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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yes, Sunday morning. Yeah.

 

Greg Johnson: Okay.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So the first point that he makes is:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[07:17]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[13:19]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[20:10]

 

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

 

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

 

I started thinking, you know:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[26:52]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[33:24]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, of course.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[39:51]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Which historically is what nationalism generally means.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Okay, so what’s your critique of that?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: It’s imperialism. Right?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[47:24]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[53:49]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:00:10]

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:07:22]

 

Greg Johnson: What’s stopping us?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And that means that, …

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

But the point is that, …

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:15:07]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: They pose no threat!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:21:40]

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Will Germany and France fight it out?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

[1:27:09]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

That’s what politics is about.

 

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

 

[1:33:57]

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Absolutely! Absolutely!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

That’s fantastic!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:40:47]

 

 

Greg Johnson: Absolutely, yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:46:16]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Well, I would agree with that.

 

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

 

“We need to step over this.”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:53:28]

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yeah.

 

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

 

So that’s not a reasonable:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And right now our race is being genocided! Right?

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, yes and no.

 

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

 

[1:59:26]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Absolutely.

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: I absolutely agree with that.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And there’s no way of doing that!

 

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

 

[2:06:39]

 

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

 

[2:50:10]

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

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

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

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

18
0
Hide replies

@v0lum3
6 months ago
Hitler dindu nuffin

2
1
Show reply

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

Hide replies

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

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

Continue Thread

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

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

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

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

16
2
Hide replies

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

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

4
1

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

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

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

9
1
Hide replies

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

4
0
Earthling Carl
6 months ago
Easy Joel W.

10
3

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

9
2

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

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

10
3
Hide replies

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

7
0
Hide replies
ThinRedLine
6 months ago
it does

5
0

@Arilando
6 months ago
Of course you can.

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

2
0

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

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

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

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

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

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

6
2
Hide replies

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

2
1
ThinRedLine
6 months ago
Hail Joel

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

5
3

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

2
0

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

5
3
Hide replies

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

Hide replies

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

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

Hide replies

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

2
0

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

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

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

4
3

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

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

1
2

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

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

6
0

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

2
3

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

 

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

 

BitChute Comments

top

(Comments as of 7/31/2025 = 2)

4 years ago
Patriot Gus
Please contact Gus Stefanis Leader of the Canadian Nationalist Party.

4 years ago
ShanRiHa
Zundel is undoubtedly a fantastic German who was dedicated to telling the truth about these jews and what they’ve deliberately done to Germany and its people. This relentless attack upon Ernst because of his honesty and commitment to exposing the truth about these jews and what they did to the German people and for this they’ve attacked him using jewish Liars like Lipsdat etc to attempt to defame and ridicule him in the Courts etc. Ernst has shown us all what these evil jews have done and are still doing to this day and for that he has earned the respect of many. Vale Ernst Zundel.
Peace.

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

See Also

top

 

 

 

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 15 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zündel – Oct 12, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 18 with Jürgen Neumann – Nov 2, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 36 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zundel – Mar 22, 2025 – Transcript

Ernst Zundel – Another Voice of Freedom Radio – Why World War II Started – 1994 – Transcript

Ernst Zundel – 1967-68 Radio Shows in Montreal Discussing Israel and Jewish Topics 1 – Transcript

Ernst Zundel – 1967-68 Radio Shows in Montreal Discussing Israel and Jewish Topics 2 – Transcript

 

 

 

 

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

Ernst Zundel: Ernst Christoph Friedrich Zundel being interviewed by John Reynolds, former Member of Parliament of Canada, on CJOR radio in Vancouver, August, 78.

 

Radio Host: Oh, hello, it’s John Reynolds, CJOR. Yes, standby please.

 

Hello?

 

Ernst Zundel: Hello.

 

Radio Host: Yes, we’ll be going on in about one minute. What is samizdat?

 

Ernst Zundel: Samizdat is a Russian word and it means to be self published in the underground.

 

Radio Host: Okay, I’ll ask you that.

 

Ernst Zundel: Thank you.

 

Radio Host: Do you also call yourself. Is that the only name you use? Or you call yourself the Nazi Party of Canada or anything?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, no, no, no! We are strictly only publishing books.

 

Radio Host: Okay. You don’t have any organization, political movement at all?

 

Ernst Zundel: No.

 

Radio Host: Okay.

 

Ernst Zundel: However, I’m German and I was responsible for leading the demonstrations against the movie Holocaust.

 

Radio Host: Okay.

 

Ernst Zundel: It is not that we are political, Mr. Reynolds.

 

Radio Host: Okay, hang on a second. I’ll do an introduction, then we come back about a minute after this. You’ll hear it on this tape. Beep.

 

02 Some Commentary by Zundel on the Nature of Commercial Radio and Its Effects on Listeners

top

 

Ernst Zundel: At this stage, it is important for our European listeners to understand that in North America, radio stations, most radio stations are privately owned and that they live off radio commercial advertisements. So every once in a while the announcer will be interjecting and stopping for exactly such commercials. And it is during those commercials that I might come in with some explanations of what was being said, the importance of it and so on. And it might be interesting just to leave a few words of those commercials in there for our European listeners so that they can get an idea of the mentality and what shapes the mentality of the North American and what the North American psyche is constantly being subjected to and why Americans and Canadians maybe think the way that they think.

 

Radio Host: Hi.

 

Ernst Zundel: Hello.

 

Radio Host: If suddenly you don’t hear the feed on the line, hang up, we’ll call you right back. Okay? Just in case something happens.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay. If I do not hear the feedback, then I’ll hang up.

 

Radio Host: Yeah, if you don’t when you’re on hold, if you don’t hear the show right, then hang up right away and we’ll call you back.

 

Ernst Zundel: Thank you very much.

 

03 Zundel’s Pamphlet Promoting Books and Tapes About UFOs, the Third Reich

top

 

Radio Host: Okay. The present airport temperature 14 degrees. At 8:31 it’s 18 degrees at CJR in the Grosvenor Hot Morning Report. I’m Maury Heskit. Have a good day!

 

Next to Reynolds Reports.

 

Good morning. The other day I received a pamphlet in the mail called What’s New at Samizat? It’s got pictures of Nazi swastikas on it. It’s got UFOs that asks questions about UFOs, are they real? It talks about were Hitler and Eva Braun on board, they may be still alive? It tells you can get tapes that you can listen to on the way to work in the morning. Battle songs and marches of the Third Reich. Very strange pamphlet. The gentleman who is an author of a book called UFO and Nazis A Secret Weapon, Christoph Friedrich is with us this morning. He’s on the phone line from Toronto. We’re going to talk to him about this pamphlet and some of the other books he publishes right after these messages.

 

Ernst Zundel: Again, please pay attention to what Mr. Reynolds has been saying.

 

The one thing that immediately grabbed his attention were the Nazi swastikas, as he calls them, and also some of the things that we are advertising in conjunction with UFOs. Therein lies the secret. He would never have called me if our advertisement had looked any different. Had it been a straightforward UFO advertisement, I doubt whether he would have called. But it was the combination of swastika and UFOs that got him to call us and we continue to listen to him now.

 

04 The Toronto Sun Calls Zundel a Fanatic, a Neo-Nazi

top

 

Radio Host: Okay, what is Samizdat all about? The Toronto Sun calls you a fanatic, a neo-Nazi.

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, one of the writers of the Toronto Sun does, yes, in a kind of a slanderous article that is kind of slippery that you can hardly sue him, or you would spend about $12,000 to sue him.

 

However, as to your question, what samizdat is or what samizdat means. Samistat is a Russian word and it simply means that all the material by samizdat is self produced, self written and published in the underground.

 

In other words, Sharansky, Solzhenitsyn, they are Russian samizdat authors. And I found to my complete surprise, in Canada, in the United States, in Western Europe, in the Western world, we have our Sharanski and our Solzhenitsyns. And I happen to believe that I am a Canadian Solzhenitsyn!

 

Radio Host: You really believe that?

 

06 Demand for Zundel’s Publications, Including the Book, the Secret Nazi Polar Expeditions

top

 

Ernst Zundel: I certainly do and I can prove it to you. We have suppression of new software, all kinds of intellectual thoughts in this country. We have censorship, not by a government censor, but by self-chosen and self imposed censorship in newspapers due to pressures from advertisers, certain business groups, ethnic groups, labor groups and so on. And I have been in the media field and lecturing, writing for the last, 20 years in my life in Canada. And I can assure you that we have a very definite system of censorship in this country.

 

Radio Host: Okay, you were born in Germany.

 

Ernst Zundel: I was born in Germany, lived half my life over there, and now I have lived exactly half my life over here. I came here when I was 19.

 

[06:27]

 

Radio Host:

 

“And restricted by government agencies to a small group of special authorized listeners. Samizdat that now makes these vital moments of history available to you.”

 

Are you back there?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes.

 

Radio Host: Okay. How did you get all these documents that you tell us that our allied governments are not allowing the rest of the people to hear? How did you get them? Why are you being allowed to publish them and nobody else?

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, it’s not a matter of being allowed. So far I have had several visits by threatening people that I should stop this stuff. I’ve been kicked out of magazines because I advertise our books. But why am I allowed? Because I go back to the original German sources. I have made a fairly good amount of money in Canada and I’m independently well off. I have traveled the world and I have searched out the Germans who were involved in World War II on these projects. I’ve got original blueprints.

 

Radio Host: But doesn’t that prove that your case? You’re saying there’s censorship and this stuff is not being allowed to be shown. Isn’t it really a case of who really cares? Who wants to hear this stuff?

 

06 Demand for Zundel’s Publications, Including the Book, the Secret Nazi Polar Expeditions

top

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, the 12,000 people, after they were able, through some circuitous means, in fact out through my advertising efforts, underground advertising efforts, hand bills and so on, they were very much in favor of reading it. And I have got several hundred letters by people totally unsolicited who said they just love to read this stuff. They’re waiting for my next books. I put out a second book called The Secret Nazi Polar Expeditions that has sold already in the second edition. And there’s the German translation out of it. That’s selling briskly. The first book is the German edition that’s selling briskly. There’s a Spanish edition in the works and an Italian edition and the French edition.

 

08 The Holocaust Movie and Anti-German Programs Are Hate Propaganda

top

 

Radio Host: Surely there’s probably always some people that might want to buy some radical material on one end of the spectrum or the other. But aren’t you really creating, it really looks to me here like you’re creating a whole company based on a hatred. A hatred of jews!

 

Ernst Zundel: A hatred of what? Where do I hate jews? The jews don’t figure. You see, Mr. Reynolds, that’s the problem with you Anglos. You know, you accuse the Germans of having a hangup over the jews. In our thinking, …

 

Radio Host: I don’t accuse the Germans of having a hangup with jews. I accused you of it.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay, basing on what? Is there one word about jews in my pamphlet?

 

Radio Host: No, he’s very careful that there aren’t any.

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, that’s the point. Because you people, maybe when you were MP up in Ottawa had to stifle freedom of expression through a Bill called Hate Bill.

 

Radio Host: Oh, I never stifled anybody. Why did you pick at the movie, Holocaust?

 

08 The Holocaust Movie and Anti-German Programs Are Hate Propaganda

top

 

Ernst Zundel: Because it’s nothing but lies! Zionist propaganda for profit. It’s that hate propaganda!

 

If you want to see hate propaganda piped into people’s homes, that was hate propaganda on a massive scale! And Mr. Reynolds, I am very sad to say that not one single nice noble Canadian came to our defense. No official government body. That after all, we Germans do enjoy, I think, some citizenship privileges which is equality in front of the law. We don’t get it! Every single night you can get anti-German programs on television or radio. What is this?

 

Radio Host: Well, certainly you would be allowed to your own movies if you wanted to and put that on.

 

Ernst Zundel: But then I’m saying to you, then the censorship comes in that we can’t advertise them, that movie houses won’t carry it. That’s the freedom. That’s what I mean to you. In the Soviet Union we have got the KGB putting Sharansky into jail. In Canada, what do we have? We have the self imposed censorship of certain ethnic groups who wield a tremendous amount of power here!

 

Radio Host: Are you saying that most of the things that were in the movie Holocaust didn’t happen?

 

Ernst Zundel: They were lies, outright lies! And that’s why they didn’t make it a documentary, but they called it a “docudrama” therein lies legalistic tricks!

 

Radio Host: What parts of it were lies? Are you trying to tell me that there were not a bunch of, millions of jews killed?

 

Ernst Zundel: No 6 million jews! That’s the basic point. Were ever murdered in Germany just for being jews.

 

Radio Host: Say that again.

 

09 No Six Million Jews – the Red Cross Report

top

 

Ernst Zundel: No 6 million jews were ever murdered in Germany!

 

Radio Host: How many?

 

Ernst Zundel: Murdered? Very few. Died? Maybe 350,000 maximum. I have in front of me the Red Cross Report put out by the International Red Cross in Geneva in 1947. Now you can write to the Red Cross in Geneva and get that same report. It’s an official report of the Red Cross, into the concentration camps of World War II on the German side. There is not one single gas chamber that they found.

 

Radio Host: What about Poland, some of the other countries?

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, are you asking about Auschwitz, for instance? Because Auschwitz was in Poland.

 

Radio Host: Yeah.

 

Ernst Zundel: The United States, Air Force overflew the concentration camp of Auschwitz dozens of time. Now we know that today from released Air Force documents. They never found one single thing resembling a gas chamber. The United States, Air Force never bombed any gas chambers. You know, World War II aerial photography was so good that the British were able to take out the German V1 bases before they were even built and operational.

 

Now, if they found gas chambers and the American jewish community was always very strong in favor with President Roosevelt, they could have wiped out those gas chambers. Nothing flat! But they didn’t do it because they were not there. It is Zionist propaganda to blackmail the German people and to cow the rest of the world into their voracious demands!

 

Germany is not the way it is portrayed in the world. I am German. I was raised in Germany. I didn’t see one single proper German in that [word unclear] Holocaust!

 

[11:45]

 

 

10 There Were No Gas Chambers Anywhere in Germany!

top

 

Radio Host: Are you trying to tell us that there were no gas chambers?

 

Ernst Zundel: There were no gas chambers anywhere in Germany!

 

Radio Host: What about anywhere where the German people, where the Nazis controlled the power?

 

Ernst Zundel: No such thing! When you, if you know the gas chambers, what they were delousing things, but they were certainly not used to gas people.

 

Radio Host: [words unclear]

 

Ernst Zundel: No, they were not. There’s a large body of evidence, suppressed again and censored in the usual Canadian and North American way, that states very clearly that there were no gas chmbers. We have a Professor of Northwestern University, Professor Butz has just written a 600 page study in which he comes to the very same conclusion. They have trials in Israel in which Adolf Eichmann was tried. The entire testimony of Adolf Eichmann, not one single time mentions a specific number of jews killed. Mr. Reynolds, we have had stories out of Europe of 11 million jews killed! Nine million jews killed! Six million jews killed!

 

The Red Cross says they never saw any gas chambers. The Germans statistically have a Red Cross report that talks about all the people died in World War II on all sides. And for the German nation there is 9 million people, including its 358,000 jews who died in German concentration camps.

 

Radio Host: Gotta go for a break. 685-9181’s our number. 685-9181. If you’d like to speak to Christoph Friedrich from Toronto, the head of Samizdat, give us a call, 685-9181. We’ll be right back with him after these messages. Hang on. I won’t put you on hold this time. I don’t know what happened last night.

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, I thought we were through.

 

Radio Host: Oh, did you? You hung up?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, I did. I’m sorry, I had no idea what the format of the show was going to be.

 

Radio Host: Oh, no, thank you. Hang on, we’ll get back and we’ll take a couple of calls. I’ll put you on hold here.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay, thank you.

 

11 Zundel’s Commentary on the Conversation So Far

top

 

Ernst Zundel: We’re hardly into the program and what do we see? This man, a former Member of Parliament, Federal Parliament, obviously not a stupid man and certainly above average in intelligence. Otherwise he wouldn’t do the kind of work that he is doing. This Canadian called 5,000 km across the continent to a guy called Ernst Zundel to talk to him about flying saucers. Fascinated, attracted like a moth to the light by this combination of swastika, flying saucers, Third Reich, speeches of the Third Reich leaders which we advertise in our pamphlet. He only was cursorily interested in the flying saucer issue. Once in a while he comes back to it, touches upon it.

 

But basically what irks and bothers this man is all the stuff that I’m bringing out on this topic. Let’s return to him and listen to what he has to say.

 

Radio Host: Okay, John Reynolds back with Christoph Friedrich from Toronto. Are you still there?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, I am.

