happening globally, it’s happening in Europe and it’s happening in the US, it’s happening in New Zealand, I’m sure Canada here. Is it a fantasy in some respects, what you’re suggesting? Because power is power, and power will need an enemy, and power will vilify whoever it’s taking its power from. And now globalist structure is taking power from those former holders of that power, which is those communities, those Anglo Saxon, Celtic, western European communities.

 

Frank Salter: Yeah, look, I think the reality is we have oligopoly. We are an oligopoly globally. Rule of the rich, the rule of the powerful, of the elite. But we can’t stop resisting! We can’t stop resisting! Democracy was born going back to Magna Carta and so on.

 

Democracy was born by little people finding their champion, like the Catholic Church. The church in Britain helped Magna Carta in 1215. So different elites said:

 

“Yeah, we also have a problem with the King, with absolute power of the King.

 

We also have a problem with making rules up as he goes along. So we want rule of law.”

 

This sort of thing. So it’s always a struggle. It’s always a struggle. And we’ve had it so good in Australia and other Anglophone countries for so long that it’s been just taken. Taken for granted:

 

“Oh, yeah, it’s a free country!”

 

When I was a little boy, you say:

 

“You can’t do that!”

 

“It’s a free country!”

 

It was a free country. By historical comparison, the freest countries that have ever existed. But that had only come about through struggle, through fighting for our rights.

 

And now we’re technologically equipped with the Internet and so on, to establish our own parallel institutions, which I think is a very important movement taking place. And why not, in principle, create or influence our own banks? Banks that do stand by freedom of speech and freedom of association.

 

Damien Richardson: Is that happening?

 

Frank Salter: It’s actually happening.

 

Damien Richardson: People are building their own banking institutions?

 

Frank Salter: That’s beginning. The example I’ve come across is, what’s that? An American social media website. I’m so sorry. It escaped my mind!

 

Damien Richardson: That’s okay.

 

Frank Salter: It’s a Christian website. And I hear that this is a trend, very slow, but it is happening. So the parallel institutions are being set up. Jordan Peterson. Someone as famous as people will have heard of Jordan Peterson. He’s setting up his own university.

 

Damien Richardson: Yes.

 

Frank Salter: And there’s more than him. It’s not just him. There are others doing this, because they realize universities are critical to our survival. The survival of freedom. Absolutely!

 

Damien Richardson: That’ll be co-opted by the power structure as it is now, won’t it, and give you the pretense of there being alternative? But the power source will not allow an alternative power source to exist.

 

[53:32]

 

Frank Salter: Not necessarily. Not necessarily. I wouldn’t be too black pilled about it. A great term. I wouldn’t be too black pilled.

 

Of course, that is a trend, and one should keep a sharp eye for that happening. Co-option, of course, but it doesn’t have to be that way. I think the key thing to do is to raise consciousness. To raise consciousness, people need to be aware of who they are, of where they came from, of their history.

 

And it’s very much like back in the early days of the Civil Rights Movement in America, when black agitators, blacks who wanted their people to have civil rights, normal citizen rights, talked about raising consciousness, talking about history. It’s okay to be black. We have our own history. We have our own interests. Don’t be put down by this hegemonic White structure.

 

Now, that’s going back 1910, 1920, when you had Jim Crow.

 

So there was, in fact, there was oppression of black America and the Civil Rights Movement reversed that.

 

So I think we should never give up the fight for freedom.

 

Damien Richardson: That Civil Rights Movement’s now been weaponized as against White majority populations, though, hasn’t it?

 

Frank Salter: It has, it has! But America being what it is, which is a rule of law country and a democracy, tremendous strides were made by black Americans overcoming Jim Crow. Many of them did it by simply migrating out of the south, and they moved to the big cities and the big industrial cities in the north. And amazing pioneers such as Henry Ford would employ anyone at the same wage, anyone! That’s why they flocked, for example, to Detroit and so on, New York and other places. And they used whatever strategy they could and they made great strides.

 

And so you had a black middle class developing, and you had their own newspapers. Very important black newspapers developed. So they’d receive reliable news about themselves and about their, …

 

Damien Richardson: From an ethnic perspective.

 

Frank Salter: From an ethnic perspective. And in that, …

 

Damien Richardson: It comes back to a race all the time, doesn’t it? We’re not allowed to talk about race, but it comes back to race all the time.

 

Frank Salter: Well, it’s not just race. It can be culture, it can be especially important, …

 

Damien Richardson: Well, that’s part of it, …

 

Frank Salter: But no, race is, … Religion’s not part of race. These are different ways to form communities. Ethnicity is important, but it’s not unique. It’s not the only, …

 

Damien Richardson: But I grew up in an Irish Catholic tradition and I was struck when I went to Spain how it was still Catholic, but it was very different culturally. It was very different culturally because of the mores of that community, which I would say did come down to how they interpreted it through race, through that Christian tradition.

 

Frank Salter: Did you just say that they interpreted it through Christian tradition?

 

Damien Richardson: They interpreted the same, ostensibly the same Christian tradition. Catholic, Christian. But I grew up in an Irish Catholic understanding interpretation of it, which was very different than the Spanish interpretation of it was.

 

Frank Salter: How did race come into that?

 

Damien Richardson: Well, I just say it would be their cultural, their racial understanding of who they are, how they express themselves. There is a bio-spirit to a Spanish community which is different than the bio-spirit of an Irish community.

 

Frank Salter: Yeah, yeah. Well, Irish in Australia formed its attitudes as a diaspora. In Spain they’re in their ancient homeland.

 

So that’s one difference. And also., …

 

Damien Richardson: Sure, but I’m sure if you went to Ireland, you would see there’ll be a huge difference between Irish Catholicism and Spanish Catholicism, even in their homeland.

 

Frank Salter: Yeah, it could be.

 

And I think one pointed aspect, let’s bring this religious aspect back to the topic, connect it even more closely. The pastoral duty of the Church is up for grabs. It’s been changing and I think being undermined for the last 70 years. The Catholic Church once respected and promoted the ethnic interests of its people.

 

So the Catholic Church has always cared for the individual. It’s cared for the family, very much. Right. It’s cared for the local, for the clan, the extended family, and it cared for the local community.

 

So, for example, if a city was being besieged by barbarians or by the neighboring nation, the city was being besieged. And behind its medieval wall, … You go, in Europe, they all had these medieval walls. The church was not saying:

 

“Open the Gates! It’s the brotherhood of mankind! Open up! We’re all the same. Everyone’s the same!”

 

Damien Richardson: But we’ve evolved now! We’ve evolved, Frank. We’ve evolved to a new point, a new man, a new understanding!

 

Frank Salter: What they said was:

 

“God is on your side and it’s right for you to defend your city against the barbarians or against the next city state. It’s right!”

 

And there was excesses in that direction, of course, but they were basically loyal.

 

And you can see that within the framework of the pastoral duty of the Church, which serves different layers of interests from individual to family to nation to ethnic group. That’s all gone now! There’s no pastoral duty by the mainstream church, by many minorities, but not the mainstream churches, especially my own, the Church of England, Anglicans. There’s no sense of pastoral duty to the nation.

 

Instead, they’ve adopted a minority centric perspective of critiquing! They’ve taken on board this critique of majority cultures, which is insane! It’s madness!

 

Damien Richardson: It’s part of the institutionalization of the West, isn’t it really? The same structures that controlling organized religion, as any other department we’ve already covered.

 

Frank Salter: And all these Bishops go through the same university system, by the way, they’re subject to the same indoctrination.

 

[1:00:21]

 

Damien Richardson: I just want to, because we could be here for another hour. It’s such an engrossing conversation. Clash of civilization. There’s so much going on.

 

But before we do, because I know soon we’ve got the vote in Australia for recognising an indigenous voice to Parliament and I know you’ve written an article on behalf of the British-Australian Community, which is your website as well, the BAC, I might add. What’s the name of the it’s actually a book you’ve written. What’s the name of the book?

 

Frank Salter: The book is The Voice to Parliament: A Statement on Behalf of the British-Australian Community by Frank Salter.

 

Damien Richardson: So, Frank, that’s a very countercultural thing to say, that a voice to Parliament should have a statement on behalf of the British-Australian community.

 

Can you just talk us through that? And what you see resulting in at the referendum on the 14th of this month.

 

Frank Salter: The one extraordinary thing about this whole Voice process, developing the referendum questions and all the rest of it, if you go back and look at the different deliberative bodies, the different consultative bodies, and so on, that were formed beginning in 2011, I think. 2011, 12.

 

Damien Richardson: Under Julie Gillard [Labor Party PM 2010 to 2013]. [chuckling]

 

Frank Salter: Under Julie Gillard. They have, of course, representatives of the indigenous people, Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.

 

Of course they have people who are loyal members of those communities. Not only loyal members, but leaders of those local communities coming and saying:

 

“What’s in our interest? My people want this, we want this. These are our interests.”

 

Completely appropriate.

 

They had a lot of White supporters of those. Of those, also understandable.

 

They didn’t have one representative of the Anglo majority, not one! They had lots of Anglos, but they didn’t have one person who was there saying:

 

“I feel sympathy for the indigenous people, of course, I wouldn’t be here otherwise. But I represent the interests of Anglo Australia.”

 

Not one! And I’ve traced it back to 2011, 12. It’s extraordinary!

 

And so this whole thing has been formulated as if Anglo Australia is not in crisis! As if Anglo Australia is just still the boss and it’s a White run society. No, no! Since 1970, roughly, as we’ve been, as we were discussing earlier, immigration policy and multicultural policy has been run against the White majority! We’ve been marginalized! We’ve been vilified in the education! Our children are being vilified, are being taught to hate their own history, to hate their own ancestors. And now we’re being asked:

 

“Oh, you should vote for a special powers being given to an advisory body in the Constitution.”

 

Extraordinary! As if we don’t exist, as if we have no interests.

 

So I wrote this book, it’s a short book, looking at this systematically, looking at the whole Voice proposal from an Anglo perspective.

 

In other words, yes, I’m concerned about what’s good for Indigenous Australians, my fellow citizens, of course, but also keeping in the back of my mind, and is it good for the Anglos? And no one talks about that!

 

Damien Richardson: No reviews on that book either, I can imagine. [chuckling]

 

Frank Salter: The closest to it is Jacinta Price, who calls herself a Celtic indigenous person. A Celtic Aboriginal person, she proudly says:

 

“Well, my father has Celtic background.”

 

In other words, Anglo:

 

“And my mother is indigenous.”

 

So she comes closest to that. I think Warren Mundine also has talked about this.

 

Damien Richardson: It’s interesting, something I know. I read a chapter from the book and you talked about the dispossession of Anglo institutions. It’s really just such a counter cultural concept that Anglos might even feel like they are being dispossessed. Because what we hear all the time, of course, is that indigenous Australians were dispossessed.

 

Frank Salter: Yes, well, they were dispossessed. But then, luckily for them, though, they were integrated into a culture that was leading the world in forming liberal democracy.

 

So, you know, that Aboriginal, in most of Australia, Aboriginal men, because initially it was male male suffrage, they got the vote before Englishmen got it in England! Well, before! Like mid 19, mid 19th century that you had in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania. Not Queensland, Queensland and Western Australia, as the frontier states were delayed, that was delayed.

 

But in most of Australia they got the vote before British men and women got it in Britain.

 

So it was good for them. But the dispossession that’s been taking place as a result of the Cultural Revolution of the sixties and seventies. I have a chapter called Our Stolen Commonwealth. Our stolen Commonwealth. And what do I mean by that?

 

Well, just what I’ve been saying, the Anglo nation. First the six Anglo colonies, and then they gave rise to the Commonwealth in 1901. They were set up explicitly to benefit the majority. These are Democratic societies, and they were overwhelmingly Anglo societies, so naturally they wanted to survive and continue their traditions and their identity.

 

The Commonwealth was set up explicitly to serve the interests of the nation, which was an Anglo nation. That was reversed by 1970! That was reversed! In effect the Commonwealth has been stolen from us, in effect, and it’s now operating against our interests.

 

And I define the Commonwealth not just as government institutions, but as the ABC, for example, SBS, public broadcasting. Since the late 1960s, …

 

Damien Richardson: All the institutions, I would say, Frank

 

Frank Salter: All major institutions, have joined this Deep State apparatus, and, in effect, they’re operating against the interests of the majority.

 

[1:07:27]

 

Damien Richardson: It’s interesting, and we’ve been going for a while, so I’ll try to wrap it up. But I saw a speech the other day by Noel Pearson at the Press Club, where he made this claim. And he spoke to “multicultural” Australia, meaning not “settler” Australia, and he called, quite deliberately, “settler Australia”, being those mob, he would say, from the UK. And he said to multicultural Australia:

 

“I want to ask you this question. Who do you side with in this debate, as far as The Voice is concerned, do you consider yourself going to be an honorary settler somehow? Because, I tell you, a lot of you are the wrong color.”

 

I couldn’t believe what I was hearing! He didn’t sort of get much opprobrium in the mainstream, because the mainstream would never want to be seen to criticize someone indigenous. And of that state stature. A man, too, has made himself a millionaire out of the largesse of taxpayers expense. It was an extraordinary claim to make. And really, if you start to boil it down, since he’s asked the question, I would say:

 

“Well, actually, those people of different color that have come to this nation have come this nation expressly to live by what was bequeathed to them by that settler culture, not to come and live as hunters and gatherers might have lived in this idealized picture of Indigenous Australia!”

 

Frank Salter: Yeah

 

Damien Richardson: I think Noel himself seems very comfortable living like a settler, too, I might add!

 

Frank Salter: And receiving $500 million investment over the last 15 years.

 

Damien Richardson: Is he relying on the fact that he knows no one will have the gumption to make that claim? He’s relying on. We have been silenced through the multicultural instrumentalities that we’ve already talked about?

 

Frank Salter: Yeah, he’s arisen, his career, his reputation is arisen, sheltered in sort of the sheltered workshop of the multicultural system. So he’s a creature, in my view, a creature of the multicultural establishment.

 

But Warren Mundine is not. Jacinta Price are not. They’re actually free thinking. They have their, … I don’t agree with everything they say, but these are independent individuals far more able to sustain a rational conversation and so on.

 

Pearson talks ideology. And he begins preaching immediately and he can barely talk! And how did someone like that gain such a high reputation? Was because the Sydney Morning Herald, the Melbourne Age, the ABC, SBS [Special Broadcating Service] treat him as some sort of paragon. It’s absurd!

 

The man has made vulgar, racist remarks about White people, really vulgar. The man has said:

 

“I don’t think Anzac Day is appropriate because we should focus on my people’s suffering, not on the suffering of Anzacs.”

 

Damien Richardson: Well, a lot of these people would have been Anzacs too, as a matter of fact.

 

Frank Salter: Exactly, exactly! Aborigines have been participating more and more in the nation. I see them as a core group in the Australian national identity. But Pearson has been given this platform. He writes a note, he has these extraordinary media platforms to express his point of view, but he’s actually, when you listen to what he’s saying, it’s not pleasant.

 

Damien Richardson: You see now, too, that the conservative Right salivating over the idea of Jacinta Price someday being the first indigenous female prime minister. Janet Olbrixen wrote an opinion piece in the Australian recently saying such.

 

Frank Salter: Well, after watching her perform over the last month or two, I tend to agree. I think she’s actually prime minister material. There’s not all that much talent on the coalition side. And she just comes across as authentic, as able to think on her feet.

 

For example, her speech, become famous speech now to the Canberra Press Gallery about a week or two ago. And she said, her opening remarks she said:

 

“My husband’s sitting over there. And I do mean husband, not partner!”

 

Damien Richardson: Yes, yes.

 

Frank Salter: Immediately there was a cheer went up across Australia. We’re sick of this ideological language that’s being forced on you! She meant her husband, not her partner!

 

Damien Richardson: She went further too, and she talked about the oppression. She said:

 

“I’ve got it really badly if you’re saying I’m oppressed because I’m indigenous.”

 

And she said:

 

“Well, at least I wasn’t bequeathed to a man much older than me that I might have been under tribal law at the age of 14 or something.”

 

And she went on to say, too:

 

“And I’ve been doubly oppressed because my convict ancestors were also oppressed to come here in the first place!”

 

You could hear crickets in the media establishment.

 

Frank Salter: So funny. They’re just, … Like the ABC has become., … It’s so appalling! The main change with them is not ideological, because the news and current affairs was captured by the Marxist left in the late sixties, and the Science Show was captured by the Marxist left around the same time. What has changed is their subtlety. They used to sort of cover it a bit and make gestures to being balanced. That’s all gone. It’s amazing! It’s blatant. It’s blatant now.

 

And the same with our education system, with the curriculum. The national curriculum was captured by the neo-Marxist Left decades ago and that’s trickled down to the state curricula now. So it’s really, really poor.

