Sweden – katana17

Joel Davis – The Goonright Pipeline – with Mark Collett – Aug 6, 2025 – Transcript

admin — Thu, 07 Aug 2025 07:11:17 +0000

Joel Davis

The Goonright Pipeline

with Mark Collett

Wed, Aug 6, 2025

[In this livestream episode Aussie nationalist activists Joel Davis, Blair Cottrell and guest Mark Collett discuss his deportation from Sweden and being banned from travel to EU countries for 15 years, all because of his legal activism!

– KATANA]

https://rumble.com/v6x7hns-the-goonright-pipeline.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp_a

https://odysee.com/@MarkCollett:6

my social media links: https://bio.link/joeldavis

follow Blair on telegram: https://t.me/realblaircottrell

https://x.com/joeldavisx

https://whiteaustralia.org

Published on Wed, Aug 6, 2025

Description

1:49:53
Enable
The Goonright Pipeline
Joel Davis
6.67K followers
Follow
173
3
Repost
Comments
Share
Streamed on:
Aug 6, 6:16 am EDT
6.16K
News
Republican Politics
Goonright Joel and Blair Mark Collett Joel Davis Blair Cottrell Thomas Sewell Jacob Hersant National Socialist Network
follow Mark on telegram: https://t.me/markacollett
my social media links: https://bio.link/joeldavis
follow Blair on telegram: https://t.me/realblaircottrell
follow Tom on telegram: https://t.me/tomsewelluncensored
follow Jacob on telegram: https://t.me/herrcent
Show less
28 Comments

_____________

Following Transcript Quality = 5 Stars

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

NOTE: Readers can help improve the quality of this transcript by putting corrections in the Comment/Leave a Reply section. Don’t be just a consumer, contribute to the cause, however small. Thanks.

TRANSCRIPT

(Words: 19,883 – Duration: 110 mins)

01 Introducing Special Guest Mark Collett from Patriotic Alternative, UK

02 Mark Banned from the EU for 15 Years and Deported from Sweden

03 Detained at the Airport by a Black Policeman and a White Policewoman

04 No Right to Remain Silent

05 Blair Recounts His Own Recent Police Raid at His Home

06 Mark Asked to Explain His Ex-Girlfriend with the Swastika Tattoo

07 Mark Told He’s, “A Threat to the Fundamental Fabric of Society”

08 Held up in the Departure Lounge for 25 Hours Waiting for Return Flight

09 Escorted by Police onto the Plane

10 System Worried About Real-Life Activism

11 Mark Has 21 Days to Appeal EU Ban

12 Tommy Robinson and His Grifting off of Supporters

13 Tommy and His His Coke Habit

14 Mark’s Interaction with a Muslim Female Deportee at the Airport Lounge

15 Mark’s Kind Deed

16 People That Rang Mark from All over the World

17 Big Demo on Saturday This Week in a Place Called Newark

18 Multiculturalism in Its Entirety is a Complete Failure!

19 Tommy’s Poisonous Message Supports Mass Immigration Except for Muslims

20 Joel on the “Goon Right”, Aka the “Horny Right”, or Pro-Sex Right

[Contents In Progress]

01 Introducing Special Guest Mark Collett from Patriotic Alternative, UK

top

Joel Davis: We are live. It is 6th August, 2025, and big stream for you this evening. We apologise for not being with you Sunday night. Things came up for Blair and Tom and I didn’t want to do the stream on my own. Not that I can’t do it on my own, I’ve done it on my own before. But the topic, it just wouldn’t have been as fun if it was me on my own. So I decided to save the stream. We decided to edge, we decided to hold our balls. And here we are on Wednesday and we have Mark Collett with us, our friend. I think he’s the first time he’s been on the show. We’ve gone on his show like a million times between us but nice to have Mark on the show all the way from sunny England and he’s been through some drama lately.

But first I just want to mention we have our national meet, our national conference this weekend. This is your last chance. If you want to get vetted and come White Australia.org go to White Australia.org. We just updated the website today actually it looks, it looks schmick, it looks clean. New update on the website. You can go there, you can sign up as a supporter and if you sign up as a supporter you can get an invite to get vetted and come to this weekend’s events.

On Saturday we have the White powerlifting event in the morning, in the afternoon we then have a festival that evening. We’re going to have music. Every different genre of music is going to happen. We’re going to have folk, we’re going to have RAC. We’re going to have rap music for the Zoomers, White nationalists. I know I didn’t sign off on this personally but there’s going to be White nationalist rap and there’s going to be a Sun and Rave late that evening which I’m particularly excited about. It’s going to be a jam packed evening and then on Sunday we’re going to have a conference, we’re going to do speeches. Where I get up to all kinds of shenanigans, it’s going to be huge. It’s going to be the biggest conference we’ve ever done. We’re expecting hundreds and hundreds of people. Be the biggest National Socialist conference to occur in the southern hemisphere maybe ever, at least outside of Argentina. So be there, White Australia.org.

02 Mark Banned from the EU for 15 Years and Deported from Sweden

top

But anyway, Mark, great to have you on the show. Obviously you made the news recently because you tried to go to Sweden, I believe to attend some kind of nationalist event. I don’t actually know what the event was.

And then you were not allowed basically into Sweden. You’re interned in the airport. And not only were you deported back to Britain, but you’re banned from the EU for 15 years, which is something that I haven’t really heard of before the dissidents.

There’s been many times where dissidents have been kicked out. But to be banned for 15 years is wild! And you didn’t actually do anything. You just showed up to speak at a conference. I’m sure you’ve travelled to Europe literally maybe 100 times in your life because you live in Europe. Must kind of suck being banned from the rest of the continent for 15 years. But what I’ve noticed lately, that political dissidents around the world are being treated worse and worse by Western governments. They’re blocking everyone from going to each other’s conferences. And this is probably the most egregious example of this year. So what exactly happened?

Mark Collett: Well, I’ll now only be referred to publicly as my new title, which is “The Most Dangerous Man in Europe”! A 15 year ban, de-banked from every bank and banned from every social media platform. There is literally no one in Europe who has experienced the level of political persecution that I have, where I actually, I can’t travel. And it’s not just Europe, you see, this is the Schengen Zone, which people might believe is just the freedom of movement countries that are part of the EU, but it actually extends to other European countries like Switzerland, that aren’t even in the EU.

So this is a really big deal! And legally it also extends to other countries that aren’t even in Europe. So this carries over to places like Canada and America. Once you’re placed on this list, you aren’t even free to travel to non-European countries. This will have a massive impact on my life and more so on my family’s life, because it means I can’t even take a foreign holiday with my kids. You would think this is the kind of treatment that would be reserved for someone like Carlos the Jackal or Osama Bin Laden or someone who is really in the public consciousness as sort of bad guy number one.

But that is reserved now for me, for an ethno-nationalist, because I was traveling to a peaceful, lawful social gathering, a community gathering at the Free Sweden, Summer Festival. You see, the Free Sweden, Movement is a group in Sweden that buys land and has acquired two villages which their members and supporters have moved to. They’ve taken over. They’ve clustered there. So all other ethnic groups do this, like Muslims, jews, blacks. When they come to the West, they all move to the same area of the country. They create their own centres, they buy up the local buildings, the community centres. They control the infrastructure, they build their own places of worship, and they then control those areas and run them to the benefit of their community. White people have started doing that now all over the world. They’re doing it in Sweden. And this is something that the government does not want to fund.

[05:29]

03 Detained at the Airport by a Black Policeman and a White Policewoman

top

In fact, the government fears. And I was going over to Sweden to partake in this community social gathering, and I was going to make a short speech there. I was also going to have a meal on the Friday evening.

Whenever I travel abroad, I’m always ready at passport control to say exactly where I’m staying, to say who I’m meeting. I have the details of the people who are collecting me from the airport in case they need to call them. I have the details of the hotel, and I also have the details of my flight returning home so that I can prove exactly where I’m going, who I’ll be with and when I’ll be leaving, because they’re the basic requirements.

Now, I arrived in Sweden and I entered the queue to go through passport control and I was immediately approached by two police officers, a black man and a White woman. And I’m sure this was done for effect, …

Blair Cottrell: Was that before you scanned your passport or? Is that what happened?

Mark Collett: Yeah. You’re through passport control, they can’t do anything with you are then in Sweden and different laws apply.

However, when you are in the airport before passport controls, you are treated completely differently. The same is true in Britain. So in Britain, if you’re arrested in the airport, you are subject to normal British laws.

04 No Right to Remain Silent

top

However, if you’re arrested before you have scanned your passport and come through, you are subject to completely different laws. And just briefly, the laws are so different that if you were arrested the right side of passport control on British soil, leaving the airport, you have a right to remain silent. You have a right to legal representation. You can say:

“I don’t want to say a word until my solicitor gets here.”

You have a right to contact people or make a phone call. However, if you are arrested before passport control in Britain, you have no right to legal representation. You can be held indefinitely, you have no right to contact anyone, and you have no right to maintain your silence. And such is the coercive nature of this, you are actually compelled under law to hand over all of the passwords for any device you’re carrying, and failure to do so means you are immediately guilty of a terror offence where you can be jailed for up to five years.

05 Blair Recounts His Own Recent Police Raid at His Home

top

Blair Cottrell: That sounds familiar. I had my whole house searched by Australian Federal police just a couple of weeks ago and they told me the same thing. So those laws must have been copy pasted.

Mark Collett: Yep!

Blair Cottrell: As part of Australian terror legislation. They said you’re assumed guilty of a serious offence and that you’re trying to hide it if you don’t unlock your device and you can be jailed for up to five years.

So as I said, familiar with that particular piece of legislation. But so they approached you before you scanned your passport, meaning they knew you were coming.

Mark Collett: They knew I was coming. They pulled me out. It was a black male with a shaved head and like one of those Muslim sort of beard things around the bottom of his neck and White woman who looked like she could have been a model.

And I think they sort of paired them together to see if I would overreact or I turn into the devil, take on another form when I see two police officers that are racially mixed. You know, my horns start to show and a tail, you know, comes out of my back and then my wings sprout!

And at that point they can just jail me indefinitely.

06 Mark Asked to Explain His Ex-Girlfriend with the Swastika Tattoo

top

But obviously I took this in my stride. I was honest with them. Then they took me to a room and interrogated me. They interrogated me on everything as well, I mean, absolutely everything! So like where I went to school, where I grew up my family, do I have children. They even pulled up pictures of my ex-girlfriend on like a computer monitor.

Blair Cottrell: What was the point of that? For what purpose?

Mark Collett: Well, you see, the thing is, I am quite a cheeky person and when people are sort of questioning me, I’ll always try to sort of inject a little bit of levity into the situation. So the black guy says:

“You know, can you explain this?”

And obviously he was pointing at her large swastika tattoo when he said, can you explain this?

And I said:

“Well look, I can.”

And they both sort of looked at me and said:

“What’s he gonna say?”

I said:

“Well, I was in my mid-30s, I was going through a bit of a dry patch with relationships. And then it’s extremely hot but extremely crazy girl approached me and you, …”

And I point out, I said:

“You know what it’s like when you get the hot crazy thing. You just dive straight in! And it’s an amazing ride, but it’s like a roller coaster. One minute it’s up, one minute it’s down!”

And he starts laughing.

And then the woman sort of looks over and so, like:

“You’re not going to laugh. You stop, Stop! This is meant to be serious!”

And he’s laughing and he’s like:

“Oh, you don’t need this to explain this one to me!”

And he’s like, getting with it. I said:

“But then she moves in and it gets even crazy and you can’t handle it. And, oh, my God!”

But you know what? And I was about to talk, and he was like:

“Say no more!”

And then she starts to giggle. And it sort of broke the sort of tension in the room. But they were asking everything.

[11:05]

And then eventually, when they’d asked all their questions, they sort of kicked me out of the room. I sat in this sort of holding area, which was very relaxed. They did offer me. They said:

“Would you like a coffee? Would you like water? No food, but just coffee and water.”

I said:

“No, thanks. I don’t drink coffee.”

I only drink like energy drinks. And I wasn’t really in the mood for anything and I wasn’t going to be cheeky, but, like, I’ll fetch me a Red Bull or anything like that. I was just like:

“Look, I’m gonna sit here and wait.”

07 Mark Told He’s, “A Threat to the Fundamental Fabric of Society”

top

So I sat there and then I thought, can I get out of the room? Which I figured out I could. And I had sort of a little wander because I need to go to the toilet. And then I came back, sat down, and they sort of come and grab me. Took a few hours, took me back into the room. This time there’s four officers present.

And then they read me this judgement. And the judgement is the most insane thing you’ve ever heard! They begin by telling me I’m going to be denied entry and that I’m going to be banned for 15 years from the Schengen Zone because:

“I’m a threat to public order, a threat to the fundamental fabric of society, and a threat to the values on which Sweden and the EU were built!”

And I’m like:

“Oh, my God!”

I’m sat there at this point. And then immediately I go for my phone because I want to text somebody and say:

“Look, this is getting serious!”

And they’re like:

“No, put the phone down, you’re not allowed to touch your phone.”

And then like, they all start coming towards me because there’s four of them at this point. And I’m like:

“Oh, God!”

So they go through all the stuff they asked me if I accept what they’ve said and so you can sign it to say you understand, but you don’t have to sign it. But if you don’t sign it makes no difference. I was being a little bit, sort of silly. I said:

“Well, the signature might be worth something one day, so here you go.”

And I signed it, put pushed the paperwork back over. They said:

“Have I got anything left to say?”

And I said:

“No.”

Obviously at this point I’ve not got my luggage, I’ve not got my passport, all I’ve got is what’s in my hand luggage. And they’re like:

“Look you are going to be taken out of Sweden now.”

So they start walking me, two of the women then start walking me back to the departure lounge. I said:

“Well, what’s going to happen?”

They’re like:

“Well, we’ll book you on a plane or you can you could always book yourself on one.”

And I’m like:

“Well, I can’t book myself on one because I haven’t got a passport and I can’t board anything because I haven’t got a passport and I don’t know where my luggage is.”

08 Held up in the Departure Lounge for 25 Hours Waiting for Return Flight

top

And this is where the real ordeal starts. For 25 hours I sat in the departure lounge. No word from the authorities, no word from the police, no food, no water, no bed, no access to my luggage, which contained all like my toothbrush, my toothpaste, change of clothes, etc, all I had was my hand luggage which had a little games console in it, one of my big Hoodies which was like so good that it had that Hoodie in there because that’s what kept me sort of warm, had my charging cables, it had a fast charger which I couldn’t use because my bloody travel adapters were in my luggage. And there was no way I was spending like 20 quid on a new travel adapter to use it for like one day. There’s absolutely no way I was doing that. And all I could eat was what’s in the airport. And the airport is like the most expensive place in the world to eat. I think a burger and chips with a drink would have been about 30 pounds. So I was like, no way am I doing that.

But they have these little, these hot dog machines in Sweden and there’s like six different flavours of hot dogs and they were only a couple of pounds each.

So I was just basically living off these hot dogs and cans of Coke, own cans of Red Bull. And I did that for 25 hours whilst I sleeping on these sort of seats so sleeping on these seats, it was really not particularly good. And I went to the departure terminals and I looked at when there was flights and I kind of guessed which flight it would be, to be honest, because there was only one direct flight back and they weren’t legally allowed to fly me via any other country.

So there were loads of flights back, but they all had a short layover of like 50 minutes. But I wasn’t allowed to legally touch down in another country.

Blair Cottrell: Have you been to Sweden before, Mark?

[15:16]

Mark Collett: Yeah, and this is the incredible thing. I’ve been to Europe loads of times, tons of different European countries. I’ve even done work in the European Parliament.

And on top of that, I’ve given speeches from about 2017 onwards, I’ve been consistently making speeches on European soil. I’ve never broken the law. There’s never been any criminality, any disorder. There’s never been any trouble at any of these events that I’ve spoken at. I’ve not got a criminal record. You know, I’m a family man, I’m a law abiding citizen. Everything I said was lawful, everything I was planning to say was lawful. This was just pure political persecution.

And just a few months ago I spoke in Finland at an event and Finland’s another Nordic country. There’s freedom of movement between the Nordic countries to get to Finland. You know, sometimes you, I’ve gone to Finland before and had a layover in Sweden. I’ve spoken in Sweden before.

So all the precedents were that as I was somebody with a clean criminal record, somebody who had a place to stay, contacts in Sweden, somebody who’d been there before, who travelled extensively to Europe and had never ever been involved in any disorder, criminality or immoral or unlawful activity, there was no reason to stop me, detain me, let alone deport me or ban me. But this is basically what we have to put up with but the really shocking thing was the 15 year ban! Because 15 years is an incredibly long period of time. That’s the kind of thing you’d expect for somebody who had been maybe a gun runner, or a terrorist or involved in some kind of major financial fraud across international boundaries. But this is for a 25 or 30 minute speech and they were so bothered about this 25 or 30 minute speech, they were willing to take away all my rights, treat me horrendously.

And this is all at a time where migrants are turning up on European shores without any paperwork, any background checks are being immediately taken to hotels, being given the finest food, being given, you know, clothes, being given, spending money, always have a bed to sleep in. If they’d have treated a migrant like that, there would have been a queue of human rights lawyers, you know, round the block waiting to represent them. And through the whole time I was there, I was never offered representation, I was never allowed to have somebody present with me when I was being questioned. The whole thing, you know, it was a bit of an ordeal.

09 Escorted by Police onto the Plane

top

And eventually, after 25 hours, they walk through the terminal, they get hold of me, they march me off to a gate, they have my passport and a fresh boarding pass in a bag. They board me first in front of everyone, like:

“Look, this is a dangerous guy!”

You know, everyone’s looking because it’s like:

“Why has the police got this one guy? Why is he being sat near the front of the plane?”

You know, they take you down, they’re about to watch you walk on the plane when they’ve got you in that sort of like extendable arm that goes from the airport to the plane, that’s when they give your passport back and then they watch you walk onto the plane once you’re on the plane and the passport’s being given back, etc, etc. That is when they leave and obviously then you’re flown back.

And luckily I passed through Manchester airport without any like, bother. It was the plane arrived early and I got home safe and sound. But it was weird because I left Friday morning at sort of 5:30 AM my time. That’s when I left my house and I got back Saturday night at about 11:00 PM.

So I was gone sort of maybe about 40 hours, but it really felt and technically I hadn’t been gone a day because I’d seen the wife and kids Friday morning before I left and I saw them Saturday night when I got home, but it felt a lot longer and it was quite stressful, but it was certainly an experience and I think it’s opened a lot of people’s eyes to just how biased the system is, how tyrannical the system is and how it targets nationalists.

Blair Cottrell: Oh, we’re definitely! I can sense and feel, and as a result of your story and a few other stories, what I’ve experienced recently, we’re on a new tier of oppression. Even though, as I said on Hermes stream just yesterday or the day before, there’s a lot more meme slop, Nazi memes being allowed on X and Instagram and stuff. The people who actually have potential to produce community organisations, political parties and actually affect politics in a real world way, these individuals are being targeted more than ever!

So even though there’s this illusion on a surface level of more free speech being allowed on social media, here in the real world for people like us, things are really being ramped up. You can really feel that. Can you do anything about this? Have you looked into ways.

10 System Worried About Real-Life Activism

top

Mark Collett: I want to comment on what you’ve just said. This has been something that’s been happening a lot. So I think the system knows that people are annoyed.

And I think if I’d taken the path of being Mark Collett, the content creator and all I’d ever done was produce videos and social media posts, I think I’d be back on YouTube now. I think I’d be on X. Because they want to allow a certain degree of freedom to cool things off. And the freedom they want to allow is they want to allow some talking heads on X on YouTube so that people can log on and think:

“This is all going in the right direction. We got somebody on YouTube again, like Mark, who’s going to speak our language. I can watch that. It feels good. Somebody’s regurgitating points that I would make myself. I can listen to him and I feel like somebody’s speaking for me.”

Then they log off and they do nothing else.

[21:21]

However, what they’re really scared of and what they’re clamping down on is people like myself saying:

“I want to be more than a content creator. I want to organise in the real world. I want people to get out there to protest, to demonstrate. To organise, to be involved in legal advocacy, to be involved in activism.”

That’s what they fear. We saw this with Patriotic Alternative. We saw it with the NJP. We’ve seen it with the Nordic Resistance in Sweden. We’ve seen it with White Australia, with you guys down under. We’ve seen it extensively in Canada with the anti-Covid trucker movement. They were de-platformed. They had all their money taken from them. Many of them were arrested.

But if you’re just going to talk online, they are giving people a bit of breathing space. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing! I want more people talking online, but the real tip of the spear is people who want to do some form of real world community activity. We’re the ones who are being done.

11 Mark Has 21 Days to Appeal EU Ban

top

And in terms of, can I fight this? I am putting in an appeal. I’ve got 21 days. The Free Sweden, Movement have said that they’re going to fund that. They’ve got a lawyer acting. I sent in very promptly. So yesterday I had my full statement of facts worked out, because all I can really do is give a statement of fact and my statement of fact, I can give you the kind of thing I’ve put in my statement of fact. It’s like what I travelled for, what I was going to do, whether I’ve committed crime before, where I’ve been to before, and literally the things I’ve just told you now.

So I just list all the facts and then at the end, say:

“Based on all of the factual evidence presented, this is a undemocratic and disproportionate punishment for somebody who has never committed a crime and was not intending to commit a crime.”

But whether the appeal will be successful, I don’t know. Because one thing that strikes you really hard when you’re in this situation is you’ve seen so many reports in the mainstream media of migrant rapists, migrant criminals, all being represented by human rights lawyers and being told that they won’t be deported because they’ve got human rights. And deporting them would be hard for them and their family.

But then you’re sat there and they’re in no human rights! There’s no one queuing up to help you. There’s no excuses, there’s no:

“Well, it might hurt your feeling, it might impact your family, it might affect your ability to take your children on holiday.”

There’s none of that.

But here in the UK, if you’re trying to deport a migrant rapist who’s got a kid on UK soil, it’s:

“Well you can’t deprive that child of his dad. You can’t!”

There’s been people who have said things like:

“I’m really fond of the food in the UK. And it would damage my digestive system if I had to go back to my native country and eat the slop they serve. So, oh, well, we better let him stay then. He likes the food!”

It’s any excuse, really. But for people like us, that it’s not that there are no excuses. You can’t even make legitimate arguments and no one’s willing to make a legitimate argument on your behalf.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, well, it seems like in the same way that certain talking heads are allowed on social media to placate the consumers, as you were suggesting, these are legal avenues which apparently exist for us to defend ourselves or make complaints. They all seem to be a road to nowhere, don’t they? It’s just like a waste of time and money. If you’re a dissident, you don’t actually have any rights. It’s very corrupt.

Mark Collett: Well, on the issue that, I want to say one last thing. When you said waste of time and money. So you also noticed that I went through this and I’ve not asked for anything. There was no donation button, there was no special support fund. There was no grifting Canadian, you know, lawyer going and making YouTube videos saying:

“You know, save Mark Collett!”

12 Tommy Robinson and His Grifting off of Supporters

top

There’s no, you know, raft of domain names that were prepared 48 hours before I flew save Mark Collett.com or get Mark back from Sweden.com. There was none of that I paid for the airport food myself. I paid for the train fares to and from the airport myself. I got back home, dealt with it, didn’t have anyone pick me up, didn’t need a defense fund. You don’t need to grift off anything.

And compare that to Tommy Robinson who recently, you know, knocked somebody out at a station and this guy had to be resuscitated and put in intensive care. He fled to Spain, was allowed to walk into Spain and because he was going to be arrested when he got back, there was a, you know, Save Tommy fund set up before he even arrived back in the UK. People donating tens of thousands of pounds.

But for somebody like me, we do it the honest way. We’re not here to sort of nickel and dime anyone over the slightest issue. It’s a bad issue, but I also wanted to set a precedent when this happened that we don’t always need to start rattling a tin and begging for cash the minute something, you know, goes slightly wrong. Because we’re a lot better than people like the Tommy Robinsons and the Avi Yemenis and all the others who were just in it to make money and to basically lead people down a dead end street.

Blair Cottrell: Well, Tommy’s got a lot of hand rubbers around him, so he might not even come up with those schemes himself. They probably you know, cook up ideas like that, how they can leverage and exploit certain circumstances he finds himself in.

[26:54]

13 Tommy and His His Coke Habit

top

Joel Davis: Well, no, Tommy loves the cocaine and like one of the best, like cocaine activities is coming up with business ideas. So he’s probably sitting there doing lines of coke with all these kikes and just scheming, you know.

Blair Cottrell: Is that like a confirmed thing that he likes the cocaine or you’re just making it?

Joel Davis: Oh yeah, man!

Mark Collett: No, no, no!

Joel Davis: The nose rubbing is out of control.

Mark Collett: Sniffing, nose rubbing, licking his lips. If you watch him as well, whenever he does a he’s always going backwards and forwards, sort of shaking, he’s very red in the face. I’ve known a lot of lads who’ve liked some of the white stuff and he seems to be in late stage as an observation. Allegedly. He looks like he’s the kind of guy who’s in late stage, sort of cocaine addiction where, …

Blair Cottrell: Well, I suppose cocaine’s its a lot more available, isn’t it, in England? Like there’s not many cocaine addicts in Australia.

Joel Davis: What are you talking about?

Blair Cottrell: It’s a lot more expensive to get. So well, not unless you really like what?

Joel Davis: There’s plenty of cocaine. I don’t know what you’re talking about, but, …

Blair Cottrell: Maybe, I don’t know, who you run with Joel Davis, but I don’t know any. [chuckling]

Joel Davis: I’ll hang out with you! Not saying anything.

Mark Collett: Yeah, well, Tommy was very, … Recently, Keith Woods. It might, not recently, maybe six months ago, maybe a year ago.

Joel Davis: Is Keith Woods on the fucking powder these days?

Mark Collett: Well, no, Keith Woods made a comment about Tommy on X. And Tommy had like a meltdown and the way he was acting to the camera, you could see his eyes were bulging, they were bright red, he was twitching his nose, he was rocking back and forward. His behaviour, he doesn’t look like he’s a guy who is all together there anymore.

And I think you know his recent behaviour as well. Sort of whacking that guy in the train station, you know, 64 year old guy, knocking him out. I don’t know, I think if I, if I’d have done something like that, all my close friends would have been like:

“Mate, what’s going wrong?”

You know, if it’s a 64 year old guy shouting something like, you just walk away, you know, hitting somebody like that it’s not some sort of, it’s not some big honourable win, is it? It’s not like you fought off, you know, 20 Muslims in the station, it’s not like you transformed into John Wick and did something really amazing! You whacked some old fellow and left him in a coma.

Blair Cottrell: Who knows, inside his own mind, who knows how glorious that moment really was? Look, you don’t know, right? I get it, and I agree. Because especially when you’ve got a reputation, a public reputation, like Tommy Robinson, you’re going to have people who approach you and want to shake your hand, and you’re going to have people who don’t like you as well. Used to happen to me down here in Australia.

But, you know, it may have just been that perfect storm of circumstances, and that was the last thing, the straw that broke the camel’s back on that particular day. You know, it might have been a fight with the wife in the morning and then screaming kids all the way to the station. And then something else. You know what I mean? Yeah.

Mark Collett: Five lines of coke! Ezra’s on the phone demanding another fundraiser. And finally somebody goes:

“Oi, Tommy! You’re racist bastard!”

In the next minute, that’s it.

Blair Cottrell: I mean, Ezra says:

“Hey, perfect. Good idea, Tommy. That’s the perfect thing we need. Let’s start the fundraisers to free Tommy from legal consequence for his, … Improvised. Good man!”

But [chuckling] anyway, hey, I’m sorry that happened to you, man! It was like, especially they didn’t give you a hotel or anything. You’re laying on those airport chairs trying to sleep under a Hoodie.

14 Mark’s Interaction with a Muslim Female Deportee at the Airport Lounge

top

Mark Collett: But the craziest thing was there was a Muslim woman as well in there, and she come from France, and for some reason they were trying to send her back to Paris. So it wasn’t like somebody said:

“Oh, well, they were deporting a Muslim as well!”

Well, deporting her back to Paris. But they weren’t sending her back to Beirut or [chuckling] something like that they were sending her to Paris, probably where she was born, London and Paris are just completely overwhelmed. But the weird thing was I was doing a stream with Red Ice and she started squawking because I was making too much noise. And then she sort of called over like a police officer, and I was like:

“Oh, man, I don’t need this as well.”

And then later on, she came over to where I was and asked for my Hoodie. She was like, because I got this big White Hoodie which is dead comfortable and it’s like an oversized one. And that was like my life saving. She’s like:

“Oh, I’m all cold!”

She didn’t speak English, but she tried broken English. She was like, rubbing her arms like:

“I’m cold. Give me your Hoodie.”

And I’m like:

“Yeah, you’re not having my Hoodie.”

Blair Cottrell: All you had to cover yourself. The only item that you really had, that Hoodie, a random Muslim being deported tried to take that from you! [chuckling]

Mark Collett: Yeah. She’s like:

“I’m gonna be cold!”

I was like:

“Yeah, but if I give it to you, then I’m gonna be cold as well. It’s like, if I had two Hoodies, you know, I’d consider it. But I only have one Hoodie and it’s for me.”

And later on, she came over and she’s like:

“Oh, my phone charger’s not working.”

15 Mark’s Kind Deed

top

Obviously you didn’t say my phone charger. But she sort of did the pointing and showing. And she was like:

“Can you fix my phone charger?”

So I was like, God! And I went and fixed her phone charger for her. It was just comical. It was I’m trapped there for being the world’s biggest racist. You know, I’ve just been designated the most dangerous man in Europe. Yet, there’s a Muslim woman trapped in there with me, and she’s literally depending on me to keep her warm and charge her phone. I genuinely think that says a lot about the European spirit and the way that immigration genuinely works or doesn’t work, [chuckling] depending on your perspective.

[32:26]

Blair Cottrell: Absolutely! Good analogy. And it really is in our nature, isn’t it, to just lend assistance when requested?

Mark Collett: Well, I’m never rude to anyone. This is the thing. I think I’m the least rude person in the world! I think I’ve only ever really sworn on stream, like, seriously, maybe, like, twice. And that was at somebody who couldn’t get a computer game working and hadn’t downloaded the maps. You know I’m generally a pretty chilled guy, except for when I’m gaming and getting angry with people. But, like I’m never rude to anyone. I’m not rude to anyone of who’s from an ethnic minority. I’m just generally quite pleasant. And if anyone wants to interview me or talk to me or whatever, I’m always sort of friendly and polite to everyone I meet. I’ve got this policy of being kind to everybody unless they do something bad to me, because I like to present the best face possible for our cause.

Yet I have been treated worse than anyone! And that’s just the crazy thing. And people actually contacted me saying, of all people that they’ve stopped going into Europe because, again, people like Tommy Robinson, who’ve got, like, extensive criminal records, are allowed to travel freely. But me, somebody who has no criminal record and is always makes pains to be so polite and reasonable to everyone is absolutely crapped upon! And then my wife’s on the phone and she’s like:

“I can’t believe this!”

She’s [chuckling] like:

“What if they don’t let you come home? What are we gonna do?”

She’s like:

“What if they detain you at Manchester for 48 hours? How are we gonna deal with this?”

And obviously, it puts a lot of stress on my family. It puts a lot of stress on the wife. Your friend Dan Pal, he rang me when I was in the airport to say hello!

Blair Cottrell: Really? Wow!

Mark Collett: Well, yeah, [chuckling] because, you see, when he rang, he was like:

“Hi, you trapped!”

I was like:

“Hi, mate, how you doing?”

16 People That Rang Mark from All over the World

top

It’s like [chuckling] the amount of people that rang me from all over the world was really heartening!

And I’ve got to say, joking aside, that was the thing that kept me going. You guys messaged me. People from America, Jared Taylor, Kevin MacDonald, people from all over Europe messaged me. Sasha Rossmuller, Marcus in Sweden, Henrik and Lana. I’m gonna forget some names here, but just everyone who rang me and messaged me. From the bottom of my heart, thank you! That’s what keeps you smiling, like you’re there. You don’t know what’s going to happen. They also give you, like, subtle threats like:

“Oh, well, we might make you pay for your own flight back.”

And you’re like:

“Oh, God!”

But, you know, everyone messaging you and sort of like keeping your spirits up and sharing, like, memes and stuff. No Chance in Scotland. He was great! You know, all these people, that’s what kept you smiling.

And I’ve always said from day one that we are creating a community, and community, like brotherhood in-group preference. That’s the important thing! And when it comes through, that’s worth more than anything. That’s worth more than a, you know, Avi Yemeni, you know, Israeli fundraiser. What matters is knowing that you’ve got White people all over the world who’ve got your back.

And that’s why they’re so scared. They’re scared because when they crapped on me, they saw thousands of people tens of thousands in my corner outraged! And that’s what they’re worried about. They’re worried about a White community with in-group preference that organises in a peaceful manner.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, absolutely! It does seem that way. And it almost seems like they’re getting desperate. I actually think they run things through AI estimating models.

And basically what the AI is telling them is:

“Unless you shut this down, unless you target the main figureheads for this community, this thing is going to become huge! This thing is going to get out of control. Everyone’s going to vote for these guys and this is going to be the next big political thing.”

17 Big Demo on Saturday This Week in a Place Called Newark

top

Mark Collett: Well, look, we’ve got a big demo on Friday. Sorry, not Friday. Big demo on Saturday this week in a place called Newark.

And when I was on social media, you know, I’d million viewed videos on YouTube, massive YouTube account. I had a massive Twitter account with 60,000 followers before Musk I was getting tweets which were viewed by millions of people. I had incredible interactions on there. They know that if I had that back, this demo this weekend, there might be 5,000 people there. But they’re absolutely, …!

And none of this is getting me down either because like I’m out this weekend demonstration. I don’t care! I’m going to be there. I’m gonna be at the forefront, I’m going to be making a speech, I’m going to be speaking my mind. I’m not going to be changing my message. This is about ensuring the future of White Britons. And that’s what it’s all always been about the number one issue of today is the future of White people! And they don’t want anyone saying that.

They don’t mind Tommy standing up. And the reason they don’t mind Tommy standing up is he’s got a really subversive message. His message is:

“That multiculturalism fundamentally works. It’s all okay and it chugs along. But the spoke in the wheel is just these Muslims. And if we get rid of the Muslims, but we keep the jews, the blacks, the Hindus, the Sikhs in the we keep the West Indians. If we celebrate the Windrush generation, if we keep the gay Pride events, that’s all going to be good and it’ll all work. But it’s just the Muslims that spoil it because they don’t like the gay pride and they’re not that fond of the Indians and they do bad things to White people. If you get rid of them. And they’re a threat to the jews, of course! Get rid of them, society will be great.”

[38:13]

18 Multiculturalism in Its Entirety is a Complete Failure!

top

Well, that’s absolute crap! Because multiculturalism in its entirety is a complete failure! And what they’re scared of is someone like me saying:

“No, multiculturalism doesn’t work. We don’t want any of them here. We don’t want the West Indians here. We don’t want the Indians here. We don’t want the Muslims here. We don’t want the jews here. We want a country for White Britons, just like everyone else has got. We want a country!”

And that’s what they’re scared of and when we were having big demos a few years ago outside migrant hotels, hundreds of people were turning up to hear me speak. And I was the only one that would get up in front of a big crowd and say:

“Look, do you want White people to be a minority in Britain?”

19 Tommy’s Poisonous Message Supports Mass Immigration Except for Muslims

top

And I’d give them the demographics on London and Birmingham and the rates at which people were coming in. And the establishment was scared. And then Tommy will come out, counter that. He’ll make threats about me. He has people threaten me online. Because his message is, it’s got nothing to do with being White. It’s about shared values. Muslims don’t embody these shared values. Well, that’s a poisonous message! Because I don’t care whether White Britons are replaced by Muslims or blacks or Indians. If White Britons are replaced, they’re replaced. And it’s the end of us! And it doesn’t matter how the end of us comes. If we’re not there, we’re not there! It’s about fighting for our survival. That’s what it’s all about.

And that’s why he is backed by the State. It’s why his YouTube account’s been reactivated. It’s why Musk is bigging up his X-account. Because his message ultimately calms the people but leads to the same eventuality, which is White erasure.

Blair Cottrell: Very well said. Well said! And thanks for joining us tonight, mate. Thanks, everybody. In the comments, comments are popping off. We’ve got a lot of live viewers. Any thoughts? Joel Davis?

Joel Davis: Yeah, well, I want to switch gears now because, yeah, I think we’ve discussed that.

Blair Cottrell: And just so you know, Joel’s. Joel’s been, like, harping on the last few days about this “Goon Right” concept. He can’t stop talking about the Goon Right.

And I’m not exactly sure what he means by it. So he’s going to start explaining This, I think this is the gear he’s shifting into him. All right, because it’s like he’s sitting there. He can’t wait.

Mark Collett: Come on, mate.

20 Joel on the “Goon Right”, Aka the “Horny Right”, or Pro-Sex Right

top

Joel Davis: I’ve been edging the whole stream. I’ve been edging the whole stream. No.

Well, so basically “Gooning” is like Zoomer speak for entering into some kind of trance like state through masturbatory excess. And it’s become somewhat of a meme that corresponds to just general horniness.

And so this notion of like the “Goon Right” has come to become somewhat of a meme on the fringe. It is going to gain in momentum in the coming months and years as a label. But the Goon Right is basically the horny Right. It’s basically a pro-sex Right.

Now this is interesting because for a very long time, a very long time period, I would say from at least from the 1960s onwards, at least up to the 20s and tens, early 20s and tens, the Left-Right distinction was generally characterized by the Left being supposedly on the side of sex, supposedly on the side of degeneracy and liberation, sexual liberation. It had the youth energy, it was what the cool kids were doing. And the Right were these stuffy Christian conservatives who were saying:

“No, you shouldn’t be having any fun and you should wait until marriage and you shouldn’t do drugs and you shouldn’t listen to rock and roll. That’s satanic, that’s evil!”

And there was this kind of dichotomy and this kind of youth rebellion against that paradigm, because obviously this Christian conservative ethos was previously the dominant moral paradigm in terms of how sexuality is regulated in the West.

However, obviously that’s completely outmoded because at this point in history, no one cares about those Christian conservative values, frankly. They’ve been, they’ve become an entirely fringe subset of society. Even the people who call themselves Christians or who go to church, they don’t really embody these values in any kind of traditional way, almost to a man, and a woman. And we live in a completely different paradigm where of dating apps and you know, live stream Internet pornography and so on, where sexual morality and this and the kind of sexual paradigm is completely changed.

Where now the dominant sexual morality is not Christian conservatism, now it’s feminism. Now the moralisers are on the Left and they’re telling you basically that:

“Well, don’t be too feminine because then you’re being too submissive to the male gaze. And this is Patriarchal, this is horrible! And for women to be liberated, they have to be less sexy. They have to wear a pants suit. And men aren’t allowed to express any kind of sexual vitality, otherwise they’re creepy, otherwise they’re rapists!”

And sex scandals are now about sexual assault more so than sexual exuberance, basically. And the Left has become increasingly unsexy.

There’s nothing less sexy than transgenderism. Transgenderism is basically the annihilation of sexuality. They call it a sexual identity, but really it’s a antisexual identity. Because sexuality is built on a polarity between the masculine and the feminine. When you annihilate that, you actually annihilate that difference. You also annihilate sexual energy itself. Which is why the people on the Left don’t seem like the kind of people to be having a lot of sex, or they don’t seem to be particularly sexy.

In fact, we’ve done the studies on this. The more attractive a woman is, the more Right-wing her political belief is, on average, that’s a scientific fact.

[44:12]

Also, the higher testosterone a male is, the more Right-wing his political belief is, on average, that’s a scientific fact. This has been reproduced in literature over and over again! And so women who are liked by men and men who have high testosterone, virility, this is essentially what the Right is made up of, on average. And the Left is increasingly made up of feminine men and masculine women. And what, that’s what feminism fundamentally is. It’s an androgynous ideology. It’s an ideology that femininity is submissive to the masculine and therefore as a result of that, it’s something to be ashamed of and that women should become more masculine and men should become more feminine, so that they can be put into a submissive position.

And so now the feminist moralisers that rule our society, this “gynocracy”, if you will, they want to make men jump through hoops for pussy, basically. You have to be a good little boy! You have to not step outside of the realms of their moral structures or whatever. Otherwise you have to be alienated. This is particularly the case in public life, political life the whole Me Too movement, etc.

And so increasingly, sex is Right-wing, particularly a kind of traditional sexuality of women trying to basically attune themselves to the male gaze and to male desires, whether it be Sydney Sweeney having huge tits and having great genes, as we’ve seen recently. This is fundamentally anti-woke and Right-wing coded because she’s got blonde hair and blue eyes and it’s an obvious wink, wink, nudge, nudge to the fact that she’s got Nordic genes. Not just blue jeans on.

But also we see at the same time what is the Right associated with things like pickup artistry, looks maxing, male sexual vitality in general and male sexual assertion, sovereignty. What is like the typical, like Right-wing memes for women. Things like the Trad wife. What is the Trad wife? The Trad wife is a woman who basically subordinates herself to the ideal of femininity as desired by a man rather than trying to be a feminist girl boss to impress other women.

And so when you think about it, the Alt-Right always was like a Gooner movement because it all began according to like the meme history with Gamergate. If people remember what Gamergate was, it was a movement in 1914, sorry, 2014, 2015 online, of people who were into video games, who were getting upset at how feminists had taken over video game journalism and were criticising every game for sexualizing women too much and demanding that video game developers make women’s tits smaller and more covered up. More realistic, they would say. More realistic depictions of women that don’t make women feel inadequate and don’t reinforce, you know, Patriarchal White supremacy or whatever.

And so basically they started making video games less hot, less fun, less sexy. And the nerds rose up, the gamers rose up, and created the anti-SJW, anti-woke movement that was basically the kindling of the Alt-Right. Then of course you have Donald Trump coming to power. Who is the Gooner in Chief?

Up until Donald Trump in Right-wing politics, sex scandals would kill your career. You would basically be done for. If you were on tape saying “you can grab her by the pussy”, when you’re famous, they’ll just let you do it. That famous line. But no, Trump not only grabbed her by the pussy, but he also grabbed the presidency against the feminist in a pantsuit.

And so it was the horny Gooner, Donald Trump who basically won and defeated the Wokes. Total woke obliteration. That was the kind of that was the vibe of the times.

And so in many ways you could see this kind of transvaluation of Right-wing moralism where Donald Trump would be asked about his thoughts on Christianity and he would say he was a Christian, but when they asked him about his actual beliefs, he would expose himself as not actually being a Christian. They asked him what his favourite part of The Bible was. And he famously said, “that’s personal”. And they said:

“Well, what do you like better, New Testament or Old Testament?”

And he said he likes both the same:

“They’re both excellent!”

What did he say?:

“I always say Art of the Deal, second best book of all time behind the Bible.”

So Donald Trump kind of exposed the fact that he wasn’t really a Christian. He was just saying that he was to get votes, he thought. And it was very blatant and obvious. It was very vulgar.

Now, of course, Donald Trump is a Zionist piece of shit and he’s a shill. But this was still an archetypal transvaluation of Right-wing politics, where the kind of stuffy conservative, you know, family man who has no sexual exuberance, that was completely marginalised. And instead have a new paradigm where the Right could be sexy and the Left, as I said, it used to be in the 60s and the 70s, supposedly this fun movement of like sex, drugs and rock and roll and like, just let people live, man! And then now it has become like this moral busy bodies that are trying to destroy everyone’s fun.

[49:23]

Of course, we had the MeToo movement, various other scandals, as I mentioned. And you can see it takes shape that essentially this is the new paradigm where it’s not about Christianity vs degeneracy, it’s about masculine virility, feminine sexuality, versus this androgynous feminist cult that is basically what the Left has become. These stuffy moralisers that want to impose political correctness and all of these moral regulations upon us. And so I think the Right needs to embrace this.

You know, one thing that I’ve always noticed whenever we do press conferences, is that the journalists from the ABC, which is a Left-wing institution that isn’t commercial, that’s publicly funded, that their reporters are always ugly women! Every single woman who works for the ABC is ugly! They don’t have one hot chick there. But the Channel 7 reporters are usually pretty cute.

Now, I’m not saying Channel 7 is Right-wing, but you can see this, like whenever there’s a Left-wing coded institution, basically ugly women rise up, take key positions of power, and then assert a radical Leftist ideology upon the rest of us. Because the reason why they don’t want a traditional sexual value system where women are basically graded upon how sexually attractive they are to the male sex, how much they please men, as opposed to being viewed through some other lens. Well, if you’re an ugly woman, if you’re an unattractive woman, that sounds horrible because you’re not going to be at the top of the chain!

So you can see them basically entering into an alliance, as I said, with low that beta male orbiter types who make up the conventional Leftists. And these people aren’t sexy, they aren’t full of vitality.

So I think the Right needs to embrace this rather than having this kind of traditionalist, you know, anti-sex attitude that many elements on the Right still have. I think we have to channel this. I think we have to embrace Goonerism, we have to embrace sex. We have to embrace the fact that the hot women are on our side. We have to embrace the fact that our kind of politics is sexy, that we are liberating. We are the liberators! It is the Left that are the moralisers now and we are the liberators of sexual energy. We are the youth movement! We’re the ones that are on the side of freedom, on the side of vitality. And I see that to be something that is really coming into focus.

And it’s also becoming quite relevant because there’s been quite a few sex scandals of late, let’s say, on the Right, on the far-Right even. There’s a recent case with Aarrvol, the leader of the Return to the Land project, which got a lot of headlines. And what I noticed was that basically he was exposed for essentially making pornography 10 years ago with his now ex-wife. That all got exposed.

And I think a few years ago, if that got exposed, a White nationalist leader being kind of shamed like that, the whole movement would have turned on him. They would have frowned on him, they would have basically made his position untenable. But what I saw was the opposite. Most people either just didn’t care or they rallied behind him and said:

“You know what? Everyone makes mistakes. Who cares? It’s not that bad. It wasn’t like you were race mixing or doing anything gay or whatever. Let the nigger live, you know, let him like he’s trying to do work for our people. Let him be human!”

And we’re seeing that more and more that the Right is becoming more sex-positive in that sense. And we’re becoming more and more impervious to sexual moralism, debilitating our side. And I think that’s a great thing!

Because there’s another huge story and Australian politics recently of Mark Latham. Mark Latham, you know, has recently basically been sticking it to the jews in New South Wales politics, calling out the jewish lobby, calling out how they’re pushing all of his Hate Speech laws, calling out the caravan hoax as a Mossad op. Speaking truth to power, holding the Premier of New South Wales and his staff, holding their feet to the fire for their complicity in, basically a Mossad hoax to take away our freedom. What happens? Immediately the media start attacking him because his ex-girlfriend was some OnlyFans slut, 30 years younger than him and he’s got all these embarrassing text messages where they have a BDSM relationship.

What did Mark Latham do? Just tripled down basically. And he just, he didn’t cuck! It’s been hilarious! He tripled down not just on the jews, [chuckling] but also on his like sex-positive attitude. Calling himself “the master” and so on in press conferences has been quite funny, and his tweets have been quite funny.

That is the energy that’s emerging now on the Right, where the Right are the ones that are having fun, the Right are the ones that are sexy. You know, many women have told me that they have gooned to NSN edits or NSN rally footage. I’ve seen these comments, I’ve seen the DMs. I don’t think anyone, I don’t think there’s women out there gooning to the Liberal Party videos. I don’t think there’s women out there getting to basically anyone in politics, any of their video hype edits except ours! We have a uniquely sexy kind of politics and I think we should embrace it.

So this is basically my introductory notion of the Goon Right. I think it’s something that needs to be debated, discussed because I think it’s very important that we harness and channel sexual energy to our ends, that we make racism sexy.

And if you think about it, racism and sex on a metaphysical level are basically the same thing. Both racism and sex are fundamentally means by which you perpetuate your own existence. They are the life force expressed through the psyche, through the body.

And so it kind of makes sense that like you know, a kind of post Christian life affirming Right would come to some kind of synthesis of a race based on and pro-sex, pro-masculine, pro-feminine concept. So I could see that as basically being the new paradigm that is kind of already here. It’s already been incepted.

But I think it needs a name and we need to meme it a little bit to make it conscious, because I think there’s still quite a few people that are maybe stuck in the old paradigm who need to be challenged and who need to be argued with and maybe they have some good points to make as well.

But yeah, I don’t think we want to be the incel Right. I don’t think we want to be the Trad Right where we’re just constantly morally policing ourselves and everybody else for having sexuality. I think that’s the complete wrong trajectory for us to take as a movement.

So anyway, I’ll put that to you guys. What do you think about that concept?

Blair Cottrell: You want to go first, Mark? I’ve got a few questions I want to ask Joel.

[56:10]

Mark Collett: Yeah, I’ll go first. What you’re saying is. Sounds like Zoomer garbage.

At the end of the day, porn is a disgusting, vile poison foisted upon the Western world largely by jewish minds. They did this so that people lock themselves in the bedroom masturbating and don’t actually go out and meet real women. We need to smash all porn! It needs to be banned from the Internet. The purveyors of such need to be jailed or deported and all the filthy porn and madness OnlyFans, it needs to be shut down and genuine high level prosecutions for those who masterminded it all! It’s been nothing but destruction for young White men, has driven a wedge between men and women, prevented normal relationships from forming.

What we need to do is fundamentally get young men and young women back into traditional dating. Having sex, having White babies. That is what we need as a race. What we don’t need as a race is young White men sat consuming Internet filth, having their brains warped, getting sort of mild brain damage and then becoming gibbering, socially backward weirdos who can’t approach women. You get like that from watching too much porn, because porn has this effect on the brain which changes the way that you behave. There’s been numerous studies on this. I’ve made extensive videos on this.

And all of the things that have pushed this porn addiction, this addiction to masturbation, this addiction to increasingly depraved and degenerate acts, nearly all of them have been pushed by jews. So much so that when initial investigations into the porn industry in America took place, the people investigating the porn industry stated that it was nearly 100% jewish!

And in fact, jews who have written books and learnt essays on the porn industry boast that the porn industry was jewish. And it was motivated by an atavistic hatred of White Christian America that jews wish to dismantle because they wanted to break up healthy White society.

So I don’t really think, think that adopting sort of terminology and memes which are sort of associated with porn or glorifying porn in any manner is going to help us. And my message is clear, right? I’m a guy with a wife, two lovely White children. Don’t engage in any of this gooning or madness! Don’t go on OnlyFans! Don’t watch pornography! Go meet a woman, have babies. Do what you’re meant to do. Make sure your genetic line endures. That’s the biggest two fingers you can put up to the system.

Blair Cottrell: You immediately went to pornography, though, and I don’t remember Joel mentioning pornography specifically. What I’m understanding, Joel, is saying is that the Right, the Alt-Right, is becoming sexy and cool! It’s exciting, it’s interesting, it’s shocking to those who are attached to the system’s norms. And those people who are attached to the system’s norms, they’re the prudes now, Leftist system loyalists. They’re prudish! Feminists. They’re prudish! They’re the ones with all the rules. They’re uptight. Nothing’s allowed, that kind of stuff. Whereas the far-Right have a new rock and roll. Right?

So that was my understanding. And I’ve got a few questions to ask you, Joel, but before I do you have anything to say in response to that?

Joel Davis: Well, yeah, like, I didn’t really mention porn. I only mentioned in relation to the Arrval scandal. I don’t think we’re endorsing pornography here. But what we’re saying, though, is I don’t think we should be at the same time too morally harsh upon other people in the movement or our own people for being a little horny or going a little too far at times. You know, everyone’s human. We don’t live in a society where this kind of traditional, conservative sexual ideal is realistic or the way that people raised, or the kind of, we don’t have. Like, you don’t go outside and there’s a bunch of pristine virgins frolicking in sundresses in wheat fields that are ready to just marry you at the drop of a hat. That doesn’t exist, right? We live in a society where most people consume pornography. Most people have dating app accounts, most people have body counts. Most people do not have it all together in this domain.

[1:00:57]

And so if we try to hold up an ideal that’s completely unrealistic, and then morally police people and berate people for not embodying that ideal, I think we’re just going to come across as alienating to the vast majority of the population. Not that we should celebrate pornography or celebrate, you know, promiscuity, but at the same time, I think we could have a neutral attitude towards it where we stop trying to regulate, in particular, male sexuality. We stop trying to regulate sexuality as a political movement and instead try to channel it and use it to our ends.

You know, if there’s a girl who is going online with big titties and likes to get attention, but she’s also doing racist shit as well, if she’s also pushing our talking points or whatever, do we need to berate her for being a whore? Maybe it’s a good thing that all of the Gooners are basically having racism normalised through, like, watching her content or whatever.

So it’s like, at some point, I think we need to take a step back or, like should we be berating people for saying, Sydney Sweeney has a great rack? If a woman’s got a great rack, she’s got a great rack! I think we can just appreciate it for what it is. I don’t think we need to be the moral police here saying:

“No one is allowed to express any kind of sexuality. No one is allowed to have any kind of sexual history outside of monogamous marriage!”

And I think we could just live in reality, and I think we could embrace that reality, because, as I said now in the sexual marketplace, it isn’t this prudish, traditional morality which has any sway, has any power. It’s been basically defeated in our society.

What has power is feminism. What has power is women not wanting men to be able to have fun, not wanting women to do things to impress men, and not wanting men to be in control, to be dominant, to be assertive, to express any kind of virility. I think it’s far more pertinent that we position ourselves on the right side of this moral distinction rather than trying to morally grandstand about how horrible pornography is, I think, most people understand that pornography is bad. Like, consuming pornography all the time and jerking yourself off like crazy! The concept of gooning is a meme. Like, it’s not meant to be taken fully seriously. There’s an ironic component to it. We’re not saying, like, it’s based to, like log on to pornhub and just nut yourself crazy for hours and hours every night. But what we are saying is that maybe it’s not the worst thing if we’re on the side of sex against these, like prudish moralisers.

Mark Collett: I just want to address this. I’ve got to address this.

Firstly, we should be a movement of redemption. So if people have done crazy things and come to us and acknowledge what they’ve done’s crazy, we should accept them, allow them to put them behind them and move forward. But they shouldn’t be allowed to bring that filth into the movement.

Secondly, we should have high standards because we’re trying to be the best! We’re not just trying to be part of the goyslop madness that has destroyed our people. We’re trying to rise out of the swamp, rise out of the filth and present a better high ideal. It’s saying that because there’s high ideals, we shouldn’t have them.

Well, look at Blair. Blair’s an incredibly athletic man. Most men will never look like Blair. So does that mean we shouldn’t hold him up as an ideal of masculinity? Of course you do you hold up your best and you aim for that. But you know that a lot of people are going to fall short.

And finally, to say that we shouldn’t have shame, that we shouldn’t be shaming people, is absolute cucked nonsense! These whores who go on OnlyFans and sleep with a hundred, or a thousand different men in a day. Most of those men who are migrants, you see them queuing around the block, these people who just got off a small boat and they’re queuing up to have sex with a girl like Lily Phillips or Bonnie Blue. Those men are disgraceful scum! Those women are actually worse!

And if we had a proper society that shamed those women, they wouldn’t be doing it. But the sad thing is, when you normalise this, when you accept it, when you don’t shame it, young girls see those sluts as heroes and role models. I don’t want my daughter growing up in a world where OnlyFans whores, are seen as the role model, as the standard, as the ideal. I want my daughter growing up in a world where that kind of filth doesn’t exist and where those who would partake in it are shamed to such a degree that never show their face in society again. We’re not trying to take over the swamp! We’re trying to rise out of the swamp and create something better. And sure, many people are tainted by it and I am happy to take them by the hand, help them clean themselves off and help them towards a better future. But I don’t want them bringing any of the stinking, filthy disease swamp water with them when they come to us!

Blair Cottrell: I do think the point of life is often not to embrace your lower desires, but to try to rise above them. That’s how I’ve always tried to live personally.

But discussing this, as you called it, sexual transevaluation of Right-wing moralism. It’s an interesting topic. I think the old traditional Right-wing paradigm of sexual discipline was our paradigm for a reason. Right? And what about the traditionally Right-wing position that repression of the sex urge is a way of harnessing and focusing creative energy? Do you think that’s a thing or is that just a meme?

[1:06:32]

Joel Davis: Is that directed at me?

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. I’ve got a few questions for you here and what I was asking you is like I’ve seen a lot of stuff from Right-wing influencers like Soul Bra, about, as I said, harnessing or repressing the sex urge in order to increase creative energy and channel that energy into something that’s more productive. Like do you think that sort of being more sex-positive or sexually liberated perhaps that could produce the opposite effects? It could be, as I said, a way of embracing your lower desire.

Joel Davis: I mean, yes, perhaps, but there’s also a point where you become over constrictive as well, where you over constrict yourself with morality to the point that it stifles creativity and it stifles like a movement. Like if we were to go around canceling, like for example, I agree with not canceling Aarvol because he did, you know, cringe pornography films 10 years ago. It’s not about, if he was doing it now, it’d be a different story. But 10 years, it’s like, who cares? Like at the end of the day I’m sure lots of people have done cringe things out there that hasn’t been exposed. But even let’s say that they haven’t, it is kind of out of the ordinary.

Okay, so what? Like he’s obviously sincere, he’s obviously trying to do the right thing now. So like, think we could forgive people? I think we could let go of this like hyper fixated moralism.

Of course we should have some sexual morality, but that sexual morality I think makes a lot more sense for the Right if it’s derived from a masculine dominant ideal where we have prohibitions against things like cuckoldry, prohibitions against homosexuality and so on. This is a affirmation of a kind of virile, normal sexuality as opposed to being anti-sex in general. I think a, like, Christian traditionalist morality, it almost views sex as like an evil, this like, perennial curse that we’re afflicted with in the human condition or something, and that it can’t be channeled or used for almost anything and it has to be basically sectioned off.

Blair Cottrell: Lust is evil, but I’m not sure if it views sex as evil because you said. Yeah, okay, but yeah, let me ask you this question. You said “racism is sex”, right? And I know what you’re getting at there because you’re talking about procreation and perpetuating your existence into the future through procreation, which is sex. But that’s a specific type of sex, right? That’s focused sex with a purpose. That’s not just loose sex, which is going to produce bastard children. That’s not lust after the flesh. That’s not just having fun.xRock and roll. Let’s just do whatever we want.

And so I think traditionally the Church was against that latter type of sex, whereas it would probably encourage the first type of sex because it would encourage people to get married, become loyal to each other, and then have a family where the children aren’t just going to be abandoned and mistreated, usually. What do you think about that?

Joel Davis: Yeah, well, I think again, like, marriage is a good ideal, but in this day and age, like, what marriage used to mean was essentially proprietorship over the woman. Marriage meant that that woman was your property, basically, in a very traditional sense, like even in like, pre-Christian.

Blair Cottrell: Time, responsibility rather than property. I would say she’s your responsibility.

Joel Davis: Well, it’s both. But at this point, like, you basically get zero rights! Like, you marry a woman, you have, like, literally no rights whatsoever as a result of that marital contract. All you have is a series of obligations and open yourself up to basically being legally raped.

So it’s like, why should men just accept, okay, I need to basically put pussy on a pedestal and treat a woman with like a body count of like six. Like, as if she’s like a peasant virgin from, like the Middle Ages. Like, as if those laws and social norms still exist when they don’t. We live in a completely different social and moral paradigm. And you could say that that’s tragic. Yeah, it’s not ideal. Like maybe it was better in the past, but this is the world that we live in. We don’t live in the 13th century.

So as a result of that, I think we have to adapt morally and politically and culturally to reality. And a movement that can accept reality and can channel that reality towards positive ends is one that will win.

Now, I’m not saying obviously I support having big families and I support people being loyal to each other and raising your family together and so on, but you know, the old kind of moral ideal can’t be just reinforced through morality. Like I don’t think that you can just go up to sluts and say:

“Hey, Jesus wants you to stop being a whore, you should pray more!”

And that they’ll magically pray away all of their carnal desires.

Mark Collett: Joel, you’re a good looking guy. Blair’s a good looking guy.

And I’m not going to start talking about my sort of sexual conquests. But I can tell you this. Now if you want a woman to stop acting like a slut and if you want a woman to toe the line and behave in a manner that is acceptable, the one thing she needs is a strong man who doesn’t take her crap. Most of these women behave like this because men simp for them. The real problem is these, …

[1:12:04]

Blair Cottrell: What does that look? What does that look like in practice, Mark? A strong man who won’t take a crap! Does it look like, does it look like a hand? Is that what it looks like? [chuckling]

Mark Collett: I’ll tell [chuckling] you what it looks like. I often say this is one of my well known sayings. If you’ve and people will understand this, that had a pet dog. If you’re playing with a pet dog on the beach, the faster you chase that dog and the harder you run after it, the further the dog will run, the quicker the dog will run and the more it will go away from you. The minute you turn your back on the dog and start walking towards the car, it’s licking your heels and begging for attention. Too many men spend their time simping for women, telling them what women here trying to be the “perfect gentleman”. When actually women respond much better to strength, power, masculinity and a guy that is not hanging on their every word and bigging up their ego.

And that’s why Donald Trump said what he said about grabbing women’s genitals, because he knew that as a strong man, if he walked up to them and grabbed them, they would just melt, because he was a powerful man who wasn’t going to take their crap. Where are these simply guys who are texting, … And you see these collections online of simpy guys sending a woman a hundred messages and she hasn’t replied once. She doesn’t want that! She doesn’t want that. What she wants is a guy who goes to the gym, who isn’t addicted to porn, who’s confident, who dresses well, who looks after himself. And when she says:

“How high you’re gonna jump? !”

He says:

“I’m not jumping for you, love. If you want to please me, but you show me how you’re gonna please me, you know, I’ll be there for you if you give something nice to me, but I’m not simping for you!”

That is what, …

Joel Davis: Well, I agree with that.

Mark Collett: And that brings women into line.