 

Radio Host: Okay, we’ve got some callers that want to speak to you. We’ll get to them in just a second. I just want to warn everybody because I’m sure, Mr. Friedrich, there’s going to be some people who want to yell and scream at you, but we won’t put up with that if you want to talk sensibly, talk to Mr. Friedrich. If you agree or disagree with, and I hope nobody will yell at either side of us, have to cut you off because nobody can understand people yelling, go ahead.

 

12 Female Caller Tells Zundel to “Lay Down and Die!”

top

 

Caller 1 (female): I couldn’t hear what he’s been saying recently. However, I have a statement here and I’d like to continue with it. It’ll take about 10 minutes.

 

Radio Host: You have to be quick because we’re going for the news. Go ahead.

 

Caller 1 (female): How dare do the [words unclear] come in now and [words unclear] this very many times? Do they think we’ve forgotten the horrors committed against the European continent and their plans to conquer the world?

 

Ernst Zundel: Oh dear!

 

Caller 1 (female): Who was the top spy in the USA, Reinhard Heindrich [sp], working with the American First Ambassador Hotel in New York with ITT, General Motors, Ford Company, Texas Oil, Standard Oil and defied the Neutrality Act by shipping supplies to South America and on to Germany. The then President Roosevelt, drafting his [word unclear], fearing impeachment, dared not make public firsthand information from William Stevenson, a Winnipeg born Canadian who headed the Secret Service in Britain. He’s the man called Intrepid. Germany was close to producing the A bomb and thousands of men and women sacrificed their lives to gather information that later helped to change all. If it had not been for Churchill, Roosevelt and Hitler, plus the Russian invasion, you might have won, but you didn’t! Lay down and die!

 

Ernst Zundel: [chuckling] Talking about hate. Was that love, Mr. Reynolds?

 

Radio Host: Well, you see, that’s what I was trying to tell you. I think what you do sometimes generates that kind of hate when you try to bring back some of the things the Nazis did during the Second World War.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. Reynolds, I want to tell you something that’s entirely the typical Canadian and North American attitude. You people think that you have a monopoly of what is truth and what is history. What you in effect have is your own World War II propaganda parading as history!

 

Now, when we Germans stand up and ever so mildly and meekly ask for equal time, never get number one, equal time. I have to send out a flamboyant pamphlet and I have to demonstrate, to denigrate myself, to demonstrate in front of newspaper offices, human rights commissions and so on, because we are not even getting equal rights and equal treatment in front of the law.

 

[17:48]

 

Radio Host: Well, it will be interesting to see if any of our German friends in Vancouver fall out because I’ve talked to a number of them who don’t feel exactly the way you do. Go ahead.

 

Caller 2 (female): Oh, good morning. This is the first time I’ve done this. I’m a little nervous, but I am so angry because listening to that voice in the radio, it brings it all back. And this is a tragedy of the German people. This man is talking in arrogance. He is talking from a prideful position, saying that we should tolerate him, that we should put up with him when he’s caused millions of people to [word unclear]. This whole thing is going to continue. The German people, unfortunately, are going to have to suffer for several generations, as long as my generation is alive. Who can remember being bombed in the UK you can remember the first pictures of the concentration camps being opened when there were children. You can remember everything about the war.

 

13 Camps for Japanese, Germans and Italians in Canada, America and Britain

top

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay, may I come in here, please? For equal time.

 

First of all, the United States, England and Canada bombed the living daylights out of Germany, killing 3 million Germans! 30,000 Englishmen were hurt, didn’t die, but were hurt in World War II bombing of England. So the score is certainly far out of proportion. That’s number one.

 

Number two, you had concentration camps in Canada in which you put innocent Japanese, robbed them of their property. And you also put Germans in concentration camps and Italians in concentration camps. You had the same in the United States.

 

Now we were in Germany. We are a dictatorship. You were a Democratic country. What did you, madam, do in England when you were in England at that time about those imprisoned in English concentration camps under the 18B regulation.

 

Radio Host: Okay, listen, let’s go for the 9 o’ clock news. We’re right back with Christoph Friedrich after the 9 o’ clock news. CJOR. Thanks for your call.

 

Caller 2 (female): Thank you. I was just child at the time. I couldn’t do anything.

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, so was I. But now we can do something.

 

Caller 2 (female): No, we’re not.

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, we can prevent the same thing from happening again by speaking the truth!

 

Radio Host: Okay, thanks. Listen, we’ll call you back in five minutes, okay?

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay, thank you.

 

Radio Host: Make sure you don’t use your line.

 

Ernst Zundel: No. Okay, I can’t help incoming calls.

 

[break]

 

Ernst Zundel: Hello.

 

Radio Host: Yes, I got you. Okay, I’ll come back in about 30 seconds.

 

Ernst Zundel: It is interesting that during the next 30 seconds I could not monitor what he was saying. So I have absolutely no idea if he was going to give me some kind of a bad introduction or bad mouthing me or telling the listeners I was some kind of a nut case. That’s a very interesting point. Let’s return to the program.

 

[break]

 

14 Why Don’t You Use Your Real Name?

top

 

Radio Host: Tom Reynolds back and on the phone lines Ronald Christoph Friedrich out of Samizda. Are you the president of Samizda?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, I own it lock stock and barrel.

 

Radio Host: You own it. It’s no shareholders. It’s one man. Listen, somebody phoned me yesterday and told me that your real name is Ernst Zundel, that Christoph Friedrich are your two middle names.

 

Ernst Zundel: That’s right.

 

Radio Host: Why do you use those as your name for publishing?

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, because I run a fairly successful two other businesses. And when I started out, this Samizda thing, it was not flying saucer strictly. And you have to admit it’s a somewhat [word unclear] subject and people are leery of dealing with nuts. So I thought I might get myself a little protection. It’s nothing illegal. Everybody in the arts and in writing has nom de plumes, you know. It’s a perfectly natural and normal occurrence.

 

Radio Host: Let me ask you another question before we go back to the callers. You talk about censorship in Canada and the United States. Would you be allowed to do what you’re doing with your talking about your UFOs about Hitler, about the Nazis, if you were living in Germany today?

 

15 West Germany and East Germany Are Dictatorships

top

 

Ernst Zundel: No, because West Germany and East Germany are the most horrific dictatorships. They make Hitler pale into insignificance!

 

Radio Host: Why would you say West Germany is a dictatorship? They have elections. The German people elect all the people that go into their legislature.

 

Ernst Zundel: Because, number one, it’s a matter of having no choice. In West Germany, the Allies have riddled Germany with spy networks and we have a strictly political police and a political judiciary in Germany. The nation’s element which carries the German State for 13 years, is completely outlawed, has been killed, is rotting in jails.

 

Consequently, what we have in Germany are quislings. We have in West Germany, West German, pro-American, pro-British, pro-French, pro-Canadian quislings. And in East Germany we have pro-communist, pro-Russian quislings. Germany is occupied country! It is not independent. The people who have been speaking for Germany are executive organs of the occupying powers.

 

16 Do You Believe in the White Superiority?

top

 

Radio Host: One final question before we go back to the calls. Do you believe in the White superiority?

 

Ernst Zundel: No. No.

 

Radio Host: You are not [word unclear] with leader of the Nazi party in the United States then?

 

Ernst Zundel: He’s a jew!

 

Radio Host: Yes, I know that.

 

[22:43]

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay, fine. Now if you have a jewish agent, he might be a jewish hero in Nazi uniform if he brings out lines like that that conform with the Hollywood image which Hollywood has created about National Socialism and about Germany, that’s one thing. Hitler in all of the 800 pages of Mein Kunk not once mentioned the word Aryan “superiority” or “master race” or stuff like that! This is strictly Anglo-jewish propaganda! It is not true.

 

Radio Host: Go ahead.

 

Caller 1 (female): Hi John. I was born after the war, so this is really all history thinking, but I don’t feel any angry towards this guest. But I am kind of fascinated with him. Fascinated in the sense that I think he’s really taking us for a really good ride. I think he’s really capitalizing on our ignorance, on all these things and all that. But it kind of frightens me too in the other sense because people are angry and not these kind of things get stirred up.

 

Radio Host: That’s a very good question though. Christoph Friedrich, are you just really capitalizing on the Holocaust and other things that are happening to make yourself some more money?

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. Reynolds? I don’t need to make more money. What I’m telling you is that I am now 39 years old. I’ve got children born by a Canadian mother going through the Canadian school system that are being brainwashed with lies and nothing but lies which will disarm them in any future conflict that we are seeing coming up on the horizon! The western world is in a life and death struggle and doesn’t realize it, because it is looking constantly over its shoulder flailing a dead horse called Nazism while there are Marxists in the highest places in government, the military, the media in this lovely land! That is my point!

 

Caller 1 (female): But sir, you must think we’re really fools because all these things have been past for so many years.

 

17 Problems with Canada and Its Immigration Policy

top

 

Ernst Zundel: You are asses because you allow non-subversives and certainly incapable people of running the affairs of this nation. Canada is a paradise, and it could be a paradise. And it was almost a paradise when I came to these shores. What we have now is our old people robbed of their pensions. We have got riots in jails, we have got kidnappings, we have got muggings. We have got murders on a scale that is unprecedented before. If you were such intelligent people and exercising your duties of citizenship properly, we could not get the kind of rotten leadership we are getting!

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, sir, I just don’t take you very seriously.

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, that’s okay. I don’t take you very seriously either.

 

Radio Host: Christoph Friedrich one of the reasons we’ve got these problems because of our immigration policy.

 

Ernst Zundel: Certainly, yes!

 

Radio Host: What should we do about our immigration policy?

 

Ernst Zundel: I was the only person in 1968 that appeared in front of the Parliamentary committee and the Senate committee on immigration and said:

 

“For God’s sake, do not change the immigration policy in this country or your children will curse you!”

 

Mr. Reynolds, what has happened is not the children are cursing the politicians of that 1968 Parliament. Their wives, their mothers, their grandmothers, their uncles and their hands are cursing them!

 

Radio Host: What should we do with our immigration policy in Canada?

 

Ernst Zundel: Don’t import problems!

 

Radio Host: Are you saying what types of people are the problem and what countries do they come from?

 

Ernst Zundel: Ask any police official. Who are being picked up for, numerically speaking, for dope peddling, pimping, distribution sniffing and stuff like that.

 

Radio Host: Are you talking about the blacks and the yellow people that are coming in?

 

Ernst Zundel: You know, that’s a loaded question.

 

Radio Host: I’m sure it is.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. Reynolds, I’m saying to you that we didn’t have it before, but certainly we now have it. Does that answer the question fairly?

 

Radio Host: More White immigration from England, Germany and the other such as that?

 

Ernst Zundel: Certainly.

 

Radio Host: Okay, go ahead.

 

Caller 4 (male): Mr. Frederick?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yeah?

 

18 Have You Ever Been to Auschwitz?

top

 

Radio Host: Have you ever been to Auschwitz?

 

Ernst Zundel: Pardon me?

 

Radio Host: Have you ever visited Auschwitz concentration camp?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, but I’ve entered Dahau. I don’t need to go to have a piece of fictitious history paraded in front of my eyes.

 

Radio Host: I have visited Auschwitz and the place where it is said that the gas chambers were, which is right beside the incinerators.

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes.

 

Caller 4 (male): Is right in the middle of the camp. You say, if the British believed there were gas chambers, they would have bombed them.

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes.

 

Caller 4 (male): With all the tens of thousands of inmates in Auschwitz, it would have been another “Holocaust”. Tens of thousands of prisoners who would have died through the bombing.

 

19 Red Cross Report on German Concentration Camps

top

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay, may I respond to that? I have in front of me the Red Cross Report, page 92. That’s an official document. No Germans participated in writing it. It is strictly based on the work done by the International Committee of the Red Cross, which by the way went to see every concentration camp in Germany and had even delegates living within some concentration camps. Now I put it to you, if the Germans had something to hide, they would certainly not allow number one to visit, number two, allow delegates to live there.

 

Now, the Russians don’t allow Red Cross delegates to go and visit their concentration camps, but the Germans did!

 

Now, on page 92 it says that the confidence man, the man of Kofiyas [sp], is the French reporter that I’m looking at was a British commando who was captured by the Germans and he was in Auschwitz. The Red Cross delegate asks him:

 

“What are these rumors about Sal Didush, meaning shower bars?”

 

And he said:

 

“They are nothing but rumors. We have been unable to verify that there were such things.”

 

Now, the concentration camp of was in September 44. Shortly thereafter, the concentration camp of Auschwitz was closed and the German razed it to the ground! Every single German concentration camp in the east that the Germans abandoned was razed to the ground! So any structure that you see there, built today was built after the war! So much for your historical accuracy.

 

[28:34]

 

 

20 Belsen and the Typhus Epidemic and the Germans Told to Protect the Camp Until the British Arrived

top

 

Radio Host: And you say the same for Belsen?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, I can explain to you Belsen very easily.

 

Radio Host: That was raised to the ground also?

 

Ernst Zundel: No. That was not in the East. If you were to listen and hear what I’m saying, you could get someplace in the story. Belsen is in central Germany.

 

Now, the commander of Belsen was forced to take up, because of the situation of the war, 20,000 more prisoners than the camp was designed for. Now typhus broke out because Medicines and food couldn’t get to the camp because England and America destroyed the entire German railroad system in Operation Thunderclap, which knocked out 9,000 German railroads stations and railroad junctions. Now the system of transportation and food supply broke down. Food rations had to be cut. Belsen suffered a typhus epidemic. And the German commander said in radioing to the International Red Cross in Geneva:

 

“We have this situation here. If the war comes to our camp and these prisoners go out into the land, they will infect the occupying army, namely Montgomery’s army, and also the whole population of Europe. What should we do?”

 

And the British commander and the German commander agreed that the German SS guards were to go and protect the camp and keep it while the war raged around it. And when the war was just about over in this area, the British came and they took over the camp. And in typical English, World War II fashion, they grabbed the guys who had agreed to stay behind and they, number one, had them beaten up and the torture of the guards and the story of how you Anglos at the end of World War II got your lovely show trials and stuff like that. That’s another kettle of fish.

 

Radio Host: Now you saying, … Gotta go for a break. I have to let some other callers. Thanks for your call. 685-9181’s number. We’ll be right back after these messages. Back in about a minute. I won’t put you on hold just in case we get cut off.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay. Fine, thank you.

 

Radio Host: How’s the weather in Toronto?

 

Ernst Zundel: It’s a beautiful day, Mr. Reynolds. It’s a beautiful day. I wish I could talk to you about something simple like flying saucers. But I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity, believe me. I do appreciate it, believe me. There are far too few people in the Western world today like yourself.

 

21 Zundel’s Advice Re Dealing with Radio Station Hosts

top

 

[Zundel’s commentary]

 

Ernst Zundel: Now a very important lesson to be learned. Always congratulate your host. Always be deferential to him and be kind to him. Never bully him and never embarrass him! Always leave him a way out, because he too has a boss. He too has a station owner, station manager, program manager, advertisers. Don’t burn the bridges behind him unless you want to destroy him. And those cases ought to be very few. Always behave in such a way, even if you have to give a point or two, that you are the nice person, that you are the friendly one and a well mannered one. You don’t have to be mealy mouthed. Be hard and be soft. [chuckling] What I mean is be gentle and be kind. It has paid for me tremendous dividends. And time and again I’ve been told by moderators of radio and TV, the reason why they had me back on was because I always allowed them a way out with their station managers.

 

Now let us rejoin the program and carry on with the interview.

 

[Interview continues]

 

22 Germans Innocent of the Alleged Crime of Killing Six Million Jews

top

 

Radio Host: John Reynolds back with Christoph Friedrich, the head of Samizdat out of Toronto. Mr. Friedrich, let me ask you a question. You mainly deal in other than things with the records and the tapes about German music and so forth, but UFOs, why would [n’t] you stick to UFOs, and stay away from the Nazi angle?

 

Ernst Zundel: Because it’s a matter upon which our civilization fails or survives!

 

Radio Host: Explain that.

 

Ernst Zundel: The German, supposed German guilt for World War II has taken the militarily, economically, politically strongest nation in the heart of Europe which after all is the heart of our culture and has made it the [word unclear]. We are the outcast today. You have had no German input of any significance since the end of World War II.

 

Mr. Reynolds, we have had 138 wars since 1945.

 

Radio Host: In British Columbia the largest ethnic group is German.

 

Ernst Zundel: Of course.

 

Radio Host: They’re top citizens. They’re leaders in business. This situation with the “Holocaust”, and what you’re trying to promote is passe with a lot of people. Jewish families involved in the war. German families involved in war that maybe have some guilt, have some hard feelings. But the young people today don’t have those types of feelings.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. Reynolds. That’s exactly my point. Why can we not discuss it sensibly? And why can we only judge it from the Jewish-Anglo, jewish angle?