 

Damien Richardson: And there’s been no defence against it from neo-liberalism on the other side, has there been? Because that’s just been about the bottom line, the bottom dollar, sell as much as you can. We’ve sold our soul to material wealth in many respects.

 

Frank Salter: Yeah. And they’re friendlier towards Right-wing globalism, which is corporate based.

 

So that’s their weakness.

 

Also, they receive all their funding from these people, so they’re not going to criticize them very much.

 

So again, on the Right you have Right globalism, on the left you have Left globalism. And the two sort of nudge, nudge, wink, wink, sort of they get along, they sort of get along.

 

But I urge Australians to look at the whole indigenous issue, including The Voice referendum, which comes up in nine days or something, and look at it from different perspectives. But look at it also from an Anglo perspective, from the perspective of mainstream Australia. And what we don’t want, for example, is to destroy and complicate our system of government, which is magnificent. It’s one of the things that sets Australia apart. We have the rule of law, we have representative democracy, we have division of powers and so on. And this would be compromised.

 

[1:14:42]

 

Damien Richardson: That’s just another irony of Pearson’s speech, isn’t it, that:

 

“Well, I want an indigenous voice to Parliament, but I don’t want anything that the settlers, ..!”

 

What? The incongruity is just extraordinary!

 

Frank Salter: I don’t look on myself as a settler. You know, I had a convict ancestor in Van Diemen’s Land. So for many generations, my family’s been here, I don’t think of myself, …

 

Damien Richardson: But even if we take his language on face value, what he means is “what came here?” Well, that was the Parliament. The Parliament that now “I want a specific voice to” is not of indigenous origin, although you would say it is because we’re indigenous!

 

Oh, this argument could go on and on and on! We’ve had such a good chat, too, Frank. I’m just aware of time, and I want people to stay to the end of this podcast.

 

So I think, do you want to just tell us where people can find you so they can find out more of this detail? We may well have you back to continue this conversation, perhaps post the referendum.

 

Frank Salter: That’d be fun. People can just Google, just a general search for British-Australian Community. And we have a website, which is the BritishAustralianCommunity.com dot au.

 

And then they can search for, … You go to Quadrant online. Go to Quadrant Online. There’s a Quadrant website and just do a search for “Salter”, and up will come all my articles, because I have a series of articles on the original, ten years ago, on the original attempt by Pearson to have a constitutional recognition. That was his big thing back then. So there’s critique of that.

 

So you’ll find resources.

 

One thing you’ll find is that this book as a PDF. It’s a free download so you can get access to the book.

 

I’d also go to YouTube. We have three videos out on YouTube. Search for British-Australian Community and it will come up. We have two on Anglophobia and we have one on The Voice. And there’ll be many more coming up, by the way, many more in the next months.

 

Damien Richardson: It’s good that you’re getting culture out there because I think this process was so far behind the eight ball as in understanding what’s happening to the culture, the attack that’s on it, the manifold attacks that are on it, that you almost need to reinvigorate what the understanding of the culture was in the first place.

 

So Frank Salter, co-author of Anglophobia: The Unrecognized Hatred, thanks so much for joining me at Damienrichardson dot online.

 

Frank Salter: It’s been a pleasure, Damien.

 

Damien Richardson: You can listen to more great podcasts on my website, damianrichardson dot online. Also follow me on Facebook and I’d love to hear your thoughts@facebook.com. Damienrichardson28 don’t forget to give this video a like. Remember to share and comment, to join the conversation and have your say.

 

[1:17:50]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

YouTube Comments

top

(Comments as of 6/22/2024 = 0)

 

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

See Also

top

Mark Collett: Hello everybody, and welcome to Book Club.

 

Now, it’s been a little while since the last book club, and that’s because we had Easter Sunday, and obviously we didn’t want to be streaming on Easter Sunday because everyone’s spending time with their family, etc. And it was a nice night off, but it delayed this particular episode. But we’re finally here, and we are live tonight on Odysee, DLive, Rumble and Entropy.

 

So you can find us in all of those good places. And tonight we are reviewing The Myth of German Villainy.

 

Now, this is the second edition, so I could only find this edition available in one place, and that’s directly from Money Tree Publishing. And we have Dave Gahary from Money Tree Publishing tonight to talk about the book, because the author has sadly passed away, so he’s going to be the representative discussing the book and discussing the things that have been added to it and why it’s an important book. So he’s taking the place of the author.

 

Now, I would just ask you all a small favour. If you like these streams, if you like the book reviews, if you like the work we do, please consider making a small donation, and you can donate via Odysee or Entropy.

 

And also, you don’t have to donate, obviously.

 

And if you can’t afford to donate or want to help in another way, a great way for you to help us is by sharing the stream.

 

And I think this is a really important stream, and it’s a really good book!

 

And I’m going to throw it over to Dave in a minute because I want him to give sort of the intro. We’re still waiting on Aunt Sally. She’s having a few computer problems, so she might be with us tonight. She might not be, but her computer’s running really slow, so we’ll see if she arrives.

 

But before we get into the book, I want to say something about this.

 

Now, we’ve reviewed, or this is the 31st book we’ve reviewed on Book Club. So we’ve reviewed, you know, 30 books up until this day. And we have reviewed other books that have dealt with the realities, the truths of the Second World War. And you might be thinking to yourself:

 

“Well, Mark, we’ve had a few reviews like this. We’ve covered a few books like this. Why would I want to read this book?”

 

And I’m going to start by saying, I read this book, and there were things in this book I didn’t know.

 

Now, I’m not saying that I am the best read or the most educated when it comes to the historical facts of the First and Second World War. But there were some pretty major things that cropped up in this book that I actually hadn’t heard about. And there was things that I had heard about. And this book allowed me to build on my knowledge and my sort of historical grasp of these events. So I found the book very interesting.

 

[03:07]

 

So if you’re coming into this thinking maybe:

 

“Well, this sounds really great, Mark. This is the kind of book I’d like to read. But what makes this book different from other books like this that you’ve reviewed in the past?”

 

I want to just get that out the way straight away that I enjoyed the book and I always knew I was going to like it. But I didn’t realise what an education it would be for someone like myself who’s been doing this, been in dissident politics for 24 years, who has had, you know, been at numerous meetings where people have talked about things such as revisionism, the Second World War, where there’s been multiple books on sale about the topics that are broached in this book, yet this book still brought new things to the table.

 

So I’m going to start by throwing it over to Dave. Dave is obviously the commander in chief over at Money Tree Publishing, and we always love having Dave on because he’s a very entertaining guy and he does his own show.

 

So basically, Dave, why don’t you plug your own show for a start and where we can find you? Tell us a bit about why the second edition was published, how you got the rights to doing the second edition, and a little bit about the author who sadly passed away. And then we’ll go around the group and we’ll give out our impressions.

 

Dave Gahary: Sure. Sure. Am I coming through loud and clear?

 

Mark Collett: As loud and as clear as a blackbird song in the morning. Absolutely perfect!

 

Dave Gahary: Lovely. We’ve got the mockingbirds down here in the Florida panhandle, and they sing throughout the day and night. So you could hear them at, you know, two, three in the morning, going wild. It’s lovely.

 

Yes, the book.

 

Now, when I was at American Free Press writing for them and the Barnes Review for about ten years, I remember hearing about the book when it first came out, and it just really struck a nerve with a lot of folks and struck a chord. And it was lauded. And I heard that. I had never read the first edition, but it was brought to my attention at a later date by Jim Rizzoli and Diane King, who, as you may be familiar with, they do the Hoaxbusters show over on our network Speak Free Radio, which you can access by going to speakfreeradio.com. And it’s a 24/7 Internet radio network.

 

And I guess it would probably make sense if it’s okay to read the quick note from the publisher that I put in there. Mark, if I could read that.

 

Mark Collett: Of course, my friend, you’ve got the floor, so please feel free to.

 

[06:02]

 

Dave Gahary: Thank you. It says:

 

“This book would not exist if not for the enthusiastic encouragement of Jim Rizzoli and Diane King, two true American patriots. Here’s the backstory after Jim heard a radio show with Benton Bradbury, and he’s the author, of course, on as a guest, Diane was able to get a hold of Ben’s contact information to set up an interview with Jim, which was done in January 2016. After the interview, Diane stayed in touch with Ben, and anytime a hurricane would sweep through the Jacksonville, Florida area, she would call to check on him. The last time she did, Ben informed her, probably in his characteristically matter of fact, no nonsense way, he had esophageal cancer and had about three months to live.”

 

“Seeking to preserve Benton Bradbury’s legacy after his unfortunate passing in 2019, and to give the book a larger audience, Jim and Diane suggested we contact Mister Bradbury’s family to speak with them about the future of the book. They were enthusiastic to keep the book in print, and this second edition, with some corrections and amplifications, is the final result.”

 

“Thank you to the heirs of this book and to Jim and Diane for entrusting us with this task to keep this most important work alive. We hope it meets with your approval.”

 

 

“And that’s it.

 

Mark Collett: Superb.

 

So how did you go about putting together the second edition, then?

 

And I think this fits very well in your library because obviously, we’ve had you on here before. We reviewed Hell Storm, and that was a, I mean, the package you put together for Hellstorm was some interesting, truly special.

 

I think it was one of the first book reviews we did with you, and that package was incredible! Because you guys really, really went out there with not only the fantastic printed edition, but also with the audiobooks and the documentary as well. I think this fits in well with the rest of your library.

 

Dave Gahary: Yes, absolutely! And we’re not going to be adding too many more parts to the library, for the simple reason that we just wanted to focus on what we consider to be the best examples of the particular topics that are being addressed.

 

So this book took, as most books take, a long time to copy edit. And Ben was a former US Navy pilot. He had served in the military for, I think about 30 years. It’s in the actual, About the Author.

 

Let me just quickly get that. Yeah. So he served from 55 to 77. Yeah, 32 years. I’m sorry, I can’t even add! 22 years in the US Navy. And he was born in 1937.

 

Of course, as I said, he passed in 2019.

 

So Ben wasn’t an historian. He was somebody who had visited Germany and was perturbed about what he witnessed up close and personal with the beautiful German people and what the poisonous media was spewing about the beautiful German people and their wonderful history.

 

And so that’s what spurred him on to write a book about this.

 

[10:13]

 

And as you mentioned in the intro, sadly, he has passed. And I, of course, am quite saddened by that because I know we would have hit it off, both being navy guys and both having an interest in this topic. So Ben, again, I wish I would have known the actual steps he went through, but he went through a process of reading a lot of books, as you could see in the bibliography. And he put together a manuscript and self published the book. And it was through another company that self published it wasn’t like money tree or even more traditional publishers. It was a publisher that said:

 

“Well, just give us your manuscript, and we’ll just make it into a book.”

 

So when I dig into a manuscript, or a book, I dig in like a copy editor and a proofreader. So I look at not just every page or every paragraph, every sentence or every word, but every character. And it takes quite a bit of time. Some would say that “analysis is paralysis”, but I can’t do it any other way. Just like if I’m reading a book, I always have a highlighter with me because I instinctively highlight stuff that I’m interested in or highlight errors. And then later, many times contact the author or the publisher and let them know, which they’re very much appreciative of.

 

So I was born with this attention to detail, and I put that to work in Ben’s book, The Myth of German Villainy, the first edition.

 

I think, because, you know, Ben wasn’t trained as an historian, or a writer there were some things that slipped through, some facts that weren’t facts, some quotes that were spurious, some material that needed, as I mentioned earlier, some amplification.

 

And so I went through the entire manuscript along those lines. And the structure of what he wrote is there. That’s not changed. But the errors, maybe the wrong dates or the wrong names, the wrong facts, they’ve all been removed. And some parts of the book that I felt needed to be expanded upon were expanded upon. And photographs and images were added. Whereas the first edition had just black and white photos, some of them not very clear. This edition has a lot of colour photos, and when the actual photo itself or image itself was not in colour, black and white.

 

Amazingly, and of course, I never would have thought it would have turned out this way. But the first edition and the second edition are almost the exact same number of pages! And for all the work that was done on it, that was surprising to me when I discovered that at the end.

 

But this has 171 images. So we offer, let me see if that’s offered in this book. It is.

 

So this book is offered in black and white and colour. And the black and white version has 171 black and white images. And the colour version, out of those 171 images, 123 are black and white, and 48 are a colour.

 

[14:21]

 

So I was very happy with how it turned out. It’s a project like this that goes on for three years. It’s kind of like birthing something, and you really don’t know until the end, at least I don’t, how it’s going to turn out. But I was very happy with the way that it turned out. And I’ve heard from a lot of folks stuff similar to what you said, Mark, that they knew a lot about this topic, but they learnt a lot from reading the book.

 

Mark Collett: Fantastic! Thank you, my friend.

 

Well, let’s go around the group.

 

We’ll start with you, Natty. Obviously, you’ve been here with the book club since the very beginning. What did you think of this book? Did you enjoy it? Give a bit of an overview, please.

 

Natty: Well, like you, in fact, I was looking at Hellstorm as you were giving your preface to the stream here. And this is a topic we do seem to cover a lot, but it’s evergreen, and there’s so much that feeds into us, and there’s a lot of stuff that’s going on in the world at the moment that makes this relevant.

 

And I would argue that World War One and then the lead into World War Two and everything that’s happened since the Second World War is one of the most pivotal moments in the civilisation of Europe and probably the world. And I know it’s easy to say that given that we’re living in a time that is controlled and has echoes of the decisions made then and the events that happen then, because we’re living through it now, but it really does feel monumental.

 

And the Second World War and the lead up to it and the aftermath of it, the immediate aftermath of it, without understanding it, you simply cannot have any logical or coherent narrative of the way the world is today. So revisiting this period in history, to me, is always interesting. And I echo what you said, and I’ve got it in my notes. There’s things in here that I didn’t know. And I’m less well read on this subject than you, to be honest, Mark.

 

But even then, it was a pleasure. Might be the wrong word, but it was a pleasure to read just for that simple reason.

 

Before we get into the heavy stuff, and I know we do this a lot on book club, and we’ve been chastised for it before, but the cover is just so fantastic! Because, …

 

[17:02]

 

Mark Collett: You know what, mate? I’m going to cut across you there. Not only is the cover fantastic, but it has loads of pictures in. And this book, it really commands your attention.

 

And I’m not saying that everything should be a picture book, but that cover made me want to read it. And what kept me going through a lot of it was when I was seeing actual illustrative proof of everything that the book was stating.

 

Natty: Yes, it makes it a much easier read.

 

And in fact, the cover which you can see in the thumbnail to the video, has this kind of long nosed, like, big chinned, be-monicled Nazi officer on it, right? And he’s standing in front of the famous train tracks that lead to Auschwitz.

 

And recently me and my fiance have taken, well, not her so much, me have taken great pleasure in watching films about the Nazis in the Second World War. You know, most of its trash. Some of its slightly more high class, like The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. Schindler’s List is obviously, is the most famous one, but there are tropes [chuckling] that come up in these films over and over again! And you could drink yourself silly playing drinking games, you know, jews raking the sand, barking dogs, Nazi officers screaming about:

 

“Show me your papers!”

 

You know, it’s the same thing in every film!

 

And as soon as I saw this, the cover for the book and this kind of be-monicled demonic old Nazi officer, I was like:

 

“Yeah, it’s very fitting.”

 

So I know there’s heavy stuff in here, but I thought I’d make a comment on that because I think it’s definitely relevant. And like you said, the pictures go along with everything that’s written here. Makes it very easy to get through.

 

Mark Collett: It certainly does.

 

Well, now we’re going to introduce Bill. Sadly tonight it’s Bill’s last Book Club. I thought I’d mention this now. We were going to mention at the end, but now’s as good a time as any. Bill is basically simply just doesn’t have time to do this anymore. And we’ve really enjoyed Bill’s input, and if everyone would like to say a big thank you to him, that would be wonderful!

 

But, Bill, this is your last Book Club. But what a Book Club to go out on, my friend. First, I’d like to thank you for all your hard work, and it has been a pleasure working with you over the years on this particular project. But what did you think of this book? And do you want to give a bit of an overview like Natty did?

 

[19:27]

 

Bill Atheling: Well, thank you, Mark, for your kind words. Yes, this book, when I read through it the last few weeks, it reminded me of my own period going through the so-called “red pill”, because mine feel like I come from – my sins – from an academic background and teaching. And I began close on to 20 years ago, starting to look at and ask questions effectively, and I became interested in different aspects of this particular period. I’d really like to echo what Natty, yourself said, Mark.

 

That period in time is the crux upon which the hammer of the future was hammered out. So it’s absolutely important! And I think for anybody who’s listening who’s not particularly interested or enamored with historical introspection, well, this is a good place to start to actually wake you up a little bit about it.