Joel Davis: Well, I agree with that what I’m saying is that for the sexual polarity to be properly instantiated, the terms have to be set from the masculine, not the feminine end.

So we shouldn’t be basically subordinating ourselves to this ideal of basically you’ve got to love and respect women so much, and viewing them as sexual objects or whatever is so so immoral and horrible. This is kind of like the feminist ideal.

The masculine ideal would have to be not putting pussy on a pedestal, putting your own direction in life first and foremost, and demanding that women submit and subject themselves to your career objectives, etc.

Blair Cottrell: Women will prefer it. Well, girls will prefer. Women will prefer. If you, as a man, do what Joel was just suggesting then. They find that more attractive than a man who is falling over himself to try to please and impress them. They’ll usually choose the guy who doesn’t have time for them because he’s too busy with ambitions, personal pursuits.

And that’s the thing. You go to the gym and you look after yourself. You do well in life not to impress women. You do it because you want to. And then women will be impressed by that naturally, you don’t do anything, …

Joel Davis: Women should be the ones trying to impress us! This is kind of, I believe, in a sexual phenomenology where, like, feminism in many ways is like the illusion of the feminine subject.

This idea that there’s this thing called the “feminine subject” that has all of these desires and inclinations that need to somehow be assuaged. But I don’t think it really exists in sexuality. I think the feminine properly understood in a kind of Platonic sense sexually is the object and the masculine is the subject.

And so people say, “happy wife, happy life”. I think this is bullshit! I think it’s actually the reverse. I think insofar as a woman is making her man happy, insofar as a woman is subjecting herself to a man and trying to seek his validation, ultimately that’s where her happiness will be derived from, because that is actually feminine! Feminine is submissive. The feminine is the second sex. The masculine is primary. The masculine is the active first principle.

And so as a result, when you see like what is Sydney Sweeney’s great crime against feminism and like wokeness and so on? Her great crime is that she presents herself in a way to impress men. She makes herself the object. And you could say:

“Well you shouldn’t be gooning over some random woman. You don’t know Sydney Sweeney.”

And I agree with it. But you can nevertheless appreciate that she is a woman that appreciates, presents herself in a feminine way. It’s a feminine object ideal as opposed to the kind of sexual morality that is generally preached by the establishment at this point, which is that the man has to check all these different boxes to keep a woman happy.

And so that’s kind of what I’m getting at with this like, Goon Right idea, like in exploring it is that that’s basically what this is about reversing the polarity, the kind of the feminine is expected to subject herself to the male gaze and is celebrated for doing. So and that is in contradistinction with the feminist pantsuit ideal, the girl boss ideal, which is basically the archetype of the HR bureaucrat or the modern contemporary politician.

[1:17:42]

Mark Collett: I’ve got one rebuttal to that. I’ve got a rebuttal to that. And my rebuttal is this. And it’ll be very quick so Blair can speak. We should also do more debates like this, Joel. People seem to like this kind of content. This is definitely going to get clipped out.

But look, feminists aren’t prudes. Feminists promote two or three archetypes of a woman. They do promote the girl boss. They do promote the fat, disgusting, stinking pig beast with loads of tattoos, pink hair and those disgusting ear stretchers. But they also promote slutty OnlyFans, debauched madness!

The one thing that the feminist doesn’t promote, there is a sector that the feminist doesn’t promote, and that’s traditional European beauty.

So the reason they were annoyed about Sydney Sweeney in the denim outfit is because she didn’t look like a fat, ugly cow beast. She didn’t look like a girl boss. And she wasn’t dressed in a scandalous manner. She didn’t look like a cheap prostitute. She actually looked quite traditionally beautiful. Like, if you look at European women from the Middle Ages, they used to wear big dresses, but they used to have their breasts pushed up with corsets. They used to have a curvy hourglass figure. They would show themselves off.

If you look at Greco-Roman architecture, the female figure was always shown off, but it was done so in a beautiful way. It wasn’t a ham beast. It wasn’t a debauched whore covered in tattoos and piercings and pink hair. And it wasn’t a bossy, cowy, snotty nosed bint that you wouldn’t want to spend five minutes with. There is one sector that feminists take, one section of sort of female society that feminists take, and that is traditional beauty.

And when I saw the Sydney Sweeney advert, I thought:

“Gosh, that looks like a beautiful woman from the 70s or 80s!”

And they hate that because she didn’t look like a slag. If you saw her walking down the street like that, you’d be like:

“Oh, she’s beautiful, she looks nice!”

You wouldn’t be:

“She’s a slapper, she’s mental, she’s a ham beast!”

You know, to a feminist, you can be anything, but the one thing you can’t be is traditionally beautiful.

And I think that’s where you’re missing the point.

And for me, if you said, should the Right-wing be sexy in that way, Damn, yeah, we should! If we’ve got a beautiful woman and she’s dressing like that, not like a whore, but dressing nicely, we will. Yeah, she’s beautiful. We should be presenting that. We should be presenting traditional, archetypical European beauty. Because that is the one thing that is the antithesis of the feminist!

Blair Cottrell: And the minority of amplified feminists who are so often in government positions these days, these are the only sorts of people who would get frustrated or angry by women like Sydney Sweeney looking beautiful. Because this minority of feminists, these government bureaucrats, these boss women, the dictators of the gynocracy, their whole existence is like a protest against traditional feminine beauty, because they don’t feel beautiful! They don’t want any women to be able to feel beautiful. They want to annihilate the standard concept of female beauty and replace it with something that is ugly. So they can feel like they’re normal.

When someone’s got a problem, when someone’s basically deranged, they become like the personification of disease, where they want to spread and make everything else as deranged as possible. So then they feel normal, they don’t feel so deranged anymore. That’s really the only kinds of people who would be upset about female beauty, like what is expressed through Sydney Sweeney. That which is expressed through Sydney Sweeney, I should say. But you said, Mark, I wanted to ask you said that, …

Joel Davis: I want to jump in here quickly though. I want to jump in quickly on what he said. Yeah, because what he was basically saying like I’m not saying that we should celebrate women wearing like no clothes and like just tits and arse out. Like you go down to the shops these days, I’m sure it’s the same in Britain. And every single woman is wearing these, who’s like a young attractive woman is wearing these tight fitting yoga pants.

And it’s like you’re just bombarded with like asses in every direction. That’s like, how did this? It wasn’t like this when I was a kid. It’s out of control! I’m not saying that this is a good thing.

What I am saying is that it’s about the relationship between the masculine, the feminine. The male gaze. What you’re expressing is actually men actually like modesty. The reason why women are all dressing with their arse out like that is because they’re copying other women. It’s not even a masculine ideal. Men don’t like women wearing activewear everywhere all the time. I’ve never heard it, …

Blair Cottrell: Men do look at that. And so they’re, …

Joel Davis: Men do look at it. But like I never heard a man say like, damn, …

Blair Cottrell: Women wouldn’t dress that way if they didn’t feel like they were being rewarded with attention for it. Correct?

Joel Davis: You know what? A man would really get attention if she wore a fkh dress! If she dressed like a woman used to. If she wore like vd

Blair Cottrell: You’d get better quality of attention. Yeah, but as you said, women are copying other women because, …

Joel Davis: Women never wear dresses anymore because they have to signal to the other women that they also drink the same pumpkin spice lattes or matcha or whatever the fuck they’re drinking these days. And they also, …

Blair Cottrell: Let me ask you this, if you saw two women, …

Joel Davis: They’re conforming to the feminine gaze, actually.

[1:23:08]

Blair Cottrell: If you saw two women is a scenario for you? One was wearing the seemingly painted on mini gym shorts with no underwear underneath. And she was walking around like that. And then the other woman was wearing like a traditional dress which covered most of her body.

Which woman would you look at first and which one would you pay more attention to? For most men, they would look at the girl in the mini shorts. That’s the girl that wins over the girl in traditional dress. That’s why women dress in the mini shorts. And it wasn’t acceptable. We didn’t allow women to dress in the mini shorts back in the day. It’s only a recent phenomena that men have become, or society has conditioned men into becoming so weak and quiet that we won’t speak up and say anything about it.

And so that’s the problem, right? It just keeps, it just gets more and more out of control, doesn’t it? Women will keep pushing boundaries until they’re literally walking around in painted on clothes.

And I did say that, I think I said this on a stream like a year ago. I think the next stage of female fashion will be painted on crop tops. Like they’ll just actually start painting clothes on because like there’s not really a way they can start wearing less than they’re currently wearing without just literally airbrushing clothes on. That’ll be the next example of female fashion! It’ll start in the gyms probably, or maybe somewhere else.

But you said, Mark, I wanted to ask you this because I think this will be handy for the young guys. The young guys should benefit from the answer to this question. You said that women like strength, right? But what is your definition of strength? What does strength look like in a man?

Mark Collett: Strength isn’t just physical, it’s a state of mind. And it means not bending. And without being rude about women, women have this mentality where they will push and push and push. And when a man breaks and gives them everything that they want, that isn’t actually what they want, which is the irony. What they want is a man who is going to be strong. That means standing up to them. It means holding a line, it means not eternally giving into them. And it means almost being like a stern father figure.

And I think part of this, if you look at way marriage used to take place, a father used to give away his daughter to her future husband, and it was almost as if the father was passing the daughter into the care of another man who would then take on that role of being the strength, the carerr, in many ways a disciplinarian. And that doesn’t mean you have to be harsh to women. It certainly doesn’t mean you have to beat them or hurt them. But what it does mean is that women have a more impulsive, more compassionate nature that can get them into trouble.

And the man is the counterfoil to that. The man is the one that provides the strength, the discipline, the ability to say no, which is very important. And when you take that strength away and you present a woman with a weak man, she’ll run roughshod over him, eventually chew him up, spit him out, leave him heartbroken and often damage herself in the process.

And a way, I’ll express this as a way that proves this in real life. You often get these very attractive sort of Hollywood feminists who give these long sort of TEDx talks about what a man should be and that he should be:

“Caring and kind and compassionate and help her with everything and listen and not be pushy and let her have the bed when she’s tired and he should sleep on the floor!”

And they never go out with that man! They never go out with him. They end up dating some, like Chad, 6 foot 7, rugby captain with muscles on his muscles, who obviously chucks around the bedroom, pins her down by the throat and makes her absolutely sort of melt every time he opens his mouth or lays his hand on her! Because no woman really wants that weak, pathetic, simping dork! They say they do, but they want the opposite. And that’s the conundrum of the woman. Women are hard to fathom, but fundamentally they want that guy who is going to be a blockade to their own worst instincts.

Blair Cottrell: You’ve got it figured out!

And if you haven’t tried this, you got a girlfriend, you got a wife, and you’re having problems with her. If you haven’t tried saying no, give it a go. Try:

“No, you’re not wearing that out. I’m not going out with you in that. Change your top, or no, you’re not going to that club tonight with your friends. You’re staying here with me. No!”

Try saying no and you might get some if she’s not used to it, you might get some pushback in the moment, but I guarantee you in most circumstances she will respect you more and come to like you more. She’ll become weak at the knees if you just create some boundaries and you don’t compromise on those boundaries. You don’t need to be mean or cruel like when you say no, it has to be coming from a place of care, a place of respect for her and yourself.

Because as you said, Mark, women do have a tendency to push. They want to push boundaries until they get away with what they never should have even been thinking about in the first place. Right. So we often exist to tell women no. That’s basically one of the primary roles of a man in any family relationship situation. We exist to say no, to create boundaries. Pretty simple stuff. Right.

[1:28:41]

Joel Davis: I’m just glad that Mark ended up completing his argument against the Goon Right with a really goonish rant, fantasizing about some 6 foot 7 rugby player just going to town. I think Mark is a gooner! I think he just too. He’s too Boomer. He’s too unk to realise the ironic connotation of the label. But that’s okay.

Yeah, it was good. It was a good discussion. I think it was kind of fun. That’s what I wanted it to be, fun. I wanted it.

Actually. It’s good that Mark came on. It’s a shame [Thomas] Sewell isn’t on because I think Sewell probably would have had hilarious reactions to this as well. But we can keep discussing this subject. The Goon Right is going nowhere. The Goon Right is coming back in a big way or it’s emerging in a big way. I see the trends going in that direction, and yeah, …

But again, I got to mention this again. White Australia.org if you’re in Australia, you want to come to our conference this weekend. It’s going to be spectacular! Sign up as a supporter and then you can get vetted and you can come to the conference Saturday and Sunday, this weekend. If you’re in Melbourne, come check it out. But you have to get vetted. We’re not just gonna let random people show up. We have to keep the event secured. So now’s your last chance to go through the process.

But yeah, I think basically. Yeah, I think basically we’re good for this portion of the show. We could get into like some Superchats or something.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, it’s been a good show.

Mark Collett: Just to jump in here. I’ve got a show in America with Jared Taylor that starts in about 15 minutes. So I’m gonna have to duck out then. But if we’ve done most of the discussions, if there are any Superchats for me, I’d happily answer them first so people don’t feel short-changed.

Joel Davis: Yeah, I’ll have a look. So Dingo Nationalist. This is addressed to you, Mark. He said:

“Mark. Have you heard any indication from any experts or lawyers whether you’ll have a reasonable chance of overturning your 15 year ban from Europe?”

Mark Collett: Yeah, I have. I’ve heard from a lawyer in Sweden who is attached to the nationalist cause. That is the one that’s going to be putting in my appeal. He’s got all my statement of fact now. I’ll be chasing that up later because I want to get it in well before the 21 day deadline. He thinks we’ve got a very good case because my statement of fact is extremely strong. You know, having there is precedent for me going to Europe, there is no precedent for me ever causing disorder and I have no criminal record. So there is no legal basis to ban me. This was a political decision.

However, despite the being a strong legal case, this isn’t the sort of thing that’s heard in court. This is the kind of thing that is heard by a secret panel of political overseers in some office in the European Union, which gives me a lesser chance of success. I’m sure if it went before a proper court, people would be outraged! I’m sure if you told the average Swede:

“Look, we basically let in every non-White who washes up on our shores, roll out the red carpet for them and let you know, sexually assault our daughters. But this White guy who’s against all that and has got no criminal record, we’re not letting him in.”

I’m sure most people will be appalled, but unfortunately that isn’t how it works.

Joel Davis: Yeah, fair enough. Well, I guess let us know how it goes when you go through that process. I’m sure a lot of us would like to know. And you should let The Noticer news know as well because they could cover it because you’re probably not gonna get good coverage in the UK.

Mark Collett: Yeah, they’re great! They wrote an article on me. They’re really friendly. And obviously, look, I really support you guys and love you guys and if people watching now want to show me some support, the best way to do it is to sub me on Rumble. So you’re watching on Rumble. If you want to sub me on Rumble, I’ve got a Rumble channel myself. If you can all hop over there and give it a like, or a sub or whatever it is, that would be appreciated. It doesn’t cost you anything, but just subscribe. Joel’s got a few thousand more followers than me, so if some of them could pop over and sub me, that would be much appreciated.

Joel Davis: This will link to Mark’s Telegram in the description. You can follow Mark on Telegram if you don’t already.

Mark Collett: Yeah, follow me on Telegram but also jump over on Rumble. I’m trying to build my Rumble up. You can also follow me on Odysee and Gab as well.

Joel Davis: This question is also for you, Mark. It’s from Aussie Autist 88. He said:

“Hey, Mark, how much better is the Aussie flag than the British flag?”

Mark Collett: I don’t know. I think they’re both good flags.

I mean, I’m just checking the I mean, I suppose the Australia flag, you could probably say. You could either go one or two ways. You could either say:

“Look, the Australian flag is better because it’s the British flag plus like some little stars.”

So you could say like:

“Yeah, it builds upon the British flag.”

Or you could say:

“It’s less good because it kind of takes perfection and tries to improve on it and just add some stars.”

Blair Cottrell: Is that the most diplomatic answer to that question that could have possibly been!

Joel Davis: Just say the fucking Union Jack is better! You fucking pussy!

[1:33:41]

Blair Cottrell: What he really thinks, guys, this British supremacist, he thinks that the shitty Australian flag is just some crappy offshoot of its parent creator, the Union Jack, the original Union Jack, you know. Come on, mate, let’s just be honest!

Mark Collett: Well, [chuckling] I like to please, I like to please everyone. This is why it’s so shocking that I’m banned from Sweden!

Blair Cottrell: The British flag is like Judaism and the Australian flag is like Christianity. It’s like:

“Hey, we’re the parent religion. The only reason you exist is we’re, …”

Mark Collett: Definitely not like Judaism. And that’s the one thing [chuckling] we’ll never, …

Joel Davis: Blair, really opening up like cans of worms with this. We’re just gonna leave it now.

Blair Cottrell: We’re not doing a religious discussion.

Joel Davis: We’re not going to go there.

Blair Cottrell: We’re ruling that out right now.

Joel Davis: Not gonna go there!

Also, I just want to say hail to all my goon patriots who goon swarmed the Avi Yemeni vs John Roddick debate yesterday with debate Joel Davis in the live chats on X and on YouTube. The spam was crazy! There were points during the stream where there was literally no comment section other than people spamming debate Joel Davis to Avi Yemeni. It was quite funny.

Blair Cottrell: How did he respond to that? Did he still just ignore it?

Joel Davis: He ignored it. I saw Rookshan’s pajeet face like freaking out because he was obviously Manning the live chat while the stream was going on. And yeah, it was quite good. Avi still running from the debate. I’m hoping that we can eventually set it up. I think me versus Avi Yemeni. That debate will break the Internet. I think that that will go insane! That’ll be probably the biggest Australian political debate in years. It will go viral. It’ll get nasty. It needs a moderator because Avi can’t shut the fuck up because he’s just yaps his little yid mouth! In that debate yesterday against John Ruddick, who didn’t do that well, by the way, but John Ruddick couldn’t finish a point without Avi just cutting in with more bullshit!

Blair Cottrell: I’d love to moderate an Avi Yemeni debate with someone.

Joel Davis: I don’t think he would agree to you moderating it, but we could find maybe someone more neutral.

Mark Collett: He’ll never debate you, mate. Tommy won’t debate me. These people are fundamentally cowards! They know that what we say is right. So like with Tommy, I’ve repeatedly said he’s actually threatened to fight me all sorts. And like, he might beat me in a fight, he might be able to knock me out, he might be able to hurt me, but one thing he will never do is sit and talk with me. He does not fear anything where I can’t open my mouth.

He fears me opening my mouth in front of his fans, because he is an absolute multiculturalist. He’s pro-immigration and he supports the genocidal system state of Israel, which is flooding Europe with millions of Arabs. And he doesn’t want anyone to tell his fans that, because he is a foreign agent and he fears the Collett.

And I’m sure that Avi Yemini fears the Davis just as much as Robinson fears the Collett. You know, they can’t be held up to truth. And if Robinson agreed to debate me or Avi Yemini agreed to debate you, Ezra Levant would be in his DMs in seconds literally being like, …

Blair Cottrell: Don’t do it!

Mark Collett: Shut it down! Shut it!

Joel Davis: Stop black pilling, Mark. Stop black-pilling. He’s gonna debate me. It’s gonna happen.

Mark Collett: I’m making you look good. I’m making you look good. I’m saying you’re so above his level. It’d be like Neo in the Matrix fighting those agents. You’d just be sort of chopping them down without even thinking.

And that’s why they fear you. They know you cannot be defeated in a debate by him. In the same way that Tommy knows, you know, he would not have a hope in hell. It’d be like 10 minutes in and it would be an absolute drubbing. You know, you versus Yemeni, you’re like Tyson in his prime and he’s like a blubbing, you know, scrawny, six former. You’d knock him out!

Blair Cottrell: In such a way where if Avi could be made to believe or understand that he will come away from the interview or the debate, and regardless of how it goes, he’s going to appeal to all of those Israel fanatics. They’re all still going to love him. And it’s going to be very entertaining. You know, it could be good for his image, it could be good for his platform, something like that’s the way you’d have to spin it because that’s the only way he would actually go for it. I think there’s a very small chance, though. I don’t think he would do it.

Joel Davis: Someone else can spin it. Get to work. Spinners spin this. Someone sell it to Avi. I know I have friends who have his ear.

Blair Cottrell: You got to say things like:

“Avi, you’re the only one who’s like, smart enough. You’re the only one who has the passion to actually stand up to this Nazi. This is your moment. You know what I mean? We need you!”

That kind of stuff. Like, you gotta really build him up.

Joel Davis: It’s gonna get done. He’s not going to do it right now, but it’s going to get done. We are going to debate. It is inevitable. It’ll be an incredible, like an incredible display of kike rape! And I’m looking forward to it. It is inevitable. It will happen. Everyone must will it into existence. If we focus enough will psychically on it as an outcome and goon swarm his channel, his chat enough elevate the meme to a higher and higher status. Eventually he will capitulate. White Bitch triple six said:

“Hi, gentlemen. Just wanted to wish my buddy Neddie good luck at nationals. I wish I could be there in the flesh.”

Presume that he’s going to be in the White powerlifting event. Modern World Reject said:

“Hail sex and deport stinky!”

That’s kind of a strange Superchat, that one. He Man 1488 just Superchatted his own name. He then Superchatted again, saying:

“I’ve got Tom Sewell’s credit card, so I’m going to town. Blair, give us a bicep flex.”

[1:39:21]

Blair Cottrell: How am I going to do that. I’m wearing a long sleeve shirt. Should I do it? I don’t know.

Joel Davis: You got to get it done!

Blair Cottrell: The man paid $10.

Joel Davis: All right, a little more. $10. Hey, there we go!

Blair Cottrell: Thanks. That’s the best I can do, guys.

Joel Davis: Yeah, that was a pretty cringe Superchat.

But yeah, also people are saying, debate Chalky. He called me out for a debate. I didn’t even know who he was. I agreed to it. I responded to his email. He said he was going to line it up. And that’s it. That’s the last I heard about it.

So I don’t know what’s going on. I guess we’ll find out soon. Is he flaking? Is he delaying? Hopefully delaying. But I was looking forward to that because it’s just very hard to get people to engage me at all because they’re afraid of what might happen. But I’m not a mean guy. I just want to have a conversation. I want to just debate ideas. I don’t know this guy from a bar of soap. I got nothing personal against him.

So, yeah, Chalky, just. Let’s line it up. I think he wants to do it on Joel Jamal’s show or something. Let’s line it up. Got some Entropy Superchats from Annabel Anna Bola Cost, who said:

“Hey, Joel, what’s the estimated timeline in regards to the White Australia party? Keep up the good work.”

Well, the estimated timeline is summertime launch, vaguely, estimated, but nothing’s in stone. Sign up White Australia.org help us get there, but we’re looking good! The numbers are, I don’t think are going to be an issue, but we need to go past the minimum number. You know, you need 1500 signatures to register a political party in Australia. But if we have only 1500 there’s games they could play to try and knock some of those signatures out. So what we need is to get well past that number so we give ourselves some breathing room. So we need as many signups as possible. We need as many members as possible.

So White Australia.org sign up! Help us out. Chevy Morgan said:

“G’day, Joel. I would like to debate you. I would be considered far-Right, however, believe Christian methods are more practical in nationalism. I’m an ex-Lefty as well. I have a small channel on TikTok with 1700 followers with based content. Chevy the Human.”

Well, I don’t go on TikTok.

So you’re gonna have to find a way to talk to me on a different platform because I’m not going to be able to talk to you on TikTok.

What else have we got here? It’s just like people not actually saying anything, just sending money, which I do appreciate.

Blair Cottrell: We just got a $1 Superchat back on Rumble from He Man as well, but I don’t think that’s up to you.

Joel Davis: Give us a flex. Well, I got a jacket on so like what am I gonna have to take my jacket off? Take it off. Gonna have to mog out here right now. Wait, here we go. I’ll give. I’ll give you this on. There we go.

Blair Cottrell: Very nice. That’s one.

And while you were doing that, Mike and Nolzy sent through a 10 Superchat. Thanks very much, mate. He said:

“Good to see you again. Mark, Nolzy from the Racer crew.”

Mark Collett: Thank you. Oh, no!

Blair Cottrell: The next Superchat is:

“Give us a flex, Mark!”

Mark’s gonna do it now. That’s good. That’s impressive. Hey, I like that. He’s got some. He’s got some peak.

Joel Davis: Well, he’s got like whole technique out here.

Mark Collett: Not bad for an old man. Somebody in the chat kept calling me Unk. Not bad for an old man, hey chat?

Joel Davis: Well, that’s the thing. My cope on biceps is I never work out biceps pretty much at all because if you get your biceps too big it actually really impairs your striking.

Blair Cottrell: So here’s the intellectual explanation and slash cope for why Joel had the smaller biceps, at least in this tonight.

Joel Davis: I also do not inject anabolic steroids and as well. But yeah. Ingo nationalist said:

“Joel, do you believe morality is objective or subjective?”

What kind of, I mean this is such a silly question.

Blair Cottrell: Subjective, isn’t it?

Joel Davis: Well, it’s both. Different aspects of it are objective, different aspects of subjective.

Michael Goldberg 123 said:

“Debate Paul Golding.”

Blair Cottrell: Paul Golding? Do you have much of a relationship with him?

[1:44:11]

Mark Collett: Well, I get on with Paul so there’s not really much to debate, and Paul has more or less taken on every position that I have pushed. They’re now for deportations, for re-migration, they don’t allow Israel flags at their demonstrations, they’ve banned them! So I mean I’ve got quite a bit of synergy. It’d be more of a conversation. I mean Britain First as a group have pretty much adopted most of the stuff that we talk about.

I mean at one time I’d say he’d have had more synergy with Tommy Robinson but now he has more synergy with the ethno-nationalist Right because they’re doing marches for re-migration and as I said, they aren’t shilling for Israel. In fact they’ve banned Israeli flags at demonstrations which is what we want to see. There’s nothing worse than going to a nationalist demo and seeing a load of bloody Israeli flags. I mean that is the sign of a controlled opposition event.

Joel Davis: Well it’s good to see the Overton Window shift. And you know what we’re noticing in Australia as well is that the Israel shilling is taking a nose dive on the Australian right.

Obviously the controlled major parties, One Nation, Liberal, National, they still shill for Israel like crazy! But outside of that everyone’s turning on Israel, everyone’s turning on the jewish lobby in Australia very quickly and that was something that was unheard of basically only a couple years ago really.

So it’s great to see, great development to see, you know, an anti-zionist Right, a patriot anti-zionist position where you know my position, as I’ve said many times before, I’m not pro-Palestine but I’m anti-Israel. Like I’m not anti-Palestine, I’m just neutral on Palestine, but I’m anti, I’m anti-Israel. Palestine doesn’t do anything to me, Israel does! Israel completely has completely obliterated free speech in our country with literal massage psyops and the coordination of the diaspora lobby to attack our freedom of speech and try to put people like me in jail.

So why the fuck, why the fuck would I not be anti-Israel?

Blair Cottrell: It’s pretty concerning how much influence they have in Australia though, despite Israel not being very popular amongst the masses. Like the influence the jewish lobby clearly has over politics, police. It is still very concerning.

Joel Davis: It is, it is! But what we’re seeing is the beginning of a patriot anti-zionist Right.

And obviously the Left, the Left aren’t huge fans of Israel. Even though the centre Left parties can still be captured by Israel linked Zionist linked power networks to control their policies somewhat.

But you know Israel has never been this unpopular, and it’s only becoming increasingly less and less popular, and particularly with young people as well young people from on the Left and the Right, for different reasons, agree on basically only one thing which is the “Fuck Israel” position. So it’s a beautiful thing.

Sean McKenzie said:

“All my moggers Nazis!”

And he also said:

“Debate Avi stop being a pussy!”

I’m trying to debate Avi! He’s the one being a pussy.

Blair Cottrell: I think there’s this in-joke in the chat where everyone’s pretending like you’re scared of him. That’s been going on for a while.

Joel Davis: Yeah, okay. That’s kind of funny, I guess. Oh, yeah, He Man 1488 said:

“White pride world-wide. In the end, we win.”

Just want to point out that he man 1488 keeps sending $1 Superchats, the minimum Superchat and just spamming Superchats. This is what I like to call a cheap cunt! You know, he wants to have a lot to say, but he doesn’t want to pay too much for it. Gonna shame him for that. Pay up bitch! You know, we’ll still read them out, but like have some honour, have some pride, send me some fucking cash.

But anyway, that’s the end of the show. I think we. I think Mark has to go. Blair and I, we’ve got a lot to do. Big weekend coming up. We gotta compete in the White powerlifting competition and we got to give speeches. We got people coming from all around Australia that we’re hosting down here in Melbourne. It’s going to be a huge festival of racism this weekend. And yeah, should be quite interesting to see how it plays out.

Blair Cottrell: But thanks for joining us, guys and thanks, Mark. Thanks for your time. We just had one more Superchat from White Bitch triple six who says:

“Here’s some more sugar for the lads.”

Well, thanks very much.

Joel Davis: That goes pretty hard. Oh, Hail Yay also said:

“Drew Pavlou said he’s worried about debating you again because his family got doxed last time. He said he would be down to do it if he had a no dox guarantee.”

I didn’t dox his fucking family. I don’t know why he keeps pushing this line, but yeah, of course I’m not going to dox your family, Drew. I don’t have any interest in doxing your family. I do have an interest, however, in streaming with you. Even it could be a debate or it could be a friendly stream, because I just like the guy, but whatever he’s down for, I’m down for. I’m a slut for Drew Pavlou content.

But that’s basically the end of the show. Thanks, Mark, for coming on.

Mark Collett: Thank you so much! I’m gonna dash now, guys. Can I jump on this other show? But thank you for your time. It’s always been a pleasure. Enjoyed the debate, enjoyed the banter, enjoy the flex and look forward to working with you guys again soon. I really am looking forward to White Australia becoming a party and seeing how you do. So good luck with your future in endeavours and no doubt we’ll all stream again soon. Thank you so much!

Joel Davis: Yeah. Thanks, mate. White power! Hail victory! Blood and honour!

[1:49:53]

END

top

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

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 8/7/2025 = 28)

ThigASteach
Supporter
10 hours ago
595 watching and 70 likes!! Come on folks. These good lads could use some more support. Tis little enough to hit a thumbs up! #PeaceAndRespect #GodBless
8 likes

Report
EarthlingCarl
8 hours ago
That’s insane that he can’t even go on holiday in Europe anymore, life-wrecking stuff.
5 likes

Report
PaleDissident
9 hours ago
great stream
4 likes

Report
Ruminoid
10 hours ago
Women (or men for that matter) havent conspired to be where we’re at. When are you going to speak about corrupt Jewish satanic influence and influencers of music and Hollywood.
3 likes

Report
‹ Hide 2 replies
CreateAnArmyToSaveWhites
4 hours ago
You crypto jews never stop talking about yourselves. I wish you guys would stfu about your religion and your preferred boogeyman. ”da world would be a utopia if there were no jooos” derp.. fucktards.. stupid fucks.. halfwits..
0 likes

Report
CreateAnArmyToSaveWhites
4 hours ago
when do we get the Jew fatigue? Never? I don’t know about your little shitholes but America has over hundred million nonwhites that people stop talking about because they are too busy talking about the Jews over everything else. They say black fatigue is when you get tired of mentioning black people. Well why the fuck haven’t people grown tired of Israel, the Jews, and Satan? Some bullshit.
0 likes

Report
EinZweiDrei
4 hours ago
Joel was a bit off base on the sexual energy thing imo. Our “vitality” should come from being physically fit and having Christian ethics.
3 likes

Report
‹ Hide 1 reply
EinZweiDrei
3 hours ago
Sorry to Joel if I’m interpreting him incorrectly. Great stream btw.
0 likes

Report
JQRC
Supporter+
9 hours ago
This was the wrong stream to debut the Gooner Right. This is a serious matter but should have made the point we are the youthful cool movement. Mark basically is the moralizing stuffy nice guy that says we dont have fun over here. Good luck with your Boomers, cause the Gooners are taking over!
2 likes

Report
ReclaimMan
5 hours ago
Mark’s ex-gf is a cutie, glad I got to see that
2 likes

Report
MeineEhreheisstTreue
3 hours ago
Take a holiday in St. Petersburg. The Venice of Russia.
2 likes

Report
Schutztaffel
5 hours ago
Sounds like Joel is just rationalizing his own private escapades.
1 like

Report
Dissident_Loner
Supporter
4 hours ago
the world is run by criminally insane megalomaniac perverts…something’s going to give eventually…
1 like

Report
Stopwhitegenocide1488
2 hours ago
Joel looks like a hasidic Jew with that hairstyle.
1 like

Report
Restlessdreams88
44 minutes ago
rap music is fucking gay
1 like

Report
katana17
12 hours ago
[Joel Davis – Another Week of Political Drama – Jul 27, 2025 – Transcript] https://katana17.com/2025/08/03/joel-davis-another-week-of-political-drama-jul-27-2025-transcript/ In this livestream episode Aussie nationalist activists Joel Davis, Blair Cottrell and Tom Sewell discuss the political drama concerning Blair and Tom and the alleged Nazi salute; and other topics.
0 likes

Delete
Neqis
7 hours ago
Such a short episode :((
0 likes

Report
Schutztaffel
6 hours ago
Keith Woods is definitely on the powder
0 likes

Report
PureWhitey
5 hours ago
Mark must have been gaming on his phone when Joel was making his point because he missed it completely.
0 likes

Report
EarthlingCarl
2 hours ago
The “Lookmaxer” guy Nick spoke to recently was incredibly feminine, basically a f6ggot.
0 likes

Report
EarthlingCarl
2 hours ago
Wait, we’re now pro-watching Jew porn and wasting our lives in the process? What’s going on? :S
0 likes

Report
david43
2 hours ago
these stories almost sound unbelievable if I haven’t been following these situations.. are there no good police officers that can speak up, in America there not supposed to follow unconstitutional orders but even here there are barely any good men… Such a crazy story if this guy is telling the truth….
0 likes

Report
EarthlingCarl
1 hour ago
Why would you use the word goon if you weren’t referring to porn?
0 likes

Report
MeineEhreheisstTreue
1 hour ago
Joel has a point in the sense that sexuality is good but I would say that sexuality must be divided into Eugenic Sexuality vs Dysgenic Sexuality. The Monkish asexual mindset is dysgenic.
0 likes

Report
shovelheadamy
1 hour ago
Would it be accurate to say that women these days sometimes need a light spanking on the bum…
0 likes

Report
‹ Hide 1 reply
shovelheadamy
1 hour ago
…never in anger of course.
0 likes

Report
GustavusVasa
Supporter+
1 hour ago
Gooniest episode ever Mark was on tonight
0 likes

Report
Seanybruv
10 hours ago
assuaged is pronounced uh-swayjd, not uh-sawjd
-2 likes

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

PDF Download

top

Total words in transcript = 19883

Total words in post = xxx
Total images = xx
Total A4 pages = xxx

Use your browser to download/export a PDF of this post.

Version History

top

Version 5:

Version 4: Mon, Aug 11, 2025 — Table of Contents (up to 20 entries).

Version 3: Sun, Aug 10, 2025 — Table of Contents (up to 10 entries) started.

Version 2: Fri, Aug 8, 2025 — Transcript now completed = 110/110 mins. Transcript Quality = 5/5.

Version 1: Thu, Aug 7, 2025 — Published post. Transcript completed = 32/110 mins. Transcript Quality = 5/5. Includes Rumble comments (28).

Joel Davis – We’ll Talk About the News but Let’s Be Honest You’re Here for the Tangents – Sep 13, 2024 – Transcript

admin — Sun, 15 Sep 2024 10:59:22 +0000

Joel Davis

We’ll Talk About the News But

Let’s Be Honest You’re Here for the Tangents

Fri, Sep 13, 2024

[In this livestream episode Aussie nationalist activists Joel Davis, Blair Cottrell and Tom Sewell discuss the following:

• Recent Australian government moves on internet censorship and social media age limits.

• Certain type of women being attracted to official positions in HR, government, etc., and having a particular appearance and manner.

• The lack of discipline and schools where even in primary schools teachers are being attacked.

• The psychology of leftists regarding envy.

• Haitians being dumped in Springfield, Ohio.

• Criticize a father whose son was killed by a Haitian immigrant for saying he wished a White man had killed his son instead.

• The Swedish government’s plan to pay immigrants large sums to leave Sweden.

• Express admiration for the Ku Klux Klan, calling them “true fucking heroes of the aryan race.”

• Discuss Greg Johnson being gay and criticize homosexuality in general.

• Talk about women cheating and social media’s role in relationships.

• Discuss libertarianism and criticize libertarian views on immigration and economics.

• Discuss the Chinese government, drawing some parallels to fascism.

• “Hitler was willing to, you know, he was a strategic politician, like any good politician, looking out for the interests of their nation.”

• “Homophobia actually in, like, every. Pretty much every, like, culture ever in, like, human history.”

• “Jews are probably the least homophobic.”

• “We need the Klan. We need to bring back the Klan.”

• “White people want things like justice and fairness and freedom and, you know, honor and respect and rights and liberties.”

• “Haiti is disgusting. And again, they have the legacy of White genocide.”

• “Women are always looking for upgrades, not just in relationships per se, but in their life.” “Instagram is purely sexual advertising. It’s just like soft Tinder.”

• “Libertarians need to be worked on to progress, you know, progress them beyond their worldview.”

• Criticize multiculturalism and immigration.

• Discuss various conspiracy theories and fringe historical claims.

• Express admiration for authoritarian leaders and regimes.

• Criticize mainstream media and politics.

• Discuss recruitment and organizing for white nationalist groups.

• Criticize feminism and women’s rights.

• Discuss genetic and racial theories.

• Criticize LGBTQ+ rights and acceptance, racial integration and diversity.

• Discuss conspiracy theories about jews controlling governments and media.

– KATANA]

https://rumble.com/v5erc8z-well-talk-about-the-news-but-lets-be-honest-youre-here-for-the-tangents.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp

https://odysee.com/@joeldavis:0/news_tangents_etc:e

my social media links: https://bio.link/joeldavis

follow Blair on telegram: https://t.me/realblaircottrell

Published on Fri, Sep 13, 2024

Description

2:45:39
Enable
We’ll talk about the news but let’s be honest you’re here for the tangents
Joel Davis
4.05K followers
263 Likes
3 Dislikes
Comments
Share
Save
Streamed on:
Sep 13, 6:36 am EDT
8.03K
News
Republican Politics
Joel Davis Blair Cottrell Thomas Sewell
my social media links: https://bio.link/joeldavis
follow Blair on telegram: https://t.me/realblaircottrell
Show less
35 Comments

_____________

Following Transcript Quality = 5 Stars

NOTE: Readers can help improve the quality of this transcript by putting corrections in the Comment/Leave a Reply section. Don’t be just a consumer, contribute to the cause, however small. Thanks.

TRANSCRIPT

(Words: 28,681 – Duration: 166 mins)

Joel Davis: It is another episode of the show. It is the 13 September 2024, and there’s a lot to get into tonight. Obviously, the Australian government this week has been making a lot of moves on the censorship front. They finally put the Bill before Parliament to censor the Internet, basically against so-called “misinformation and disinformation”. They’ve also announced plans to bring in an age limit for social media. And it effectively bans people under a certain age, which they didn’t actually specify, presumably 16 or 15 or somewhere in that vein, from using social media, which a lot of people, I think correctly think is a pretext to bring in digital ID requirements, to use social media, to kind of tie everyone to their identification for what they post online.

And in addition to that, also, there’s been some other things on that front. So we’ll discuss all of that, as well as this crazy story out of America. Haitians eating cats, but not, are they just eating cats like the kind of the US government and certain, let’s be real, Catholic charities and other so-called refugee charities, so to speak, have conspired to dump 20,000 Haitians in this town called Springfield in Ohio, in America, which is a town that I think only had a population of like 60,000 people to begin with. It’s not a big town.

And so now they’ve just been inundated with Haitians and the whole town is gone to shit, basically. And that’s been a very big story over the past week.

So that’s a very interesting story, I think.

So those are probably the big stories from this week. I would say. There’s been some other things as well, but there’s a lot to chew on just there. So we’ll probably cover that and maybe some other things.

But, you know, as the title of the show says, usually you tune in not really for a coverage of the news, but for the tangents that we inevitably go on. And that’s probably what makes the show so good to listen to.

So let’s begin with a bit of a tangent. How are you guys doing?

Blair Cottrell: How you doing, Tom? How you feeling?

Joel Davis: Tom? You like muted dude!

Thomas Sewell: Oh, sorry. I was just replying to someone in the chat. They asked us to spurg out about the “Holocaust”. And I said:

“Maybe at the end we’ll do it.”

Yeah, I mean, he was saying something like:

“Can you once and for all put it to bed?”

Blair Cottrell: It’s too early.

Joel Davis: Once we put it to bed, then it’s finally done. Then the jewish, …

Thomas Sewell: And it’ll be finally done.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, it’s too early in the evening, actually.

Thomas Sewell: Didn’t we, in the, …

Joel Davis: We didn’t really talk about the holocaust too much. We talked more about WWII. We didn’t specifically talk about the Holocaust.

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, that’s true. We didn’t specifically talk about the Holocaust. Maybe we forget that a lot of our audience, they’re not in real life NatSoc circles, so they’ve never actually experienced the kind of real life Holocaust Holabonga debunking. Like, we’ve all experienced it like 500 times. So we’re over it! Like, every time we’re at a party, someone brings it up and then hear it all again and everyone chimes in.

And it’s like if you’re around Nazis in real life, you just, you hear it like probably once a week, …

Blair Cottrell: You become desensitisfied.

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, you do. You’re kind of just over it. You’re like, it’s just a bygone thing. It’s like it’s obvious that it didn’t happen. And we could go into detail. We could do like top three favourite parts of the Holabonga.

Blair Cottrell: Hang on. I thought we were going to do this later. Are we doing it now or not? [chuckling]

Thomas Sewell: No, later. Later! We’ll do it later!

Joel Davis: I would rather talk about why the Holocaust is a lot of BS than the Misinformation Bill:

“Oh, wow! We’re talking about this on the show like a year ago. Let’s just, let’s cover this again!”

One thing I will say about the Misinformation Bill, actually, let’s just maybe cover some news.

A lot of people have been reporting it, like, as if it’s a “hate speech Bill”. It is not a hate speech bill. The Bill does not authorize the government to go after private individuals for what they post online. It authorizes a regulatory body called the ACMA [Australian Communications and Media Authority], I believe, to basically go after the social media companies and impose government standards on their regulatory practices to try and basically force sites like Twitter and maybe even Rumble to take down certain kinds of content and change their moderation policies to become more strict and in line with the kind of policies that you see on Facebook or Instagram or YouTube, which are more in line with what the government wants.

[* The Australian Communications and Media Authority is an Australian government statutory authority within the Communications portfolio. ACMA was formed on 1 July 2005 with the merger of the Australian Broadcasting Authority and the Australian Communications Authority. ACMA is responsible for collecting broadcasting, radiocommunication and telecommunication taxes, and regulating Australian media.]

So that’s actually what the Bill is about. Obviously, that’s a bad thing, but it’s not the same thing as the government’s going to come knock on your door because you made a misinformation Twitter post. Not yet, anyway. That’s not what the Bill says.

Blair Cottrell: So why aren’t they doing that already? Well, with racist posts, anyway. Looking here online, …

Joel Davis: No, I can’t think of one person in Australia that has been door knocked over a racist Twitter post. Has that ever happened that you guys know?

Blair Cottrell: I mean, throughout the West, like Western civilisation, I’ve heard of it happening.

Joel Davis: Yeah, it happens in Britain, but it doesn’t happen in Australia.

So I don’t think we should be fear mongering about that being that can happen, because then people will be afraid to say things on the Internet. We don’t want them to be afraid to say things. It’s not illegal. You’re not going to get door knocked over something you send. Unless you’re, like, full on FED posting and advocating for killing people or something like crazy like that, you’re not going to get door knocked.

[05:34]

Thomas Sewell: I think people should be very careful, even in Australia, especially if they own legally owned firearms, they should be very careful what they put on Facebook, because there has been people that have been door knocked for things that I wouldn’t say were explicit calls to violence. They were more just like airing frustrations, like natural airing of frustrations on social media posts. There has been some people that have been door knocked and have lost their., … And they haven’t been involved with organisations. They’re just individuals on the Internet. They’ve got legal firearms and the government has used their Facebook posts, specifically Facebook. I don’t know of any other social media, but I know specifically Facebook posts to then say that they’re no longer fit and proper, so they can no longer hold the firearms, legal firearms.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. You’re not allowed to have emotions or opinions if you own guns legally.

Thomas Sewell: So you have to be very careful, yeah.

Blair Cottrell: So when you said ACMA, I thought, where have I heard that before?

So I looked it up and I saw, it’s the Australian Communications and Media Authority. And then I remembered the ACMA was consulted by Sky News after my appearance on Sky News, namely Adam Giles show. When was that, Tom? That was about four or four years ago now, maybe five years ago?

Thomas Sewell: 2018

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. And they ended up ruling that there was nothing wrong with my appearance on Adam Giles show. And there was no actual reason to ban me or to take any action. But their ruling took, like, six to eight months to come through, so by that time, everyone had moved on, so it didn’t really matter.

But interesting that that’s going to be the agency that’s going to be trusted to hold platform providers to account for what they’re allowing to be posted on those platforms. Obviously, the ACMA has maybe in recent years, been kind of populated, you might say, by the right kind of (((people))) that the government needs it to have.

Joel Davis: Yeah. It’s under their control too. So they could, if they’re not happy with the AMCA not sufficiently regulating so-called “disinformation”, which actually is a total misnomer because what the Bill outlines is that basically:

“Causing offence to any protected group is a form of disinformation.”

Thomas Sewell: Joel as just disconnected. He’s reconnected. Joel is back.

Joel Davis: Did I disconnect?

Blair Cottrell: Not on my end you didn’t. Yeah, you were fine on my end for some reason.

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, maybe I disconnected.

Joel Davis: Yeah, maybe you did.

Anyway, my, what I was saying was that you, disinformation and misinformation is something that is interpreted as literally anything that offends any kind of minority or protected group or people of a particular, even people of a particular political status, I think it said in the legislation. So you could construe almost anything as “causing harm” is actually the term that it uses. Causing harm to any of these groups. There’s a way that you can rationalise taking almost any content down on those pretexts. At least someone is going to “feel harmed” by almost any, …

Blair Cottrell: Joel, Joel, what about the harm that can potentially be caused, according to the contents of the bill, to bankers and, what do they call it? The economic market?

So you’re not allowed to undermine public confidence in banks or Australia’s economic markets! What does that mean? [chuckling] You’re not allowed to forecast a recession?

Joel Davis: Yeah, exactly! The Bill would basically make it possible for them to take down any kind of criticism of government health mandates, climate change, … So if you criticise vaccines or climate change or any of these things, if you go against the mainstream consensus on any of these issues, they could classify all of these things as “misinformation” or “disinformation” or whatever. The legislation is so broad, they can’t take anything down off the Internet that they want to.

But the thing is they can’t directly take it down. The legislation doesn’t basically give the AMCA the right to specifically say:

“I want this taken down. This post, this post, this post!”

What the legislation authorizes them to do is to basically provide guidelines to the social media companies on what they should be taking down.

So it’s kind of a little bit convoluted.

Blair Cottrell: Didn’t it say 5% of the revenue from the platform provider in question can be taken as a fine by the media association or the ACMA? Is that what the legislation said?

[10:07]

Joel Davis: So that’s basically what they’re going to do. And I would anticipate that. Elon Musk has already criticised the legislation multiple times. Unfortunately, he decided to say “fascism” as his form of criticism of this bill. I mean, how that’s “fascism”, I don’t really understand. Like the Internet, when fascist regimes existed, I don’t understand, …

But anyway, it’s a bommerism. But the point is that what this is actually is kind of liberalism, it’s socialism.

But anyway, the point is that the bill. Yeah. It ultimately is only as powerful as what the Australian government’s power is, which over a company that’s based in a foreign country, is quite limited.

So at the end of the day, all the servers for all these social media companies are hosted in foreign countries, and they can’t pull Elon Musk before a court and tell him what to do on his American website.

So all they can do is maybe mess with Australian based revenue streams into X which probably aren’t that substantial. I would imagine only a very small portion of how much revenue they raise comes from Australia. So they’re only going to take like, 5%. I could very much envisage Elon Musk basically just wearing it and telling them to get fucked, because it really would be such a minute amount of Twitter’s overall revenue.

So I don’t know if it’s actually that big of a deal. It could be a whole big song and dance of almost nothing, to be honest. We’ll see how it plays out.

Blair Cottrell: Who was that woman reading out the Bill in Parliament? What, they don’t read out the whole bill, but the preface for the bill. The preface for the bill. Who was that woman? Do we know anything about her? She had one of those toxic haircuts. Looked like the kind of woman.

Joel Davis: The kind of woman that would be in the government?

Blair Cottrell: In the government, in a high school. Yeah. Why do all women look like that? Why do all women, like government women, look like that? They all look like clones of each other, don’t they?

Joel Davis: Hot chicks, don’t want to go and become part of the government!

Blair Cottrell: No, it’s not. It’s more than that, it’s more than just not being attractive. It’s like they’re a whole different race. It’s like they’ve taken their the idea that they’re a member of this elitist superclass to the next level. And they’ve actually tried to create a physical, observable identity out of that liberal superclass. It’s like they’re a whole different race! The way they think, the way they look, the way they behave, it’s totally alien. It’s really weird!

Joel Davis: There’s a certain kind of allure that for a certain personality type, having an official title where you wear a pantsuit and you get to be an official title:

“Oh, look how successful I am! Look how prominent I am! Because I have of this position!”

Whether it be like a CEO of a large corporation or being in the government or being the principal of a high school or something like this. A so-called high status position within the system. Someone who’s kind of a loser that doesn’t really have any kind of normal, markable way within the culture of being kind of liked or affirmed or validated. They find a way:

“Well, if I just follow all these bureaucratic procedures and cross my t’s and dot my I’s, then I can get this piece of status, and then I can become important. And then all these people have to pretend. Have to kiss my arse and pretend that I matter, and I can be, oh, I’m such an inspiration for women everywhere because look at me! I’ve become the Member of Parliament, and now I’m the Minister for Education!”

Or some bullshit title or whatever that they get given.

And so it gives them this inflated sense of ego. Which indicates that something is quite wrong with them, that they can’t find meaning or validation in their life in any kind of normal, healthy channel. I think that really explains, …

Blair Cottrell: Maybe it’s the default reaction to not attracting a partner or not being able to attract a partner or not presenting yourself as useful to. I don’t know, but, like, I couldn’t imagine anything worse. What you said there, where you said they’re aiming for a title or position where from they can force other people to be nice to them and everyone has to pretend to like them. I would hate that! I would hate that! I want to hear what people really think. I don’t want people pretending to like me.

Like, I don’t know where you guys stand on that. I think you would agree that there could be nothing worse than having sycophants just blowing smoke up your ass, just talking shit! Like, you want to hear what people really think, right? You want people to be honest. But, well, that’s just me.

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. You see these women everywhere. They’re the stereotypical corporate, HR, or corporate governance lady. They’re in actual government. They’re in school, education, governance.

So I’ll give you an example recently, and I’ve seen the photo of this lady, and she looked exactly as Beck [Tom’s wife] described her. Beck obviously works part time consulting within the education system. And I’m sure the Lefties will try and dox that and stop that. I don’t give a fuck! [chuckling] Like, awesome! I hope she loses her job.

No, seriously. But no, she just does it not just out of the goodness of her heart. It is important to her to just stay within the industry and just keep tabs on it to see how fucking far it’s falling.

But she is working at a school at the moment. The principal’s a man and he’s currently, … I don’t know how much I can say legally, I guess I’m not naming names, so I can say whatever I want. But he’s currently under investigation for paedophilia. The principal.

And so the vice principal’s had to step up and is taking over the school. And all the staff hate the vice principal. It’s a woman. She doesn’t have children. She’s in her forties. And she has that haircut that you described, and she has that attitude that we all understand.

And all of her staff, mostly female. Most of the staff are female at the school. They are getting physically assaulted by students. And we’re talking, I’m pretty sure it’s a primary school. So they’re getting physically assaulted by grade twos, grade threes, grade fours, like, incessantly. And they are being told, …

Blair Cottrell: What do you mean? The kids are beating up the teachers?

[16:34]

Thomas Sewell: The kids are physically attacking the teachers. They’re kicking and punching the teachers. Yeah.

Blair Cottrell: [chuckling] Okay! [chuckling]

Thomas Sewell: And so the school is in such a crisis that they’ve called for an independent consultant to come in and see what’s going on:

“Why are the children doing this? Clearly the gentle parenting and gentle schooling approach isn’t working. How do we rework it to make it work? How do we try and reinvent a wheel that’s broken?”

And it’s quite interesting because all the teachers are saying that every time they try to implement any sort of consequence, because they’re not allowed to say “disciplinary action” anymore, they now say “consequence”. They’re not allowed to implement any “consequence” for any negative behaviour, any “bad behaviour”. Bad behaviour basically doesn’t exist anymore in the primary school.

And this is a normal state school. This is a normal state school in Victoria. There’s no discipline. There’s not allowed to be any discipline. There’s no consequence. There’s not allowed to be any consequence.

And when the teachers report the violence that they’re receiving from the children to the acting principal, the acting principal basically tells them:

“Look, this conversation is too much for me. I’m getting anxious from this conversation. I’m going to have to leave this conversation.”

And then the principal then [chuckling] walks off and it’s fucking hilarious! But that’s what’s going on.

Blair Cottrell: What you’re saying is this school, this school was more functional under the leadership of an actual possible paedophile than it is from one of these corporate women! [chuckling]

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. So the old principal, it’s kind of fucked up, but I’ll sidetrack that statement. But yes, but the other interesting factor with this principal is, or vice principal, acting principal is she is trying to get the principal’s job. So what she’s doing is she’s fudging the statistics. She’s pretending that there’s no incidences. She’s walking off on these conversations so that she doesn’t have to do her job, she doesn’t have to report the violence, she doesn’t have to report that the school is in chaos. The only team that’s been reported is this third party team. So obviously it’s all resting on her to write an honest report to the government to say:

“Hey, this is actually what’s going on at the school.”

So it’s interesting. [chuckling] It’s very interesting. [chuckling]

Also, Josh Roose*, who’s an anti-fascist researcher in the universities that regularly writes about how we’re all psychopaths and how we’re evil and the government should put us in jail. His wife is actually a principal at a school as well.

So that’s another interesting thing. [chuckling] It’s a small world! It’s a really small world!

[* Dr Josh Roose is a political sociologist and Associate Professor of Politics at the Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation at Deakin University, Melbourne. His research focuses on the intersection of politics, law, sociology, and religion with an emphasis on political and religious violent extremism and terrorism. He has also contributed expertise through interviews and background research for the full range of Australian television, print and radio outlets including ABC news programs including the 7.30 Program, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, 60 Minutes, The Guardian, SBS, The Australian, and Sky News.]

Joel Davis: He wrote a whole article about how about me recently in the Australian. That was quite funny, …

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, Mr Roose.

Joel Davis: Because I ratioed him on Twitter. I said:

“Listen you should be thanking me that I’m giving you something to write about, otherwise you would be irrelevant. It wasn’t for people like us the Australian wouldn’t really be commissioning you to write any articles.”

And then he blocked me. So yes, he doesn’t have much of a sense of humour.

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, he’s a pussy!

Joel Davis: Yeah. It’s a picture of us cutting a Hitler cake in the like a swastika cake on Hitler’s birthday in the news.

So I thought that that that was pretty cool!

And what I didn’t like about the article, though, was he was making out like as if I’ve sprung to prominence after October 7. And my criticism of Israel, which didn’t really make any sense. Like, I barely talked about the Israel-Palestine conflict that much at all! Did a bit when it first kind of broke out. It was interesting to analyze, but it’s not really like my thing. So it was kind of bizarre! And he was trying to construe that somehow off the back of the anti-Israel movement we’re promoting neo-Nazism or something like that. If anything, it’s the other way around. We’re like:

“Oh, I guess we kind of hate Israel because it’s run by jews.”

But, you know, our focus isn’t really there. So he probably doesn’t actually watch the show as write an article that was that trash. These people get paid thousands of dollars to research us and they don’t even watch the show!

Meanwhile, poor old Miss Kaz Ross. She watches every single show religiously. Yeah, she’s watching right now! The media never ask her to write an article. [chuckling] She just gets upset how bad their articles are and how bad all these official researchers are.

[20:57]

Blair Cottrell: Who is Kaz Ross? Who’s that?

Joel Davis: She’s like the fat communist who, …

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, researcher.

Joel Davis: Yeah, she’s obsessed with us. And she’s always posting on Twitter about us.

Thomas Sewell: She has a tenure at the University of Tasmania, I’m pretty sure.

Joel Davis: She knows us quite well. Like, her posts are actually kind of interesting. I mean, she has me blocked on Twitter. But occasionally Swindon will post a screenshot because he likes antagonizing her on the timeline in the group chat.

And so I’ll see some of what she has to say. And recently she did acknowledge that I’m an intelligent young gentleman. Apparently I’m an evil paedophile as well. But I’m an intelligent young gentleman.

So thanks for the compliment, Kaz. It’s nice. You obviously watch the show.

Blair Cottrell: Maybe Kaz is gradually, very gradually starting to turn? How long can you actually work on people like us before we start making a bit more sense than you expected?

Joel Davis: Maybe if she lost like 50 kilos, she’d come around?

Thomas Sewell: Our worldview would make sense if she lost 50 kilos. Because her main motivation is that she has a lack of self esteem because she’s a fat bitch! So she thinks she’s not allowed in the ethno-state. And so that’s why she wants to destroy the ethno-state. And this is just basic psychology 101. If you think you can’t go to the ethno-state, then you want to destroy the ethno-state.

And so that’s spiritual. That’s a spiritual construct.

So all these Antifa, all these communists, their fundamental motivation is they have low self esteem. They’re biological traitors. And they’re just like, well, misery loves company:

“If I can’t have it, no one can!”

You know:

“Why do these people got, ..!”

Like, it’s envy. It’s very strange. It’s hard to understand if you’ve got an attitude of:

“Okay, if I’m inferior, I should get good. If I’m not good at life, I should get better at life!”

But they don’t come at it from that angle. They just want to destroy the rich, eat the rich. They don’t even hate the jews because the jews are this, like, financial parasite that’s actually destroying society. They just hate the jews because the jews are better than them, or the jews are in positions of dominance or authority. They don’t hate the jews!

Blair Cottrell: That’s what we get accused of too. Like, we get accused of that.

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, people mistake our motivations for being, like, anarchistic or communistic, but they’re not. Our motivations are we want a healthy society with a master morality. And a master morality doesn’t imply that we need to have slaves.

And I think that when a communist understands that, then they have a chance to sort of, maybe not empathize. That’s probably not the right word, but if they were accidently, … Not that we’re going to recruit many communists in the 21st century, obviously, Joel covered that last stream where the data shows that it’s a very different type of communist to 100 years ago.

But if there was some that got lost down the path, when they understand that our worldview isn’t about enslaving nons, it’s about just separating from and getting good, you know, it’ll make a bit more sense. Like, the fash doesn’t seem that bad anymore. Because that’s what they’re concerned about. They’ve got misdirected empathy.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. Your modern communists, they’re less motivated by class war or even ideology than they are spurred on by dysgenics. It’s dysgenics which is at the heart of modern communism. It’s not even ideology. And in regards to the being fat, losing 50 kilos. You don’t lose 50 kilos, then adopt the National Socialist worldview. You start adopting the National Socialist worldview, then you lose the 50 kilos! That’s the process, in my opinion.

Thomas Sewell: Yes!

Joel Davis: It’s a little bit of a chicken and an egg problem, though, because that being a fat piece of shit makes it so difficult for you to accept a worldview, …

Blair Cottrell: You have to hate yourself first, you need to hate that version of yourself first. You hate that! You keep looking at yourself in the mirror, and you say to yourself:

“Wow, I’m a piece of shit! I hate the way I look! I need to do something about this!”

And you say that every day until you start actually doing something to change it. You need to hate and reject the existing person you are, and the ideas that have led you to become that person, and completely, you know, re-imagine yourself. Right. That’s what I think for some of these.

[25:14]

Joel Davis: I mean, that’s good advice.

But actually what happens is that if you’re a fat piece of shit, nine times out of 10, is that you’d rather just cope about the fact that you’re a fat piece of shit by believing in a worldview which divorces you from nature in some way and nature’s inherent valuations. Because that’s what National Socialism is. National Socialism is an ideology that respects nature. That’s why, you know, Hitler’s view, he stated very explicitly, was that:

“A people that will not fight for its existence, does not deserve to live in this world.”

You have to earn your existence from nature through strength, through struggle. Otherwise, you can have no complaints if you’re wiped out of existence.

And the brutality of nature, which is a necessary brutality, because it’s a brutality that basically separates the wheat from the chaff that casts off weakness, that casts off basically erroneous directions that nature go in and refines the direction of life so that only the strong and the healthy can survive. And so nature has a way of kind of cleaning itself with its own inherent brutality and purifying itself with its own inherent brutality. And I learnt to kind of love and respect that aspect of nature. And to conform oneself to it by becoming strong and by becoming healthy and becoming worthy of existence, of continued existence.

That worldview is very difficult to embrace if you feel weak, if you feel disgusting, if you feel unhealthy. And there’s other worldviews that can come along and say:

“Well, actually, that whole idea of respecting nature is actually a form of domination, is actually a form of immoral brutality. People that lack empathy, that lack concern for other human beings, that don’t understand how difficult it is to be born in a certain body and to have certain natural handicaps or whatever, but we here in team communism or team Christianity or whatever, the form of egalitarianism team that you’re adopting, we care for all people, and we see value in everyone, and we want to lift everyone up together through this kind of, Chungus universal brotherhood of man or love or whatever!”

But of course, ultimately, that’s a total fraud. Ultimately, that doesn’t actually exist because nature actually exists.