 

Radio Host: What talk about it all?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, we can’t do that, Mr. Reynolds. Why should German people collectively bear the [word unclear] and individually the stigma of coming from a group of people that have murdered 6 million people, if they are innocent of the crime, why should we? We are not, …

 

Radio Host: Number one, that I don’t think is a stigma. The German people living in this country. Number two, there was a crime there.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay, was Dresden not a crime? Was Hamburg not a crime? Was Nagasaki not a crime?

 

[34:48]

 

Radio Host: That’s a crime.

 

23 Was the Canadian Concentration Camps Not a Crime?

top

 

Ernst Zundel: Was the Canadian concentration camps not a crime? You see, even, …

 

Radio Host: I agree with you. The way we treated the Japanese in the Second World War was a crime.

 

But it’s well talked about.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. Reynolds, but no restitution has been made, and to put it in proper perspective. You see, we have to first heal the wounds of the old before we can start anew. Humanity is like an organic body. If you have a cancer growing in one area, the body is sick, you see? And I’m saying to you, I want the wounds of World War II healed properly, not festering. And all those people who put on the Holocaust movie that was seen in 70 million American homes at one and the same time. And it was full of lies! ! Mr. Reynolds, they are the hatemongers! I tried to have that movie stop before it started. I am the nice guy! The others are the aggressors in this thing.

 

Radio Host: Go ahead.

 

Caller (male): Mr. Friedrich. How old are you?

 

Ernst Zundel: I’m 39.

 

Caller (male): So you were what? About six years old when the war ended?

 

Ernst Zundel: That’s right.

 

Caller (male): Do you really have no firsthand knowledge of what went on?

 

Ernst Zundel: My dear man, I have firsthand knowledge of being frightened like a dog by bombs falling on our head, by our house collapsing around us. By my mother being chased by American and Algerian invading troops. By the cruelty of your occupation, by the starvation. Don’t come unto me with honeyed words and say I have no recollection of the war. I do!

 

Caller (male): I happen to be German too. I came from there.

 

Ernst Zundel: Hey, that’s nice.

 

Caller (male): And I happen to be a lot older than you are.

 

Ernst Zundel: Good.

 

Caller (male): I saw it was, …

 

Ernst Zundel: It doesn’t make you necessarily wiser or more knowledgeable, though.

 

Caller (male): I’m not saying that I’m wiser, but you know, when I’m listening to you, I can understand, you profess to represent what German people think or say.

 

Ernst Zundel: I never did. I never did!

 

Caller (male): You don’t?

 

Ernst Zundel: I say what some German people think, those who think and not those who think they think.

 

Caller (male): I’m glad to hear that. Because, …

 

Ernst Zundel: You see, you don’t think, you just think you think.

 

Caller (male): I can quite see if somebody listens to you, then you just get turned off. If that is what comes out of Germany. Good God! You know, you’re a nut!

 

Ernst Zundel: What would you like to come out of Germany? Tell me! More reparations for crimes we didn’t commit? More flagellating, more self incriminating for things we didn’t do?

 

24 Caller Recounts Seeing Ss Shot People

top

 

Caller (male): All right. I happened to be in Germany and outside of Germany during those years and I have seen what was going on.

 

Ernst Zundel: You were outside those years in Germany, is that it?

 

Caller (male): Let me finish, please. Just don’t butt in all the time!

 

Ernst Zundel: No, look, get your story straight. Were you in Germany at that time or out of Germany?

 

Caller (male): Yes, I was in Germany. I was in Poland. Let me tell you. I have seen how the jews were rounded up. I have seen them running around in droves being driven by SS people. I’ve seen them being shot. Shot! Just because somebody was straggling, couldn’t follow the rest.

 

Ernst Zundel: And what did you do about it?

 

Caller (male): What I did about it? Nothing! I couldn’t do anything.

 

Ernst Zundel: Exactly!

 

In other words, you were a coward then and you are a coward now!

 

Caller (male): Let me tell you something right now. I may have been a coward! I probably was. I was at the time, 15 years of age.

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, if you saw somebody shot and didn’t do something about it, you were a coward!

 

Caller (male): I probably was.

 

But I can tell you one thing, it certainly has weighed very heavily on my conscience. Because what was going on, that was not right. And I don’t give a damn how much you rant and rave.

 

Ernst Zundel: I’m not ranting or raving.

 

Caller (male): You will never be able to obliterate the darkest period in German history. Okay?

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, if the Canadians are doing as well, and the British and the Americans and the jews in obliterating their dark parts in their history, we’d have a beautiful world. But as long as it’s only one sided, I Intend to speak the other side as long as good God gives me a breath to do it.

 

Caller (male): I just hope that people don’t regard you as representative of Germany.

 

Radio Host: 685 918 was the number. We’ll be right back after these messages.

 

[break]

 

You get any interference from the RCMP coming in to look at your membership list?

 

Ernst Zundel: Not anymore. Not anymore.

 

Radio Host: They did it one time?

 

Ernst Zundel: I used to be [word unclear] two or three times a week. Yeah, but not anymore. The main problem now comes from the Canadian jewish Congress and their agents.

 

25 There is Always an Uncle Tom.

top

 

[Zundel’s commentary on the caller]

 

Ernst Zundel: It never fails. There is always an Uncle Tom! The blacks have him, the jews have him and the Germans have him. That is if the caller indeed was a German as he claimed to be. He did have some strange accent, that’s for sure.

 

However, I practically smelled him coming from left field and decided early on that here was one guy that was going to be nailed. And he certainly was! And I’m happy that that is now. There is no way that you can allow people like that to dominate the program by trying to be overly kind to them. People like that who mess into their own bed, you have to be short and swift! Back to the program.

 

[39:59]

 

Radio Host: John Reynolds back with Christoph Friedrich in Toronto. 685-9181 the number go ahead please.

 

Hello?

 

Caller (male): Hello.

 

Radio Host: Go ahead.

 

26 Caller on Japanese in Concentration Camps

top

 

Caller (male): What he says about immigration coming in this country. Well, I’m in agreement what he said about only the White race, that White people should immigrate here. But I wasn’t in agreement with what he said about the Japanese being innocent because it was myself I think it was a good thing that they were put in concentration camps because if the Japanese had landed here the ones that were in the country would have helped the Japanese invading forces.

 

And one of Japanese was educated in Vancouver here went to school and had his education here. He went over to Japan during the war and he was one of the worst ones over there. He beat the Canadian soldiers with whips in the camps there and [word unclear] for it.

 

Radio Host: Does that mean that all the rest of them would have been the same?

 

Caller (male): Pardon?

 

Radio Host: Does that mean that all the rest of them would have been the same? Why would a Japanese Canadian be any lesser Canadian than you were?

 

Caller (male): Well, I mean I don’t have any agreement with it. It wasn’t very innocent. You didn’t know what’s behind it. They [word unclear] truckloads of rifles and war stuff and short waves receivers and everything.

 

Ernst Zundel: And Mr. Reynolds.

 

Radio Host: I don’t know believe that gives us the right to take away people’s property.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. Reynolds, if I may interject here. I have read the story of the tragedy of the American Japanese and the Canadian Japanese. I am not aware of one single instance where truckloads of Japanese rifles were taken away. That is a red herring of wartime propaganda. Now in the calmer days 30 years after. That’s simply not true.

 

Number one, I’d like to say on principle Japan did not declare war on Canada. Number two, Canada meddled in Japanese affairs 10,000 miles away from home in Hong Kong. Number three, the Japanese people who were in this country were legally admitted immigrants, had an excellent work record, were frugal, thrifty, pillars of society. They were robbed in the most sneaky, slimy way of their hard earned property. Proper restitution has not been done. When Premier Kuro went over to Japan and apologized to the people of Japan, the columns and the radio stations in the Toronto area were so full of hate towards our own Prime Minister. Just apologizing, that I am telling you Canadians have some skeletons in the crossing and their skeletons are intolerance and hate! And I am bringing those out. And if I speak forcefully, I speak with the eloquence of emergency. Because I can assure you if you Canadians are going to let this thing get done to the Germans today and you were allowing it yesterday to the Japanese, tomorrow you will allow it to another ethnic group. I’m telling you, if we don’t come to grips with this cancer in Canadian society tomorrow, it might be you!

 

Caller (male): Why don’t you speak to some of the Canadians that was taken Christmas day, prisoners in places there, and they were tortured.

 

Ernst Zundel: Sir, my question to you is, what business did they have to do over in Hong Kong? Did Canada have no problems in their own country?

 

So you see, if you meddle in a fight between two bullies, if you meddle in that and you get a black eye, it’s not like, don’t come back, complaining!

 

Caller (male): Well, they landed here, they came here by the submarine. They were just about pretty close to taking over the Aleutian islands. They had places dug in rock there and they confixated all their supplies. Don’t worry my friend, they were just about right to our doorstep here.

 

Ernst Zundel: This was after the war was on.

 

Anyway. Listen, this is a very fruitless discussion. I frankly think that the Japanese were maltreated and Canadians cannot make any excuses and cannot treat it under the rug. Justice is what we want. Justice for all the people, including jews, Pakistanis and Indians. What I’m saying to you is that I was the only one in 1968 to prevent problems from happening. Don’t you see? 1968, the United States was experiencing civil war on a massive scale where blacks were burning down practically every large city. You know, Watts and Detroit and so on. And I said at that time to the special Commission sitting in Montreal:

 

“Gentlemen, please learn from what is happening. We don’t owe these people anything!”

 

Canada didn’t have empire, you see I can see England having to import these people, but Canada should have a policy that is best for Canadians.

 

Caller (male): Well, the Black Panthers are stirring up the Indians here in Canada. And the Indians didn’t have enough sense to fight for themselves. But until another outfit came in here called the Black Panthers and they just stir these Indians up and it’s just making trouble for the Indians. And the Canadian government is surprised that they let these leaders come in from the United States.

 

Ernst Zundel: No, afraid I have to once again put it in the proper historical perspective. You Canadians in World War II allied yourself with Marxism, international Communism!

 

Now, because they were your allies then, you feel kind of uneasy about cracking down on them now because it would mean you made a mistake then. So what are you doing? You are allowing all kinds of Marxist infiltrators into your university, into your news media, and into the book publishing business and into education. And what they turn out are young commies. And these young commies then go out agitating minorities. Naturally, they’re not going to actually agitate the mass of Canadians because they are so lethargic. So they go after the Indians and other minorities.

 

[45:47]

 

27 Zundel’s Commentary on the Typical Canadian Man in the Street on Race

top

 

Radio Host: Okay, thanks for your call. 685-918 was the number. We’ll be right back after these messages.

 

[Zundel’s commentary]

 

Ernst Zundel: What you have just heard is the typical average Canadian man in the street, World War II veteran speaking. A simple man with a bigoted viewpoint. Basically what he is a racist, but afraid to say it.

 

Now, here in me, he had found somebody who was very seldom on Canadian airwaves these days, willing to put in the good word for the Whites and point out their desperate situation. And the poor devil called up and couldn’t really make his point coherently.

 

Yet he had lived this kind of viewpoint for all his life and ended up trying to defend the indefensible. Interesting also is that the moderator, former Member of Parliament, all he could think about was the Japanese property being taken away. It didn’t occur to him that that’s not the main beef. It was not that the property was taken away. It was the fact that in a Democratic country that was not under immediate attack, was not being invaded, the dignity of human beings was being insulted that they were being herded into concentration camps. Men, women, children, father, mother, grandfather, grandparents and so on. They were robbed of their fortunes. They were robbed of their fishing boats and their fishing gears, their farms and so on. And Canadians can make no excuses. And he tried to make an excuse with World War II propaganda. What he pulled on the Japanese, they’re trying to pull on the Germans. Back to the program.

 

Radio Host: Okay, John Reynolds back. My guest is Chris Christoph Friedrich, head of Samizdat. 6859181 is the number. Go ahead.

 

28 Caller on the Suppressed Book ‘All Honorable Men’

top

 

Caller (male): Yes, hello, Mr. Reynolds.

 

Radio Host: Yes.

 

Caller (male): I know you’re first, please. Thank God from your political deal. Is the other gentleman on the line too? Have either of you people ever read the first publication of a book called All Honorable Men? All Honorable Men.

 

Radio Host: Christoph Friedrich, have you read the book All Honorable Men?

 

Ernst Zundel: Is that by the English writer Douglas Reed?

 

Radio Host: English writer who was in Germany after the war. The book was suppressed. A new version came out which is completely different from the original publication of the book called All Our Men. Unfortunately, I loaned it out to somebody. I never got it back. There is a book out All Honorable Men, but it’s not the same version.

 

But in the original publication of the book, All Our Men showed how the Second World War was perpetrated!

 

Now, you realize that IG Farben was never bombed in Germany. IG Farben had a subsidiary in the United States. They made their deal and in United States manufactured and it said on there, it documented made in Germany was sent to South America. The money came back to Germany.

 

By the way, I’m a disabled war veteran.

 

And when I read that book, the original publication, which was the suppressed, showed how Schrader [sp], who was a companion of Roosevelt went to Germany and became the financial expert in Germany. I am in complete agreement. And I fought against you people. I speak German fluently. I’m a disabled war veteran.

 

Radio Host: Make your point, please.

 

Caller (male): Pardon?

 

Radio Host: Make your point.

 

Caller (male): Yeah, but what I’m saying is this. If you could, any of you, Mr. Reynolds and the gentleman there, could get the original edition of All Honorable Men, there is documentation after documentation. And I happen to agree. And Mr. Reynolds, but the other gentleman there were that not many jews were that. Now I don’t agree with all of them.

 

Radio Host: Okay, thanks for your comment.

 

29 World War II was Above All a Battle for World Markets

top

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. Reynolds. May I say something to that, please?

 

Radio Host: Go ahead.

 

Ernst Zundel: There’s no doubt that World War II was above all a battle for world markets. You see, and it is clearly expressed in the British Foreign Office documents which have been recently released after the 30 year time is up and American Foreign Office or Secretary of State offices and documents which are now being declassified after 35 years.

 

The fact is that Japan and Germany being geographically in a small area, being devoid of raw materials, these two nations must export in order to live. So they were in effect disturbing the international trading pattern. And high finance and international multinational corporations got together the way this fellow describes out of this book, All Honorable Men, got together and they decided:

 

“Well, if we can wipe out the competition, we will have the world markets to ourselves!”

 

You see?

 

Radio Host: Let me ask you a question. What about a gentleman by the name of Speers? You know him?

 

Ernst Zundel: No.

 

20 Belsen and the Typhus Epidemic and the Germans Told to Protect the Camp Until the British Arrived

top

 

Radio Host: You haven’t read his book? He was one of the German officers who was tried in Nuremberg.

 

Ernst Zundel: Oh, Speer. Well, okay, I’ll be happy to respond to this. I’ve corresponded with him. Mr. Reynolds, that man was in allied custody for 20 years! He was only allowed to read what four different nations censored for him.

 

Now, if you and I can put on commercials in advertising and sell cars with 1 minute exposure over the radio or television, then a man whom I have for a 20 year captive audience is brainwashed so beyond recognition that he is a totally altered, different personality! The Albert Speer who came out of Spandau is an allied zombie!

 

Radio Host: So you’re saying the books he wrote about the atrocities are things that have been planted in his head by the Allies?

 

Ernst Zundel: After 20 years of confinement under sole allied tutelage, where only allied approved psychologists took his head apart and his brain apart, they only supplied him with the books that they allowed him to. Every newspaper is cut out meticulously as to articles which you’re not supposed to read, I ask you in all honesty, can that man be balanced?

 

[53:02]

 

Radio Host: May not be balanced. I don’t think he was balanced to do what he did in the first place.

 

Ernst Zundel: What did he do in the first place? He was our ministry of war production. You see, Mr. Reynolds, that’s my point. How can a grown up man like yourself, a Member of Parliament, say that he shouldn’t have done what he did in the first place? Nations in war, always find men who run the war machine for them. Canadians did. Americans did. Churchill did. Why should we not have very capable ministers of war? He was a very capable technocrat.

 

Radio Host: He also knew the atrocities that were being committed.

 

Ernst Zundel: He says he didn’t. He said he should have thought about it. But you see, the point is, if he says he didn’t, then I put it to you, if a guy in that kind of elevated office doesn’t know about it, maybe it is because they didn’t exist.

 

Radio Host: Oh, you heard the previous caller say he was a German from Poland and they did exist.

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, a 15 year old kid who was too cowardly to protect somebody from being shot, then to take his word, believe me, he doesn’t stand up against hard evidence.