 

The thing about this period, of course, is that it’s the time when truth really died! And a complete revision, if you want to use that word, is made of historical facts and occurrences. What this book does, of course, is it lays it out in a very clear, concise, readable, accessible way. It’s not written in highfalutin academic style. It’s not written in a low brow style. It’s written in a way that you can read it, you can enjoy it, and you can engage with it presents a lot of facts, a lot of facts which have been erased or are pushed under the carpet.

 

So, yeah, it’s a very impressive piece of work. I agree about the aesthetics of it. The cover is very nice. I love the fact there were photographs and illustrations throughout, backing up everything that was being discussed as well. Very impressive piece of work! Yeah, that’s my initial summary, at least.

 

Mark Collett: Well, thank you, Bill. We’ve got Sally in tonight. I don’t know whether Sally can hear us. She’s been having computer problems. This will definitely be sorted for next time because she’s got a new computer, but she haven’t had time to set it up. So, Sally, if you can hear us, obviously, if you can’t, we’ll just continue on without you.

 

But if you can hear us, give us a brief overview of what you thought of the book.

 

Aunt Sally: Well, I can hear you, so please just say yes or no.

 

Mark Collett: We can hear you now. But yeah.

 

Aunt Sally: Can you hear me?

 

Mark Collett: Just about, yeah. There’s a little bit of a delay, I think.

 

Aunt Sally: Just quickly, in case I have to leave. Because of [words unclear] this is one of those books that’s up there with the greats that we’ve had. It’s a book I wish I’d had in my childhood in the sixties, because much of what I was being told didn’t make sense. It just didn’t make sense even to a child. You just didn’t ask. You didn’t ask because of everyone was war weary. My parents were war weary, even though my mum was a child during the war, but my dad just about got [words unclear]. Yeah, it’s one of the great books. I read it again with my mouth wide open at some of the things I didn’t [word unclear]. It’s a fantastic book and every boomer should read it, really. They should read it. Yeah, that’s it for now.

 

[23:22]

 

Mark Collett: Well, thank you, Sally. I think it’s a really, really good book.

 

And one thing I want to say about this, and this is where I’m going to kick things off, I think this is important when you see, and I do like the cover I do like the cover. I think the cover is a good cover and we have bashed bad covers. But the cover gives kind of this misconception about the book, that it’s all going to be based around World War Two.

 

Now, the first thing I want to say about this book is its not all about World War Two. This actually goes into a huge amount of detail about other topics, about World War One and sort of the origins of these anti-German myths. And some of the information within it, as I said, is stuff that I didn’t actually know.

 

And I’ll read something from the beginning of chapter three, because this really jumped out to me. I’ve actually got the book here in my hands and I’m just flying through this.

 

So this isn’t all just about National Socialist Germany. It isn’t all about the Second World War. It isn’t just sort of a rehashing of Germans did bad things and rounded up jews. There’s a lot of things here that I didn’t know and that give a greater context. Because obviously I know quite a bit about the Second World War. I know a little bit about the First World War, but I didn’t know this. And I’m reading directly from the book, and I quote:

 

“On December 12, 1916, two and a half years into the war, Germany made a peace offer to the Allies to end the war on a status quo ante basis. That is, no one wins and no one loses, no one pays reparations. Everyone just stops fighting and goes back home.”

 

“Germany had never wanted war in the first place. By that time, in the course of the war, Germany seemed on the verge of victory. Her submarine force had effectively stopped the supply convoys coming from America to Britain, creating critical shortages of all war material in Britain. France had already lost some 600,000 men in the battles of Verdun and the Somme, and the French soldiers were beginning to mutiny. The Italian army had collapsed completely, and Russian soldiers were deserting in droves and returning home. Germany appeared to be winning on both fronts, but the slaughter had been too great, and the British and French were unwilling to stop fighting short of victory.”

 

“The only way to justify the carnage and horrific loss of life was to fight on until victory could be obtained.”

 

“Moreover, as explained in the previous chapter, Britain had entered the war to destroy Germany as an industrial and commercial rival, and that remained her goal. British leaders were determined to find a way to break the stalemate and win the war. And they knew one sure-fire way of doing so was to bring America in on their side. A relentless effort was already underway to bring that about, but so far without success.”

 

[26:30]

 

And this goes into basically the jewish role in the First World War, which is very, very interesting indeed! But I didn’t know that when Germany were on top in the First World War that they had actually said:

 

“Look, we can win this, but there’s a huge loss of life here and we want peace, and we don’t want any more of our young men being slaughtered.”

 

And that, to me, was this sort of nugget of information that completely changed my perspective on the First World War and I’m sure would change the perspectives of many other people. And I hope those listening tonight will hear stuff like this and be like:

 

“Wow! That’s really interesting!”

 

Because I said I didn’t know that. And that’s something I drew from the book.

 

Now I’m going to throw this over to Dave first, and we’ll go around the group and talk about this. But Dave, when you put this together, have you had any similar feedback to that? Because this is a lot more of a broad topic than the usual sort of post Second World War, you know, revisionary material, which is all based around, really a couple of the larger concentration camps and based on whether they were actually concentration camps or death camps, and then disputing figures based on facts.

 

But this is a lot deeper than that, isn’t it?

 

Dave Gahary: Yeah, it is. And let me say that I too, of course, learnt tons from this book.

 

So it’s not like I went in and knew it all and said:

 

“Oh, let me find the errors and the misspellings and fix them all and make it better!”

 

No, I learnt a lot as well, and that was one of the parts that I really was not strong on, and I’m still not strong on it. I’m not, like you said, I’m not someone who knows everything about one topic. It’s virtually impossible to know that. But we can learn as much as we can, of course.

 

So, yeah, that was an important part of understanding the whole story about, or what we think might be the whole story about how Germany felt, the government of Germany felt at that time and what was happening, how they did appear to be on top.

 

And of course, that’s where the whole “stab in the back” comes in. Because how could it be that the Germans lost when they were winning on all fronts? Until, of course, the machinations that were occurring behind the scenes with that wildcard of what I call “organised international jewry”.

 

[29:16]

 

Mark Collett: Thank you.

 

Now, throwing this over to Bill. Bill is a very modest man, and he’s actually had a very high profile academic past. He’s a man who is very well read, and he’s a man who certainly knows his stuff. I’m going to throw this over to you, Bill. This book was Illuminating to me, and I’m not for one minute going to suggest I am as well read as you are.

 

But was there anything amongst this that sort of stood out and taught you something? And what did you think of the structure of the book? Because I think there is a misconception about these books, that they are just going to be sort of going over the well trodden ground.

 

And as I said this, for me, a lot of it was absolutely new ground. That was fascinating!

 

Bill Atheling: Yes, absolutely!

 

And I think the way that the book builds up to the main thesis, the discussion at its centre, is by, as you say, laying the groundwork and touching upon areas which are outside of the central part of the 20th century, the late 1930s, 20th century build-up, and absolutely pertinently relate to that culmination that occurred.

 

It’s a bizarre thing, you know, that you mentioned there about, and Dave mentions about the Germans were on the top of their game at certain points. And actually, both times, both the First and Second World War, Hitler did the same thing when he conquered France. He turned back to Britain and said:

 

“Look, I don’t want a war on this front. This isn’t what I’m about.”

 

Offered generous peace terms, even proposed defending the British Empire, and, you know, he was spurned.

 

So these are things which, when I first encountered them, I thought:

 

“Well, you know, this can’t be right.”

 

And when you start looking at the actual facts of it, it’s there in black and white. It’s there and it’s evidence. You know, I refer to someone like David Irving, who’s someone who have read quite, quite deeply. And he did this, you know, “heinous” thing amongst historians. Instead of going to other historians and quoting and referring to what they were saying, he actually went and looked at source documents and looked at the facts of the original from the period and presented those things. And it tells, it paints a completely different picture.

 

So I think that’s one of the significant things about this book and some of the books that are out there. But why this book particularly should be widely read, because it lays those grounds, those facts out.

 

And as I said earlier, these are some of the things which, when I first began to be reckoned were really important to me, was if there’s a fiction that’s being perpetuated here and that’s being blown out of the water, as is evidenced by this information, what else am I being told that isn’t true?

 

So it begins the whole process, and it’s like a flower opening and you see all the petals. Yeah. So just again, I mean, I don’t think there was anything specifically in this book that I thought:

 

“Oh, I didn’t know that!”

 

Only because I’ve had my nose in this topic for such a long time. But this book brings it all together in a very succinct and clear and concise way and presents it in a structured and deliberate ladder of information that you can follow to reach some kind of understanding of the events and truth.

 

[33:01]

 

 

Mark Collett: Thank you. Sally, if you’re still with us and you’re still able to hear us, you summed it up perfectly earlier, saying, if every boomer read this, it would have sort of changed the world. How much of this was new to you?

 

Aunt Sally: How much of it was new to me? Yeah, I’m here. A lot of [word unclear] was the propaganda that the war generation grew up. Sunday afternoon, there’d be a film on TV, a black and white film. And it was all about the concentration camps and the war and how noble the British were and how evil the Germans were. [words unclear] That’s actually what I would call the book, it’s the other side. The book is the title, because I wouldn’t buy that book if I saw it in the shop. [words unclear] It is the other side of the story, not just the other side to it. It’s why it happened, how things happened, and also the propaganda and deceit, which those [words unclear] what it was and what was going on. Although there were clues, and I would ask questions that they [words unclear] even by my own parents, because they needed to believe the lie, because they suffered.

 

So everybody was invested in perpetuating the myth of lies. They wanted to perpetuate that. So as a child, you were silenced. I hope you heard all that?

 

Mark Collett: We did. We did. Natty, again, you’re somebody who’s very well read. How much of this was sort of new to you? And which bits did you feel were the most Illuminating? Because for me, as I said, it was the sort of First World War was the bits which I didn’t really have full knowledge of, …

 

Natty: Yeah, well, the First World War, again, is this like massive conflagration, that had world changing impacts in the aftermath of it.

 

But again, it pales, given what happened in the Second World War, it’s become less important, especially given the direction of Western countries, Europe, the United States, Australia, South Africa. So less is said about it. But given what actually happened and the aftermath of the First World War, it’s certainly something that when you start saying to people:

 

“Well, if you really want to understand the modern world, you need to look at the Second World War.”

 

And for people in the know, they’ll say:

 

“Well, it’s earlier than that you know, it’s the First World War.”

 

And then, you know, someone will come along and say:

 

“No, no, no! It started with “X”, the expulsion of these people from this, …”

 

Yeah, whatever.

 

[36:29]

 

But the First World War certainly is pivotal. I’m going to read a part of the book here. That talks about the aftermath of the First World War. And Benton says this:

 

“The generalised belief was replaced by a feeling of pessimism and cynicism. There was a feeling that Europe had been profoundly and permanently damaged, a feeling that turned out to be highly pertinent. In retrospect, ancient empires, the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, Russian, and German, crumbled as a result of the war.”

 

And I’ll just add, myself, that I think the British Empire suffered because of the First World War:

 

“These empires had been a source of political and social stability, and now chaos reigned throughout Europe. The Paris Peace Conference, after the war, did a very imperfect job of putting it back together again.”

 

“It is clear from the perspective of today that World War One precipitated an irreversible decline in Western civilisation.”

 

So these great empires and great nations of Europe and the control of parts of the world were stable.

 

And then all of a sudden, this kind of mass hysteria, mass propaganda, happens, and we end up killing each other in the millions on what’s known as an industrial scale slaughter, artillery shells and machine guns and gas and all the rest of it. And in the wake of that, the continent is devastated! And what follows from it is all these social changes and all this chaos.

 

I mean, there’s a chapter in here about the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, which is a story into itself. But all of this leads into the Second World War, which probably cements the changes that were on the cards during the First World War. And obviously, this book goes into post Second World War, which is also covered in Hellstorm.

 

And, I mean, there are other books that cover other areas of, you know, expand on things that are chaptered in this book. Like I said, the Bolshevik Revolution. You could read the Gulag Archipelago, maybe, for that. Hellstorm covers the retreat of the Germans from Russia in the east and what happened to the Germans after the war in a little bit more detail. And a lot of, like Bill said, David Irving covers a lot of Hitler and what the Nazi high command was doing at the time.

 

But this book is fantastic! It gives a great overview of things that led up to the First World War all the way through and things that were happening and decisions that were being made that fed into everything that resulted from that conflict.

 

[39:26]

 

Mark Collett: Now, looking over this book and having enjoyed it so much, I think the book essentially stitches together a lot of pieces of history, because people often talk about the First World War, the Second World War, but this stitches it all together and also includes information about the Russian Revolution, the Red Terror, the founding or the beginning of the founding of the state of Israel, as well. It covers information about the Balfour Declaration.

 

Now, when I was looking through this and we touched on this earlier, I really, really enjoyed the pictures. And I really, really enjoyed the sort of these annotated. Well, there’s just so many sort of, so many pictures, drawings, pieces of propaganda.

 

And you can see when you look over this book that it draws all these different pieces together, and it allows the reader to see this not as a series of sort of isolated one offs, but as a concerted effort to demonise the German people, and specifically to also demonise nationalism. So Germans became the sort of avatars of, you know, nationalists in Europe, and they were demonised for that to a great degree.

 

And I think people have, you know, seen snippets of this. But to see it all pulled together in one place and to see the people behind it and to see those people named, and often to see pictures of those people sat together, because it’s very easy to give people lists of names. And if you’re new to this, to just be given a list of names of people who are involved is one thing, but to be given an image showing all those people sitting together at a conference arranging these very things, I think, is also incredibly important!

 

And then to juxtapose the information that we’ve been fed about German villainy and place it next to a genuine information about the Red Terror, about the Gulags, I think that places a lot of things in context as well. And this book does a brilliant job of placing everything that people may have been taught or may have heard as separate individual pieces and putting them into a larger context.

 

Now, obviously, when you were editing this, Dave, and putting this together, was that your intention, to bring all this into one place, contextualise it, and ensure that people saw this bigger picture?

 

Dave Gahary: No, I went into the project not knowing what to expect.

 

And like I said, it took about three years. I was interrupted by, of course, my hospitalisation from what is known as Covid for four months. But I jumped right back in it after I addressed another book that we had put out that I had begun before the hospitalisation. But no, I went into it without knowing what to expect. And it just evolved the way that it did.

 

Of course, a lot of time was spent on selecting these photographs and finding the ones that I thought might best represent the text on that particular page. So many hours are spent going through photographs. And Ben did have a lot of photographs of Hitler with children and all of his adoring fans to show how the Germans thought about him.

 

[43:56]

 

Of course, we’re pretty much all familiar with that, and it’s a fantastic thing to look at. But I didn’t want to place an inordinate number of those type of photos in there. I just wanted to, as you all have mentioned, select photographs that were applicable to what was being discussed and perhaps some that we might not be that familiar with.

 

Mark Collett: Bill, obviously people talk about the Second World War as being a critical turning point in the history of Europe, and that’s something we all know. And I often say, I mean, I was at the Awakening Conference in Finland this weekend, and when we talk to anyone about modern Britain and about what is known as liberal democracy, that is something that has essentially grown post Second World War. We look back and we say the Second World War cemented all this, and in many ways it did.

 

But I think this book puts into context that the plans for this liberal democracy and the sort of taking away of the power of indigenous Europeans, those wheels were set in motion a long, long time before the Second World War even broke out. And this book really placed that in context for me. How would you approach that?

 

Bill Atheling: Yeah. Yes, I agree. Does that sound better now? I’m not clicking or making strange noises.

 

Mark Collett: No, no, the clicking is gone.

 

Bill Atheling: Yeah. It’s just because I’m an old bugger. Okay. That’s what it is. And I had the cable wrapped around my headphone.

 

You’re absolutely right, Mark. It’s so important that these things are laid out as, rather than being event X happened at this date, event Y happened at this date, and event Z happened at this date. It demonstrates the kind of interlinked and the causality of different events and how they culminated in certain events. And that’s what this book is very good at painting, that picture. But there’s something else, which I think is why it succeeds so well in terms of presenting that kind of mosaic of information. It’s the tone of the writer, and I’m sure Dave had a hand in that, in terms of developing the way that texts work together.

 

But, you know, he says things about, for example, when he talks about communism, for example, he says:

 

“The obvious flaw in communist ideology was that it defied human nature, moreover, it defied common sense.”

 

You know, he says these things in very clear, very concise and demonstrably true manner.

 

And then in the chapter, when he’s talking about Nuremberg, he concludes about the way that the trial was prosecuted:

 

“If these standards had been applied at Nuremberg, all sides would have been guilty of war crimes.”

 

Very straightforward, simple sentence, and underlines everything that’s come before. So he has this ability to say things in a very clear, direct, straightforward way.