And so all that ends up happening is that you facilitating parasitism and you’re facilitating the manipulation of outsider groups who will use that morality against you. Like we’re seeing with all of these non-Whites that are taking advantage of our egalitarian moment in the Western world. They can’t believe their luck at how stupid we are that we’re just giving away! We built the greatest civilisation in world history, and we’re just giving it away to them for free, and apologizing to them while we give it to them that we’re not giving it to you know, quickly enough and rapaciously enough or something.

Blair Cottrell: There’s many forces that will come at you in this world with the attractive idea that you aren’t your own responsibility and things aren’t your fault and your failures aren’t a result of your own weakness or naivety. But you’ve got to be careful that you don’t be swayed so easily by these forces. As Joel just pointed out, they come packaged in many different ways, sometimes as religions, sometimes as unions, and ideological groups. And sure, there’s collective oppression that you can challenge, but you can’t really be oppressed unless you’re weak enough to be in the first place.

So if you get strong enough, if you get good enough, then you’ll start doing the oppressing, and you really become immune to oppression.

And I think the world really is sort of “oppressed or be oppressed” in a way. You need to be in a position where you can crush any and all opponent that challenges you. Even if you don’t actually need to do it, you still have to have the capability of doing it. You have to keep yourself strong to prove your right to exist in this world.

And this glorification of weakness really irritates me in the West. It kills all incentive to perform when we’re rewarding and prioritizing the weakest and the sickest in our society. Where’s that going long term? The only logical conclusion is everyone’s going to try to be as weak and as sick as possible in order to be paid and rewarded for it.

Thomas Sewell: So I think it’s really important to know what’s going on in the schools. And I appreciated David Hiscock. He just wrote an article on that Misinformation Bill, just tying a few of these subjects together that have been floating around in the ether. But David Hiscock wrote about how the, … Sorry, not the Misinformation Bill, the banning of children from social media.

And I think that’s quite significant, because they’re still watching TV, they’re still getting programmed. They just don’t have the sort of Pandora’s box of the Internet.

And again, I’m not sure the exact age that they’re trying to legislate that children can’t use the Internet, but what they’re doing to children is ultimately what they’re trying to do to adults. And that was the point he was making in the article. And I think we discussed that on the show maybe two or three weeks ago as well.

This idea that Hitler talks about it, Stalin talks about it, and that’s not just because they’re both dictators by definition, but it is just commonly understood that who controls the youth, controls the future. And the way the Liberal tyranny or the anarcho-tyranny is doing it is they are making these changes. Oh, that’s right. I remember it was the show we talked about. It was when we talked about how the anti-bullying safe schools programme from six years ago has changed culture so significantly that children growing up that have had that change to the education curriculum are now adults. And now the government finally got the courage, or they finally got enough time behind them to start seriously changing how society functions in the same way that bureaucrats can just change how a high school works.

And a bit of a tangent, but a real world example I have of this is when I was in the army. When I got to battalion, when I marched out of training, we got pulled aside into a room by the lieutenant colonel, and he said, I think it was Forbes. And he died of cancer, conveniently. But he gave us a big speech about how:

“All the soldiers in the unit were cancer.”

That’s what he said to us. And we were, like, 18 years old. We just marched out of training. And he pulled all the new guys, because it was like about three or four Platoons* worth of new guys, new recruits, rocked up a battalion all at the same time. And he pulled us all into an auditorium and he said:

“All the soldiers just got back from Afghanistan. Basically, they’re cancer, they’re rotten, they’re no good. And basically I’m trying to get rid of them. And you guys are the future and you guys have been trained properly. And the army is going through some changes at the moment, and these people are trying to hold on to the old army. And what we need to do is have the new army. And you guys are the new army.”

[* In the Australian Army, an infantry Platoon has thirty-six soldiers organised into three eight-man sections and a twelve-man manoeuvre support section, with a lieutenant as Platoon commander and a sergeant as Platoon sergeant, accompanied by a Platoon signaller and sometimes a Platoon medic (full strength of forty men). A section comprises eight soldiers led by a corporal with a lance corporal as second in command. Each section has two fireteams (sometimes three) of four men, one led by the corporal and the other by the lance corporal. Each fireteam (also called a “brick” by Australian soldiers) has one soldier with an F89 Minimi LSW and the other three armed with F88 Steyr assault rifles. One rifle per fireteam has an attached 40 mm grenade launcher; one of the grenadiers is the lance corporal. Fireteam bravo has a HK417 7.62mm for the designated marksman role. More recently, the designated marksman of each Australian fireteam has been issued the HK417 in Afghanistan and possibly afterwards. The Platoon may also have three MAG 58 general-purpose machine guns, one M2 Browning heavy machine gun, or a Mk 19 grenade launcher at its disposal. Wikipedia]

And we told all the senior soldiers and they were like:

“Yeah, yeah, yeah, that’s Forbes. He’s a piece of shit! You know, good luck with him. Basically, we’re all leaving because we don’t want this guy as our commander. We’re all discharging, we’re all getting out of the army. And yeah, we just feel sorry for you and you guys because you don’t actually know what the army is. The thing you have joined is very different to what it was five years ago. It’s drastically changed in a very short period of time.”

[32:58]

And the army went from this boys club where it was like party hard, work hard, serve the country, do the hard yards. And it was this macho kind of warrior cult, and it just became PC. You’re basically a security guard for the state when they decide and when they don’t decide. And we’re going to be doing lots of humanitarian work and you’re kind of a bodyguard for like the UN humanitarian aid workers. And we’re going to transition away from a lot of this combat stuff. And we were infantry soldiers.

And I sensed this transition actually, when I applied because of dealing with the civilian recruiting agency and the kind of questions they would ask. It made me think, like:

“Am I joining the army or am I joining the Peace Corps?”

It was very strange, the questions. I won’t go into it. But I saw that firsthand. And I saw that when you drastically change the culture of an institution, you actually have to remove basically all the non-compliant manpower from the organisation and you have to restock the organisation with the new manpower that can be loyal to the institution, because it doesn’t even know what the old institution was like because it wasn’t around. And you’ve got this fresh slate.

And so that’s what’s happening at a macro level and at a micro level. So at a macro level, they’re replacing us, you know, ethnically. Like, the White people are getting replaced from Australia and Britain and Canada, America, Germany, wherever. We’re getting replaced, and they’re bringing in these migrants.

And one of the main reasons is that the White people are just the “cancer”. This is what our bureaucrats think of us. This is what the ruling elites think of us. Because White people want things like justice and fairness and freedom and honour and respect and rights and liberties! That’s what the White people want. But the Chinese and Indian bug people they don’t know. What the fuck does fairness and righteousness and justice mean to them? This isn’t in their psyche. This isn’t in their psyche. These words are Western words. These are Western concepts. These belong to us!

And so to change the culture into the tyranny that they’re trying to make, they need to replace us. And they can’t replace all the Whites all at once, so they got to brainwash them in school. And so we’re seeing the anarcho-tyranny playing out where you’ve got children. They can’t be punished for basically what is proto-criminal behaviour.

So that’s the anarchy. But they can be punished. If you say the word “gay”, I guarantee there’s a punishment for it. I guarantee there’s consequences. If you said the word “gay” in class, you get punished! But you punch the teacher:

“Oh, why are you feeling this way? What’s wrong? Tell us why you’re feeling this way.”

Joel Davis: See if you punch the gay kids?

Thomas Sewell: Well, I have one anecdotal story. We have run a similar. We haven’t run the experiment. I’m aware of an anecdotal, …

Blair Cottrell: We [chuckling] have some experience in this! [chuckling]

Thomas Sewell: Ha! [chuckling] There were some gay jews that tried to run me over the car and shit happened. But that’s a different discussion.

We have in the school environment, one of the younger siblings of a member was made aware. I think he’s like 13 or something. He was made aware that there was going to be a tranny at school the next year.

So the teachers sat all the kids down, said:

“When Jeffrey comes back next year, he’s actually not Jeffrey. He’s like, Janice and it’s a girl now, and you have to refer to him as a girl.”

And although all the boys in the class apparently just had a huddle and were like:

“Let’s just bully the fuck out of this faggot!”

And then they just went, as soon as Jeffrey came back, and he was like, all the teacher and the girls were like, trying to call him Janice and all this, and all the boys were like:

“Shut the fuck up, Jeffrey! You faggot!”

And the whole class did it, and they couldn’t expel everyone. So the kid eventually just dropped out of the school. So the Zoomers are winning. Actually, I think these are, these might be Gen Alpha. These might not even be Zoomers. I think we’re seeing, …

Blair Cottrell: The exact same thing happened, … When you were telling that story, the same thing happened in Port Phillip Prison when I was there. And it was a little jewish woman who was part of the prison staff, who brought into our unit a young Indian kid. I think he was about 18, 19 years old, but he was doing minimum ten year sentence because he killed his White girlfriend. I don’t know what the circumstances were. But in prison, when you kill a young girl, the other prisoners don’t really appreciate that. And it tends to be the sort of crime that if you’re convicted of it, you spend your time in the “slot”, we call it, or solitary confinement. You don’t really mix with the mainstream of the prison, for your own safety.

But yeah, one of the little jewish woman she was called the Youth Development Officer. Uh, she was all right to me, but she came up with this idea:

“We’re going to integrate this person into the mainstream unit.”

We had a meeting headed up by this woman who said:

“Look, there’s a guy coming into this unit who’s you know, he’s convicted of murder, he’s made a mistake and all that, but we’re trying to integrate him into mainstream to give him a chance.”

And the same thing happened, like, as soon as she left the room, we all just looked at each other, because we heard the details of what he’d done, and we’re just like:

“Let’s just fucking get this cunt!”

So [chuckling] he was only in there for an hour, but before he had to be taken out. [chuckling]

Joel Davis: Yeah, Well, based!

Thomas Sewell: You cannot stop the Aryan spirit, and it lives in the youth, so good luck to them.

[38:51]

Joel Davis: Yeah, I mean, getting suspended from school isn’t even that bad. I mean, you just get to sit at home for three days. Yeah, it’s one of the best punishments. Well, when I got suspended, my dad would, like, pack up the Xbox and take it with him to work, so I couldn’t play it. Fucking asshole!

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, my dad used to hide it. But he thought I didn’t know where he hid it, but I knew. So when he wasn’t home, I’d go and get it and then put it back.

Joel Davis: That’s what I did first. And then he figured that out. So then he just took it to work.

So then I was just fucked!

Thomas Sewell: My dad would take the power cable and I just wouldn’t tell him that I just stole a backup one from school. It’s the same power cable. They’re universal. [chuckling] So he took the power cable to work.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. The toaster cord. Yeah, yeah.

Joel Davis: Yeah. But I’ll talk about this story. Actually, let’s get a bit of a story going.

So I don’t know if you guys saw this, but it’s going around:

“Sweden to pay immigrants up to $34,000 US to leave. Sweden plans to boost payments up to $34,000 to immigrants who leave the nation that has been a haven for the war weary and persecuted, the Right-wing government, said on Thursday.”

So called “Right-wing”, I’m reading. This is from Associated Press.

Thomas Sewell: Can you put the article up?

Joel Davis: :

“The Scandinavian country was for decades seen as a, quote, ‘humanitarian superpower’, but over the years has struggled to integrate many of its newcomers. Immigrants who voluntarily returned to their countries of origin from 2026 would be eligible to receive up to 350,000 Swedish krona, …”

Which is $34,000. So what is that? Almost like 50 grand Australian?:

“The government, which is propped up by the anti-immigration Sweden, Democrats, told a press conference, quote, ‘We are in the midst of a paradigm shift in our migration policy’, migration minister Johann Forsal told reporters as the government presented its latest move to crack down on migration. Currently, immigrants can receive up to 10,000 krona per adult and 5,000 per child, with a cap of 40,000.”

So that’s a pretty massive increase.

Anyway. So this is making a lot of news because I think this is like the biggest payment of any European country or any Western country or I think any country in the world for people to re-migrate back to their countries of origin. And it’s obviously quite significant. There was some polling that was done that suggested that a very substantial portion of a lot of these immigrants, if they were paid enough to be able to resettle back in their homeland, would be interested in going home. So hopefully it gets rid of some of the shitskins out of Sweden.

But my response to this is that ultimately this isn’t the way. It’s not going to produce a very large scale of responses. Only a very small minority, I think, of these migrants will take the bait and go home. What’s stopping them coming back again later? I don’t know if there really is any mechanism to stop them coming back later, even after taking the money. Maybe their Visa gets ripped up or whatever, but they could reapply.

But also, moreover, it’s still playing into the idea that these immigrants are entitled to, basically the free choice of what country they want to live in and support to live a good life on the back of the Swedish taxpayer and so on. It isn’t creating disincentives or negative incentives. It isn’t saying we’re going to put a big levy or tax upon immigrants in order to basically make it difficult for them to make a substantial living in Sweden and therefore create the incentive for them to leave. It isn’t forcibly removing people.

And I think until you cross that boundary where you say:

“I’ll be willing to make the lives of immigrants substantially worse and actually ruin their choices, not expand their choices and try and give them a golden handshake, but actually make their life worse to stay.”

You’re not really going to get a substantial shift.

Additionally, that’s a lot of money. How the hell are these immigrants entitled to more from, … It’s still, I think, morally wrong almost to take even more from the Swedish people and give it to these browns.

But nevertheless, it probably, probably will reduce the overall numbers to a degree. So it’ll be interesting to see as an experiment how successful the programme is and keep an eye on it. It is part of like a changing attitude, I think, in European politics to the idea of the immigrants going back, which is a positive thing.

Blair Cottrell: Could it be a throw off just to placate the public who see what’s happening? Like:

“Oh, yeah, we just re-migrated a hundred people!”

But then another thousand came in.

Joel Davis: Yeah, of course. Of course!

Thomas Sewell: It’s a step in the right direction. And I know that sounds like a really reformist take, not a revolutionary one. But it, as you said, it’s a new dynamic. It’s a new dynamic. We haven’t really had this dynamic. This hasn’t been a conversation on the table. Now that it’s a conversation on the table, it’s a clever little ploy from the conservatives. It’s like:

“Well see some of them went back, see, it is possible.”

And then you can just keep ramping it up.

And I shared, when the riots were happening in London, I shared an Enoch Powell interview. It’s maybe only like five or seven minutes long. And he’s with a very hostile kind of libtard journalist. And Enoch Powell is talking about these kinds of things, that there’s different measures that the British government could take to turn Britain back to being 100% White or 99.9% White.

And obviously he’s talking about a very small community of non-Whites. I think he’s talking about 100,000 or 200,000 that he sees need to go back.

Now, obviously, it’s in the millions. Potentially it’s like 10 million. But he does mention that. He says that there’s sort of this carrot and stick dynamic.

And then the libtard journalist says:

“Well, what happens if they don’t take the carrot?”

Basically, what happens if they don’t take these, … The journalist refers to them as “coercive measures” and defines this as coercion because you’re saying:

“Here, do this is the easy way because otherwise there’ll be a hard way. It’s like it’s subtly implied that you’re going to bring harm to migrants.”

And Powell’s playing the game. He’s not going full Hitler mode because that’s not what he was, but he’s not cucking on the question. He’s kind of trying to hold this, …

[45:19]

Joel Davis: Like, well, I mean, Hitler did play this game. Hitler did make a deal with the Zionists to relocate the jews to Palestine in exchange for, …

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, yes, technically, yes.

Joel Davis: So Hitler invented re-migration in a certain way, you could say.

Blair Cottrell: You’re saying that Adolf Hitler explored peaceful solutions to avoid war?

Joel Davis: Yeah, of course!

Actually, at that time in the mid 1930s, because a lot of people say:

“Oh, Hitler actually supported zionism!”

And like this retarded mental gymnastics. At the time, in the mid 1930s, the International Jewish community was whipping up an intense amount of hatred against Germany at a time when Germany wasn’t as prepared for war as it was at the beginning of the Second World War. This is in the mid 1930s. Hitler only been in power for a couple of years. And the international clique of jews, particularly in New York, but everywhere, were whipping up a lot of anti-German sentiment. And the Poles were very emboldened by this to pursue a kind of aggressive posture against Germany, over the disputed territories and so on. You know, obviously, at the end of the First World War, a lot of former German territories were either handed over to Poland or the free city of Danzig was created as a kind of compromise as well.

But anyway, there’s a lot of details. I don’t even want to go down explicating them all. If you don’t know about this, read up on your history.

But the point is that Germans were in a relatively weak point at that point. Then the jews basically started fighting amongst themselves. All these different factions of people trying to get together and put sanctions on Germany and put pressure on Germany and make Germany a pariah state in the international community and so on. They kind of got consumed with the “two jews, three opinions”, internal warfare within themselves or internal arguments within themselves.

And the only faction within, the most unstable faction within that was the Zionists, who thought that they could exploit how anti-semitic the National Socialist regime was to get a big jewish population to go and participate in their settlement programme in Palestine, because obviously, this is before the state of Israel existed.

And at that time, zionism was just a dream of a certain subset of the jewish community in Europe. And they were trying to convince the jews to move there, most of whom had no interest, frankly, in moving to Palestine, because they were living in Europe and doing quite well in Europe and didn’t see the necessity, or didn’t really have the inclination to go and become part of a settler project, which, when you’re the first mover on those kinds of things, it isn’t always particularly in a maybe hostile place filled with Arabs, it isn’t necessarily the most alluring proposition.

So they saw what was happening in Germany as an opportunity, so they tried to seize it. And Hitler saw it as an opportunity to get one faction of the jews to maybe turn on the other factions, because then all the other factions would get pissed off at the Zionists for making a deal with Hitler, whilst at the same time getting rid of some jews out of Germany, which obviously was an objective.

So Hitler made it, you could say, a deal with the devil, which he thought was good strategy at the time. And it was actually a strategic masterstroke. Hitler was willing to, he was a strategic politician, like any good politician, looking out for the interests of their nation. I mean, he was willing to ultimately make an alliance with Stalin, not really an alliance, it was a non-Aggression pact, but he was willing to do deals ultimately in order to pursue Germany’s interests. And people say:

“Oh, this means that the National Socialists actually supported the Soviet Union, supported the jews!”

Which is the most ridiculous thing that you could possibly say! These are their mortal enemies. But it was just response to a particular strategic landscape that these things happened.

But getting back to re-migration. Unless you guys want to go off on that digression further, you’re welcome to interrupt and do so.

On the re-migration issue. I think the most beneficial thing about what the Swedish government is doing with this is that it won’t work. $34,000 US, it’s a substantial amount of money. But ultimately, going back to fucking Shitgannistan, wherever the fuck these people are from, Syria or whatever, you know, it sucks! Going back with 34 grand in your pocket. It’s still shit! And you’d much rather live in Sweden.

So I don’t think almost anyone is going to take this deal. And we’ll see that it won’t work. And that ultimately, if you don’t have sticks as well as carrots, you’re not getting these fucking browns out of Europe!

And I think we’ll learn that lesson hopefully quite quickly, as a result of the failure of this policy.

[50:09]

Blair Cottrell: You’ll get revolving door, too. What happens when they take the money, go home and run out of money? They’ll come back. And say:

“Oh, it didn’t work out. I’ll try again. Where’s the money?”

You know you can say:

“Oh, well, we’re going to create checks and balances so they can’t apply twice.”

But they’ll just come back with a different name. How are you going to tell them apart? They all look the same. [chuckling] Like it’ll be exploited. I think you’re right. It’s not going to work. There’s too many exploits.

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. All of this is part of the subconscious rising of racial nationalism. I mean, slightly off topic, but in line with this concept of all these subtle ways of dealing with the problem, White people are just experts of subtle ways of dealing with the problem.

Let’s not be overt. Let’s just be constantly subtle. And the father, that cuck in Springfield, Ohio, whose son was killed by a Haitian migrant, and then he got up and did a speech. This is like last week, Blair, or this earlier in the week. And he said that:

“He wished that it was a Whiteman that killed his son.”

Joel Davis: Want to play it?

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, sure.

Joel Davis: All right, give me, … You can keep going because it would take me about, …

Thomas Sewell: And then there was a community meeting where all these people got up and were complaining about these Haitian migrants.

And then there was like a black Governor, or a black town Mayor, and she was like:

“This meeting is over. It’s done!”

And there was people in the crowd that were like:

“But what are we going to do? How are we going to educate all these kids, they don’t speak English!”

And they were kind of shouting at the Mayor all these kind of sidetrack issues, not actually addressing the main issue. But it was, there’s like these traitors and there’s these lukewarm, and then there’s the fighters, as Hitler says. And the traitors are like:

“I wish a Whiteman killed my son.”

Because then there wouldn’t be more racism towards, you know, this enemy.

And then the lukewarms are like, they want what’s good. They’re neutral. I think neutral is a really good way of describing the normie, because they just want to live in a functioning society. They’re not bad people, but they want, I think, the same thing that the fighters want. We both want the same thing, but the fighters will come out and say it. The fighters will say:

“We’re going to get rid of these Haitians! Just get rid of them! Clear them out!”

But the neutrals will say:

“Oh, how are we going to? How is the school system going to work? We need to hire more teachers. Who’s going to pay for that? Because none of these Haitians speak English.”

And so they’re looking for some kind of gotcha moment. They’re always looking for a gotcha to try to get what they want. The problem is they’re dealing with an enemy. They’re dealing with a traitor. And the traitors like:

“Oh, we’ll work that out. We’ll figure that out.”

And it’s like:

“Damn it! Back to the drawing board. What’s the next complaint? To try to get what we want.”

But it’s like, you don’t get what you want by complaining and saying, how is this going to work? Or, like:

“How are we going to send the Syrians from Sweden back to Syria? Do we pay them 34,000? What if they come back?”

There’s all these kind of arse about face, roundabout ways of trying to resolve the problem.

But obviously, ultimately, it’s the stick. You just got to put the fighters in charge, and the fighters, like:

“You’re all going home! See you later. Hope you enjoyed your holiday. Bye bye!”

You know, no policy, …

Joel Davis: Idi Amin, … Sorry.

Thomas Sewell: No, that’s all right.

Joel Davis: I was just saying, when Idi Amin came to power in Uganda, he just said to the pajeets, because there was heaps of pajeets living in Uganda at the time, you know, part of the British Empire. There was a lot of pajeet migrants through the British colonies all across Africa. You know, Gandhi was actually from South Africa, for example.

Anyway, he came to power and he basically told the pajeets:

“They got 72 hours to get the fuck out or we’re going to start shooting!”

And the pajeets got out!

Thomas Sewell: Yeah.

Joel Davis: You know, now that’s a pretty vulgar, you know, Idi Amin is like some butcher African dictator, but that’s probably the most effective re-migration policy I’ve ever heard of anyway, here’s the video of, …

Blair Cottrell: What did Heinrich Himmler say about this subject? He said:

“Humanitarianism is the expression of cowardice and weakness.”

So all these humanitarian alternatives to dealing with whether it’s, you know, immigrants, re-migration. Well, you know what I’m trying to say. They don’t make you better. I think that’s a problem. A lot of these people have, government officials, people that work in the media industrial complex. What the kind of thing, like, they think that humanitarianism makes them smarter, better people. It doesn’t. It makes you an idiot! It makes you a coward and an idiot! Straight up!

Joel Davis: Yeah, exactly!

Joel Davis: I’ll play, …

Blair Cottrell: Like this guy right here. Like, this guy’s the perfect example of what I’m fucking talking about! Here’s some classic humanitarian cowardice and stupidity from the father of this poor kid that was. I don’t even know how the kid was killed. What’s the story behind this, Joel?

[54:56]

Joel Davis: By the way, talking about physiognomy like he looks like a mutt. He’s quite short. So what happened to this kid, by the way?

Thomas Sewell: [words unclear] Down Syndrome.

Joel Davis: Yeah. Yeah, he does.

So what happened to this kid? For context, for those who don’t know, there was a Haitian who was driving recklessly, he didn’t have a licence and basically caused a bus to swerve and crash. And an eleven year old boy on the bus that tragically died as he was basically thrown out the window of the bus as it crashed, in some way. And this is his father addressing the media.

Father: You know, I wish that my son, Aiden Clark, was killed by a 60 year old Whiteman. I bet you never thought anyone would ever say something so blunt. But if that guy killed my eleven year old son, the incessant group of hate spewing people would leave us alone. The last thing that we need is to have the worst day of our lives violently and constantly shoved in our faces. But even that’s not good enough for them. They take it one step further. They make it seem as though our wonderful Aiden appreciates your hate. That we should follow their hate. And look what you’ve done to us. We have to get up here and beg them to stop. Using Aiden as a political tool is, to say the least, reprehensible for any political purpose.

And speaking of morally bankrupt politicians, Bernie Moreno, Chip Roy, JD Vance, and Donald Trump, they have spoken my son’s name and used his death for political gain. This needs to stop now! They can vomit all the hate they want about illegal immigrants, the border crisis, and even untrue claims about fluffy pets being ravaged and eaten by community members.

However, they are not allowed, nor have they ever been allowed, to mention Aiden Clark from Springfield, Ohio. I will listen to them one more time to hear their apologies. To clear the air my son, Aiden Clark, was not murdered. He was accidentally killed by an immigrant from Haiti. This tragedy is felt all over this community, the state, and even the nation. But don’t spend this towards hate. In order to live Hayden, you need to accept everyone. Choose to shine, make the difference, lead the way, and be the inspiration! What many people in this community and state and nation are doing is the opposite of what you should be doing. Sure, we have our problems here in Springfield and in the US, but, …

Blair Cottrell: How was that guy’s, how he says:

“Donald Trump and other politicians have used the death of my son for politics.”

Really? Wow! Politicians use tragic circumstance for politics. That’s not going to stop, mate! When he says, this needs to stop that’s just been an eternal reality, core component of politics, and it always will be. That’s what politics is.

Joel Davis: He talked about a thing that happened.

Blair Cottrell: And the fact remains, like, he’s just trying to do what I think he’s Hoodwinked into believing is right. I mean, the guy wrote that, proofread it, and still thought it was a good idea to read that on camera.

Joel Davis: Like, just casually, …

Thomas Sewell: His wife proofread it. You can tell.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, probably.

Thomas Sewell: Yeah.

Blair Cottrell: But the fact remains, I hope the guy hears this. I hope the guy hears this. The fact remains, mate, that if that Haitian immigrant was never in the country in the first place, your son would still be alive! It wasn’t the 60 year old Whiteman who killed your son. It was the immigrant. Your son is dead because of that immigrant! Yeah, that’s just a fact.

Joel Davis: I just wish that the immigrant had hit him. I wish he died. Hopefully one hits him soon. Hopefully one of these Haitian migrants eats him! I know that they prefer cats and ducks, apparently. Just I saw there’s a bit of controversy about abounding now in the American media because they’ve “fact checked”. Because in the Trump Harris debate, Trump pulled out the line of:

“The Haitian migrants, they’re eating the cats, they’re eating the dogs!”

And they were like:

“They fact checked it. No, technically, there’s no evidence of Haitians eating cats.”

But I’m seeing all these videos of Haitians, like, breaking cats necks and sucking their intestines out on my Twitter feed. So I don’t know what’s going on there exactly. But what I do know is that they put 20,000 [word unclear] down, and I saw a video of this guy saying that basically the government has come in and is paying way over the odds for the Haitian migrants to take up all the rentals in the town.

So everyone got kicked, all their leases got cancelled, and basically everyone were kicked out, because now every landlord can charge the state way over the odds to put a Haitian migrant in their house, and the rent is paid for by the State.

And so now there’s mass homelessness in this city. All these White people basically got thrown out of their homes so they could put Haitians in. These Haitians don’t have jobs, so they’re just loitering around on the street. They’ve come from a, you know, Haiti isn’t just war torn, Haiti is a totally, like, failed society where they’re eating mud! They’re eating, like, mud sandwiches, like, for breakfast in Haiti.

[1:01:15]

Blair Cottrell: And what’s native to Haiti? Are they, …

Joel Davis: They’re a bunch of niggas. They’re a bunch of, …

Blair Cottrell: Black people. Okay.

Joel Davis: They’re niggas. Like, they’re literal, like, slaves. So Haiti’s origin story is, …

Blair Cottrell: When you say black people, it’s like, there’s different thresholds of black people. What kind of black people in Haiti?

Joel Davis: They are the full niggas.

Blair Cottrell: Like, really black, midnight heart of darkness from Africa type thing? Or the ones that can actually run, …

Joel Davis: Like, how much milk is in the chocolate? Because they would have raped a lot of Amerindian woman. And all the local, whatever the local DNA was of the kind of Amerindians, they’re probably being kind of garbled up into, …

Thomas Sewell: Like, black Brazilians. You know, you see, like, a Brazilian that’s black, and they’ve kind of got a weird kind of Mexican black look to them.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

Thomas Sewell: That’s what the average Haitian looks like. They’re kind of Mexican black. They’re not for Hispanic, but they’re mostly black.

Joel Davis: Yeah, they’re pretty nigger. Like, they’re niggas.

Anyway, the point is, Haiti was built off the slaves revolting against the French. And to the eternal shame of the British Empire, we helped them in our animosity to the French. They overthrew and mass raped and mass murdered. And ate literally, like, consumed the flesh of all the French that could get their hands on.

Thomas Sewell: 1830s, was it 1840s?

Joel Davis: Correct.

And basically, Haiti has been an anarchic cesspool of totally degenerated you know, nigger-retardation ever since. It’s like there’s African countries that are totally failed states where they’ve got child soldiers and weird voodoo magic and cannibalism and so on. Haiti has basically got that going on. Like, it’s a total shitscape. So bringing Haitian in, …

Thomas Sewell: It’s, like, worse than India. It’s actually a country worse than India. India is disgusting! But Haiti is India on steroids. Like, the trash is piling up in the streets. No one takes the trash out. So imagine years of rubbish everywhere. They’ve chopped down every tree. It’s an open sewer. It’s an open sewer!

And as Joel articulated, it was built. Yeah, we’ve got a problem. Yeah, it was.

Blair Cottrell: Remember the children are walking barefoot and pot bellied! We got a problem! Remember that testimony?

Thomas Sewell: Yeah.

Thomas Sewell: Black people. Not one seafaring ship. Not one! [chuckling]

Blair Cottrell: And they never built one boat that was seaworthy. Not one! [chuckling]

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, Haitians are disgusting!

And again, they have the legacy of White genocide. Haiti as a country, I mean, it was a French colony, as Joel articulated, probably ten or 20% French. And then a whole bunch of African slaves were there picking the cotton fields, or it was probably sugarcane or fruit, something like that. And, yeah, there was a planned revolt, and they overthrew the French overlords and they killed them all. And they killed all the mulattoes that were in any sort of administrative or middle tier, middle rank, kind of like the Second Class, if the first class was the full blooded Whites, and the kind of Amerindian or African mulattoes with White blood in them were the kind of Second Class that helped, like the house niggers. And then the third class were the field niggers.

And basically the field niggers revolted and killed all the Whites, ate them and raped them, and then they killed all the mulattoes. Because they had too much White in them and they didn’t trust them. So they killed all the people that knew how to manage a farm, how to do anything [chuckling] other than just the most basic manual labour and be told what to do.

So then they all starved to death. Basically, like, 80% of the population died. And then what’s left are kind of the cannibals that managed to survive that genetic selective process. So they’re just, the worst scum, …

Joel Davis: That’s why foreign aid is disgusting, because they send all these UN aid packages to breed the Haitians back up to a large level.

Thomas Sewell: And then they dump them on America like a bio, …

Joel Davis: Like just degenerate into savagery and their population numbers will just collapse and barely any of them will be alive, which is good because they’re an abomination. But no, we’ve got to go and send in UN aid packages and raise money for Haiti. And then now we’ve got millions and millions of Haitians, and then all these do good libtards and shit now start importing them into the United States.

And actually Kamala Harris herself, like, personally presided over a programme to resettle Haitians in the United States en masse, which is why it has been made into a political campaign issue in the US presidential election over the past week, because they’re able to kind of pin this on her specifically.

And Trump was posting all these memes about how, like Kamala Harris is wants to kill all the cats in America and cats for Trump and shit! It’s kind of, it’s become this whole meme. And people have criticised it, saying:

“Why is he focusing on the eating cats thing.”

Rather than on the real issues of how, like, White people, like, you didn’t really say anything about how, like, average White people in Ohio, how their quality of life has been basically thrown off a cliff and their entire town has been ruined and thrown into chaos. So he’s not really kind of taking it seriously with his rhetoric, but just going for the meme. But the meme solicits the media reactions. So that’s like one argument for going for it.

But what’s interesting, I guess, about this is a few things, actually. One, they identified Catholic charities as being integral in the process of resettling them. And people say:

“Oh, but the Catholic charities are all run by jews!”

It’s like, yeah, there’s some jews involved, but, like, you have to acknowledge, libtard Catholics literally presided over this mass resettlement Program of Haitians.

[1:07:25]

Blair Cottrell: The Catholics had to sign off on it.

Joel Davis: There’s a whole bunch of libtards that are in the Catholic Church that operate within the Catholic Church’s framework.

Thomas Sewell: I bet the women have the same haircut. [chuckling]

Joel Davis: Yeah, yeah. And so, you know, that’s interesting dynamic because, you know, …

Thomas Sewell: Long house haircut. Oh, God!

Blair Cottrell: You guys seen that theory? Apparently there’s this supernatural creature called the Mothman. They made a movie about it with, yeah, what was that guy’s name? It’s a real story. If there’s real sightings of this creature called Mothman that appears before a tragedy is going to happen and tries to warn you about it. And there’s stories about it having been seen a lot in Ohio right before a bridge in Ohio collapsed. I think it might have been in the nineties. But I was just saying [chuckling] that as a result of the immigrants from Haiti, maybe there’s a shitload of Mothman sightings right now. [chuckling]

Joel Davis: The Haitians probably ate the Mothman, bro!

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, [chuckling] Mothman’s probably dead.

Blair Cottrell: Oh, man! He was just trying to warn us. [chuckling]

Joel Davis: Yeah, the Haitians ate that nigger. It’s over! I don’t know. Maybe he’s not cute enough for them to eat. They seem to only eat cute things, like French people, …

Thomas Sewell: I took notes. Hold on. I took notes before when that cuck was talking, because it’s really important, like, dissecting that dad whose son died. He kept saying:

“It’s a political tool. It’s a political game.”

And what it came across is he is thinking politically. I don’t think the average person is thinking that politically, if the prime minister or the president talks about their son dying, they’re not thinking like:

“Oh, this fucking asshole! How dare he talk about my son dying!”

You know if someone’s son died, and then if you’re not a political person and the Albanese says that, like, mentions about the son dying, you’re not going to get upset about that you can be like:

“Oh, well the government recognises this tragedy, okay. Like, they’ve got their take on it.”

But you don’t think, like:

“They’re trying to win the argument. How dare you try to win the argument. You’re trying to win the argument!”

It’s very feminine the way he was talking came across, so he wasn’t concerned about the truth, which should be your main concern. Like, if your son died, someone’s responsible.

And then later on, he didn’t even say that the Haitian was responsible. He specifically said, although he is correct, it’s not murder, it’s manslaughter.

But he didn’t say that it was manslaughter. He said it was “accidentally killed”. So that the Haitian wasn’t responsible:

“It’s not the Haitians fault. You see. There should be no consequence, there should be no punishment, because it was an accident!”

And this is this just this long house. It’s this constant, overwhelming force coming from these faggot cucked men and women, and a lot of women as well. But I’m mostly focused on the men.

Blair Cottrell: It’s objectively not an accident as well. It’s culpable driving. That’s not an accident. It’s even legally recognised. It’s a crime.

Joel Davis: We did a vehicular homicide. And he said:

“Wouldn’t it be good if I wish it was a 60 year old Whiteman that killed my son?”

Yeah, he said that. Murdered. So White men does it. You want it to be a murder because you want to be able to talk about how evil White people are or something like it’s, …

Blair Cottrell: What a failure of a father. Like, dismal failure of a father is all that comes to mind.

Thomas Sewell: So they are always projecting. He’s saying:

“How dare JD Vance and Donald Trump use this as a political tool so that they can win their political game!”

But he is using it as a political tool! He’s trying to win a political game, and he’s projecting! They are only mentioning the truth, and he doesn’t want the truth mentioned because the truth gets in the way of him and his traitor ilk winning their political game! That’s my breakdown of it.

Joel Davis: Yeah. And I’ve seen this many times, particularly in England. But you see, I’ve seen it in America as well, where a young person, child, is murdered by some kind of illegal immigrant or other type of immigrant, and the parents are brought out to say:

“It’s nothing to do with race!”

Thomas Sewell: And I love Mexico.

Joel Davis: You don’t blame any particular community.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. Stop the hate!

Joel Davis: If I was killed as a child by some shitskin, you know, …

Blair Cottrell: Tell me you would not come back as a ghost. You’d come back as a ghost.

Joel Davis: Like fucking niggers!

Blair Cottrell: You’d come back as a ghost.

Joel Davis: Okay. Like, at least my death was kind of cool. At least my parents are angry. Like, at least I was loved as a child.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. Tell me you would not come back as a ghost and whisper into your father’s ear every night until he did something about it:

“Kill them all!”

[chuckling]

Thomas Sewell: Well, yeah, speaking of, there’s another story, an opposite story that Joel shared today of the Swedish teenagers that tortured and killed that Afghani rapist. They all got off!

Joel Davis: Oh, yeah, yeah. So they actually, I think, were convicted originally, but they got off on appeal.

So basically the story TLDRx is that, so this Swedish girl was raped by some Arab piece of shit, and she must have sent him a message or something, saying:

“Oh, hey, like, let’s meet up.”

Or whatever, and lured him in so that all of her friends could basically fuck him up and kill him. Now, I don’t think, like, she obviously can be like:

“Oh, I didn’t know what they were going to do.”

So she obviously, I think, got away with that one. But they were all tried for murder, but they were acquitted on appeal because none of them talked. And their lawyers argued that:

“Well, all five of them couldn’t have done the murder at the same time. So that means you don’t actually know which one of them actually committed the murder.”

[1:13:40]

Blair Cottrell: Who cares? Just convict them all!

Thomas Sewell: No, we say don’t convict them all. No! Five White kids killed a black, Blair, you’ve misread.

Blair Cottrell: Oh, sorry, I heard the wrong way around. Don’t convict them. Don’t convict them!

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. Black raped a White girl. And then the five White friends of the White girl lynched the black and torched him.

Blair Cottrell: And they got away with justices served. Why is there even any court case.

Thomas Sewell: And they got away with it. The reason why they got appealed is because nobody talks, everybody walks! That’s the fucking rule! No comment! [chuckling]

Blair Cottrell: Imagine that. Imagine White boys understanding how White courts work.

Thomas Sewell: Yes. Nobody talks, everybody walks!

Joel Davis: Yeah. Anyway, that’s just interesting story. Yeah, took some pleasure in it.

So, yeah, like hail to those kids.

Thomas Sewell: Swedish friends.

Joel Davis: Yeah. Good luck to them. Hope they enjoy their freedom. They deserved it, but, …

Thomas Sewell: They’re heroes.

Joel Davis: Teenage girls that get raped by these fucking shitskins and then they end up killing themselves. I like that this Swedish girl, instead of killing herself, went and got her friends together and was like:

“Let’s kill this fucking motherfucker!”

That’s a nice response. Yeah, exactly!

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. Then it needs to happen more often because I can’t fathom. Every man is gonna get, and not every man, but some men are gonna get tested in life with something as serious as this. A family member, you know, their wife, their daughter, you know, is going to have a bad circumstance with multiculturalism and diversity. And when that happens, you should really consider is it worth living in the shame of not doing something about that? Now I’m not going to advocate for violence because that would be illegal. But are you going to live in shame for the rest of your life, or are you going to do something about it?

And if it never happens to you, then you’re kind of lucky in a way that you never get your mettle really tested.

But yeah, it’s good to know that there are people out there that are like:

“Fuck it! I’m going to die on this hill. This is unacceptable. I don’t care what the punishment is. I don’t care what the consequences are. This should not have happened. And we need justice!”

And the Swedish courts. I mean, there’s cases and for sure they did this with the motivation and with the knowledge that there are cases of Swedish girls that have been raped. They’ve gone to the police. The police have locked up or arrested the rapist and the courts have let the rapists go and then paid them out 3 million krona or whatever the fuck it is for undue processes or something like that.

I mean, there was a there was an Afghani or Syrian that raped a Swedish girl recently and he was released and then he sued the Swedish government for some sort of like. There was some issue with the paperwork.

I can’t remember exactly what it was, but it was like he didn’t prove that he didn’t do the rape. He just proved that some undue process he had to go through like as part of his incarceration. And he got paid out like millions of krona, which I think is like hundreds of thousands of dollars, like 700 grand or something. And he got an early release as well. I think he only did three years and he was meant to do six or something. And it’s just fucking disgusting!

So if the justice system won’t do their job, it’s time for just global White civil disobedience and we should just get our own justice.

Joel Davis: I agree very much with Hersant’s view that we don’t give anywhere near enough love to the KKK anymore. [Thomas laughs] Ku Klux Klan. No, they seriously, they are true fucking heroes of the Aryan race. They kept America’s streets safe for White people for decades, not just through infiltrating the government and basically running the Democrat party for many, many generations. But also through some extra legal guarantees of peace and order in the streets. And they deserve a lot more respect and admiration.

At one point, think about this. At their peak, I think in the 1920s, like, one in ten American men were in the Ku Klux Klan. That’s how many klans from. They had like 5 million klansmen or something in the United States. And, well, America was a White supremacist country at that point. And black people did not fuck around. They were behaving themselves largely across the board, you know, trying to wear a suit and go to church and prove themselves to the Whiteman. And the Whiteman actually had a dignified existence in the United States at that point in history. And America was a great nation thanks to the Klan!

And since the Klan was dissolved basically after the Second World War, the whole place has gone to shit! So really, the Ku Klux Klan was really holding together, the whole of America when you look at it.

Blair Cottrell: Was that thanks to the Klan, or was the Klan kind of born of that circumstance? Maybe a bit of both.

[1:19:05]

Joel Davis: Well, I think the Klan deserves a lot of credit. I mean, because they had basically infiltrated the courts, the legal system, the state itself. They were incredibly well connected in addition to the extra legal activities, let’s say.

So it’s not just about you know, lynching some rapist negro, but it’s about the fact that they basically strike fear into the heart of those communities. Like:

“Well, you better not fuck around because the Klansman is going to fetch the rope!”

So when you create that credible fear. Like, we’re talking about Hitler’s re-migration policy, when the jews are like:

“Here’s your ability to move to Palestine, or you can stay in Germany with us. And here’s all the Goebbels anti-semitic propaganda getting Beamed at everyone.”

And the Nuremberg rally and stuff. It’s like:

“Where do you want to go jews?”

At the moment, there isn’t the fear to go along with the “here’s your way out”. Where when the Klan was around, there was, fear is the only language these savage races understand. It really is.

But, yeah, but organised White Mendez are the backbone of civilisation. Civilisation cannot stand without organised White men holding together justice in a society and order.

And so I think the Klan deserves a lot more credit than it gets. Because a lot of their activities were clandestine. That, like they can’t be celebrated as openly and ostensibly as the cause for what was looking back on it now, a golden era, really, in American history. That kind of White supremacist zenith that was the early part of the 20th century.

But I think you know, looking at it objectively, I think they have to take a very substantial amount of the credit for that. And they should be admired. I’m not saying everyone should get the White Hoods out and redo the whole Klan larp, but they should be admired nevertheless, a lot more in the culture for the role that they played. And that’s probably a controversial take. And people say:

“Oh, but then the Klan, there’s all these they were Freemasons and they went after this group, they went after Italians and blah, blah, blah!”

Yeah, whatever. Like I’m not, I don’t really want to get stuck in the minutiae of all of that. I was talking about the very basic, the very basic kind of fact of White men organised around, you know, rudimentary justice, racial justice and racial self defense.

And society is breaking down. The civil order is breaking down. This is going to be the only way that you’re going to be able to secure your communities going forward in the coming decades. Like, the state is not going to Reform itself and become better at executing law and order. Like the anarcho-tyranny is only going to get more and more retarded as time goes on.

Thomas Sewell: Yes. Think about Ohio as a textbook example where the government are nefarious. And a malicious government can send, 20,000 turbo niggers into your town of, I think it was either 38,000 or 58,000 Whites. And they sent like a quarter of the population, or a third of the population to just, … And they’re mostly, what? Young fighting age men. And they’re all speaking, you know, they’re all foreigners in a big country, so they’re going to stick together.

So even though they’re only a third of the population, that’s a powerful third, a very powerful third. Because most of the Ohio, it’s probably, they’ve got more fighting age men. I would guarantee that’s 20,000 Haitians would be more fighting age men than 60,000 Whites, because you’ve got women. And then think about all the old people that are in Ohio. Springfield, it’s like a small town. Like, mostly young people probably moved to the big cities for work.

So they’ve just built, they’ve just shipped an army of blacks into your town! And this is why White flight is not the solution. And having more children is not the solution.

I mean, these things are they can assist, you know, setting up defensible positions is important. Getting out of the poison and the poverty and, it’s just like the environment, culturally and physically, is polluted in the cities. So, yeah, it’s important to live somewhere that you can be healthy and raise children in a healthy way. And of course, healthy children is important. Having as many as you can.

But it still doesn’t solve the problem. Just more White people for the meat grinder. I mean, we can’t, we’re not going to out breed these population groups. We have to actually solve the problem before they become the demographic majority.

And that’s why it’s so important. As always, here’s a little segment for today’s show to get active, to build in real life community. Because I watched the town hall meetings. I watched two of them from Ohio, Springfield, and they were disgusting! It was like the, there was a couple men with some courage that stood up and they’re saying:

“Why is this happening? And this is not right and this is unfair.”

And then they basically get told:

“This meeting is over. This meeting is over!”

Like the DMV lady, like the black Mayor is like:

“This meeting is over. We’re not doing this!”

And then they’re standing there like:

“That’s illegal. You can’t do that you can’t shut down a meeting mid Question Time, or mid speaking time. This is against the Constitution or against the rules of Ohio. You know, the state legislator has to allow the time. The public has a right of reply, or a right of engagement in the political process, and you’re just undermining those rights.”

And the real question is, what the fuck are you going to do about it? You know, the system now is so nefarious and evil, it just makes the rules up as it goes along.

So what are you going to fucking do about it? You don’t get a right of reply. You don’t have Civil Liberties! You can’t sit there and say:

“I don’t want 20,000 Haitians in my town!”

They don’t give a fuck! They just steamroll you’re just an individual and individuals, …

Joel Davis: If you had 20,000 Klansmen in Ohio.

Thomas Sewell: Exactly! It was very different.

Joel Davis: Whose cats are getting eaten then? No one.

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, [chuckling] 20,000 Klansmen. But that’s the point. You can’t run from this. You can’t hide from this. No matter where you are, no matter how isolated or how alienated you are, if you’re in the cities, you’re surrounded on all sides.

Like where I live right now, in the Eastern suburbs of Melbourne, there’s probably 70 or so houses on my street, I’ve only seen, other than myself, only two other White families. There’s three White families on my street. And I’m in a kind of a middle class or like well, there’s no such thing as middle class anymore, but I’m in a decent area in the Eastern suburbs of Melbourne.

Joel Davis: You’re surrounded by gooks, not Indians and niggas.

[1:25:45]

Thomas Sewell: There are Indians. No, no, there’s a lot of Indians. There’s three Indians in very close proximity, but it is mostly Chinese. But there’s also a lot of Indians. It’s probably, like 80% Chinese and probably 15% Indian.

But, you know what I mean? Like, there’s no running from there’s no hiding from this. We got to organise everywhere we go, whatever town you’re in. That town meeting would be very different if there was 100 or 200 men! Actual fucking men in the town! If there was just 100 or 200 men in that town of 58,000, and they went to that town meeting and they said:

“No, this meeting isn’t over!”

And they fucking, you know, who’s going to turn on those 200 men? The local police? No fucking way! They’d have to bring the feds in. They’d have to bring in some outside force to crush those 200 men! Because the local police would probably side. What if it’s in a small town environment, I don’t see any reason why these 200 men couldn’t be friends with the local police in a small town. That would be appropriate. It’s not like you’re dealing with the feds. You’re not breaking the rules there. You know, the Klan was very successful at controlling local police forces.

So, yeah, we need the Klan. We need to bring back the Klan. Jacob was right again.

But, yeah, just get active!

Joel Davis: Telegram, look up NSN contact bot or EAM contact bot, either one. And send a DM. And we’ll put you in touch through messaging the EAM or NSN contact bot with your most local representative.

So you can be better. You can join the organisation. Because yeah, no one else is going to build the Klan in this country except us. We’re the only ones building it. So you got to join us. You got no other choices.

Blair Cottrell: Be worth researching the how do you say Ku Klux or Klu Klux?

Joel Davis: Ku Klux Klan.

Blair Cottrell: Jacob still calls me Klansman, and I think he does it because I used to be against all the KKK stuff. But then I actually asked myself:

“What do I know about the KKK? Really? Nothing!”

So I can’t comment.

Joel Davis: He’s just like, klansman? Klansman! Like when he walks in the room, he shakes everyone’s hand and just says, Klansman! It’s actually White [word unclear]

Thomas Sewell: But he is correct. We are of the White clan. You know, we are. You know, the Klans were powerful. When I had that conversation with the Scottish descent Aussie farmer, he was talking about how all the farms. He lived one suburb over from Pakenham. What is it, Nar Nar Goon? And he was founding stock. His great grandfather bought that farm off the British Crown prior to Federation. And everyone had between 60 to 100 hundred acres. And they were all Scottish families. And he was telling me about how when he grew up, everyone, he had the smallest family because he only had five kids and everyone bullied him for it. And everyone else, he was like:

“The McMillan’s, they had 15 and these guys, they had twelve, and these guys had 13.”

And he said:

“If there was a problem in the town and you did something to one of these girls or you know, you did some bad business dealing with one of these families, you would have a hundred guys at your door!”

And he’s talking to me about this regarding Covid. I didn’t bring up Covid, but he was talking about the protests in the city. He was talking about what the government was doing to people. And he said:

“That’s the problem with today.”

This guy was 73 years old, same age as my father. He said:

“That’s the problem with the people today is we got things done in the past. The government couldn’t do this stuff to us in the past.”

And then he used these words. He said:

“Because we were a clan!”

He used those words. He said:

“We were a clan! There were six families here, and everyone had around ten kids each on average. So we were a clan. We were like a greater family. And the clan inside the clan, they were all community because the daughter from one of the McMillan’s married the Forbes’s and da da da da da.”

So there’s blood, loyalty, there’s loyalty. There’s blood and honour. There’s natural foundational loyalty because that’s your brother in law. You’ve got like hundreds of like, second relations. You have a duty! You’ve got fucking a dog in the fight. You got skin in the game. Literally got skin in the game! If something happens to one of these people, if the government fucks with one of those people like, I think about that pregnant lady that was helping organise the Covid rallies, or she shared a Covid rally post on Facebook, and then like, 20 counter-terrorism rocked up to her house and she’s like, pregnant.

I remember seeing that video. And it just makes you, … It makes you burn inside when you see it. You’re like, if we were a real community, if we were a real clan, as White people, that wouldn’t be tolerated! Those cops would never be able to live it down. Those cops would never, ever get a handshake ever again! They would be spat on in the streets, everywhere they went! That they would be. They would have to leave the police force, they would have to run away, they’d have to change their name and go to another country. If we were a real country, if we were a real clan.

I’m not fed posing, I’m just saying, just the social pressure, just the ostracisation, businesses would say:

“You’re not welcome here. Get the fuck out! You did that to my sister in law!”

Or my cousin’s sister in law, or whatever the hell relation it is if we were actually tight knit! If we’re actual community, you know, that’s power! That’s real power. That’s grassroots power. A couple hundred, …

Blair Cottrell: This is why it’s in the interests, the system, to encourage hyper individualisation, right?

So everyone sees themselves as separate from each other. Everyone’s got their own mortgage, their own Netflix subscription. Everyone sits by themselves and doesn’t look at each other. And that’s the kind of culture we have to break.

Thomas Sewell: Yes. And just the obsession with social media. I think ultimately it’s a good thing. The more regulation they put, I don’t think this problem is going to be solved with social media. I think it’s good that we can organise using it and we can spread our ideas more rapidly than we ever have before.

But all the action is coming from in real life. All the action is coming from grassroots, from community building, from activism, from training together, from building culture from scratch, whatever that culture may be, whatever temple or institution that we’re building from scratch, whether it be a school, or a gym, you know, whether it be for fertility or martial, whatever it is. We’re rebuilding the pantheons. And I think that’s important.

Joel Davis: I think the concern with the yeah, I don’t really have a problem with you know, banning children off social media. I think there’s more harm than good that comes from them participating in that kind of thing I’m sure they’ll find ways around it, frankly. I don’t know exactly how feasible it will be. It just seems like a pretext to bring in-laws to mandate using, basically identifying yourself when you create social media accounts and log into social media accounts as a way to, basically give the government records of exactly whose Twitter account is whose and so on. Which seems to be kind of a step, therefore beyond that, to be able to bring in hate speech legislation and start actually door knocking people for racist tweets and so on like they do in Britain.

[1:33:06]

So that is a bit of a concern. It’s more like the kind of, oh, this is a pretext that you can get mums and dads behind, you know, everyday punters. Like:

“Yeah, you know what? Maybe we shouldn’t have twelve year olds on Instagram. Maybe that’s actually kind of fucking up the kids. We shouldn’t have, you know, twelve year olds scrolling TikTok for 3 hours a day watching skippity toilet videos and shit!”

I can understand that.

So then they’ll support it. And then all of a sudden you bring in they bring in a measure that can lead to like hate speech regulations. So, it’s one of those issues.

By the way, I think there’s actually going to be a rally against this, against the government censorship, the Misinformation Bill, which is a separate thing as well as related issues such as digital ID and so on, in Sydney this weekend. I think I have the details here somewhere. I’ll just pull them up. For those of you, I don’t live in Sydney anymore.

Thomas Sewell: Is there a Melbourne one?

Joel Davis: I haven’t seen anything in Melbourne as of yet. If anyone knows of anything, please send it to me.

But in Sydney I saw this is posted by John Ruddock, who is a member of New South Wales Parliament for the Libertarian Party. So it seemed like a kind of a big tent kind of thing. Speaker’s Corner in Sydney [https://soapboxspeakers.wordpress.com], which is on Art Gallery Road, The Domain, opposite New South Wales Art Gallery, if, you know, where that is in the city.

John Ruddock said here:

“Federal Labour has introduced the most insidious Bill since Federation, the Combating Misinformation and Disinformation Bill. They are erecting an East German style surveillance state. They want to treat us like farm animals. Join the resistance on Saturday the 28 September.”

So actually, no, it isn’t this weekend. I’m glad that I read this. It’s 11:30 in the morning, Saturday the 28 September. So that’s not tomorrow Saturday, but it’s actually Saturday, two weeks from tomorrow. So that gives you plenty of time to. We’ll talk about it some more. I really encourage nationalists to go down there, get your mates, go down there. Even just for the networking reason. It’d be good for there to be a good show of public opposition to force some discourse and embolden the Right-wing parties to put up some resistance to this, because it has to go through the Senate. And yeah, the Left do have the numbers, but in the Senate it gets a little bit complicated.

So it could be good to force some public debate and perhaps take a little bit of the edge off the Bill for some to negotiate it a little bit or something. But even if that isn’t possible, just go down there and go network. It’s a good opportunity to meet potentially sympathetic normies. I did like that John Roddick said “East German style”. As well, that’s nice. That’s obviously communist East Germany that he’s referring to. I like that he’s attacking. Libertarians are usually a bit better about this attacking than conservatives. They’ll attack it as a communist thing rather than as a “fascist” thing, which is better messaging.

But yeah, I have said before as well, I do think we should have some strategic friendship as much as possible between nationalist and libertarian factions in Australian politics, because a libertarian faction does care about putting up a defense of our free speech rights, which nationalists desperately need in order to advocate for our worldview. I don’t think libertarians really have much of a chance at becoming a real threat to us in becoming a very prominent political faction that could seize power, but they can nevertheless mobilise in defense of freedom of speech. And so I think we should be friendly on that grounds.

And often a lot of libertarians can be not so bad on quite a few issues. Like a lot of the libertarians that I speak to are usually more Right libertarians that are will agree that, yes, immigration has gone way too far and should be stopped and they’re importing Left-wing voters. Then they’ll stop short of being full race pilled. But nevertheless, politically speaking, they’re a lot better than pretty much all the other factions on a lot of the key issues.

So I think it’s worth having an open dialogue with them. Not making our points and our points of disagreement, but also seeing them as another kind of marginalised faction of the Right that perhaps we could kind of get along with. And because they aren’t as hot in terms of the controversy surrounding them, they’re more accepted, even though they aren’t part of the mainstream, they’re like accepted. They aren’t as controversial. So that gives them the ability to kind of operate effectively in ways that when you’re a full on nationalist, you meet a lot more opposition, from the state, from the Left, and so on.

Blair Cottrell: Are there any active libertarians like in the, what I suppose you could call the activist sphere? I don’t know of any.

Joel Davis: Well, I mean, I just mentioned this guy’s literally a Member of Parliament, John Roddick of the Libertarian. He’s the head of the Libertarian Party in New South Wales. The Libertarian Party seems like it’s reasonably serious faction. That’s the rebranding of the Liberal Democrats, by the way. People might remember the Liberal Democrats. So they obviously have associated people. There’s a lot of, I notice there’s a bunch of libertarians on Twitter. I got jumped into Twitter space with a few of them the other day and debated a few things with them. No, quite friendly, to be fair. And we had a good discussion. So they do seem to have a decent little faction online line, and they seem to be willing to engage in this freedom movement stuff, which is kind of a leftover from Covid. But moving on now to other issues, now that Covid is kind of behind us.

So they’re doing a street rally right here. A lot of these people were involved in the Vote No rallies [re the Abo Voice referendum] and that whole clique as well. So there seems to be a certain continuity in general with this general kind of populist, dissident element of kind of the activist kind of big tent. And the libertarian movement seems to make up a big bulk of that. So yeah.

Thomas Sewell: Cool. Do you want to wrap it up? Do the Superchats?

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, I think we’ll finish a little bit earlier tonight. I’ve got a big day tomorrow, so I need to get to bed soon. We’ve only had, as far as I can tell, two Superchats on Rumble.

So if you want to send one through, do it now, because Joel will be checking our other platforms for Superchats there, too. You’ll have a bit of time to get one through if that’s what you want to do to support the show.

Joel Davis: Yeah, I just also want to mention quickly, before we do the Superchat, this article, because it’s important to mention Jacob this week was in court, Jacob Hersant, we mentioned him a little bit earlier. This is The Noticer article:

“Australian facing year in jail for political salute vows to appeal if convicted in landmark free speech case.”

Basically Jacob has been the first person in Victoria charged with doing the banned Roman salute. And it was kind of like a semi-salute. For those who don’t know, he came out of court after a previous issue was finally resolved and he kind of almost threw a Roman, but then pulled his arm back and was like:

“Oh, can’t do that now. It’s illegal!”

To the media. And they charged him over it. So Jacob is arguing in court, or his lawyers arguing in court that it’s actually unconstitutional, that the Constitutional implied right to freedom of political communication, which has been established by high court precedent, would make this an unlawful or an unconstitutional law and therefore he shouldn’t be convicted of the crime.

But also there’s the softer argument that, well, he didn’t actually do the Roman salute, so it’ll be interesting to see how this case goes. It’s only in the Magistrate’s Court. So above that, there’s County Court, and then there’s like the Supreme Court of Victoria, and then potentially even the High Court. I don’t think it would go that far. I guess it’s possible.

Regardless of what happens, whether he wins or loses, getting appealed to a higher court, particularly if he loses, he’ll definitely appeal it.

[1:41:37]

Thomas Sewell: And if he wins, the government will appeal it. Because if he wins at Magistrates, which is very unlikely, the judge, the magistrate, is the Constitutional law magistrate. He’s a specific magistrate. I can’t remember the guy’s name, but he’s specifically selected for this case because he’s the expert on constitutional law at the magistrate’s level, which is really more focused on obviously Victorian legislation, because it’s not the Supreme or High Court. If he’s a cowboy, then there’s a chance that he can win. But I don’t know the guy, I don’t know what kind of magistrate this guy is.

But what the boys said that went and took notes was that the first day the prosecution called a whole bunch of witnesses, including a bunch of communists from Melbourne Uni, and they basically explained to the court a whole bunch of things that are incorrect about the history of the Roman salute. But they also explained that Jacob doing the Roman salute is against the Constitutional rights of minorities to have their political views, and that minorities have an implied right to freely express their opinions in Australia. And Jacob doing the salute is a violation because it intimidates every non-White in the vicinity, and basically that exists in Australia into not expressing their political rights.

So they did, like this weird projection where they’re not stopping Jacob’s political rights, they’re stopping Jacob from stopping other people’s political rights, because Jacob doing an arm gesture takes away from the implied right of non-Whites to have rights. It’s a full double-think tautology. Really interesting!

So that was the first day of evidence. And then the second day of evidence. So that was the Monday and then the Tuesday, the Victorian government, because it’s a constitutional matter, the Victorian government had to supply a team of lawyers to represent the Attorney General, or the Victorian version of the Attorney General. And they basically repeated, those lawyers repeated almost word for word, the same thing as the communist “think tank” from Melbourne Uni. They basically said the same thing. They said:

“Well, this law is constitutional, and we’re here to represent the Attorney General that put this law through.”

I’m pretty sure the Victorian Attorney General is a jew. Is that correct, Joel? He’s jewish?

Joel Davis: Victorian Attorney General? I know the Federal Attorney General* is jewish.