 

31 Caller Claims Innocent Children Put in Gas Chambers

top

 

Caller (male): Hello?

 

Radio Host: Yes, go ahead.

 

Caller (male): Yes, I would like to know what business this German fellow has to criticize Canada and United States. I mean, listen. They have killed babies in pregnant women and send them the gas chamber. He’s lying! He’s a nobody! He was a little child at the time the war was on. What he know about it? How many innocent children was put in the gas chamber? And I lost myself 40 people for my family! He has a face, he has a nerve to come on the radio and talk lies like this. And people have to listen this. Not ashamed! You let him go on the radio station. You should send him to Germany. He wouldn’t talk like this in Germany. He don’t know nothing about the whole history!

 

There was not killed Japanese children. There was not food to give them. They let the people work till he died. Until he got killed in heavy stones. And he telling stories for the people. They wasn’t killing the jews and they don’t killing. They want to kill the whole world! There was the whole song made up from the Germans. Germany is small, the whole world is ours! What do you think men like this you let go on the radio. This is a shame! I can’t understand how can a person talk on the radio to the public like that? There’s nobody to give him the answer on it. How everything he is saying is lying. What mixing up Japanese and other nations in this program? They talk about Germany. Did Germany know that there was only 6 million jews only killed?

 

Ernst Zundel: I’m afraid you have had the, …

 

Radio Host: He’s allowed to say is a free country, whether we want to believe or not. 685918 was the number. We’ll be right back after the event.

 

32 Zundel’s Commentary on the Jewish Caller and Their Emotionalism and Lies

top

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, finally here we had it. I was waiting for that call for the very first part of the program. Usually, in the olden days, or certainly in Eastern Canada and in the Eastern United States where there is a far greater concentration of jewish people, we get this type of call by the dozens! Monopolizing the airwaves with their emotionalism. Trying to once again cry, moan, whine about all the things that have been done to them, offering no evidence. But for the gullible public, they certainly talk a good persecution and a good crime.

 

Now, is it interesting that the moderator did not allow me to get back at that man and to nail him. He just cut him off. And then, of course, went conveniently to some commercial announcements which gave me no chance to respond to this man’s accusations.

 

However, for the European listeners, this can serve as the typical call. This is why it is so very important that this issue of anti-German propaganda and of this monstrous, horrific lie about Germans killing 6 million jews must be exposed wherever we can! This is the pivotal question! Once this lie has been exposed as a propaganda lie, the world will change upside down, inside out! And our people who have been hated and maligned will become the angels of the world!

 

And this is what those who peddle the lie are afraid of they have gambled wildly and recklessly that they can can control all the channels of communications for all time. If it is possible for us to break through that curtain the way I have broken through with this interview, for instance, on this Canadian radio station, which was the largest radio station on the east coast in Canada, large enough so that they have two private helicopters looking after traffic reports, their own reporters, roving reporters, large enough that they not shy the expense of paying for a long distance call from Vancouver to Toronto over a distance of 5,000 miles for an hour and a half.

 

[58:44]

 

 

33 The Need for All Those Who Believe in the Rightness of the Cause to Help Spread the Message

top

 

Now, when we can break through day in, day out, year after year, through this media curtain with our facts, our figures, our proof, then a new age will be dawning. This is why it is so absolutely crucial that the people who believe in the same things that I believe in, who are unable because of age, lack of faith in themselves or talent in the media, maybe because they speak English with even more of an accent than I do, that they help us in financing my work. Because the proof certainly is given in this interview again that we can make breakthroughs and we can reach the public. And you can see there were all kinds of people out there who are willing to agree with us and who are willing to listen to us.

 

We have all kinds of allies. But right now they are isolated and we are isolated. We cannot reach them for lack of funds. If we had the money, we could buy radio time on every radio station, we could buy TV time on every TV station. Within a very few short years, we could change the German image in the world, the image of National Socialism, which, after all, was an attempt by White Europe to save itself at the end of a cultural cycle and to start and Make a glorious new beginning.

 

If people would only realize the importance of this, we could change the world together. I cannot do it alone. Obviously, some of the members of the jewish community made their usual quick phone calls to rustle up support and to get their fellow racial comrades to get under the airwaves and to give this German, of all people, a piece of their mind and to give them a hard time. Because it is so seldom that Germans speak out in public, and especially even more seldom that they speak out on the airwaves as frankly and as freely as I did in this particular interview. The reaction was equal. Just as we heard by the previous caller every old propaganda lie rehashed, even the canard of “Deutschland ueber alles” or the “tomorrow the world” business. So often has this story been told in Heideggerd UN Deutschland Und Morgen die ganze Welt, that I’m so sick and tired of trying to even explain it. If all the songs that every army in the world had ever sung was broadcast, I think that there would be some pretty red faces and embarrassed politicians.

 

34 Jews and Their Claims of Having Lost Untold Family Members!

top

 

And the fact that he lost 40 members of his family, well, gee, it is incredible! Everyone that I meet of these people lost 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 80 members of their family. Some 200 members of their family! Hell, I can’t even remember 20 members of my family. But these people, they can remember 200! And they all lost them. And yet they’re all here!

 

35 Anti-Semitism as a Natural Self-Defence Reaction

top

 

The next caller is a female, and she also brings out the old war horse of jewish propaganda, namely that the German people had to suffer and have to suffer because of the world retaliating against us. Nobody ever bothers to reflect or give meditation or to think about why the Germans turned against the jews in the first place! Ours was a reaction of self defense. This is why the word anti-semitism or anti-Judaism was coined and created. It is inherent in the very word itself that ours was a natural reaction of a body politic, of a nation, of a state, of a culture, of a race, if you want, against intruders. If we had been for the jews, it would mean pro-semitism. But because of the way these people behaved, it was anti-semitism. If they had behaved beautifully, it could have been becoming philo-semitism. Or if they hadn’t been there would have been no anti, no pro, no nothing. You see, nobody bothers to think about those things.

 

36 As a War Measure, the Concentration Camps Can Be Justified

top

 

And it is once again important that we make this point again and again to the people of the world, that our reaction was natural, that as a war measure, the concentration camps can be justified. However ugly they are and however little we like them. Nobody likes to be deprived of their freedom. Neither do I. But the fact is we do not have to be forever bow our heads in shame because there were concentration camps and there were people in concentration camps. Because just about every country involved in World War II had people rotting in jail, forgot about their so-called human rights and civil rights. Imprisoned men, women and children. And in many countries, notably the glorious Democratic ally Joseph Stalin killed people by the millions and nobody cared and nobody squawked! So we should forget about defending ourselves but to take the initiative.

 

Back to the program.

 

37 Female Caller Supporting the Holocaust Movie

top

 

Radio Host: Hello, Good morning.

 

Caller (female): Yes, I would like to say a few words to your guest too. He seem to be awfully upset about a story that we saw on Holocaust. That story should have been told long time ago. You shouldn’t be upset because that’s a crime that was done and it should be told. Same like all other wars when they’re on TV, nobody’s upset.

 

But now when that story is told, he seems to be awfully upset because it’s something to be upset about. Because seeing something like that really is unbelievable!

 

Ernst Zundel: Madam. Has the mass murder of the civilian German population ever been shown in an eight hour television special all over North American television? Have the rapes of the 100,000 women in Berlin by the Soviets and Mongolian troops, ever been featured played? Have the rapes of the Viennese? Have the murders, the tortures in allied concentration camps after the war, have they ever been shown? No!

 

Caller (female): They might not be. But after the things that they did, they might be understandable why the people wanted to retaliate because of that you should understand that that story should be told a long time ago to remind us all the time what was going on.

 

Ernst Zundel: I’ve been in Canada for 20 years and I’ve heard nothing but this story from one side. Until finally after 20 years, …

 

Caller (female): [word unclear] not have got enough guts to [word unclear]

 

Ernst Zundel: You know something lady? I have enough guts, … Grant me enough guts from my side to speak up for our side.

 

Look. Grant me the guts from my side to speak up to our side. There is no not only your side. There’s always two sides to a story.

 

Caller (female): There is many nation sides and they all agree. Except you!

 

Ernst Zundel: They don’t all agree, my dear. They don’t all agree, my dear.

 

Caller (female): They do!

 

Ernst Zundel: In Tokyo during the war crimes trial., …

 

Caller (female): They do agree on this story, except you!

 

Ernst Zundel: Because you, my dear woman, there are thousands of books, there are thousands of books written in the world about the jewish lies about Holocaust, the blackmail that it is, and so on. It has nothing to do with fact at all! It is a money making racket employed internationally. Just the fact that a thousand guys tell a lie does make the original lie, not the truth! It is a lie!

 

[1:07:53]

 

38 Male Caller Somewhat Supportive of Zundel’s Position

top

 

Radio Host: Thanks for your call. Go ahead.

 

Caller (male): Hello. Good morning, John. First of all, let me put the record straight. This Holocaust business, this is a drama which has backfired completely. It has been produced by the jews themselves. Secondly, we are they always talking about the 6 million jews, but they never mention that there are 22 million during the Second World War who are gentile, Canadian, British, Russians, Germans as well, they have been killed as well.

 

Thirdly, those 6 million jews they have been smuggled into the United States. And quite a bit of them, they went into Palestine itself. To legitimize their claim in Israel.

 

Ernst Zundel: Absolutely!

 

Radio Host: All these facts they have not been told to the people!

 

Ernst Zundel: Absolutely!

 

Radio Host: [word unclear] can look for one side and neglect the other.

 

Ernst Zundel: Absolutely!

 

Radio Host: And two wrongs do not make right!

 

Ernst Zundel: Absolutely!

 

Radio Host: Exactly what has been practiced by the Germans on the jews and the victims of the jews by the Germans they are by Eichmann himself, who was a jew.

 

And finally the jews they have been compensated for all the damages. They got $35 billion out of West Germany for this so-called story of the 6 million jews. People better go to library and start to read and look to the two sides. I do not believe in killing, but two wrongs do not make right because exactly the jews are doing it in Palestine on the 3.5 million Arab Palestinians. And this is all that I have to say. John. Okay.

 

39 Israel Has Got Terror Squads Going out into the World Assassinating Diplomats, Etc.

top

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. Reynolds. The week that Holocaust was being shown in the Western world, Israel invaded southern Lebanon.

 

Now, Israel has had three wars in the last generation. Germany has had none. Israel has got terror squads going out into the world assassinating diplomats and those whom they suspect of being terrorists. And there have been several mishaps reported where they got the wrong man.

 

In other words, we have hit squads roaming the planet, abducting people, kidnapping people, assassinating people, silencing people, burning people’s homes down like they did to this German in France, Jochen Pieper and so on.

 

Now there is an international gang of terrorists loose on the planet and they are camouflaging their international power by stuff like that. And we don’t like it. And the world should be grateful for a guy like John Reynolds and for a guy like Christoph Friedrich Zundel to get on the telephone and to alert them to the fact of what is happening! We are a planet in the grip of a gang of terrorists who are using this emotional propaganda to camouflage not their bygone deeds, nobody’s ever talked about them, but their current deeds!

 

Radio Host: Don’t thank me, Christopher. I’ve only got you on because you’re, …

 

Ernst Zundel: Controversial!

 

Radio Host: Controversial.

 

And I think people should know that you’re around because I think you’re, …

 

Ernst Zundel: What?

 

[Call cut out]

 

40 Male Caller Denies Gas Chambers and Disputes the Number of Jews Who Died

top

 

Radio Host: Hello? Hello, you’re there, Go ahead, go ahead Conor, go ahead.

 

Caller (female): The war was over. Hello?

 

Radio Host: Yes, go ahead again.

 

Caller (female): When the war was over I was 15 years old. When I’ve been around in Eastern Europe and then in Western Europe. When I hear this story it’s been told over the Holocaust, you know all the murdering goes on. It’s unbelievable what kind of lies! Because I’ve been down after war and around Bavaria with how concentration camp used to be. There was nothing! There was no gas chamber whatsoever! The gas chamber been built 1948!

 

Ernst Zundel: A Hollywood movie.

 

Caller (female): American supervision.

 

Ernst Zundel: A Hollywood movie.

 

Caller (female): In a little chamber, supposed to burn 6 million jews. Like in Canada, anybody who you listen to in the radio television he’s always:

 

“I was lucky I survived!”

 

How could he survive in Europe, in only 3 million jews? When you go back to Russia now and count the population the jewish in Poland how many immigrants to South America, to Palestine, the United States, Canada, you know how many are left who got killed? One million, two hundred thousand. That’s proven from the Swiss Red Cross. But that story they never told, people died of starvation. It was from 1944-45 because there was no transportation, no food! The food rationing was anyway. I mean there was no way to get the food to the people.

 

Ernst Zundel: In other words, …

 

Caller (female): Other people died. I saw him laying on the road as we marched from Poland to [word unclear] in front of the Russians, you know. And I thought he been shot down, you know from bombs and everything. But after the war when we stayed in Bavaria, so after you went to north German plain there, when his story’s been told [words unclear] brainwashed. The older people over there, they’re dying out. They forget, you know. It’s unbelievable, …

 

Radio Host: Anything that happened at the Nuremberg trials was true?

 

[1:12:59]

 

41 Zundel Talks About the Nuremberg Trials and the Dissenting Opinion of an Indian Judge

top

 

Ernst Zundel: Let me tell you about the Nuremberg trials.

 

Radio Host: I haven’t read them all but I’ve looked, …

 

Caller (female): Yeah, that’s the trouble, you know you only read the one side of it, you know.

 

Radio Host: Hey, thanks for your call.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr Reynolds.

 

Radio Host: Go ahead.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. Reynolds I have in front of me a book put out by the British trial lawyer who defends Field Marshal Manstein in a war crimes trial in Germany after the war. And he quotes in there an Indian judge. He refers to him as “the great Indian judge Rahabino de Pal”, who wrote the dissenting judgment which he delivered as one of the judges of the International Court at Tokyo. Now he would have never been chosen number one as a judge had he been pro-German. He was completely neutral, an Indian judge, one of India’s great judges. Here is what the judge said as a dissenting opinion in Tokyo. And the same holds true for Germany:

 

“The so-called trial held according to the definition of crime now given by the victors obliterates the centuries of civilization which stretch between us and the summary slaying of a defeated in war. A trial with law thus prescribed would only be a sham employment of the legal process for the satisfaction of the thirst for revenge. It does not correspond to any idea of justice and may justly create the feeling that it is much more a political than a legal affair. To say that the Victor can define a crime at his will and then punish would be to revert back to those days when he was allowed to devastate an occupied country, appropriate all public and private property therein and kill the inhabitants or take them away into captivity.”

 

Mr. Reynolds, I will tell you that the United States, that the Soviet Union, that England, Canada, Belgium and France behave in exactly this manner!

 

In other words, the Indian judge calls them barbarians!

 

Radio Host: Okay, 685-9181. We’ll be right back after these messages.

 

42 Zundel’s Commentary on the Radio Host’s Willingness to Let Him Speak Freely

top

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, I have to admit to our listeners that in all the TV shows and in all the public debates and so on that I’ve ever made in North America, this one is turning out to be something else. This moderator is allowing me to say things unopposed. I can’t believe it! This has really in all honesty never happened to me before, that I would have been able to so openly state the German case and also to so openly and continuously attack the Allies. There is very little opposition from the callers that come in. We have had an Arab for the first time, an Arab coming to our defense. The reason why I am stressing the Arab is that I used to fight for the Arabic and Palestine Palestinian cause versus the Israelis with great vehemence and never received any support at all Over The Airwaves. And I was completely disgusted by it.

 

However, that was in Montreal. It does seem that the population composition of Vancouver is different and that this is why we can say more and be on the air.

 

43 Female Caller on the Amount of Hate Mongering That is Going On.

top

 

Radio Host: Yes caller.

 

Caller (male): I really, I can’t understand this program this morning. It just seems to be made up of hate!

 

But what I want to say is that can you tell me any country in the world that has not done, you know, terrible things to other nations, like even right today, right in Ireland, look what’s going on. And because a madman, Hitler, and he was proven mad! I mean, because he did these things, why blame the German people? The German are well educated. They’re one of the smartest people in the world. And not saying there’s lots of other smart people, but just because one madman did it, why is it all this hate perpetuated?

 

Radio Host: Because of Mr. Friedrich, I think, and what he’s doing.

 

Caller (male): Jewish people, too, seem to have a heck of a lot of resentment.

 

44 Zundel’s Run for the Post of Leader of the Liberal Party in 1968

top

 

Ernst Zundel: You see, it’s interesting, Mr. Reynolds, that I am supposed to be the hate monger. You can say about German people the most foul lies and the most horrible things. And you can say it over Canadian radio, over Canadian television. You can say it in Canadian newspapers and you can say it in our Canadian university textbooks. Mr. Reynolds, I went through your school system here and through your university system. I ran for the post of leader of the Liberal Party in 1968. I know what Canadians think, and I know what they do you know! You are the people, in effect, who have love on your lap and hate in your heart when it comes to Germans! It’s as simple as that!