 

[47:30]

 

And I think that’s one of the most attractive things about this book, is the prose of the writer himself. I did mention this earlier, but this idea that it is presented in a way which is immediately digestible. And these facts are kind of woven together so that we don’t just see the picking over the carcass of a particular event at a particular specific time, but rather the kind of tsunami that rolled into town in the early 20th century and whose fatal flooding has continued to affect our civilisation ever since.

 

Mark Collett: Sally, how does this place things into context for you? Because, I mean, you and I have known each other for some time now, and it’s one of those things where you do believe that the Second World War was this pivotal moment.

 

But I don’t think people really realise how long these changes were building and how long this plan stretched back even before the First World War.

 

Aunt Sally: Yeah, really, the book was a revelation for me. We grew up with so much of it and how righteous we were and how wicked the Germans were. And I felt so guilty already just reading the book. Like when I was a child you looked down your noses on them and you very rarely saw any. But I just so happened to have a [word unclear] as a child, and she was a wicked cow! Real wicked cow! And now I understand why. Yeah, we look down on noses at them, even as early twenties, and if you met a German kraut, we called them “krauts”. And, yeah, I feel guilty. Guilty [word unclear] because I’ve been so deceived. I’ve bought into everything that I’m taught and grown up with, and the book, [words unclear] it’s a fantastic book!

 

When I read these books for the book club and I write down any questions I have or something to make sense, but when I did write down [words unclear] and the question within two or three, it answers everything that you ever wanted to know. If I just answered your question mark. But the yeah, the book is a revelation. Other people, other boomers should read it. Well if you could convince someone to read it, but then the title would put a lot of the boomers off. It is such a such a good book. I’m still flabbergasted by it!

 

And I read it a couple of months ago. It really is. And, yeah, I’ll pass now.

 

Mark Collett: Natty, what’s your thoughts about the way this pulls everything together? And then we’re going to move on to a slightly different topic that I think is very important.

 

[50:58]

 

Natty: Yeah, it’s a well presented narrative.

 

I mean, I’m happy to move on. You guys have covered everything that’s you’ve said about the way this book’s presented.

 

I will say this. It’s one thing to hear about propaganda against Germans in the First World War and the early in the outbreak of the Second World War and the times in between. And propaganda today looks a bit different and is more sophisticated.

 

But there are pictures in here of and they’re drawings. They’re not photographs, obviously, this is back in the First World War, where photographs would have been prohibitively expensive. But pictures of German soldiers bayoneting babies or crucifying allied soldiers to trees in the First World War, or dragging women off when they’re marching through Belgium to whip up this frenzy of hate against German people. Whereas that just hadn’t existed before on the outbreak of the First World War.

 

It’s almost like a switch is flipped, and all of this stuff gets produced, and all of a sudden, without any., … You know, you’ve got to remember this is a time without Internet. No counter narrative was available. All of a sudden, people., … And, it’s hard to know how suckered in by this people were or how much control there was and whether people were resistant to this or not. I’m sure a lot of people would have been, but simply there was no voice for that kind of dissent. Although maybe I’m wrong about that. And you could look into archives and newspaper cuttings and find journalists and newspapers who were sceptical of these claims of the evil of Germany. But just all prevailing, all pervasive and totally.

 

I don’t know, it’s crazy to think about how effective but crude that propaganda was and how different it is to propaganda from today. But I’m happy to move on. And I know I haven’t really answered your question, but to see it in the illustrations in this book is something else, really impressive.

 

Mark Collett: Well, you’ve kind of taken me on to the topic I wanted to speak about next, because we’re coming up to the hour and we’ve got some Superchats. If people do want a Superchat, please do consider sending a small donation. If you want to say something about the book or ask any questions to the panel.

 

But I will say this, reading this book in the current context of the modern geopolitical struggles going on in this very moment was very, very interesting. And it was very, very interesting because at the moment, there are two conflicts. There is the conflict in the Ukraine, and there is the conflict in occupied Palestine.

 

And as you flick through this book, you see some, well, images and words and phrases and propaganda that alludes to a certain picture of Germans, and the Germans were obviously the enemies at this time.

 

So you see pictures of Germans pretending to be normal soldiers as they stand over the bodies of women that they’ve just mutilated. You see pictures of German nurses who apparently would rather pour water on the floor than give it to a wounded allied soldier. There are pictures of Germans bayoneting children or walking or marching with children impaled on their bayonets. There are pictures of Germans crucifying allied soldiers or dragging away girls set to the background of villages or towns on fire.

 

[55:26]

 

So the Germans are all always portrayed as these murderous brutes who not only are almost sort of like Orcish, if you were to put it into sort of a the writings of Tolkien, these are sort of Orcs, and Orcs in Tolkien’s writings are absolutely inhuman! You know, they don’t think like us. They’re not like us, and they should never be treated like us. They’re a different breed, a different creature. And that’s what Germans were sort of written up like.

 

But if you take all of that and you look at the propaganda surrounding both the conflict in the Ukraine and the conflict in occupied Palestine, it’s almost amazing, because, you know, from the First World War, we’re now over 100 years on from the end of that war. But the propaganda used to make Britons and the other allied nations hate the Germans is almost identical to the propaganda we see today around the war in the Ukraine and Israel’s wholesale genocide of the Palestinian people, which is incredible!

 

So you hear today about Palestinians butchering babies, you know, roasting them in ovens, and every day, the number of babies that were apparently either beheaded or carried off, you know, grows. But that’s exactly what the same people were saying about the Germans.

 

Natty: And we’re supposed to believe that Russian soldiers today, who are fighting on the front lines in Ukraine, if given the opportunity, would storm across Europe and kill us all in our beds and subjugate us to the most terrible tyranny and also believe that Palestinians hate us for some ridiculous reasons that were never solidified.

 

And like I said, sometimes the propaganda is crude, and sometimes it’s sophisticated. But you see this whole network of today, these supposedly Right-wing influencers and stuff like this, trying to reinforce these narratives as in some cases, more heavily favouring Israel, and in some cases, on the Left or progressive side, more favouring the Ukrainians [Palestinians].

 

But in both cases, we’re supposed to believe that people who have nothing to do with us and don’t know us from Adam, are kind of eternal enemies and are ontologically evil and would do terrible things to us, given the opportunity. And it’s simply not true! And it wasn’t true of the Germans, either.

 

But it’s the same propaganda machine, the same people telling us these things, and it’s ridiculous! As soon as you start to scratch beneath the surface and look at the realities of conflict and land and control and governments and policies, it’s just absurd on its face. Palestinians don’t hate me. Why would they? They probably hate my government. Russians don’t hate me and don’t want to take over my country. They’re engaged in a kind of empire expansion, or a quest to take back natural resources.

 

These are questions that are answerable, and there’s questions, and there’s policies like that that revolve around the First World War and the Second World War. But to expand it into people being evil enough to do something that is kind of almost religiously bad, is just insane! And it’s insane to anyone who’s capable of making their brain cells fire more than you need just to watch the new Netflix, you know, series or whatever.

 

[59:31]

 

Bill Atheling: You’re right, Natty. And, it’s absolutely what you’ve said there is spot on! It’s an absolute case of “Plus Les choses changent, plus elles restent Les mêmes”. The more things change, the more they stay the same. And there is that historical echo. The same fallacies are trotted out, and the same number of people believe them, unfortunately. These things are., …

 

There’s an example of the power of this propaganda is, if I can just deviate very slightly, but there’s a Welshman, a writer called Arthur Machen*, who wrote a story called The Bowman, in 1914. And it’s a fictional story about how, during an attack at Mons, Agincourt bowman arrive and shoots spectral arrows into the air and stops the German advance and so on.

 

[* Arthur Machen (3 March 1863 – 15 December 1947) was the pen-name of Arthur Llewellyn Jones, a Welsh author and mystic of the 1890s and early 20th century. He is best known for his influential supernatural, fantasy, and horror fiction. His novella The Great God Pan (1890; 1894) has Garnered a reputation as a classic of horror, with Stephen King describing it as “Maybe the best [horror story] in the English language.” [2] He is also well known for “The Bowmen”, a short story that was widely read as fact, creating the legend of the Angels of Mons. Source: Wikipedia]

 

And people believed this story, that it was published in the press, and it was published as a piece of fiction, but people implicitly believed it.

 

And in fact, Machen would receive letters saying:

 

“What was your source? What happened? How did you find this information?”

 

He got a letter from a clergyman about this, and he had to say to the clergyman:

 

“Well, no, it’s a piece of fiction.”

 

And to the point where the clergyman wrote back to him and said:

 

“No, you’re mistaken. It’s real. It must be real! What’s your source?”

 

So this is the problem you have with propaganda.

 

Mark Collett: Does Dave, or well, Sally’s not commented yet. Sally, would you like to say anything about this? Because I’m going to ask Dave a few questions in a second. Sally, what are your thoughts on this?

 

Aunt Sally: About?

 

Mark Collett: Yes, about propaganda.

 

Aunt Sally: Well, as far as propaganda is concerned, I think I realised that what the telly told you was a lie, and I cancelled my TV licence and actually haven’t watched TV since. And I stopped consuming mainstream [word unclear] or buying and reading their news. Sometimes I keep an eye on what’s going on, or what they are, but I know now, and I’ve known for a few years, and probably that’s the difference, that are still people believing it.

 

Yet the power of propaganda is, it’s deceit, isn’t it? It’s just all about deceiving you into going with what they want you to believe. And the war generations they were invested in it. And that they invested their lives, [words unclear]. Would have been awful for them to realise the truth! It really would. So they had to invest in the propaganda, and [words unclear] Russians, and it was a righteous war, and the Germans are evil. They needed that. Otherwise, if they realised what they’d really done., … And they’re all dead now, aren’t they? It goes to the next generations, if they ever find out.

 

Mark Collett: Well, thank you. Dave?

 

[1:03:05]

 

 

Dave Gahary: Yes.

 

Mark Collett: I mean, obviously, you do your own show and you publish many books. Do you think this book, at this point in history, is something that carries a more pressing message because of this? I mean, I think we were discussing this briefly before the show and whether we were going to go into this.

 

And obviously we have got here, and I was thinking about it as we were talking about generally what the book was about.

 

But I do think the issues in this book today are as relevant as they ever were. And how do you view this? Because, I mean, ultimately, they’ve been telling exactly the same lies now for almost a century. Well, for over a century.

 

Dave Gahary: Right. Yes. And that actually is., … Well, before I say that, just let me say that I’m floored by all of your comments about how much you love the book, because, as I mentioned, I poured a lot of work into it, and it’s great to hear that, especially from this group, that you all loved it! So thank you. Means a lot to me.

 

And Tom Goodrich of Hellstorm, he wrote the foreword. As you know, I wanted to mention that earlier, and the cover was done by a close colleague of mine, Paul Angel from the Barnes Review, an American Free Press, we have worked together for going on about 20 years, and he’s a terrific guy. And it took us a while to come up with this cover. It was one of those covers that we really weren’t quite sure about which direction we would go in. And this was what we settled on, and I think it came out very well.

 

But as far as this topic and how it relates to today and what you and I, Mark, had touched upon briefly was that with all of the stuff happening since we first talked about doing this book review, it’s almost like the discussion of a book like this, a historical book like this, would be viewed as something pedestrian or staid.

 

[1:05:34]

 

Maybe the main attraction that I have to history is what you had touched upon earlier is that everything’s the same. And the reason that everything’s the same, I think, is that people don’t change. One could read The Iliad and The Odysee, written thousands and thousands of years ago, and it’s almost as if you’re hearing about something that occurred in your life in the current day, because human nature doesn’t change!

 

And I think a book like this is very important, as are many other history books, because they reveal that what happened over 100 years ago, the people who were manipulating and deceiving with their propaganda are doing the same exact thing today at a different target.

 

So I think that if someone picks up this book and if it gives them just that, the understanding that there really is nothing new under the sun, that all of this was done before, not just in the 19th and, 200th century centuries, but thousands of years ago, because human nature doesn’t change.

 

So besides giving one the knowledge that I feel is necessary to understanding this particular topic, it also gives the reader the ability to get a greater grasp on human nature and how that stays constant throughout the ages. So, yes, I think that although we are confronted with currently much, much different challenges than you might read about in The Myth of German Villainy, they are all tied together and they can’t be separated.

 

In fact, it might be that someone gaining the knowledge of the propaganda and manipulation that took place during the First World War and the Second World War and continues to take place via the you know, there’s plenty of terms for the media, but, you know, one of one of my recent favourites is the “lying legacy media”. The lying legacy media, I think, is really the biggest culprit for the dumbing down and kept in the dark propaganda for the public. And that ties into people like us who are looking for answers outside of what the lying legacy media is spewing.

 

People like us are in the stark minority. You know, I refer to people like us as mutants because we are not afraid to entertain any thought or idea, whereas the masses, who can’t. If you told them that:

 

“I’ve been looking into the history of this and of World War Two, and I just I don’t think that Hitler was as bad of a guy as they tell us he is.”

 

You know, most people would recoil in horror because of how they’ve been programmed.

 

So these are the people. And I mean, like, 99.999% of humanity cannot entertain an original thought, an original idea. If it goes off course from what they’ve been programmed, they are going to have a violent reaction to it.

 

So I don’t think we can wait. And I’m going a little off topic here, but I think it ties into it.

 

But I don’t think we could wait for them to catch up to us. I think we just have to steam ahead and try to get the important information, like we’re talking about today, to as many open minds as possible.

 

[1:10:18]

 

Natty: I just want to push back on that a little bit, Dave, because I think that after October 7 [2023, Hamas attacking the Israelis] and for Americans, maybe a little bit more so, the amount of money that’s being sent to Ukraine, I think that people are becoming more receptive to jewish power or jewish over representation and nepotism in a way that I haven’t seen before.

 

And I’m not sure. Maybe you’re going to tell me:

 

“No, this is a cycle. And people go back to, …”

 

Dave Gahary: No, I agree with you 100%. Absolutely! Yeah, 100%. As a matter of fact, I predicted what would happen in 2022. I thought it was going to happen in 2020, but then they rolled out that Covid thing.

 

But in 2022, I predicted that 2023 would be our best year and, 20024 would be even better than that. And the reason I did was because I saw things happening. And at the time I said that in 2022, none of my colleagues agreed with me, none saw it.

 

And I’m not saying that I’m some kind of a seer and that I have great, you know, predictive abilities, but I did see it. And it was obvious to me because of what was happening, how people were responding, the comments that were, in posts.

 

And I’m not an “anti-social media” guy or social media guy, which I call “anti-social media” because that’s what it is. I’m not a social media guy. But I did see a post that somebody brought to my attention on X. And it was this vampire like character from the ADL, Greenblatt, who, you know, had spewed some filth about Leo Frank and saying he was exonerated. And this was the first time I actually read comments on a post.

 

And this was last year, and the post was made in March of last year. And I read every comment. There were about two to 300. And there was only one that said:

 

“My God, I’m jewish! You have to tell these people off!”

 

Something like that. All the rest were saying:

 

“What are you talking about? You guys framed that black guy!”

 

And going on and on. When those sort of opinions are allowed in the public square, which they were and are now, it was very clear to me that there was a huge seismic shift in the understanding of organised international jewry and, of course, that imaginary jewish power. And we are in the middle of a great awakening that has never before happened!

 

And I remember I was talking about it on the show, I do that Mark mentioned with David Duke on Sunday nights, a call in show which allows anybody from anywhere to call in and talk to the good doctor. And I brought that up about this mass awakening.

 

[1:13:39]

 

And, of course, as I mentioned, nobody thought that that was happening, but now everybody sees that it’s happening.

 

And I said to David that:

 

“You must be feeling pretty good, because what you’ve been talking about for nearly six decades is finally people are seeing what’s going on.”

 

But I’ll temper that with saying that the people who are seeing what’s going on are the “mutants”.

 

So these are the ones who are already susceptible to accepting pretty much anything. It’s just that now it’s so obvious that they were like, wow, I can’t ignore this anymore. So I still think that those, the 99.999%, because we’re a very tiny number, our group of mutants, that 99.99% is still bubbled into their lying legacy media programming.

 

But I do think we are in a great awakening.

 

Natty: Sure. Yeah. I do agree with that, and there are a few things to watch out for. I know you say we’re a tiny amount of people, but we for the most part, have remained laser focused on this issue.

 

And I think it really does help. You know, if you could think about motes of dust surrounding us being pulled in and pulled into that laser as well. And there are a lot of distractions. You know, aliens are now apparently a thing, and the Illuminati and, you know whatever else, whatever else can be a distraction.

 

But I think for the most part, people like us in larger ways, like you and your publishing house, and sometimes in tiny, small ways, like us doing this podcast and this book review, and millions and millions, which is small in the grand scheme of things. People on places like Twitter and on social media sharing memes and ideas and talking and being dissidents, is forcing people who are trying to hold the tiller into swinging very slowly in this direction.