[* Mark Alfred Dreyfus is an Australian politician and lawyer who has been attorney-general of Australia and cabinet secretary since June 2022, having held both roles previously in 2013 and from 2010 to 2013 respectively. Dreyfus is a member of the Australian Labor Party, and has been the MP for Isaacs since the 2007 election. Dreyfus was born (1956) in Perth, Western Australia, the son of George Dreyfus, a noted composer who came to Australia from NS Germany. He is of jewish ancestry. Wikipedia]

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, Dreyfus is a jew. Yeah, Dreyfus was I think, the first politician or one of the first politicians to do the Senate inquiry into us, to try to ban us as a terror group back in 2020. So Dreyfus has been on the agenda the whole time [chuckling] trying to ban us, ban the salute, ban everything! Jaclyn Symes*. Yeah. Okay, well, anyway, representatives of Jaclyn Symes, the Victorian Attorney General, just repeated word for word that Jacob doing the salute, like, is why she. They didn’t say this word for word, but this is kind of what they implied that him doing it kind of creates this, like, “force wave” through society. Like it’s this magic superpower that floats through society again, player. They didn’t say this word for it, but this is what they’re implying. They’re implying his action of doing the salute is so powerful, so gracious, so incredible that it actually basically brain blocks all the non-Whites and jews in the vicinity, in an infinite vicinity within the boundaries of Australia, because it intimidates them. And now they can no longer express whatever it was they were going to express. They’re completely, …

[* Jaclyn Symes is an Australian politician and Attorney-General of the state of Victoria. She is a Labor member of the Victorian Legislative Council, having represented Northern Victoria Region since 2014. Symes worked for five years as a ministerial advisor for Rob Hulls, the Victorian Deputy Premier and Attorney-General. Wikipedia]

Blair Cottrell: I’d love to see how that was worded. Love to see how they worded that! [chuckling]

Joel Davis: It’s so insane! It’s like using your rights of political communication, intimidates others into not being able to communicate their political opinions. It doesn’t make any fucking sense!

Thomas Sewell: So what I said to Jacob was, I was like:

“This is fascinating! This if this law passes, like, if they actually get Jacob on this and they make this legislation, it’s still a political victory from us in the sense of accelerating. The government is just accelerating.”

Because we can articulate this to the public that. Hang on a minute. Whites are Second Class citizens. Non-Whites are allowed to express their political views. But if Whites express their political views, it violates the political views of non-Whites! So only non-Whites are allowed to express their explicit political views. Whites are only allowed to repeat the political views expressed by non-Whites. They don’t have any actual individual. Well, not individual. That’s the wrong word. But they don’t have any unique political views that are only for Whites. Those views are banned!

Joel Davis: Yeah.

Thomas Sewell: So we’re Second Class citizens in our own country!

Joel Davis: One thing that could. Could happen here is the judge could rule that, … Could kick the can down the road and rule that:

“Well, he didn’t actually complete the Roman salute. He just kind of made his arm halfway extend and then aborted it.”

And therefore, he doesn’t actually have to rule upon it as a constitutional matter because he can just simply rule, …

Thomas Sewell: That’s the worst case scenario.

Joel Davis: But then eventually, at some point, a court is going to have to rule on this because someone is going to do it.

Thomas Sewell: Someone is going to do it! [chuckling]

Joel Davis: Yeah. [chuckling]

But, yeah, I would anticipate. Honestly, I do think we have a very good chance of victory here. Maybe not in the Magistrates Court, but when it goes into the higher courts, because that argument is just so bad! Like, if that’s the best constitutional argument they have, they’ve got nothing! Absolutely!

Thomas Sewell: That’s the argument they have.

Joel Davis: Yeah.

[1:47:35]

Thomas Sewell: I asked Jacob for more information, and he was like:

“That’s the argument they have.”

They didn’t have another argument. It was that:

“Jacob doing it basically creates negative feelings and harm in non-Whites in the vicinity and violates their rights. So therefore the law should be constitutional because the law isn’t imposing on the rights of Australians, it’s actually assisting the rights of Australians, because it’s stopping people who are trying to stop Australians from expressing their rights!”

It’s fascinating, but that’s their argument.

Joel Davis: Yeah, but anyway, I’ll get onto some of these Superchats because Blair’s tired and, uh. Yeah, we got.

Blair Cottrell: I’m okay. I’m okay. Don’t mind me. I’m here.

Joel Davis: Oh, you’re all right.

Blair Cottrell: I’m sick of being the tired one. I’m sick of being the oldest, tiredest one! [chuckling]

Thomas Sewell: Well, just gonna get on the White energy. The White monster.

Joel Davis: I was gonna, I actually had one more video. Do I have permission?

Thomas Sewell: Yeah.

Joel Davis: Blair, I specifically want to get your reaction to this, and maybe you being kind of a little moody might actually make it funnier.

So I don’t know if you actually.

Blair Cottrell: All right, let’s do it! What have we got.

Joel Davis: You might have seen this already because it went pretty viral online. When I saw this, I thought it was fake, and then I realised that I don’t think it actually is fake. I think, …

Thomas Sewell: Oh, no!

Blair Cottrell: Haven’t seen it yet. So let’s have a look.

Thomas Sewell: Oh, no!

Joel Davis: I can’t believe that this is real.

Female in Muslim garb: To the stigmas of Australia, I say that this goofy air government have been capping not just now, but for a long time. A few of you may remember when they said there’ll be no phantom tax under the government I lead. They’re cappaholics!

They’re also yappaholics. They yap non-stop about how their cost of living measures are changing lives for all Australians. Just put the fries in the bag, Lil bro. They tell us that they’re not proving the housing situation in this country. They must have brain rot from watching too much kaisenet [sp] and forgot about their plans to ban social media for kids under 14. If that becomes law, you can forgore skull emoji, all about watching Duke Dennis or catching a dub with the bros on Fort. Chat, is this prime minister serious? Even though he’s the prime minister of Australia, sometimes it feels like he’s the CEO of Ohio. I would be taking an hour if I did not mention the ops who want to cut WA’s [word unclear] and services tax. The decision voters will be making in a few months time will be between a mid government, a dogwater opposition, or a crossbench that will mock both of them. Though some of you cannot yet vote, I hope when you do, it will be in a more goated Australia for a government with more aura, skivity.

Blair Cottrell: What did I just watch? What did you make me watch? What’s her strategy for appeals court, …

Joel Davis: Only 20 seconds. I couldn’t actually get through it.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, man. I don’t know. I’m trying to get over the initial cringe to understand her strategy there. What is it to, … Isn’t [word unclear] too young to vote anyway? Like, aren’t these Parliamentarians whores for votes? The people she’s trying to appeal to can’t even vote yet! [chuckling] I don’t understand. Obviously she’s just looking for clout. Who is this woman? Who’s this headscarf woman in Parliament anyway? Does anyone know? I’ve never seen her before in my life. Maybe that’s the point.

Thomas Sewell: I’ve seen her. I’m pretty sure she did a speech. She hit the algorithm a while ago because it wasn’t until the refugee crisis. Didn’t she get in trouble because she went to a meeting that was declared anti-semitic? Isn’t that same one? Fatima? Isn’t that her name? Fatima?

Blair Cottrell: Oh, yeah! Yeah, that’s right. Wasn’t she the one who said, …

Thomas Sewell: Is she a Green Senator?

Blair Cottrell: She’s the Green Senator. She’s the Green Senator who said that:

“Regardless of what sort of initiative it is, jewish lobbyists try to get into it and take over it.”

She’s the one who said that, wasn’t she? Yeah.

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, I’m pretty sure that’s the one. Yeah.

Blair Cottrell: All right, well. Hmm. [chuckling] Maybe I don’t like hater that much. I don’t even know. I don’t know. It’s too late in the night for me to process.

Joel Davis: She was in the Greens. I don’t think she the person. You’re just describing someone else. She was in Labour, and she got booted from Labour recently because she refused to vote with them on some resolution about Israel-Palestine, obviously siding with the Palestinians against the government, which has a kind of moderate but more pro-Israel position, obviously, because, you know, who runs the country.

Thomas Sewell: She’s Labour.

Joel Davis: She’s no longer Labour. So now she’s basically Independent. She’s 28 years old.

Blair Cottrell: Not quite as bad as that haka? Remember that Maori woman? And doing the haka in New Zealand Parliament? What is it with women just making a mockery out of Parliament and of themselves in the process?

Thomas Sewell: The Greeks predicted that.

Joel Davis: Women just aren’t funny. That’s the problem. When they try to be funny. It’s, …

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, well, I’m not sure. Is it more embarrassing for Fatima, the woman who just delivered that nonsense, or Parliament itself? It’s kind of embarrassing for us. Is it humiliating?

Joel Davis: Yeah. Women in the Senate, …

[1:53:26]

Blair Cottrell: The more of a dancing monkey they can be inside Parliament or inside our institutions, the more they can make a mockery of those institutions and by extension, of us as a people, I think. Maybe that’s the strategy. Maybe that’s what’s going through her head. And the heads of all of these women in Parliament, that’s probably the best way to understand it, I suppose.

Thomas Sewell: She’s married to an Aussie as well.

Joel Davis: Obviously you can tell, …

Blair Cottrell: Well, you gotta do something to stand out to these days from the crowd. So she’s probably trying to do that a little bit, too.

Thomas Sewell: But all the brown anti-racist women are all looking to get bleached. They’re all hypocrites!

Blair Cottrell: Oh, yeah. Well, there’s only one way genetics can go. Like, when it comes to selecting a mate. It’s like, actions speak louder than words. It’s a very cliche, classic saying, but you can always, …

Joel Davis: Some, like, fat, super soy, like, libtard guy. Often they’re gingers.

Thomas Sewell: And I think he’s kind of half ginger. He’s like a [word unclear] ginger.

Joel Davis: Look, I’m not, … This is not ginger hate. People accuse me of ginger hate, because I noticed before, a lot of the White converts to Islam happen to be ginger. And people are like:

“I won’t stand for this ginger hate! You’re anti-White! Gingers are White!”

Or what I’m not saying gingers aren’t White. I support them. I’m just noticing a trend. They got, like, a certain kind of strangeness they can get pulled into, like, this weird relationship with the Islamic world.

And I think it’s because they’re Scythian heritage, and the Scythians once ran that whole region.

And so there’s this kind of ancestral, like, those are, like, their ancient enemies, which they have, like, ancient relationships with. And there’s some weird, like, unconscious thing going on. Not saying that there’s something fundamentally wrong with gingers. I’m not saying that. I like gingers. I’m pro-ginger. Some people have thought that I was ginger, incorrectly, because I’m not!

But I guess on, like, there’s been pictures of me taken that in a certain light, my hair looks a little bit gingery. And people have accused me of being a ginger online.

And I was like:

“Well, first of all, that’s not offensive. I’d be quite happy to be ginger if I was. But second, I’m not a ginger. But if I was, why is that bad?”

Thomas Sewell: The guys at work asked me, like, last week, they’re like:

“Tom, would you rather be a ginger or bald?”

Ginger! Instantly ginger! Give me my hair back! [Blair burst out laughing] I’ll be red headed, just give it back! But no, it doesn’t work like that, unfortunately. [chuckling] It’s like half of their personality is just from Family Guy, like, and I think Google’s always listening as well, because after they said that the first thing that came up in my algorithm when I went to put music into YouTube was a Family Guy clip. And it was like, Peter asking the black guy, the wheelchair guy, and the sex pest:

“Would you rather be Hitler in 1943, or homeless with a 5% chance of being a billionaire?”

Or something like that. [chuckling]

And then the wheelchair guy’s like:

“Am I still in a wheelchair?”

And the black goes:

“Am I still black? Am I black in a wheelchair?”

[chuckling]

And I was like:

“Man, this is funny!”

You’re almost strawberry blonde. Almost. Yeah, you’re like strawberry blonde.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. Well, the red gene is in my family, but the gingers have these special abilities that kind of make them slightly different. Like, sometimes slightly worse, sometimes slightly better. And in my, in the case of my family, I think they’re even better because my cousin plays for Carlton, and he’s one of the redheads in the family. Probably the only one currently, actually. No, there’s two. But the other one’s a woman, so she’s obviously not going to play football. But he plays a professional level, like AFL.

Yeah, there’s some qualities that are apparently exclusive to the redhead experience, the redhead human experience. And one of them that I found fascinating was different pain thresholds, sometimes experiencing more pain than other people would from small cuts and grazes. But major injuries don’t cause a great deal of pain.

And there’s also a resistance to certain types of drugs, particularly anesthetic. And this is well known by anesthesists or anesthesiologists, if you’re in America, the people who administer the concoction which sedates you and puts you into a deep sleep while you’re being operated on. It’s known by these people that if they get a redhead on the operating table, they all get a bit nervous because they don’t know how that person’s going to react to the anesthetic. A lot of them wake up during the surgery. Sometimes it just doesn’t work on them at all, and they have to pump them with twice as much to get a result. So it’s weird! I haven’t seen any explanation for why this is the case, but redheaded people have some special abilities.

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, they’re definitely a unique people, and there’s definitely some ancient law to it. For example, a lot of the mummies of pharaohs in Egypt were redheads.

And interestingly, George Washington. I believe it’s George Washington, was a redhead. And they did a DNA testing on him about five years back, or seven years back. And it turns out he has a very rare haplogroup. So most of us are like, R1B or R1BA or something like that, R1A. And there’s a few that are less common for western European people. But he was like some weird haplogroup. He was like J or K haplogroup, which has been traced directly back to most of the pharaohs.

So that means he’s a direct, George Washington’s a redhead, and he was a direct descendant. Like direct, not indirect, like a lot of us are, I think Joel put up something today that, like, 80% of Irish people have some, and they’re mostly redheads or not mostly, but they’re the highest. Scots Irish had the highest percentage of redheads.

But, yeah, that’s an interesting fact. So it’s obviously an ancient race. There’s obviously an ancient race of redheads that conquered Mesopotamia.

Joel Davis: Yeah. One of the myths as to why the Scots became known as the Scots, is that because they descended from the Egyptian princess Scotia.

And then that’s kind of interesting because you look at, like, Scottish Rite Freemasonry, and it’s got all these pyramids and shit in it! And you’re like, what’s with this, like, weird Egyptian connection? There’s some evidence that the prophet Muhammad, and maybe even Jesus Christ could have been gingers as well, based upon certain descriptions.

[2:00:30]

Thomas Sewell: The descriptions of Muhammad was that he was a redhead and he had a red beard. That’s why Muslims love redheads. That’s why they’re always trying to recruit gingers, because they want the ginger genes back. It’s just subconscious. They don’t even know why. And they’re not allowed to draw Muhammad, but they, but someone drew his brother and his daughter way, way, way back in the day, and his daughter was blonde and blue eyed. I don’t know, I can’t remember his brother’s hair colour. But they’ve got Muhammad’s beard. They’ve got hairs from his beard in some of the old mosques.

And it’s like, if you go to a serious mosque, if you’re a Muslim, they’ve still got, like, artifacts of Muhammad, even if it’s just one hair and it’s almost always red.

Blair Cottrell: We are conquerors! Always have been, huh?

Thomas Sewell: Even when our ideologies get diluted [chuckling] like Buddhism or, …

Joel Davis: Yeah, yeah. So Ginger’s a kino. Like, we should be pro-ginger on the show and in the movement, I think when Hitler painted a picture of Mary and Jesus, he gave Jesus ginger hair. Hitler was ginger pilled!

But anyway, there’s enough, you know, gingers, we’ve trolled you before, but we just gave you, like, a nice glazing. Ginger glazing, tonight on the show.

Let’s get into some Superchats, and I’ll go to the Entropy chats first. Deer in the Headlights just sent a full stop, so thanks. The Gump said:

“Honour to you for keeping the message pure and uncompromised. Hail victory!”

Well, thank you. And Based Teneri George said:

“Have you, Joel, read Carl Schmitt’s beautiful book Land and Sea? If you have, any thoughts on it, and on Schmitt and his thought more generally, can you name an American White advocate counterpart you especially admire, though he may not agree on everything, my great respect to you Aussie warriors for the race, Joel, Blair and Tom.”

Okay, well, you put a lot there.

First of all, I have not read Land and Sea, but I have read a lot of Carl Schmitt’s other books. I just reread The Concept of the Political with a reading group we had within the organisation, actually, this week, which is a brilliant book that I’ve read multiple times. Short, but Carl Schmitt’s thought is incredible! I don’t think there’s many political theorists on his level. He’s one of the absolutes! I think he’s the best political theorist of the 20th century. Incredibly prescient. He basically predicted the ideological implications of the post World War Two international order, what form it would take, before World War Two, anyone even knew that was going to happen. He could kind of see the direction that liberalism was going in. And, yeah, very, just incredibly accurate political analysis, I would say, in general, very cutting, like, theoretical analysis in general that basically everyone should be aware of obviously, Carl Schmitt ended up joining the NSDAP and advised it. And also refused de-Nazification after the war. And despite this, he was too big to cancel from Western academia because he was just simply too influential. And so his work remains ubiquitous in kind of Political Science postgraduate courses.

I would say about Schmitt that, yeah, like, I think he is an essential reading for people in the movement. A towering figure. So very, very long praise, but I haven’t read his Land and Sea. I am aware that his geopolitical thought, that he kind of largely played off, that obviously he had the idea of great spaces, and he largely played off, I think, the kind of Mackinder Theory* around, like, sea powers and land powers, obviously, in that text, and I think it is quite accurate, when you look at the history of the British Empire with respect to the history of the Germans or the Russians as a land power and a sea power, they have very different kind of political orders. If you’re a sea power, that means that you rule basically through international trade networks.

[* “The Geographical Pivot of History” is an article submitted by Halford John Mackinder in 1904 to the Royal Geographical Society that advances his heartland theory. In this article, Mackinder extended the scope of geopolitical analysis to encompass the entire globe. He defined Afro-Eurasia as the “world island” and its “heartland” as the area east of the Volga, south of the Arctic, west of the Yangtze, and north of the Himalayas. Wikipedia]

And so then you bias towards a more commercial form of government, a form of government that is kind of dominated more by commercial interests. And your legal system and your political system will reflect that.

And so you can see, that’s why, like the Anglo Saxon world, whether it be American led or British led, has led to a more laissez faire, so to speak, liberal system.

Whereas the Germans and the Russians, being that they are land powers, their power isn’t necessarily derived from international trade networks, but from building up the core, the land core.

So you can amass, like this, these massive industrial centres and raise massive land armies that can dominate land spaces rather than oceans. And so rather than them being commercially dominated, they’re dominated more by a centralised bureaucratic structure that comports more with massive military forces. And you can see, therefore, in the history of German and Russian politics, particularly in the modern world, tendency towards illiberal political systems as a result.

But anyway, I definitely recommend Schmitt, particularly The Concept of the Political, which I think is integral reading.

[2:06:10]

As for an American White advocate counterpart that I especially admire. Let me put on the spot here a little bit. I have a lot of respect for James KirkPatrick, aka Kevin Deanna, who he works with Vdare, and American Renaissance, but he’s his own man. He’s got one of the best Twitter accounts, very good political analysis, been around for a very long time, and kind of just like, generally very well respected across the scene by most factions. I would say that his analysis is very good because he basically boils everything down to just a pure White Identity Politics position, like pure White identitarianism. No frills, really, no cucking. Incredibly ideologically consistent. And this actually comports with my idea about Carl Schmitt and The Concept of the Political. He has a very Schmittian approach to White identitarianism.

In other words, he has a lot of respect for the friend-enemy distinction. Like for Schmitt, the core essence of politics is the distinction between friend and enemy. Not between your personal friends and enemies, but between the public friend and enemy.

In other words, who are you willing to fight for? And who are you willing to fight against?

In other words, what is the particular way of life and identity that you identify with? Unto war, unto revolution, unto existential conflict. And obviously, if we make that determination in White racial terms, then that then becomes like a totalizing political view. And all other political issues need to be fundamentally processed through a kind of pro-White friend-enemy distinction. And I think his political analysis does that quite effectively.

MLG also said:

“Will watch on replay. Great work, fellas. Supporting from London.”

Thomas Sewell: Is Greg Johnson a faggot?

Joel Davis: Yes.

Thomas Sewell: People spread rumours about that. Is that true? Is it?

Joel Davis: It’s not rumours.

Thomas Sewell: Oh, that’s sad.

Joel Davis: You didn’t know that he was a faggot? That’s unfortunate.

Thomas Sewell: I had people say, I don’t own any of his books, but I’ve been kind of buying up some books recently. And someone said to me:

“Oh, Greg Johnson’s a faggot.”

And I was like:

“Oh, that’s a shame.”

Joel Davis: Unfortunate, because his outfit Counter-Currents, not just what he has put out, but they’ve put out a lot of good stuff over the years because they’ve published a lot of other authors in the movement. And I don’t think you should just never read anything on their website just because he’s a faggot.

But at the same time, they’ve also put out pro-faggot propaganda. There actually was a really good article written by Andrew Joyce a few years ago against the pro-gay. I reread it recently, but yeah, against the kind of pro-gay articles they put out on Counter-Currents, where they would have stuff basically insinuating that being homophobic is actually jewish [Tom starts laughing] and it’s actually Aryan to love fags because in Greco, … Which is kind of an ahistorical analysis of Greco-Roman society, they respected fags. And then the jews came in with their Christian morality and turned us against gays!

Thomas Sewell: On Counter-Currents, there’s a book by a guy called James J. O’Meara called The Homo and the Negro.

And then the blurb says that it’s basically about how homosexuals have been integral for building civilisation because they don’t waste time with women. It’s kind of like that what’s that other faggot? He wrote a book. It’s kind of like Baps [sp] theory book. And it’s about, it’s kind of like manosphere culture, how women are just purely for utility.

Anyway, it doesn’t matter. It’s all gay shit! Who cares?

Joel Davis: Literally [chuckling] all gay shit!

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. It’s just gay shit! I really don’t like faggots. They’re just traitors to life. They’re not just traitors to the race. They’re traitors to life. There’s nothing noble in faggotry. There’s nothing, like, if they dedicate themselves to art, why do they have to be a faggot? Like, you don’t have to be a faggot to dedicate yourself to art. You can still be heterosexual. [chuckling] You know what I mean? It’s like a strange cope. It’s like I can’t get rid of the faggot artist, like:

“Oh, I can’t get rid of the gay thoughts.”

So instead of trying to deal with that or whatever, fix that problem, however the fuck you can fix it, I don’t know. They’re like:

“I’ll just dedicate myself to expanding Western civilisation in this realm.”

But it’s like anything they create is ultimately going to be tainted by their poor spirit. Like, they’ve got a bad spirit, a gay spirit.

Joel Davis: Yeah. Their life forces has been totally perverted at the fundamental level.

Thomas Sewell: So how do you trust any art that they create? There’s going to be something sick in it. There’s going to be something twisted in it.

Joel Davis: Yeah. Because from a metaphysical standpoint, like a male, a masculine-feminine duality, I think, is really in the essence of the entire universe. Like, you could even, like, look at, like, subatomic relationships through that lens.

Thomas Sewell: Yeah.

Joel Davis: Electromagnetism through that lens and so on, all the way up through, like, life! That’s the force that perpetuates life, is the masculine-feminine polarity. So that’s corrupted in someone’s personality. It’s kind of like the very kind of core of their life essence has been corrupted. It’s almost worse than almost anything else as a result of that because it’s so fundamentally fucked!

So if someone is a faggot, a sodomite, it’s like, almost like almost anything that comes out of their mouth, you kind of have to almost disregard because there’s no foundation from which anything good could come. Like, they might actually say something accurate at times, but it’s just not worth even listening, because they’re a faggot.

But when it comes to someone like Greg Johnson, like, I’ve seen complicity from his publication in publishing pro-homosexual apologia, which just then becomes subversive. You know, then it’s like this rationalisation of why we need to be more accepting towards homosexuals and so on.

Like, if the jews invented homophobia, then I would just have to give to the jews credit for coming up with a good idea that would be like, one W to the jews. But they didn’t! Homophobia actually is in every, pretty much every, like, culture ever in human history.

[2:13:07]

Thomas Sewell: So jews are probably the least homophobic. So that is completely subversive because it’s a complete, …

Joel Davis: Tel Aviv is literally the gayest city on earth.

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. Jews don’t have an issue with gays. They want to sow seeds of chaos everywhere.

Joel Davis: Yeah, I think also niggers are the gayest race statistically as well.

Thomas Sewell: They are! That’s why they’ve got AIDS and Monkeypox.

Joel Davis: Yeah.

Thomas Sewell: My God keeps cursing them.

Joel Davis: Well, that’s not, I don’t know if that’s why God keeps cursing them. It’s just, …

Thomas Sewell: Well, it’s par for the course. [chuckling] You can’t behave that way and not have consequences. There’s consequences for all things against natural law.

Joel Davis: Yeah. I think niggas might be just kind of cursed just by being born as niggas in the first place. [LOL]

Thomas Sewell: For sure!

Joel Davis: Like, they probably did something fucked up in their past life.

Thomas Sewell: Absolutely!

Joel Davis: Like, according to the Mormon cosmology, you know, primordially before the beginning of the universe, you know, there was a battle in heaven, and there were all these celestial beings and Lucifer, you know, tried to raise this rebellion against God. And then basically everyone who was complicit in that rebellion became the demons. And everyone who fought on the side of Jesus and God, they became incarnated as White people. And then everyone who stayed neutral, they became the niggers! I’m not saying I believe in Mormonism, obviously, but it’s kind of based. It’s kind of funny.

Blair Cottrell: I remain for those, … Sorry, I’m too tired to even spit the phrase:

“The hottest fires of hell are reserved for those who remain neutral in times of struggle!”

I think it was Gandhi who said that?

Thomas Sewell: It would be an ancient question quote. Gandhi’s a fraud!

Blair Cottrell: Probably.

Joel Davis: Anyway, I’ll go through some more of these Superchats. I think you guys posted them in here. Yeah. Ukrainian Groyper, …

Thomas Sewell: Dante’s Inferno*. That’s where that quote is from. That’s from Dante’s Inferno. The first layer of hell is for the inactive, the people that don’t get active, the people that don’t pick a side. That’s the first layer of hell. Yeah.

[* Inferno is the first part of Italian writer Dante Alighieri’s 14th-century narrative poem The Divine Comedy. It is followed by Purgatorio and Paradiso. The Inferno describes the journey of a fictionalised version of Dante himself through (the nine levels of) Hell, guided by the ancient Roman poet Virgil. Wikipedia]

Joel Davis: Ukrainian Groyper said:

“Joel is the only one out of the three who doesn’t have a Wikipedia page. How am I supposed to know that he’s a Nazi?”

Yeah, well, I thought about creating a Wikipedia page for myself, and then I realised it would immediately get taken over by Leftists and then converted into like, this awful hit piece about how I’m a satanic paedophile or something. So I decided I would just try and live without a Wikipedia page as long as possible, because yeah, we don’t control. [chuckling] Wikipedia is not under patriot control.

Thomas Sewell: Not yet. We’re working on it. First mission is to change my profile picture on Wikipedia to a good one. That’s your first mission Wikipedia guys. [chuckling] Not like a screen grab from an old video.

Joel Davis: RSA Liberty Supporter said:

“You start with the most generous re-migration package and crank it up from there. You two step them and the Liberals incentivise them to take the earliest option as it’s in their best interests.”

That’s the thing. I don’t really think that’s what we’re getting here. I mean, ultimately, we talking about, … Could you even call them conservatives? But we’re talking about like, the Swedish, like, mainstream Right, who has been complicit in like, mass immigration. They’re not initiating phase one of like a six phase process to like purify the Swedish population and send millions back or anything, and work their way towards mass deportations. It’s limited measure that they probably don’t intend to go much further then.

So, yeah, someone also said here, Thorn 91:

“I know not everyone here is Christian, but Obadiah 18 prophesies the end of the jews.”

Obadiah 18? I don’t remember that from the Bible.

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, I just searched that before. It’s just like:

“Jacob will be fire and Joseph will be flames and Esau will crumble!”

Joel Davis: Okay. Yeah. Okay. I’m looking up the book of Obadiah. Okay, I just don’t really remember reading that in the Bible. “Prophecy concerning the divine judgement of Edom and the restoration of Israel”. That’s kind of interesting because of how the Edomites ultimately kind of got fused with the Judeans in like, the second century. But anyway, we’re not going to get, … That’s a bit of a tangent.

Man Before Time said:

“Have you done much reading from the Stoics, particularly Aurelius, Epictetus, Plato. So what aspect of Stoicism, personally, think is the most important?”

I don’t think you can classify Plato as a stoic. But, yeah, Marcus Aurelius. I have read some of the meditations many, many years ago. I don’t really take much inspiration.

[2:18:55]

Thomas Sewell: Prison ideology. It’s a prison ideology in my opinion.

Joel Davis: Yeah.

But I know that some of the other Stoics, like, they were more complicated philosophers that had a full on metaphysics. And I read about them as being discussed by, like, Gilles Deleuze* and other, like, 20th century philosophers. But I haven’t gone back to the stoics and got their complete system. So I don’t actually have a super well educated view on the full philosophical system of the Stoics.

[* Gilles Deleuze (January 18, 1925–November 4, 1995) was one of the most influential and prolific French philosophers of the second half of the twentieth century. Deleuze conceived of philosophy as the production of concepts, and he characterized himself as a “pure metaphysician.” In his magnum opus Difference and Repetition, he tries to develop a metaphysics adequate to contemporary mathematics and science—a metaphysics in which the concept of multiplicity replaces that of substance, event replaces essence and virtuality replaces possibility. Standord Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

But as for Marcus Aurelius the fact that he was a literal cuckold, out of condition a little bit. Yeah. It’s like, imagine the worst possible outcome and learn to accept it so that you can confront it when it occurs. It’s like, no, I’d rather just not imagine my wife getting slammed by some gladiator. And he ended up, like, I think the story was he ends up killing the gladiator and then filling a bathtub with his blood and then shagging his missus in the bathtub or something along those lines.

Thomas Sewell: He sounds like Jordan Peterson.

Joel Davis: Why don’t you kill the woman? You know, she cheated on you. Why are you killing the gladiator? I mean, you can kill him, too, if you want. You’re the emperor. But kill the woman like she cheated on you. Why are you?

Thomas Sewell: We don’t need that blood. We don’t need that blood in the family, that’s for sure.

Joel Davis: Yeah. Like, I don’t understand this about cheating. Like, if you get cheated on and you’re going after the person like that you weren’t actually in a relationship with, but the secondary, … I understand you might want to take some revenge on them, but the more primary thing is the actual person who cheated on you. Like, they should be the main culprit. They’re the main culprit. They’re the ones who portrayed you. The other person didn’t.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, it’s hard to see it that way when you’re a young man, because you see the woman as, like, a victim of circumstance. Because when you’re young, that’s kind of how you’re raised to see women. And because women are beautiful, …

Thomas Sewell: I still see it that way.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. But when women are beautiful, when you’re a young man, too, you kind of see them as, well you imagine that you associate their beauty with innocence. Yeah. You don’t think that someone or anything that looks that good could do something so consciously and deliberately bad.

And so you always think it was the male party who’s at fault. And because it’s a man, you feel that urge for violence, for confrontation, but you don’t feel that with a woman. So by default or instincts, you hold the, if you’re in a love triangle, you hold the male party, the other male party, wholly responsible until you actually calm down and think about it. And then you realise the woman was probably orchestrating the entire thing.

Joel Davis: Well, I’m not against going after the man as well. I can just go after both of them, though. Don’t just go after, like, you kill the gladiator and then what does the woman get as a, … You’re the emperor of Rome, your wife cheats on you!

Blair Cottrell: And the way I look at it now, though, like. In truth, unless you have some sort of reputation to maintain, there’s no reason to be bent on revenge over some girl. If some girl leaves you, who cares? Someone else is having sex with her now. Who cares, man? You’re a man. The world is yours. Do whatever you want. If you want revenge, do that. If it means that much to you.

Joel Davis: If you’re the emperor of Rome and she’s your wife.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, that’s different. That’s what I mean. There’s reputation.

Thomas Sewell: He has the power to do something about it. And he gets psyopped by a woman to not. Like that’s what she wants. Like any woman that does that kind of behaviour. Like, if women don’t want to be with you, they’ll just leave, right? It’s pretty simple. So if they’re doing that and staying with you, it’s because they want it both ways.

Blair Cottrell: Women won’t leave you. They’ll tee up an alternative before they leave you. So if a woman’s thinking about leaving you, …

Thomas Sewell: They won’t cheat and then stay with you. Like, if their intention is to leave, it’s, …

Blair Cottrell: Like there’s different reasons. Some women will treat cheat to get a reaction out of you, or just to cause drama. But typically what women will do if they don’t like you is they’ll stop sleeping with you and then yeah, …

Thomas Sewell: They monkey branch on to something else.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, they monkey branch. They set something else up and if that doesn’t work, they stay with you until they can get something else set up. They just kind of like a butterfly onto the next flower. Onto the next flower, sucking out all the nutrients until there’s nothing left! [chuckling] [LOL]

Joel Davis: Yeah, yeah. I mean, but yeah, you’re dating, like, who cares, like, if she cheats on you, it’s not worth, like, let it go and move on.

But if you’re like, married and you’re fully committed and then she cheats on you after you’ve got the mortgage and the two kids and so on. It’s like that bitch has got to pay! You can’t go back and like, fix that now. Like, if you were just dating and then she did, like who cares! You’ve dodged a bullet. Like, it’s good that she’s shown her hand early before you get committed you can read the signs and, …

[2:24:46]

Blair Cottrell: Can I just say, I was thinking about this the other day in a different context. I was thinking that if a woman has social media, if your girlfriend, you’re watching this, you got a girlfriend, you got a wife, and she has social media, she’s going to cheat on you [Tom laughs]. And she will. They can’t have social media because of the female human condition, which is hypergamous in by nature. They can’t even help it! Women are always looking for upgrades, not just in relationships per se, but in their life. That’s why women always want the bigger house and the better car and the nicer holiday. And they’re looking for upgrades in men as well, whether it’s wealth, status, height, genetics. And if a woman is given access to social media, she’s eventually going to full victim to her own hypergamous nature. She’s going to cheat on you. It’s only a matter of time. It might take five years, it might take 15 years, it will happen! If you’re a woman watching this and you’re interested in a serious relationship that isn’t going to break down, delete your social media! If you don’t have the strength to do that, you’ll never be in a long term relationship that won’t break down eventually. You can’t have social media as a woman. You just can’t fucking do it!

Joel Davis: I don’t know.

Thomas Sewell: I mean, [word unclear] banned from social media.

Joel Davis: I think, basically it’s not actually that intense. Like, every woman is gonna cheat on you. Like, as far as I know, no woman ever cheated on me. Like, it’s not like:

“Oh, every bitch is just gonna leave you and so on!”

I don’t really have that mentality, to be honest. I think you can actually tell, like, if the relationship is fucked up or not. If you’re really, like, honest and reflective on the dynamics within the relationship, you can kind of see the signs that it’s messed up or not.

And then if you continue to persist on with it despite it being fundamentally flawed and you’re a bad match and she doesn’t actually respect you or you don’t really love her or whatever, then you’re asking for it to go wrong. In Marcus Aurelius’ situation that woman was obviously a whore. Like, he was retard for even, … What kind of woman cheats on the Roman emperor? You know what I mean?

Thomas Sewell: Drama Queen. Attention seeking drama queen.

Joel Davis: Yeah.

Thomas Sewell: Specifically the social media. That’s a problem. I know it sounds silly, but specifically Instagram, for our generation, at least. Facebook, not so much. You know, Snapchat. It’s sort of dorky. It’s just sort of sending stupid videos. I don’t know much about TikTok because it’s more of a Zoomer thing. But Instagram specifically, the way the algorithm is programmed is that it keeps feeding you. I mean, I guess they’re all like this, especially TikTok. But Instagram is very personal. It’s not so much like a stupid dance, or a stupid thing. It’s sexual advertising. Instagram is purely sexual advertising. It’s just like soft Tinder. It’s basically, …

Blair Cottrell: Pretty much. The guy who made Tinder got his idea from Instagram. People were already using Instagram messages, basically as a Tinder service, and some guy was like:

“I could make an app just doing this.”

And that’s how that took off. But men are liars, too. So the second part of my message to women is you can’t have social media if you want the serious relationship due to your own female human condition, which is hypergamous. But you’ll get tricked by lying men as well, who present themselves as a potential upgrade, but they’re actually not! So you’ll end up cheating on your husband or partner for no fucking reason! There’s nothing but disaster on social media for a woman in a relationship, if you’re in a relationship, …

Thomas Sewell: Like, Instagram is very fake. It’s built off trying to build, like, a fake Persona. It’s very, very toxic. When the government banned me from Instagram, I was actually kind of happy. I know these nationalism starting up on the, … Young guys tell me that on Instagram. Not young, young, but, like, kind of halfway between us and Zoomers. They say that there’s a lot of nationalist circles on Instagram now. There’s a lot of different cliques forming and a lot of pages now to follow. It’s all above board, so to speak. Like, it back in the day, it was all banned and shut down.

But now they’re kind of working out the algorithm, how to get around it. So that there’s a positive to that. Like, we’ve had a couple recruits from Instagram. I think we’ve had two recruits from Instagram. Obviously not our primary recruiter. But again, Instagram is not really that political. It’s mostly sexual. Instagram is a sexual platform.

Joel Davis: It’s just a shit platform. Like, I remember I had it briefly when I was a teenager, and I just stopped using it because I don’t want to look at a bunch of people’s fucking faces and:

“Here’s me doing this, and here’s a picture of my, like oh, we went on a fuck! We went here, we went there!”

And I don’t give a fuck! You know?

[2:29:42]

Blair Cottrell: Are you sure you don’t want to set up a selfie stick and a tripod and take a picture of yourself proposing to your future wife and show the world, get some rose petals and throw them in the lens. Are you sure you don’t want to do that, Joel? I mean, what’s wrong with you?

Thomas Sewell: Is that your algorithm? Blair, just rose petals?

Blair Cottrell: This is what people do. This is what people do in this. I’ve got Instagram. I’ve got a business, Instagram, for work. I barely use it. I get most of my work through Telegram. But whenever I go on there, I see people I’ve known in the past who found me on there and that you look at their profiles, and everyone thinks they’re a fucking rock star. Everyone thinks they’re famous, and they act like they’re famous. No one gives a shit about when you propose to your wife and how you did it. That should be something between you and your wife. Why the fuck am I looking at this? It’s the weirdest shit! It’s this strange. I don’t know how to say it.

Thomas Sewell: It’s very personal. Outside of that level. Yeah. Yes. All right. Are we done?

Blair Cottrell: We’ve got one more Superchat. Did you read out this Jake 1219? He’s sent 20 bucks. The tide of the Caine. No, sorry:

“The tide for Caine will rise for the brotherhood.”

He said:

“What’s the tide for Caine?

Thomas Sewell: What’s that, like a Command and Conquer Generals reference? Was that like a Red Alert or what? Was it Tiberian Sun? Is it a gamer reference?

Blair Cottrell: I don’t know. Maybe. We have to find out. Obviously we need to find out.

Thomas Sewell: There’s an old movie about. Was it Citizen Kane? Okay. 12th century. The story of King Canute. The tide of, … I don’t know. No, I can’t find it.

Joel Davis: Superchats from Goyboy 1488 on uh, Odysee.

So I’m going to read them out. He said:

“First of all, imagine being the father of the kids who bullied faggot Jeffrey must be so proud.”

Obviously referring to the Jeffrey kid that became a tranny. That in Tom’s story at the beginning of the stream, Goyboy 1488 also said, qi can’t stand American libertarians. So individualistic that they defend gun ownership for illegal migrants.”

Yeah, I understand the insufferability of libertarians. It’s a little bit different in Australia. The point of focus, it isn’t just like the single minded fixation upon, and honestly, we need some gun rights. Like, in America, you guys actually have gun rights. Ours have been destroyed. So I’m with libertarians here on working our way back towards more gun ownership.

But yeah, obviously in America it can get ridiculous where it’s like instead of caring about any, it’s like gun nationalism where like, owning guns is like what defines the nation. Like being pro-gun rather than having any actual ethnic concept of the nation or whatever. It’s like, yeah. Oh, Goyboy also said:

“They have no loyalty to their people.”

Obviously talking about libertarians. He said:

“Both my brothers are 110 to 130 IQ libertarians. They are politically insufferable!”

Obviously libertarians need to be worked on to progress them beyond their worldview. Usually they’re open to having a conversation.

And so there’s fertile ground there. A lot of people in the movement were former libertarians that were converted to the nationalist worldview. But then, yeah, there’s a certain kind of like holding pen where they stay libertarian because they have either this kind of hyper individualistic fixation on themselves and they never mature out of it or they get Asian missus. Tom said that, I think you had an experience, right, of like going to some libertarian meeting years ago and like everyone’s missus was Asian.

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, I went to the LDP Victorian meeting, annual general meeting, whatever it is.

Joel Davis: And this is the Libertarian Party by the way.

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, Lionel Helm [sp] was there, the chairman was there, there was a few other speakers. And honestly the audience was almost entirely White men in their late twenties. And about maybe 20% of the audience brought their girlfriends and almost all their girlfriends were Asian. And I was the last question because it was a Question Time. And Lionel Helm was a full weirdo. Like it was really, he was really bizarre in person. He was way more autistic than I realised. And I’m pretty sure his food came out first. And he was like halfway through his speech and he just stopped his speech and just ate his food in front of everyone. Like just like a super autist! Like couldn’t read the room, like didn’t give a fuck! Like it was a real bad look. I don’t know, I guess we’re all different. But it was really, really strange thing to do.

And then I was the last question and I brought up immigration. And this is fucking pretty early days, this is like 2017 or something. And I said to him basically:

“As a young person, I can’t afford a home in the area I grew up in or even really a couple suburbs over. It’s just becoming unaffordable. The housing crisis is a massive issue. And what’s the Liberal Democrats going to do about trying to assist housing affordability fee for young people that are just pushed out of the market every year it’s getting harder.”

I was looking at a house, it was 700 grand. It was just around the absolute cap at that point of my borrowing capacity.

And by the time I actually tried to go to the bank and look at getting that house and working out how to make the finances of the work and save up the deposit, all the house in that area went up to about 770, 800. So I’m like:

“Fuck! I gotta go another suburb, another couple suburbs over!”

And I was just explaining that to him and he said something like:

“Oh well the LDP, we’re gonna do less taxes. Less taxes means more money in your pocket. Anyway, next question.”

And I was like:

“Hang on a minute, hang on a minute. If everyone’s paying less taxes, if everyone’s got more money in their pocket, then the housing price is gonna go up, everyone’s got more expendable income. Everyone’s got more.”

Anyway, that’s the story I’ve already said on stream before. But yeah, it was an interesting meeting. My second question was about cadre building. It was about:

“Do the libertarians as classical liberals or as classical libertarians, whatever you guys are you interested in building up a cadre of people that believe in the ideology, truly understand it, and then sort of pass that worldview on to the rest of the population? Or are you kind of just hoping that the general public come to their senses and realise that the libertarian party is just the way forward? Is that how you perceive getting political victory?”

And Lionel Helm said:

“Yeah, the second one. Yeah, like, people were just going to realise that less taxes means more money in your pocket and more money in your pocket, less taxes on cigarettes. You buy more cigarettes, and, yeah, you just have more money. You just be better off. And eventually everyone will work that out and vote for us.”

And I was like, interesting. And the chairman had stopped eating his dinner and just looked up at me and was like:

“Who the fuck is this guy?”

It was really interesting night.

[2:37:07]

Joel Davis: Yeah, I see, …

Thomas Sewell: And then, and then, sorry, quickly. And then when the meeting was done and I tried to leave, I got, like, ambushed by, like, three libertarians with Asian girlfriends. And they were like, telling me how:

“What were you trying to imply with immigration? Like, why were you trying to imply that it’s a supply and demand issue? I mean, really, it’s really not about demand. It’s about supply, we should build more houses. The real problem is the Liberal Party, Labor Party put too much red tape on building a house. And if we just change zoning laws, da da da da da da da. And we need a big Australia!”

And I was like:

“Okay, would you rather live in Brazil or Switzerland?”

“Like, what? Like, why do we need a big Australia? Why do we need to be a big Australia?”

And they’re like:

“Oh, bigger GDP is better!”

And I was like:

“Okay, so Brazil, or Switzerland?”

And then they just all went silent. And I was like:

“Yeah, you guys are fucking idiots!”

And then I just walked out. Like, Brazil’s GDP is like 30 times Switzerland, but you’d much rather live in Switzerland, wouldn’t you? Like, who the fuck wants to live in Brazil?

Joel Davis: Yeah, it’s like the, …

Thomas Sewell: I’m sure there’s a nice parts of Brazil, but in general, it’s fucking full of crime and poverty. Like, what the fuck? Switzerland’s like a utopia.

Joel Davis: Yeah. Like, why don’t we just combine the whole world into one country. Then we can have the ultimate maximum GDP of the whole world. GDP of one country.

Thomas Sewell: Genius!

Joel Davis: It’ll [chuckling] be a totally free market. Everyone can trade with everyone.

Thomas Sewell: But that’s the classic libertarian position. They’re either kind of too smart for their own good, but not intelligent enough to work out that their ideas are stupid, or they’re kind of just philosophically corrupted because they got the Asian GF, and they would go down the far-Right path, but they’re held up. They’re stuck at that level probably forever for most of them.

Joel Davis: Old Kiparian said:

“Double my cigarette prices if it means I keep my nation.”

Yeah, well, you should really stop smoking. As someone who has quit smoking, my advice to you is run! And then when you run, you’ll realise that you can’t, and that it sucks! And then if you keep running, you’ll continue realizing how much it sucks! And then that’ll inspire you to stop smoking so that your lungs can heal and you can actually breathe while you run. Because you need to run. If you can’t run, you could be fucked! That could literally be the end of your life because you can’t run in a certain kind of situation.

So, yeah, not being able to run is fucking gay!

Blair Cottrell: We got one more here. One more again from Jake 1219 sends through $20. Thanks very much, Jake. Serious one:

“40 billion being raped from Australian taxpayers yearly to fund the Aboriginal communist plight with no oversight. Thieving, that’s a serious military budget going towards dirt eaters.”

Joel Davis: Yeah. I also see Bog. He sent a 0.02 lbry coin Superchat on Odysee, which, when I put it into the conversion, that works out to 0.0031 US dollars! So [chuckling] you might as well have not even bothered sending a Superchat at all because that’s just literally nothing. But I’ll read it out anyway. He said:

“Do you promise to never take fed jew money to be draught enforcer, sending Whites to die in Taiwan for Jew Yankee Empire, or act as blocking units shooting retreating Whites there? I’m not dying on hill 838 in Ching Chong Prefecture, Oz government built Covid camp. So I’ll take my chances with Chink overlords!”

Thomas Sewell: Uh, no, no! he missed it at the end there. He was kind of doing well with the question until the end there. Then he fucked it. That was dumb.

Joel Davis: I feel like this guy is probably Chinese or something, like this kind of, …

[2:41:26]

Thomas Sewell: Oh, good call. Good call!

Joel Davis: Because the Chinaman would be cheap enough to send a 0.003 USD Superchat. You know what I mean?

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, they were utilitarian.

Joel Davis: Oh, hey, fellow Aryans. Don’t you just love China?

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, don’t you just love your Chinese overlords? Don’t send me to go fight for Taiwan. [chuckling]

Joel Davis: Does it make any sense? Like there’s not going to be a ground war in Taiwan that you’re going to be conscripted to. Like, it’s even really logical.

Adult White Female said:

“We are so unique and so strong a race, and yet every time a non-gets mixed in, our genetics get blown out. Visual confirmation that it is the true definition of adultery and is an abomination unto our creator. Great show, gentlemen, and thank you. And a tenner for rose petals.”

Thomas Sewell: I’m done.

Joel Davis: And Ben Shapiro Sigma also just sent a Superchat saying, hell, Ben Shapiro Sigma is kind of funny.

“Hello from England. Do you have any recommendation for a place to start understanding China’s political structure and how it is National Socialist? Joel’s comments on it have been very interesting.”

I wouldn’t describe China as National Socialist.

Blair Cottrell: All right, before you answer that, I’m signing off. See you guys. Love you all.

Joel Davis: See you dude! Have a good one. I wouldn’t describe China as a National Socialist. Indirectly, I have done that for polemical reasons in the past, drawing more parallels between Chinese state ideology and fascism or National Socialism than doctrinaire Marxism, of which there are several parallels.

And I think it’s an important parallel to draw, because the Chinese government, obviously, there’s a lot of fucked up things about it, completely fucked up things that no White government, you know, actually genuinely White run government, would subject its people to. Like a great amount of brutality and so on.

But at the same time, the Chinese state obviously has brought big business interests and foreign interests to heel. They run China directly for the national strength, and China has managed to accumulate a lot of economic and military power in a very short period of time through that kind of system, which demonstrates when you implement certain principles of fascism or National Socialism, they make your country stronger. And that’s objectively true. When you see China, China wouldn’t be anywhere near as strong as it is if it was a liberal democracy. It was a liberal democracy. It would be beset by jews, foreign business interests, and so on. It would be subject to American or judeo-American, I should say, cultural subversion and so on. And it would be far more limited in its ability to develop its own independent power in the world.

So but I wouldn’t classify it as National Socialist because there’s a lot of elements to the Chinese regime I don’t like and said ideology I don’t like which are reflections I think, of the Chinese national character and the communist legacy as well like the Maoist legacy as opposed to, … So I’d say basically everything that’s good in the sense of not good for us because China being strong is actually bad for us, but good in that kind of universal sense like effective for what they’re trying to do. Like everything about the Chinese government that makes China stronger is basically National Socialists or fascist, and everything about it which sucks almost invariably isn’t. And that isn’t just a cope because of my ideological predilections like that’s just my genuine analysis of the situation.

But anyway, I think basically we’re done here, so see you guys later. It’s been a long stream I hope you enjoyed it and yeah, we’ll see you all next week.

[2:45:39]

END

top

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

Odysee Comments

top

(Comments as of 9/15/2024 = 35)

Se7enius
2 days ago
letsgooooo
8 likes

ForOurPeople
1 day ago
catholic charities started from the Church centuries ago, but now works for and is funded by the government and that’s why they are helping flood our nations with foreigners
7 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
ForOurPeople
1 day ago
in America under Biden (who’s supposed to be Catholic) the government agencies have spies in traditional Catholic churches and have made raids at the homes of traditional Catholic activists homes
2 likes

WillyPete9
1 day ago
Soooo Jewish misinformation/disinformation is still legal? So confusing
7 likes

‹ Hide 2 replies
averagefreedomenjoyer
1 day ago
yes Jewish misinformation is what mainstream media is.
1 like

EternalReich
22 hours ago
Huh?….
0 likes

ForOurPeople
1 day ago
the government that doesn’t fear the people is the problem
5 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
AllegianceMountain
18 hours ago
good quote
1 like

ProvingNihil
1 day ago
As an animal lover especially of cat’s and dog’s. What those dirty inhuman apes are doing to those innocent creature’s piss me off beyond belief. I would go to jail/prison if one of them attempted to harm my cat or dog.
5 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
GovMarioPalmieri
1 day ago
guy we got grifted. the footage is from 2020 and the bitch isn’t Haitian. beware click baiters mocking these very real problems.
1 like

‹ Hide 2 replies
averagefreedomenjoyer
1 day ago
how is ni66ers killing cats and dogs different from Haitians?
2 likes

ProvingNihil
16 hours ago
Are you sure? Not being a prick btw, I swear I saw a video of a Haitian woman skinning a cat.
1 like

katana17
2 days ago
Last week’s show: [Joel Davis – WWII Revisionism Re-enters the Mainstream – Sep 6, 2024 – Transcript] https://katana17.com/2024/09/07/joel-davis-wwii-revisionism-re-enters-the-mainstream-sep-6-2024-transcript/ [In this livestream episode Aussie nationalist activists Joel Davis, Blair Cottrell and Tom Sewell discuss the recent Tucker Carlson interview with American historian Darryl Cooper and how he considers: “The real bad guy of World War Two was Churchill.” Points include: • View the interview as a watershed moment for mainstreaming revisionist narratives. • “This is the re-mainstreaming for the first time in that I can remember in living memory of World War two revisionism.” • Cooper’s approach is a “humanitarian” and “honest” way to discuss controversial topics. • Discuss Churchill’s role in WWII, with Cooper calling him “the foremost villain” of the war. • Explore the idea of having “Nuremberg-style trials” for those responsible for mass immigration. • Discuss the importance of World War II revisionism in understanding current political issues. “World War two really is the datum point from which all perspective of the present day is forged.” • They share their personal journeys into World War II revisionism and White nationalism. • Discuss the impact of reading Mein Kampf and other revisionist materials. “Reading Mein Kampf and learning the truth about world War two breaks the spell of Holocaustianity.” • World War II narratives are central to current anti-White ideologies. • Discuss the challenges of promoting revisionist views
in mainstream discourse. • The importance of ideological purity in their movement. “Maximum ideological purity can actually disadvantage you because it means you’re going to piss people off, alienate people.” • Discuss the role of social media and online activism in spreading their ideas. • Share anecdotes about discussing their views
in everyday situations. • Talk about recruitment and the growing interest …
2 likes

Delete
katana17
2 days ago
For tonight’s show a relevant topic is 9/11. [Christopher Bollyn – Tricked into War – Israeli Zionist Government was Behind the 9/11 Attack – Sep 20, 2018 – Transcript] https://katana17.com/2024/09/12/christopher-bollyn-tricked-into-war-israeli-zionist-government-was-behind-the-9-11-attack-sep-20-2018-transcript/ [In this 2018 presentation Christopher Bollyn, an American investigative journalist and author of several books on 9/11 sets out in detail, naming names, on why and how Israel carried out the, years in preparation, false flag attack 9/11, i.e., to unleash The War OF Terror on the Middle East using American blood and treasure. Some points Bollyn makes, include: Is an author of books on 9/11 and the War on Terror. 9/11 and the War on Terror are connected and part of an Israeli plan. “9/11 was a policy coup” blamed on Muslims to start the War on Terror. The War on Terror aims to redraw the Middle East map according to Israeli interests. Menachem Begin, founder of Likud party, is described as “the father of terrorism”. 9/11 was designed to “instill fear and rage in the American population”. The War on Terror is “the longest and most expensive war, foreign war in US history”. Trump is quoted: “We have spent $7 trillion in the Middle East. You know what we have for it? Nothing!” The War on Terror is “based on the official myth of 9/11”. Wesley Clark is quoted describing a “policy coup” by “hard-nosed people” after 9/11. The plan is to “take out seven countries in five years” starting with Iraq. This follows the “Yinon Plan” to break up Arab states into smaller entities. Hillary Clinton is mentioned as seeking to overthrow Syria’s government “to save Israel”. Asks “Is the United States waging Israel’s wars?” Israel wants to expand from “the Nile river to the Euphrates”. Christian Zionism is “a big problem” in supporting Israel. John F. Kennedy was “the last great reformer” who challenged these interests. …
2 likes

Delete
EternalReich
22 hours ago
The tangents are fine. But everybody does tangents that’s all anyone does. I respect you guys because of your activism. We don’t need another fucking show where a few people sit around and talk about how bad it is for white people. We know. The thing that sets you guys apart is you actually strategize and discuss the best way to make more people aware. That is what we should all be doing. We don’t need another Nick Fuentes or red ice, sitting in front of a camera and talking about news articles and asking for donations. It’s crazy to me, how so many of us know that we are on a sinking ship, but so many are content to just play video games and occasionally watch videos about white replacement online, and this pacifies us. I always get frustrated because I always have the sensation kind of like your underwater and you are starting to get desperate for a breath, I have that anxiety every time I think about our situation, and it frustrates the hell out of me to see so many who don’t care at all. And when you talk about trying to meet up and brainstorm and do things, it’s fed posting. On one hand I can understand the concern, but on the other hand why even bother discussing it at all then? If trying to organize is fed posting and we can’t do it, then we may as well accept our fate and just enjoy the ride.
2 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
AllegianceMountain
18 hours ago
The Patriot Front is a viable group to get involved with. I do not believe the accusations that they are set up by the feds. Even if oneself doesn’t join a local active-club, there’s fliers and posters and stickers you can print at home, laminate, and distribute in public places to stimulate people’s awareness of the dystopian living conditions. The monopoly on mass media and mass entertainment is one of our great obstacles, IMO. Because mass media and mass culture is how the average normie talks to him/herself and how they “validate” what is an acceptable viewpoint or opinion. Still, even without us overthrowing the corrupt leftist media-matrix, there’s human instinct to sew seed of optimism. Life will find a way, as Jeff Goldblum once said. You’re definitely correct about the role video-game, sports entertainment, and pop-culture distractions are strategically put into place to lessen and hinder the inevitable instinctive awakening of hive-mind survival response among our folk. Joel, Tom, and Blaire (as well as other individuals in our movement worldwide) are examples of what one man can do when he doesn’t resign to stagnant pessimism and what one man can do to inspire others in proportion to the ripple-effect, contagious nature of inspiration, and other facts of sentient existence
1 like

RSALiberty
Supporter
1 day ago
Come for the tangents, stay for the news
1 like

Rockwell1488Pierce
1 day ago
Follow Joel and Blair on twitter, Tom on (telegram) https://x.com/joeldavisx https://t.me/Thomas_Sewell https://x.com/b_cottrell89
1 like

augustonvenus
1 day ago
1:13:40 Blair had me dying
1 like

johnnyboy2324
Supporter
1 day ago
o/ o/
1 like

TherealMcCoy88
1 day ago
Haitians are the deepest darkest looking Africans. They are so dark sometimes they look a dark purple. This comes a guy who grew up in Brockton, MA. We had Haitians. They are retarded.
1 like

AllegianceMountain
18 hours ago
You guys have inspired me to be more open and explicit with my left-leaning friends. Last week for example, I was on vacation w/ friends and these are ppl I’ve been friends w/ a long time and they trust me, love me, and have faith in my intelligence/morality, and when they began mocking and ridiculing DJT, I chose to verbally debate my friends in a calm composed way (instead of not even bothering to engage in verbal debate). There are two tactics I adopt; 1.) I either deliberately banter in an ambiguous way where I choose the conservative neutral stance in which to defend Trump and dispel/disarm their far-left regurgitated nonsense. or… 2.) I choose my debate stance in self-reaffirming unapologetic nationalistic old-world sensibility. On two separate occasions I was poked and prodded by female friends in their obsessive offensive to “expose” me for my underlying reasons for why I won’t denounce or disavow Trump, and similarly how I won’t denounce country-clubs, blue-bloods, and traditional family structure and the right for husbands to beat their wives and discipline their children, etc. I chose a shift in approach whereby I now don’t even care anymore. I admit I support all things “far-right”, nationalistic and pro-White. My friends are learning to deal with it, and my gut instinct tells me that a couple of my male friends are actually starting to align themselves more w/ me now that I’ve endured the initial scrutiny and carved a path for them, as it were. Of course it’s a larger paradox pattern, whereby as long as more of us first-wave vanguard white-nationalists pave the way, then some of our more intelligent friends will follow, especially if the friendship is built on real trust and real respect
1 like

MelancholyMonkey
11 hours ago
Good one, lads.
1 like

WillyPete9
1 day ago
re: Mr Clark…willing to bet the bag that the read script & money came in smelled of bagels
0 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
averagefreedomenjoyer
1 day ago
oy vey shut it down!
0 likes

Venedith666
1 day ago
awwww I was hoping for a few laughs watching the lefties cop beatings by cops this week in Melbourne
0 likes

PhooeyPhoxide
1 day ago
Jews and their brown bioweapons
0 likes

CrazyRecluse
1 day ago
joel u need to watch this to understand how the russian propaganda works with the western propaganda. 2 sides of the kosher sandwich: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6L7F-tWSQQ
0 likes

GIONtheDON
1 day ago
Before Sweden raised the price only 1 immigrant left
0 likes

ProvingNihil
1 day ago
And that boys father is in complete denial, what a fucking pussy can’t accept a reality check.
0 likes

AidsBug
1 day ago
If you wanna stop smoking you need to not be still for a few weeks. When you’re busy moving and doing stuff the addiction thoughts don’t creep up on you nearly as much. Exhaust yourself during the day so you can get to sleep without a crazy battle of thoughts at night.
0 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
GovMarioPalmieri
1 day ago
ku cucks klan
0 likes

Nordicshaman88
10 hours ago
Love you three guys keep up the good streams need more like these.
0 likes

david43
8 hours ago
America is not far behind the bitch people in Australia, the good whites have been neutered and it makes me sick… our main people are petrified to say isreal is behind anything, terrible
0 likes

JungleEaglesNest
7 hours ago
Dante quote The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in a time of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality
0 likes

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

PDF Download

top

Total words in transcript = 28681

Total words in post = 31,813
Total images = xx
Total A4 pages = xxx

Use your browser to download/export a PDF of this post.

Version History

top

Version 5: Thu, Sep 19, 2024 — Transcript Quality = 5/5 for 166/166 mins. Transcript is now complete.

Version 4: Wed, Sep 18, 2024 — Transcript Quality = 5/5 for 120/166 mins.

Version 3: Tue, Sep 17, 2024 — Transcript Quality = 5/5 for 93/166 mins.

Version 2: Mon, Sep 16, 2024 — Transcript Quality = 5/5 for 39/166 mins.

Version 1: Sun, Sep 15, 2024 — Published post. Transcript Quality = 5/5 for 25/166 mins. Includes Odysee comments (35).

Millennial Woes – Millenniyule 2021 – The Golden One – Dec 13, 2021 — Transcript

admin — Mon, 13 Dec 2021 04:23:58 +0000

[Millennial Woes continues his tradition of a yearly Millenniyule series of interviews that started in Dec, 2016.

Here, in his first Millenniyule interview for 2021, he chats (53 mins) with The Golden One, a Swedish nationalist, and bodybuilder. They discuss Covid; how Sweden reacted; demographic replacement; White genocide; pornography; health issues; his new revised book, Daunting; and much more.

— KATANA.]