 

Radio Host: How much did you get when you ran against Trudeau for the Liberal leadership?

 

Ernst Zundel: Pardon me?

 

Radio Host: How many votes did you get?

 

Ernst Zundel: I purposely dropped out five minutes before the balloting.

 

Radio Host: Why?

 

Ernst Zundel: Because I wanted to make the statement that a man with his own money, totally independent, could run and arrive in Ottawa and make it to the same podium, speak to the Canadian people. And I spoke to them strictly about anti-German hate propaganda. Nothing more, nothing less! I’m not a megalomaniac. I know exactly the limits of my personality. But I use that as a platform to say:

 

“Canadians, look in the mirror, stop hating us, number one, we don’t deserve it, number one. Number two, it doesn’t make you look any better for kicking around on us!”

 

You know, it’s okay to kick around a defeated enemy, but after 30 years, it reflects on the guy that does the kicking.

 

Radio Host: Why didn’t you continue and see how many votes you’d get?

 

[1:18:47]

 

Ernst Zundel: I had no misconception that Trudeau was going to win the election because I understand my fellow Canadians. You know, they were swept up by Trudeau mania. The media manufactured it.

 

And since I didn’t have the media behind me, thanks to my infiltrated cronies in the press, I certainly had no chance, just as little as Robert Winders or Paul Helio or anybody else. But if I had made it.

 

Radio Host: Thank you very much for being with us this morning. I don’t wish you any success because I think what you do, …

 

Ernst Zundel: Really, Mr. Reynolds, if I had made it, the country would be in much better shape, believe me.

 

Radio Host: Okay, well, that’s how you feel, I guess you’ve got the right in this country to do what you want to do.

 

Ernst Zundel: The results are obvious. Thank you.

 

Radio Host: Thank you very much.

 

45 Zundel’s Commentary on the Whole Program and Practical Advice to Callers

top

 

Ernst Zundel: Little remarkable remains to be said about this interview. On the whole, it is one of the most remarkable ones that I have done because of the length and because of the truth that I was able to say. Believe me, in 90% of the cases I couldn’t have been on that radio station for five minutes, and I would have been cut off.

 

But it seems that either the mood of the population is changing, or that the mood of the men in the media is changing, or that this man in particular doesn’t like what is happening and is using me as a mouthpiece. I do not know. I don’t understand it.

 

But as they say in English, why should I look a gift horse in the mouth? The program cost me nothing. The radio station paid for the telephone call. And my cause and my German people’s cause has been once again well defended and well served.

 

For those who are about to get into the media field, I think that this tape could serve as a good training tape, if I may say so, with all modesty, if you pardon the pun. But I have done so many of these radio shows that I’m beginning to consider myself somewhat of an expert.

 

Look at some of the callers that call in. They are amateurs and you can tell that they are amateurs. They are wandering all over the landscape. And again and again the moderator has to remind them:

 

“Make your point. Make your point! What’s your point? Come to your point!”

 

In other words, if you’re going to call in a program like that, write down what you want to say point for point, Rehearse it a little, say it out loud. Nobody’s around anyways. Most people are at work. And then state your case clearly, succinctly and carefully.

 

I learned my lessons and worked hard in polishing my media stance. I just wish I could have more opportunities like this one to make use of my 10 years of training, my 20 years of training, actually. And naturally, more than anything else, I wish I could do it back home in Germany.

 

However, there must be people who have to do it over here in North America. And as long as we are here, working here, living here, it is our duty to speak out and to stand up for what is right and for what is true. Naturally, I appeal, since this is in English, to all our many English speaking friends across this land, the United States and around the world.

 

This problem is not a German problem. It is your problem. It is our problem. It is a world problem. The German people didn’t create it, you helped create it. If you are too young, your father or your grandfather helped to create it. Now it’s your responsibility and my responsibility, our responsibility to change it. Because we live in this world together. It is up to you and I to pass on to our children and to future generations a better world, a healthier world, an honest world, a clean world and an unpolluted world. Not only unpolluted, that we have clear streams, clear oceans, clean air, but also clean brains! And thoroughly cleaned souls! Because we without those two, the other will, number one, not matter, and number two cannot be achieved.

 

Therefore, it is almost ironic that this problem of undetermined propaganda, of hate programs against Germans drag down those who do the hating and inhibit them in growing, because hate makes blind. And throughout this program you will have noticed that I speak very firmly and very quickly and very much to the point, but never with hate.

 

When in my early years and younger years I was so full of pain as to why and what had happened to Germany, and when I first discovered the horrendousness of this lie, I used to get so distraught that I suppose I hated, and I lost every radio program.

 

As a consequence I would say to check one’s emotions, to make sure one is relaxed, not tired, not agitated, and to try very hard to keep one’s emotions under control because the public airwaves are no medium for sounding like some raving lunatic. Speak by all means with feeling, but never with hate. Otherwise you will lose your audience, you will not be understood, and many people won’t be able to follow you. Therefore, try to state your case without hesitation, without humming and hawing, and rather be short and to the point than try to be long winded. And always keep in mind to whom you are speaking. If you are speaking to Canadians, address them on Canadian topics such as Canadian concentration camps, Canadian war crimes and Canadian skeletons in their closets. Don’t roam around the world about the 1918 revolution and this control and that stuff. Nobody’s interested.

 

[1:27:06]

 

Another thing to remember, stay away from figures. Nothing is more deadly and more boring than to discuss statistics and figures on radio. The counting of dead bodies is stupid and lurid and sad enough on paper, but it has absolutely no place on radio and not on television. I have seen how people have lost audiences left, right, front and center because they try to impress them with their knowledge of figures. Believe me, you can use it as a tactic to throw your opponent, of course, but don’t ever think you can score points. It’s a waste of time and it’s a waste of airtime. Stick to simple things that people can relate to, like stealing somebody’s property, beating, raping, mugging, torture, prison, stuff like that. Now that they can see every now night on television, they can relate to that. And if you relate that to them in our case, your point will be well made. Otherwise you’re going to get bogged down in 6 million and 9 million, minus 472,000 and so on. So many jews in Poland and all this, it is useless! Nobody cares. Nobody cares!

 

People basically think what the Germans did was monstrous because all they can relate to is that they might know a jew who is nice, or a jewish woman or jewish kid whom they like. And of course we murdered in effect the people whom they liked. So what we have to say is exactly what I said in this program. It is not our fault. We didn’t start this whole mess, somebody else did. It could have been solved differently if people had been willing.

 

Now, we don’t want to shoulder all the blame.

 

 

[01:29:13]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

 

See Also

top

 

 

 

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 15 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zündel – Oct 12, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 18 with Jürgen Neumann – Nov 2, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 36 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zundel – Mar 22, 2025 – Transcript

Ernst Zundel – Another Voice of Freedom Radio – Why World War II Started – 1994 – Transcript

Ernst Zundel – 1967-68 Radio Shows in Montreal Discussing Israel and Jewish Topics 1 – Transcript

Ernst Zundel – 1967-68 Radio Shows in Montreal Discussing Israel and Jewish Topics 2 – Transcript

 

 

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

Ernst Zundel: This is Ernst Christoph Friedrich Zundel. I’m about to share with you what by now is a historical series of interviews, talk shows, tape recorded excerpts of radio shows and reactions to radio shows which I did in Montreal in 1967-68.

 

I used to live in Montreal for nine years amongst French-Canadians. Enjoyed my stay amongst the French-Canadian population immensely. It was a very interesting time for me in that I attended university in Montreal and was very active politically speaking. Sometimes four times a week at different places in churches, businessmen’s clubs, union halls, air cadets, Boy Scouts, schools and so on about political topics, mainly communism, separatism, and of course, my always and ever ready favourite topic, namely the swindle of the 6 million jews.

 

In those days, this was completely new terrain for me, as it was for everybody else. No one in the Western world publicly had discussed this topic very much and it was positively dangerous to one’s health to touch upon this topic.

 

However, I was writing a column in the university student newspaper and gave speeches at the university and so on, and always ready and willing to have an intellectual scrap, or whatever you want to call it.

 

I decided one night that I would like to discuss this particular topic on radio. And it came shortly after the war in 67, the Arab-Israeli war. And the reaction was so fantastic that I decided to tape some of these talk shows. Unfortunately, it would take hours and hours and hours to bring all the tapes that I have. So these here are really excerpts. The moderator of the show was a young English Canadian whom I have never met to this day, certainly only knew from the air, never even spoke in private via the telephone, always only while we were on the air or during commercial breaks. He was about my age, and later on I heard through somebody at the radio station that his father was in fact an RCMP, a Royal Canadian Mounted Police captain.

 

Now, I have no idea if this was the reason why this young man was allowing me so much airtime. It was an absolutely incredible situation in that he did allow me sometimes five hours of often very little interrupted time to expostulate and to expound my outlooks and theories on life. So much so as can be deducted later on from some of the statements made by jewish scholars who are complaining about the amount of airtime that I got.

 

He was a very kind fellow. I thought he was eminently fair. And for the first time I felt that the gentile side, or certainly my side or the German side of this issue got a really good public hearing and a good airing.

 

This issue that we are discussing in the following tape the Arab-Israeli dispute and the German reparations payment was so intensely and intensively discussed that delegations from the Canadian jewish Congress and from the Israeli consulate used to visit the radio station, putting all kinds of pressure on that radio station. And it’s again evident by what the moderator later on is saying when he repeats that he has had death threats and assassination threats, boycott threats and so on.

 

Also it is evident from the reaction of the jewish callers themselves. I would like to draw your attention to the fact of argumentation, how the jewish community of Montreal, both young and old, European and Canadian, male and female, of how they argue, the tactics and the methods that they employ. It is a tremendous lesson to be learnt.

 

All the hate and the vilification that can be mustered against an individual totally unknown to them, except for what is being said on the radio comes through there. You can see the intolerance towards me and towards things German. You can also see how impolite these people are in that they constantly interrupt me in this particular case. And they would do the same with other Gentiles, never to allow us to bring a thought, to develop it and to draw it to a logical conclusion. Constant interruption, constant deflection manoeuvres, constant ridiculing!

 

And another interesting feature of the discussion is obviously always the attack from the jewish side against the individual that is launching some kind of an idea. Never so much as to the content of the idea. Usually the attempt is made to destroy, in effect, the accuser. And I’m called a Nazi, a Neo-Nazi, a German, in the most hateful undertones, and men and women alike. It is very interesting.

 

The man is desperate and asked me during a commercial break to please come to his rescue. This is Mr Bell, the moderator, and to say something nice about the Israelis. Not that I had said anything that wasn’t nice, but he thought I should get him off the hook and get some of the pressure off him by stating my case of what the heck I was really driving at. Because he was being accused on air, off air, by the station manager and by the station employees, many of them who were jewish, of being an anti-semite of the worst kind!

 

And so that young man was desperate. And since he treated me very fairly, I also came out to take the pressure off him with one of my statements about my policy on Israel and so on.

 

Now, when one listens to this whole tape, I want to be specifically reminding you, listen to what happens to statistics when money is discussed. Statistics, sums of money, sums of people and so on. Money and numbers of money and amounts of dollars and amounts of people have nothing to do in the discussion on the airwaves. People get lost, confused! Just listen to the pauses in the argumentation whenever we are discussing different statistical facts and so on. This is a very important point.

 

[09:19]

 

In closing, I will have to point out yet again that the station manager was forced to have flown by a special courier plane every morning the five hour long tapes to the board of broadcast governors at that time in Ottawa, the capital of Canada. And these men would sit there and listen to the argumentation going on because the president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, Dean Maxwell Cohen, had stated in front of a Senate committee at the time that Ernst Zundel was:

 

“Poisoning the air and pitting jew against gentile.”

 

And so on in Canadian society. And the station was under threat to lose its licence. In effect, what happened, the programme was pushed back towards very late at night. The times were changed for the program. Sponsors were lost. This young man, Mr. Bell, in effect was again fired from his job, lost his livelihood and the station closed this particular talk show down!

 

Once again, jewish pressure had succeeded in silencing a voice. Listen to the tapes now.

 

[Start of radio show recording]

 

Ernst Zundel: An inexpensive way for Israel of gaining allies and of undermining Nasser and the other high hats. The $1 billions. This is pretty close to what the war costs currently. New budget came out in Israel and it allocates 37% of the total budget of the state of Israel for defense.

 

Radio Host: Right. Okay, there’s a call on the line now. And I don’t know whether this caller has figures or opinions.

 

Hello?

 

Caller 1: Hello? Hello. Yes, I want to explain something. This man who is talking to you is a German pro-Nazi, you understand? I know him. I don’t understand why you’re so interested in these stories.

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, is there a law against being interested in those stories?

 

Caller 1: I know that you are pro-Nazi German.

 

Ernst Zundel: It’s wonderful how you throw labels around. What are you?

 

You want to declare yourself? What you are?

 

Caller 1: Don’t try to come out and [words unclear] Speak to him. You’re in Canada, you’re not in Germany.

 

Ernst Zundel: I know I’m in Canada, that’s why I’m speaking Over The Airwaves here.

 

Caller 1: No, come on! Here you understand. Go to Adolf [word unclear]. You are pro-Nazi. I know who you are.

 

Ernst Zundel: Yeah, you are pretty rude, sir. Truth hurts doesn’t it?

 

Caller 1: You try to come out to Mr. Bell, but you never have a truth.

 

Ernst Zundel: Very true. I don’t have a chance with Mr. Bell.

 

Caller 1: Right. You are a pro-Nazi. Go to [word unclear] Okay?

 

Ernst Zundel: Maybe it indicates something. Maybe it indicates something.

 

[Caller hangs up]

 

Radio Host: Now we’re dealing right now with some figures that are contrary to figures I have. And we’re getting callers. You have a few calls to take here.

 

Ernst Zundel: Right.

 

Radio Host: Now, I don’t know if anyone has any figures against the figures you have, which you got from the consulate here. This is not the first time that whether you are on the air or off the air, that someone has accused you of being a Neo-Nazi or something. How do you react to that?

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, of course, being a German, they think it sticks.

 

But I would like to remind them that I was born in 1939. That made me exactly, let’s say three years old when Hitler was at his supreme. It made me six years old when the Allies liberated us. Moroccan troops and Algerian troops. And I had three sisters at the time. And I would like to tell those people how it felt to be liberated as a 6 year old boy. I also saw 141 bullet holes where my mother was chased across a field By a, [word unclear] you know.

 

Radio Host: Algerian and Moroccan troops. Where were you? Where were you exactly?

 

Ernst Zundel: Black Forest.

 

Radio Host: In the Black Forest?

 

Ernst Zundel: Maybe Freudenstadt, was burned down completely. The hospital city of Freudenstadt is about half an hour away from where I was born. Neighbor city of Portheim was bombed in February and, 20,000 people got killed in one night. All that as a boy. You never forget those things, the sirens wailing, the bombers coming across and everything else, you know.

 

Anyways, I was 6 years old when the war was over. Now I have a boy, he’s 8 years old. If I were to ask him, are you a conservative or liberal? He wouldn’t know. Certainly was no card carrying member of the Nazi party. I immigrated to Canada at the youth of 19, not even. I have been here for the last 10 years.

 

So I don’t quite see why I should go and discuss my ideas on the Middle East with Mr. Fontaine. As a matter of fact, I think it’s very intolerant from the man they called. Am I any less a Canadian because I am of German origin? I would like to remind this man that we are Canada’s third largest ethnic group by far. That we are far more numerous than the Ukrainians and that we are far more numerous than the jewish Canadians.

 

In other words, I have just as much legitimate right to be discussing anything that I believe, including the Middle East.

 

Radio Host: Right. Well, you don’t feel that you’re anti-Israeli?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, I’m not. No, I’m not anti-Israeli.

 

But as I always say in every discussion, there is not only two sides to a coin, there is three sides to a coin.

 

Radio Host: That’s what I say.

 

[15:08]

 

Ernst Zundel: And if I look at the Middle East, I look at those hapless Arabs in their tents and those Arab soldiers, I know they have no axe to grind against Israel. They are victims of very emotional propaganda, because anybody that has a short wave receiver can pick it up. The operator of Radio Cairo. And the argument always emanating from Cairo is:

 

“That the jews have stolen your land and that’s why you are living in misery and in poverty.”

 

That’s why your Radio Cairo is lying.