 

And to make another point, there are so many inroads into this now. Like I said, the liberal progressive people are suddenly finding out that Israel and the jewish power structure has carved out an exception to, if not genocide, ethnic cleansing at the very least. And they don’t like it. And now they have this inroad into:

 

“Well, why is there this exception?”

 

And they start asking questions like that. And it’s only going to lead to one place. And for the American Right, for the kind of the much lauded and shat upon boomers, their money, their tax money is being sent to Israel like never before, and the Ukraine, which for those people is a country on the other side of the world, but shouldn’t be receiving their money.

 

So all of these otherwise disparate groups are being forced to look into this issue and confront it and start asking questions if they have any desire to enact some sort of political change. Which I know is extremely hard, and we all know that here.

 

But I don’t think it’s not nothing. I’ll say that.

 

[1:17:17]

 

Dave Gahary: No, no, it’s not. It’s something.

 

But I think we’re at a point now, and I’ve mentioned this several times on shows in private and publicly, that we can literally kick back a little bit because now the unhinged Left is doing our job for us. And we see that happening.

 

So it’s a great time to be alive because all of the stuff that we focused on, in our group, if I can call it that, is the most educated group out there, because again, it goes back to not being afraid to entertain any idea or thought. So we are interested in learning. We want to dig into things. And yes, there are a lot of distractions. Flat earth, aliens, the Illuminati, Hitler was a Rothschild, all that stuff.

 

One of the things that keeps me going is that I feel like I do have that. And I’ll borrow your term “laser focus” on what I’m trying to do. And I don’t let this stuff distract me. And I don’t., As Sally was saying, I don’t watch television. I haven’t watched it since 1991, when my first son was born. I have no interest in it. I have no interest in the jew’s media, or whatever you want to call it. I tangentially look at it, but I know what they’re going to say, of course.

 

So the good news is that media is dying! But you’ve got people like Joe Rogan and his ilk who refuse to, or are unaware of what is really happening, and they don’t go to that next step.

 

So I really think that people like us, it is an incredibly small, minuscule group, but it’s those small groups who have changed history.

 

I mean, I’ll use, you know what you all created, your ancestors created this nation here. And it was only about 8,000 Patriots with a capital “P” who were organising the rebellion against their British overlords. Because of what we mentioned earlier, taxation without representation, nothing has changed. They went against all the odds to defeat the greatest empire in history. So I’m certainly not saying that we cannot win. If I woke up every day and sat down at my desk and thought that I wouldn’t wake up, I just give up.

 

So I have high hopes. I think that in America, we’re taught that, or at least we were when I grew up – I was born in 1960 – that anybody could be the president.

 

Unfortunately, we’ve seen that happen. Anybody could do anything that they want to do. I’m a firm believer in that. I’ve experienced that. I’ve done things that I still can’t believe I’ve done them. I don’t think it was myself doing. I think I had help, but I think that we can do anything. And if we don’t think that way, we sell ourselves and those around us short!

 

And I think we should all believe that we can achieve victory.

 

And I believe that we can!

 

[1:21:20]

 

Mark Collett: Thank you. Some inspiring words there, Dave.

 

So this is the part of the show where I really want to throw it open to Bill, Sally and Natty. I’ve done a lot of speaking. Are there anything, is there anything in the book that you guys would like to particularly focus on or bring up or anything about the book that you think I’ve missed or maybe something in the book that was missed? So, Bill, is there anything you’d like to bring up?

 

Bill Atheling: Well, I don’t know whether it’s something that you might have missed, but there’s a particular quote in chapter 13, which is by an English Daily Express reporter, and it’s quite a lengthy quote. But it’s very interesting as an insight into how Germany was perceived in the thirties before things swung around.

 

So, for example, this is six months after Germany’s militarisation and the incursions of the Rhineland and a month after the Olympics. And he writes things like this:

 

“There is, for the first time since the war, a general sense of security.”

 

Speaking, obviously, about Germany:

 

“The people are more cheerful. There is a greater sense of general gaiety of spirits throughout the land. It is a happier Germany. I saw it everywhere. An Englishman I met during my trip and who knew Germany well, were very impressed with the changes.”

 

And he goes on to say:

 

“It impressed me more than anything I witnessed during my short visit to New Germany, a powerful revivalist atmosphere, an extraordinary effect in unifying the nation.”

 

And then he goes on to say about all the different types of Germans who have brought together, Bavarians and northerners and so on.

 

Natty: Wait, Bill, can you imagine anybody walking around England today and asking any Englishman and getting that impression? I don’t think so.

 

Bill Atheling: Absolutely! Absolutely! And there’s this sense that we have this lens that has been calcified in the years since 1945, and that was still fluid and it was still moving before that period. And but we still have documentation like this to look at and to access and say:

 

“Well, actually, there was this idea that there was this, you know, we’re showing all the television dramas and films and movies, and there’s the coming storm and all this kind of thing, and everybody’s gloomy, and everyone thinks that there’s a terrible evil rising in the east.”

 

And it’s just not the case. There isn’t this kind of Sauron like monster rising in the east. You know, people didn’t see it in that sense. This is a post-war painting. And just looking at things like that, just looking at that, just very simple series of quotes from that particular period really underlines that.

 

[1:24:16]

 

One of the things which when I was teaching, I used to say to students before lectures was “question received wisdom”. That sounds in some ways to be a negative thing. You say:

 

“Well, you don’t question tradition and so on.”

 

But actually, we were getting students, kids who had done A levels and so on.

 

Their minds had been so constricted and narrowed that all of a sudden I was saying to them:

 

“Well, actually, no, you can question this. You’re allowed to question this. There’s these narratives.”

 

And I would try and red pill them and show them things and talk about things, and to a degree, got across to them that, it’s okay to actually question these narratives that we’ve been fed because I mean, the classic one thing I said was:

 

“When we’re looking at history, we are allowed to question all kind of interpretations of was Henry VIII the good king? Was Henry the bad king? And so on. But there’s one period in history we’re not allowed to question, and why do you think that is?”

 

You know, so I just pose questions to them and leave them to think about, to cogitate a little bit on that. And that’s what this book does in the sense it kind of breaks through that calcification and allows that kind of marinade in information which wouldn’t normally be denied to them.

 

And I think coming back to what Dave and Natty were saying about the propaganda war and in terms of the shift, we have this thing, the Internet, and as constricted and as restricting as it has become, in some ways, we’re streaming on Odysee and not YouTube, for example.

 

At the same time, it’s a barrel with too many holes in it, and they can’t plug all the leaks.

 

And so I think what this book does is it provides buckshot to knock through some of those barrels and let some of the water out.

 

Mark Collett: Sally, is there anything about the book that you think I’ve missed or anything that you’d like to bring up?

 

Aunt Sally: Right. My dog might bark because there’s a fox outside.

 

There is. I mean, for me, the thing, I just keep thinking about mine [words unclear] and I think I’ve covered it already. I don’t want to repeat myself, but we weren’t taught about the war. We were given films on [words unclear] no one talked. The parents didn’t talk about it. The school didn’t talk about it. And I grew up why the war happened? And I used to ask my father:

 

“Did you go to war to save jews?”

 

That’s what I thought they went to. He didn’t really answer me, but I presumed it. So I thought it was about saving the jews. I had no idea, even till.

 

And this book, it’s just all there and I can’t recommend it enough. It’s such an eye opener. It explains every little thing. I wish I’d had it, you know, when I was a child. It would have. [words unclear] Yeah, well, I’ve just written down, we were brought up in total ignorance, that generation. And to go forth, and my father used to say:

 

“Go! We had to suffer. Enjoy it. Enjoy your life!”

 

And I think that was the case for all the boomers:

 

“Go forth, because we never had any [words unclear] go forth and enjoy the world.”

 

Because our parents and our grandparents, … So that’s me making excuses for the boomers, although I know that they’re kind of irredeemable, but they don’t know what I know. Yeah, I’ll stop now, Mark.

 

[1:28:45]

 

Bill Atheling: Well, you’re quite right, Sally.

 

And I think and I speak to my dear old mum, who’s in her eighties, and then she’s got a very fixed eye idea of that period in history and, you know, won’t move on it in many ways. But that generation is the old generation, and that’s very different amongst Zoomers and so on.

 

I think there’s a very different attitude that’s growing now.

 

Mark Collett: So, Natty, is there anything in the book that you think was missed out or anything you want to add to what we’ve said tonight? And then we’ll do the Superchats.

 

Natty: Well, there’s loads in here that I don’t think we’re going to get round to, namely the Katyn Forest massacre, which I think you’ve done a podcast, or a standalone video yourself, Mark, and I think was covered in Hellstorm. It’s not famous, normie wise, but it’s fairly well known on the Right, so maybe it’s not worth going into. But I will just note that initially the allies blamed the Germans for the Katyn Forest massacre, in which something like 26,000 of the Polish, the elite, the kind of cream of Polish society, a cream of Polish men, officers and educators and teachers and stuff, were executed, turned out to be the Bolsheviks.

 

The second thing, this book also goes into Dresden, which we’ve covered before. I know we’ve covered before, which is probably one of the worst war crimes, minus, if you set aside Hiroshima and Nagasaki, one of the worst war crimes, I think, to come out of the Second World War.

 

But one of the things I wasn’t aware of which I’m not sure if this was covered in Hellstorm, if I’ve read it somewhere else. I don’t think I have. Was the jewish Brigade. And, Dave, you probably know about this. Mark, I’m not sure if this was something you’re aware of but essentially the book says this:

 

“There was a jewish infantry brigade group, more commonly known as the jewish Brigade, that not many had been aware of a military formation of the British army. It was formed in late 1994 [1944].”

 

It goes on:

 

“Using their British army credentials and uniforms, they travelled around Germany (this is after the war) and Austria, hunting down and killing high ranking German officers. They had unlimited logistical support from the British army, could requisition anything they needed and travelled anywhere in Germany or Austria. They had all of Germany’s official records, which the allies had given them, obviously.”

 

[1:31:36]

 

And these guys were, like, hell bent on executing people just for being in charge of groups of soldiers. There’s a quote here:

 

“One of the jewish executioners, Israel Kami, explained in Beckman’s book how they dealt with their selected targets. When we arrived at the home of our suspects, we were put on British military police helmets, wore white bands and police armlets. Then we would enter the home and take the suspect with us, saying that we wanted them for interrogation. Usually they came without struggle. Once in the car, we told the prisoner who we were and why we took him. Some admitted guilt. (He doesn’t say guilt of what) Others kept silent. We did the job. We were burning with hatred. We knew that our people would never forgive us if we did not exploit this opportunity to kill nazis.”

 

What he really means is kill Germans. I wasn’t aware of that you know, that’s a British, supposedly a British brigade, a British army unit operating after the Second World War, going around and executing soldiers who had surrendered. There’s so many things like that about the Second World War that just fill you with revulsion and sickness of what your own government was up to!

 

Bill Atheling: It’s as if the dreadful Tarantino., …

 

Natty: Yes, exactly. In reverse!

 

Bill Atheling: Yeah, absolutely!

 

Natty: Yeah. There’s so many things like that.

 

I mean, this is going off on a tangent a little bit, but there’s a lot of instances in the media doing that kind of thing, switching up the sides. So Inglourious Basterds [2009] has this, you know, group of jews going around and killing people during the war. Well, it wasn’t, they weren’t taking prisoners in some partisan raid and carrying out daring things. They just got records and were going around extra judicially taking revenge on Germans.

 

And to get slightly off topic here, the same thing happened with, I’m going to forget the name of the film now, but it’s about a court case in which, oh it’s Our Time to Kill, it’s called. And it’s about a black father who kills two White kind of supremacists in the deep south after they rape his daughter. And the court case is all about the lawyer trying to get this black father off because you probably aren’t going to be judged too harshly for killing those two men.

 

But it turns out that the case was entirely reversed, and it was actually two black guys who had raped a young White girl. And that was the case that John Grisham had based the book off, which was the film was based off. That’s just an aside, but it just goes to show you the power of propaganda and what media can do.

 

[1:34:31]

 

 

Dave Gahary: Yeah. A pure jewish piece of propaganda! Screenplay by Akiva Goldsman, produced by Arnon Milchan.*

 

[* A Time to Kill is a 1996 American legal drama film based on John Grisham’s 1989 novel of the same name. Sandra Bullock, Samuel L. Jackson, Matthew McConaughey, and Kevin Spacey star with Donald and Kiefer Sutherland appearing in supporting roles and Octavia Spencer in her film debut. The film received mixed reviews but was a commercial success, making $152 million world-wide. Source: Wikipedia]

 

And of course, that’s that jewish Israeli spy who up until now has gotten off the hook with all the spying he did for Israel here in the United States.

 

Natty: Yeah.

 

Mark Collett: Well, thank you. Let’s do some of these Superchats. We will go through these and then we’ll give our final thoughts on the book. Open borders for Israel gave $5. Thank you so much, my friend. And thank you so much for your continued support. He says:

 

“Hey, Mark, would you consider doing a review of any Lothrop Stoddard’s books?”

 

I’m not sure what they are:

 

“I recommend The Rising Tide of Colour Against White World Supremacy*. It was written in the 1920s and predicted a massive number of non-Whites coming to the West.”

 

I haven’t actually heard of that, but thank you for the suggestion. I will look into it.

 

[* The Rising Tide of Color: The Threat Against White World-Supremacy (1920), by Lothrop Stoddard, is a book about racialism and geopolitics, which describes the collapse of White supremacy and colonialism because of the population growth among people of colour, rising nationalism in colonised nations, and industrialisation in China and Japan. To counter the perceived geopolitical threat, Stoddard advocated Nordicism, racial segregation, and general racism, restricting non-white immigration into white-majority countries, restricting immigration of non-members of the “Nordic race” to countries primarily containing members of the “Nordic race”; restricting Asian migration to Africa; and slowly giving independence to European colonies in Asia (including the Middle East). A noted eugenicist, Stoddard supported a separation of the “primary races” of the world and warned against miscegenation, the mixing of the races. Source: Wikipedia]

 

Natty: I had it. I had a quick look at that, Mark. And Wikipedia is probably not a good source, but it seems that Stoddard had some other ideas, like we talked about earlier, that went off the rails slightly, but it might be worth looking into.

 

Mark Collett: Okay, I’ll have a look into that. And thank you for the Superchat. D salon seven gave $5. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Here in America, German villainy did not exist before 1916.”

 

Now, this is a really good point. I don’t know if Dave wants to comment on this briefly. He says:

 

“We had German language schools, newspapers, social clubs, and strong ties to Germany all long gone now. A rich cultural legacy eradicated, leaving only faint traces behind. In any of the context, this would be called a mass atrocity.”

 

Would you like to comment on that, Dave?

 

The fact that America was once a lot of German representation and that was basically stamped out.

 

[1:36:28]

 

Dave Gahary: Yeah, a lot of this stuff, personally, I get angry about it. But yes, there was, there still is a huge German population here in America. And unfortunately, because of the propaganda and who spews it, yeah, the Germans were wholesale looked upon as the enemy. And the people who control the media have had it out for these poor folks for a long time. And they still do, obviously.

 

So that’s why it’s incumbent on us in our positions, in our individual and group positions, to make sure that we do whatever we can to get the proper information out to as many people as possible, not knowing who we’re going to impact, but knowing that we are, in fact, having a great impact, especially now.

 

Mark Collett: Well, thank you so much, Andy Great Story. Good to see you tonight, my friend. Again, $10. He said:

 

“The award section of Money Tree Publishing is fantastic! Exemplary awards!”

 

Well, thank you, my friend. And obviously, if you want this book, please do go to Money Tree Publishing. The link is in the description below. It takes you to where you can purchase this second edition of the book.

 

And I believe that’s exclusive to Money Tree Publishing. I couldn’t find it anywhere else.

 

Dave Gahary: Yeah, it is, Mark, I just want to say first two things. One is the awards section. I named it “Awards” because that was if you go to Money Tree publisher and you look on the menu, you’ll see it says Awards. And what that is that was the award I was given by the Anti-Defamation League. So thank you again, ADL and Jonathan Greenblatt!

 

Now in the United States, and yes, it is exclusive just to us, and we carry a lot of banned books and exclusive products. But the way that the US postal system works, the United States, Postal Service, is that currently the US government is subsidizing China.

 

And of course, this is at the expense of countries like the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, pretty much everywhere else.

 

So China is getting great rates because of, obviously, economics, and they’re making everybody else pay through the nose. So if somebody from the UK went to Money Tree Publishing and, let’s say, selected the colour version of the book, the cost of the colour version is $35. The cost of the black and white is 25. The shipping to the United Kingdom is $32.58.