_______________________

Millenniyule 2021

The Golden One

Dec 13, 2021

Click the link below to view the video:

https://odysee.com/@millennialwoes:4/MY2021TheGoldenOne:b

Also on BitChute:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Dn0BZoeBIF4W/

Odysee Description

Published on Dec 13, 2021

Millenniyule 2021: The Golden One

December 13th, 2021

449 views

Channel profile picture

Millennial Woes

@millennialwoes

4,310 Followers

https://www.legiogloria.com

https://millenniyule.com

LBRY URL

lbry://@millennialwoes#4/MY2021TheGoldenOne#b

Claim ID

bdab71e8f6c0d2960c290a168650a29c5ceb2093

1.17 GB

14 comments

__________________________

TRANSCRIPT

(53:25)

NOTE: Readers can help improve the quality of this transcript by putting corrections in the Comment section, i.e., copy a section of text that needs improving and paste it into the comments section and make the corrections. I will then replace the original text here with the corrected version. Thanks.

[00:00]

Woes: Hello. And welcome to Millennial 2021! Just a few introductory notes before we get on to the first stream. There has been quite a lot of work behind the scenes this year to set all of this up. I know that there’s been anticipation. And I hope that you’re all excited and pumped up for Millennial this year. There are going to be I think 64 streams in total, over the next two weeks, or. So so I hope it goes well.

And now a few things. There is Superchat by Entropy and Cointree. And also there is a T-shirt this year. Some merchandise. I thought why not. And people often ask for that. There’s a Bitcoin lightning wallet that, if you want to donate. And there are other donation options on my website.

And also there’s an NFT this year. An NFT graphic. Now that’s the first time this year. It’s an animated thing. And it’s an experiment. So I’ll see how that goes. I thought it would be nice to have something to commemorate each year, each Millennial. And so there is only one copy of it. There can be only one owner. And then it’s on an auction. And all of that is linked from the Millennial.com website.

So, okay. With all of that said. I don’t think there’s any need really for much more to be in terms of an introduction. Yeah. Let’s just get on with it. So the first stream is with the Golden One, Mark Falon, or Fallon?

Golden One: Fallon.

Woes: Yeah, okay. So welcome to Millennial 2021! And thanks for appearing.

Golden One: Thank you for having me! Good to be the first one. I want to make it a good first introduction. So yeah, good to be here.

Woes: All right. I mean, obviously everyone knows who you are there’s no need for to introduce you and talk about that. And then people can be, … Again people will be linked to your own website from my websites. I think it would be worth before we get on to the topic of your new book, which understandably you want to tell people about.

Because I think it would be good to get your opinion, just broad thoughts, about Covid. The last two years. This maelstrom, that has taken over the world, since March, or February, 2020. Because obviously it is a very challenging, confusing time.

And also it’s a challenge for masculinity to survive [chuckling] and to understand this new landscape. And to understand the new world that we’re now in, or heading into. Because a lot of this, well, really all of the certainties that our fathers, and grandfathers, and great grandfathers, had, are being swept away. And we’re being asked to live in a world of automation, post scarcity, nanotechnology, transhumanism, etc., globalism, of course.

So it’s all quite confusing. So give me your thoughts about the last two years. Covid, the lockdowns, the vaccines, the Great Reset, everything!

Golden One: Yeah. So basically when it first came in the spring of 2020, I sort of fell for the hype a bit, I suppose. Because the initial response from the establishment, at least in Sweden, was to be very open, you know, there is nothing to fear, we will keep our openness.

So usually I’m not a contrarian person at all. But over all this time I’ve learnt to be a bit skeptical towards the establishment. So when they said something I automatically sort of went against it. Then, of course, in retrospect I’m quite happy that Sweden didn’t do all of these lockdowns. So for anyone who isn’t aware.

Woes: So yeah, this was quite a unique thing. I think it was Sweden and Belarus were the only two in Europe that didn’t go into lockdown. So please tell us all about that. Because I think people haven’t experienced this.

Golden One: Yeah, so my initial response was I wish Sweden had closed the borders for many reasons. [chuckling] But yeah, then I sort of quarantined myself until I got bored with it, because I wanted to train.

So I basically went back to regular life. But I was a bit cautious in the beginning at least to. Because I don’t know what was going on with the virus itself so, of course, it was a bit cautious. And yeah at that stage I am, I thought Sweden should maybe close the borders and be a bit more, …

[05:06]

Woes: Well, it was strange wasn’t it? It was strange that they were telling us. That it was a really serious situation. But we won’t close the borders. And certainly not to refugees that would be crazy! So you see that. And you think well is it a serious situation, or not, is this virus a deadly plague, or not? It doesn’t make sense.

Golden One: So yeah, anyway it Sweden didn’t have any lockdowns at all, of course, some places shut down by their own volition. Some gyms shut down temporarily. My gym sort of like an underground gym it was open entire time. No no issue about it. Many people who train there I talk to them, of course, and they work in construction and stuff like that. And they worked through it all as well and everything sort of yeah went on as normal.

And fun thing here as well that Swedes are quite vain. And I say this in a good way. And this time actually we saw we didn’t really see many people wearing face masks, because it looks bad. And so it sort of went it was beneath the dignity of a vain Swedish person to have it.

Woes: So those fine Nordic features!

Golden One: Exactly! Exactly. So I had a face mask I think two times. So once. And that was in the beginning, because we had to go with a daughter to get I don’t know what it was. But then we put it on the way in to our centre. But then we took it off, because yeah I looked looked silly and it’s uncomfortable.

The second one, the second time I had it was when I went to Germany to check up on some logistics. And then you had to have it on the aeroplane. But in German it was sort of like yeah mostly for show. Some people went with just a badanda tied around. So and I mean, yeah mostly for the show.

But otherwise in Sweden nothing at all. And I made a video if it was late last year. So about a year ago, titling it:

“I was wrong.”

So sort of like a clickbait video. But where I basically said:

“That, of course, I should have seen it coming.”

That, because I had made a video previously during the spring where I said, you know what’s within what’s going on? Should we close down society for a bit? But then, of course, they understood that the great catastrophe of it with many local cafes, and restaurants, and small shops got completely wrecked. And Amazon got the revenue instead.

And, of course, the virus as an excuse to take away liberties. So I admitted myself being wrong there. And, of course, I should have seen that coming. Now we know better.

Woes: Well to be fair, it’s a fairly extreme thing that happened. I mean, I don’t I wouldn’t blame anyone for not predicting it. The very idea that they would deliberately devastate the economy that would in 2019 it would have seemed unbelievable that they would do that!

Because we were always hearing how precious how important the economy was. The economy was more important than anything else. It’s more important than culture borders safety crime levels education nothing mattered more than the economy.

And then out of the blue they willingly voluntarily do huge damage to the economy. That’s going to take generations, or would take generations to fix. So I wouldn’t blame anyone. I certainly didn’t predict that.

So when it started and you realize all these businesses are dying, these old small family businesses independent business they’re all going. And it’s only going to be Amazon and Google that survive all of this. That’s quite incredible!

Golden One: Yeah, so actually it’s I think Germany, because Germany has a bit of a different culture than Sweden when it comes to having small towns and having locally owned shops and restaurants. And it’s just heartbreaking to see. I don’t want to blackpill too much, because I suppose everyone knows what’s going on here.

But if you have the opportunity do support your local economy and especially this local cafes restaurants that have been in the same family for generations. There are those places in Germany, I know. And yeah they’re, of course, they can’t get any customers, because of restrictions. And yeah, what to do? So it’s a quite blackpilling and but anyway back to back to Sweden.

[10:05]

Now, of course, they are discussing whether. There should be a vaccine passport. Which is, of course. Yeah, I don’t really have any good take there. I have no intention of taking.

Woes: That means that the vaccine would be pretty much mandatory.

Golden One: Yeah. So it would be like on trains and maybe flights. And I know Canada has done something similar where you can’t escape the place unless you have a vaccine! Unless you sort of smuggle yourself.

Woes: I’m actually wearing an “escape from New York” that — shirt just now, so just when you think they escaped from Canada, you know, it reminded me of that! Sorry.

Golden One: Oh it’s suitable. But yeah. So we’ll see. I can’t say too much now, I don’t know what will happen. I don’t think anyone knows exactly what will happen. But gauging from everything else.

I mean, it wouldn’t surprise me that you have like yeah vaccine passport to do to basically anything. Of course, I do feel really bad for all younger guys who, … For me. Right. Now it doesn’t really bother me if I can’t live Sweden, or if I can’t go on a train somewhere. I’m yeah it doesn’t really matter.

But I do feel bad for the younger generations who are yeah getting their lives well perhaps not destroyed, but a lot of adventure being taken away from them. So yeah, bad bad times.

Woes: Yeah. I mean, it must be very strange for those people for who were like 18, two years ago. And they were just about to go to university, and whatever. And I mean, I don’t really know, I guess it was different in every country in every area, but it I can imagine a lot of people thought that they had a life plan sorted out for the next five, or ten years of their lives. And it’s just gone!

And then the culture starts changing and we hear we hear about the Great Reset. And so on. And so, how do you then play. I mean, this is something I noticed that people you don’t hear people now, like posts all of this. You don’t hear people talking about the future so much. People don’t talk about their own personal life plans anymore. I just don’t hear it. Whereas it used to be a normal thing for people especially young people to talk about. Whereas I think that talking about career, where they might move to, marriage, having a family. This just doesn’t seem to be as much a part of everyday conversation as it was two years ago.

Now maybe I have imagined this. Maybe I’m inventing this narrative in my head. But I just think that people are far more tied to the here and now than the than they were even two years ago.

And I think this I think is can only be a direct result of well everything being switched off. The economy and culture socializing all of that. And, of course, it also makes you subject to authority to this state the government. In a way that none of us were two years ago.

So I mean, what I mean, by that. I don’t think there is that sense of independence that people used to have. And that this is gonna. And I think that’s exactly what they want as well. Like the globalists, the oligarchs, I think this is what they want. I think they want subject populations who just do as they’re told.

So again this is the kind of thing that we’re going to have to contend with, in the future, in the fairly near future. I mean, what would you do, would you have any thoughts about that, or is this stuff that you haven’t sort of considered? I don’t know if I’m out on a limb here.

Golden One: No no I completely agree. Yeah it sort of feels like many people are just trying to wait out wait to see what the next move. Will be will it be completely impossible to live a normal life without the vaccine. Of course. I don’t think anyone really wants to take the vaccine. So it’s more like you’re taking it to be able to live a normal life. Is it worth it? I’m not a doctor. I don’t want to say too much. Because I don’t know enough about it.

But what I can say, of course, is its quite easy to see the encroaching state, what you’re doing. And if they can push around people like this. Yeah, what would be the next step? Having a passport for not having committed wrong think? So I mean. Yeah, I don’t want a black pill now, so many black pills. Many people are black pilled as it is. So I don’t want to say, ….

[15:01]

Woes: I don’t think you would be. I don’t think you’d be black pilling people. I mean, obviously I think it’s important at Christmas that we don’t get people depressed and whatever.

But I also think that people are we’re only talking about topics that are on people’s minds anyway throughout the years. So yeah, I wouldn’t worry too much about that. I mean, the vaccine, you know what I would say about. And this is all stuff that we were sort of saying throughout last year.

The big thing about the vaccine the big thing about the virus is that the virus has a 99.6% survival rate. So only 0.4% mortality and therefore. I mean, that is the only statistic that I think anyone needs to know in order to see that all of this is very strange indeed. It’s very strange that we’re being. All of this has happened, because of a virus that non, you know, chronic. So yeah.

Golden One: Something else I thought about when yeah when I contemplate suddenly the state the various regimes they care about the well-being of their population. And I find it quite funny, as you say, over 99% survival rates.

And if they were truly serious about wanting to optimize the health of a population they would ban alcohol, for example, or Institute more better diet, ban seed oils, or whatever. Stuff like that.

Woes: Well. I mean, there are a hundred things they could do.

Golden One: Yeah yeah.

Woes: Yeah. This is if they actually wanted that. I mean, again there are these quite glaring contradictions that emerge, because of Covid. Like we didn’t do any of this for swine flu, or SARS, or Ebola. Why not? Why now? You know, this kind of stuff.

Golden One: So I mean, I’m not against vaccinations. I have a few vaccinations myself. My daughter has a few for ticks and for some other the traditional stuff that has been proven throughout the ages to be a good vaccine to have. So I’m not against it.

But at the same time when it’s this. And when they are so insistent. And it’s the same sort of regime that tells me that mass immigration from the Third World is good for me. So I mean, I am a bit skeptical when this very same people are telling me to do something for my health. I don’t really believe it’s good, in the least.

So again, I don’t want to be a contrarian, or even a dissident, or anything. But when something is quite obviously wrong, I am yeah I have cause to be skeptical.

Woes: Well, indeed this is part of the skepticism that a lot of people feel is that. They know that these governments don’t care about our safety, for example, because they’re bringing in large numbers of people who are known to be more likely more prone to crime. So that’s nonsense.

It’s the same with everything else like the education infrastructure, welfare. They’ve never cared about this stuff before. So it and our own well-being. I mean, our cultures have been dismantled over the last 100 years. So in many ways. And the roles of male and female have been dismantled. None of that was good for us.

So it doesn’t it just doesn’t add up that suddenly they care about us like this. But also the lie is obvious, because of well the emerging statistics about Covid. And about the vaccine. It’s I mean, it’s all very murky. It’s all very complicated and confusing. I think deliberately so. But what is clear is that people are not dropping dead.

And, of course, that brings us back to the fear-mongering videos from China last February, March, where people were footage of people just dropping dead in the street… [chuckling] I mean, you know, this [chuckling]! I never used to be much of a conspiracy theorist. I really wasn’t into that stuff. But I mean, you know, everything’s changed now!

Golden One: Yeah. [chuckling] And also in yeah this was, of course, a global event. But in the summer of 2020, hype like crazy about Corona. And then suddenly “Black Lives Matter”, Corona takes a break, magically for like two months. And then people can gather to protest and stuff. And no one. I mean, I’m talking about in the mainstream no one even raises the point.

The obvious point that okay this individuals they can gather for someone dying in America, in the Swedish capital to protest against whatever, police brutality, or whatever. And no one even says anything about it.

So it’s yeah. All of these things. But to mention something white pilling at least that there are so many that in I suppose all of the West have gotten woken up to the fact that the regimes aren’t really our friends! Then, of course, in my view when I have looked upon the discourse, or the last year, I would, of course, want people to be angry and upset that we’re being ethnically cleansed in our own countries. That were being genocided in a nice and slow fashion. But it’s still a genocide. We’re being replaced.

And I just wished people would be angry. Because of that. But now, of course, they have a different thing to be angry about I just hope that they can understand okay the regime is doing this to us. And they’re also doing this other bad thing. Which is, of course, a population replacement.

So if I want to White pill and one it would be you have to point out that many more people are a bit. Yeah, they view the current regimes in a different light.

[21:25]

Woes: Yeah it definitely has increased skepticism towards the government and the mainstream media. As well. I think has suffered especially, because of just the blatant hypocrisy.

Well more recently with Kyle Rittenhouse, but also with George Floyd. And all of that. I think there’s always a portion of the public who are awakened by each of these things.

But I think it’s what you’ve said there is interesting, because I mean, I spent about six years five talking about the population replacement, the Great Replacement, very frequently. But since Covid that has really fallen away. Partly, because obviously there’s this new much more like very pressing immediate situation.

But also because the apparent level of surveillance that’s being brought in will make political dissidence pretty much well very, very difficult! And this is the really scary stuff about Bill Gates, and George Soros, and Klaus Schwab, these kinds of guys. People joke about them being like James Bond villains, and yeah, they are. But it’s also serious, because they seem to want a world of pretty maximum control over the public.

And in that world complaining about mass immigration, or multiculturalism, or even, you know, drag Queen story hour, LGBT in the schools, that’s not going to be possible! This is a really passionate thing about but, the whole Great Reset.

Golden One: Yeah, definitely. The demographic situation is, of course, the bigger topic. But, as you say, the more pressing concern is the ever increasing totalitarian state of the 1984 society! I can’t take credit for this myself but someone says that we’re moving from Brave New World to 1984. So we’re going from a bit softer, to a bit more hard. And yeah, it’s, …

Woes: I saw that meme the other day. I can’t remember what it was. But I know the one you’re talking about. I think that for most of the population it will remain Brave New World. I think that because the soma is just sensory pleasure, whatever. I think they’ll continue to have that, because it is, …

And Aldous Huxley said this about Orwell. He said that the world that Orwell had invented in 1984, was not as convincing as the world he had invented for a brave new world, because it’s simply easier to keep people happy. It’s easier to keep them just well fed, warm. In a post-industrial society you can set up the systems to just do that, if money isn’t an option and what it isn’t a problem. You can just do that you don’t need to go through like the ministry of truth, the secret police, the propaganda, and all and all that the profeed.

So it’s actually just easier to keep them, you know, docile. But I think that that clearly there is a percentage of the population, five, ten percent, who like us, who are inquisitive and curious and rebellious. So the government is going to have to take a different approach with them. Say something White pilling about that for god’s sake [chuckling]!

[25:20]

Golden One: Yeah [chuckling]. I can only hope that it will lead to, … Again in Sweden thus far I hope it stays this way. But the police they haven’t been as heavy-handed as they’ve been in demonstrations in Germany, etc., I can only hope that many of these policemen they will one day say:

“Enough! This isn’t what I signed up for!”

And go in a different direction. And yeah hopefully they will get wake up to the greater plan at hand. Also the Great Replacement. That’s only that’s what I can hope for at least to end on a White pilling note for the lockdowns.

Woes: Yeah, what I would say is and especially in Austria and Germany and the Netherlands as well, of course, recently there have been huge demonstrations and protests. And I think that the longer this goes on the people are going to realize more, and more, people are going to realize that they don’t know anyone who has died from Covid, or of Covid.

And more, and more, people are going to realize that Covid seems to be getting less serious all the time. Because it’s mutating into a strain that can survive by not killing people. So that’s what happens with that with these viruses. So more, and more, people are going to realize that.

And it’s going to therefore seem more, and more, ridiculous that we have all of these restrictions. And we have all of the surveillance. And we have these creepy people like Klaus Schwab, telling us that we have to change everything! That is going to seem ever more strange to, I think ever more people.

So that’s a cause for hope, I would say.

The other thing is, it might well be that the powers that be, the oligarchs, the NGOs, have simply underestimated the degree of rebellion. They might well have miscalculated how they have to implement this programme. And I think they, you know, it’s very possible that they will make tactical mistakes along the way.

So yeah, there is definitely cause for hope. And I wouldn’t, I don’t want to, I certainly don’t want to blackpill anyone. And especially not at this time of year. So I wouldn’t want to give anyone the impression that I’m defeatist about this. But I do you know, we are problem analyzers on the Right. That’s one of our strengths. But one of our weaknesses as well.

So on that note what would you say in terms of ways that people, that men, let’s concentrate on men can strengthen themselves up against this kind of thing in? You know, spiritually physically, nutritionally, that kind of thing.

I mean, what would you say to some guy who was just depressed about all of this. And is he’s a mess. He’s a lump. What would you say to that guy to help him, to advise him?

Golden One: So first and foremost I suppose we have quite a few American listeners tuning in now. And this is a big difference. And it took me quite a while to truly understand how much of a difference it is between Sweden and America. To a certain extent to the UK, I suppose you’re in between somewhere. But the medical industry in the US is a, yeah, it’s not your friend to put it mildly. And if you view it as an enemy, more, or less, who, of course, they are predatory companies. They want to maximize a profit on your on health. If you view it that way, if you view your own health as a way for someone to attack you in various ways.

And then, of course, you have why I say this is such a big difference is that the food in America is so much worse than in Sweden. For example, with cattle being filled to the brim with antibiotics and you have seed oils in practically everything. You don’t grow up with a good diet. Which makes you more susceptible to various illnesses. And then you get prescribed a some sort of medication. And yeah you go to the doctor and the doctor says to you:

“You have a pain here. Take this medication.”

He prescribes you something, instead of just looking at how you live your life. How you eat how you sleep. How much time you spend in nature. How much sunlight you get. How much you train. All of these different things.

So if you view because, of course, as we’ve known each other for a few years now. And we’ve had a few live streams before. I’ve also talked about pornography, and training, and not being black pilled and all of these things.

Now to tie this into the whole Covid thing, it’s also to understand that side of thing that if they want to attack you and I don’t want to sound like “they”, … It’s not really so complicated. It’s companies that they want to make a profit basically. Then, of course, you have more insidious forces when it comes to perhaps pornography, and stuff like that, and transgender.

But all that aside. When it comes to this health things, the less dependent you are on the health care system the better of you will be. So that’s something if we talk about. Of course, as I’ve said, you know. If you live in a multicultural city it’s good to know how to fight! It’s good to know friends that you can go with. It’s good to, if you have the option of having a weapon. Again for all Americans listening you probably do have the option. It’s good. That’s over here then.

We also have this part where you have a, if you get into the medication side of the war on you, so to speak, you’re out nothing nice. So something you can keep in mind there also that the more of a distance you can keep from that. So it’s similar to, I don’t know, staying safe again in a multicultural city.

And the same thing. If you want to stay safe from a predatory industry, yeah try to take care of your health And as much as possible. And, of course, it starts with your diet. So yeah, I don’t know if that was an answer at all. I just rambled on a bit.

[32:22]

Woes: I think it’s interesting that what you said. One of the things you hit on there was don’t become, … The medical industry big pharma the health sector in America, any private health care system, any capitalistic health care system, will try to get you reliant on it, dependent on it. And I think that’s true.

It’s also true that state-run health care services might do the same thing, but for more bureaucratic reasons. Like to give themselves work. But and that’s a different thing.

I think that the point is that the interesting thing here is that I think that part of you could say adulthood, or you could say masculinity, perhaps both. Part of that is not being dependent on things. Not needing things. Being able to be well being able to survive without that that whatever that pleasure, that treat, that reassurance, that person, being self-sufficient. I think that’s a huge thing.

And it’s also something that’s massively under attack in the modern world, which clearly wants, it tries to make young men, or make men, into like babies they’re dependent, needy, weak, self-doubting, insecure, miserable, you know, this kind of thing.

And I mean, this is why what you do is I think so important. And so useful. Because it remains fundamentally it reminds young men, and not so young men as well, that they are the captain of their ship. And that they can be probably a hell of a lot more self-sufficient and less needy than they currently are. And I think that’s just a massively useful thing for men to hear.

Golden One: I just need to say that the health care system in Sweden isn’t all the great either. So for all of my fellow Swedes listening, whatever you do don’t get sick! Don’t get into any sort of trouble! Because you don’t want to deal with the healthcare system. So yeah, I just wanted to have that point out. And this is not because the nurses, or the doctors in Sweden are bad. It’s because the there isn’t enough money, because that money goes to the Great Replacement.

But yeah, anyway back to the point about young men. So I think it was, or I know it’s quite obvious that becoming a man 200 years ago was a lot easier, because you could get you could probably get a wife at like 20, you could get a good job, you could get an income to supply for a family. I mean, who what 20 year old guy can do that today? So, of course, back in the day you got things served to you:

“Here! Now you’re a man!”

And you grow up, you grow into the role. But for 20 year old the day. I mean, he it’s hard for them to grow into something. So it is disheartening to see many of these lost guys. But it’s also important to know that it was a lot easier back in the day to be a man. Because then you had the entire society is giving you stuff to do. Sure it was rough rough times, hard work. But at the same time I’d say it could be even harder now today for a guy who’s been, ….

[35:55]

Woes: It’s harder in a different way. It’s psychologically harder.

Golden One: Yeah, definitely. I mean, it’s such a thing as pornography. I like to take this example, because it’s such a widespread thing. And it’s so good to use as an example. Because you have the strongest, basically one of the strongest urges in a man, a few clicks away. I mean, how to break that? You need a supreme willpower!

So it’s again, this is not my take on it, but someone said that breaking out from pornography. It’s sort of like an initiation right for young men. That when you do it, yeah that’s at least something. And yeah. This is also why I talk a lot about it. Because, if you can kick out that habit, yeah you have proven yourself to be mentally strong. And then you can probably do a lot more.

Same thing when I talk about going to the gym. I’m not necessarily saying it, because I want everyone to get jacked or, because everyone has to look like a Greek statue, or whatever. But when you go into the gym there are so many different things that fall into place. So it’s like a you have a puzzle of your life, the gym is like the frame of it. And then you can put in different pieces.

So I train now to sleep well basically. If I train hard I sleep well. If I sleep well I can be more productive. And I have more energy and stuff. So the gym it goes much farther than just being jacked, or whatever.

So those two things I push on, because they’re two yeah fundamental things you can defeat the demon of pornography. Then you can defeat a lot of other things, because compared to pornography, I don’t really know what else can be, …

Well, of course, certain drugs, of course, if you have a physiological need for whatever drug, it can be hard. But I’d say at least that’s a good starting point. And then, of course, the gym.

Then in other terms, you know, I always recommend guys to read a lot. There are so many books. When you get into the love of reading. And you get that excitement that you always have something to read, it’s really great! So that’s something also, just read like crazy. And the more knowledge you find, the more thirsty will be for knowledge. And the more you will read. And the busier you keep.

So if you have a young guy who goes from being blackpilled. And he doesn’t have any direction. And then he first, of course, he battles within leaving pornography, leaving a few other vices he might have. He might spend an excessive amount of time playing video games. Now I do play video games every once in a while, of course not in an excessive manner. But I do have some experience with at least playing in moderation.

But anyway he cuts down on that. He starts going to the gym. And then his diet cleans up, because he wants to see results better. He sleeps better he gets into his circadian rhythm. He starts feeling even better. Because the body heals in a different way.

That’s also something I thought to mention in terms of staying healthy overall, and not being dependent upon medication, is to get your sleep and your circadian rhythm in tune with its nature. Because If it doesn’t you will yeah probably experience a lot of those issues.

Woes: Yeah. This is definitely something that I struggle with, because it’s just so easy to stay up, you know. But I also think this is what I’ve been told. This is something that is very common in cities, urban dwellers. Whereas in the countryside it’s far more of a natural thing to just have a normal sleeping pattern. It’s in the cities where things go on all night, and people are detached from each other, so they spend time online, by the computer. And so that’s where it’s much more difficult to have a normal pattern.

Golden One: It’s also to do with the amount of light. So to give a practical advice to everyone listening you can install twilight, if you have an Android at least. I do suppose iPhone that they have something similar. So that’s a blue light filter that you can, yeah it can go on automatically at like 20 in the evening, or something. So 8 p.m in the evening it can go on to reduce the amount of blue light. I have it on my computer screen as well. So it goes on at 20, or 21 and it reduces the amount of blue light. Of course, definitely have it on your cell phone as well, especially if you lie in bed and you scroll you need to have a blue light filter.

So that’s something to keep in mind as well that the body, of course, it understands light as, you know what part of the day are we in. So that’s a massive key, I’d say, to just feel good with yourself to be productive. And to be healthy, is to get a good sleep.

And, of course, training hard. Training so that you get tired in the evening it helps a lot when it comes to sleep. I can feel it as well, if I haven’t really trained. And my sleep isn’t that as deep. And then the next day I’m a bit more tired. So then maybe I don’t want to train so it goes down in a bad spiral. Whereas if I have trained hard. And if I’ve been productive it’s a different thing.

So yeah, revolutionary teaching here at Millennial! Sleep! Go to bed early! That’s revolutionary!

[41:23]

Woes: Well [chuckling] it’s stuff that we all need to be reminded of, especially nowadays, because that there’s so much detachment and it’s so easy not to live in a normal way. In the way that our ancestors did. So I don’t think we need to go on any more about that.

But it is I think the main point that I would want to emphasize here is this concept of self-sufficiency. This concept that part of being an adult, definitely part of being a man, is being less needy than you are as a child. And more in control of your needs! More in control of your desires! You know, this and again none of this you see it should be, …

This stuff should be obvious to everyone. And it should be said to young people. It should be said in school, and whatever. I don’t think any of it is said anymore. [chuckling] I think people are just left to their own devices! And, of course, they, because they mess up.

So with all of that said I know that you have just released a new book. Or the new edition of a book. And so would you like to tell people about that.

Golden One: Yes. Definitely! Yeah, so it’s “Dauntless – The Wild Hunt” edition. So it initially came out in 2019. But it that particular edition it wasn’t the book I wanted to release.

So this year I decided to yeah remake it into what I wanted it to be, the first time around. So I spent most of the Autumn doing it. Didn’t really make all too many videos on YouTube. And yeah, I took this in many other regards as well. Just focus on it then, of course, my grammar, my English grammar, has improved a bit since I started writing it.

So to go through and fix some of that, as well. And just flesh out a lot of the concepts and the many other topics as well. I have gotten a deeper understanding of especially terms such as meditation. So that chapter is a bit longer and these sort of things.

So basically what it’s a handbook. I want to do to present something, a practical guide for primarily young men. So it’s basically if someone asked me you have a unique opportunity to tell all Western men, all Western young men something. And what I can tell them is to read that particular book.

And it contains the knowledge I wish I had when I was younger. Because no one absolutely no one told me of these things! And I do know that many of these guys they don’t hear this from anyone else, either.

So basically it starts with some training, some nutrition, and then goes over to some philosophy. Some thoughts on relationships, and tribes, and hierarchy, and stuff like that.

Goes into some basic politics as well. It’s not a political book. But it’s just to give a solid world view that someone can expand upon. Especially if you have some young Western man fresh out of high school, or whatever, and they’ve gotten, of course, indoctrinated by some Leftist teacher. Such a little nudge in a different direction.

So I say that, of course, biology is real. Race is real. And society is a racial construct, not the other way around. So people understand that and it’s completely okay that way. So yeah, something along those lines is the book. And yeah I’m quite happy with it.

[45:12]

Woes: So this is a book that people might want to, … And I know that there is still time to buy it, to order it before Christmas, isn’t there?

Golden One: I will be completely honest. I hoped I had hoped that would be the case. If you are in the UK I don’t know to be honest. I can’t say anything for the UK. I can say for Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium. And some of the other neighbouring countries to Germany, that should be fine.

But for anyone else, yeah I can’t say too much, especially not to the US. Because the last Christmas was a bloody mess!

Woes: Well I’ve got to say my copy has arrived. And that was only a don’t know three, four days.

Golden One: All right! Good!

Woes: Yeah, so and that’s right. So yeah, I think there is still time for people to order it before Christmas. And would you say that they might want it for themselves, or for young men, who they know.

Golden One: I mean, it’s for everyone really. It’s aimed to men, of course. Because, I mean, if you’re a woman. You can also read it, and take to heart the knowledge and insights. But it’s more, when I wrote it was more I am giving knowledge to a younger man, so he can get a good start in life. But I mean, if you’re an older guy, as well, it doesn’t matter you can still implement teachings and hopefully find a beautifully written book. So I hope everyone will like it!

Woes: All right. Excellent! Okay. Well, let’s leave it at that unless there’s any other stuff that you’d like to touch on before we go. I mean, we did talk about Covid, and the lockdown, and all that. But it’s interesting to hear that your perspective, because obviously it has been less of a thing in Sweden, than it has been in Britain and, you know, everywhere else. So I can sort of detect that in your attitude towards this. I can tell you’re less bothered about it, than we are [chuckling] down here!

Golden One: Well I must admit something as well, that I did also I sort of, yes as I’ve been in the patriot game for quite a while. And I thought when this Covid came, I sort of thought to myself I will not take a step back. But I didn’t have the energy to read up all too much about it, because I’d already been focusing so intensely on other stuff! Including writing Dauntless.

So I didn’t really look into it perhaps as much as I should have. But what I’ve done, of course, for everyone following me on Telegram, I’ve just tried to repost and really share from people who are posting about it. So I do take it seriously, of course, I do. Just I didn’t have the energy to go in all too deep in the rabbit hole that was Covid.

Woes: I think it was the opposite for me, because I had spent like the last two years, I had sort of had writer’s block. I didn’t know what to talk about, because I felt I’d said everything about race and all that. And so I sort of wasn’t sure what to do. And then it. And then this came. And it was like a new thing to analyze and read about and learn about. And work out. So it was a different experience.

But, of course, what you’re saying is true. It’s a useful, it’s a point to make that a lot of this is scientific and logistical bureaucratic, this kind of stuff, is very difficult for ordinary people to grasp this. And so this is why they have to rely on the experts, because it’s. So I mean, to understand virology, the biology, and all this is bloody complicated! So I mean, that’s why we rely on them.

Golden One: I will say that I have spent my fair share of time studying PubMed articles. But that was back in the day when I looked at purely bodybuilding and health.

But another culprit, so to speak, in terms of not having studied so much about Covid is I began reading more about stuff like this [Icelandic Magic book]. So some esoteric stuff and meditation. So that actually, I intensified this type of things when I reread Dauntless. Of course, before then I want to experiment a bit more with myself.

So I have been meditating upon the universe when others have talked about Covid. So but yeah, of course, I do understand the gravity of the situation. And yeah, I would lie if I said I wasn’t worried about the direction Sweden, also is going.

So and, of course, as it is right now I don’t know when I will ever be able to leave Sweden again. Which is, of course, heartbreaking, to not be able to yeah partake in conferences. Those were always nice to go to conference to speak and stuff.

[50:21]

Woes: Yeah we met at quite a few conferences, didn’t we? In Sweden and Britain for sure. I think Germany as well. And Finland! That was well yeah, so I if I remember correctly. So yeah, it was a different, it was definitely a different era. Maybe we’ll return to that. I don’t know. But yeah, for now it’s a turbulent time. So I think it is actually a time for people to concentrate on themselves, on their own lives, on what they can control.

Golden One: Something also to, my perspective, as I’ve said also that my ambitions have always been quite clear, of course, I want to achieve regime change. But I view it in the long term.

So when I’m 60 years of age hopefully I have accumulated a lot of gravitas. So I can be in a different situation. So I do try to pace myself as well. So I don’t burn out now. But I do yeah take a step back, and then take a few steps forward. And yeah to pace myself. So I have no intention of going out of the metapolitical. It’s just I’m viewing it in the long term. And I yeah we’ll continue until we achieve our goals!

Woes: All right. Excellent. Well on that note we’ll end this one.

This is the first stream of the first night of Millennial 2021. Later on I have Philosophicat, and then Mark Malone, and then Oren Mcintyre.

So anyway, in the meantime this was Marcus Fallon, the Golden One. So thank you for appearing on Millennial!

Golden One: Oh. Thanks for having me. Good times. Okay.

Woes: And I will be back in about an hour. And in the meantime I will leave you with this rather swish advert for the NFT.

————

Millennial Woes has created many things. And this is your chance to own one of them! A unique piece of work hand crafted by the vile vlogger, to commemorate Millennial 2021.

Millenniyule 2021 commemoration

A hundred hours of highly skilled labour went into producing this animated vector graphic, which can be magnified to any size.

In the iconic Millennial Woes font, it glistens and responds to your touch. And at the centre of it all, a figure representative of 2021, the White Stag!

Symbolizing endurance, discovery, and rejuvenation!

This one-of-a-kind creation is up for sale as an NFT. Follow the link below. And it can be yours forever! This is your only chance!

[53:25]

END

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

ODYSEE COMMENTS

top

55 comments

@millennialwoes
16 days ago
Pinned by @millennialwoes
Millenniyule is a lot of work. If you would like to give something back, here’s how you can support me:
https://millennialwoes.com/donate
https://millennialwoes.com/crypto
BTC: bc1qawkvztdv66cqc2y0c8l77r5evtmyqasckzmaa8
LIGHTNING BTC: LNURL1DP68GURN8GHJ7MRWW3UXYMM59E3K7MF0D3H82UNV9ACXZ7FLW4EK2UNFVS7NGDP4XYCRZA9E7YH
ETH: 0xA2A1b54eB817425f26e143271AeFE4191645ffdE
LTC: ltc1qjjhm67xg6gw72ufns2m42e6enkmpzg29kyh0hx
BCH: qzzefssk0v26f2t2un80npprd6fm6yqnmqwj39yad6
XMR: 45x4SAf1EaNDBYJ53ZhfcVM4VU2ojQwV1EgvwzAUQ7S7dGpCpeVpwgggZut7qfUMEuAXXbg3UvFTVcqwSzYVPDvh4h5rYZU
Less
Reply
11
0
Hide replies

@SgtSteel
16 days ago
So glad that there is a millenniyule this year, I really didn’t think there would be one, so now I am on catch-up. All the best Woes.
Reply

@Farseer
21 days ago
good start for Millenniyule.
Reply
31
1
Hide replies

@seventus
21 days ago
Agreed!
Very enjoyable to hear from Marcus again.
Reply
8
1

@yod
21 days ago
Golden One > SArgon
Reply
27
1
Hide replies

@ZR
20 days ago
Goes without saying.
Reply
9

@Weltenesche
12 days ago
the dirt under my fingernails > Sargon
Reply
2
1

@PoxPopuli
21 days ago
Happy milleniyule everyone.
Reply
22

@chiefcaseyryback
21 days ago
Great to see Milleniyule back again! Thanks Woes. It’s part of my vile end of year tradition.
Reply
17

@AngharadKeltic
21 days ago
I forgot this started today! BLESS you!
Reply
16
2

@SlingNewt
21 days ago
All the best with Millenniyule Woes!
I’ve been following you since way before Brexit. Millenniyule is THE highlight of my on-line life.
Great convo with the Golden One.
Reply
14

@PoxPopuli
21 days ago
The Great Reset/Agenda 30 and the mandatory CoVax are the fundamental issues of our time. Demographics and nationalism vs globohomo are still important, and indeed they are intertwined, but as was said in this interview, the Covid agenda has stripped away what little hope for a future we had.
Reply
12

@ZR
20 days ago
Marcus is one of the first “dissident right” figures I came across, an important figure in my ideological development.
Good for you Marcus for admitting you were wrong about COVID, many in the movement have too much pride to do this.
Reply
1

@GaelicTradition
21 days ago
They devestated the economy for us. They still sit atop what exists. A good chess player will sacrifice pieces to achive the win.
Reply
9

@SethApex
21 days ago
If this NFT sale goes well, next year you should create unique NFTs for each guest and give them a cut of the sale.
Reply
7
1

@TheAmalekAvenger
20 days ago
been here since the first milleniyule….
god bless you pagan sons of biches
Reply
6
2

@SnorkelBlog
21 days ago
Tip top shape to kick off from.
Reply
6
1

@GaelicTradition
21 days ago
A great start. Lets hope it all stays this good!
Reply
6
1

@Dusanko
20 days ago
How come this one was uploaded here so fast after the stream ended, but the next stream with Cat wasn’t? Even many hours afterward.
Reply
5
0
Hide replies

@millennialwoes
20 days ago
Because the stream with Cat was much longer, so took longer to download, and would have taken much longer to upload – by which time I would need to be well into the next stream. So my bandwidth wouldn’t have sustained it.
Reply
7
0
Hide replies

@Dusanko
20 days ago
Did not expect a reply, thank you for that. Ah, I see, I thought it’s done automatically somehow.
Reply
3

@Dusanko
20 days ago
The best thing about December!
Reply
5

@14Archives
20 days ago
You did good today, Millenial Woes.
But please, if you are having insomnia issue, then consider something like a mild sedative.
Chamomile or lavender tea can help.
Reply
4
0
Hide replies

@simmons6319.2
20 days ago
Melatonin helped me but only 3 to 5 milligrams for up to two weeks works like a charm
Reply
1

@woodsmith
20 days ago
I’ve used valerian tea to great effect as well.
Reply
1

@14Reasons
19 days ago
Valerian has some mild sedative and hypnotic like effects.
And Melatonin is the hormone released before people sleep.
Melatonin isn’t actually designed to specifically be used to make people particularly the most tired. Like a traditional hypnotic drug.
It’s more the hormone to get you in a right sleep cycle, more than anything.
Also, the doses they give in supplements are mega doses.
Best to keep those melatonin doses lower.
And don’t take melatonin late at night…because it’s just asking to obliterate your sleep schedule.
It’s supposed to be taken when you KNOW you will sleep at a certain time, to get a good sleep schedule and rythm going.
It’s been mass popularized in recent years but most people don’t know the basics behind it….just be careful with melatonin.
Hormones are profoundly different compared to traditional psycho-activate hypnotics.
Less
Reply

@Arnorian
20 days ago
A great first day for Millenniyule 2021!
Reply
4

@alan_B_stard_M_P
20 days ago
thankyou Woes, you’re amazing
Reply
4

@RichardWWilliams
21 days ago
Sorry, that was a pretty low energy start. TGO was subdued and seemed down, which happens, but MW you didn’t pick up on that and perhaps change the tenor of the conversation. Asking for some “white pills” from a guy who looks like his mind is elsewhere or has just had bad family news is not a great approach.
Reply
3
0
Hide replies

@millennialwoes
20 days ago
In retrospect I agree. However, it was my first stream in a long time, and I was nervous, and I couldn’t risk going for a more personal tone when I don’t know how Marcus would react to that, and strongly suspect that he would not appreciate it.
Reply
13

@kiro_darkpaw
19 days ago
Welcome back Millennial Woes, I really miss watching your content, you are awesome!
Thanks for keeping the Millenniyule going though, and what a way to start, the Man the Myth the Legend, the hero the Golden One himself!
Reply
2

@ciarancarroll1000
19 days ago
The quality of Millenial Woes, is top notch. I must give you ģreat credit, you are way ahead of any current affairs progamme found on TV You are a legend I have admired your courage ever since I discovered you on youtube. Your work, I appreciate. You have added to discussion, debate, helped me develop my thinking in terms of culture, society, values. An overall sharpened my sense of identity. Like many I am in your debt. Sincerely thank you, God bless you an I hope you have much happiness an fulfillment in your future. An here have a happy Christmas & all the best for 2022, I consider you a brother in this epic saga of our time
Less
Reply
2

@jnl
20 days ago
Imagine thinking that Covid destroyed the economy… it did exactly what they wanted, it made the debt-based economy stronger than ever. I WISH Covid had actually destroyed this sick jewish economy, but no, it only made it more all-consuming.
Reply
2

@tRad_Dad
20 days ago
its the most wonderful time of the year
Reply
2

@GusinLanzarote
20 days ago
starting with a great inspirational gym toned Alpha European crusader- brilliant ‍
Reply
2

@CisWhiteMalewithExtraPrivilege
20 days ago
This is the one channel where I actually watch everything that comes in on the notifications.
Reply
2

@LiveFreeOrDie
21 days ago
This comment was slimed to death.
Reply
1
9
Hide replies

@dakotajoe
20 days ago
Doubt that will ever happen.
Nick has had a few choice words over the years.
Reply
0
0
Hide replies

@LiveFreeOrDie
20 days ago
Choice words about what in particular? Afaik he’s never even mentioned Colin.
Reply
1
3

@DaveDogge
17 days ago
All this for a virus that has a 0.00001% mortality rate, the evidence is staring you all right in the face.
Reply
1

@Bukitburg
19 days ago
Cheers Woes and TGO!
Reply
1

@DOPAMINEDRIP
19 days ago
Both looking well lads, based.
Reply
1

@CisWhiteMalewithExtraPrivilege
20 days ago
Should have compared your bench’s. Good stream.
Reply
1

@BerenOfDorthonion
20 days ago
Awesome first guest, Woesy! The big man of Sweden himself!
Reply
1

@GigaChad
20 days ago
chad
Reply
1

@robg305
20 days ago
The Golden One = My #1 Influence. Highly highly glorious!
Reply
1

@WhatPlanetAreWeOn
20 days ago
So it begins…..
Reply
1

@SurfSk8Swing
5 days ago
the jab is the great replacement, the youth are being poisoned and or sterilized. In the US myocarditis cases per year are normally less than 700. In 2021 VAERs is showing in mid Dec over 16 thousand cases from the jab and thatis vastly in young males. VAERs is typically shown to represent only 10% or less of actual cases so the real number is vastly higher. Thats genocide. Adding to that is fertility is plummeting everywhere the jab is heavily taken. African countries have a very low rate of people taking the jab. Fertlity is still high there, that sets up great replacement.
Dont get the jab lads, no matter what. This is our great cause.
Less
Reply

@anarchocapitalist
13 days ago
Yet another example of why most of us on ‘The Right’ are handsome!
They hate us because they are mostly ugly as …..
Reply

@Butter-Is-Gold-In-The-Cold
15 days ago
2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 31
37 41 43 47 53 59 61
67 71 73 79 83
89 97 101
103 107
Reply

@Butter-Is-Gold-In-The-Cold
15 days ago
H4o H5u H3i H7å H1a H2e H8ä H9ö H6y
1A B C D 2E F G H 3I J K L M N 4O P Q R S T 5U V W X 6Y Z 7Å 8Ä 9Ö
Reply

@DaveDogge
17 days ago
Good to see MilenialYule back and The Golden One back after a small break he had recently.
Reply

@katana17
18 days ago
[Millennial Woes – Millenniyule 2021 — The Golden One – Dec 13, 2021 — Transcript]

Millennial Woes – Millenniyule 2021 – The Golden One – Dec 13, 2021 — Transcript

@SimpleAs
19 days ago
They have already implimented a vaccine passport in Sweden for indoor events with more than 100 people. I couldn’t go watch my daughters Lucia concert in Kalmar Cathedral yesterday because I’m not vaccinated.
Reply

@RoySaintLouis
20 days ago
This month will be very promising in many unexpected surprises.
Reply

@WinterPhoenixForestKirin
21 days ago
What? Our superchats weren’t read, and they’re not even on screen…?
Reply
0
0
Hide replies

@millennialwoes
21 days ago
There is no integration between Entropy and Streamyard, or between Odysee and Streamyard. That stuff is only available on Youtube. I did forget to check the Odysee superchats during this stream; my apologies.
Reply
8
0
Hide replies

@WinterPhoenixForestKirin
21 days ago
No worries. That’s unfortunate, though.
Reply
5
0

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

PDF Notes

top

* Total words in transcript = 8,259
* Total words in post = 10,134
* Total images = xx
* Total A4 pages =xx

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

(Available later)

Version History

top

Version 5: Jan 3, 2021 — Updated Odysee comments (55). Updated See Also links.

Version 4: Dec 17, 2021 — Updated See Also links.

Version 3: Dec 15, 2021 — Added Odysee comments (48).

Version 2: Dec 14, 2021 — Updated Cover image to include ” – 01″, as in the first interview.

Version 1: Dec 13, 2021 — Published post. Transcript at 3/5 star quality.

UnHerd – Why Lockdowns are the Wrong Policy – Swedish Expert Prof Johan Giesecke – Apr 17, 2020 — Transcript

admin — Sat, 25 Apr 2020 11:48:26 +0000

[A Swedish expert in infectious diseases, Professor Johan Giesecke, is interviewed on Sweden’s response to the Coronvirus and why the “Lockdown” policy being carried out across the West is wrong.

Sweden has instituted a relatively mild response in terms of social restrictions, such as limiting gatherings to a maximum of 50 people. He says the end result will be a similar death rate as what will occur in countries that are carrying out severe lockdowns with all its massive economic costs, and the risk of the loss of freedoms.

— KATANA]

UnHerd

Why Lockdowns are the

Wrong Policy

Swedish Expert Prof Johan Giesecke

Apr 17, 2020

Click here for the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfN2JWifLCY

Published on Apr 17, 2020

Why lockdowns are the wrong policy – Swedish expert Prof. Johan Giesecke
569,225 views
•Apr 17, 2020
9.6K
550
Share
Save
UnHerd
18.3K subscribers
That was one of the more extraordinary interviews we have done here at UnHerd.

Professor Johan Giesecke, one of the world’s most senior epidemiologists, advisor to the Swedish Government (he hired Anders Tegnell who is currently directing Swedish strategy), the first Chief Scientist of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, and an advisor to the director general of the WHO, lays out with typically Swedish bluntness why he thinks:

– UK policy on lockdown and other European countries are not evidence-based
– The correct policy is to protect the old and the frail only
– This will eventually lead to herd immunity as a “by-product”
– The initial UK response, before the “180 degree U-turn”, was better
– The Imperial College paper was “not very good” and he has never seen an unpublished paper have so much policy impact
– The paper was very much too pessimistic
– Any such models are a dubious basis for public policy anyway
– The flattening of the curve is due to the most vulnerable dying first as much as the lockdown
– The results will eventually be similar for all countries
– Covid-19 is a “mild disease” and similar to the flu, and it was the novelty of the disease that scared people.
– The actual fatality rate of Covid-19 is the region of 0.1%
– At least 50% of the population of both the UK and Sweden will be shown to have already had the disease when mass antibody testing becomes available

TRANSCRIPT

(34:24 mins)

[00:00]

Unherd: Hello and welcome! Thanks for tuning in. You are watching lockdown TV. This is the pop up news and discussion program from Unherd. Throughout the lockdown weeks we have been bringing conversations and interesting people together to work out what’s going on and how we should be thinking about this current crisis.

I’m delighted that today we are joined, down the line from Sweden, by Dr. Johan Giesecke. Dr. Giesecke thank you so much for making the time today.

Prof Giesecke: My pleasure.

Unherd: If I can give you, help me a little bit here, but you trained originally at the London School of Tropical Medicine, is that right?

Prof Giesecke: No. It started before that actually. I used to be an infectious disease clinical doctor, and worked a lot with AIDS patients during the 1980s. And that’s what put me into epidemiology. And then I spent one year, or two years at the London School of Tropical Medicine in the early 90s. And then I came back to Sweden. And then I became State Epidemiologist for Sweden. Which means having control over all the infectious diseases.

Unherd: Which is the job Anders Tegnell apparently has?

Prof Giesecke: So, I actually hired him 20 years ago. And then I was his boss, and now he’s my boss. But he’s working actually quite well.

Unherd: And you then became Chief Scientist at the European Center for Disease Control?

Prof Giesecke: Yeah.

Unherd: And what roles do you have now? Who are you advising at the moment?

Prof Giesecke: I’m advising Anders [word unclear] the Swedish agency for public health, on a consultant basis. I’m retired really, so I’m doing this mostly, because it’s fun!

Unherd: And the World Health Organization? You were saying you’re on a call with them earlier today. Do you have an ongoing relationship, with them?

Prof Giesecke: Yes. I’m advising the Director-General, together with a group of scientists. But that is unpaid, …

Unherd: Right.

Prof Giesecke: That is an honorary post.

Unherd: So having established your credentials, to talk with confidence on this topic, there’s been a lot of confused thinking, and a lot of confusion, about what the correct response to a threat such as Covid 19 should be. And I just wanted to begin by getting your kind of summary thoughts of how Sweden is differing from other countries, and why you think that is?

Prof Giesecke: The main reason is that we, or the Swedish government, decided early in January that the measures we should take against the pandemic should be evidence-based. And when you start looking around for the measures that are being taken now by different countries, you find that very few of them have the shred of evidence base!

But one, we know, that’s known for a hundred and fifty years, or more. And that is washing your hands is good for you and good for others when you’re in epidemic. But the rest like border closures, school closures, social distancing, there’s almost no science behind most of these.

Unherd: So, what is the current policy in Sweden? Social distancing is part of the policy, isn’t it? What is the regime that Sweden has gone with?

Prof Giesecke: The main difference to other countries is that there is no, you’re not locked up in your home. If you go out buy food, or groceries, or drugs, I mean, medicines, there’s no police to stop you in the street, and ask you what you’re doing here. That’s one thing. People are asked to stay inside. But there is no reinforcement, or enforcement of that. People do it anyway. So that’s one. We have the rule that a crowd cannot be bigger than 50 people.

Unherd: So I can still have an event for 49 people, if I want?

Prof Giesecke: Yes. You could. And the schools, the upper schools are closed. Secondary education and universities are closed. Schools at age 15, 16, are open. What more do we have? The nursing homes, or houses for old people, are closed to visitors.

Unherd: So it sounds like it’s a moderate social distancing regime, then? At the moment.

Prof Giesecke: Yes. Sorry, it’s very similar to the one that the UK had before there was a famous paper by the Imperial College, by the modelers who made models for infectious diseases, that came out. And on the day after, you made a you-turn in England.

[05:00]

Unherd: Yes. So tell us about that. The original strategy in the UK and became known as a kind of “herd immunity” strategy. That is what it was called. And before we come on to talk about the Imperial Model, which I would like to talk about, is it correct to call it “herd immunity”? And is that the Swedish strategy?

Prof Giesecke: It’s not a strategy, but it’s a by-product of the strategy. But the strategy is to protect the old and the frail. Try to minimize their risk of becoming infected, and taking care of them if they get infected. And if you do that the way we’re doing it, you would probably get herd immunity then. But that’s a byproduct of it. It’s not the main reason to do it.

Unherd: So, you were saying then, so the initial UK response seemed to be similar to what Sweden is doing now. And you thought that was better?

Prof Giesecke: Yep! No, I think it was very good actually, and we were very pleased we were having the same policies as the UK. That gave some credibility to what we were doing. But then, Mr Johnson [Boris] made it made his hundred and eighty degree turn.

[Image — Britain’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson, right, and Health Minister Matt Hancock visit Bassetlaw District General Hospital on their General Election campaign in Worksop, England, on Nov. 22, 2019]

Unherd: Yes. So why, … There may have been other political factors involved. He was definitely under a lot of pressure, because lots of European countries were doing a formal lockdown at that point.

But the turning point did seem to be that Imperial College Report, which forecasted five hundred and ten thousand deaths in the UK, with a completely unmitigated approach. Two hundred and fifty thousand deaths with a mitigated approach, which is roughly equivalent to what you’re doing in Sweden. And then it suggests that it might be as few as 20,000 if we did a full suppression, or lockdown. What was your impression of that paper?

Prof Giesecke: I think it’s not very good! And the thing that they miss a little, is any models for infectious disease spread are very popular. Many people do them. They’re good for teaching. They seldom tell you the truth. Because — I make a small parenthesis — which model could have assumed that the outbreak would start in northern Italy, in Europe? Difficult to model that one.

And any such model, it looks complicated. There are strange mathematical formula, and integrals signs, and stuff, but it rests on the assumptions! And the assumptions in that articles could be heavily criticized. I won’t go through that, it would take to the rest of your day if I went through them all.

The paper was never published scientifically! It’s not peer-reviewed. Which a scientific paper should be. It’s just an internal departmental report from Imperial. And it’s fascinating! I don’t think any other scientific endeavor has made such an impression on the world, as that rather debatable paper!

Unherd: So, is your impression is that it was overly pessimistic?

Prof Giesecke: Yes! Oh yes! Very much so.

Unherd: So what, I mean, I guess it comes down to some degree of speculation, but what’s your impression of how serious the disease is? And what kind of fatalities we would be looking at if we had a more moderate, or more mitigated approach?

Prof Giesecke: What’s the number of deaths in the UK now? I don’t know, I haven’t looked.

Unherd: Thirteen thousand. [As of Apr 25, 2020 the UK total is 20,319 — See chart at end.]

Prof Giesecke: So you’re getting close to twenty now?

Unherd: Yeah.

Prof Giesecke: But probably not 510 thousand! I think, … Well let me back one step. One thing that the model has missed is that it assumes that hospital capacity will remain the same. And that’s not what’s happening anywhere. I mean, in Sweden we tripled our intensive care capacity. And I think that’s happening in the UK as well. That the paper completely overlooks that. It cites that as a static thing.

Unherd: Hmm. So, just to sort of come back on this. The argument, what people watching will be asking, and I think what most people who support the lockdown would say, and that is the overwhelming majority of people in politics and in the media, is that the reason the curve is now flattening, and the numbers of deaths are gradually coming down on a daily basis, is because of the lockdown. And that shows that the policy has worked!

[Image — Professor Neil Ferguson of the School of Public Health at Imperial College London.]

And Professor Neil Ferguson who wrote the, or led the Imperial paper, suggest that he stands by his prediction that 500,000 odd people would have died had that not taken place. So if it wasn’t the lockdown that has been flattening our curve, what else could have been?

[10:01]

Prof Giesecke: One thing is immunity. The other is that the people who are frail and old, will die first. And when that group of people is sort of thinned out, you will get less deaths as well. The other thing is that when you start your “exit strategy”, that’s the favorite word now in all this public effort. The “exit strategy”. When you start that one, you’ll have some other deaths that we had already.

Unherd: Yes. So does that mean then that as the disease passes through the population, are we gonna see second and third spikes now, after this?

Prof Giesecke: It would be part of the exit strategy. Because the only way to check, if you taking away one restriction, and say we’ll open the schools again, as an example. How do you evaluate that? You have to:

“Oh! Numbers are going up again! More people are dying! We have to stop that! We have to pull back that softening, and try another.”

That’s what “exit strategy” will be in all countries! Countries will ease up a little on a restriction, see what happens over the next to-3 weeks:

“Ohh! It didn’t work very well! We will resume that! We try another restriction, we lift that one. Oh it worked!”

And so every country will have to do it that way. And that means that the increasing number of deaths will be part of checking which strategy should be kept or not.

Unherd: So what should we be doing instead?

Prof Giesecke: Well, you can’t! When I first heard — which is now six week ago — about the different draconic measures that were taken, I asked myself:

“How are they going to climb down from that one? When will they open the schools again? What should be the criterion to open schools?”

Did anyone, the strong and very decisive politicians even think about how to get out of this, when they introduced it? And I think that would be a problem for the UK, as well.

Unherd: So yes, let’s take as a comparison, the neighboring countries in Scandinavia.

Prof Giesecke: Yep.

Unherd: Because a lot of people are sending around these charts that showed that Denmark, and Norway, and Finland, have had much fewer deaths on a per capita basis. And in Sweden the rate is still climbing. And they take that as proof essentially that Sweden should have gone into a more draconian lockdown. What do you say to those people?

Prof Giesecke: Well first, that is not true for Denmark. Secondly, one important thing is that Norway, the nursing homes in Norway, are usually quite small. Whereas the nursing homes in Sweden are quite big, with hundreds of people. Which means that if you get the virus into one nursing home in Norway it will affect far fewer people. So that’s part of the reason, it’s not all the reasons.

For Finland the epidemic never really took off there. They started their measures before it had even started. But I think we should have this discussion a year from now! Let’s decide that. We do it on the 17th of April 2021! I think that the difference between countries would be quite small, in the end.

Unherd: So you don’t think that the severity of the these intervening measures are gonna make that much difference?

Prof Giesecke: No! I don’t think so. I think, … Should I tell you what I really think?

Unherd: Please!

Prof Giesecke: I almost never do this. I think what we’re seeing is a tsunami of a usually quite mild disease which is sweeping over Europe. And some countries do this, and some countries do that, and some countries don’t do that. And in the end, there will be very little difference.

Unherd: So when you say it’s a usually “quite mild” disease, what do you mean by that?

Prof Giesecke: That most people who get it will never even notice they were infected.

Unherd: So, does that mean that you think the actual fatality rate of this disease is much lower than the numbers that have been talked about?

Prof Giesecke: Much, much, lower!

Unherd: So have you made any speculations as to what sort of zone, the real fatality rate might be in?

Prof Giesecke: I think it would be like a severe influenza season. The same as, and which would be an order of 0.1 percent, maybe.

Unherd: So that would suggest then for a country like the UK that has already had, is heading towards 20,000 deaths, that would suggest, that millions, many millions, of people have already had it.

Prof Giesecke: Yes!

Unherd: And you believe, … Do you think that is also true in Sweden then? That a substantial percentage of the population has had it?

Prof Giesecke: Yep! I’m rather certain on that, actually. And when we get — we don’t have the tests really, yet. As you know, you have these two kinds, you know, this don’t you? Two kinds of tests.

[15:04]

Unherd: Yeah.

Prof Giesecke: One that tells that you have it now. Another one that tells you that you had it at some point before. An immunity, or serology test. And they are just being developed and are just being employed.

I know from discussions with friends in the UK, that you started last week with 3,500 such tests, and you have gone with eight in one week, and it will be about eight thousand per week. And when you get tests that show that people that have the disease, you’ll see that most of them never even dreamt they had it!

Unherd: But we don’t have yet any effective antibody tests, I don’t think. No. You’re right. But it’s coming.

Unherd: But you’re confident that we will get those tests?

Prof Giesecke: Oh, yes. That’s a matter of time.

Unherd: And so what sort of percentage of the population do you think we will discover has had it, once we get mass antibody testing in place?

Prof Giesecke: At least half.

Unherd: In the United Kingdom, or do you mean in Sweden, as well?

Prof Giesecke: Both countries.

Unherd: So, the whole sort of rationale for introducing these lockdowns across Europe, that has created such unbelievable side-effects, and pretty much stops the whole world in its tracks.

Prof Giesecke: Mmm.

Unherd: You believe is a misguided policy, and do you think it’s doing more harm than good?

Prof Giesecke: Yes! I think so! Although, I mean, if you listen [a slight chuckle], what I’m saying is that people who will die a few months later, are dying now. And that’s taking months from their lives. So that’s maybe not nice. But, comparing that to the effects of the lockdown which may be, …

I mean, what am I most afraid of its the dictatorial trends in Eastern Europe, that Orban is now dictator for Hungary forever. There’s no finishing date. I think the same is popping up in other countries. It may pop up in more established democracies, as well. I think the ramifications can be huge from this! We don’t even start seeing that.

Unherd: So you think the correct policy from the start, just to get this clear, should have been to shield old and vulnerable groups, …

Prof Giesecke: There we failed! Sweden failed. We were not on our toes enough to really shield the old people. We should have banned visitors earlier. Many of the people working in nursing homes are from other countries, they’re refugees, or asylum seekers, in Sweden. Their Swedish may not be perfect. They may not always be understanding the information that has been spread to the population. There are many things we could have done better a couple of weeks, or a couple of months ago.

Unherd: So, at the point we are now, what you’re advocating in is we protect groups better.

Prof Giesecke: Mmm.

Unherd: And as far as the rest of the population is concerned we just allow it to pass through the population? Essentially.

Prof Giesecke: Essentially, yes.

Unherd: Which is, I mean, I know that it’s now, …

Prof Giesecke: Herd immunity, yes.