 

So [word unclear] last week called and suggested that possibly a way out for the Israelis would be to pay a settlement to those people that lost their home, and their fields, in their stores in 1948 and possibly 1953. Is that a crime? Is that unreasonable? Is that being Nazi? I don’t see so.

 

Radio Host: Well, I think we have a gentleman on the line that you were talking with originally.

 

Sir?

 

Caller 1: Yes.

 

Radio Host: You’re on the air.

 

Caller 1: Okay.

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes.

 

Caller 1: Okay. Now, I don’t know about what you were when you were six, but you’re not six now. So the fact that you were six when Hitler was in power doesn’t have any logical reference to what you might be. Now, I’m not saying what you are or are not, but that has as illogical as an argument.

 

Let me ask you this.

 

Ernst Zundel: Yeah.

 

Caller 1: You say that two things. In the first place, you gave a figure, incidentally, I’m the chap you spoke to you last week.

 

Ernst Zundel: Right. I recognise your voice.

 

Caller 1: You gave a figure that a certain number of billions of dollars was paid to individuals, right. In Israel. What was that figure?

 

Ernst Zundel: According to the German consulate, it’s seven billion.

 

Caller 1: Seven billion?

 

Ernst Zundel: Right.

 

Caller 1: Now, how many jews were in Germany in 1933? German jews?

 

Ernst Zundel: 680,000.

 

Caller 1: How many German jews were killed by the Nazis?

 

Ernst Zundel: I think the figure is 320,000.

 

Caller 1: Well, I have a figure for you.

 

Ernst Zundel: Right.

 

Caller 1: It’s a very large one. In fact, I think it’s a bit exaggerated. But even if that’s a true figure., …

 

Ernst Zundel: How much is it?

 

Caller 1: About 100,000 German refugees, German jews were left after the war. I think that’s a high figure, but I’m not sure. But even if that’s a high figure, if they all went to Israel, which they didn’t do, you see, if they all went to Israel, which they didn’t do, and if they were all paid according to you, they would all, by my calculation, they would all receive, have received about $55,000 a piece!

 

Ernst Zundel: Just a moment, sir. Just a moment. I know figures.

 

Caller 1: Let me ask you this now.

 

Ernst Zundel: No, just you let me answer you right back.

 

Caller 1: Okay.

 

Ernst Zundel: So we don’t get off the track here.

 

Caller 1: Okay.

 

Ernst Zundel: The missing 200,000 or 250,000. Between my figure and your figure. Did you ever think that many jews between 1933 and 1938 went to Czechoslovakia?

 

Caller 1: Are you kidding?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, I’m not on that. I’m dead serious, man! I can bring you very [words unclear] that went to Czechoslovakia and that went to Vienna and that went to France and that went to, …

 

Caller 1: Are you kidding?

 

Ernst Zundel: I’m dead serious.

 

Caller 1: How can you be. How can you be. How can you be dead serious?

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay, we have a very prominent Montreal journalist that is always interviewed, that writes for many tourist papers. If Mr. Bell wants to pass the name up, I’ll give you the name. He left Germany in 1933.

 

Caller 1: Of course. Of course, there was some. But it required a great deal of money and they had to leave most of their property behind.

 

Ernst Zundel: But he didn’t. This man’s father didn’t.

 

Caller 1: Yeah, well, you have an individual case.

 

Ernst Zundel: Just a moment.

 

Caller 1: You have an individual case.

 

Okay, so how many were left? 300,000, you say. If there are 300,000 German jews left.

 

Ernst Zundel: No, I didn’t say that. The figures that, as you said to yourself, there are some exaggerated figures.

 

Caller 1: No, no, my figures exaggerated 100,000. I think it was very much fewer. But even if it’s 100,000, that would give each one of them $55,000. Is that what they got in reparations from Germany?

 

Ernst Zundel: Sir, I didn’t count the money. All I did is some research. Told the authorities that paid the money and that had the money on the book.

 

Caller 1: Now, did you go to the people who received the money?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, sir, I didn’t try to.

 

Caller 1: Well, let me give you some advice. If you go down the street from the West German consulate, there’s the Israeli consulate.

 

Ernst Zundel: Right.

 

Caller 1: Why didn’t you bother to take the figures that you got from the German consulate down to the Israeli consulate, and ask them if they put the same interpretation or indeed if they have the same figures that you got from the Germans? Does that ever occur to you? If you’re a journalist?

 

Radio Host: That’s a fairly good idea.

 

Caller 1: You’re a journalist, aren’t you?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, sir, it has occurred to me.

 

Caller 1: Well, before you get on the earth, before you send any stories to any newspapers, before you publish anything, go and check your figures from both sources. You say stories have two sides, and these three sides!

 

Ernst Zundel: Would the New York Times be a good source for accurate information?

 

Caller 1: I just told you what to do. And why didn’t you go to the Israeli consulate?

 

[20:05]

 

Ernst Zundel: Sir, would the New York Times you good source?

 

Caller 1: No, I don’t trust. I don’t trust any newspaper.

 

Ernst Zundel: Don’t eh?

 

Caller 1: No.

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, maybe I’m a bit more trustworthy. I trust that the Minister of Finance.

 

Caller 1: All I have of course is your report of what you read in the New York Times.

 

Ernst Zundel: The Minister of Finance of Germany had faced 482 Parliamentarians in Germany. Plus the whole press corp.

 

Caller 1: Yeah, yeah.

 

Ernst Zundel: Plus the Canadian [words unclear], plus the Canadian Jewish Eagle, plus the International Scientist Organisation and stated that we have, …

 

Caller 1: Let me ask you something else. Let me ask you something else.

 

Ernst Zundel: Go right ahead.

 

Caller 1: You mentioned the Canadian Jewish Eagle, eh, This is a Yiddish newspaper.

 

Ernst Zundel: Right.

 

Caller 1: I have many, many Christian friends here in Canada. As a matter of fact my adult years were all spent amongst non-jews. I’m a very jewish person. I would have to speak to 1,000 of them to find out anyone who has ever heard of the Canadian Jewish Eagle. How come you’re so interested? How do you know about it?

 

Ernst Zundel: Is it a crime to be?

 

Caller 1: No, no!

 

I’m just curious as to how you come to know about it. Do you read Yiddish?

 

Ernst Zundel: Do I read Yiddish?

 

Caller 1: Yes.

 

Ernst Zundel: That’s my business. I just might, you know.

 

Caller 1: You just might.

 

Ernst Zundel: Yeah.

 

Caller 1: Just like [word unclear] and he reads Yiddish too.

 

Ernst Zundel: Let me tell you something. If maybe that indicates something to you that my grandfather’s name was Isidor Meyer.

 

Caller 1: Isidor Meyer?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yeah. How do you like that for [word unclear] You think about that for a while.

 

Caller 1: Listen, listen. If you know any German history, you would know that German history is filled with a man like, … Do you know any German history? Ever hear of a man named Peppercorn?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, I know a man.

 

Caller 1: He went by the name named Peppercorn, lived about 400 years ago.

 

Ernst Zundel: That’s right.

 

Caller 1: And he was one of the worst anti-semites, a convert, that ever lived. I don’t care what your grandfather was called. You see, that’s not evidence of any kind.

 

Ernst Zundel: I didn’t say whether I read Yiddish or not.

 

Caller 1: I’m just curious about your interest in it, you see. What is your interest?

 

Ernst Zundel: My interest is.

 

Caller 1: Yeah.

 

Ernst Zundel: I’m interested in many things. You want to have a couple of statistics?

 

Caller 1: No, no, just why are you. Why are you so interested in the jewish question and Israel?

 

Ernst Zundel: Because it is very vitally involved with Germany and with the history that we are being taught.

 

Caller 1: Can I read something to you in a moment, Mr. Bell?

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. Bell.

 

Radio Host: Yeah, I’m listening.

 

Caller 1: You got a moment there? Can I read something? I’ll give you the name of the guy who wrote it just in the paper as well, but just let me read it, if we’re concerned with these raids back and forth and the German interest in it.

 

Radio Host: Ah ha.

 

Caller 1: One of the more efficient leaders. This is a publication date of January 3rd.

 

Ernst Zundel: What year?

 

Caller 1:1969.

 

One of the more efficient leaders of the Al Fatah terrorist organisation is a tall, slender man who calls himself Al Hatch, “Pilgrim” in English. Al Hatch heads a group of specialists trained to assemble bombs which in turn are smuggled into crowded civilian areas of Old Jerusalem. In all likelihood, the recent terrorist attack which cut scores of lives in all Jerusalem, most of them women and children, are the work of this man.

 

Al Hatch is a master of disguise. He crosses the border sometimes in Arab guard, but more often dressed like a European. He also sports a forged Swiss passport. In his European clothes, he does not look one bit like an Arab, and for this reason, he was able to cross practically at will until his identity became known. There’s a good reason why Al Hatch is able to pass as a European. He is none other than Richard Winterhalter, formerly of the SS Death head squad. Winterhalter, wanted by West Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia for war crimes, operated both in Terezin, Theresienstadt and Auschwitz. Winterhalter was the key man who arranged for the death trains bringing elderly people from Terezin to the Birkenau extermination factories. He has also trained the special command of Auschwitz prisoners temporarily reprieved from the gruesome task of bringing bodies of murder victims from gas chambers to the crematoria.

 

Winterhalter escaped from a British prisoner of war camp during the summer of 1945 and crossed him to Italy. From there he made his way to Egypt, where he converted to Islam. During 1949, he made his pilgrimage to Mecca, calling himself Al Hatch. The newly created Mohammedan, promptly joined the battle against Israel and served under the notorious Mufti of Jerusalem. So, on about the deliberation plan.

 

Ernst Zundel: Now, who writes? What paper is it?

 

Caller 1: This is written by Peter Lust.

 

Ernst Zundel: Oh, well, Mr. Peter Lust. Wonderful.

 

Caller 1: Yeah. Now, this information, since he names this name, it suggests to me several things. In the first place, I want to ask a general question. I don’t dislike the Germans. I’ve been to Germany several times. I’ve met many young German people, in fact, in Israel. But I don’t understand. This is what I just can’t get through my mind about the German engineers who worked in Egypt, the German engineers who are working in Syria.

 

The Germans are helping these people now to fight the jews. Why can’t they just leave them alone? You know, they tried to get rid of them 30 years ago, 20 years ago. Why can’t they just leave them alone? Why just have to go on and on trying to get rid of what Hitler left over. Can you explain that to me as a German?

 

[25:08]

 

Ernst Zundel: I don’t know.

 

Caller 1: Have you ever thought about it?

 

Ernst Zundel: I don’t. Look, I came to Canada when I was 19 years old.

 

Caller 1: Don’t give us that bit again. You know. How old are you now? You’re 30?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yeah, I’m 30.

 

Caller 1: So you read newspapers?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, I do.

 

Caller 1: So you read about your fellow Germans who work for the Egyptians and the Syrians? What do you think about it?

 

Ernst Zundel: What do I think about it?

 

Caller 1: Yes.

 

Ernst Zundel: They’re engineers. They were forbidden by the allied, …

 

Caller 1: What do you think about it? No, don’t tell us about what they were forbidden. What do you think about it as a fellow German?

 

Ernst Zundel: You don’t have to be so aggressive. Anybody that shouts and screams indicates usually that he is [word unclear]

 

Caller 1: Not necessarily. If he gets stupid replies, he has to shout.

 

Ernst Zundel: I haven’t even made my replies, because you are so aggressive. So.

 

Caller 1: Well, what do you think about it?

 

Ernst Zundel: What do I think about it?

 

Caller 1: Yes.

 

Ernst Zundel: These people like for instance, Messerschmitt that build a plane for the Egyptians and the engineers like. Well, I think Metzgar is one of his name that builds El Kahir that never brought fire during the Arab-Israeli war, which is a rocket with a 600 mile range, along the V2 line. These men, by the treaties of or by the Nuremberg Judgment, are forbidden to build this kind of stuff in Germany. So they were looking for new fields.

 

Caller 1: Yeah, but why did you mean. Was that the only place. You know? There are many Germans who go to Israel to work. I’ve met them there. I’ve met them working in the kibbutzene, if they wanted. If they wanted to go someplace to work.

 

Ernst Zundel: If you are Messerschmitt that had designed jet planes and rockets, you’re hardly inclined to continue your career in an Israeli kibbutz.

 

Caller 1: I suppose. I thought he could have gone to Brazil where Dr. Mengele is, you know.

 

Ernst Zundel: Yeah. What is Dr Mengele, is he a rocket engineer?

 

Caller 1: No. Well, I could have gone to Brazil needs. It’s a funny thing, but they always end up. They always seem to end up on the side facing the jews! What do they want from us?

 

Ernst Zundel: Wernher von Braun is he facing the jews, sir?

 

Caller 1: You got one example there. And you had dozens working in Syria and Egypt.

 

Ernst Zundel: Anybody that followed Apollo lately knows precisely how many German rocket scientists are in America.

 

Caller 1: I’m not so excited about Wernher von Braun either I’m interested in knowing from him he’s going to testify in a trial. You know, I’m interested in knowing from him just as I’m interested in knowing from other just plain soldiers when they were in Germany for that long period. And since they are not stupid people. He knew exactly what he was doing when he was designing the V2s. You know, his conscience is not that kind that gives me admiration. I would just assume, just assume if he had been told that if he didn’t design the vehicles, they would shoot him, that he had let himself be shot. You know, he’s not one of my great heroes.

 

Ernst Zundel: How many of you Russian scientists that created the what they call the Stalin Organ rocket?

 

Caller 1: I haven’t the slightest idea about that.

 

Ernst Zundel: All right, how many of the, …

 

Caller 1: Let me ask you one last question.

 

Ernst Zundel: How many of the Canadians. Hang on for a moment. Do this one by one. Okay.

 

Caller 1: Yeah.

 

Ernst Zundel: You thought you could bring in a couple of good points and let me answer them.

 

Caller 1: Yeah.

 

Ernst Zundel: Those people that designed Liberator bombers.

 

Caller 1: I haven’t the slightest idea.

 

Ernst Zundel: Jews themselves.

 

Caller 1: Liberator bombers?

 

Ernst Zundel: That turned Dresden into a fiery inferno.

 

Caller 1: Are you? You’re not serious, are you?

 

Ernst Zundel: I’m dead serious.

 

Caller 1: The more you talk. You know, you’d be smart if you hung up right now. The more you talk you give yourself away.

 

Ernst Zundel: Why are you afraid you’re losing the argument?

 

Caller 1: No, what’s the point of bringing Dresden into this?

 

Ernst Zundel: Because in Dresden the estimates are apart from Mr. Peter Lust that was invited by Walter Ulbricht at his expense to go behind the Iron Curtain. I think Mr. Irving in England wrote a book about it.

 

Caller 1: Yes, I read the book. I read the book.

 

Ernst Zundel: All right. He says 300,000 people got killed in one single bombing raid.

 

Caller 1: Yeah, well, if the Germans had been smart in 1933 and they sat on Hitler, they wouldn’t have killed in 1944.

 

Ernst Zundel: We are not talking about who is smart. We are talking about what crimes.

 

Caller 1: Well, the Germans themselves were responsible for it. That was no crime. I’m against it. I’m against killing anyone. I wouldn’t have killed that one. You know, I’m against killing everyone. But once you start on that road, once you start on that road, that’s the way you end up.

 

[29:23]

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, but anyway, doesn’t that answer my original argument again?

 

Caller 1: No, it has nothing to do with it because the people, …

 

Ernst Zundel: Wernher von Braun should have shot himself?

 

Caller 1: Yes, absolutely! Before even trying to [word unclear].

 

Ernst Zundel: Just a minute. Air Vice Marshall Harris that was in charge in England of the bombing of Dresden. There over 300,000 people, mainly refugees and women in an undefended city. It was called an “open city” via the Red Cross from Geneva. There was not one fighter plane that protected it. No [words unclear].

 

Caller 1: I can just imagine Hitler doing that. Well, my dear chap, I mean this is the information you get from what side?

 

Ernst Zundel: These 300,000 people got killed. I don’t see Air Vice Marshall Harris shooting himself.

 

Caller 1: That’s hardly a comparison, you know. Air Marshall Harris was fighting against an aggressor. It was Hitler that started the war!

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, you know, finding out [word unclear] is very interesting because, …

 

Caller 1: I see. As I told you’d better hang up. The longer you talk, the more you give yourself away.

 

Ernst Zundel: Just a minute. We’ll come back to it because you, …

 

Caller 1: You certainly sound like a six year old.

 

Ernst Zundel: Fine. I’m taking history at Sir George Williams University, sir. And you know what they are teaching us there? That at the very same time, I think it’s Sep 9, 1939, that Hitler walked into one side of Poland, Stalin walking to the other side of Poland. He occupied half of Poland and Hitler occupied the other side of Poland.