 

So if you got the black and white version, the shipping would cost more than the actual book, which is really horrible, but we have no control over that.

 

But what I will say is that if anyone from the UK wants to get the book, just go to moneytreepublishing.com and click on the contact tab and send an email to me. I’ll get it. And just have the subject line Villainy or MGV, capital M, capital G, capital V for Myth German Villainy. And just let me know you’re from the UK and I can arrange it so the shipping cost will be reduced to maybe five or six pounds sterling versus almost US$33.

 

[1:40:32]

 

So I can do that because we can get this printed in the UK at a facility in the UK and shipped to the UK. So that would probably help out with anyone who doesn’t., … And I can’t blame you. I wouldn’t want to pay those prices. But these books are available only from Money Tree Publishing. And when we first started in January 2017 with one book, we have never raised our prices and we don’t plan on raising the prices because the goal is just to disseminate the information. This isn’t like a typical “for profit business”. It’s to get this information into as many hands as possible.

 

So we’re not focused on making money, we’re focused on educating with this material.

 

So please go to moneytreepublishing.com, click on the contact tab, fill out that information and let us know you’re from the UK, and we’ll save you close to probably $30.

 

Mark Collett: Superb. Thank you so much! It Was Made Up gave $5. Thanks so much:

 

“Just a small donation to keep the lights on. Thank you and farewell to Bill, and thank you for making me aware of Money Tree Publishing.”

 

Thank you so much! Robbie Herbert gave $5. Thanks so much. Said:

 

“My maternal grandmother went over the top. Sorry, maternal grandfather went over the top on the first day of the Somme in 1916 with nearly 800 men while serving in the 8th Battalion, King’s Own Yorkshire Light Infantry. He was wounded himself, but returned with less than 200 men on that fateful day. Something that he would never talk about.”

 

Thank you so much! And Robbie Herbert gave another $3.

 

Natty: Can I break in on that Superchat? Because, …

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, sure.

 

Natty: Someone mentioned this in the chat. There’s a brilliant YouTube channel [https://www.youtube.com/@ZoomerHistorian] at the moment called Zoomer Historian, or I think it’s Historian Zoomer. I’m not sure it’s even which way around, but he has just produced, I think it’s almost an hour long video saying:

 

“What would the war veterans think today? Would they have fought?”

 

It’s a really good channel and I don’t think it’s going to last long. So I’ll give it a plug here and if anyone wants to check it out, you can, because that Superchat, I think it was Rory Herbert, is very relevant to that topic, which is his latest video. So give Zoomer historian a chance if you’re on YouTube, guys.

 

[1:43:10]

 

Mark Collett: Thank you. Good plug there. And Rory Herbert gave another $3. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Just over a year ago, I was invited to a St. George’s Day dinner at my old regiment. One of the guest speakers was the Ukrainian ambassador. Needless to say I decided not to attend. But it just goes to show how the British army, the Ministry of Defence and our government are in cahoots with one another.”

 

Thank you so much! Zach gave an Aussie token, said:

 

“Mark, please review Joe Haldeman’s Forever War.* And did you ever hear from Jeremy from Kentucky, Patrick Satter is co-host about doing a show about PA on RBN?”

 

No, but it is something I would like to do, so if Jeremy’s listening, I would do that.

 

[* The Forever War, a 1974 novel by Joe Haldeman. The Forever War is a military science fiction novel by American author Joe Haldeman, telling the contemplative story about human soldiers fighting an interstellar war against an alien civilisation known as the Taurans. It won the Nebula Award in 1975 and the Hugo and Locus awards in 1976. Forever Free and Forever Peace are, respectively, direct and thematic sequel novels. Wikipedia]

 

Skip Meister, 68, gave $15. Thank you so much for the kind donation, and Space Can gave $5. Thank you so much! And said:

 

“What is a world of peace if it is made from the blood of innocents? Our ancestors demand an accounting for the World Wars inflicted upon us!”

 

I agree. That is a very, very good Superchat! And we have one more Superchat that was over on, … Let me just bring it up. Where’s the where’s the other tab? It was over on Rumble and it’s for $20 from Red Pill. Thank you so much!:

 

“Thank you, Mark, for all you do. I own this book. Will watch the replay. Wanted to throw you some funds, though. You’re a living legend!”

 

Well, thank you for so much, my friend. Thank you for the kind words.

 

So that is the Superchats wrapped up. We’ve got about ten minutes left, so let’s everyone give their summations of the book going around the group. Bill, Aunt Sally, Natty, then me, and then we’ll give Dave the last word. Starting with you, Bill. Go ahead, my friend.

 

Bill Atheling: Thank you, Mark.

 

And I must say that I’ve been very fortunate. Every book that I’ve been involved in reviewing on the book club has been really good, and this is no exception. My grandfather was a Dunkirk veteran. He was very badly wounded at Dunkirk and invalided out for the rest of the war. Very patriotic man. Believed he was doing the right thing. Lied about his age to join up. After the war. And what he saw, the way the country was going, he was incredibly disillusioned in it. And I think, just going back to what Natty was saying about with these ex-servicemen, he certainly would have had second thoughts if he had the chance again.

 

I think this is an excellent book! It challenges the orthodox historical interpretation of events throughout recent history. The last 150 years. It does so in a very concise, direct and convincing way, and in a way that is actually very accessible. It’s very well written. It’s written in a very clear style of prose. It’s well backed up, it’s well referenced and it’s well worth buying.

 

[1:46:14]

 

Aunt Sally: First of all, I want to apologise for the sound quality of me tonight. It will be fixed for the next one.

 

And also, I want to say thank you, Bill, for being part of the book club. It’s been great having you. This book, out of all the books we’ve done, I think this is the most important book! If I could only keep one, it would be this one, alongside Hellstorm. It’s not my favourite book, but it’s the most important. When I saw it was a book about politics, I don’t like reading about politics in particular, really bore me.

 

But it was just one of those I couldn’t put it down. In fact, when I did put it down, I was then thinking, it’s a fantastic book and I can’t recommend it highly enough. Thank you.

 

Mark Collett: Natty.

 

Natty: Yeah, fantastic! Highly recommended! And, like I said, there are many books that cover various aspects, but this book is a great overview.

 

So if you are looking as someone who isn’t well read on this subject, this would be a really good place to start, and then you could branch off and dive into other topics.

 

Just as a final note, there’s loads in this book we didn’t cover, and I’ve got quite a lot in my notes, but Dolo on Odysee says:

 

“Big A, (and he’s talking about Adolf Hitler) let the Dunkirk lads go.”

 

That’s correct. And there’s a there’s a section in this book that covers Dunkirk, what happened and how the Brits were amazed when they found out that Hitler essentially let the entire British force go. And didn’t wipe them out and didn’t take them captive, because he was hoping that, … He had a lot of admiration for the British and was hoping that they wouldn’t pester him anymore. Unfortunately, I didn’t pan out for him.

 

But there’s just so many nuggets of information like that in this book, and there’s a quotation by German admiral on that subject. So, like I said, there’s loads of stuff like this in this book.

 

So if you want to find out about this pivotal period in history, this book is a very good place to start.

 

Mark Collett: Okay, well, I’m going to give my thoughts on it. I obviously really enjoyed the book. I thought it was excellent, and it went well beyond the scope of what I was expecting it to go over. It’s much bigger, much more in depth.

 

And I think I went through a few of the chapter headings earlier, but here’s that again. The myth of Germany is an evil nation. The Bolshevik Revolution spreads throughout Europe, the nation of Israel, life in Germany under Hitler creating the case for war, Germany as the victim. There’s plenty in there, and it covers a real lengthy period of a tumultuous period of European history and puts it all into context.

 

So I really recommend it. But the thing I really like about this book is its very illustrative as well. I think these books can be very heavy, especially when they’re trying to explain things. But this book stops short. It doesn’t actually explain things. It shows you them with great pictures, illustrations. All these things are annotated, and it let’s, you know exactly the kind of propaganda that the people at the time were being fed.

 

[1:50:08]

 

And I think this book is so important at the moment because it let’s everybody know that this isn’t something new, that what we’re living through now is not unique. Our time is not something out of the ordinary. This sort of manure has been fed to our people for decades. For centuries, in fact, now. The weaponisation of propaganda to force people to go to war, to make people hate other people. This is an age old tactic. And the tactic hasn’t really changed or evolved. It’s still the same today as it was 100 years ago. Babies being beheaded, people dragging women off as they burn their homes down. And in today’s world, these things are being used every day to make British people want to go to war with Russia, to want to stand by and let Israel carpet bomb Palestinian civilians.

 

So I think this book is not only important from a historical perspective, but it helps people today place what we’re seeing within wider perspective.

 

So, yeah, a fantastic book! Dave, is there any last words you would like to say before we shut things down?

 

Dave Gahary: Yeah. Thank you, of course, for having me on and headlining the book, and great to take part in this discussion, and thank you all for your kind words about the book. Like I said, it shows me that I did my job, and I’m very appreciative of that. I want to just thank you, Mark and the panelists here and your organisation for everything you are doing, because we’re all noticing what’s happening, of course, over here on this side of the pond. And we’re very sad about the direction that things are going with the stifling of freedom of speech.

 

Of course, we have those protections enshrined here in our constitution, thanks to, as I mentioned, your ancestors. We have the Constitution. We have the so-called Bill of Rights with the speech protections and other protections.

 

And so we’re in a much different position, again, thanks to your country.

 

So we’re able to say the things that, sadly, you can’t. But we are very appreciative of what your organisation is doing, and we’re very saddened by some of the recent development with Sam and seeing the child born and him not being able to take part in that, it’s very disheartening the direction of things.

 

But again, I’ll say that for me, as long as I’m alive and breathing, I’m going to do whatever I can to make sure that we do have free speech.

 

And that’s really what keeps me going. It’s not that I have anything against a particular race or ethnic group. It’s that being an American and being raised with the protections that we were raised with, if you don’t use it, you’re going to lose it. And I don’t want anyone telling me what I can say, when I can say it.

 

And again, I can’t obviously equate this country with yours, but I can say that we’ll do whatever we can here on our side to help you guys out and make sure that you can get what we have. Thankfully, again, thanks to your great country.

 

[1:54:26]

 

Mark Collett: Well, thank you so much! I think it’s been a great show tonight. I am extremely tired because I’ve been up since 03:00 am, traveling back from Finland. So I hope it’s still been a high energy show and that I’ve been coherent throughout. There’ll be more updates through the week, hopefully when pictures and speeches emerge from the event in Finland, which I hope you all enjoy.

 

Anyway, we’ll be back next month. I’ve got to just firm up who the, whether the author of the book that we’re having on next month, so I don’t want to announce it, is free on that particular Sunday. So going forward from there. I’ll be making an announcement very shortly on that, and if it is the book we think it’s going to be, there will also be a free PDF of that, which I’ll share with everyone so people can actually read the book before, for free. So that’ll be quite exciting.

 

Anyway, I just like to say a huge thank you to Dave for coming on tonight. Massive thanks to Aunt Sally and Natty, but a special thanks to Bill. It’s his last episode tonight.

 

I’d like to thank him for all his hard work with the book club over the years. It’s been really great hosting with him, and I look forward to seeing him at future events. And if he ever wants to come back for a one off, he is more than welcome.

 

So, would everyone like to say goodnight? And let’s give the last word tonight to Bill. So Sally, Natty, if you’d like to say goodnight, and then we’ll throw it over to Bill and close things down.

 

Aunt Sally: Yeah, I just want to say good night Dave, and thank you very much for actually doing the book in the first place, because I think it’s a valuable resource for future generations.

 

And as Natty said, it’s a brief overview. It’s almost, I say, an idiot’s guide to what happened, but it’s an easy read guide to what happened.

 

So I just want to thank you, really, from the bottom of my heart, for bringing it all about. Thank you for being on the show as well. Thank you.

 

Dave Gahary: Thank you, Sally.

 

Natty: Yeah, good night, guys. Bill, you’re going to be missed! And to echo what a lot of people are saying in the chat, we miss Sam as well. And Dave, thank you for your kind words on that.

 

I mean, I didn’t have loads of interaction with Sam, but I miss him. You know, he was always present and I look forward to the day he’s back.

 

So thank you Chat, everyone who’s been interacting tonight, it’s been good and look forward to it next time.

 

[1:56:51]

 

Dave Gahary: Thanks, Natty.

 

Bill Atheling: Oh, thank you, everybody. And Mark, thank you so much! I totally enjoyed doing this. It’s just one of those things, circumstances beyond my control unfortunately, at the moment. It’s been a great privilege and a great pleasure to be here with this group of eloquent and interesting people. And thank you, Dave, for your book. It’s excellent!

 

As I said, it’s a high recommendation from me. And, yeah, Mark if things. Circumstances change, who knows? Maybe I’ll be allowed to come back on at some point in the future. But we’ll see what happens. But thank you, everyone. Keep supporting our guys. You know, I’m off to see Sam again next month. I write to him each week. You know, I write to Sam as well. Keep supporting them. You know, they, they’re doing well, but they need to hear from everyone and I’m sure many people are doing that anyway. Yeah. Thank you, everyone. And I shall bow out.

 

Dave Gahary: Thanks, Bill.

 

Mark Collett: Thank you so much to everyone.

 

I will be back in the week for Patriotic Weekly Review with Blair Cottrell.

 

I will also be gracing your screens when the footage from the Awakening Conference comes out. I did a speech all about Sam Melia and about the heroes of the future, so look forward to that.

 

I will also be back with Natty next weekend for the Nationalist A-Team. He will have all the maps installed or else he will face my wrath! And we will have a special guest for that stream as well, No Chance!

 

So we will be doing plenty through the week.

 

And if you haven’t checked it out, I’ve got a video out this week. It’s a bit of a light hearted one. I was in a bit of a rush this week, so I’ve got a light hearted video.

 

So if you’ve got ten minutes to kill and you want to laugh, that’s up as well. It’s about Lauren Southern. So I look forward to seeing you same time next month and hopefully before then.

 

And as I said, I’ll be back on Wednesday. Thank you to everyone. Thank you to Dave, thank you to Bill, thank you, Sally, thank you to Natty, and thank you to everyone who tuned in, everyone who donated so generously. Thank you so much! Have a great weekend, have a great evening. Good night, everyone. I’ll see you all again soon.

 

Dave Gahary: Thanks, Mark.

 

[1:59:08]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

(Comments as of 4/29/2024 = 283)

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

0
1
MagicManintheSky
45 seconds ago
I have a copy of this absolutely brilliant book. It is easy to read and full of surprises to those who have been spoon-fed the Jewish propaganda narrative of WW2 all their lives.

@ReedJohnson
1 hour ago
Sign-up to the PA Newsletter (scroll down):
https://www.patrioticalternative.org.uk/get_involved

@ReedJohnson
1 hour ago
Help this channel by hitting the icon for a like!

@ReedJohnson
1 hour ago
Patriotic Alternative official links:
PATV:

Patriotic Alternative Video

Website:
https://www.patrioticalternative.org.uk
Telegram:
https://t.me/PatrioticAlternativeOfficial
Membership:
https://www.patrioticalternative.org.uk/join

@MilosM.
1 hour ago
oh great No Chance will be on the next gaming stream

0
1

@ReedJohnson
1 hour ago
Mark Collett video | Shut up Lauren, you Daft Bint!

@dsallen7
1 hour ago
14

All political expressiveness is flatulence; censor a fart and it will come back as thunder.
1 hour ago
thank you

@cheflad
1 hour ago
14 Deus Vult

@ReedJohnson
1 hour ago
Support Bill Atheling’s work (C.P. Webster):
► The Horror Beneath:
https://tinyurl.com/je8vsr44
► Albion: ARVA – VALA – DEVA:
https://tinyurl.com/4sw9er7d

@MilosM.
1 hour ago
14

0
1

@W_Poe_White
1 hour ago
14

@MilosM.
1 hour ago

@ReedJohnson
oh great.

@Aunt-Sally
1 hour ago
14

Nordic Warrior
1 hour ago
14

@CampsLindburgh
1 hour ago
14

@RoryHerbert
1 hour ago
14

DOLO
1 hour ago
14

@ReedJohnson
1 hour ago
14

@ReedJohnson
1 hour ago
14s for Bill

@ReedJohnson
1 hour ago
Thanks folks. Till next time.

)))Joker(((
1 hour ago
later o/

danzimmons
1 hour ago
thx

@ReedJohnson
1 hour ago

@MilosM.
Mark’s speech on Awakening:

Awakening III 27.4.2024 https://t.co/EThZ8q7y84

— Monokulttuuri FM (@monokulttuuri) April 27, 2024

@ReedJohnson
1 hour ago
FREE Mark Collett eBook | The Fall of Western Man:
http://www.thefallofwesternman.com/

@ReedJohnson
1 hour ago
Follow Mark Collett:
DLive:
https://dlive.tv/MarkCollett
Rumble:
https://rumble.com/c/MarkCollett
Telegram:
https://t.me/markacollett
BitChute:
https://tinyurl.com/ynec2sys
Gab:
https://gab.com/markcollett

DOLO
1 hour ago
Thank you gentlemen.