Unherd: That is commonly understood by what we call the “herd immunity” strategy, basically,

Prof Giesecke: Yes. There are others. It’s not just the old and frail. I mean, there are other people that should be protected. But I don’t think you can stop it. It’s spreading! You can try, you can stop it for some time, but then? I mean, countries that have been successful, South Korea is giving up now. They can’t maintain their policy. Taiwan, I don’t know about Taiwan, they were quite successful. Singapore, similar problem.

Unherd: Those countries that are held up is the most successful. In some cases they totally managed to suppress the outbreak. Do you think that it’s just a question of delay, and actually they won’t be able to hold that back?

Prof Giesecke: No!

Unherd: So how should we judge success, then? It seems like numbers of deaths does seem like a fair a measure. But if you’re saying that they’re essentially deaths that are just going to happen later, you know, it will sound to some people that’s a slightly cold-hearted approach, I suppose. That if you’re saying they’re going to die anyway, so we should allow the disease to take it’s path.

I think a lot of people might feel that a government can’t sit back and do that, if they’re, … If now having had this lockdown and we were headed towards 20,000 deaths, how many deaths might we have had if we had had no lockdown? Would it have been more?

[20:15]

Prof Giesecke: Yeah, probably a bit more. But in the end the result would be rather much the same. And I agree it’s a bit callous to say, let people, … We’re not saying that. We are saying protect the old, try to slow the spread of the epidemic a bit, so that the health care system will manage, when we have many sick people, many severely ill people. But it’s more, … Well, I don’t think you can’t, really. At some point it’s like, “tsunami” is not a bad, it will roll over Europe no matter what you do!

Unherd: And as it rolls over Europe, sooner, or later, will presumably treatments will improve?

Prof Giesecke: Yes.

Unherd: We’ll get better at knowing how to treat it?

Prof Giesecke: Yes.

Unherd: Already feels like the initial focus on ventilation has shifted to other ideas, and people are thinking of new ways to treat it. Is that in itself not an argument for suppressing it as much?

Prof Giesecke: But how long in a democracy do you think it would keep a lock-down? How long will it take before people say:

“No! I’m not taking it!”

You can do it in China. In China you can do it. You can tell people to stay at home and you can weld back that door, so they can’t get out. But in a democracy you can’t! And also in 3 or for weeks people will say:

“Well, I don’t know anyone who had the Covid, and I haven’t met any, and I want to go out! I want to go down to the pub!”

Unherd: I suppose.

Prof Giesecke: So how long do you think you could lock people up like? This stay in your home, you need a permit to go to the shop!

Unherd: We don’t actually need a permit. But yeah, I mean, I think we’ve now just had it extended by three weeks. There is an enormous amount of public support for it. And that’s one of the interesting factors about this. That at the moment the public is very much on side with the lockdown in the United Kingdom. Some people seem to like it. [Giesecke starts laughing] So maybe that it’s hard to persuade people to go back in some way.

But do you feel, Dr. Giesecke, that the policies that have been put in place by the UK and by other European governments, how did they come about? You’ve been a leading epidemiologist for your whole career. You dealt with influencers, and czars, and you advise the World Health Organization. What was it about this pandemic that was so different, that has led to this global shut down?

Prof Giesecke: New disease, a lot of people dying, don’t know really what will happen. And this fear of contagion, I think is almost genetic in people. And showing political strength, decisiveness, force, very important to politicians!

Unherd: Do you think the fact that it came out of China and we had witnessed such a enormous response, quarantining whole provinces, and so on, set the tone in some way? And that that felt like, …

Prof Giesecke: Yeah.

Unherd: … Like the response?

Prof Giesecke: Could be. “Let’s do like the Chinese”. But again you can’t compare to China. It’s a different world. And do you think you could keep the lock-down to protect the old people until we have good drugs and good vaccines? Six months, a year, 18 months? I think people would get a bit tired of it, even if they support the policy in the UK

Unherd: So a couple of specific things that have occurred to me during our conversation. One is, how many deaths do you foresee in Sweden? You are up at 1,400, or something? [As of Apr 25, 2020 the Swedish total is 2,192]

Prof Giesecke: I think it will be like a severe influenza. And it’s interesting with influenza, when the flu comes we all say:

“Oh, the flu is coming!”

Like every winter, it’s in the papers, the flu is here, okay. And it usually kills in this country around, 1,000, 2,000 people. But it’s normal, it’s influenza. We have it every year. And they’re old and they’re going to die soon anyway. So no one is very upset about influenza.

But I think if influenza came around as a “new disease”, you never had it before, but suddenly this new disease called “influenza” popped up, we would have exactly the same reaction as we have now! So I think the number of deaths will about be about the same as in a severe influenza. How many are you? Fifty million?

[25:14]

Unherd: Yeah. 65

Prof Giesecke: 65. So multiply by six. So it would be 12,000 cases in the UK.

Unherd: Well, we’ve already had 13,000

Prof Giesecke: And a lot of the influenza deaths are not booked, or they’re not recorded in that way, anyway. In [words unclear] disease. So I think this is similar. About the same anyway. It may be double as much, but it won’t be ten times as much.

Unherd: The reports from hospitals that are very different aren’t they? The way the disease progresses seems different from influenza.

Prof Giesecke: Oh yeah, it’s different. It’s not the same disease as influenza. But it’s not, … The shape of the epidemic is not that different. There are a few differences. For example, the influenza is driven by children. An influenza outbreak is driven by children in society. They are the ones who pass it on between the generations. And this does not hurt children very much. They don’t have any symptoms. And they’re not very infectious. So that there are epidemiological differences.

Unherd: Hmm. When talking about all people like you did, as opposed to children, a lot of people will say that young people have been dying of Covid 19. There are examples of young people dying, and some of the data out of America suggests that a large number of hospitalizations are among younger people. Is it responsible to describe it as just a disease for elderly people?

Prof Giesecke: No. But influenza can spread to those people too, even though not that many. And it much more, makes more headlines right now. And if you look at the data. I mean, people under 50, are a clear minority of all the cases.

Unherd: So, I’m 38. I’m on the sort of borders between young and old. If you’re younger than me, what is your advice to young people? I mean, should they be campaigning to have the lockdown eased, because it’s inappropriate? What are other risks for young people? We’re told that it’s about carrying the disease to other people, and they act as spreaders, even though they’re not vulnerable themselves. What should we be doing with younger people?

Prof Giesecke: No, I think it’s good thing you are doing. They won’t hurt that much! I mean, you can’t say that it’s completely without, what the English word? It’s not completely safe. I mean, there will be young people who die. But, for the majority it’s, … But what you said is correct, that they should think about protecting other people. That’s important, because they move around a lot. Then they shouldn’t meet the grandmother and grandfather too much. And until they’ve had it themselves, yet.

Unherd: So, I’m just trying to guess, … We’re nearing time now. I just want to get a sense. What should the British government do now, in your opinion? We should say:

“Okay, lockdown is canceled!”

Prof Giesecke: No! You can’t do that! Then you have a wave of cases. Then you really have a peak, one week, two weeks later, if you took away all the lock-down. No, you’ll have to climb down, one rung of the ladder at the time. And probably start with the school closures, maybe. It’s a good thing it makes society, … I mean, in this country Sweden we have one million people, children, between 0 and 10. They need to be looked after. If they’re not in school, someone has to stay at home with them.

And one of my friends is a nurse and head of an emergency room here, an emergency ward here in Stockholm. She prays every morning when she wakes up that the government will not close Junior School, because then she loses her office staff. So school closure is one thing. But I think, one step has to be taken at a time.

And it’s interesting how the countries in Europe are sort of, after the lock-down, are approaching the Swedish policy now. They’re opening up schools in all the Nordic countries. In Austria you can shop in a job that’s more than 400 square metres. In Germany they are going to do the same thing on Monday. In Germany they were also thinking about opening the schools again. So countries are approaching the Swedish, but they had a lock-down first.

[30:00]

Unherd: So you don’t think, … There’s two other there’s, two things that people get very hopeful about. One is a vaccine. And then someway we can suppress the disease completely until the vaccine comes. Is that a feasible strategy?

Prof Giesecke: No! We’ll take too long! It won’t work in a democracy.

Unherd: And one other idea are these so-called immunity passports, for people who have proven to have had the disease, they could then carry a wristband, or something, that and they would then be allowed back into jobs and in full society. Is that a feasible strategy in your view?

Prof Giesecke: There are some technical problems with [that]. Like you indicated the antibody tests are not that perfect yet. So it will be, but it’s not a bad idea. Do you need a passport? Do you tell your boss at work that I’m immune? Maybe he wants to see a paper. No, I mean, that’s the way we work. That you find people who are immune and they can go back and you can work in the hospital without all this spacesuit on. Things like that.

Unherd: Will that be part of the Swedish strategy?

Prof Giesecke: Yeah, yep.

Unherd: So, in terms of what happens next then in Sweden, you know, there’s a huge amount of pressure, a lot of people are looking to prove that it was a mistake in some way. Do you think the Swedish strategy will just stay as it has been?

Prof Giesecke: I don’t think it will be tougher. No. We’re talking now about opening the final year of schooling, so that people who spent 12 years in school can celebrate. Which is a big thing in this country. It’s not, because of the celebration is being done, but it’s to see that those who finish school get grades and finish all the tests they have to take and things like that.

Unherd: And so you feel like the curve is improving sufficiently in Sweden to start releasing further the suppression measures?

Prof Giesecke: Yes!

Unherd: And how did that happen without a lockdown? Just by voluntary social distancing, has already achieved that, you believe?

Prof Giesecke: Mm-hmm. And there are some, … Maybe we should finish this now, but one, it’s not a law. What do you call a minor law in English, an ordinance? That’s something that not as strong as a law.

Unherd: [word unclear]

Prof Giesecke: Yeah. Restaurants, the rule is you can only eat sitting down. The food should be hot and served at the table. You can’t stand up drinking. If you want your beer you have to sit down at the table, which is five feet away from the nearest table.

Unherd: Yeah.

Prof Giesecke: And that’s being checked now. But it’s not the government, it’s the local medical offices of health that go out and check restaurants. And when they closed two, or three restaurants, because the tables are too close, or people are standing at the bar, the other followed suite. You don’t need a law for that. They know that if the MOH, the Medical Officer of Health comes in, they’re closed for business.

Unherd: When do we get past that? When can we just back to normal, then? And no social distancing at all? What will be the metric for making that decision?

Prof Giesecke: That is a good question. I’m not quite sure I can answer that for you. But it will take a couple of months to climb down from a lockdown. Can you climb down from a lockdown? I don’t know.

Unherd: Professor Giesecke, thank you so much for your time. That was fascinating!

Prof Giesecke: Thank you!

Unherd: And we learnt an entirely different perspective there. And we will definitely be in touch in one year from now, but hopefully we will get a chance to talk to you before that.

Prof Giesecke: Okay.

Unherd: Thank you so much.

Prof Giesecke: Nice talking to you.

Unherd: Thank you. So there you have it!

You have been watching Lockdown TV from Unherd. That was Professor Johan Giesecke from Sweden, the former State Epidemiologist, adviser to the World Health Organization, who believes that the lockdown imposed across Europe and in the United Kingdom were the wrong policy. And that we’re going to find it very difficult to reverse out of. So that is a different perspective.

Thanks for tuning in. And we will be back next week

[34:24]

END

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

Worldometer charts — April 25, 21:29 GMT

(Click images to enlarge)

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

PDF Notes

* Total words = 5,841

* Total images = 9

* Total A4 pages = xx

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

(Available later)

Version History

Version 4:

Version 3: Nov 22, 2020 — Updated See Also links.

Version 2: Apr 26, 2020 — Updated cover. Corrected some typos. Added current death totals. Added Worldometer charts for Apr 25, 2020. Added 6 more images.

Version 1: Apr 25, 2020 — Published post.

Jeff Ahl of the AfS – The Most Woke Swedish Politician Ever — TRANSCRIPT

admin — Sat, 01 Sep 2018 10:58:56 +0000

[Jeff Ahl a former Sweden Democrat and member of the Swedish Parliament (Riksdag) switched to the newly formed Alternative for Sweden (Alternativ för Sverige — AsF) party in March 2018 and is technically considered an independent MP.

Here, in a three-minute speech, he gets to the point that Globalists (aka, organized jewry) are wrecking Swedish society by flooding the country with non-Whites, especially Muslims, and that the AfS will deport the parasites, eliminate their mosques, leave the EU, and return Sweden back to the Swedish people!

— KATANA]

_______________________

Jeff Ahl of the AfS

The Most Woke

Swedish Politician Ever

Click the link below to view the subtitled video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ooGFbZ7WYg&t=7s

YouTube Description

Identitet Svea

Published on Jun 27, 2018

Jeff Ahl from Alternative For Sweden in a debate about Islam in Sweden. Give a like and subscribe if you like the content and want to support me and the Swedish people!

__________________________

TRANSCRIPT

(3:00)

[Jeff Ahl from the “Alternative for Sweden” party in a debate in the Swedish Parliament about Islam in Sweden — June 2018.]

[00:04]

The consequences of mass immigration and multiculturalism has been extensive for Swedish society.

This is part of the Globalist’s agenda. By destroying previously ethnic and culturally homogenous societies, safe well-functioning and democratic societies, they hope that nation states will dissolve.

The growing party, “Alternative for Sweden” [the speaker’s party — AfS] will fight Globalism with full force!

Islamization is just one part of Globalism and only a part of the multicultural breakdown.

Mass immigration and Islamization is after all just a tool for the Globalists. A tool that is being used in the agenda to transfer all power from previously free people to a small global elite.

The biggest threat to the Globalist’s agenda is ethnic and culturally homogenous societies, because united and secure people will stop their anti-democratic struggle for power.

That is why Orban’s defence of the Hungarian people’s right to their own country, their cultural uniqueness and democracy receives such stinging critiques from EU representatives and THIS government.

The reason why some Globalist parties, such as the “Moderates” and the “Center” [Swedish parties] are little by little changing their tone, is because of a desperate need to cling to power.

Yet, even as their tone changes, their policies stay the same!

If they really wanted to stop the consequences of Globalism they would act in the way the AfS demand! Namely, deport all those who seek to force their way of life upon us Swedes, and those that have come here to act as parasites upon the welfare system!

The representatives of Globalism think that it was worth it to import mass rapes, Islam, call to prayer, Islamic terrorism, cultural division, and gang crime, etc., to destroy Sweden!

{NOTE: Despite this being a photoshopped satirical image, it might as well be an official Swedish billboard in Africa.]

Divide and conquer is a classic way to power, and it’s the Globalist’s tool.

[Note: This is some imagery from a Swedish pro-immigration booklet.]

But! We see you for what you are! More and more people realize what you are up to!

When the deportation of all migrants that are a burden to the system is complete, when mosques [and synagogues — k] no longer exist on Swedish land, and veils are no longer seen on Swedish streets, when we have left the EU, THEN, YES, we Democratic Nationalists will have won!

Then we will also have swapped the Globalist establishment for a Nationalist one that values and defends the safety of the Swedish people, as well as our freedom, our democracy, and our national sovereignty and uniqueness!

[03:00]

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

PDF Notes

Version 1 —

Total words = 648
Total images = 17
Total A4 pages =

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

(Available later)

Version History

Version 2: Oct 18, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

Version 1: Sep 1, 2018 — Published post.

Andrew Hitchcock with Ole Dammegard – False Flag Attacks — TRANSCRIPT

admin — Sun, 04 Jun 2017 09:22:10 +0000

[Andrew Hitchcock talks with Ole Dammegard about Ole’s journey into studying the world of political assassinations, and now his ongoing investigations into false flag attacks being carried out to further the aims of the New/Jew World Order.

His research has led him to the contentious conclusion that most of the false flag attacks following 9/11, that he has studied, have been staged. He discusses the practical reasons for this and also some of the standard methods to carry out false flag events — KATANA.]

Andrew Hitchcock

Ole Dammegard

False Flag Attacks

Click here for the audio:

Andrew Hictchcock with Ole Dammegard on False Flag Attacks

Click here for: Andrew Carrington Hitchcock webpage for this interview

Click her for Ole Dammegard’s website: Light on Conspiracies

Published on June 1, 2017

Andrew Hitchcock’s Description

On today’s show I was joined by Ole Dammegard, the world’s leading expert on, “False Flag Attacks.”

We discussed: The history of political assassinations; crisis actors; various false flag attacks; Ole’s panel of experts that assist him in his investigations into false flag attacks; how we can prevent these attacks; and many other topics.

TRANSCRIPT

[00:26]

You are listening to TBR Radio, brought to you by The Barnes Review. Now the Andrew Carrington Hitchcock Show. Your host, Andrew Carrington Hitchcock.

[00:37]

Ole Dammegard

Andrew: Hello everybody! And today I’m very pleased to have a guest who’s basically an expert on false flags. In fact, he even predicted four of them. I haven’t done a show on false flags before folks, so this is going to be the go to show for false flags. And I’m very pleased to bring my guest up right now. His name is Ole Dammegard. Ole, are you with me?

Ole: I sure am.

Andrew: Excellent. And thank you so much for joining me on the show. I’ve been following your work and I heard a recent show you did with Jeff Rense, which was excellent. As it’s your first time on the show, could you start off please by going through your background in as little or as greater detail as you would like, and also let the listeners know where I can find any websites. I understand you’ve also written some books, where they can get those. The nature of the books, etc., So I’ll hand it over to you to go through that for us, please.

Ole: Okay, thank you for that. I was born in Denmark many years ago. Then as a kid I moved to Sweden and started working as a journalist. And in Sweden I became extremely interested in the JFK assassination in the late seventy’s, beginning of the eighty’s. And almost obsessed trying to find out what actually happened there. Which is an incredibly multi-layered extremely well carried out assassination, if you want to see it from the attackers point of view. And that area led me into the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, and so on..

Quite early on, I started to see that these assassinations I thought was totally separated and had nothing to do with each other, had extreme similarities, once you started really digging into it. And after a while it came to a point where I almost felt like I was looking at a bullet point list of how to carry out a political assassination on a top-level, and how to, say, trick and lure the population into believing that it is the deed of a lone crazy guy.

Olof Palme n Stockholm.

Then in 1986 the Swedish prime minister Olof Palme was gunned down, or allegedly gunned down in the streets of Stockholm, and it was a massive, massive shock in Stockholm and other can countries nearby. But after a while, I mean, to start with, I thought:

“Thank God I’m in Sweden where I can trust the police. I can trust the government. It is horrible that he was murdered but, of course, they will find the guy. There would be a proper investigation and all of these things, …”

And then down the line a few months went by and so on, and after a while I started seeing the exact same template being used in this assassination as well. Which I just thought, how is that possible if these assassinations are not connected? How can they be carried out in a very similar way? And when I say similar way, I’m not I’m not saying on a street level, where the exact assassination took place, but the whole set up with multiple shooters, multiple get away cars. An investigation that is part of the crime. That is there only to stop anyone finding out the real truth and point out the patsy.

Scene of Olof Palme’s murder on March 1, 1986 in Stockholm.

The patsy, always the same, it’s a lone crazy guy. The reason why they want him alone is then by law there’s no conspiracy, and then if that person dies, or is suicided, then:

“Case closed! Thank you and goodbye!”

And the reason they want him crazy, is because then there’s no motive, there’s no reason for motive. He was crazy, or he was a fanatic and end of story once again!

“Case closed! Thank you, go back to sleep!”

And so, when I started seeing that happening in Sweden as well, I just thought, if I’m seeing something here then I should be able to predict what’s going to happen, since I had put together, over these thousands of hours that I put into both of the Kennedy assassinations and Martin Luther King, etc. Where I had a quite a clear bullet-point list that I put together myself., following these different cases and the similarities.

[05:14]

So I thought, if I am correct here then, and I went through the different things that had happened in the Olof Palme case, that was exactly similar to the other cases, then I looked at the old cases where I had like more than twenty years sort of, … I was that much ahead. And I said, if it’s the same template is being used in Sweden as well, then this is the next thing that would happen, by studying the old ones.

And two weeks later that exact thing happened in Sweden. Absolutely blew me away! Because then, I suddenly discovered that, I thought I lived in an innocent, small, little neutral country, that with one living in Sweden you are being pumped with all this propaganda about, there’s no crime, there’s no corruption, everything is fantastic, the most beautiful little island, White Island in the world, a perfect democracy, no need for bodyguards, and so on. This was in 1986, I mean, it since then it’s changed drastically.

So when I discovered that the same thing was possibly being pulled off in Sweden, I just felt:

“My God! I need to do something about it.”

So, I quit my job as a journalist. I moved to Stockholm right away. I took whatever job I could get. I started as a bus driver, cleaner and so on, and totally dedicated my life into finding out what was going on in Sweden. Because nobody seemed to be aware. And it was only, because I had put so many thousands of hours into the other assassinations that I had sort of higher overview of what was possibly being pulled off in Sweden. So I went up there, I met up, I joined a small little group of civilian investigators. I mean, people who, lawyers, former police officers, former military, custom officers, these type of people. Retired many of them, that were very, very concerned about what was going on in this nation. And it just took me into a very, very dark area that I had no idea what I was getting myself into.

Like I said, it was twelve years where I just dug into, … I mean, I spent, once again, thousands of hours. Every hour I was not working with my normal bus driving job, I was buried in file cabinets, or down in, what do you call it, newspaper files and documents. Everyone I could find that knew anything, I went there and learned as much as I could. Then over the years some of these friends that I was with, were starting to get careless, because they didn’t see that what the size of the forces we were up against.

Because, what I understood quite early on was that, we’re looking at the same kind of very global, very brutal force, behind these different assassinations. Carrying them out having different teams, but even sometimes the same participants of these teams, carrying out assassinations, but on a global scale! They just traveled from country to country when needed, and take out people. That’s their job and they’re professional and there are not very many of them. So they’re being used in multiple different locations.

And my friends didn’t, … They thought that this was just a Swedish assassination and had no idea that the investigation was actually part of the crime, which is very scary once you start understanding how these things are carried out. Because then, the people who you think you can trust are the ones that are the one you should be afraid of.

And it ended with two of my friends being murdered. And I had a visit at home. I wasn’t there, but they went into my apartment and made it very clear that they were aware of what I was up to. Then went out again, locked, everything was put back exactly the way it was before. Doors locked, everything, but in the apartment everything was turned upside down and so on, or some of the things were turned up. And there were some clear messages saying:

“We see you! We know what you’re up to. Back off!”

And so I felt at that point, since I started seeing a whole long line of accidents, suicides, drive by killings, murders that follows around these assassinations.

[10:15]

I mean in Sweden as well.

Jackie Kennedy reaching for part of JFK’s skull (click image to enlarge)

When it comes to the JFK assassination I have a list of like 370 people that have died prematurely, or in strange ways that had some kind of connection to this assassination. So I heard this interview with a statistician who said that the chances of you dying at a young age if you have any kind of anything to do with the assassination of JFK, as a witness, as police, or you heard something, or you were there, is one trillion higher than for a normal person. So it’s not to be paranoid to start understanding that these are really sensitive areas to get yourself into. Especially if you really get close to the real truth. This was before the internet, so especially then, if you had a lot of information that you were the only one that who knew about, that put you in a very dangerous situation. Nowadays the information speed has accelerated to an incredible speed now with the Internet, and how fast it is to get it out there and sort of secure your own safety in a different way.

JFK with Johnson. Johnson later went on to become part of the false flag plot to sink the USS Liberty in order to get the US to attack Egypt.

But at that point not good at all. And so, when my two friends died I was getting scared as well, because when you see how brutal the people on the street level, that take care of these operations, how brutal they are and how violently they deal with what they call “problems” ir is very scary. So, I decided I don’t want to be part of the statistics. I spoke to my girlfriend and said:

“What do you say? Should we move, or should we leave Sweden?”

And she had always been dreaming about changing countries, so boom, we left quite rapidly. And since then I’ve been living in Spain, since the year 2000.

What I’m doing is I’m over the years after, … The deeper I’ve looked into these top political assassinations, the more I discovered the ways of who is behind these murders, but also who is part and behind what is called the New World Order. The agenda to make a global overtake, where these top political assassinations are part of the overtake. Anytime somebody stands up for freedom all these beautiful values that normal people want, they become a threat to this, they call themselves the “elite” this small little group of very, very, dark individuals that wants the exact opposite. They want death, destruction, total dominance, total control, a depopulation, and so on. Very, very, dark! And very efficient in their way of moving forward.

And while I’ve been studying these over many, many years, I mean, it’s thirty odd years now, I’ve started to understand that false flag operations are a major tool for them to control us. Because over so many, I would almost say thousands of years, there’s always been a smaller group of people that thought that they were so much better than the rest of us. Wanted us to be slaves and just to accept anything they wanted to do, and also even pay them to control us and humiliate us.

FALSE FLAG
A horrific staged event — blamed on a political enemy and used as a pretext to start a war or enact draconian laws in the name of national security.

So the big question has always been for them even, even from the old Romans and Greeks and so on, how can you control a population if you are few and they are so many? And the only answer that I’ve been able to see and I think they’ve also come up with, is through fear! It is only through fear that they can control us! So in times of peace when they haven’t been able to create a war, or something like that, where they can blame a real enemy, they have created boogie men, their own creation, or used what is called false flag operations.

A false flag operation is an old naval term where it comes from, in the old days when the British Empire was out there, Holland, Spain and so on, out conquering, raping and plundering the rest of the world. When they were out doing that, I mean, they were so powerful these nations that many times it would be no problem at all to just go in and overtake any kind of little country and so on.

[15:17]

But sometimes that could cause problems with trading agreements with their reputation and so on, so they came up with a much better idea, like a psyop [psychological operation] where what they did, was they put the enemy’s flag on one of their own ships, then they let their own ship attack themselves, and then suddenly they were in a situation where they were the victim and they had to defend themselves. So that then justified them going in, invading, rape and plunder. That was the whole idea. They did exactly the same thing, but through this psyop suddenly it became justified and they were treated like heroes afterwards! So it was a super, super psyop and black op that has been used, I don’t know how many times. Until this very day there are multiple false flags.

Andrew: That’s very interesting, Ole, the origin of the term “false flag” before we get into specific false flag events, have you got a website, or any books that you can describe for listeners, where they can find that information, please?

Ole: That’s very kind of you Andy, because I’m a one man band, I’m not part of any organization, or group, or anything like that. I’m not financed. So, I’ve got my website, it is “light on conspiracies dot com” light on conspiracies, plural, because there’s a lot more than one going on. You can find me on Facebook as well, ole dammegard dot com.

Coup D’etat (click to enlarge)

I’ve got several books, one of them is called “Coup d’etat in Slow Motion” Part One and Part Two. It’s about the assassination of Olof Palme, but with incredible connections into the Iran Contra Scandal, international arms trading, drug trading, pedophile trafficking, many, many other murders as well that are connected into this whole thing. Connected with the P2 Lodge, the Freemasonic circles George Bush is buried, deeply involved in this as well. And it’s extremely detailed, lots and lots of names, photos, it’s almost 900 pages exposing what actually happened. Even connecting it to the sinking, or blowing up of M.S. Estonia, the ferry that was blown up in September 94, with almost a thousand casualties, or dead.

I have another book called “Shadow of Tears” which is the true story about when I took an old bicycle and left Sweden on my way to South Africa, but instead ended up in Iran. In a country that I was quite afraid of, because I thought they were just a bunch of crazy people running around screaming “Allah Akbar”, shooting each other. But instead, I ended up in the middle of the war between Iran and Iraq and met the absolute, incredibly beautiful, generous people, but in an extremely difficult situation.

One of my friends was murdered down there and then I decided to do everything I could —this was in 84 — to help my other friends, my new friends, Iranian friends escape. So I smuggled one of them through former Russia, from East Germany up to Sweden. Where he’s now, a well renowned doctor in his area. And we got seven other people out to Sweden and to Canada. Then I got another book called — it’s a true story, pictures, everything in the book is true — “Shadow of Tears”, is the name.

I got another book called — it’s a small little power book — called “Re-mind Me”, read dash me. Of how to change your mind and how to learn to live a more balanced life where you let go of fear, where you can’t handle stress and pressure and where you focus on compassion, love and forgiveness. And this is exactly the way I live and how I keep balanced in these very, very dark and dangerous areas that I am in at the front line of.

Then I’ve got a kids’ book called “Yolanda Yogapanda”. It’s based on the old Raja Yoga principles. Raja Yoga, it’s not a religion, it’s more like, it’s even more than a philosophy, it’s almost like a manual of how to control your mind. How to calm down your mind, and how to sort of surf through life in the best possible way. And my intention is to try and share some of this to kids at an earlier of age as possible, so that they can become more balanced and steady, and also get a strong “yes and no” so that they can be part of creating a new beautiful world, even though they will be challenged in many ways during their life.

[20:36]

So, these are my books. I’ve got several more coming. I’m working on one called the “Global Tour of Terror” which we’re going to go get into, this false flag. I would really claim that what we see today is a coordinated attack globally, but carried out by a small little team, just like a rock band, but they’re scene is terror, international terror. And this small little unit is being transported in army planes from NATO countries to NATO countries. Then being helped and backed up on whatever country where they are. All of them are NATO countries, or countries that have some kind of intelligence, or security agreements with NATO, like Canada, Australia. Otherwise more, or less all of the countries involved and affected with alleged terrorism, are NATO countries. Because, what we’re looking at are inside jobs, inside jobs! I’m going to come back to that. Not Muslim terrorist at all, I’m telling you!

False flag terror attacks flow chart— a “zionized” modified version from 9/11 SYNTHETIC TERRORISM – MADE IN USA, by Webster Griffin Tarpley (click to enlarge).

Well, that’s about it. And I’m also right in the process of starting my own podcasts, which will be named, “Light on Conspiracies” as well. “Light on Conspiracies” is a very handpicked name, because that is what I try to do. Let the truth do the job, you know. In the light, right into the darkest of the dark areas, into the belly of the beast, and let the truth do it in a totally nonviolent, but very powerful way. Because all types of criminality, I think it includes more, or less all types of criminality, can only continue in the dark. As soon as we put the spotlight on them, they lose their power, they really do. And many of the people involved, I must say, are like cockroaches! Not a lot of backbone, nor courage. And you aim the light at them, they disappear. So, that is what I try to do.

Andrew: Excellent Ole! When we get into the false flags, if we go through, you know, I’ll let you pick which ones you want to go through in detail. But before you start with you first false flag and the information regarding that, could you let the listeners know of the four false flags that you predicted? And the way you were able to predict those false flags.

Ole: Sure. If I can just explain a little, how and why they are done first, and then we’ll get into that. Just like I said, the reason for false flag operations is a “psychological operation” of how to get the attacker to look innocent and become the victim, and then serve a solution that we would never ever accept had it not been for whatever the problem is. They base this on an old Roman template. We’re back to this, as behind a new world order, that agenda, are people in the thousands. We, the population of the world, are billions! So how are they able to pull it off? How are they able to keep us in this grip of fear and terror? And this is based on an old Roman template, called “Problem, Reaction, Solution”. This is extremely important to understand. Problem, reaction, solution! They, the elite few in power, secretly create a problem. This pro, mass shootings. These are the ones that are in fashion at the moment.

[24:50]

So they secretly create one of these events. The reason they do that is to get an emotional reaction from us. Problem, reaction. The reaction they want is totally emotional so we don’t use the brain, we just go into an “Oh my God! Oh my God! I need protection!”. That kind of mode. That’s where they want us so that we don’t think, we don’t take a step back and breathe slowly, start thinking logical, look at the evidence. No, they just want us to react. And then, when we are in that mode, then they serve us their solution. And their solution, every single time, is the same. More and more control, more and more militarized police, more and more surveillance cameras, more and more budget up, up, up, and financing unjust wars, their wars, or pumping in incredible amounts of money into the military, into the police, into the surveillance state, and so on. Blocking the borders more and more, all of them things that we would never ever have accepted had it not been for the problem. Problem, reaction, solution.

Now in the States, for instance, the elite have an — the elite, by the way, is their name of themselves, I don’t think that fits them at all. I have names that are not very pleasant that would describe this group in a more correct way — anyway, but I call them the elite, because that is what they call themselves, and that’s what you can see on the Internet, you can find out a lot about them under that name.

Okay, so the elite, what they do is they create this problem and, for instance, in the States where the population is armed, then that is the place where all of these mass shootings are. Why are the mass shootings in this States? Because: Problem, reaction, solution. They want to get rid of the weapons, so they stage all of these events where they claim that there’s been a mass shooting to get us into an emotional reaction. And the reason why they’re all, more, or less, always in schools and so on, is because women and children, that is the thing that can get the emotions going. So most of the time many of these victims or claimed victims from these actions are women and children. Female teachers, nuns, nurses and so on, to get the emotions going. Because once the emotions is going, then “boom” they can serve us their solution and we will accept it.

So nowadays, it’s quite interesting, because these false flags are being carried out in the hundreds, I must say, when you look at, … They are ramping up the speed. So, since our concentration span due to fluoride in the water and many other things, are a lot less than it used to be, now they need to, you know, serve all of these three things in one portion at the same time. So it’s almost when you see one of these things being carried out now days, you will see something awful has happened — and please understand just, because somebody is interviewed on TV does not mean that they’re not part of the operation. Just, because somebody is a reporter does not mean that they’re not part of the operation. It’s very, very important to understand that it’s through media that they pump this out. Media is crucial for them in this whole way of operating. So there will be something awful has happened, “boom” a bomb, something like that, horrific images are being spread in media, blood and dead bodies and so on, to get us into an emotional state of “Oh my God! Oh my God!” And then you see the reporter will interview — once again, the reporter is in on the operation, part of the operation, — will interview different witnesses and — the witnesses are also part of the operation — will say:

“Oh! It was horrible! It was horrible! There were so many dead people! I saw dead children, or children without heads, or blood!”

And whatever, all to get the emotions going.

Problem, reaction, our reaction sitting in the sofa just going “Oh my God! Oh my God! It’s happened again! I’m not safe anywhere!” and then, very often you will hear the reporter serve us the solution. Like when the Charlie Hebdo thing happened, the reporter said, “Well, since this is happened now, we need more airport security.” What the hell was that! There was nothing in the Charlie Hebdo attack that had anything to do with airports! Here we need more airport security. When the mass shootings at the island in Norway happened, the chief of the secret police, the Norwegian secret police, she said in an interview afterwards, right when this was happening, where people were totally blown away emotionally, saying, “Well, this would never have happened had the population been micro-chipped”. What was that? Do you see what I’m saying? So here you can see it being played out right in front of your eyes, if you are aware of how they do it.

[30:17]

Andrew: Yeah exactly. It’s like you say. It’s always guns in America, because of mass-shooting in America, because they want to get the guns. And they go for the most offensive sort of targets, so it will be schools, it will be children, and on that subject as well because with have a lot of these school shootings, the crisis actors, like, you know, people ought Robby Parker at Sandy Hook. It’s amazing isn’t it how a lot of these crisis actors, it’s like their job and you find at different false flag events. And people have been able to put together presentations on YouTube that clearly show the same so-called victims at different events, after they’re supposed to have died in previous events, or had loved ones lost in previous events, etc., So they’re not very adventurous, or in their choice of the people that they use. They obviously have quite a low-budget, for certainly the crisis actors they get involved, because you think it would make sense wouldn’t you Ole, to have different people at each event, not keep using the same ones?

Chip Tatum and Ole Dammegard are interviewed here on Red Ice Radio in 2014.

Ole: No it’s actually the exact opposite. Money is not an issue to these forces, because they even print their money themselves through the Federal Reserve Bank and so on. Not an option. They’ve got massive amounts. And I’m a personal friend of a CIA whistle-blower Chip Tatum, who in his career used to be part of some false flags as well. And, … I lost the thread now, …

Andrew: It was, …

Ole: Okay, yes the crisis actors. I believe that it was after 9/11 where you still had massive operation with massive amounts of real deaths. And it turned out very, very messy for these powers that carried out 9/11. Especially families that would not back down, that would not accept the official story, that was build an absolute lies and deception. Especially mothers. I mean, don’t mess with a mother with a dead child, even if the child was 53 and she’s 82. These women will not back down! And after 9/11 there was a series of mothers in different ages that were eliminated through accidents, murder, suicide and so on. But still others would not back down. And it came to a point I believe, around Boston Bombing, Sandy Hook. I think Boston was the first where it was a completely staged event. Where somebody had come up with the idea:

“Why don’t we do it like. This instead of pulling off real terror events, inside jobs, but terror events with lots of dead people. Where we have to deal with these people for years and years, why don’t we create a small little unit where we can control all parameters. Everything! Including reporters, marketing agencies, coordinators, directors, crisis actors, experts on explosives, make up. All of it, but in one unit, including catering, including everything that is needed. And then we just use this unit just like a rock band on tour and just go from place to place, to place, carry out the exact same scene again, and again, and again. And the smaller unit we have the better, because then it’s a lot easier to avoid whistle blowers and so on.”

And I constantly get the question:

“How come that there are no whistle blowers among crisis actors? ”

And Chip Tatum, who actually was the henchman of George Bush Sr. He was a commander of an ultra secret hit seen called “Pegasus” that carried out at least seventeen assassinations in the world, well in Europe and the Western world. He said that it is very, very simple to keep units like that in control. First you pay them well. Second, most of them are not very intelligent. You need to use actors that are not very good, because the good ones are already occupied. I mean, you will find them in adverts, or in photo shoots, or commercials, or in films and so on. So you can’t use the good ones, because they from a very early age, most of them, get into the film industry.

[35:12]

So you need to use normal ones, not very good ones, and many of them are now taken out of prisons, or sort of getting into this unit. This is also why when you see them being interviewed, it’s ridiculous, especially turn down the volume and you see most of these crisis actors are sitting smiling while they talk about these horrific atrocities, you know, like ISIS chopped the head of my father. You turn down the volume, the girl is sitting smiling. The same with a woman who just lost her two children, the woman is smiling. It’s called “duping delight”. It’s a psychological term, where people, when they know —especially a certain type of personality — know that they’re deceiving you, they just can’t stop smiling. “Duping delight” is the name.

Examples of “Duping Delight”: Compilation Of Crisis Actors In Duping Delight

But then, Chip [Tatum] said, first you pay them. Most of these have all of them have signed confidentiality agreements. Also, if they even order a single word they would be sued from here to the moon. But, should anyone, anyway, consider speaking out, or connecting, or contacting the media, or something like that, … They just have a small little gathering and then they beat up one of them in front of the other ones. Or they bring in somebody’s grandmother and they kill her in front of the eyes of all of them, or they kill a pet, or something like that. And that normally keeps them in total control. And this is how it’s done. And also this unit, I believe, is being transported on army planes to different, NATO bases and American air force bases, then transported in buses on location, wherever it is, in whatever country they’re carrying out the operation.

The buses there and the same buses carries [them] back to the base where they then take off to the next place. And these buses, you will see, they are recurring, again, and again, and again, where casualties are people in shock, or whatever, in these gold blankets, heating blankets, are being held and then put on buses. Very rarely in ambulances. They’re put into the ambulances then pulled out again and put on the bus.

I believe that it’s extremely important to understand this whole thing, to understand, to see that what we’re actually watching being played out in the world, is not that the world is filled with crazy fundamentalist Muslim terrorists that wake up and can’t think of anything else than blowing the rest of us to pieces.

Instead, these are inside jobs, connected very strongly with NATO, Gladio, Mossad is extremely involved in this, CIA, MI6. These are the major forces that are working in the background behind it.

And then, they’re just being flown from country to country, like I say, it’s like a revolving thing. If you haven’t noticed, it’s the exact same countries that are being allegedly hit, again, and again, and again.

And I humbly believe that what we’re seeing now is what I would call the, “Euro Spring”. If you remember some years ago there was what was called the “Arab Spring”, where the land in North African countries had revolutions, so-called revolutions. Where a leader was replaced by an another person through these revolutions. But it has later turned out that these revolutions was totally infiltrated, started, financed by the same forces. We’re talking CIA, Mossad and so on, to replace whatever person they had problems with, and also to take control of the central bank of these countries. To totally get control over the financial system in that country as well. And so it was through revolutions that they managed these Arab countries.

But in here in Europe, that wouldn’t work, because people are too content, they’re too well off, they’re too laid back. You can’t get them going with revolutions. I mean, it’s only since the French Revolution I think, that it happening in Europe. So what they need to do with these other countries is keep shaking them up with so-called “terror”. That is their way to destabilize each nation.

[40:03]

And so they just go around, and around, and around, and around, and speeding up. And now it’s come to a point where, quite a scary point I must say, where there’s companies, like especially one, Crisis dash Solutions dot com. You go to their website and they’re bragging, they have this video where they’re very proudly show how they can do these so-called security drills for our protection, or they say “game”, security games, where they show how they can pull off multiple attacks at the same time, simultaneously, even on different continents.

The only thing the participants need is online access. They can sit and be part of these almost war games from anyplace in the world, just with a laptop. And they’ve got different sensors, different organizations that take care everything from ambulances, fire trucks, police, military, or people that look like military, police and so on. Just because somebody is running in a police uniform, does not mean that he’s actually a police officer. We’re back to this, it’s an illusion being played out in front of us.

And so I think that is really good news. That instead of us living in a totally terrorized world filled with Muslim terrorists, we’re looking at a small little group like, “Pink Floyd” almost. But, but this is a Rocky Horror Show, like a terror group just on global tour. So instead of looking at the whole world that is in a major dilemma, we’re looking at a small little unit that are trying to scare us into obedience through media. So the thing is, it’s laughable really when you think of it! It’s really laughable, because once you start very early getting into and looking at the evidence in these events, it’s so poorly pulled off. So many times, really crap operations, I tell you. This is where we see these crisis actors, again appear, again, and again, and again. I mean, I’ve seen people that have died several times! It really makes you believe in reincarnation! [Andrew laughs] I’ve seen the same person, I have my own favorite, a woman she’s appeared in at least five different operations that I know of! You know, I mean, there’s shameless!

It’s this same, the same, the same, and so when you see something happen in London, or in Stockholm, or in Sydney, or in Ottawa, or in Fort Lauderdale, or, you just go on, and on, and on! Check them out! Check them out!

This is what I tried to do. In the background, do facial recognition, you know, this person who’s running around there, have I seen her before? Have I seen her? Yep! There she is, “boom”! That person over there, that person who’s on a stretcher there, that person who’s driving in an ambulance there?

I’ve also gathered like a small little the unit, almost of experts. You know, former police officers, forensic detectives, crime investigators, doctors, ambulance drivers, people from the fire brigade, and so on, to help me. And I do it in these interviews on my podcast, Light on Conspiracies, where we just go through, step by step. For instance I show them random pictures of these terror events, and just saying, … For instance this car that was said to have hit all of these people in Westminster Bridge, and then crashed into the railings and the wall outside the parliament. When you look at the damages of the car, what does that tell you? If you show the photo without telling the other person, the forensic detective, or the crime investigator, without saying the background, just look at the vehicle. That vehicle, as an example the detective right away says:

“Well it’s some kind of a head on collision. It’s been hit slightly from the side, but with another vehicle”.

So I said:

“So it’s not from hitting a wall?”

“No” he said.

“Had it hit a wall you would see the structure of the wall, as sort of the shape of the wall, and so on, in the vehicle.”

It would be very obvious. Like if you had a pole you would see that it’s a pole it’s hit and so on so. So he said:

“No, absolutely not! This vehicle has hit another vehicle!”

Also the impact has been very, very high, because the engine block is cracked, there’s oil underneath the vehicle, and so on. So when you look at it, the wall where the car is said to crashed right into, there’s not a scratch mark, nothing whatsoever! But it has hit multiple pedestrians, allegedly!

[45:15]

So we ask the question again. Could this be caused by human bodies? Absolutely not! Because human bodies are soft, vehicles are hard and when you hit a pedestrian there might be a slight bow, dent, down the front of the car, but most of the impact will be on the bonnet on the hood, or and the front windshield itself. That is where the impact will be. Not metal like that at all.

Also when you look at the how the ambulances were parked, how the buses were parked around Westminster Bridge. Absolutely blocking off every type of traffic around and so on. I asked an ambulance driver, police officers and so on, when you look at the way they parked, Sandy Hook and other events as well. When you look at the way these vehicles are parked have they been parked by normal ambulance drivers? Absolutely not! They would have been fired right away! What they have done is totally endanger the life of any victims, because they block any exit for any other vehicle. So why would they be parked like that? No reason! They couldn’t explain it.

Well I could, because they wanted to block out, so that we didn’t have any view from the outside to see in, what was going on, and so on. Also doctors, I had doctors look a, for instance, now there’s this girl that is claimed to have died in Stockholm. There were four claimed deaths, five actually now, and one of the images is of this twelve-year-old girl that has been torn apart by this truck. Horrific images, if you don’t know what you’re looking at. So I asked the doctor with more than thirty years experience. Please have a look at this image and tell me what you see. She said:

“That is not a human body, because a torn body like that would have a complete bleed out. It would look like a bloodbath, because all the main arteries are torn off, and so on.”

And here we see a torn apart body, but not a single drop of blood. She said:

“It’s not a human body. I don’t know what it is, but it’s not a human body.”

This type of step, by step, by step, by step, investigation is extremely important in my opinion. And I’ve done hundreds, and hundreds, I don’t know how many. Maybe it’s up in the thousands now of interviews where I’ve gone into great great detail about all the different events that I know of since. Especially since Charlie Hebdo, beginning of 2015, and then all of them since then. Which in my, once again in my humble opinion, all of them false flags! There’s not one single real one.

And over all of these years where I’ve even gone on location, on most of the locations in Europe, I’ve been to ten, or twelve, where these alleged attack have happened. I’ve been there trying to track down the victims, I’ve been on graveyards trying to find the graves. I’ve been to different authorities trying to get the paper, the death certificates of these alleged victims, and so on. I come up with nothing all the time, because they are staged events! Many times using phantom identities. So it’s a very, very strange area to get into, but at the same time, since this is the tool they use for us to accept their very, very brutal control, and get us to accept what they call the “new normal”. Where we see military people with automatic weapons walking up and down the streets, at train stations, at airports, for our protection it’s said! But when you really look into it, all of it is staged by them. All of it based on fake terror!

And I’m not the only one saying this. There’s Rod Blake [?] a CIA whistle-blower as well. He says all of them in the US, all of them have been staged event! Inside jobs, state sponsored terrorism.

[49:41]

Andrew: Yes Ole. When we go back to “problem, reaction, solution”, of course, what we saw after the Westminster Bridge attack was the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, coming out and saying how terrible it was we can’t get access to Whatsapp messages, because this guy was supposedly using Whatsapp. Of course the basis for this attack was they want to get more control over your communications. And there are a bit annoyed that a lot of people are using Whatsapp and they can’t get into that. Whereas they can get into all your emails and all your text messages and all your phone calls.

So they are basically saying we’ve got everything apart from that. And that was what a purposeful for this attack, to justify the people, you know, to gain the public support for them having access to your private Whatsapp messages. Now we’ve only about ten minutes left. Now, we can overrun, so I don’t know if you’re able to do this, but could you go briefly through some of the false flags? Maybe the four that you predicted and as I said we can overrun, but I’ll hand book to you.

Ole: Well, one of the ones I predicted was on the twenty-first of February. I went out publicly on international radio saying it that Big Ben might be the next target. Very clearly pointing it out and then, “boom” exactly it happened. The reason why I been able to predict these and it’s actually more than four, but I can’t say for sure. Is that, according to insiders from the elite that have been turning whistle blowers, they say that the way these people see the law of karma is that if they don’t tell us, even in subtle ways, through media, films, or whatever, what they’re up to, what the in. But if they let us know and we do not react, then the bad karma is on our shoulders, the victims, not the attackers! So it is extremely important for them to put it out there, what’s going to happen next.

And it was in the beginning of 2015, I started understanding that they were actually hiding clues in the debris. So, wherever, you know, around the crime site for the next upcoming attack. Once I understood that, I thought, “Oh my God! This is a blessing in disguise!” Because now it’s only up to us to find it. Once we find it, we can hopefully, if we have fast we can, you know, get ahead of them and expose it before it actually happens.

So, it’s very important I believe to also see what is included in one of these terror events, and how can you expose it. Because normally I compare it to baking a pie, where you bake a pie, you can change the shape, the color, the smell, the taste of it, but it’s still a pie. You still have the same ingredients; flour, water, milk, I don’t know, butter, salt, whatever. Here we’re looking at Terror, but it’s like a “Terror Pie” where the exact same ingredients are being repeated. So it’s a matter of becoming aware of what are the ingredients, so that the next time they happen, whoa! Hang on! Before I buy into this, before I get terrified, I am just going to breathe, take a step back, and start looking.

So, the ingredients in a “Terror Pie” is, number one, a drill. There is always, always, always, a drill beforehand. And the drill is there for this group to be able to, … They go out on local radio, TV, whatever, in the newspaper, saying:

“Well tomorrow we’re going to have a security drill for your protection!”

And that then gives them the possibility to close off streets, to get into areas they wouldn’t be allowed to otherwise, without us interfering.

We’re just there being totally gullible, saying:

“Oh my god! Thank god! It’s so considerate that they so want to protect us!”

Many times possible, sometimes absolutely not! Then we look at these black ops. So the drill is extremely important. And the drill will have, more or less, the exact same scene as the real thing. Sometimes this drill will be a drill, and then go active in the middle of the whole thing. Like the 7 / 7 bombings, 9/11. These drills were there, in place, with many, many, many, many people involved in it, believing it was a drill. And then in the middle of it all “boom!” it just went live!

[54:39]

So the drill is extremely important. They have the drill there to be able to get vehicles in position, explosives in positions, crisis actors, catering, makeup facilities, smoke bombs, explosives, all of these things in position.

They also need access to some building close by, where they can park these vehicles, so nobody noticed them. That they can get catering, toilets, they can set up their make up, all of these things. Just really like a film shoot. Just like if they were shooting a commercial for Fanta [a soft drink] this is shooting a “commercial for terror”, identical set up, identical set up! And it would be surrounded by what looks like, they often are like in sweatshirts and trainers. They look like a little overweight former military people, that are just wandering the area, just walking around. But they’re there to make sure that nobody from the outside gets in and nobody from the inside gets out. That’s their job. So the drill is very important then the patsy as well, … It sounded like you wanted to ask something?

Andrew: No, no, no. Please carry on.

Ole: Okay, so the drill is one of the ways that we can predict what’s going to happen, or be aware of. So my Facebook page where I think, I don’t know, I’ve got like eleven thousand followers, or whatever, that I’ve got from all over the world, are sending me information as soon as somebody hears about a drill where they’re located, they send it to me. So it’s almost like a hub where as soon as I get the information I put it out there. There’s a new drill coming up. There’s a drill there, there’s a drill there, a drill there.

Because the whole idea is, if people, if we go there, the day before the drill is set to take place and during the drill film them. Film these individuals who are setting it up and who are carrying it out. And the important thing is to make it very, very obvious to them that they are being observed, that they are being filmed. Because, once again, they can only do these things when they’re hiding, behind the scenes where they are not being visible.

As soon as we see them we de-power them, we take the power away from them. So this is a very, very powerful, nonviolent way of stopping it! And then nowadays there are some fantastic apps [smart phone] one of them is called, “Bamboozle” where should you be approached by somebody that looks quite angry, or brutal, often in the form of a police officer, or what looks like a police officer — just because they’ve got a uniform does not mean that they’re real police, keep that in mind.

You can just film them and then say please, before you think about hitting me in the head with something hard, please know that you are now being filmed and it’s live on You Tube! Through this app, you just click one button, “boom!” and it goes live on You Tube! So you’ve got a live stream. And that can be a security measure that can really help you. It is also recommended to not go on your own, be a group of people and spread out and so on. And then just expose it.

The Bataclan — 2008 (click image to enlarge)

So, these are just a few of the ingredients, but since we’re running out of time you were talking about which ones that I predicted and how to predict them. For instance, at the Bataclan massacre in Paris, if you remember that on November thirteenth, 2015. The only image from inside this music theater where they claim that all of these people had died, it’s always, they claim that they’re all of these victims. I’ve been on location like I said, I’ve been looking everywhere! I try to get in touch with these people in multiple different countries! I try to get in touch with the families, the graveyards, … They don’t exist! I tell you, I cannot find them! And that is not normal.

I mean, that is very weird. It should be very easy to track down these people. It should be very easy to track down their graves, and their documents, and so on. But when you find them, when you see these victims that are being lined up, naturally thirty-eight died there, another twenty-three died here.

And you see, the places you find them are on Facebook, but the so-called paper trail is very, very short. It goes like three months, or something like that back, and then they’re not there. But if you and I, if we sort of asked for all the information that is available on us on the internet — there ways to do that — you would get thousands of documents! You do the same with these individuals, you get three papers.

[60:00]

So, “Bourne Identity” is one movie that is recommended to me by different CIA operatives that shows quite a lot — in a Hollywood fashion — but still shows quite a lot about how these things work, how they’re sleeping agents with multiple identities, how creating new identities is not a problem at all, and so on. And I believe this is often what we seeing.

So, I don’t know how to make this short, but in the evidence, for instance in Bataclan, there were all of these dead bodies, or claimed dead bodies on the floor. Around them were painted with like a one metre wide brush it looked like in blood, what appears to be a heart shape. Very bizarre with these dead bodies put on top of it that.

Inside the Bataclan (click image to enlarge)

When I saw that I couldn’t understand what it was. I thought it was some kind of, … For one thing they said that this blood thing, was because somebody had tried to save a person and drag them around. But would you drag somebody around in a heart shape? I mean, we’re talking like ten fifteen yards, and how can you make somebody bleed that evenly, almost like three, four feet wide? I mean, you cannot! It is put there on purpose. Then when the Brussels airport attack, or alleged attack, when that happened it turns out that the logo of the airport is identical to that exact thing. [heart shape]

Then at the Brussels airport attack I found that there was one cafe called, Cafe Lin [sp] in the background of where these bombs are claimed to have happened. I’m saying all of these are false flag. That I stand for one hundred percent. And in the background behind all of the furniture turned over and so on, there was a painting, a wall painting of the Eiffel Tower lying down, horizontal. And I thought “Oh my god! That is so weird!” Could that be the one? So I went out publicly. This was the second, or third of them and said:

“Please be aware, please be aware it’s possible that the Eiffel Tower is the next one.”

Then one week later, ISIS, or they claim ISIS, came out with a video threatening to do exactly that thing with the Eiffel Tower, with an identical image of the Eiffel Tower, more, or less, horizontal.

And then when the Nice attack happened — absolute false flag once again — when that happened, at the exact same night, the Eiffel Tower was attacked! Most people don’t know about it, but it was covered in smoke and flames, the bottom part of it. Where they later said:

“Oh, there was a truck standing underneath it and there was some fireworks that went off.”

But it was all lit up, with spotlights around and it looked almost covered in smoke and flames at the bottom part.

Then, in the Nice attack there were things pointed toward what I saw was Acropolis in Greece. So I went out and warned [about] it. And please understand, every time I went out and publicly tried to warn about these things, there’s a big chance that I might look like an absolute idiot, so it’s not something funny to do. At the same time, I just feel the need to do it if I can possibly be part of stopping this madness. So instead of Acropolis, it turned out to be Olympia, which is right in front of Olympia [Acropolis] . But there was the Olympia, the supermarket, in Munich instead.

Then in Munich, so I tell you’re talking about how the same people appear again and again. When the Nice truck attack happened, there was one person filming it from a balcony. The balcony filmed on was the Westminster Hotel on the Promenade des Anglais, on the English Promenade in Nice. And the guy that filmed it, his name was Richard Gutjahr, a German journalist, an internet sensation. And every time when somebody just a happens to be there filming, especially before anything happens, that is the type of people you really need to check out. Because why would you have the camera up there filming before something happens? If you are I, if something happens, “boom!” you pull out the camera you start filming. If you film and then, “boom!” there’s a big chance that you are somehow, you know, about what you are going to see, otherwise there’s no reason for you.

[65:04]

Anyway, so it turns out when we checked out Richard Gutjahr that he’s married to a woman called Einat Wilf. Einat Wilf is a former member of Knesset, which is the Israeli government. She is a former advisor for Shimon Peres, and she did her military service, strongly connected to Mossad, in Unit 8802, I believe it was.

Okay, so what are the chances of Richard Gutjahr being married to somebody directly connected into Mossad, when Mossad is very, very strong. Their appearance has been very strong in Europe for the last few years, at least, in these operations.

Anyway, so a few days later, “boom!” it happened in Munich, and who was there filming? Richard Gutjahr! What are the chances? And one of the main individuals that were being interviewed* on international media, was a young girl called Thamina Stoll who is there and running around and so on. So who’s Thamina Stoll? Well she’s the daughter of Richard Gutjahr! Okay, And just a month, or so before that, she was there with photos taken of her together with Hillary Clinton. And Einat Wilf the wife of Richard Gutjahr had just been and had taken photos with Shimon Peres, who had just been with Obama. So, very, very strong connections, this tight little family has.

See: Munich Shooting Hoax. Thamina Stoll (Richard Gutjahr’s Daughter!) 20160722

Then the Berlin truck attack happened, and I thought, “Oh my god, are we going to see Richard Gutjahr here again?” No! Are we going to see Einat Wilf again? No! Instead we had Shlomo Shapiro, who is an is Israeli terror expert, who was on location in that small little Christmas market when this is said to happened. He left just a few minutes before. And who is his colleague at the university in Tel Aviv? Einat Wilf!

You see it’s the same, it’s a small little unit traveling around. And then when they get exposed, like Richard Gutjahr, they can’t use them anymore. So the more of them that we can expose like that, we neutralize them, but in a totally nonviolent way. Which is my way.

Andrew: Thank you very much Ole. Is there anything else you’d like to go through before we sign off for today?

Ole: I mean, I can keep on for at least another eleven hours, straight on in these areas! So anytime you want me back on, just any area, any assassination, just let me know.

Andrew: Absolutely!

Ole: I would like to say, if I can brag a little, is that I was the receiver of the Prague Peace Prize last year and have also been a nominee for the Lighthouse Award, because the intention, my intention is peace, understanding, compassion and lifting this world to a new beautiful level. Becoming fearless together and stop this madness, because that is the whole idea. Not to just thrive in conspiracies and thrive in all of these things. I just want it to come to an end, where this small little group, I mean, it is like a cancer growth that is trying to kill the rest of the body. And we need to expose it, otherwise we are in big danger. So, …

Andrew: I agree. Before we go can you let the listeners know your websites again, your Facebook, and also where people can go to get your podcasts, because we’ve only been able to touch on issues today that I’m sure you go into far greater detail. So, just get that information again, please Ole.

Ole: Okay, my website is Light on Conspiracy’s dot com, Light on Conspiracy’s dot com. My Facebook is Ole Dammegard. And like I say, it’s like a hub I use it really like, almost like a headquarters. Because, when one of these attacks happen it’s almost like a battle between the dark and the light, it’s like information war where they spread lies and I feel less extreme urge to try and see what actually happened. And then as soon as I find out the facts, get it out there! Get it out there, get it out there to neutralize these lies, and so that people can start clearly seeing what actually happened and understand who is the real enemy. Muslim terrorists, or their own government? And unfortunately, I would say it’s the people put there to protect us.

[70:01]

You can always see the people that I’m doing it to you, are the ones that come out afterwards, stand up and say:

“Our nation has been attacked! We need to stand united in the face of terror! We will not bend down!”

These are the people who are doing it to you! These are key people. You can also see in the police investigations, because these are inside job, at so the people that are there press conferences, that are there leading the investigation, and so on. These people are the ones that are involved on a low-level, still involved, so you can pick them out, one by one, like that. And then when it comes to on the level of politicians, and so on, check with the Bilderberg Group members in the Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission.

These are the organizations where you can see their real agenda, what is actually going on. And also why they carry these things out. So, my podcast which is going to go live within a day, or two, is called Light on Conspiracies, Light on Conspiracies. And I’ve got multiple books and you can just search my name on Amazon, also on You Tube there. I don’t know how many hundreds of interviews, where I go into very, very great detail about all of these big events, all of them.

And also, like I mentioned before, I’m a sort of a one man band, not financed by anyone. This is not my job, but I’m dedicating full-time, since years. Because I feel that we if we don’t do anything, if we don’t wake up and see what’s actually happening, we are in deep danger! It is a very dark future if we don’t wake up. But, if we wake up and see what actually going on, we can create a fantastic place for us to be. So, if you want to support me, or a fair exchange of energy, please sign up for my newsletter, my membership area on my website, or buy my books. What I use the funds to feed my family, and then get out there on location.

I’ve been to the London bombings, I’ve been to the Madrid bombings, the beheading in Watford, and in the mass shooting in Norway, the blowing up of the government in Norway, Stockholm attacks there. I’ve been to the airport in Brussels and the Metro in Brussels that are said to have been blown up. I’ve been to the Queen’s Day massacre in Holland. I’ve been to all of the different places in Paris, Charlie Hebdo, Bataclan, all the different cafes with an undercover photographer. I’ve been to Copenhagen shooting and so on, and so on, and so on.

Where I also aim to do a documentary series where I, on location, just like David Attenborough can be on a remote island showing off some kind of weird rare monkey species, I go on location with a photographer. And on location, take the viewer, step by step, by step, trying to expose what actually happened. Because once you’re on location it makes it so much easier to see that, mu God, the distances are just so different and that it’s not important that it’s not possible, the vehicle could not come from that point of view, because that is a one way street, and so on, and so on. And once you compare the official story with what you find on location, backed up with all the facts, it is like up against Tyson; game over! Boom! The truth is so powerful. So that is what I try to do as well.

So, Andy, would it be okay, for you if we end with a prayer?

Andrew: Yes absolutely! You good ahead please.

Ole: Okay, I’m not a religious person, but I am a human being that wants to make a difference. So here is a prayer that I really believe in. It goes like this.

“May the entire universe be filled with peace and joy, love and light. May everyone, and especially ones who hurt us, be filled with peace and joy, love and light. Victory to that light.”