 

Caller 1: Two birds of a feather.

 

Ernst Zundel: Pardon?

 

Caller 1: So how does that make Hitler less an aggressor?

 

Ernst Zundel: If you are fighting the aggressor. Your point was that Air Vice Marshall Harris was fighting an aggressor?

 

Caller 1: That’s right. Hitler walked into Czechoslovakia, …

 

Ernst Zundel: Just a minute. Why was Air Vice Marshal Harris not also bombing Moscow?

 

Caller 1: They weren’t fighting with Moscow? Moscow wasn’t the enemy.

 

Ernst Zundel: Moscow was an aggressive, just as much as Hitler was!

 

Caller 1: Yeah, but Moscow hadn’t attacked England. Moscow wasn’t firing V2s at England. Besides that Hitler had, …

 

Ernst Zundel: [words unclear] aren’t you?

 

Caller 1: No, no. Yeah, you give yourself away.

 

Let me ask you one last thing. Let’s get back to 1968. Let’s get back to 1969.

 

Ernst Zundel: Yeah.

 

Caller 1: We follow your advice. The Israeli government from the $14 billion plus the $7 billion it’s got for the individuals.

 

Ernst Zundel: I didn’t say that.

 

Caller 1: Incidentally, is that the word that the Germans are using reparations that they paid to Israel?

 

Ernst Zundel: No.

 

Caller 1: What word do they use?

 

Ernst Zundel: In German they call it [word unclear] That means “to make good again”.

 

Caller 1: I see, Right. It’s not reparations since Israel wasn’t at war with Germany, right?

 

Ernst Zundel: And then some Germans wonder if Israel didn’t exist as a state, why Germany should pay for it as it didn’t exist?

 

Caller 1: Yeah, that’s a good question. Do you wonder that too?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, but I’m just pointing out to you.

 

Caller 1: Let me ask you guys. Let’s carry on then here, eh? You say you’re suggesting to solve the problem in the Middle East. East that Israel with its $14 billion and its $7 billion.

 

Ernst Zundel: I didn’t say 14 billion and 7 billion. You got the figures wrong. You should listen more closely, let hear what you want to hear.

 

Caller 1: Didn’t you say that the reparations, so-called, to Israel was $14 billion and the money paid to individuals was $7 billion? Isn’t that what you said?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, I didn’t.

 

Caller 1: What did you say?

 

Ernst Zundel: I said that under the treaty with the state of Israel directly, Germany made payments to the state of Israel to the tune of $3, 450,000,000. And this, …

 

Caller 1: What’s the 14 billion dollar figure?

 

Ernst Zundel: Pardon?

 

Caller 1: What’s the 14,000,000,000 dollar figure?

 

Ernst Zundel: I said up to 1969 all the reparations by policy paid to individuals, to the state, people living outside Israel was $14 billion.

 

Caller 1: Including people living outside Israel?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yeah.

 

Caller 1: What’s that got to do with the Israeli government?

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay, I’ll try. I’ll do it slowly for you. Okay.

 

I said separate treaty. One is between Israel as a state, you know as a state government of Israel?

 

Caller 1: Yeah.

 

Ernst Zundel: Between the Bonn government and the Israeli government. Money involved in that?

 

Caller 1: Yes, that’s 3, 450,000, you say.

 

Ernst Zundel: And there were payments involved between Israeli and between jewish individuals and carrying Israeli passport. But they don’t have to live in Israel, because Germany allows a dual citizenship in the case of a jew. Do you understand?

 

Caller 1: So you’re not including the figure of German ex-German refugees who had never gone to Israel? You’re not adding in that figure? You know, not all German refugees went to Israel.

 

Ernst Zundel: I know that.

 

Caller 1: So you’re talking with German refugees who either went to Israel and left or else they got the Israeli passport and here’s the passport. Okay, well this is a small thing. The first thing, let me repeat that you better, you’d better go to the Israeli consulate and find out what their side of the story is. Now in addition to that, let’s take your figure for what it. Let’s take your figure for what it may be. I accept your figure!

 

Ernst Zundel: Israel and James Weissman and David Ben Gurion and Levy Ashbolt, they have never quarrelled with these figures. Because these figures are open for everyone to see, including Mr [word unclear]

 

Caller 1: I accept them all. I’m not quarrelling with them either. I accept them in total, including your translation into German Reichmarks, so it sounds like 50 billion. But I’m not quarrelling with that. You’re suggesting, you’re suggesting, …

 

[35:03]

 

Ernst Zundel: Just a minute. I’m afraid I have to translate it into German marks because Germany doesn’t deal in [word unclear] or in [word unclear].

 

Caller 1: Yeah, but what purpose was there for you to mention German marks at all? All Canadians can understand dollars.

 

Ernst Zundel: It’s the currency to start with, ..

 

Caller 1: Yeah, I know, but you you said whatever the figure was 50 billion Marks. That sounds like $50 billion to someone not listening carefully.

 

Ernst Zundel: One second after I gave it in dollars. So look, don’t, …

 

Caller 1: Yeah, okay.

 

Ernst Zundel: You’re terribly suspicious, I must say.

 

Caller 1: So we’ve got whatever billions of figures you got there. And you’re suggesting that they should take some of this money and pay to whatever refugees are within their reach. Well, how much to each one.

 

Ernst Zundel: Nope. The last time I suggested. And this is my suggestion as an individual, it’s not a German government policy. They would be horrified if they heard me discuss this problem anyways because they’re such cowards when it comes to this.

 

Caller 1: What have you got to do with them? You said you’re a Canadian. What do they care what you say? What do they care what you say?

 

Ernst Zundel: I’m just declaring it to you.

 

Caller 1: Yeah, okay. So what’s your figure? 500 bucks a piece?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, I said commensurate with what they lost. And this is very easy.

 

Caller 1: But they didn’t lose anything, you see. They weren’t chased away. They left of their own accord, as you said yourself, because the legislation, the agreement, or rather the resolution that was passed at the United Nations at that time in 1947, which divided Palestine, remember not including Jordan, just Palestine, west of the Jordan, into two states, gave to the Israelis only that part of Palestine which was generally occupied by jews on land which they had bought from the effendis, and for which, incidentally, they also paid the peasants who didn’t own it at all!

 

In other words, these refugees didn’t leave from any land which at that time belonged to the jews. They left of their own accord, as you have yourself admitted on broadcast. On broadcast from their Arab neighbours. Okay, now, so what should, what should they be compensated for?

 

Ernst Zundel: Let me continue. First of all, many people that left were not peasants. Many of them were, …

 

Caller 1: I didn’t say that they were peasants. Those that left from [word unclear] weren’t peasants.

 

Ernst Zundel: You know, in other words.

 

Caller 1: But they weren’t chased away.

 

Ernst Zundel: Look, this wasn’t my argument at all! You’re always trying to put words in my mouth. I didn’t say that you don’t have to be hostile.

 

Caller 1: So why should they have to be recompensed for what I said?

 

Ernst Zundel: Oh, hold on. Look, tonight when I came on again, if Israel is in need of allies, which I think she is, and Israel says she is, then those 2 million Arabs would be very good allies.

 

Caller 1: What makes you think that?

 

Ernst Zundel: What makes me think that?

 

Caller 1: Yes.

 

Ernst Zundel: Because these people are, I’m sure, very tired of living in tents. They would be very good friends of Israel if they thought that the Israelis were giving them a hefty deal than the Arabs.

 

Caller 1: And it’s your speculation that if they were paid by the Israelis, they would suddenly become friends of the Israelis. Is that your speculation?

 

Ernst Zundel: Hold on, those Arabs that are living in Israel since 1948, you yourself and every other jewish caller that called said they are treated like an Israeli, they are prospering, they have all the military service and everything else.

 

Caller 1: Okay.

 

Ernst Zundel: Are they hostile to Israel?

 

Caller 1: Generally speaking, no.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay. You see what I mean?

 

Caller 1: No, but it’s hardly the same thing, you know.

 

Ernst Zundel: It’s the same thing. Right now hundreds of thousands of Arab refugees are living in territory administered by Israel.

 

So what I was suggesting was extend the same policies that you, …

 

Caller 1: That’s not the same. That’s not the same policy, at all! You know, if you were to pay them whatever figure you think would be adequate, would they be then brought back to Israel or would they be left where they are? Where would they go? With their little payment, with their little check? Where would they go?

 

Ernst Zundel: Hold on for a minute. It would be in the interest of Israel, I suppose that they would settle them somewhere, which I think Israel is trying to do.

 

Caller 1: In Israel? In Israel? In Israel?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, in the new territory.

 

Caller 1: What new territory? The Israelis aren’t keeping those territories.

 

Ernst Zundel: According to the Montreal which I have in front of me, it says that these territories are called the “new territories”.

 

Caller 1: These territories are called the new territories?

 

Ernst Zundel: Right.

 

Caller 1: What date? What story is that?

 

[News Break]

 

Radio Host: You had a question you wanted to ask? Go ahead.

 

Caller 1: The other end is not just taking up your time. But he considered what he suggested, a practical solution to the problem. Now does he consider. We didn’t finish before we went to the news. Is he suggesting, if I may be wrong, suggesting that these people would, the refugees would come into Israel to get paid.

 

In other words, the one and a half million who are now outside would have to return to Israel. They would get to pay whatever. He didn’t specify what amount of, let’s say, several hundred dollars. And they would remain in Israel, Is that the suggestion?

 

[40:12]

 

Ernst Zundel: I can’t decide where they wanted to go, where Israel wanted them to. It’s entirely up to them. But my main point in bringing up the payment angle is that I know that those people live on handouts from the United Nations and they are always in every story that we hear and read it, that they were dispossessed by the Israelis.

 

Caller 1: Yeah, but this. Yeah, I know, but, …

 

Ernst Zundel: You see what I mean, it would be a good point as far, not as a publicity stunt, I wouldn’t want to say it that way. But it would be a great deal in the favour of Israel as far as the world situation is concern. And specifically for those small Arab people, whether they be peasants or herdsmen or former storekeepers. To them, I’m sure it would show the goodwill of Israel and it would make life out of every statement that emanates from Beirut or from Cairo as [word unclear].

 

Caller 1: It doesn’t require this to show up the statements that emanate those countries as lies tell people to those people.

 

Ernst Zundel: People with a full stomach and a square meal and more comfortable mud hut rather than a, …

 

Caller 1: But don’t you don’t, in the first place, if you base your suggestion on the moral question that they were dispossessed by the Israelis, therefore the Israelis would look better in the eyes of the world by recompensing them in one way or another. This is from a false start because they were not dispossessed by the Israelis.

 

This point has been made time and time again! And it doesn’t matter how often uninformed people say that they were dispossessed by the Israelis, it still doesn’t make it true, because you can’t turn back history and say because it’s repeated, therefore it becomes true. The only reason there should be any compensation, I mean, if the Israelis had it and if other governments had it, they should give it to their human being.

 

But from a practical point of view, I don’t see, looking at the way the Arab governments around there operate, I don’t think it would make any difference whatsoever to forming, to getting peace with the Arab countries. This is what the Israelis are after. They want to sit down with Egypt and with Jordan and with Syria, if Syria can stay on one seat for a long enough time and sign a peace treaty after 20 years.

 

Now, how payments to the refugees who would either be kept after that they can’t be admitted to Israel because Israel hasn’t got room for them. What they would do with the money, that they would go to Amman or they would go to Cairo. Those countries could have taken them before and they didn’t. They kept them there for a special purpose. And for you to think that because they will get several, on the contrary, it’s very likely that what would happen if they got the money, it’s such an impractical suggestion. How would the money get to them outside? Would they be in checks or in cash? In Jordanian money and Egyptian money? You know, if they got it, they would probably end up in their mind having the money taken from them by those governments. What makes you think that if they were to receive that money, it would make the slightest difference in the attitude of the Arab governments, the Arab governments to Israel?

 

Ernst Zundel: First of all, I have to. Maybe I am naive, I doubt it. But the point is, if Israel wants to have peace, it is obvious that the Arab government for the last, 20 years, the government, the cliques in power, whether they be the Bath party, whether they be the colonels of Nasser or whatever they are, those in power are not speaking for the small peasants, but they are using those peasants as a weapon and as a tool.

 

Caller 1: Let me ask you something. Have you been to the Middle East?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, I haven’t.

 

Caller 1: Have you never been to Turkey?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, I haven’t.

 

Caller 1: Or Egypt? None of those countries?

 

Ernst Zundel: Have you been to the moon?

 

Caller 1: Yeah. No, no, I’ve been to those countries and it doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference what the peasants think. It’s the colonels that are in Cairo that matter at this point. I don’t see what the peasants, how the peasants [words unclear] at all!

 

They’re medieval countries, you know.

 

Ernst Zundel: I don’t see that the [word unclear] himself has stopped across the border, planted a mine in the market in Jerusalem and blown up 10 Israelis.

 

Caller 1: He might as well have. What difference does it make? He tolerated the people who did it.

 

Caller 2: Not partial at all! This is the World Almanac of the 1966 Yearbook of Britannica. Now, there’s no bias in there or any prejudice. I will quote you if I may.

 

Ernst Zundel: Right. Well, I got my figures from an almanac too.

 

Caller 1: Oh, okay. The overall picture, this is page 430. Under the topic of Israel. The overall picture was one of continuing prosperity and expansion, tempered by a growing balance of payments problems which was expected to become more serious because of the ending of the German reparations payments. This I assume, is in 65, which had ended.

 

Ernst Zundel: [words unclear]

 

Caller 2: Just a minute.

 

Ernst Zundel: World Almanac reparations payment too.

 

Caller 2: These had accounted for about $70 million annually. Now, if you carry that for 20 years, that would be a total of 1, 400,000,000. Which does not come anywhere close to your figures.

 

So how do you account for that? This is to the state of Israel, money reparation.

 

[45:22]

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, how do I count for that?

 

Caller 2: You said 7 billion.

 

Ernst Zundel: I thought I went to the horse’s mouth.

 

Caller 2: I beg your pardon.

 

Ernst Zundel: I thought I went to the horse’s mouth.

 

Caller 2: Yeah, but you went to the wrong horse.

 

Caller 1: Your zoology is all wrong.

 

Ernst Zundel: It’s the person that pays the Bill usually less in funds than the person that, …

 

Caller 1: He usually tries to build up what he paid, though.

 

Radio Host: Well, in terms of Britannica, though, I would assume that to arrive at any figure they would go to more than both sides. Again you have to, …

 

Caller 1: Definitely! And through the fact that it involves the changing of funds into international currency of some kind.

 

Radio Host: Right. Well, when we use the term dollar, it is accepted that it is the American dollar.

 

Caller 1: Yes, that’s right. That’s the international currency.

 

Ernst Zundel: Hold on for a moment. I’m mulling this thing over here.

 

Caller 1: Yeah, it’s probably 7 billion in Reichmarks is that would make it a billion 400,000!

 

Radio Host: Yes, it wouldn’t it?

 

Caller 1: Yeah, 7 billion Reichmarks would make it a billion 400,000.

 

Ernst Zundel: The ratio is not.

 

Radio Host: No, the ratio is 3 to 1, isn’t it?

 

Caller 1:5 to 1.

 

Ernst Zundel: No, no.

 

Caller 1:4 to 1. Something around there.

 

Ernst Zundel: It’s now 32 cents per mark.

 

Caller 1: That’s now. So that’s now. The dollar has fallen. The Mark is up, is very strong.

 

Radio Host: Right. So there are three marks in the dollar, roughly.

 

Ernst Zundel: No more. There’s, …

 

Radio Host: Well, like in terms of 31 billion marks, you got your figure. $10 billion.

 

Ernst Zundel: Roughly. Yeah.

 

Radio Host: I mean, we’re being rough, but you know.

 

Caller 1: So you speak German? Maybe they told him in Germany he doesn’t understand!

 

Ernst Zundel: Very funny, very funny!

 

Radio Host: Well, anybody can look it up if they have Britannica.

 

Caller 1: Yeah, of course, you shouldn’t argue with [word unclear].

 

Radio Host: Anyway, this is curious. I’m looking up to find, you know, where I. Again, you see, there are cross indexes here and I have the United Nations roster to find out, you know, where to find West Germany. I can’t find them on the roster here.

 

Caller 1: Look for it on the Republic of West Germany.

 

Ernst Zundel: No no, West Germany is not a member of the United Nations.

 

Radio Host: I was coming to that conclusion and I was afraid to say so, but it appears it is not a member of the United Nations.

 

Caller 1: I wonder why?

 

Ernst Zundel: Germany wasn’t at the time considered to be fit to be part of member nation.