@MilosM.
1 hour ago
The Death of the West by Pat Buchanan idk if it is any good.

0
1
DOLO
1 hour ago

@Natty
np brother

@MilosM.
1 hour ago
oh, Mark was in Finland! Cannot wait to hear his impressions.

0
1
DOLO
1 hour ago
Very good all things considered, i would be miserable lol.

@cheflad
1 hour ago
14

@RoryHerbert
1 hour ago
14

danzimmons
1 hour ago
1⃣4⃣8⃣8⃣

Natty
1 hour ago

@DOLO
thanks Dolo, i havnt read that one

)))Joker(((
1 hour ago
14

@W_Poe_White
1 hour ago
Freedom of speech is a precious thing. It should have been part of European nations’ legal constitution. When bad actors are not allowed to monopolize the media, good actors have nothing to fear from allowing (((bad actors))) to spew their lies. You just answer them.

@ReedJohnson
1 hour ago
14

Nordic Warrior
1 hour ago
14

DOLO
1 hour ago
He personally had over 17 hand to hand fights lol

DOLO
1 hour ago

@Natty
by Leon Degrelle

@Zach
1 hour ago
even if Politicians don’t listen to Petitions to release political prisoners they are still helpful.

@W_Poe_White
1 hour ago
Jews don’t care about honor. They care about the collective power of the Jewish global nation-in-dispersion. The shame belongs to Churchill for allowing himself to be used against Britain, Germany and the entire White West.

@ReedJohnson
1 hour ago

@Zach
That’s greatly appreciated. Thank you for doing so. No worries. We all do what we can, when we can.

DOLO
1 hour ago

@Natty
Campaign In Russia: The Waffen SS on the Eastern Front

@Zach
1 hour ago
but even if you can’t afford to donate theirs other ways to help I’ve also petitioned for Sam Melia and Sven longshanks immediate release.

Natty
1 hour ago

@DOLO
what is the book called? is it burning souls?

@ReedJohnson
1 hour ago

@BillAtheling

danzimmons
1 hour ago
jews who compromised Churchill have zero honor.

@ReedJohnson
1 hour ago

@Natty
Indeed. We all do.

@MilosM.
1 hour ago
14 for Sam.

Natty
1 hour ago
i miss sam

@cheflad
1 hour ago
Free Big Sam.

)))Joker(((
1 hour ago
Free Sam Melia

DOLO
1 hour ago
Great book sir, thank you.

@cheflad
1 hour ago
Deus Vult.

DOLO
1 hour ago
All his unit seems to do is go in hand to hand combat, it’s crazy.

@ArcadeOutpost
1 hour ago
14

@ReedJohnson
1 hour ago
The Myth of German Villainy | Benton Bradberry:

The Myth of German Villainy

► Money Tree Publishing:

Money Tree Publishing

Dave Gahary’s podcast with Dr David Duke:
https://speakfreeradio.com/category/podcasts/dave-and-duke-call-in-show/

@tuer
1 hour ago
interestingly many british vets became catholics

@Zach
1 hour ago

@ReedJohnson
I’m always boosting the stream whenever I can. I’d give money if I could but I don’t have a lot of money. if I had the money I’d be donating but I don’t though I do what I can to help. including boosting the stream and advertising on platforms for mark like YouTube.

@BillAtheling
1 hour ago

@ReedJohnson
cheers mate

DOLO
1 hour ago
Should read Degrelle’s campaign on the western front, it’s incredible.

@W_Poe_White
1 hour ago
Britain should have fought on the side of Germany against the USSR. If only alcoholic traitor Churchill had died of cirrhosis of the liver in the 1930s.

@ReedJohnson
1 hour ago

@RoryHerbert
You’re welcome.

mb14
1 hour ago
My great grandfather was in Verdun on the right side. he got shot thru the arm.

@ReedJohnson
1 hour ago

@BillAtheling
Thank you for all your contributions on Book Club. Always a pleasure. Best of luck.

DOLO
1 hour ago
Big A let the Dunkirk lads go.

@RoryHerbert
1 hour ago
Thanks for the above link

@ReedJohnson

@ReedJohnson
1 hour ago
Support Bill Atheling’s work (C.P. Webster):
► The Horror Beneath:
https://tinyurl.com/je8vsr44
► Albion: ARVA – VALA – DEVA:
https://tinyurl.com/4sw9er7d

jm
1 hour ago
Yes, Zoomer Historian is great !!!

@ReedJohnson
1 hour ago
Help this channel by hitting the icon for a like!

All political expressiveness is flatulence; censor a fart and it will come back as thunder.
1 hour ago
zoomer historian looks fantastic

@ReedJohnson
1 hour ago
Zoomer Historian | Do British Veterans Regret Fighting World War 2?

DOLO
1 hour ago
I had a Great Grandad die at the somme as well.

Reginald Collett
1 hour ago

@mb14
6’1

@Zach
1 hour ago
moneys tight for everyone RN.

DOLO
1 hour ago
Bulk buy them mark

danzimmons
1 hour ago

danzimmons
1 hour ago
lol nice Dave

mb14
1 hour ago
1
How tall is mrs Mark?

DOLO
1 hour ago

@Patria
https://odysee.com/@DigitalAlexandria:5/Gilgamesh:9

@ReedJohnson
1 hour ago
The Myth of German Villainy | Benton Bradberry:

The Myth of German Villainy

► Money Tree Publishing:

Money Tree Publishing

@Zach
1 hour ago
1
mark please Review Joe Haldemans Forever war. and did you ever hear from Jeremy from Kentucky Patrick slattery Co Host about doing a show on PA or RBN.

Pro Patria: Patriot and Nationalist Channels
1 hour ago

@DOLO
Which audio of Gilgamesh?

mb14
1 hour ago
Hey Mark.

@ReedJohnson
1 hour ago
If you would like to contribute to the stream, please use Entropy:
https://entropystream.live/app/markcollett

@ReedJohnson
1 hour ago
ODYSEE SUPERCHATS: Type your message and before you hit ‘Send’, select the ‘$’ icon below the chat box or the coloured icon to send LBRY tokens.

@tuer
1 hour ago
there was a hate crime in the mall of america, black man throwing a white baby three stories down, that was used race reversed in Wonder Woman 1984 – it’s just what a miss IDF does

@ReedJohnson
1 hour ago
A Time to Kill (1996 film):
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117913/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

DOLO
1 hour ago
Typical

@W_Poe_White
1 hour ago
No one hates more fervently and maniacally than Jewish supremacists.

DOLO
1 hour ago
Yeah

@UltimateTruth
1 hour ago
They love a false flag!

@RoryHerbert
1 hour ago

@Aunt-Sally
Just asking, I had a fox that broke into my chicken pen and killed all of them. My young children were upset for months.

)))Joker(((
1 hour ago
NKVD wore SS uniforms when doing the massacre

@ReedJohnson
1 hour ago
Hellstorm | PA Book Review:

@Aunt-Sally
1 hour ago
no Rory … I usually feed it

Long Knife
1 hour ago

@Natty
… I’m just want to examine the lampshade a little; that’s all … don’t tell me it mysteriously disappeared ?

@RoryHerbert
1 hour ago
Is the fox after your chickens, Aunt Sally?

DOLO
1 hour ago

@Natty
If you criticize the Shoes you hate the Jews!

Natty
1 hour ago

@LongKnife1934
a black and white photo of a pile of shoes isnt enough for you??? OY GEVALT

@RoryHerbert
1 hour ago
$3.00
Just over a year ago I was invited to a St. George’s Day dinner at my old regiment. One of the guest speakers was the Ukrainian Ambassador. Needless to say I didn’t attend but it just goes to show how the British Army, the Ministry of Defence and our government are in cahoots with one another.

Long Knife
1 hour ago
it’s ok to demand evidence

@ReedJohnson
1 hour ago
If you would like to contribute to the stream, please use Entropy:
https://entropystream.live/app/markcollett

@UltimateTruth
2 hours ago
The vanguard

Natty
2 hours ago

@SublimeBraid
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

SublimeBraid
2 hours ago
they’ve dug 666 rabbi holes around the one truth, Jewish Supremacy.

@UltimateTruth
2 hours ago

@DOLO
It saddens me that so many are taken in by him

@ReedJohnson
2 hours ago
The Myth of German Villainy | Benton Bradberry:

The Myth of German Villainy

► Money Tree Publishing:

Money Tree Publishing

DOLO
2 hours ago

@UltimateTruth
He was in London on St George day with Isreal flag lmao

)))Joker(((
2 hours ago

@DOLO
I liked how he praised the American Freedom Party, didn’t like what he just said about Patriot Front

@UltimateTruth
2 hours ago
If it wasn’t for the rigid & sophisticated censorship algorithms Jew elites have set on YouTube, millions more would be wake right now. Their shills & controlled opposition assets (Robinson, Murray, Hopkins, etc) don’t help matters

@Elledee77
2 hours ago
ancient Persia allowed Neahmiah to rebuild their temple. israel likes Idea of Persia. Its why you see the Paivlvo royal line consulted in the news. Today, the blood soaked temple sacrifice probably going thru.

DOLO
2 hours ago
Mark Dice was calling Patriot Front feds today, they are hopeless.

)))Joker(((
2 hours ago
well said

@ReedJohnson
2 hours ago
Follow Dr David Duke:
Website:

Home

Gab:
https://gab.com/realdavidduke
Telegram:
https://t.me/drdavidduke
RenseRadio:

Radio

SpeakFreeRadio:
http://tinyurl.com/mrxdkf26

DOLO
2 hours ago
lol

)))Joker(((
2 hours ago
(((Nosferatu)))

@Elledee77
2 hours ago
ancient Persia allowed Neahmia rebuild their temple be rebuilt. Today, the blood soaked temple sacrifice probably goung thru

@ReedJohnson
2 hours ago
If you would like to contribute to the stream, please use Entropy:
https://entropystream.live/app/markcollett

@Elledee77
2 hours ago
you will all live to see concerning iran, it return to the name PERSIA. SEE trump cyrus coin. israel states they can wirk with Persia.

DOLO
2 hours ago
In the book the, monsters of babylon, he really tries to state how our ancestors have been made to look stupid, and that they were really just as smart as we are, but they just didn’t have access to the updated knowledge that we have in modern times, with modern science.

@UltimateTruth
2 hours ago
They are expert liars. They always invert the truth. Just look at how they’ve continually gas-lit & lied throughout the period of the Gaza genocide

@Elledee77
2 hours ago
jews and moslems. same thing

Natty
2 hours ago

@LongKnife1934
yeah just like in kuwait, testified to in front of congress……and was exposed as complete horse shit

)))Joker(((
2 hours ago
… human nature hasn’t change

)))Joker(((
2 hours ago
so real

DOLO
2 hours ago
I actually listened to Gilgamesh the other day, fantastic story.

@tuer
2 hours ago
some people seem to enjoy to hate on germans, ever watched sargoy of akkads video on the Suebi?

Long Knife
2 hours ago

@WhiteLightKnight
… did they take the babies out of incubators before throwing them ? :hyper_troll:

@ReedJohnson
2 hours ago
Purchase Grandma Towler’s tea, coffee, and honey:
https://www.grandmatowlers.co.uk/shop/

DOLO
2 hours ago
The book was excellent in my opinion, highly recommended.

@WhiteLightKnight
2 hours ago
The level of brainwashing is astonishing

@Elledee77
2 hours ago
When this book is REQUIRED READING in high schools, youll know America is healed.

@WhiteLightKnight
2 hours ago
A junior colleague told me of a hospital in Poland he visited. There was a plaque telling of how German soldiers threw babies off the roof. I told him to wake up and think about the German people of today. They are no different and Germans in 1940s were human and would not throw babies off roofs.

@Zach
2 hours ago

@karuppusuriyan
they were Jewish Bolsheviks the ones on top at least.

@UltimateTruth
2 hours ago
Jewish control of western mass media has been their greatest weapon in terms of conditioning the masses

)))Joker(((
2 hours ago
uh, source

)))Joker(((
2 hours ago
or stormtroopers from star wars

@Elledee77
2 hours ago
For sure! Tikkun olam. looks great. whoever thought putting talmudic mandates in charge of fixing the world, was a good idea.

@CampsLindburgh
2 hours ago
ordered. look forward to reading

DOLO
2 hours ago

@Darth_Joker
\o

@Zach
2 hours ago
it’s so Ridiculous it should be easy to perceive as blatant propaganda. but many of the Teachers who taught it in school believed it was actually true. my area has a lot of Christian Zionists so I think they were just regurgitating propaganda that they were fed.

)))Joker(((
2 hours ago
o/ guys

@ReedJohnson
2 hours ago
Please consider a small donation of $3, $5, or $10. When everyone donates $3, $5, or $10 it adds up!
https://entropystream.live/app/markcollett

@tuer
2 hours ago
had I to describe the English in one German word it would be “vermessen”

@ReedJohnson
2 hours ago
ODYSEE SUPERCHATS: Type your message and before you hit ‘Send’, select the ‘$’ icon below the chat box or the coloured icon to send LBRY tokens.

@Zach
2 hours ago
being a Former liberal I used to think similar to Aunt Sally obviously not her real name. but similar propaganda here in America the German’s and Japanese Roasting Jewish babies on Bayonet’s. similar to the 40 beheaded babies the same people are claiming what a Cohencidence.

danzimmons
2 hours ago
the intelligence agencies have given billions to the true traitorous scum the reporter’s ie activists sellout pukes

@ReedJohnson
2 hours ago
Support Bill Atheling’s work (C.P. Webster):
► The Horror Beneath:
https://tinyurl.com/je8vsr44
► Albion: ARVA – VALA – DEVA:
https://tinyurl.com/4sw9er7d

@tuer
2 hours ago
just think about how much more dehumanizing it is to call others cattle/goy by default and compare that to barbarian, infidel or even a rat (which is at least free)

danzimmons
2 hours ago
so clear to even the most gullible fecking normie, or should be

@SkipMeister
2 hours ago
Truth is, this Ukraine war started in similar fashion to German/Poland.

SURIYAN
2 hours ago

@Zach
id rather call them soviets rather than russians

@Elledee77
2 hours ago
moslems and jews. same thing.

@Zach
2 hours ago
oh there was plenty of pillaging and merrymaking of women to put it in a PG way. but it wasn’t the German’s dragging women and underage girls to the barns. it was the so called heroes the Russians and to some degree the Americans.

@tuer
2 hours ago
with the printing press, fertilizers and that car thingie that we shared with the world, it’s kinda stunning what propaganda can achieve

)))Joker(((
2 hours ago
…lol

@Elledee77
2 hours ago
it answered all my questions for sure. Diane King and Rizolis recomends if the book sold me

@Elledee77
2 hours ago

@RoryHerbert

The Awakened Saxon
2 hours ago
‘Find a reason to go to war with Germany.’ Letter from King George V to Sir Edward Grey, Foreign Secretary. However when the Foreign Secretary Sir Edward said that the cabinet hadn’t found a justifiable reason to enter the conflict, the King replied: ‘You have got to find a reason, Grey.’

@RoryHerbert
2 hours ago
The bombing of Dresden was clearly a war crime.

DOLO
2 hours ago

@Zach
My mistake. You could always pull a Bowden and whip out the magnifying glass lol

@ReedJohnson
2 hours ago
Help this channel by hitting the icon for a like!

@ReedJohnson
2 hours ago

@SerenaJB
You’re welcome

@SerenaJB
2 hours ago

@ReedJohnson
Thanks Reed!

@ReedJohnson
2 hours ago
Follow SerenaJB:
X:
Tweets by SerenaJB3
Gab:
https://gab.com/SerenaJB

@Zach
2 hours ago

@DOLO
I’m aware this is available on Audio but apparently the fall of Western man isn’t.

@ReedJohnson
2 hours ago
Mark’s speech on Awakening:

Awakening III 27.4.2024 https://t.co/EThZ8q7y84

— Monokulttuuri FM (@monokulttuuri) April 27, 2024

@SerenaJB
2 hours ago
Good evening.

@ReedJohnson
2 hours ago

@Zach
Indeed. That would be a good idea.

Natty
2 hours ago

@WhiteLightKnight
i cant see it lasting long

@WhiteLightKnight
2 hours ago

@Natty
Nice one. I am hooked to his stuff.