Because these forces, these individuals, these people also need healing. If they don’t heal this madness will just continue and many of them, even though their absolute assholes, are victims of victims. They have been victimized themselves through different and corrupt themselves, or tricked into corruption. And so we are at a point where I think, let go of the blame, and the hate, and the revenge, and all these things. We need to heal this planet here. We need to save this whole thing before it goes down. And so leave these other negative feelings aside, step forward, become fearless, be part of exposing these things. And also to people who are on the other side, please get some balls, get some backbone, time to step up, become a pure human being, redeem yourself by showing what you’ve been up to. What your part have been in this, to help the rest of us understand the bigger picture. Every whistle-blower is extremely important. No guarantees, you have been in deep shark waters with people that are very scary. Horrible things can happen, but if you do not step forward, your soul will be forever damaged by this thing. You know, you cannot get out of it, so the only way forward, get some courage, step forward, join the ninety-nine percent instead of the one percent that are killing the rest of us.

Andrew: Thank you very much Ole! Wonderful show today. It was a real one on one, on false flags. Well thank you so much for joining me. I want to thank everybody for listening. I’ll be back with you all soon, and bye for now.

You have been listening to the Andrew Carrington Hitchcock show on TBR Radio. Brought to you by the Barnes Review. Andrew’s book, The Synagogue of Satan is now available on his website, Andrew Carrington Hitchcock dot com in an updated, expanded and uncensored edition.

[76:54]

END

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

Version History

Version 8: Sep 8, 2018 — Added links to Andrew Hitchcock transcripts.

Version 7: Jun 12, 2017 — Added images.

Version 6: Jun 11, 2017 — last 17 minutes proofed. TRANSCRIPT now complete (77 mins).

Version 5: Jun 10, 2017 — 25 more minutes proofed. Total complete = 60 mins.

Version 4: Jun 8, 2017 — 5 more minutes proofed. Total complete = 35 mins.

Version 3: Jun 7, 2017 — 10 more minutes proofed. Total complete = 30 mins.

Version 2: Jun 6, 2017 — 10 more minutes proofed. Total complete = 20 mins.

Version 1: Jun 4, 2017 — created post. First 10 minutes proofed.

Red Ice TV – Ingrid Carlqvist – Scandal in Sweden When Ingrid Questions the Unquestionable — TRANSCRIPT

admin — Wed, 03 May 2017 09:21:59 +0000

[In this very informative interview (100 mins ) Henrik Palmgren talks with a well known Swedish journalist/activist Ingrid Carlqvist. We learn how Ingrid has recently woken up to the central role of organized jewry in destroying Sweden through the pushing of the Third World invasion of Sweden.

Prior to this awakening she focused her attention on Muslims, i.e., the “effect” rather than the root cause.

Since her awakening she has even begun to question aspects of the “holy of hollies“, the “Holocaust” (or “Holohoax” as many of us like to call it). As a result, many people who have been supportive of her work have suddenly shown another face and have turned strongly against her — KATANA.]

Red Ice Radio

Ingrid Carlqvist

Scandal in Sweden

When Ingrid

Questions the Unquestionable

Click here for the video at Red Ice:

Ingrid Carlqvist – Scandal in Sweden When Ingrid Questions the Unquestionable

Click HERE for the YouTube version

Click here for the audio only:

https://redice.tv/red-ice-radio/scandal-in-sweden-when-ingrid-questions-the-unquestionable

Click on the above links, or copy the link into your browser to listen to the audio or watch the video.

Published on May 1, 2017

Red Ice TV Description

Ingrid Carlqvist worked in mainstream media for many years, before starting Dispatch International with Lars Hedegaard in 2012. She has been a writer for Gatestone Institute and co-hosts the popular Swedish podcast, Ingrid & Conrad.

Ingrid returns to Red Ice to discuss her experience as a journalist telling unpopular truths in Sweden. To begin, she tells us about how she set out to understand why Sweden had become multicultural. Ingrid quickly realized that it is nearly impossible to discuss Jewish influence, as most people – even those critical of Islam – are unwilling to venture into such controversial waters. We then discuss Barbara Spectre, an influential American Jew in Sweden who has called for the end of European civilization through mass immigration from the third world. Later, we discuss Holocaust revisionism, and how Ingrid’s willingness to question – not deny – this historical event has affected her journalism career.

Guest’s website: http://ingridochconrad.se/
Guest’s Twitter: https://twitter.com/ingridcarlqvist

Subscribe and stream or download over 1000 programs, videos, films, Insight episodes, Red Ice TV & watch our exclusive live show, Weekend Warrior.

More Red Ice:
https://redice.tv

Henrik’s Introduction

Ingrid Gives an Outline of Her “Fall from Grace”

Jewish Ethnic Interests at the Expense of the Majority Swedes

Ingrid’s Speech at Gothenberg and Jan Sjunnesson’s Reaction

David Schwarz and His Push for Multi-Culturalism

Ingrid’s Mission in Life as a Journalist

Ingrid’s Interview on Spingola Speaks with Deanna

Spingola Asks Ingrid About Barbara Spectre

Barbara Spectre’s Infamous Interview and the Role of Paideia

Attempts to Suppress the Barbara Spectre Interview Clip

Paideia Institute and Its “Nazi Gold” Blackmail of Sweden

Paedeia Institute Working with Muslim Organizations in Sweden

The Crime of Transforming Sweden from a Homogenous Nation to a Multicultural One

“There is No Such Thing as a Native Swedish Culture”

Your Right to Investigate Accepted History

Being Called an “Anti-Semite” and a “Holocaust Denier”

Why Do You Want to Dig into the “Holocaust”?

No Free Speech When It Comes to the “Holocaust”

Ernst Zundel’s Defense Attorney Jailed for Three Years

Why Ingrid Began to Investigate the “Holocaust”

Shrunken Heads, Lampshades and Soap

Oprah Winfrey Show and Rosenblatt’s Lies

Jews Making up Stories for Their Cause

Spielberg’s Horror Stories for the Whole Family

Ingrid’s Response — You Need Evidence Not Just “Testimony”

The “Holocaust Industry”

We Have an Obligation to Look into Things

The “Six Million” Story Goes Back to the Late 1880s

Four Million Dead in Auschwitz Becomes 1.1 Million

What Has the Impact of Your Investigations Been on You Personally?

“…. the Establishment Are Lying About Practically Everything!”

“My Greatest Hope”

Transcript

[100:00 min]

[00:00]

Henrik’s Introduction

top

Henrik: Hey boys and girls, welcome back. Thank you for tuning in. I’m Henrik Palmgren. This is Red Ice TV. You have also, of course, a radio version available of this show if you so prefer. Great to have you with us today. We have a special segment together with one of the co-hosts of Norse News which I definitely hope you have checked out by now.

We’re actually up in the third episode at this point., but we have Ingrid Carlqvist with us on the line today. And we’re going to talk a bit about some of the things have unfolded in the Swedish press over the last week, or so. She was basically drawn into a controversial issue of her raising some very important points when it comes to, you know, Swedish multiculturalism and what it is that we really are are faced and what it is that we’re battling in Sweden. You know, when it comes to the transformation of Swedish society. And it’s really important.

I also just want to mention this that, you know, Ingrid is a very, very talented journalist. I mean, she’s been, … She’s like a bloodhound, you know, she’s been digging into issues over the years and not let go. When she gets on a trail, she follows through and she catches her prey, so to speak. And in this case it’s really the same thing that has happened. So we were going to try to detail this today and try to outline for you exactly what it is that happened and the kind of chronology of this.

So, welcome to the show, Ingrid. Thank you so much for a coming on with us again.

Ingrid Gives an Outline of Her “Fall from Grace”

top

Ingrid: Thank you so much Henrik! Thanks for having me.

Henrik: So tell the audience first what happened and how did this all of the begin for those who haven’t followed the Swedish press.

Ingrid: Well, it actually began, I think, we have to go back to February, when I had a speech in Gothenburg. Some people wanted me to come and speak about a book that I plan to write. And the working title of my book is, “From Sweden to Absurdistan” and I want to, you know, try to understand how did this happen. How did we go from 1965, when our Prime Minister said:

“We are so lucky in Sweden, because we are an homogenous country, not only according to the race. We are so lucky!”

And then ten years later, in 1975, the Swedish parliament decided that Sweden was not going to be a Swedish country anymore, but a multicultural one! And we’ve all seen what has happened since then, so that the focus of my work, what I want to find out is: How did this happen? How did we go in just ten years from a Prime Minister praising the homogeneity of Sweden to Parliament saying that Swedish is not good, we want to be a multicultural country?

And when I, you know, researched this subject I found out that it all started in October 1964 with an op-ed in one of the biggest Swedish newspapers called “Dagens Nyheter”, “The Daily News”. And it was written by a Jewish man called David Schwartz*. And he had come to Sweden in 1950, or so. He had been a prisoner in a concentration camp in Germany. And came to Sweden and started his life here.

[* David Schwarz, born in 1928 in Poland, died in November 2008, [1] was a Swedish-Jewish social reformer and editor. During World War II he was placed in the concentration camps Buchenwald, Nordhausen, Dora and Bergen-Belsen.

Like many other interns in the concentration camps, he was affected by both typhoid and tuberculosis. Schwarz, however, was more fortunate than many other victims and was first admitted to a sanatorium in Germany and later moved to another in Italy where he remained until 1950.

When the Italian sanatorium was closed, Schwarz was sent to Sweden where he was treated at different places until 1954. When Schwarz recovered, he initially lived on government grants but later came to study at Stockholm University.

Over time, immigrant issues became the central part of his life, a question whereby Schwarz came to have a significant influence on Swedish social development. As a diligent debate in the daily press and as editor of the journal Immigrants and minorities, he was deeply engaged in Swedish immigration policy from the 1960s.

Source: Google translation of Swedish Wikipedia article: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Schwarz]

And he quite quickly became a figure that people knew about. You know, he was very active, he wanted to do good things for immigrants in Sweden and after a few years he became the editor of a newspaper called something like, “Immigration and Minorities”.

And in October 1964, he wrote an op-ed in one of the biggest Swedish newspapers where he called for multiculturalism in Sweden. Because as he saw it, the Jews were a little minority in Sweden, but, of course, they had been here for two, or three hundred years, and after the war there came other Jews. But we had a Jewish population, very small, but a Jewish population that had lived in Sweden for two, or three hundred years.

But he wanted, … He saw the majority society as a threat to minorities! So his suggestion was that Sweden would turn into a multicultural country, so there would be many minorities in Sweden, so the Jews would not the only minority, so we wouldn’t think badly of them! Of course, I mean, I’m just, you know, shortening it down, but that was really his mission.

[05:22]

Henrik: Yes in a way it’s, I guess, it’s a tactic as an ethnic minority to kind of protect yourself, right? To make sure that you’re not singled out and maybe that you’re targeted and considering then the, you know, the history in these kinds of things, it was a way for them to protect themselves. But, of course, in the wake of this, what they have to recognize is also that then leads to the destruction of a nation!

Ingrid: Yes.

Henrik: Which can also also actually cause people to be antagonistic towards this kind of behavior, right?

Jewish Ethnic Interests at the Expense of the Majority Swedes

top

Ingrid: And what I think that, I’m not sure that he wanted to destroy the Swedish people. I think he was, … I have actually talked to people who knew him in the 80s and they say that at that point he was not very happy with the mass immigration into Sweden. So maybe, he had remorse, maybe he thought that what he started didn’t really work out very well.

So we have to, you know, think that maybe he didn’t know what he was doing. But if you have an ethnic group, a minority, who wants to have, you know, a better place in society, a better, … I don’t know what to call it, you know, yeah, a better place in society. That people don’t single you out and so on. So it’s quite normal for you to say that my ethnic group would profit from other ethnic minorities, because the Swedish majority, maybe they will not like the Jews. So, but if we bring new minorities into the country, then they will not just think about the Jews and that would be good for the ethnic Jewish interests.

But what you have to understand, if you do good for one ethnic minority, you will do bad for another, for the ethnic majority! And that is exactly what we see now, forty, or fifty years after his first article about this, we see that the Swedish people are to become a minority in our own country, because of what started in 1964!

And that is what I said in my speech in Gothenberg in February. And there was a person there, Jan Sjunnesson and he is sort of a journalist. Sort of a patriot. And he was there to write about my speech for one of these alternative media sites, called Avpixlat. But he never wrote anything! So I thought, okay maybe this was too much for him. Because, you know, there are people who say you can talk about everything, you can talk about mass immigration, you can talk about Islamization, but don’t mention the Jews! If you do that, you are, … [making a cutting your throat gesture] Like this.

Henrik: Its a “third rail”. You die if you touch it, as they say.

Ingrid’s Speech at Gothenberg and Jan Sjunnesson’s Reaction

top

Ingrid: Absolutely! And I was very, you know, nervous before I had my speech. I actually said to the audience, … They gave me a big applause when I came up to up on the stage. And I said to them:

“Thank you very much. I hope you’re going to applaud when I’m finished.”

Because I really didn’t know how they were going to react. Maybe they would boo, maybe they would throw rotten tomatoes at me, or something like that.

But, everything went very well and most people applauded very, very hard, you know, and they really liked it. But this person, Jan Sjunnesson, he just disappeared, very quickly. And he never wrote about it. So I thought, okay, this was too much for him. He doesn’t want anyone to talk about the jewish, you know, how the jews had some effect on what has happened in Sweden. And so, nothing ever happened, until a week ago.

[10:06]

And then he suddenly wrote an article on his blog saying that:

“I don’t want to have anything to do with that anti-Semitism that comes from Ingrid Carlqvist and the site Avpixlat!”

The site where he works, because they also, they actually had an article with the same content as I said, in my speech in Gothenberg, about David Schwartz and about that article from 1964. So he felt the need to write that he didn’t support me or Avpixlat when they wrote about the thing about the jews.

David Schwarz and His Push for Multi-Culturalism

top

Henrik: Yup. Of course, this is a proposition 1975-26. This is the official proposition that David Schwartz helped to create in Sweden. And, of course, this initiated the process of Sweden slowly becoming and adopting a multicultural, you know, viewpoint and official stance as a country.

And I believe that you’re right when you say that this is, … What we’re living through today is the not even the final process, but it’s in the midst of the true effects of this proposition that they backed so many years ago.

And you have a similar one, of course, in America the Hart-Celler Act, where you also actually had a jew, a part in writing that. It’s just a fact. I mean, it’s like if we can’t talk and discuss about reality of this, I don’t know where to begin with some of these people! Especially, of course, when they’re free speech advocates.

My point that I mentioned about you Ingrid, is that you’ve been a kind of a blood [hound]! You go on a trail and you follow through on that. You let the truth lead you where it will, right? And in this case, it leads to David Schwartz. It leads to, you know, that person transforming Swedish society. And I think that we should be able to talk about that. I think we should be able to recognize the reality of that.

Ingrid: Well, of course! I mean, as a journalist I think that you always have to have the truth, as your, you know, your star, where you’re heading. And it’s been like that for me ever since I was eighteen years old and started in the School of Journalism.

So it may sound pathetic, but that’s really true! I always wanted to find the truth and I’ve never, you know, if everyone is running to the right, I turn to the left to see what is there. Because I really don’t like, you know, when people get into this frenzy where everybody’s writing about, like, for example, pedophilia, “Everyone is a pedophile! All daddies are paedophiles!” and so on. And I really don’t like that, you know! I want to see what is on the other side, because I don’t like when people get, you know, hysterical about something.

And so, I’ve always tried to see where is the truth and I don’t really care about being popular!

Henrik: Yeah.

Ingrid’s Mission in Life as a Journalist

top

Ingrid: You know, that? Most people want to be popular. They want to be loved, they want to be liked, they want everybody to, you know, pat your back and say, “Oh, you’re wonderful Ingrid!” I’ve never really cared about that!

What I care about is, I think I was born with a talent, or some talents. I have a talent for writing in a way that most people understand. I don’t try to write in a very difficult language. I want everybody to understand what I want to tell them. And I also have the ability to speak to people in a way that they understand.

So I think, that my mission in this life is to, … When I find out some things, when I understand something, it is my duty to tell other people about it. And many times people will say:

“We don’t like it! We don’t like what you’re telling us. We don’t want to hear this.”

But that doesn’t matter to me, because I need to tell it anyway. And most of the time, and after ten years, or twenty years, they will say:

“Okay, you were right. We’re sorry we didn’t listen to you!”

But that’s okay. I just feel this is my talent in life and this is my duty to do it.

Henrik: Absolutely! I mean, you’re very, … I think the truth is the noblest quest one can have. And truth is not always polite, and yes, even from a strategic point of view sometimes it isn’t the correct thing to apply truth. Sometimes we amend it to, you know, preserve relationships and things like this. But as a journalistic, you know, an integrity, as an effort, this surely has to be the at the front line of this, right?

[15:07]

So the critique that you received is basically:

“You’re not allowed to talk about this. If this is where things go, it’s off the table. You’re not allowed to talk about it!”

So I’m wondering, what relationship can we have to a subject like this when it comes to how we became multicultural without discussing and recognizing the reality of the situation?

Because it’s not that these sources that have criticized you, have argued on the points that you brought up themselves and said:

“Listen! You’re factually incorrect! This is what happened, blah, blah, blah.”

No! That’s not the case at all. In this case is just, you are now a horrible person, because you have recognized something that we are not allowed to talk about!

Ingrid: Yeah absolutely! And that makes me really, really sad! Because, you know, for many years I have been talking about the dangerous of Islam and Islamization. And lot of people, of course, they called me an Islamaphobe. But, I have had a lot of fans saying that:

“Oh, what you’re doing is so important and think about what the Muslims do to the Jews in Sweden. They harass them and so on!”

But now, when I found out that there’s something strange going on with how the jews are operating in Sweden, and now, I’m not only talking about David Schwartz and what he did in one 1964. But what the jewish leaders in Sweden — not all jews, I’m not talking about all jews. I’m talking about jewish organizations and jews leaders. Something strange is going on with what they’re doing.

And when I say that, people go crazy! I mean, all the people who said:

“Oh! You don’t hate Muslims! We understand everything you’re saying. You just want to criticize Islam. That’s your right, freedom of speech!” la, la, la!

And now when I say, okay, there’s something strange going on with the jewish leaders, you know, they are not scared of the Muslims! They’re actually working for mass immigration into Sweden!

Henrik: Right.

Ingrid: Some other people have said:

“That is so good what you doing, just go after the Muslims, or after Islam!”

Now they say:

“You’re horrible Ingrid! You can’t do that!”

But I’m doing just the same as I did all the time! I’m finding out who are the bad guys. Why are they doing this to our country? But, if you talk about Muslims, okay, you will be called an Islamaphobe. But a lot of people will say, “Great! Do it!”

But if you mention the jews, you know, now it just got into my head, you know, Fawlty Towers he said:

“Don’t mention the war!”

Henrik: “Don’t mention the war!” That’s right!

Ingrid: Yes, this is the same! Don’t mention the jews! Because if you do that you are, … [making a cutting the throat gesture]

Henrik: Right. Right. And again it’s, you know, it to, but also this aspect of this has to be prefaced, and that’s okay and that’s fine.

You know, we have to talk about this and there’s a lot of sensitivity around this issue and, you know, because of the way that we’re taught and the history we’re taught. We have a special emotional bond, almost like a trauma around the subject, which has made it, as I said, a third rail, one you can’t touch. And if you do, you die!

But the fact is we can discuss, no matter what people think about this, we can discuss the reality of this, we can discuss and theorize. Is there an ethnic interest, you know, from the many other people who push multiculturalism, as we know.

And again, if we’re not allowed to discuss that, I don’t know how to approach people, because it’s the same thing as if we had Islamic factions, which we, of course, we do. But let’s assume that we had them at prominent positions within the media, they were in prominent positions in politics, or lobbying, or these kinds of positions, people like yourselves would have pointed this out! And that’s not a crime to do. It is just recognizing the reality and saying:

“Listen! Here are a lot of people, they’re not Swedish, they have their own group, they belong to their own group — that’s fine — but are they transforming and influencing and changing Swedish society? And if so we are going to talk about that.”

There’s nothing strange about that. That’s not a crime, but my point is, the associations of all of this has now made it, almost become a crime, right? That you see the response, the reflex that people have and recoil in horror when you like dare to address the issue! That is very strange to me. It’s almost like people are almost mind controlled! We’re just talking about the reality of this thing! This is not a crime! What’s going on here?

[19:49]

Ingrid’s Interview on Spingola Speaks with Deanna

top

Ingrid: This is what makes me very, very sad! You know, first of all, I want to say that I, for many many years, I couldn’t understand how anyone could say anything about the jews. Because I had the image that all jews in Sweden, they were assimilated. I thought they were sweet, they were praying to another god, but most of them were secular. They didn’t really believe in God, so I felt there was no difference.

And I really didn’t, this is I must tell you, all these things aside, as I told you I have, you know, written about things that nobody else wanted to write about. Fathers being accused of incest and so on. Really, you know, the stuff that doesn’t make you popular. But the thing about the jews, I couldn’t even think that there was something like this going on! And the first time I ever heard about this, was in a radio interview with a station called, I don’t know Deanna Spingola, or something like that?

Henrik: Yeah, Spingola Speaks. I remember that. I actually listened to parts of that show, it’s funny though, because this is what you’re getting at. You went through a similar realization yourself.

Ingrid: Yep!

Henrik: A lot of this material was not, … It was brought to your attention sometimes by, almost in a hostile way, you know, in other times it was just, “Hey Ingrid! Look at this! What’s going on here?” You know, curiosity right? What’s going on here?

But tell us about the radio show before we can listen to a clip here.

Spingola Asks Ingrid About Barbara Spectre

top

Ingrid: Yes, she sent me an e-mail asking if I and my code editor Lars Hedegaard wanted to be on her radio show and we had just started Dispatch International and we thought, well okay, that’s good, if someone in America wants to listen to us and what we want to do with this newspaper, fine! So I didn’t really do any research, you know, what is this Spingola Speaks, I just thought, oh that’s a radio station and that’s okay.

And she called us up and we sat, actually together in Copenhagen, me and Lars Hedegaard, and we talked, I think for one hour about the mass immigration and the problems with Muslims and Islam. And then suddenly she says:

“Well, what about Barbara Spectre, the jewish person in Stockholm, and what she says about multiculturalism?”

And we were, you know, like looking at each other and said:

“What? Who? What are you talking about? Who is Barbara Spectre?”

And she said:

“You must know!”

She said, sort of their big jewish leader and she says that Europe has to become multicultural, if they don’t do, they will die! And that was that.

“We don’t know what you’re talking about!”

And then she played the clip and I think you have what happened after that.

Henrik: Yes, should we play the Barbara Spectre clip first and see for those who haven’t seen it?

Ingrid: Yes.

Barbara Spectre’s Infamous Interview and the Role of Paideia

top

Henrik: So check this out folks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ#

NARRATOR: There are people in Sweden who support Israel and have a deep sense of the injustice of the present situation. It is these people who give hope to those who do believe that things will get better here. One of them is Barbara Spectre, a former American who made Aliya* and then ten years ago, with the help of the government of Sweden set up a non-denominational institute of jewish learning with the Greek name of Paideia, here in Stockholm. She believes that the current wave of anti-semitism in Sweden will pass. And that jews have an important role to play in a country undergoing profound change.

SPECTRE: “I think there’s a resurgence of anti-semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we’re gonna be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies that they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode, and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role, and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.”

[* Aliyah (aliyah, “ascent”) is the immigration of Jews from the diaspora to the land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael). Also defined as “the act of going up” or as in progressing towards Jerusalem. It is one of the most basic tenets of Zionist ideology. The opposite action, emigration from Israel, is referred to as yerida (“descent”). The concept of Aliyah (return) to the Holy Land was first developed in Jewish history during the Babylonian exile. During the Jewish diaspora, Aliyah was developed as a national aspiration for the Jewish people, although it was not usually fulfilled until the development of the Zionist movement in the late nineteenth century. Large-scale immigration to Palestine began in 1882. Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, more than 3 million Jews from over 90 countries have ‘made Aliyah’ and arrived in Israel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyah]

Henrik: I mean, that’s pretty bold right! That’s a pretty bold statement. I don’t know how she can talk, in one sense for all jews, which she does, but I guess, she knows something we don’t. But should we listen to the reactions of you and Lars at the program, right? It’s pretty interesting.

Ingrid: Please do.

Henrik: Let’s listen to this, here folks.

Deanna: Barbara Spectre. And she’s promoting multiculturalism in Sweden. She set up an organization there ten years ago, to do that. And she says people are pretty upset about it, and they’re pretty upset at the jews, because jews seem to be the ones who are promoting it. And that’s why there is so much anti-semitism in Sweden.

[25:07]

Ingrid: But that’s not true Deanna. Because nobody has heard of this Barbara Spectre and, you know, we have problems with anti-semitism, but that is not from the natives Swedes. The new thing that’s happened is that we have so many Muslims in the country now and they hate jews! You know, that. That’s part of their so-called religion, and especially in my town, Malmo, the Jews are fleeing from the town, because they can’t walk outside with a kippa, for example, because Muslim youths are throwing stones at them, calling them names and harassing them in all ways! So, the anti-semitism is not from native Swedes, it’s from Muslims from all over the world that are now staying in Sweden.

Henrik: So I mean, that’s true on one level, right? That there are actually, many jews in Malmo that have been forced to leave, but it’s not the Barbara Spectre’s that are affected by the policies that they are incorporating, or pushing on Sweden, right?

Ingrid: To tell you the truth when I was that clip, when she sent that clip to me, I was in shock! In total shock! I had never heard anyone, Swede, or jew, or Muslim saying anything like this. It’s absolutely preposterous what this person is saying! She actually says that we need to become multicultural, and the jews are going to be in the forefront, and they will be resented, because the Europeans won’t like it. But this is the only way, because if the jews don’t go, you know, fixing this multiculturalism, Europe will die!

Attempts to Suppress the Barbara Spectre Interview Clip

top

Henrik: How is that? This is not prefaced, of course, in this documentary, it’s a clip, by the way, that we watch from, I think it’s an Israeli Broadcasting Company and they were actually vehemently going after anyone who actually reference this clip, for the longest time on You Tube.

There’s even a court case in Britain right now, referencing one of the videos where Barbara Spectre is mentioned in. And I believe it’s still her and some other people trying to get Google and You Tube, which Google owns, to stop all of these kinds of clips from being out there. But she is the one who said it! We were not saying this! This is her words! Right? [laughing]

Ingrid: Absolutely! And what I thought, when I first saw it, after Deanna Spingola sent it to me, you know, I was in shock, but I thought, who is this person? I had never heard about her. I mean, I am a Swedish journalist, if she was an important person I would have heard about her!

Henrik: Right.

Paideia Institute and Its “Nazi Gold” Blackmail of Sweden

top

Ingrid: But! That was not the case.

Afterwards, when I started to research this person, I understood that she was the headmaster of a jewish learning institute called Paideia. Now she just resigned, just a few months ago. They changed the headmaster. But she was the headmaster for more than ten years.

And how did this Paideia Institute happen? What, why did it come to be? Well, it was like this. The jewish organizations in Sweden, they said to the government, again and again:

“We believe that your central bank were dealing with looted gold! Nazi gold, during World War Two. And then you owe us money!”

So the Swedish government, they actually did two, or three, investigations into this to see was it true. Did the central bank actually deal with looted gold? And the answer was, again and again, no! There was no proof of this! But these jewish organizations they didn’t settle for that. So finally the government decided that they were going to give this jewish organization forty million kroner. That’s about four million dollars.

Henrik: Wow! Amazing!

Ingrid: Yeah. Not, because of looted gold, because that was no looted gold! But as a gesture of kindness!

Henrik: It’s bribe money, right? It’s blackmail frankly, emotional blackmail!

Ingrid: Yeah! And what I have found out, and this I will publish in a few months, but I will give you a preview of this, …

Henrik: Nice.

Ingrid: I found out that, when they were negotiating with the Swedish government, they told the government:

“If you don’t give us this money. We have, behind us, we have the World jewish Congress.
And if you don’t give us the money, we will tell all the world that Sweden is anti-semitic!”

[30:05]

Henrik: Oh god!

Ingrid: That’s how they got the money.

So they gave them fourteen million kroner, four million dollars, and they set up this institute of Paedeia. And this person as they said in that clip, that she was born in America and then she went to Israel. And her husband was a rabbi and he got a job in Stockholm synagogue. So that’s why she came to Stockholm. And she needed something to do as someone xxx [?] .

Henrik: Let’s make Sweden multicultural! That’ll be fun! Let’s do that! [laughing]

Paedeia Institute Working with Muslim Organizations in Sweden

top

Ingrid: So, yes she got to be headmaster of this Paedeia.

And since then she has been working so, you know, intensely to do everything to make Sweden more multicultural. And what is really also shocking, you know, I have written so many articles about the Muslim harassment of jews. Which I think is horrible! Horrible! I don’t want people in my country harassing people in the streets, just because they wear a kippa, or a Star of David, or whatever! I don’t want that!

So I’ve been writing a lot of articles about that. But what is actually going on now, is that the Paedeia Institute, Barbara Spectre’s institute, they are working closely together with Muslim organizations in Sweden. They have, I don’t know if you have the picture where Barbara’s Spectre and someone who is a boss of a Muslim organization, they’re all standing together doing the Tawheed thing, finger. You know, one God.

Henrik: Geez.

Ingrid: There is only One God. A lot of Muslims and jews, they think that we Christians, we don’t believe in One God. The Trinity, they believe that we believe in three gods.

Henrik: Right.

Ingrid: Yeah. So yeah, that was a horrible experience finding out who Barbara Spectre really was, and what she has been doing is Sweden for so many years.

And she has, you know, gone under the radar for so many years! No Swedes know about! But her institute, they have connections inside the government, so they know exactly what to do! They know exactly how to pull the strings and get what they want! And they don’t need to be known by Swedes. They prefer not to be known by Swedes.

Henrik: You’re right, I mean, it’s about holding power more behind the scenes and not being out in the open. Because this clip that we watched, from the Israeli Broadcasting Company, or agency, or whatever they’re called, it was never meant to be for the consumption of every, you know, European out there.

Ingrid: No.

The Crime of Transforming Sweden from a Homogenous Nation to a Multicultural One

top

Henrik: This was for their own television show, of basically tracking, monitoring, like what is it like for jewish people in Sweden? is it good? And also in line with what David Schwartz kind of advocated for. You know, the more multicultural it is, the better it’s going to be for our group. Because we can kind of, you know, we’ll blend in, we’ll not be the only one the group that’s targeted, and these kinds of things.

Although there’s a price for, I guess, what you should we call them, lower class jews? That, for example, live in Malmo, where they actually are targeted in these kinds of capacities. By Muslims on the street when they see that they wear their yarmulke, whatever.

But it’s not about that. It’s about the bigger more important goal it seems like almost, of making sure that Sweden is forever transformed! And we go from a ethnically homogenous nation to a multicultural one. And look at the damage!

I mean, Ingrid, for Christ’s sake, and to everyone out there listening and watching this. Ask yourself; why are we not supposed to be able to talk about this?

Ingrid: Yeah.

Henrik: Why are we not be able to recognise that this is what’s happening? And those who have themselves, not us, they have declared themselves our enemies! They are saying, somehow it’s wrong for us to just be remain Swedish in our own country! And that we, I mean, she doesn’t preface how we’re going to survive with all these people. It’s actually quite the opposite. We’re actually demographically in decline, because of it.

I see this as a crime! This is a crime towards humanity! It’s a crime towards Sweden, turning it into this very, incredibly, unsafe country! And she should be held responsible for her advocacy of this!

[34:52]

Ingrid: Absolutely! And what I really fear, because I am sure, I know that so many, you know, normal Swedish jews, the ones who are not in the lead are not chairman of the different jewish organizations, not rabbis in the synagogue and so on. Normal jews! I’ve talked to quite a few of them, they are really, really scared of what is going on in Sweden. They are scared of these Muslim mass immigration and they are scared that they’re going to be beaten up and so on. But, if you ask them:

“Please, can you tell me. I’m a journalist, can you tell me, I want to write about this, …”

They all say:

“No, no, no, I can’t talk to you about this! You have to speak to the Rabbi! You have to speak to the chairman of the jewish organization.” and so on.

And I wonder why? Why are they so scared? Okay, you can say, most Swedes are scared too. We don’t want to talk. A lot of people, Swedish don’t want to talk, because they’re afraid that they will lose their jobs and so on.

But if are a minority in a country and you see that things are going wrong, where should you have your loyalty? Why, if these jews, who are scared of Muslim immigration, they’re scared to be beaten up and so on, why don’t they go with the Swedes? Why do they go to the leaders of their synagogues and their organizations who are doing exactly what they are afraid of?

And that is something that, you know, scares me, because I will always thought Jewish people in Sweden, they were Swedish. They were just like, okay we pray to another god and so on, but we are Swedish first and foremost!

And when I hear them saying that they don’t want to talk about it, I have to speak to the rabbi, or some other person who is in charge of what the jews think! Then I get scared. Because this is not how you build a country, this is not democracy, this is not, you know, solidarity between the people and it makes me scared.

“There is No Such Thing as a Native Swedish Culture”

top

Henrik: Yeah, definitely. And there’s other examples Ingrid. Let me just talk about this for a moment.

We had another official working, actually working for the Swedish government, telling us that there is no such thing as a native Swedish culture, you know! And again I found out it’s not, I didn’t go look for the stuff. It was just these people, you know, come with their ridiculous accusations against us as a people and then I find out that this woman, Ingrid Lungfaust [sp] , she is, just happened to be educated in Jerusalem at the xxx university there.

She is jewish, she was trained at the Hebrew College in Boston and she’s even the general secretary at the jewish synagogue, or the jewish community in Stockholm. And she in one of her speeches said, talking about these points of, you know, she’s head of “Living History”, as it’s called in Sweden, telling us that immigration is nothing new.

We’re all a consequence of immigration and there isn’t actually any domestic, or like native Swedish culture. I mean, this is what, … It’s like, stay out of this! Why are you talking about these things? I mean, it’s such a radical, you know, attitudes here! She’s sitting in front of the Swedish King, even, who’s at this lecture with her. Lecturing us that there is no Swedish culture! I mean, what the hell is this!

Ingrid: It’s preposterous! Who does this woman think she is! Standing in front of the Swedish King and Queen and saying:

“There is no such thing as a Swedish culture!”

Henrik: Yeah.

Ingrid: “Everything is from abroad.” I mean, I was sick! I was sick when I saw the King and Queen, you know, clapping!

Henrik: Yeah! Exactly!

Ingrid: And it is absolutely crazy! And this woman, I think that she believed, because this has, … You could you could do this for so many years in Sweden. The Swedes never protested. They could say anything about us:

“You don’t have a culture, you don’t have a language, you don’t have a history. The Vikings were never there! Blah, blah, blah!”

And all we said was:

“Okay, okay, okay, …” “This is not your country!”, “Okay, okay, okay, …” “All the people in the world need your country!” “Okay, okay, …”

This has been going on for so many years! So I’m actually not surprised that she thought that she could stand in front of the King and the Queen and say there is no such thing as a Swedish culture! But actually, that blew up in her face! Because, a lot of Swedes, they, you know, they just got crazy when they heard her. Because people, I mean, we might be very docile and very, you know, banged down in our shoes, or whatever you call it in English, …

[40:12]

Henrik: Passive to a certain extent. Yeah.

Ingrid: Yeah. This actually made the Swedes really angry!

Henrik: Good!

Ingrid: So it was all over the news the next day, that:

“Why? What is she talking about? Of course, there’s a Swedish culture!” and so on.

So she actually, the next day, she had to go out and say:

“Oh, I’m sorry! That’s not what I meant! I just meant that, of course, the Swedish culture has influences from my cultures, …” and so on.

Henrik: Yeah, yeah. It’s amazing Ingrid, that they have gotten away with it so long. But they’re not doing that anymore.

But, for a moment then, go back to this point you were talking about. About Specter and your reactions to these kinds of things. And again you ended up on a on a trail where you basically started, you know, questioning certain things and discovering certain aspects and saying, “What is this?” you know, “Is there any truth to these rumors?”, because as you said initially, you were basically, you know, shocked, but you were also kind of standoffish and like:

“No, this woman [Barbara Spectre] doesn’t hold any power, it’s a moot point. It doesn’t matter, doesn’t apply!”

But then the more you looked into it you realized that she’s not the only one, there’s many others, …

Ingrid: Yep.

Your Right to Investigate Accepted History

top

Henrik: And there is a trail here, there are people and, you know, I see it as your right to investigate historical instances! I see it as your right to come to your own conclusions when it comes to information! We’ve seen in the past, how dangerous it is when people accept, you know, government propaganda and bans on history and telling it’s people this, or that, for whatever political, you know, gain. And it is up to us.

It is up to journalists to question and look into these kinds of things. But unfortunately the climate has been so restrictive and so hard around certain things, that, you know, they’ve started to legislate against it. And this is really the battle that we are in right now when it comes to, you know, freedom of speech on, not only Facebook with all these fake news accusations, but also YouTube and on Google and these kinds of things.

And, you know, I’m one who basically wants to open up the issue of free speech to anyone who wants to question. I think that anything goes in this matter, as long as it doesn’t, you know, physically hurt people, or whatever. That none of this mental stuff that some people are hurt emotionally by what someone thinks or whatever. That is bullshit!

But, I think Ingrid that we should be able to question these things and present the evidence to people and say:

“Listen! Don’t take my word for it. Look into it for yourself. See what conclusion you can come to.”

And that’s the stance that you’ve held in this all along. But see, that’s not enough for people! You are to be morally lambasted! You’re to be morally shamed for your position, isn’t that right?

Being Called an “Anti-Semite” and a “Holocaust Denier”

top

Ingrid: Absolutely!

So what happened after this person that I told you about before, Jan Sjunnesson. When he wrote this a blog about me being an anti-semite and so on, … Then it’s all, you know, it’s just spinned off. And people are saying all sorts of crazy stuff and then suddenly, I was a “Holocaust denier”!

Because someone said, I wrote an email to her and asked her about the “Holocaust”, and she said:

“Well, there are some strange things that doesn’t fit, that doesn’t make sense.”

So then, I was a “Holocaust denier”!

And then it just, it just sort of spun off, and I had no way of stopping it! So in six hours I was the most “horrible Holocaust denier” in Sweden. [Henrik laughs].

I never “denied” the “Holocaust”. I don’t know everything about the “Holocaust”, but, what I do know, is that now I know a lot more than I did a few years ago! Because like, you know, the rest of Westerners, I always believed that what I was taught in school was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!

And then, when I started my journey on this, which started with Barbara Spectre. And then, when you start looking into something, then you get curious and you want to look at another thing. And then I found things that didn’t add up, and I said:

“What is this! ? Could it be that I have, that ‘I’, the person who wants to dig into everything, this has been a blind spot for me? That I could never, ever, …”

If someone had told me that there might be some things about the “Holocaust” that don’t add up, I would have said, five years ago:

“You’re crazy! You’re horrible! You’re a Nazi! Go away!”

Could it be, that me, the brave journalist who wants to look into everything, was there a blind spot inside me? Something that made me scared, so I couldn’t look at these things?

Then I really got angry with myself, because that’s not the way I look at myself. I want to be brave! I want to look into everything, BUT, of course, I’m not stupid! I know that this is the most dangerous topic of all!

[45:34]

Henrik: Right! And, you know, we, I’ve questioned why that is. I frankly, personally haven’t seen the level of seriousness behind it, because, let’s just face it, people are not this scared to discuss whether Stalin murdered, you know, sixty million, or twenty million, right?

I mean, we don’t have to get into the mechanics of this. I’m just trying to put this forth as a as a exercise of us being able to look into history, to question history, to lay forth dissident opinions, contradictory opinions, and say:

“What’s going on? Let’s come to our own conclusions around this. And let’s look at that data which we find interesting. Which held out of the mainstream and these kinds of things.”

I think it’s worth it for the sake of accuracy, for the sake of truth, for the sake of really knowing this guilt cloud that’s held over us today. That, as soon as we begin to organize as an ethnic group and have interest, supposedly that always turns into some “Holocaust” right? So, we have to be able to question this, shouldn’t we?

Why Do You Want to Dig into the “Holocaust”?

top

Ingrid: Of course, and that’s why I think, … I mean, many people tell me:

“Why do you want to dig into the Holocaust? It’s so many years ago. It doesn’t matter today! Just leave it alone! If there was something wrong about the story, just leave it alone, it doesn’t matter!”

But I think it does matter, because everything we do today, if we, as you said, if we try to organize ourselves, … If we say:

“I am Swedish, I’m proud to be a Swede. I love my country! Sweden is the country of the Swedes and I want us to take our country back!”

Then, I will always hear:

“Oh! So you want another ‘Holocaust’? ! Is that what you want! Your a Nazi! Everyone who is a patriot, a nationalist is a Nazi. And that leads to wanting to gas the jews!”

Henrik: Right, right. It’s just silly.

Ingrid: That is why I do think it’s important! Even if it’s so many years ago, it is important. Because, you know, every time you try to say, “I love my country” then they always come [up with] the “Holocaust”.

Henrik: Yeah, you’re a Nazi! Right?

Ingrid: Yeah.

No Free Speech When It Comes to the “Holocaust”

top

Henrik: So, you are going to do what the National Socialist did, you know, supposedly. And then you’re like:

“Okay, well let’s just talk about that then and see what is the crime. Is it true?”

But despite all those things it doesn’t equate to that. It doesn’t equate to that we want to do the same thing that the Nazi Germany did in the 1930s. It’s a different time, it’s seventy years ago, it’s not applicable., but they are so paranoid about this, that it’s almost like they just can’t leave it alone! You know, it’s always back to that point! Always back at that point!

But regardless, I just think out of sake of accuracy and truth that we should be able to question this. As we know Ingrid, in some countries it’s against the law to question these things. People actually end up in jail. They were imprisoned! I mean, if there’s a topic for free speech advocates, this would be THE topic for this issue! And I know it’s very emotional, it’s difficult. It’s all these different things, but the fact is I don’t think that you should legally, or rather legislate, against people’s inquiry into a historic event. I just don’t see the function of that, to be honest.

Ingrid: No. And, you know, it’s just a few years ago that I really understood how forbidden it is in Germany to even say that I have doubts! I doubt some details in the story of the “Holocaust”. That’s forbidden! And when I really realized this, I was so shocked. And I said:

“Germany is a democracy. They have the rule of law. It’s supposed to be free speech and everything.”

How is it possible that people are thrown in jail in Germany for saying:

“I studied this and I came up with another conclusion?”

How could that be against the law!

And if you could show a little clip where it shows that even the lawyers who defend the people who said that something is wrong in this picture, they also get thrown in jail!

[50:08]

Ernst Zundel’s Defense Attorney Jailed for Three Years

top

Henrik: Yeah, absolutely. Let’s take a look at this folks.

MC: Let me briefly explain with whom we are dealing with. This defense attorney has the courage of the lion. She is stronger than a man, and I have never met a woman with such a profile. She bravely stood up and took it upon herself to defend Ernst Zundel in the famous case against him, for so-called ‘Holocaust denial’. She was the trial lawyer of Ernst Zundel. During the legal proceedings she provided evidence to the court, which could raise doubts regarding the official account of history.

This caused furor in the courtroom. And she was prohibited from speaking any further. This speech-ban was ordered as she was presenting the arguments of the defendant. She was not allowed to argue the case, and barred from listing more evidence. She ignored the speech-ban and continued to submit evidence. And was to threatened on pain of penalties if she persisted.

As it became too much for the authorities, she was arrested right there in the courtroom during her defence of the so-called ‘Holocaust denier’ Ernst Zundel.

But not even this could silence her, as she continued to speak the case of her defendant while being forcefully removed from the courtroom. For this she was imprisoned for almost three and a half years, in spite of her having no previous convictions. Arrested in the courtroom and directly into prison.

On top of this, she had to face 5 years of ‘berufsverbot’ through cancellation of her license to work as an attorney, and was removed from the Association for German Lawyers.

They threw her out, but we would like to carry her into our midst. [cheering] I urge you to help her along. [applause as Sylvia Stolz goes to the stage] We are talking about a legend here. Making headlines across Europe. Welcome Sylvia Stolz. [shaking hands]

Sylvia Stolz: Thank you for the warm welcome. Ladies and Gentlemen, dear friends. I’ll say it again, thank you for the warm welcome.

I would like to begin my presentation with one sentence, with which I also intend to end it. I believe that in this sentence, the very essence of being human is unfolded.

“To think what is true, to sense what is beautiful and to want what is good, hereby the spirit finds the purpose of a life in reason.”

This is a quote from Johann Gottfried von Herder, …

Henrik: So, Ingrid this is a very important case, Sylvia Stolz in Germany. And she was, as the clip explained, a defense attorney for Ernst Zundel. There was a big trial called, “The Great Holocaust Trial”. It’s still on YouTube. I definitely recommend people to look at that one. Very interesting. It’s one of the only trials that have ever been. And there was a remarkable amount of evidence that came out.

I know that there was another lawyer in Canada at the time which I forget the name of [Doug Christie] that also was included. And he was also a free speech advocate in Canada and knew a lot of things., but Sylvia Stolz as pointed out here, of course, has been imprisoned! Just for defending her clients! I mean, what is going on here? This is remarkable!

Ingrid: Well it’s absolutely horrifying! I mean, a lawyer is supposed to speak out for her defendant. She is supposed to make the best speech ever for her defendant, the person that she is representing. And in Germany it is forbidden for a lawyer to try to make her best for the defendant!

She was actually, … If you are defending a person who denied even part of the “Holocaust” you don’t need to, you know, deny everything about the “Holocaust”. I don’t remember what Ernst Zundel’s case was, but, for example, let’s say that you don’t believe in a tiny piece of the story. Let’s say that you don’t believe in the soap and the lampshades. If you say that, you can go to prison! And if you have a lawyer, the lawyer can’t defend you! The lawyer is forbidden to say:

“Well, there is some jewish historians who said that this is absolutely not true!”

If she says that, if the lawyer says that, she will go to prison! What is this? In Europe? In our days? What is going on? When I found this out, I got really, really, scared. And I thought, there is something here that doesn’t add up., because if everything is true, why would you be scared of someone, you know, scrutinizing the evidence? Why would you be afraid if, you know, that everything is true and solid, why would you say to someone:

“It’s forbidden to say something about it.”

And why would you say to the lawyer:

“You can’t defend your client!”

Henrik: Right! I mean, truth shouldn’t fear any investigation, as they say., but you don’t think that there would be a problem with this, but as you’ve kind of stated already, in Germany it’s a law according to what happened and so if you question that law then it’s illegal by technicalities. So, of course, it’s a specific kind of circumstance in Germany. And some of the other Central European countries.

It’s not as bad in Sweden, as far as I understand it., but it’s still bad enough when it comes to the social ostracization that happens and that occurs when people start, you know, to question these kinds of things. So, you know, Sylvia Stolz is a good example of what could happen if you just basically try to defend someone who has questions about this kind of stuff.

What else was it that you looked at that made you, because as you say, I mean, people say:

“Well, okay. Now you’re a ‘Holocaust denier’.”

Which is, of course, a straw-man argument. It’s going to the furthest extreme that you possibly can, to try to basically demonize you as a person, instead of saying:

“What do you actually say? What do you propose?”

I see the line:

“Are you ‘Holocaust denier’, kind of like, ‘when did you stop beating your wife’?”

Like, there’s no way out of the situation. You’ve never denied that there wasn’t a campaign to, you know, round up jews in Germany in the 1930a, or that they, you know, lived, you know, through horrible conditions, or anything like that.

Ingrid: No.

Why Ingrid Began to Investigate the “Holocaust”

top

Henrik: There’s other aspects of it and it’s testimony, and things like that. What do you think people should reasonably, question? What was curious to you when you started looking into this?

[55:20]

Ingrid: Well the thing was that, you know, as all other westerners, I was told in school that, this and this happened and it’s the most horrible thing of all! And I remember as a child I asked my parents:

“Why they did they do this? Why did Hitler hate the jews? Why did the Germans do this?”

I don’t understand this! Just because they believed in another God? And the only answer I got was.

“Well, they went crazy!”

And, you know, I think this is what they want you to believe. They want you to believe that all the Germans they suddenly got crazy! The jews never did anything and Hitler was crazy, and he made all the German people crazy!

Shrunken Heads, Lampshades and Soap

top

But there was something that was stuck in my heart like, I don’t really understand it. I always need to understand why things happen. But for a lot of years I just shut it out, because it was, you know, it’s too dangerous to even get close to it. But what actually happened, when it started with the Barbara Spectre clip. Then I got some other clips and I went out on YouTube and I found other things, and then I realize there are some aspects of this “Holocaust” story that doesn’t add up!

For example, a lot of people still believe that the Nazis made soap and lampshades out of dead jews. This story has been debunked since, I think, many years by jewish historians, among them, Deborah Lipstadt. Who’s famous, because she was in a trial with “Holocaust denier” David Irving.

So Deborah Lipstadt and some other jewish historians, they have proved that this story about soap and lampshades, it’s not true! And even though they did it, most people still believe that the Nazis made soap and lampshades out of jewish bodies. And if you say to people that that is a lie, they go crazy on you. Then they start, you know, saying all sorts of horrible things to you. And it’s it doesn’t even help if you show them that jewish historians have said that this is a lie! This never happened! And they just don’t want to believe you.

Henrik: You know, there’s more, in like the accusations of the shrunken heads. I don’t knw if you saw that, that supposedly during the de-Nazification period they paraded all these objects, including the lampshades, as we can see here, but also shrunken heads! That the Nazis had nothing better to do [laughing] than to do, you know, these kinds of bizarre experiments after fighting a two front war, and basically are collapsing in on themselves. They have the time to, you know, shrink heads and do all these weird things, and it’s just preposterous!

[Image] A display of shrunken heads, tattooed skin, and a lampshade allegedly made from human skin being displayed at Buchenwald concentration camp, by the Allies for propaganda purposes. The table itself was apparently made from compressed jews, in what was then called, “jew board“.

And there’s other things surrounding this too, which I think proves that we should be allowed to question the so-called survivors, or eyewitness testimony! Because obviously, the reasoning dictates itself, none that are alive to tell the story we’re killed! [laughing] Right? That’s the logical conclusion with it! So they’ve seen something, or something with which which were resembles these kinds of things. Were there any of these eyewitness testimonies that stood out to you, Ingrid? As preposterous?

Oprah Winfrey Show and Rosenblatt’s Lies

top

Ingrid: Well, of course! I’ve seen a lot of them and, of course, I’ve seen the Henry, or what’s it called Rosenblat? He was famous. He was on the Oprah Winfrey Show telling the whole world about how his later wife, she was standing outside the fence of Auschwitz and throwing apples at him! And the whole world said:

“Oh, what a fantastic story!”

And then we found out that it was just a lie!

[59:45]

Henrik: So let’s play that here.

Announcer (male): The survival in the Nazi concentration camps. A story that is genuinely extraordinary! But as he explained to us in this exclusive interview he felt he needed to make things up to get people to pay attention.

Announcer (female): The Greatest Love Story Ever Told on this show!

Announcer (male): Herman Rosenblat received international attention for his story about being a hungry little boy in a Nazi concentration camp, who was thrown apples every day by a little girl on the other side of the fence. Years later according to this story, Rosenblat met that same girl on a blind date in New York City and he proposed on the spot.

Roma Rosenblat [wife]: They used to come by every day, bring the apples in my jacket and a piece of bread. And he used to say:

“I’ll see you tomorrow!”

Announcer (male): The story landed Herman and Roma Rosenblatt on Oprah twice, and in newspapers all over the world. They also got a book and movie deal! But the story wasn’t true!

Announcer (male): Why did you do it? Why did you tell such a big lie to so many people for so long?

Herman Rosenblat: It wasn’t a lie! It was my imagination. And in my imagination, in my mind, I believed it.

Henrik: What more can you say Ingrid? I mean [laughing]:

“In my mind I believed it!”

So therefore, whatever, it’s real right?

Jews Making up Stories for Their Cause

top

Ingrid: But this is actually scary! Because I have talked to jews, today, and talking to them about how come that again, and again, we see Jews talking about someone carving out, you know, the swastika on their doors and so on. And then the police find out that it wasn’t true. They did it themselves!

And when I talk to Jews, they say:

“Well, it doesn’t matter, because even if this wasn’t true, there is so much anti-Semitism, so it’s good that someone does it to point to the anti-Semitism!”

And, you know, I get, … I just, …

“What are you saying are you actually condoning people, you know, lying and making things up, because you think you have a bigger goal?”

And to me that is just like a crooked cop, you know, planting evidence, because he knows that this guy is the killer! So if we can’t frame him, if we can’t get him into prison, then more girls will be killed and raped and so on. So it’s a good thing that I plant this DNA, or something like that. And we will say:

“No! That’s not the way to do it. You’re a crooked cop! You can’t do this!”

But Jews, some jews, not all jews, but some jews, they think it’s good! Because even though it wasn’t true, they did the swastika themselves, but it was a good thing, because there was so much anti-Semitism! So it’s a good thing to “pretend” that this was true, because then the whole world would see how great anti-Semitism is!

Henrik: Right! Exactly! The Nazis are out there, it’s happening, this is really dangerous, you know, aspect, so we can basically kind of just add on a little bit to show people that it’s really their, right? But from our point of view then you’re like:

“Oh well, okay, well what else is wrong then, right? What else is an exaggerated, or what else can we should we be allowed to question here?”

Because, you know, there are a lot of other testimony too, and I think we can take a look at a couple of them to just kind of see, … Like people can make their own conclusions. We’re not trying to, you know, instill in you and tell you what to think about these things, we just want you to look, look honestly at these things and make up your own mind. And question, are these viable, you know, testimony, or is this reality that they’re describing here? Or are these exaggerations, right? So let’s take a look.

[64:05]

Spielberg’s Horror Stories for the Whole Family

top

Former inmate (Irene Zisblatt): The whole time I was in the camp through the experiments, every time I was selected I swallowed the diamonds. So every time I swallowed them, I had to find them again. We were allowed to go to the latrine once a day, and I never sat on the hole, because I had to go and find my diamonds. And when the SS woman walked by the door and she saw me in the corner, and I already had the diamonds in my hand. And usually I was waiting until on the way back I would rinse them off, like in the mud, or if there was no mud, in the soup that we were going to get next. But I had no time, and I had to swallow them.

Former inmate (female): Everybody’s telling you, they told us:

“Don’t eat, don’t eat, because it’s hard to die when they give you the gas, because your stomach is so full!”

Narrator (male): Shyfler visited a German pharmacy after the war to buy some soap:

Former inmate (Shyfler): And this was six months after the war! They were selling jew soap! Made from jew fat from the concentration camps! So tell me, who were the Germans!?”

British interviewer (female): Now when you got to Auschwitz with your mother you said she went into what you thought was a shower room, but actually it was a gas chamber!

Former inmate (female wearing gray jacket): We walked in, we were trembling. A little while later water came through. Ice-cold water, wonderful! We drunk it, we were so dry and thirsty. And we showered ourselves, and then the water stopped, we came out of there. And the women who worked there, screamed:

“Oh you are alive! How wonderful to see you!”

And was embracing us! I said:

“What are you told? Why you so shouting?“

They said:

“Don’t, you know, where you have been?”

I said:

“No, where?”

“You were in the gas-chamber!”

Former inmate (female wearing a black jacket): It’s just like a room. You can get a shower. With a shower-head and tiles. Made us strip naked. But, you know, that it’s not water coming out, but gas!

Former inmate (female wearing white pullover): We knew we were going to the gas chamber. But, by some miracle. I don’t know how, what then, water came down instead of the gas!

Former inmate (male wearing blue shirt): There were signs there on the wall that you should tie your shoes together, and hang them up with your clothes, so that [when] we come out of the … these disinfections, you can find them again. There were shower-heads in the ceiling, but never did any shower, any water come out of them. They were just to camouflage, of their real intentions.

Former inmate (female wearing white pullover): By some miracle, I don’t know how, what, then, water came down, instead of the gas!

Former inmate (Dr Edith Eva Eger): We didn’t never knew when we took a shower, whether water is going to come out, or gas!

Former inmate (Irene Zisblatt): So they said, for every person that’s going to take their lives, they’re going to torture to death, five of us!

Former inmate (Irene Zisblatt): Then they punished us for every man that ran to the wire, they took a hundred inmates and they killed them in front of everybody, as an example.

They didn’t even let us die when we wanted [to].

Voiceover (Eric Hunt): Spielberg’s character exaggerates twenty times from her original story, but screws up, and still holds up the same amount of fingers.

Former inmate (Dario Gabbai): You put about four [bodies], … It takes thirty, thirty to forty minutes to burn them.

Voiceover (Denier Bud): That would take more like four hours. He lies about the cremation rate to obscure the fact that fifteen ovens isn’t enough to handle two-thousand bodies. And when that’s established, the overall number of half a million, can’t be true either.

Because “Holocaust” historians tell us that Crematorium II wasn’t in operation until spring 1943 and ended in November 1944. It was only supposedly in operation for a year and a half.

They tell us that five hundred thousand people were killed in this building. But, because of the slow cremation rate, that’s not enough time to kill that many people. Fifteen ovens would not have been enough, even if they had been these computerized ovens.

So the first thing to notice is incredibly bad design. Two-thousand jews go in here, go through this narrow passage, into the gas-chamber.

Why not have it be above ground? This is the dressing-room, and this is the gas-chamber; and have four large doors between, so that five-hundred people can go through each door, totaling two-thousand. Then four large doors open up on the right side where there is a conveyor belt that takes the bodies to a blast-furnace. When the bodies here are removed, carts on wheels are then brought in for the heavy job of moving the seventeen-hundred remaining bodies to the conveyor belt.

“Carts on wheels”, because even a smaller man of a hundred and thirty-five pounds is equal to three plates in the gym, which is draggable, but slow going, and one would get tired quickly.

So how did they do it in this one hundred-foot, elongated-room? If say, they had seven-hundred bodies left to haul out, down at the end of the gas-chamber, and had to move them seventy-feet to the door?

Interviewer (female): So, when they would open the doors of the gas-chamber, whose job was it to take the bodies out?

Former inmate (Dario Gabbai): Well, they, they give us some… umm, canes. You reverse the cane and put them in their [mimics putting hook of can around his neck], and you drag them out. Because when the gas, they get very, very tight and it takes a long… a lot of force to be able to drag the bodies from the gas-chambers. You know, to put it in the elevator going on the second-floor.

[70:01]

Voiceover (Denier Bud): Dragging with canes instead of using wheels? Not believable!

There’s also the bad design of taking everyone underground just to have the problem of then taking all their bodies back up to ground level.

Former inmate (male with Aussie accent): The crematoriums were not big enough, and they could only burn about a thousand bodies each day. But in the pits, they could burn up to fifteen thousand! In the three pits, they were very large pits, around six to eight metres long, about two metres wide. And at each pit they threw in a thousand people! And it only took a few minutes to burn them completely! Maybe, thirty minutes, and they were completely burnt, or partly burnt. There were still a few hands, or feet that had fallen out to the side, and we had to put them back on the fire!

Former inmate (Irene Zisblatt): And a lot of us were lucky enough to be selected for work. I was selected for experiments. Fifteen of us one morning were selected. We had to undress outside. And we had, this doctor, this German doctor examined our body and what, … They were, … They took us out, because we had no blemished bodies. They wanted people with smooth skin and no blemishes on the skin.

Interviewer (female): Do you remember the name of the doctor that gave a [word unclear]?

Former inmate (Irene Zisblatt): No, it could have been Eichmann, it could have been Mengele. You know, after a while they all look the same.

And then finally we got to the fourth experiment, the third experiment. Which was, they selected the five of us and they, … Again with the smooth skin.

And she said:

“Well I hate to tell you this, but I think that, umm.. Ilse Koch, …”

That was taking the human skin and making gloves and lamp-shades, that she was coming to Majdanek to select her, her material for the lampshades. And we had the skin for it. And she said to me:

“Let’s go back to the barrack and not go here.”

And I said:

“Well, are they going to let us do that?”

And she says:

“No! They’ll gonna kill us! But it’s better to die here, than going to Majdanek and let them skin our skin.”

I said:

“They’re going to skin our skin? Why?”

And she said:

“Because there is a SS woman and she is a maniac! She has to be a maniac to do this! She likes human gloves made out of human skin, and lampshades, and God knows what else she, she does!”

Former inmate (female wearing patterned gray and white top): But there was an active underground in Auschwitz. And every day the women who worked in this gunpowder, with gunpowder in the factory, they smuggled out pinches of gunpowder, in very special crevices, in their bodies.

The news reached us, by way of the grapevine [smiling], that the reason we no longer can work in gas-chamber, in crematorium number four, is because it was blown up, and put out of action! We, we were jubilant!

Former inmate (female wearing red top): See they had a live orchestra, jewish people played live orchestra. And whenever a transport came, a new transport arrived — and they were making the selection and burning people — the music played!

Many times, for a long time, when I would hear music, I started to cry! People couldn’t understood why, and I love music. You can see I have lots of tapes and things, but, because I always remembered.

So, the barbarism! Can you imagine killing people and music playing? And with Mengele and with others, nurses were giving injections for xxx, because it wasn’t always the gas-chambers. I was told this, I didn’t experience, because when I came, unfortunately they had the gas-chambers. But before, they used the gas-vans, they gave injections. You know, in the heart.

Former inmate (female wearing black top): But suddenly SS, who was guarding me, you know, they had bayonets on their [rifles], and they ran up after the child. And he caught the child, he tore out the bottle of water, throw it away, and he tossed the child in the sky and picked it up on his bayonet! And he smashed his head against the wall!