 

Radio Host: Well, well, well, there are 124 members. Neither Germany is here.

 

Ernst Zundel: No, neither will you find, I think South Korea and North Korea. Neither South Vietnam and North Vietnam.

 

Radio Host: That’s right. They’re not here.

 

Ernst Zundel: That’s right.

 

Caller 1: Let me go on. Can I go on for something that has a similar, two similar suggestions that are made that relate somehow to your suggestion, it’s a speculation as to whether what you do will have the desired effect. You know, Israel can pay out this two or $3 billion or whatever it happens to be, and it should go down the drain, down the Suez Canal and hear no more about it. And they should be just as violent.

 

So it would be a pretty dangerous thing for Israel to carry that out on your say so.

 

Let me ask something else now. It is suggested that Israel, in the case of this attack on Beirut, that as a matter of fact, the message came the Pope after he had been criticised for his first statement, he made another statement which wasn’t a very satisfactory either one. It sounded like he was saying:

 

“Well, you’re both wrong, so both stop fighting.”

 

It suggested that if the Israelis wouldn’t retaliate, which is what they’re being charged with, that the Salahi, that the Al Fatah and the terrorists would stop crossing the border.

 

Now, anyone who thinks that if the Israelis would not respond, then the people on the Jordanian side, the terrorists would stop, you know, must be out of his mind! What else can the Israelis do if they’re being shot at? They shoot back. You know, they were to stop in order to conform to what the Pope suggests and other very kind people are suggesting that they should stop escalating it. They’ll be run over!

 

Ernst Zundel: The jews have a law, a eye for a eye, a tooth for a tooth.

 

Caller 1: Oh, come on now!

 

The next thing you’re going to tell me, the next thing you’re going to tell me is that I belong to a tribe. You know, you sound like something out of the Middle Ages!

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, Life magazine has [word unclear] that.

 

Caller 1: I don’t care what Life magazine does! You know, what’s this “eye for an eye” business? That went out of fashion 2500 years ago!

 

Radio Host: Well, it’s back in vogue now because it’s interpreted by many as referring to transplants! [chuckling]

 

Caller 1: Israel is clear that the reason for their attack on the Beirut airport, and they made specific, they made very good, very good care that no one should be hurt, was to teach the Arab countries around there that the Israeli Airlines was not something that could be just thrown away. They had to show them it wasn’t an eye for an eye. It wasn’t revenge of any kind. It was to teach them that if they carried on the path that they were following that they would suffer for it! Which would make them stop. And this has been the reason for all the Israeli so-called retaliation. What they get is the time of peace. And usually it has happened. There has been hardly any fighting around this way because the Israelis hit back hard!

 

[50:39]

 

Ernst Zundel: Every news commentator that I have listened to from the United States, from Europe and the GDC, they all say that these terrorist organisations have succeeded in their primary aim and that is to make Israel overreact. Would you say Israel overreacted?

 

Caller 1: No, I wouldn’t. I don’t see how she could overreact. I don’t see how she could overreact by destroying 13 aeroplanes in exchange for human life. That’s not an overreaction.

 

Ernst Zundel: [words unclear]

 

Radio Host: How’s that?

 

Ernst Zundel: Everybody else seems to think so. Including [word unclear].

 

Caller 1: Now, tell me something. What difference does it make in a question of right and wrong what everybody else thinks?

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, first again there is your right and there is they are wrong and there is you’re wrong and they are right.

 

Radio Host: Okay, just before somebody calls up and correct us on it, let me correct it.

 

As far as the Deutsche marks is concerned, there are 3.988 per US dollar. Okay gentlemen. The last gentleman who is on the line. Are you satisfied with the point you made?

 

Caller 2: Yeah. I have one more point to make.

 

Radio Host: What is it, sir?

 

Caller 2: Have you ever heard of the flying carpet notion whereby about a million jews would [word unclear] all the Arab countries including Yemen, Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt and Syria, were all thrown into Israel without a penny in their pockets and it was the Israeli government who undertook them, closed them, fed them and gave them jobs. They came into Israel without a penny in their pocket.

 

Radio Host: Right. Well, in terms of restitution or reparation, it has been suggested by our caller that these people be included.

 

Caller 2: Yes, but why they forgotten? When everybody talks about the Palestinian refugees, what about these people?

 

Radio Host: Well, as was suggested when I when mention it that it had not been mentioned before. It’s a suggestion from a staff member who was in the booth with me at the time.

 

Caller 1: Would the restitution come from the Arab government? They should be the ones responsible because that’s where they came from.

 

Caller 2: Exactly!

 

Caller 1: And can you imagine them doing it?

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, look, why don’t give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

Caller 1: Give whom the benefit of the doubt?

 

Ernst Zundel: The Arab government, put you on the spot.

 

Caller 1: Are you a journalist? Did you say you’re a journalist?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, I’m a journalist.

 

Caller 1: Why are you dreaming? Why are you having these dreams?

 

Ernst Zundel: You know something? I have to make a very basic point here.

 

Caller 1: Yes.

 

Ernst Zundel: You people. And this is so evidently so when you listen to these open lines. You are extremely sensitive! And you are always having such a perfect taste.

 

Caller 1: It has nothing to do with this! It has nothing to do with it!

 

Ernst Zundel: I’m a fan of Sherlock Holmes and of Perry Mason and you know about Perry Mason? Everybody that watches television, you know what Perry Mason does? He usually investigates the guy with the perfect alibi first.

 

Caller 1: Do you know something else? I’ve listened to you two evenings. I haven’t heard you say a good thing about the Israelis.

 

Ernst Zundel: I haven’t?

 

Caller 1: No.

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, my suggestion was that they should possibly pay restitution.

 

Caller 1: What kind of a good thing is this? This is the sort of a dream that has no relation to reality.

 

Caller 2: Can I bring in another point just for a second? It says here in the same yearbook, just a little bit smaller paragraph below, it says:

 

“A new series of terrorist attacks in border areas originating mainly in Jordan and Syria and later also in Lebanon, began during the year.”

 

Now, this is back in 65.

 

Caller 1: Of course, this is true. I was in Israel last spring. I was shooting a film there. And part of my filming was along the Lebanese border. There was an old synagogue about three miles from the border. Just about three hours after I had passed there and done my work, a mine was blown up. Now, this was way over, way over near the Western, near the Mediterranean Sea, just south of the Lebanese border.

 

Now, for any Jordanian or Syrian to have been able to go all the way from there east of the Jordan to plant that mine would have been impossible. This was a Lebanese mine. And there have been incidents from Lebanon time after time after time! The Israeli intelligence is excellent! As a matter of fact the Jordanians have just today hunt two spies, or they call them spies who are spying for Israel, if you can imagine that.

 

So the Israeli intelligence is pretty good. When they say that they know what’s going on inside Lebanon, I’m pretty sure that they know.

 

[54:56]

 

Ernst Zundel: Yeah, I agree with you.

 

Caller 1: Okay?

 

Ernst Zundel: That’s a good thing to say about Israel?

 

Caller 1: Well, you’re absolutely impossible! Here you have a country. You know, I feel, when I read my, I don’t understand it when I read my Bible, I feel embarrassed about something that the Israelites did 2,000 years ago. I say:

 

“Why should my people have behaved like that?”

 

You know, I’m not really guilty, but I feel sorry that they should have. That it shouldn’t be one of our traits. Here you have a people in the Middle East whose only existence., … Now, I’m not a Zionist, that’s why I’m saying this. Whose existence, Israel is due solely at this point in history. Who knows when they might have created, if at all! At this point in history, it’s due solely to the behaviour of your people! You see, and you have the gall, the chutzpah to come along on a public show and to make criticism of them, why they’re there they shouldn’t have been there in the first place or something else.

 

Ernst Zundel: Did I say that?

 

Caller 1: Well, you certainly suppose that from the way you talk.

 

Radio Host: Well, again, you see, the caller accused you of hearing what you want to hear before, and this is evidence of it. He never did say that.

 

Ernst Zundel: I would be perfectly happy to give you the Arab case. What they say:

 

“Why you shouldn’t be there, if you want to.”

 

Radio Host: Well, I don’t know if any of you are listening on my Saturday morning program. Late in the program, we did get someone who outlined it on Viewpoint Tonight. If any of you are watching, it was outlined again. There are three sides to this story. There’s the Israeli side, the Arab side, and the truth!

 

Caller 1: Well, of course, that doesn’t necessarily follow. It’s possible that one of the two sides is true.

 

Radio Host: Unfortunately, no. This is, it’s just like in the case of a divorce or anything else. There’s his side, there’s her side, and then there’s the truth!

 

Caller 1: That’s very clever. But in an actual situation where you have two antagonists, it’s very possible that one of the side is more right than the other.

 

Radio Host: According to whom, though? You see, according to the Israelis, they’re right. The Arabs are wrong. According to the Arabs, they’re right. The Israelis are wrong.

 

Now, I’m not saying to be objective. I do not believe anyone can be objective. And I don’t care who says that you can be objective in this case. All I say is that you should be fair!

 

This is why I am accused by Arabs of being anti-Arab and I’m accused by Israelis of being anti-Israeli.

 

Caller 1: That’s quite unfair to you because you have to be fair as a moderator and present both sides of the coin. I can understand the Arab point of view, although I think it’s wrong.

 

Radio Host: Yeah. But on this issue, I’m the only host of a programme on this station to my knowledge that is getting threats against my life and so on over this issue.

 

Caller 2: It won’t come from me. I think you’re pretty good.

 

Caller 1: What I was going to say is this. If you take the Israeli and the Arab position, the Israelis have nowhere else to go. There’s some suggestion made that on the part of so-called anti-zionist and some Arab books I’ve read and articles that the European jews. Let me state now several things here, that the European jews who are now in Israel who came from Eastern Europe should go back since they’re not Mediterranean, but they’re probably descended from the Khazari who were a Turkish people in the Crimea 1300 years ago. That they’re really Europeans, blue eyed, blonde, so they shouldn’t be in Israel at all! You can well imagine this kind of a suggestion that Ben Gurion, who was born in Russia, that the Russians would let him back into Russia.

 

In other words, he’s going to stay there. Certainly the Israeli disciples who were born there are going to stay there.

 

And can you imagine the Yemenites who were born in [word unclear] to go back there? And the Egyptians to go back to Egypt? So it’s not very likely to happen.

 

Ernst Zundel: May I just come in here?

 

Caller 1: Let me just finish that. So the Israelis, when they say they are going to stay, they’re going to stay.

 

That’s one side of the coin. You can believe that’s their point of view and I can see their point of view and I don’t see how anyone else can. I mean, what’s wrong with that point of view?

 

But then you get the Arab side of it which says they’re going to drive them into the sea, get rid of them! Can that be correct as well? How can it?

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, can I come into the point here?

 

Caller 1: Yeah.

 

Ernst Zundel: According to The Jewish Encyclopedia, Volume 4, Pages 1 to 5, it deals with what you just outlined, the Khazars.

 

Caller 1: The Khazaris, yeah.

 

Ernst Zundel: Right. And it says in there:

 

“That the Khazar Empire, it was founded by Asiatic Mongol people in the first year after the birth of Christ and existed till about the 14th century.”

 

As you said. But it had its peak in the seventh and eighth century. These people were heathen and they’re converted to Judaism.

 

Caller 1: That’s true. Okay, so what’s that got to do with the Israelis right now? And the Mediterranean in 1969.

 

Ernst Zundel: This is on which much of the Arab argument is based on. If you had heard the UN debate.

 

Caller 1: Yeah, but you see, you’ve got to start from where you are. You can’t start from where you were 500 years ago. The Israelis are now. What is going to happen to Ben Gurion, for example? Would he go back to Russia?

 

[1:00:19]

 

Ernst Zundel: No, no. May I make a point here, a philosophic point, if I may?

 

Caller 1: Yeah. Okay.

 

Ernst Zundel: So the Arabs and [word unclear] that was speaking at the United Nations, he was horrified over CBC at the time of the Arab-Israeli war. He said precisely that.

 

In other words, he said:

 

“The Khazars were converted to Judaism or what was called then Talmudism.”

 

And like, …

 

Caller 1: Watch, watch it. What’s Talmudism? There’s no such thing. Just stick to what you know.

 

Ernst Zundel: Look, I’m quoting the Jewish Encyclopedia, volume 4 pages one to five, …

 

Caller 1: Talmudism? Okay.

 

Ernst Zundel: In the seventh century, Judaism. It wasn’t called Judaism. It was called Talmudism.

 

Caller 1: Oh, come on! I don’t know who wrote that, but this is all nonsense!

 

Radio Host: All right. Who wrote the Jewish Encyclopedia?

 

Ernst Zundel: I suppose a couple of anti-semites!

 

Radio Host: [chuckling]

 

Caller 1: So what? They disappeared. They disappeared in the 14th century. What’s that got to do with the German jews?

 

Ernst Zundel: They didn’t disappear. That’s precisely the point!

 

Caller 1: Of course they became Christians. They were absorbed into the Russian Empire.

 

Ernst Zundel: They didn’t become Christians.

 

Caller 1: Where are they?

 

Ernst Zundel: They were spread all over the Soviet Union, all over the Balkans. And this is why you have such a big amount of Eastern European jews. They are called the Khazars. And do you know, difference between the Sephardic and Ashkenazis?

 

Caller 1: The Khazars, …

 

Ernst Zundel: The total percent, the [word unclear] state. And the Jewish Encyclopedia has a map in the book. 80% of the world’s jewish population today are Khazars. In other words, they are converted!

 

Caller 1: What are you talking about?

 

Ernst Zundel: Precisely. That’s what the Arabs are saying.

 

Therefore. Just a minute now. Look, this is the argument. You have to look at their argument and you have to look at your argument and then we can arrive at something. That’s why the Arabs say that, …

 

Caller 1: Well, the Arabs don’t know what they’re talking about and you don’t know what you’re talking about. Because, … Let’s forget about it. Let’s forget about it!

 

[1:02:21]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

See Also

top

 

 

 

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 15 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zündel – Oct 12, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 18 with Jürgen Neumann – Nov 2, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 36 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zundel – Mar 22, 2025 – Transcript

Ernst Zundel – Another Voice of Freedom Radio – Why World War II Started – 1994 – Transcript

Ernst Zundel – 1967-68 Radio Shows in Montreal Discussing Israel and Jewish Topics 1 – Transcript

Ernst Zundel – 1967-68 Radio Shows in Montreal Discussing Israel and Jewish Topics 2 – Transcript

 

 

 

Joel Davis – Mark Collett vs Greg Johnson – The Ukraine Debate – Oct 17, 2022 – Transcript

Mark Collett – Patriotic Weekly Review – with Joel Davis – Apr 27, 2023 – Transcript

Joel Davis – On Australian Nationalism with Matthew Grant – Dec 17, 2022 – Transcript

Joel Davis – The White Australia Policy with Matthew Grant – Jul 27, 2023 – Transcript

Joel Davis – On Activist Politics and White Advocacy – PA Conference Speech – Oct 7, 2023 – Transcript

Slightly Offensive – Debate – Is Diversity Our Strength? – Joel Davis vs Drew Pavlou – Apr 5, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Mass Deportations Enthusiasm, Twitter Politics & Activist Persecution – Jun 6, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – The Vibe Has Shifted and the Paradigm is Shifting – Jun 13, 2024 – Transcript

Slightly Offensive – Is America (& the West) Over? – Guest – Joel Davis – May 31, 2024 – Transcript

 

 

Red Ice TV – Nationalism for White People & Activist Persecution in Australia – Joel Davis & Thomas Sewell – Jun 15, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Polarisation Phases – with Blair & Tom – Jun 20, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Conservative Terrorism in Australia as Trump Set to Become New ZOG Boss – Jun 28, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Muslims to Create Their Own Party as “Extremism Experts” Cry About US to the Media – Jul 4, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Trump Inevitable, Blair Censored, Paedo Freaks Destroyed – Jul 19, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – When Will Enough Be Enough? – Jul 25, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Mass Deportations Now! – Aug 1, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Wargaming the Response as Communists Organise Brown Parasites – Aug 22, 2024 – Transcript

 

 

Joel Davis – Activist Reflections with Jacob Hersant – Aug 18, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Analysing the Implications of the Pajeet Hate Surge – Aug 29, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – The Purpose of Street Activism, the Principle of Race and the Politics of Will – Sep 19, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Building Nationalism from the Ground Up – Sep 26, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Political Existentialism, Zionist Hypocrisy, Austrians Vote for Remigration – Oct 3, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Jews Turn Hersant into a Free Speech Martyr – Oct 9, 2024 – Transcript

Mark Collett – Patriotic Weekly Review – with Jacob Hersant – Oct 16, 2024 – Transcript