DOLO
2 hours ago

@Zach
https://odysee.com/@DigitalAlexandria:5/MythOfGermanVillany:8

@Zach
2 hours ago

@ReedJohnson
I’m sure it’s a good read but unfortunately because of my eyesight I won’t be able to enjoy it. hopefully someone can make it available in a Audio Format for people with Vision problems.

Natty
2 hours ago

@WhiteLightKnight
was going to plug him at the end of the stream

@tuer
2 hours ago
ZH’s video on british vets is dope

@ReedJohnson
2 hours ago
The Myth of German Villainy | Benton Bradberry:

The Myth of German Villainy

Money Tree Publishing:

Money Tree Publishing

@Elledee77
2 hours ago
heres the cazm of America and Europe ww 2. When my Dad met my mother here in America, 50s, he told her he was a nazi. her ww2 info from America, caused that news to scare her.

@WhiteLightKnight
2 hours ago
On youtube there is a mind-blowing content creator callled Zoomer Historian. His playlist of AH is absolutely incredible.

@Zach
2 hours ago
what I find aggravating is how the Jewish plot to kill millions of German’s by Jews. by poisoning the water is covered up by the media and on the rare occasions it’s talked about the Jews are portrayed as the Victims acting in self defense. a blatant lie but stupid people believe it.

@ReedJohnson
2 hours ago
Please consider a small donation of $3, $5, or $10. When everyone donates $3, $5, or $10 it adds up!
https://entropystream.live/app/markcollett

@ReedJohnson
2 hours ago
ODYSEE SUPERCHATS: Type your message and before you hit ‘Send’, select the ‘$’ icon below the chat box or the coloured icon to send LBRY tokens.

@WhiteLightKnight
2 hours ago
This book is fantastic. It’s such a great gateway to give to the Vagues.

@RoryHerbert
2 hours ago
$5.00
My maternal grandfather went ‘over the top’ on the First day of the Somme in 1916 with nearly 800 men whilst serving in the 8th Battalion, King’s Own Yorkshire Light Infantry. He was wounded himself but returned with less than 200 men on that fateful day. Something that he would never talk about.

@ReedJohnson
2 hours ago

@Zach
I’m sorry. No, unfortunately.

@Elledee77
2 hours ago
im German Hungarian. my dad was a child in ww 2

@Zach
2 hours ago
I enjoy reading but it’s very hard on my eyes so I’m forced to use audio formats.

@Elledee77
2 hours ago
YES!!!

@Zach
2 hours ago

@ReedJohnson
is marks book available on Audio due to my bad eyesight it’s how I learn from books.

@Elledee77
2 hours ago

@Zach
2 hours ago
the forever wars is available on Audio it’s not an expensive book either although I prefer Audiobooks over reading due to my bad eyesight.

@ReedJohnson
2 hours ago
FREE Mark Collett eBook | The Fall of Western Man:
http://www.thefallofwesternman.com/

@Elledee77
2 hours ago
and things my dad said. he was a child in Europe during ww 2

Avid Fan
2 hours ago
Sort your mic out Bill, ffs.

danzimmons
2 hours ago
“concentrate” jews

@Elledee77
2 hours ago
let me say, Diane made reference to a vid for zio deprograming. THAT IS A FACT. Deprogramming from what has been puked into the mind if the west makes PERFECT SENSE TO ME. ive dealt with these. My self also. thanks to the Rizoli infos, i made it out.

@BillAtheling
2 hours ago
it’s because I talk like an Italian, even on my own, waving my arms about

@Zach
2 hours ago
but I think Haldeman had unintentionally stumbled onto their plans for the military in the Future and it spooked them to some degree. but then again I can’t see the Future just making an educated guess.

@Zach
2 hours ago
Joe Haldeman that was his name I’ve only read the first book of the series. but I consider the gay parts to be a Warning of the Future of America rather than LGBT Propaganda. especially considering how his book was attacked by the media not to the extent of a WN book would be.

Bianca Fights The Zombies
2 hours ago
“big tiddy goth girls needed, stat”

danzimmons
2 hours ago
steady your mic cord Bill

@tuer
2 hours ago
so basically our hope should rest on the chinese avenging the opium shame

@EndJewishPrivilege
2 hours ago
I can hear what sounds like a stapler

danzimmons
2 hours ago
lol

Bianca Fights The Zombies
2 hours ago
the code is “send more beer”

@ReedJohnson
2 hours ago
Sign-up to the PA Newsletter (scroll down):
https://www.patrioticalternative.org.uk/get_involved

@WingITprod
2 hours ago
Morse code

Long Knife
2 hours ago
Finally, England, through the Balfour Declaration, took over the safeguarding of Jewish interests in all states. The Frankfurter Zeitung knew exactly at the time what it was saying when it declared that the Balfour Declaration had been the yeast of English victory.” ~ Alfred Rosenberg

@Elledee77
2 hours ago
yep! their walk and talks are awesome.

Bianca Fights The Zombies
2 hours ago
microphone is clicking

Long Knife
2 hours ago
It had allowed the opium trade to fall increasingly into Jewish hands. The Jew Lord Reading, whose real name was Isaacs, took care of important loan negotiations with the United States of America.

Long Knife
2 hours ago
It had handed over control of all financial transactions to Jewish bankers such as Rothschild, Montague, Cassell, Lazards, and the rest.

Long Knife
2 hours ago
“Before and during the World War, Jewish high finance had declared that its policy coincided with the policy of Great Britain. England had conquered South Africa for the Jewish diamond dealers such as Lewis, Beith, Lewisohn, and the rest.

@Zach
2 hours ago

@Natty
he was attacked by the Media back in the day as being anti gay. I’m familiar with the Future soldiers being gay and Lesbian but back in the 70s when he wrote the book. his critics said that will never happen mate now look at the state of the military.

Bianca Fights The Zombies
2 hours ago
Rizoli walk and talk are great

danzimmons
2 hours ago
Bill hold your mic cord please

@Thor’sHammer
2 hours ago
It was not for nothing that the German Emperor was known as the Emperor of Peace in World War 1

@Elledee77
2 hours ago
ive followed the Rizolis since 2014-2015. It was amazing to see Diane King and Rizolis contributions in credits! too.

danzimmons
2 hours ago
ThX for everything you do for our people Dave

@BillAtheling
2 hours ago

@RoryHerbert
hello Rory!

@tuer
2 hours ago
makes post ww2 british ‘comedy’ even more disturbing and disgusting

@ReedJohnson
2 hours ago
If you would like to contribute to the stream, please use Entropy:
https://entropystream.live/app/markcollett

@Elledee77
2 hours ago
what i loved mean

@tuer
2 hours ago
always been the bad guys …

@ReedJohnson
2 hours ago

@Clasha
Hello and welcome.

@Elledee77
2 hours ago
YES!! THATS what i lived about it. it goes back to Germany becoming a nation, ww 1. And it provided photo DOCUMENTS

@Clasha
2 hours ago
Good afternoon

NOMATAWOT
2 hours ago

@BIANCA
Sir

Bianca Fights The Zombies
2 hours ago
sup bros

@PaganBear
2 hours ago
I wish there was a way to get it in Canada without the crazy shipping. It will cost over 65 USD dollars in Canada, I really want it though

@ReedJohnson
2 hours ago

@ItWasMadeUp
Thanks for your support.

danzimmons
2 hours ago
good point Aunt Sally

@AndyGreatstory
2 hours ago
:first_quarter_moon_face:

@ItWasMadeUp
2 hours ago
$5.00
Just a small donation to help keep the lights on. Thank you & farewell to Bill, and thanks for making me aware of Moneytree Publishing.

@ReedJohnson
2 hours ago
The Myth of German Villainy | Ben Bradberry:

The Myth of German Villainy

@RoryHerbert
3 hours ago
Good evening ‘Bill the Academic’ ! :laughing:

meaty
3 hours ago
Brilliant book a must read for all.

@ReedJohnson
3 hours ago

@RoryHerbert
Good evening.

@RoryHerbert
3 hours ago
Good evening folks.

@ReedJohnson
3 hours ago
Support Bill Atheling’s work (C.P. Webster):
► The Horror Beneath:
https://tinyurl.com/je8vsr44
► Albion: ARVA – VALA – DEVA:
https://tinyurl.com/4sw9er7d

Rebellious Goy
3 hours ago
Early 20th century, Germans were the USA’s largest ethnic group

@ReedJohnson
3 hours ago
Please consider a small donation of $3, $5, or $10. When everyone donates $3, $5, or $10 it adds up!
https://entropystream.live/app/markcollett

@ReedJohnson
3 hours ago

@MarkCollett
Donation on Rumble:
R3dPill3d
$20
Thank you Mark for all you do. I own this book. Will watch the replay. Wanted to throw you some funds though. You are a living legend.

@ReedJohnson
3 hours ago

@MilosM.
Evening mate. Unfortunately, couldn’t make it.

Natty
3 hours ago
howdy milo

@MilosM.
3 hours ago

@Natty
hey Natty

Natty
3 hours ago
i read it before i was redpilled

@Zach
, i thought it was just a boring version of starship troopers but its been a long time so i might re-visit it, dont they end up in a future where everyone is gay and brown??

@MilosM.
3 hours ago

@ReedJohnson
hello Reed. I asked where you been last sunday.

@ReedJohnson
3 hours ago

@AndyGreatstory
Thanks for your contribution.

@AndyGreatstory
3 hours ago
$10.00
The awards section of Money Tree Publishing is fantastic! Exemplary awards!

Awards

@ReedJohnson
3 hours ago
Help this channel by hitting the icon for a like!

@MilosM.
3 hours ago
evening everyone.

@Zach
3 hours ago
the Forever wars is a good read it’s a 3 part series I believe. even though it’s Fiction the writer was a Veteran of the Vietnam War. and is a great anti war book discussing how wars only benefit the Rich. of course he doesn’t talk about who the Rich benefiting from wars are but it’s a good read.

@ReedJohnson
3 hours ago

@dsallen7
Thanks for your dedicated support.

@dsallen7
3 hours ago
$5.00
Here in America, German “villainy” did not exist before 1916. We had German language schools, newspapers, social clubs, and strong ties to Germany, all long gone now. A rich cultural legacy eradicated, leaving only faint traces behind. In any other context this would be called a mass atrocity.

@ReedJohnson
3 hours ago
Hellstorm | PA Book Review:

@Amalek61
3 hours ago
Great topic. More should be known about what really happened

@UltimateTruth
3 hours ago
Tremendous book!

@ReedJohnson
3 hours ago
The Hoaxbusters podcast on Speak Free Radio:
https://speakfreeradio.com/category/podcasts/hoaxbusters/

Natty
3 hours ago
hello

@EnglishRose

@EnglishRose
3 hours ago
Hello

@ReedJohnson
3 hours ago
If you would like to contribute to the stream, please use Entropy:
https://entropystream.live/app/markcollett

@ReedJohnson
3 hours ago
ODYSEE SUPERCHATS: Type your message and before you hit ‘Send’, select the ‘$’ icon below the chat box or the coloured icon to send LBRY tokens.

@ReedJohnson
3 hours ago
The Myth of German Villainy | Ben Bradberry:

The Myth of German Villainy

@ReedJohnson
3 hours ago
Follow Mark Collett:
DLive:
https://dlive.tv/MarkCollett
Rumble:
https://rumble.com/c/MarkCollett
Telegram:
https://t.me/markacollett
BitChute:
https://tinyurl.com/ynec2sys
Gab:
https://gab.com/markcollett

All political expressiveness is flatulence; censor a fart and it will come back as thunder.
3 hours ago
cheers

@ReedJohnson
3 hours ago
This stream is also available on DLive:
https://dlive.tv/MarkCollett

@aeonsof
3 hours ago
there is an audio version on Bitchute and here it is:

@ItWasMadeUp
3 hours ago
Nice, thank you.

All political expressiveness is flatulence; censor a fart and it will come back as thunder.
3 hours ago
I think its on archive.org

@ItWasMadeUp
3 hours ago
This sounds like a book I would be interested in, looking forward to the stream!

All political expressiveness is flatulence; censor a fart and it will come back as thunder.
3 hours ago
evening chaps

Pro Patria: Patriot and Nationalist Channels
3 hours ago
Dave Gahary:

Money Tree Publishing

Natty
3 hours ago

@SomeRandomBloke
stoddard looks interesting

@ReedJohnson
4 hours ago

@SomeRandomBloke
Thanks for your ongoing support.

@ReedJohnson
4 hours ago
Please consider a small donation of $3, $5, or $10. When everyone donates $3, $5, or $10 it adds up!
https://entropystream.live/app/markcollett

@ReedJohnson
4 hours ago
Help this channel by hitting the icon for a like!

@ReedJohnson
4 hours ago
Patriotic Alternative official links:
PATV:

Patriotic Alternative Video

Website:
https://www.patrioticalternative.org.uk
Telegram:
https://t.me/PatrioticAlternativeOfficial
Membership:
https://www.patrioticalternative.org.uk/join

@random
5 hours ago
the racist German stereotype its created by Jews from the propaganda machine Hollywood

Open Borders for Israel
7 hours ago
$5.00
hey Mark, would you consider doing a review of any of lorthrop stoddard’s books? i recommend the rising tide of colour against white world supremacy… it was written in the 1920s and predicted the massive number of non whites coming to the West

0
0

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

See Also

top

 

 

 

Part 01 — Cover text; About the Author; Preface; Chapter 1: The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Part 02 — Chapter 2: Aftermath of the War in Germany

Part 03 — Chapter 3: The Jewish Factor in the War

Part 04 — Chapter 4: The Russian Revolution of 1917

Part 05 — Chapter 5: The Red Terror

Part 06 — Chapter 6: The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads Throughout Europe

Part 07 — Chapter 7: The Nation of Israel

Part 08 — Chapter 8: Jews in Weimar Germany

Part 09 — Chapter 9: Hitler and National Socialists Rise to Power

 

 

Part 10 — Chapter 10: National Socialism vs Communism

Part 11 — Chapter 11: Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Part 12 — Chapter 12: The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

Part 13 — Chapter 13: Life in Germany Under Hitler

Part 14 — Chapter 14 & 15: Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory; The 1936 Olympics

Part 15 — Chapter 16: “Anschluss” The Unification of Austria and Germany

Part 16 – Chapter 17: Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

Part 17 – Chapter 18: War with Poland

Part 18 – Chapter 19: The Phony War

 

 

Part 19 – Chapter 20: Germany invades France – The Phony War Ends

Part 20 – Chapter 21: The Allied Goal? Destruction of Germany!

Part 21 – Chapter 22: Germany as Victim

Part 22 (last) – Chapter 23: Winners and Losers

 

 

 

See also:

 

The Myth of German Villainy: Author Ben Bradberry Interview — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

 

 

 

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

An Open Letter to New Jersey’s Governor

Historians or Hoaxers?

House of Orwell

Misha: Surviving with Wolves or …

Bradley Smith’s Smith Report # 1

The Liberation of the Camps: Facts vs. Lies

The Plum Cake

 

 

 

Auschwitz: Myths and Facts

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

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

The Holocaust Lie — Made in America

Probing the Holocaust: The Horror Explained — TRANSCRIPT

Jim Rizoli Interviews Prof Robert Faurisson, Oct 2015 — TRANSCRIPT

Holocaust Eyewitnesses: Is the Testimony Reliable?

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

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

 

 

Amazion Bans 100s of Holocaust Revisionist Books!

AUSCHWITZ – A Personal Account by Thies Christophersen

Jim Rizoli Interviews Bradley Smith — TRANSCRIPT

London Forum – Alfred Schaefer – Psychological Warfare – TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report Interviews Eric Hunt — TRANSCRIPT

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

Red Ice Radio: Nicholas Kollerstrom — TRANSCRIPT

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

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

 

 

 

 

911 – The Jews Had Me Fooled: A Jewish Engineered Pearl Harbor

Organized jewry Did 9/11

Organized jewry Did 9/11 — The 16th Anniversary, 2017

Know More News — Christopher Bollyn, The Man Who Solved 9/11 — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report with Christopher Bollyn – Sep 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

Guns and Butter interviews Christopher Bollyn — The War on Terror – Dec 18, 2019 — Transcript

AE911Truth – Exposing Those Who Covered up the Crime of the Century – May 28, 2023 – Transcript

 

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

PDF Download

top

Total words in transcript = 17,596

• Total words in post = 22,755
• Total images = xx
• Total A4 pages = xxx

Use your browser to download/export a PDF of this post.

 

Version History

top

Version 5:

Version 4:

Version 3: Wed, May 1, 2024 — Published post. Transcript now complete. Added links to serialised book (first edition) posts here.

Version 2: Tue, Apr 30, 2024 — Published post. 95/119 mins of transcript complete.

Version 1: Mon, Apr 29, 2024 — Published post. 33/119 mins of transcript complete. Includes Odysee comments (283).