[75:30]

[sound of piano playing]

Former inmate (female wearing pink top): They needed that long nails [gesturing with her hands about 30 cms (12 inches) apart]. At that size. And my little finger thick [the thickness of the nails] … and they nailed it in my head [gesturing the nail being hammered into the top of her head]. That was hurting like crazy! I was screaming! And I was going in a coma. And then I finally came out and there was that nail in there [in her head]. The Nazis did their [were] fleeing. So they nailed us to the boards, or hung us. I was hanged like that at the wall … and there was a chain here [gesturing around her neck] , that is made out of knives. So when you moved you cut yourself! That’s why I have that cut here on my chin [pointing just under her chin to no obvious mark].

Former inmate (female in red top): You know, some of the British jews who have beards would put, put on a kerchief. So they would hide the beard because, … I remember the first time when I saw, … They was pulling the hairs one by one. Another time I saw that they were, … They cut just a half, and then leave the others, just to mock us.

Interviewer (female): Can you describe for us the very first thing you remember when that door opened up to the wagon?

Former inmate (Dario Gabbai): The first thing that I remember is that the SS always is:

“Schnell! Schnell! Schnell!”

Right, … We got into line and there was Mengele. Was there, making the selection. Always with his two fingers.

Former inmate (Irene Zisblatt): I think that [scratching her head] was Mengele that took me out of there. And he just attached me to that xxx, and I went to the gas-chamber. And as I was going into the gas-chamber, … You know, everybody was being pushed into the gas-tank, to the gas-chamber. And I was going backwards, somehow I was being pushed backwards, … And I was like stuck in the door. And I don’t know, I guess God told me to do that.

Former inmate (female in red dress): Mengele stopped me, with his stick, and said:

“You! Come here!”

And I came, and he said:

“Are you jewish?”

And I was very tall for my age, I think that’s why he noticed me, also I had thick long, blonde, braids … and that was the typical Aryan girl, you know, the German ideas of the pure race. So that’s why he asked me if I was jewish, and I said:

“Yes, of course, I’m Jewish”.

So it’s such an insane thing to remember this, that Mengele who was sending thousands and thousands and probably tens of thousands to their death. Stopped and took time out to save my life at that moment, simply because I was blonde, and I had long braids and I had blue eyes, and maybe I looked like the Aryan ideal.

Voiceover (female): Dr Joseph Mengele, the notoriously evil Nazi doctor was looking for entertainment. The girls in the barracks volunteered. The only accomplished ballerina among them: Edith.

Former inmate (Dr. Edith Eva Eger): And I ended up dancing for Dr. Mengele! But I closed my eyes and I pretended that I was dancing the Romeo and Juliet at Budapest opera house.

Interviewer (female): That dancing for Mengele saved your life?

Former inmate (Dr. Edith Eva Eger): It did, and he gave me a piece of bread, which I shared with the girls.

TV show host (female): Some people you meet change you forever. She is one of them. Edith tells me that she still dances to this day. Her message of hope and love over evil has brought her to speak all over the world, and a book on her life is coming out.

[79:34]

Ingrid’s Response — You Need Evidence Not Just “Testimony”

top

Ingrid: OK. We saw some eyewitnesses. And that’s one of the, you know, the comments; most of the comments I’ve had on Facebook and Twitter after this, you know, this story about me being a “Holocaust denier”, which I’m not! But anyway. So many people say to me:

“Haven’t you seen the eyewitnesses? Just look at their stories and then you will understand! That this all happened just as they said it happened!”

And then I just want to ask you — how come that we know from so many research studies, that eyewitnesses are not to be trusted. That is why when you go to trial, the prosecutor needs to have real evidence. They cannot just trust the victim, if the victim is still alive, or someone who was an eyewitness. They need some forensic evidence, because you cannot trust eyewitnesses!

Everybody knows that. If it’s a trial about a killer, or rapist, or anything, you know, you cannot trust eyewitnesses. They can be part of the proof, but it cannot be the only proof. But still people say to me:

“You have to listen to the survivors. If you just listen to the survivors then you will understand that everything is true!”

And we have just seen so many survivors saying preposterous things! Everybody understands that this is not true! So, as it is all over the place, you cannot trust eyewitnesses!

The “Holocaust Industry”

top

Henrik: Yeah! I mean, some people say:

“Well, are you saying that some of these people, … Are you saying that they’re lying?”

And it’s like:

“Yeah, [laughing] that’s how simple it is!”

Actually I am because, you know, as Norman Finklestein, and others have pointed out, the “Holocaust” has actually become a history [an industry].

And much of Israel’s dependency on economic aid from Germany, for example, has been tremendously important, and it has actually [been] held up by this, by this industry, by the “Holocaust industry”. And again it doesn’t mean that there weren’t people that were hurt, or displaced, or you know, probably horrible things happened to them. It’s not about denying all, you know, those things separately. It’s about the fact that it has now, … The history itself has been weaved into a political agenda, an emotional agenda. In much bigger aspect. And I’m not saying …personally, I don’t know if these people are communicating with each other, and saying:

“Yeah, let’s lie about this!”

Or if it’s just, you know, they get fed these things?

You know, many of these people who speak out today, they were like five, six, seven years old, when some of the stuff happened! You know, they were young! They were, I mean, imagine yourself being, like being told at that age, what it was like for people, that your whole group, they want to exterminate your whole group! I mean, I can imagine that that’s traumatizing. I’ve seen footage of Israelis going to, you know, Auschwitz and these places, and literally being, like, induced into this emotional state of what you’re supposed to feel when you’re there, and things like this.

I’m not saying it’s easy for some of those young people, they’re going through this programming today, either. But nonetheless, we have to be in a position where we can gather these testimonies, gather these stories, and say:

“Listen, this is enough of evidence for us to initiate an interest, to look into this further.”

I mean, even look at it from an insurance point of view, claim. Right, that if they’re now receiving money from this, an insurance company would continue to question your claim, again, and again, to make sure that you’re not lying when you’re receiving money. So I think that this is a healthy approach, that we should have to this issue, and especially when people are being caught lying. That’s a red flag and a herring in itself, and that we have to follow through on. Right?

Ingrid: Yeah, yeah absolutely! And I don’t believe, you know, they say that:

“Well what do you think, that all the Jews in the world are in sort of a world conspiracy?”

No! I don’t think that! I think that stories like this make people, you know, there are some people who are very easily, what’s it called, “suggestible? ”

Henrik: Right.

We Have an Obligation to Look into Things

top

Ingrid: Yeah. And if you are a Jew, and maybe you feel that you too want to be part of this story, you want people to feel sorry for you, you want to become someone, you want to be special! Then you start thinking about this, and you say, — well like the crooked cop, you say:

“Well, maybe I didn’t experience this, but somebody else did! So it’s OK for me to do it.”

And you have, … All these people are not like that! That’s not what I’m saying. But among these people, of course, there are some who will, you know, take advantage of this story, and that is why I tell everybody:

“Don’t believe everything you hear, everything you read, there are some things about this story that doesn’t add up and you have a responsibility for yourself!”

If you are European, and you care about your own people, because we are the ones that are constantly being bashed, for you know, we did this, OK we didn’t do, but our parents, or our grandparents. And so we are, you know, we are in a position where we can’t even defend ourselves, so therefore we have an obligation to look into this, to see what is right, and what is wrong. That is all I’m saying! We as intelligent people, we have to look into this story, we can’t just let other people say to us:

“You did this, and end of story! And don’t question it! Because if you do, you are an anti-Semite, and you will start gassing jews again!”

We can’t stand that anymore!

[85:55]

The “Six Million” Story Goes Back to the Late 1880s

top

Henrik: I totally agree! I think it’s a way that we can question these things in a rational way which it’s not, you know, hateful, or completely irrational, or out of left field. I think it’s, as [with] all subjects, there is intelligent approach to it and you question it, and you go through it methodically, and just like anything. But, there are a lot of, you know, strange things around this.

I mean, even we were talking before we came on here, Ingrid, about, for example, the six-million figure itself. I remember seeing a video a couple of years ago, someone pointed out all these papers going back to as early as, … This particular one is from one 1915. But there’s even back to the late 1800s, where they actually discuss this issue in the papers, that six-million Jews have been, you know, targeted in some way. And it’s and it’s paper, after paper, after paper!

And these makes you kind of question as well, right? It was, like whoa, … wait, wait a minute, if this is not true back then with those six million, how can we, … how can we know that it’s true … the latest incarnation that they said, that this was true?

What do you think about something, when you see this kind of stuff?

Ingrid: Well, you know, I was brought up with “six-million Jews who were gassed to death”. And I thought of everybody who questioned that was a crazy person, or a cruel person, a horrible person, an evil person!

So it was really, really, hard for me to even start looking into this. But then I found out, as you said, when I saw all these newspapers talking about “six-million Jews are to perish”, because of starvation, and a lot of different things. So apparently six-million Jews is sort of a holy figure in Judaism.

And then I found out that after the war the Red Cross, they made in a list of how many people they estimated had died in the concentration camps. And I think that was about three, or four hundred thousand people [300,000 – 400,000] . And that was the official figure for many years. And then suddenly something happened. And then the figure six million came up. And how did they come up with the figure six million? Well, they counted the deaths in the so-called extermination camps, and the worst of them was Auschwitz, and the Russians who then occupied Poland, where Auschwitz is situated, they said that four-million people were killed in Auschwitz.

Four Million Dead in Auschwitz Becomes 1.1 Million

top

So the Russians said six million. Among them were four million from Auschwitz and the allies said six million, and among them were four million in Auschwitz. Then when the wall [Berlin Wall] came down, and Poland and Russia became democracies, and the communism was gone; then Auschwitz [Museum] said:

“No, four million was wrong!”

So they took it down to one and a half million! And now it’s 1.1 million. But still the total is six million jews! And maybe I am totally stupid Henrik, but I don’t understand if you have six million, and you take almost three million from that total, and you still have six million! Can you explain that to me? Because I really don’t get it!

[Click image to enlarge]

[89:39]

Henrik: Yeah, I don’t get it either, it’s very strange. You know, that they can change so radically in millions of numbers are changed. And yet after all just the overarching picture of how many perished in this atrocity of World War II. Why does it remain the same? I mean, it’s a reasonable question, it’s a logical question to ask.

And as you said it … many people go to this route:

“Well, it’s not about that!” or “that doesn’t matter!”

Actually it does matter, it does very much matter! What is it, what is true? I mean, if this is a documented, you know, provable extermination campaign, I think we should know about that, and that evidence for that should be should be presented, instead of us solely relying on somewhat dubious testimony, and what seems to be kind of an occult esoteric number that they’ve been trying to kind of put forth for a for many, many years, for decades before this was supposedly happened.

So I have a lot of questions. I don’t know! I don’t have all the stories about this. I simply just think that there’s a lot of things around us that we simply don’t know. We’ve been through it, … you have economic incentive, political incentive, you have, you know, a number of different things and it’s become what they call a Gordian knot today. It’s like almost an unsolvable, difficult, you know, labyrinth to go through.

But I think we have enough material that suggests that something is not quite right! Something is not as we’re being told. Now exactly what the truth is, that I think we should continue to investigate, and try to find out what was it, right?

Ingrid: Of course! That is the only thing I want. I don’t deny that there was a “Holocaust”! I don’t say that everything that we have been told is a lie. I just say I have seen some things that doesn’t add up! I have seen things that are lies! I have seen things that I don’t believe in, because they are preposterous.

So let’s, … Why don’t we let historians dig into this and really see; are these people, the so-called “holocaust deniers”, like David Irving and Faurisson, and whatever their names are. Why don’t you, … You put together a group of people trying to find out what really happened! Why is this so difficult? Why is this so dangerous?

Henrik: We could go on about this for a long time, there’s a lot of material. People have been talking about this for decades. We’re not going to solve it in a one half-hour show, it’s just ridiculous to perceive [expect] that. I just hope that we’ve encouraged the viewer, or aroused enough curiosity, that the viewer themselves [to] say:

“OK, well I’m going to look into some of the things that they say.”

And investigate for themselves. As opposed to you saying:

“You know what? You guys are crazy! You’re hateful bigots! And I’m not going to listen to what you say!”

Do some investigations! Look into it for yourself! See what your conclusion is. Is there any truth to this, right? We just want to arouse, interest in this topic and it shouldn’t be, you know, off the table to question these kinds of things.

What Has the Impact of Your Investigations Been on You Personally?

top

But I think Ingrid, one of the more important things I wanted to ask you about, is just kind of on a personal note, how the impact of this has been for you? For, as you said before, I mean, you’ve looked into, you know, what happened, you know, when you were starting to look at the Muslim question and mass immigration into Sweden, and all these kinds of things. What happened this time when you started looking at this kind of stuff? And how was the reactions, and how were you met?

Ingrid: Well what was, … What really happened was that, of course, I knew that when this came up, it doesn’t matter how small the matter, if you say something about that you don’t really believe everything about the Holocaust, then you will be trashed! A lot of people will hate you. But what happened was that a lot of my friends, sort of, Facebook friends, and so on, who really have been applauding my work against Islamisation, they suddenly said:

“We hate you!”

It’s not, … They don’t ask me:

“Why are you doing this? Can you tell me what’s happened? What did you find out?”

They’re not curious — they just say:

“I hate you! You’ve done something so horrible! Now you have proven that you are a horrible person!”

So they don’t care, that they have been following me, applauding me for five, or six years. Suddenly, in an hour, I am a horrible person, because I’m saying something that they don’t like. So then I am off the table!

“…. the Establishment Are Lying About Practically Everything!”

top

Henrik: What would you like, you know, people to know about? Either if it’s the subject, or maybe even yourself in terms of like, I mean, … I know you’re not a hateful person. I know all these things. I know what a kind, warm person, how funny you are. It’s not about any of these, any of these character assassinations that comes in the wake of something like this, we know that it’s all lies. I mean, listen! We know that the establishment are lying about practically everything! And we’re onto to some of these people, and we’re questioning them, and we’re trying to put them up against a wall and say:

“Listen! You have some stuff to answer for here!”

That’s all we’re doing.

I think that this is a reflection of their insecurity, and them just not, you know, accepting a different perspective and so forth. But what would you like the viewer to something, … and the listener to something like this, to kind of take away with them? You know, after we’ve talked about all these very emotional and difficult topics, Ingrid?

[95:18]

“My Greatest Hope”

top

Ingrid: Well, my greatest hope is that people start thinking for themselves!

If we are going to save Europe, we all have to start thinking! Don’t just believe what people are saying to you! Don’t believe the politicians! Don’t believe the journalists! Don’t believe the teachers! Don’t believe the lobbyists! Don’t believe anyone! Be skeptical!

And it has never been so easy to find out things, as it is today. There is a whole internet out there. And on YouTube you can find so many movies. And I don’t say:

“Go and see one movie and then you find the truth!”

No, you have to watch a lot of them, and you have to think, you have to think for yourself!

Watch a lot of people, watch a lot of movies and think! And then you come up to a conclusion. And I am sure your conclusion will be:

“There is something fishy here, and I want a big investigation. I want to know the truth!”

Henrik: I think that’s very reasonable Ingrid.

And I just want to personally say thank you for being brave enough to talk about this, for a subject so many people shy away from. I think it’s a true heroic stance, considering the fact that it is just such a difficult area to go into. And I don’t wish upon anyone, the things that some of these people have been subjected to. You know, throughout the decades for simply bringing valid points to the table.

I think again, just to go back to that last point and we’ll wrap this up after this, but, you know, I think that they are in a defensive position.

I think that they are so terrified of people questioning more about this event that they have to go to legislation to try to shut people down, and imprison them, and set examples for other people to say:

“You don’t touch on this subject!”

Because then, you know, what is going to happen.

Ultimately though I think it’s a false tactic, I think it’s a failing tactic! Because, the more you try to shut people down, guess what? The more they are going to want to try to find out the truth. And if someone tells you:

“You can visit any room in this apartment, but don’t go in through, you know, door number three, here, in the hallway!”

That’s all you going to want to do, you know! What is behind that door? Let me peer behind it. It’s what curious, interested people do. And that’s all we’re asking here folks, to be allowed to look at, and say, you know, make up our own mind, and make our own determination about what actually happened there.

So thank you Ingrid for being brave! Thank you for coming on, clarifying this to us, to the viewer, of what it is that you’re actually, what you actually think about this; as opposed to buying, you know, the BS that everyone else is trying to claim, that what you think, or what your opinion is about this stuff is.

So, thank you again.

Ingrid: Thank you!

[100:06]

END

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

PDF Download

top

PDF Notes

Version 1: Published Mar 24, 2018

* Total words = 16,611
* Total Images = 44
* Total pages = 99

Click to download a PDF of this post (6.5 MB):

Red Ice TV – Ingrid Carlqvist – Scandal – TRANSCRIPT

Version History

top

Version 15: Jan 29, 2023 — Fixed image links. Improved formatting of quotes.

Version 14: Jul 26, 2020 — Added Table of Contents with links.

Version 13: Jul 9, 2020 — Improved formatting.

Version 12: Jan 31, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version. Added See Also links.

Version 11: Mar 24, 2018 — Improved formatting. Added PDF of post for download.

Version 10: Jul 23, 2017 — Added more images.

Version 9: Jul 22, 2017 — Added 25 more minutes (with special thanks to Helena for that). Total proofed = 100 mins. TRANSCRIPT NOW COMPLETE!

Version 8: Jul 18, 2017 — Added 10 more minutes (with thanks to Helena for that). Total proofed = 75 mins.

Version 7: Jul 17, 2017 — Added more images. Proofed 5 more minutes. Total proofed = 65 mins.

Version 6: Jul 16, 2017 — Improved formatting. Proofed 5 more minutes. Total proofed = 60 mins.

Version 5: May 16, 2017 — proofed 10 minutes. Total proofed = 55 mins.

Version 4: May 11, 2017 — proofed 7 minutes. Added one image. Total proofed = 45 mins.

Version 3: May 6, 2017 — proofed 10 minutes. Added images. Total proofed = 38 mins.

Version 2: May 5, 2017 — proofed 20 minutes. Added images. Sannhet from CODOH did 3 minutes. Total proofed = 28 mins.

Version 1: May 2, 2017 — created post. First 5 minutes proofed.

Book – The Myth of German Villainy – Part 18 – The Phony War

admin — Sun, 02 Apr 2017 12:40:15 +0000

[Part 18]

[Benton Bradberry’s 2012 book, “The Myth of German Villainy” is a superb, must-read, revisionist look at how the German people have been systematically, relentlessly and most importantly, unjustly vilified as the arch criminal of the 20th century. Bradberry sets out, coolly and calmly as befits a former US-Navy officer and pilot, to show why and how the German people have been falsely accused of massive crimes and that their chief accuser and tormentor, organized jewry is in fact the real party guilty of monstrous crimes against Germans and the rest of the world.

In Part 18, the period between September 1939 and April 1940, known in America as the Phony War, in Britain as the Twilight War, and in Germany as the Sitzkrieg is discussed, with emphasis on the Russo-Finnish War, the German Norway/Denmark Campaign, the German invasion of Denmark and Norway, and Churchill replacing Chamberlain as Prime Minister.

Churchill, as First Lord of the Admiralty, unilaterally took it upon himself to order the mining of Norwegian coastal waters for the purpose of blocking German iron ore shipments. This was a flagrant violation of Norway’s neutrality, and it posed an intolerable threat to Germany. Germany reacted quickly by invading Denmark to facilitate the invasion of Norway. With the help of the German sympathizer Vidkun Quisling, head of the Norwegian National Socialist Party, the Norwegian armed forces stopped resisting the Germans and soon Norway was occupied by Germans and the subsequent British invasion was repelled.

Churchill’s failure in Norway was then used by the pro-war faction to replace Chamberlain with Churchill as the Prime Minister — KATANA.]

NOTE: The author has very generously given me permission to reproduce the material here — KATANA.

The book can be bought at Amazon here: The Myth of German Villainy

The Myth of

German Villainy

by

Benton L. Bradberry

[Clicking on a link in the Contents here will take you to that Part, in a separate post]

[Part 01]

Preface

Chapter 1 – The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Germany’s Positive Image Changes Overnight

[Part 02]

Chapter 2 – Aftermath of the War in Germany

The Versailles Treaty

Effect of the Treaty on the German Economy

Was the War Guilt Clause Fair?

Did Germany Really Start the War?

[Part 03]

Chapter 3 – The Jewish Factor in the War

Jews at the Paris Peace Conference

Jews in Britain

[Part 04]

Chapter 4 – The Russian Revolution of 1917

Bolsheviks Take Control

Jews and the Russian Revolution

Origin of East European Jews

Reason for the Russian Pogroms Against the Jews

Jews Leave Russia for America

Financing the 1917 Revolution

Jews in the Government of Bolshevik Russia

[Part 05]

Chapter 5 – The Red Terror

Creation of the Gulag

Bolsheviks Kill the Czar

Jews as a Hostile Elite

The Ukrainian Famine (Holodomor)

[Part 06]

Chapter 6 – The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads Throughout Europe

Jews in the Hungarian Revolution

Miklos Horthy Saves Hungary

Jews in the German Revolution

The Spartacist Uprising in Berlin

Jewish Bolsheviks Attempt to Take Italy

Jewish Bolsheviks Attempt to Take Spain — The Spanish Civil War

Czechoslovakia in Danger of Communist Takeover

The Comintern’s Aim? World Domination!

[Part 07]

Chapter 7 – The Nation of Israel

History of the Expulsion of Jews

[Part 08]

Chapter 8 – Jews in Weimar Germany

Jews Undermine German Culture

[Part 09]

Chapter 9 – Hitler & National Socialists Rise to Power

The 25 Points of the National Socialist Party

[Part 10]

Chapter 10 – National Socialism vs. Communism

National Socialism

Jews Plan Marxist Utopia

[Part 11]

Chapter 11 – Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Text of Untermeyer’s Speech in New York

The Jewish Persecution Myth

Effect of Boycott on the German Economy

Jewish Exaggerations are Contradicted by Many

[Part 12]

Chapter 12 – The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

The Nuremberg Laws – 1935

The Zionist Movement

[Part 13]

Chapter 13 – Life in Germany Under Hitler

Night of the Long Knives

1934 Annual Nazi Rally at Nuremberg

Hitler Revives the German Economy

Hitler Becomes the Most Popular Leader in the World

[Part 14]

Chapter 14 – Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory

Chapter 15 – The 1936 Olympics

[Part 15]

Chapter 16 – “Anschluss”. The Unification of Austria and Germany

Austrian Economy Revived

Austria’s Jews

[Part 16]

Chapter 17 – Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

[Part 17]

Chapter 18 – War with Poland

The Polish Problem

Hitler’s Proposal to Poland

Kristallnacht

German-Polish Talks Continue

Jews Influence both Roosevelt and Churchill

British and American Political Leaders Under Jewish Influence

Roosevelt’s Contribution to Hostilities

Lord Halifax Beats the War Drums

Germany Occupies Bohemia and Moravia

Roosevelt Pushes for War

Anti-war Movement Becomes Active

Poles Murder German Nationals Within the Corridor

[Part 18]

Chapter 19 – The Phony War

Russo-Finnish War

The Norway/Denmark Campaign

German Invasion of Denmark and Norway

Churchill Takes Chamberlain’s Place as Prime Minister

[Part 19]

Chapter 20 – Germany invades France Through the Low Countries

The Phony War Ends.

Churchill the War Lover

The Fall of France

Hitler Makes Peace Offer to Britain

[Part 20]

Chapter 21 – The Allied Goal? Destruction of Germany!

[Part 21]

Chapter 22 – Germany as Victim

Rape and Slaughter

Jewish Vengeance

The Jewish Brigade

[Part 22]

Chapter 23 – Winners and Losers

Bibliography

Chapter 19 The Phony War

Hitler was convinced that the future of Western civilization depended on the close cooperation of Germany with other European states, but particularly with her Aryan cousins, Britain and America. To Hitler, the big existential threat to Western civilization was Communist Russia, which he regarded as the base of Jewish world ambitions. He came to this conclusion as a young man when he first became interested in politics. He watched as the Bolshevik Jews took control of Russia and then launched their Red Terror. He watched as Jewish-led Communist revolutions sprang up all over Europe, which were organized and funded by the Comintern based in Russia, and backed by international Jewish banks. He came to power in Germany as an anti-Communist, and saw it as his life’s mission to fight Communism and to raise Germany up as a bulwark against the tidal wave of Jewish Communism which threatened to sweep over Christian Europe. He made every attempt to forge alliances with Britain and to have good relations with the United States, and was dismayed that his overtures were spurned at every turn. He was distressed and saddened that the threat to Western civilization posed by Communist Russia was not as obvious to the leaders of Britain and the United States as it was to him.

Hitler saw it as inevitable that Germany would eventually end up in a war with Communist Russia. It was only a matter of when, not whether. Soviet leaders were of the same mind. Hitler was convinced that Communist Russia would invade Europe, Germany first, at some time in the not too distant future whenever the Soviets felt strong enough to do so. When that day came, what he wanted more than anything was to avoid another two front war. Hitler had every interest from that standpoint alone in establishing and maintaining friendly relations with the other Western powers, particularly with Britain and the United States, in order to avoid any such likelihood. But he also wanted good relations with the other European nations because he believed that they each, like Germany, were an integral part of Western Christian Civilization, under siege by atheistic Jewish Bolshevism. The last thing Hitler wanted was a war with Britain and France. Pulitzer Prize winning author Louis Kilzer confirms this in his book, “Churchill’s Deception” – Simon & Schuster, (1994):

“‘Hitler did not want a world war, and had no stomach for fighting England,’ he wrote. But powerful forces in Britain and France wanted a war with Germany.”

Though Britain and France were in no position to intervene in Poland, they wasted no time in initiating military actions against Germany. The very next day after Britain and France declared war on Germany (September 3, 1939), RAF bombers bombed German warships in the Helgoland Bight (where the Elbe River flows into the North Sea). On September 7 the French crossed into the Rhine River Valley with 40 divisions to begin the “Saar Offensive,” but that effort was only half hearted and the offensive stopped just short of Germany’s defensive positions, known as the Siegfried Line, with only a few insignificant skirmishes taking place. The German army was preoccupied with the Polish war and did not mount a counter attack. No effort was made to oppose Germany’s occupation of Poland. So began an interlude variously known, in America as the Phony War, in Britain as the Twilight War, and in Germany as the Sitzkrieg, which began in September, 1939 and lasted until April, 1940. At times the situation seemed almost like a truce.

Nothing was happening on land, though a ferocious sea war was underway which became known as the Battle of the Atlantic. Britain’s great strength was her navy and she, along with France, immediately set up a total naval blockade to prevent shipments of any kind from either entering or leaving Germany. This was similar to the total blockade of World War I, which starved Germany into submission. Germany retaliated against the blockade with her submarine force.

[Add. image] SS Athenia seen in Montreal Harbour – 1933 Credit National Archives of Canada.

The first shot of the Battle of the Atlantic was fired on September 3, 1939 when a German U-boat sank the British liner, the SS Athenia, off the coast of Ireland. When France and Britain declared war on Germany, Hitler was still hopeful of a diplomatic resolution. He believed that after the Polish campaign was completed and matters settled down again that he might be able to dissuade France and Britain from war. For that reason, he wanted to avoid provocations of any kind, and issued strict orders forbidding U-boat attacks on non-military ships. Unfortunately, the first ship to be sunk by a U-boat was the passenger liner Athena, which was a violation of Hitler’s order.

[Add. image] The sinking of the SS Athenia as reported in the New York Times.

As Hitler had expected, this produced outrage among the Allies, as well as in neutral countries. The sinking of the Athena created the false impression that Germany intended to engage in unrestricted submarine warfare, as she had done during the First World War. But the sinking was done in error at dusk when it was difficult to see. The U-boat commander believed that the Athena was a warship. Hitler was furious, but the damage was done and no action was taken against the submarine captain.

On September 18, another German submarine sank the British aircraft carrier Courageous off the Scottish coast.

[Add. image] British aircraft carrier HMS Courageous, (22,500 tons), hit by two torpedoes of U-29 on Sept. 17 1939 south-west of Ireland . Sinking lasted 17 Minutes. 518 dead and 741 survivors.

When the war in Poland came to a quick end on September 27, 1939, Hitler made a peace offer to Britain and France, but it was rejected by both. Churchill by now was back in the government in Britain as the First Lord of the Admiralty, and openly clamored for all out war against Germany. He held Germany’s invasion of Poland up as proof that he had been right all along in warning of the Nazis plan to conquer the world. But, as described in previous chapters, Hitler had no such intention, and had no designs whatever on any West European state. Churchill and his gang of war mongers, including Duff Cooper, Lord Halifax, Anthony Eden, Robert Vansittart, and the Jewish controlled press, were working overtime whipping up war hysteria, nevertheless.

The Allied strategy during the Phony War was to hold defensive positions on land while maintaining its naval blockade to weaken the German economy, and to wage naval war. The British and French continued to re-arm at a rapid rate, and a sizable British expeditionary force was sent over to France. Belgium and the Netherlands were determined to stay out of the war. They maintained strict neutrality and refused to submit to pressure from Britain and France to move their troops into their countries.

[Add. image] Painting “The Bull of Scapa Flow: Günther Prien, the U-47, and the Attack on HMS Royal Oak”, by Don Hollway

[Add. image] A U-boat scene from the movie, “Das Boot“.

On the 8th of October three U-boats were sunk by the British and another was sunk on October 13. On October 14, in retaliation, a German U-boat entered Scapa Flow and sank the British battleship Royal Oak while it was at anchor. Nothing was happening as yet on land, though the air and naval war expanded furiously. German U-boats stepped up their attacks on British merchant shipping, causing worrying losses.

[Add. image] “Der Alte” Kapitänleutnant Günther Prien Commanding Officer, U-47. Despite a short career, one of the greatest U-boat aces of WWII.

The pocket battleship Admiral Graf Spee conducted a particularly destructive raid in the southern Atlantic ocean, destroying nine merchant ships in the fall of 1939. The British cruisers Exeter and Ajax and the New Zealand cruiser Achilles damaged the Graf Spee in a battle off the coast of Uruguay on December 13. The German ship took refuge in the neutral port of Montevideo, Uruguay, where, the Uruguayans insisted, it could remain for only 72 hours. Faced with certain destruction by the Allied ships waiting in international waters just outside the harbor, the captain of the Graf Spee ordered it scuttled in the harbor on December 17.

Russo-Finnish War

Despite the German/Soviet non-aggression pact, Stalin did not trust the Germans, and worried about Russia’s vulnerability to a possible German attack through the Baltic countries. In September and October, 1939, Stalin set about to close off this route by pressuring the tiny countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania into agreeing to permit Soviet troops to be stationed in their territories. On October 7 the Soviets demanded that Finland give up some of its territory for stationing of Russian troops and also demanded the use of Finland’s Hang naval base, all in exchange for Soviet territory on Finland’s eastern border. Finland agreed to everything except for the use of her naval base, but Russia persisted. These negotiations ended on November 30 when the Soviet Union invaded Finland.

[Add. image] A Finnish machine gun crew during the Winter War. The Winter War was a military conflict between the Soviet Union and Finland in 1939–1940. It began with the Soviet invasion of Finland on 30 November 1939 (three months after the outbreak of World War II), and ended with the Moscow Peace Treaty on 13 March 1940. The League of Nations deemed the attack illegal and expelled the Soviet Union from the League on 14 December 1939. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

Although outnumbered and poorly equipped, the Finns were tough and well trained, and to everyone’s surprise, threw back the much larger Soviet forces. It turned out that Stalin’s purge of his military officers in 1937, during which approximately 30,000 Russian officers were murdered, had severely weakened the Soviet army, a point which Hitler took careful note of. But the Soviets reorganized, and in January, 1940 mounted another offensive, this time with more success.

[Add. image] Frozen Russian soldier propped upright by Finnish troops during the Winter War as a warning to other Russian troops.

On March 12, 1940, Finland signed a peace treaty and was forced to surrender all the Soviets had originally demanded, plus more. Finland gained nothing in the end by resisting the Soviet demands. Britain and France were working out ways to come to Finland’s aid against the Soviets but before plans were completed, Finland had capitulated.

The Norway/Denmark Campaign

[Add. image] Molotov signing a deal between the Soviet Union and the short-lived puppet state Finnish Democratic Republic, which existed on occupied territories during the Winter War.

[Add. image] Areas ceded by Finland to the Soviet Union.The Norway/Denmark Campaign

When Britain and France declared war on Germany on September 3, 1939, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland immediately announced their neutrality. By so doing, these Scandinavian countries were following a policy they had adhered to since the mid-nineteenth century. In response, the German government formally agreed to respect Norway’s neutrality, but added that it would not tolerate infringement of Norway’s neutrality by a third power, meaning, of course, Britain.

Germany’s economy depended on the 11 million tons of iron ore imported from Sweden each year, about half of which passed through the ice-free Norwegian port of Narvik. As long as Norway remained neutral, German ore ships could travel safely from Narvik to Germany, remaining inside Norwegian waters by wending their way through the numberless islands fringing the Norwegian east coast. They were thereby unhindered by the British blockade. But the Altmark incident of February 16, 1940, during which Norwegian gunboats stood by and allowed a British destroyer to board a German transport ship — the Altmark — within Norwegian waters, caused Hitler to doubt that Norway could maintain her neutrality in the face of British determination and aggressiveness.

[Add. image] Vidkun Quisling (July 18, 1887 – October 24, 1945) was a Norwegian army officer and nationalist politician. He was Minister President in Norway from February 1942 to the end of World War II. In the course of the victor’s trials following the war, Quisling, along with two other Nasjonal Samling leaders, Albert Viljam Hagelin and Ragnar Skancke, was convicted of high treason and executed by firing squad at Akershus Fortress. The charges were based on his support of the German invasion in April 1940, his revocation of the mobilisation order, his encouragement of Norwegians to serve in the Norwegian SS division, and his assistance in the deportation of Jews. Source: http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Vidkun_Quisling

The head of the National Socialist Party in Norway, was the German sympathizer Vidkun Quisling, who repeatedly warned the Germans of Britain’s intention to invade and occupy Norway. A British invasion of Norway, which could then easily be extended into Sweden, would completely cut off Germany’s essential iron ore supply, thus crippling Germany’s manufacturing industry. As First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill was now openly proposing an invasion of Norway, though Prime Minister Chamberlain, who was far less enthusiastic for war than Churchill, was still indecisive in the matter. On April 8, 1940, as First Lord of the Admiralty, Churchill unilaterally took it upon himself to order the mining of Norwegian coastal waters for the purpose of blocking these German iron ore shipments. This was a flagrant violation of Norway’s neutrality, and it posed an intolerable threat to Germany.

Germany had already worked out a contingency plan for just such an eventuality and reacted swiftly once it occurred. On April 9, the next day after Churchill’s order to mine the Norwegian coastal waters, German troops began to pour into Denmark, overwhelming the surprised Danes who quickly surrendered. Germany invaded Denmark because she needed the northern Danish airports to facilitate her simultaneous invasion of Norway.

German Invasion of Denmark and Norway

Troop laden German transports, escorted by Luftwaffe aircraft, immediately sailed for Oslo, and German paratroopers were dropped on Norwegian airfields. The paratroopers quickly seized control of all the airfields around Oslo and German planes began pouring in, while German naval forces landed troops in numerous locations along the Norwegian coast, including Narvik. The German landings were mostly unopposed because immediately after the Germany invasion began, German sympathizer Vidkun Quisling, head of the Norwegian National Socialist party, proclaimed himself the new head of government, and ordered the Norwegian armed forces to stop resisting. The entire operation went off without a hitch, and was a testament to the quality and skill of Germany’s military leadership, and to the efficiency and discipline of German military personnel.

Map showing invasion of Denmark and Norway. [Click to enlarge]

German troops boarding a plane for Norway

German troops off-load at Norwegian ports

[Add. image] German troops occupy a Norwegian airfield.

[Add. image] A German U-boat enters a Norwegian harbour in July 1942 to a welcome party.

[Add. image] Parachute jumpers in Norway, 1940.

Troop laden Luftwaffe planes entering Norway

[DENMARK, 1940. German Junker Ju-52 transport planes in flight over a Danish village during the German invasion of Denmark and Norway in World War II, April 1940.]

Vidkun Quisling, head of the Norwegian National Socialist Party, welcomes German troops to Norway.

********

[Add. image] German SS Norwegian officer.

The sea battle went a little differently, however. The first German losses occurred at Oslo Fjord, where Norwegians opened fire from coastal defense batteries at close range. On the first morning of the sea war, the German heavy cruiser Blucher was sunk with the loss of most of her crew. Another German cruiser was also damaged, and a German torpedo boat was sunk. At Narvik, a naval engagement on April 10 between British and German ships resulted in the sinking of two German destroyers, with 5 others seriously damaged. The British also lost two destroyers in the engagement.

Three days later a British naval force consisting of a battleship, an aircraft carrier and several destroyers destroyed the remaining German ships with surface and air attacks. Despite this naval disaster, 2,000 German troops got ashore and took Narvik. The British landed troops and clashed with the Germans at different locations, but the British lost at every contested point. In the end the British were forced to retreat and then withdraw from Norway entirely. On June 10, 1940, Norway capitulated and fell under the control of Germany. Germany was thus assured of an uninterrupted supply of iron ore, but the occupation of Norway also enabled Germany to protect her exposed northern flank against an Allied invasion.

Churchill Takes Chamberlain’s

Place as Prime Minister

The most significant casualty of the Norwegian campaign was Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. The British disaster in Norway triggered a two day Parliamentary debate, which took place on the 7th and 8th of May, to decide what to do about the matter. In the debate, those who had long been clamoring for war accused Chamberlain of vacillation and indecisiveness, and of being too weak to “stand up to Hitler.” He was blamed for the Norway blunder, even though the entire operation had been exclusively in Churchill’s hands, and if anyone was to be held accountable, it should have been him. (Churchill’s entire career in fact had been marked by a series of such military blunders.) A mood of war hysteria was created in the debate by Churchill and his supporters, and it was resolved that “Germany had to be stopped!” Churchill and those clamoring for war characterized Germany’s invasion of Denmark and Norway as just more irrefutable evidence of Hitler’s plan to conquer the world, as they had already repeatedly warned about. In reality their warnings had been only self-fulfilling prophecies. Britain was the relentless provocateur.

Germany’s military initiatives in all cases were “reactive” in nature. Germany would have preferred not to have invaded Denmark and Norway and only did so because Britain was planning to do so and because of Britain’s violation of Norway’s neutrality. Germany’s vital iron ore supply had to be protected at all cost. Moreover, Britain was conducting a blockade of Germany, not the other way around.

As a result of the debate, it was generally resolved that Germany had to be stopped, but it was also agreed that Chamberlain was not the man to do it. At the end of the debate, Chamberlain received a no-confidence vote, and subsequently stepped down as Prime Minister. The next day Winston Churchill took his place, and formed a coalition government to include all political parties. Churchill asserted that all political parties must work together to support the war effort.

[END of Part 18]

______________________________

PDF Notes

* Total words = 4,608

* Total A4 pages = 36

*Total images = 21

Note: Images not in original book are indicated as “[Add. image]” (Additional image).

Text in [square brackets] is not part of the original book.

*Special thanks to reader “mblaine” for providing the text for this book.

Click to download a PDF of this post (3.0 MB).

The Myth of Germany Villainy – Part 18

Click on a link to go to another part:

[Click images to enlarge]

Part 01 — Cover text; About the Author; Preface; Chapter 1: The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Part 02 — Chapter 2: Aftermath of the War in Germany

Part 03 — Chapter 3: The Jewish Factor in the War

Part 04 — Chapter 4: The Russian Revolution of 1917

Part 05 — Chapter 5: The Red Terror

Part 06 — Chapter 6: The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads Throughout Europe

Part 07 — Chapter 7: The Nation of Israel

Part 08 — Chapter 8: Jews in Weimar Germany

Part 09 — Chapter 9: Hitler and National Socialists Rise to Power

Part 10 — Chapter 10: National Socialism vs Communism

Part 11 — Chapter 11: Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Part 12 — Chapter 12: The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

Part 13 — Chapter 13: Life in Germany Under Hitler

Part 14 — Chapter 14 & 15: Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory; The 1936 Olympics

Part 15 — Chapter 16: “Anschluss” The Unification of Austria and Germany

Part 16 – Chapter 17: Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

Part 17 – Chapter 18: War with Poland

Part 18 – Chapter 19: The Phony War

Part 19 – Chapter 20: Germany invades France – The Phony War Ends

Part 20 – Chapter 21: The Allied Goal? Destruction of Germany!

Part 21 – Chapter 22: Germany as Victim

Part 22 (last) – Chapter 23: Winners and Losers

_____________________

Version History

Version 6: Mar 13, 2021 – Added new Go2 Cover images (3).

Version 5: May 5, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

Version 4: Apr 9, 2020 — Updated links to other parts.

Version 3: Sep 22, 2017 — Added PDF for download.

Version 2: April 3, 2017 — Added image of Vidkun Quisling.

Version 1: April 2, 2017 — Created post.

Red Ice: Lana Lokteff Interviews Arthur Kemp — TRANSCRIPT

admin — Sun, 29 May 2016 12:45:14 +0000

[In this friendly interview, Lana Lektoff from Red Ice (Radio 3Fourteen) talks with Arthur Kemp on the past, present and future of White people. Kemp has had long involvement in the White “movement” and has written several books on the subject.

Although he makes many good observations, I would consider his significant weakness to be his downplaying of the jewish problem. His focus is on the symptoms of jewish rule, that is, the deluded liberals who are the outward manifestation of jewish power over the masses through their control of the media, etc.

Also his optimism that Whites will survive is not reassuring as, by “survive” he means that perhaps a few million will remain after the West crumbles.

That said, this is a useful interview in that it gives us an insight into the mind of someone who is on our side and well informed on many issues, yet despite years in this movement, still hasn’t grasped the extent of the central issue of jewish control over us — KATANA.]

Red Ice: Lana Lokteff

Interviews Arthur Kemp

March of the Titans:

The Rise & Fall

of Caucasian Civilization

https://redice.tv/radio-3fourteen/march-of-the-titans-the-rise-and-fall-of-caucasian-civilization

Click on the above link, or copy the link into your browser to view the audio.

Published on May 16, 2016

Arthur Kemp was born in Southern Rhodesia in 1962. Educated in South Africa, he holds a degree in Political Science, International Politics and Public Administration, having studied at the University of Cape Town and the University of South Africa. He is the owner of Ostara Publications and the author of eleven books, including March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race.

Arthur joins us for a look at how the aspects of racial homogeneity and racial disillusionment (multiculturalism) have historically contributed to the rise and fall of civilizations.

We begin by considering the essential questions of what causes culture and what happens when a civilization’s creators vanish. Arthur talks about the misconceptions of early English colonialism and the vastly different process of mass foreign invasion transpiring in the West today.

He addresses the proclivity of the White race to explore the world and provide humanitarian support to the less fortunate, along with the consequences of these interventions.

We discuss some logistics of the Out of Africa theory and the role of environment in racial differences, touching on the bureaucratic baloney that thwarts modern day archaeologists from properly investigating tremendous troves of ancient human remains holding clues of Europeans’ origins in the Northern Hemisphere.

Then, Arthur explains the dire reality of the population replacement events being orchestrated by the West’s rulers, and we deliberate how to wake up the ill-informed masses to their looming extinction.

Kemp also gives an account of his life in South Africa during the ANC’s takeover, relating the hard fact that demographics ultimately dictate the rules.

Our conversation rounds off with thoughts on the viability of recruiting quality Europeans to create a great ethnostate and the terrific potential that exists when enough Whites are able to unlearn their self-defeatist programming and abandon the egalitarian fantasies driving their cultures to demise.

RELEVANT LINKS

Ostarapublications.com

Transcript

[00:00]

Lana Lokteff: Arthur Kemp I’m delighted and honored to have you here. So, thanks for joining us.

Arthur Kemp: It’s a great pleasure Lana. I think you and Red Ice do a great job and I’m very honored to be on your show.

Lana: Well it’s refreshing to speak with you, because I’ve actually tried doing a couple White archeology shows with some racialists and it never turns out good! And unfortunately it can come across a little wacky sometimes. I’m sure you’ve come across that too.

Arthur:Unfortunately, I’ve had more than my fair share of dealing with wacky people, so I know exactly what you’re talking about. But, it doesn’t necessarily have to be. I think what happens a lot of the time, is that people tend to over play what the reality is and sometimes if they’re not not happy with the reality is, they add to it. I think that’s quite common amongst, not only people in this so-called White nationalist movement, but probably everywhere.

Lana: Yes. But when I mentioned to our listeners that you are coming on, a lot of people responded in, saying how, “March of the Titans” was a major eye opener for them, and for me, you know, I just love Euro-centric history and archaeology. “March of the Titans” is a masterful body of work, so I wanted to read a quote to kind of summarize it.

“Most importantly revealed in this work is the one true cause of the rise and fall of the world’s greatest empires. That all civilizations rise and fall according to their racial homogeneity and nothing else. A nation can survive wars, defeats, catastrophes, but not racial dissolution”

Aka, diversity, right? So Rome didn’t collapse from debauchery and decadence. So where do you like to begin when approaching the subject with new-comers?

[Image] Arthur Kemp’s book, “March of the Titans”.]

Arthur: Well, the very first way to understand it, is to take a step back away from any idea or denigrating other people. That’s probably a very important basis to start with. It’s one of the biggest problems in this so-called movement is that it seems to be based more on putting other people down. You don’t have to put anyone else down. All you have to do is stand back and look at it from a purely objective point of view.

What causes culture? What causes civilization and how do these things change? Now my basis, whenever anyone asks, “Can you explain what you mean?” I always say, look it’s very simple. Each culture, each civilization is a product of a certain people. So for example, the Chinese people create a Chinese civilization. The Japanese people created Japanese civilization. The Australian Aborigines created Australian Aborigine civilization. And the Europeans created European civilization. Now you don’t have to be subjective about any of them. Of course, we all like to think that our own version is better, but that’s a subjective opinion.

We can be objective about it. We can say:

“Yes, the Europeans created European civilization”

and so on, and so forth. Now if you, and generally everyone will say, yes well that’s obvious. Obviously Europeans created European civilization, obviously Chinese people created Chinese civilization and so on, and so forth. Once you got them to agree with that very basic and very simple fact, then all you do, you say to them:

“Well what happens if all the Chinese people vanished tomorrow? What would happen to Chinese civilization?”

“Oh, well, probably it would disappear.”

Yes, obviously if the Japanese people disappeared tomorrow would anything remain of Japanese civilization? No! If the Australian Aborigines people disappeared tomorrow, would anything remain of their culture and their civilization? No! So therefore, obviously if the European people disappear, nothing will remain of their culture or their civilization. Yes. Everyone will say, “Well, yes, that’s pretty obvious.” Well, there you go. That is the cause of the explanation of the rise and fall of all civilizations.

If the people who created the civilization disappear, for any reason, whether it be replacement through mass immigration, whether it be through extermination in warfare, or death by disease or whatever, if a founding population disappears that founding population’s culture and civilization will disappear with it. And once you’ve got that particular, and that’s a very basic, it’s not a sort of radical position and there’s almost no one I’ve ever met anywhere in the world that’s been able to disagree with that.

Once you’ve got them to understand that basic principle, then all you have to do is show that every great civilization in history, no matter what it’s race, no matter what it’s origin, that every great civilization has vanished once the people who created it vanish. And if you can get that very, very simple, very basic principle, then history stops becoming a jumble of meaningless states and events and you can see a very clear flow in it.

[04:53]

Lana: And you’ve done a beautiful job outlining a lot of these civilizations. Egypt’s the classic one that people like to point to. You also mention, like the Great Depression, or Germany after World War Two, how all these countries have been able to pull themselves up after these events because racially they’re still homogenous, right?

Arthur:That’s exactly the point. Germany is actually a good case in point, what you’re talking about, because a lot of people say:

“Oh, the Roman Empire collapsed because the barbarians sacked Rome in 453 and that was the end of Rome,”

In actual fact, the Celts sacked Roman in 212 BC, but Rome came back. Rome eventually conquered the Celts that sacked Rome. So you’re absolutely right. People who believe, for example, that a military defeat would be the cause of collapse of an empire, you’re right. You know, eighty percent of Germany was flattened to the ground in 1945 and by 1955, 1960, it was once again the strongest nation in Western Europe.

If debauchery, or moral degeneracy would be the reason for the collapse of a civilization, then I can assure you, Britain should have collapsed in the 1600s! You look at the debauched histories of the royal families of Britain, and I’m not picking on Britain in particular, but it is a good example. If you look at the murders of of each other, and brothers killing each other, and all sorts of horrible things, moral debauchery should have finished Britain many, many, centuries ago. And of course that didn’t happen. Precisely because, as you said there, as long as a founding population remains in place, the longer it remains the majority population and as long as it remains homogenous, that society will continue to be in existence.

Lana: I know this is nearly impossible to answer, but according to history from what you’ve seen, what or who in these societies begins pushing towards diversity, if you will? Yeah.

Arthur: Yes, now that’s the great question. I know a lot of people say:

“Oh, it’s the Jews” or, “Oh it’s this” or, “It’s Christianity” or, “it’s this religion” or, “that religion” or, “this belief system”.

I’m sorry to say, that in almost every case that I can think of, it’s simple ignorance of the long term racial consequences of using foreign labor.

And the example that I always use is, for example, if someone had invented a time machine, which would be great, because if someone had invented a time machine and I could go back to pre Civil War Atlanta in Georgia and fly out there and pick up one of those big cotton plantation owners, who’s got his five hundred negro slaves slaving away in the field, picking it’s cotton, making him and his family a very rich man. Put him in a time machine and take him to Atlanta Georgia in 2016. And drop them off in the middle of Atlanta and say,:

“Look here, the direct consequence of you and small number of plantation owners who use black labor is that your great grandchildren cannot walk the streets of Atlanta Georgia. Cannot walk the streets of your state’s capital anymore, because the place is now taken by blacks and it’s now unsafe for White people to walk in the street”.

I’m quite sure that that plantation owner never dreamed, never wanted in his wildest imagining, never wanted that for his great grandchildren. But he didn’t understand the long term consequences of using foreign labor.

And I think this played out in Egypt, has played out in Sumeria. This played out in every great civilization that has fallen, or in South Africa or in Rhodesia. I don’t think they understood the consequences of using it, so it’s easy to blame others, and certainly others do have a role to play, I’m not denying that, but it’s, I’m afraid, the truth which hurts, is that it’s quite often White people themselves.

Lana: Yeah.

Arthur: Which don’t have an understanding of the global, geopolitical, racial consequences of their actions.

Lana: Now one thing, you know, the English always get blamed for it’s colonialism and I always say, English colonialism cannot at all be compared to the mass invasion of today. But what are your thoughts on English colonialism, was it wrong?

Arthur: Yes. I’m a firm anti-colonialist. There are two ways to approach colonialism. The colonialism that’s done on a Ragnar Red Beard, “Might is Right” principle, is an immutable law of nature. Almost every colonization process has been probably undertaken on that basis. Just to divert for one second, you do know of course that the first colonisers of anywhere were in fact non-Europeans colonizing Europe?

Lana: Yes.

[10:00]

Arthur: It’s a factual inaccuracy to say that Europeans started the colonization process. In actual fact the first great colonizing invasions were of non-Europeans into Europe. So if anyone should be screaming for reparations it should be the Europeans.

Now leaving that aside, if you look at the English colonization process, when, for example, if you going to colonize a place properly and I’m not divorcing it from any moral issues, because I believe there is a moral issue at play here. But, if you’re going to divorce it from a moral issue, the way you colonize a place, is you move in and you push out, you eradicate the native inhabitants and you occupy the territory and you take it over, OK.

A good example of English colonialism that was done this way would have been Australia or the United States of America. They simply pushed the natives, I don’t want to call them the native Americans because they weren’t even native, I want to call them the American Indians. They simply pushed them out through mass immigration and they simply took their lands and they colonized them. They fought them, defeated the Indians and that was it. That’s how America was colonized. That’s how Australia was was colonized.

Now in those days, morally, no one thought anything of it, because that’s how all of history had run. I think that we nowadays have a reached stage where all of society has advanced and we can take moral judgments on things.

Say, for example, and it is a great case. The Jews all move into Palestine, beat up the Palestinians, kick the Palestinians out, torture them, oppress them. I think we have a right to say,:

“Listen, time has moved on, this is no longer 1700s or 1800s where people could get away with such immoral or morally questionable things as colonizing and beating up the native population.”

And therefore Israel should be criticized for colonizing Palestine at the expense of the Palestinians. Because that’s essentially what they’ve done. They’ve adopted the Ragnar Red Beard approach of driving the Palestinians out.

Now that would have, might have been acceptable, in the 1800s or 1700s as the English did in America or Australia, but it’s no longer acceptable in this day and age. Going back to, if you look at English colonization, for example, in where I was born, Rhodesia, or what was then Southern Rhodesia, when I was born there. You look at English colonization there, that was wasn’t done on a on a “might is right” principle. That was done on a White supremacist principle, where small number of Whites moved in and established a government to rule over the many, many more millions, in fact, of blacks.

And now, a White supremacist government, apart from it’s moral questionability, is also doomed to failure, because it ignores the demographic principle which governs all society. Those who make it, and the majority of people in a society determine the nature and direction of that society. And that’s why White supremacism never works. And it’s actually a recipe for failure. Apartheid in South Africa was another system like that. Designed on minority rule over majority population, was guaranteed to fail over the long term. No matter what the short term policy applications were.

So, yes we can now, from the advantage of many centuries later, say:

“Well it wasn’t really fair of the English to colonize North America,”

or the Germans, or the French who all took part in it, because they all took part in it.

But I think we can now look back and say, “Look ,it was done”, we can draw a line underneath it. We can say we now deal with the reality of the situation as we have it now. And if we adopt the principle that it was wrong for the English to colonize any part of the world, or it was wrong for the Europeans to colonize any part of the world, therefore it is also wrong for the Third World to colonize any part of the world as well. So, if it was wrong for the English to colonize America, but that’s not done, then it is also wrong for the Mexicans to colonize America in this day and age as well. Or it is wrong for Africa to colonize Europe in this day and age, just because Europeans colonized Africa in the 1600 or 1700s.

Lana: Now, would you say there’s a difference there between colonialism and exploration because the, you know, White people, we explored, you know, we cataloged plants and animals, we learned so much, right?

Arthur: Huge! It’s huge difference between exploration and colonization. Absolutely massive! You’re right, absolutely right!

I think that exploring the world was something that Europeans had to do. It’s no coincidence that the Europeans explored the world and no one else did. I think that’s an inherent search for xxx which is still valid to this very day. And, certainly, but I think, … As I said to you, I’m not, I’m not going to condemn people for what they did in 1600 or 1700. That was the norm at the time.

[15:00]

It’s like condemning people for not allowing women to have the vote, you know. Most people, I know there’s some people in the Alt Right who don’t think so, but most people today would not suggest that women shouldn’t have the vote. But, you know, one hundred years ago it was an accepted principle that woman didn’t have the vote. Now one can sit nowadays and moralize on that, or you can say:

“Well that was the norm of the time. I’m not going to condemn anybody for holding the views which were dominant at that time, but these are the values which we have today.”

And so you’re right. I think colonization is morally, … You can judge colonization only in the morals of the time. You can judge it by today’s morals and standards.

Lana: Yeah I suppose the better thing to do, would have been to explore and perhaps help or interact with people who wanted helping or wanted to trade information and learn skills from each other, but then leave afterwards and not settle there for good. Because there’s a difference between having an exchange and permanently living there which creates problems, right?

Arthur: Correct. And I think the immigration crisis that faces the First World today is the direct product of colonization. Let me explain it to you, this way. And I can explain this to you, because of my own personal experiences in Rhodesia and South Africa.

Before the arrival of the White colonists, the average black reproduction rate, the average black woman would have had maybe, from the time of puberty to the time of whenever they would die, and they died in an early age, in the forties, or something like that. The time from puberty to the time of the cessation of their reproductive life cycle, put it that way, they would have, maybe, twenty pregnancies. But, before the advent of White colonization, of those twenty pregnancies, probably seventeen or eighteen would die, either in pregnancy, or would be stillborn, or would starve to death, or whatever the case was.

So their population numbers were always in proportion to the land’s ability to support their subsistence existence. OK, so along comes Whitey, along comes the White colonist, sometimes with a gun in one hand and a Bible in the other, or sometimes just holding a Bible, or sometimes just holding a gun. But whatever it is, he comes along and he sets up a society and he says:

“Wow! Look at this infant mortality rate. It’s terrible! How can you have infant mortality rate of ninety five percent? We’ve got to fix this! It’s our Christian duty. It’s our moral duty. It’s whatever duty, to do this!”

And so, what they do is they bring in hospitals, they bring in schools, they bring in medicine, they bring in education. Now, the black woman is no longer having a 95 percent infant mortality rate, now she has a ten or fifteen percent infant mortality rate. So what happens to the black population? It’s skyrocketing! And that’s what happened in South Africa.

There’s a good good test, if you look up and you can find it online now days. You can find the 1913 Encyclopedia Britannica, the famous eleventh edition. It’s the grandest Encyclopedia Britannica of all time. And you look up there, they have a section there on the Transvaal which was the Boer Republic that was taken over, occupied, militarily occupied by the British during the second Anglo-Boer War. And the British conducted the first census in the Transvaal, in the ZAR. They found, the census figures and I’m speaking speaking under correction, but I’m pretty sure the figures are close to this, that they were just under 300,000 Europeans in the Transvaal. And there were 690,000 Africans in the Transvaal in 1907.

And if you look at the disproportionate population growth between 1907 and say 1990, which is not long. It’s 80 something odd years. If you look at the disproportionate growth you will find that by 1990 there were, I think, 1.2 million Europeans and, I think, in the region of 12 to 14 million Africans. Now the population growth is exclusively due to the introduction of White medicine and White education. Giving them jobs and giving them employment. In other words artificially boosting their population.

Now this is happened all over Africa and it’s still going on, all this Doctors Without Borders and Live Aid and, you know, “help the starving Ethiopians”. What happens? Whites go over there and interfere with the natural, nature’s ordering of the population and all of a sudden you’ve got these huge extra populations who are incapable of feeding themselves, incapable of organizing any agriculture, incapable basically of doing anything except breeding more. And whoops! And now they’re pouring into Europe and the same thing’s happening in South and Latin America, as well. That’s why you’ve got the problem in the US where, you know, where all this population from Central and South America, where’s it all coming from? It’s simply they’ve been bred up by White colonialism.

[20:39]

Lana: That’s why we’re always trying to create order everywhere. And I’ve heard with apartheid, one of the things is they were trying to create peace among the tribes, right? Because all the tribes were also killing each other. But that’s one way the population was also staying low, right?

Arthur: Yeah, I don’t think intra-tribal warfare killed so many as the disease and starvation. People who aren’t familiar with Africa, or, let me rephrase that, Europeans who aren’t [are] liberals, who aren’t familiar with Africa don’t understand exactly how backward Africa was. Another one of my favorite stories, just here to illustrate this point, is when you read the diaries of Dr Kenneth Livingstone, the great explorer, Livingstone, you know, the guy, Stanley, “Dr. Livingstone, I presume?”, you know, that story?

[Image] Stanley meets Dr. Livingstone. Leading an expedition of approximately 200 men, Stanley headed into the interior from the eastern shore of Africa on March 21, 1871. After nearly eight months he found Livingstone in Ujiji, a small village on the shore of Lake Tanganyika on November 10, 1871.

Lana: Yeah.

Arthur:If you read his diaries, and he describes going into an African village in 1871. So that’s not that long ago, in the grand scheme of things. And he describes, he sees, he’s got a donkey and a cart. He couldn’t use a horse because the horses all died from African horse sickness. He had a donkey, which is somehow resistant to African horse sickness. Anyway, and he describes in this diary so nicely, how he’s driving up into this village of what, 4,000 souls and all the Africans come out and they’re all stark naked because they haven’t got cloths. And they’re all standing on the side of this path, this rudimentary path that he’s coming, trotting up there in his cart and his donkey. And he sees all their heads going round and round and round, like they watching some kind of big Ferris wheel. And he can’t work it out. Why are their heads moving? Maybe it’s some type of tribal greeting, and then he realizes, they’re looking at the wheels on his cart. They’ve never seen the wheel before!

Lana: Yeah, I know.

Arthur: So you’re dealing with people who, a hundred [odd] years ago, didn’t have the wheel!

Lana: Yeah.

Arthur: So, there’s no way they’re going to be resistant to any type of bacteria or any type of medicine, or anything like that at all. So, yeah, tribal warfare played it’s role, but tribal warfare would be a summer activity, it wasn’t a winter activity. They didn’t fight each other during the winter. And let’s be honest, Europeans have a good long history of tribal warfare as well.

Lana: Yes they do! We do better than anyone else I think. I’ve actually been through Africa and I’ve been to parts of Africa, out in the bush, where I was the first White person a lot of these kids saw. I have photos of that. So, yeah I’d seen firsthand how some of them live and they still have their witch doctors and all kinds of fun stuff.

Arthur: Oh no, the witch doctors in Birmingham, in England nowadays, you can find, you can look them up in the local newspaper. Dr Ujuubi, to cure impotence, financial trouble and anything else. [laughing] Well, I’m not joking. The Third World moves with them.

Lana: Now what about the, “Out of Africa Theory”? Obviously, I know, you’re not a believer of it. I don’t either. But, you know, if we come from Africa, then what’s the problem? Why can’t we be there, right?

Arthur: Well, that is true. First of all, there are number of problems with the, “Out of Africa Theory”. I remember having this great discussion with Dr Philip Rushton, once. Sadly he’s passed away, but, because he was a great believer in the, “Out of Africa Theory”. But, the discussion that I had with him on this basis was, number one: That the time periods that we’re talking about, the continents weren’t even formed properly, so you can’t even say out of Africa, really if one is going to believe the continental shifts and drifts and that type of thing.

Secondly, the, “Out of Africa Theory” relies on genetic mutation over a period of between 120,000 and 150,000 years. That’s the most common time period which they say that the great migration out of central Africa came and then branched both into Asia and one group went into Europe and then they mutated out according to their environments, you know, the theory.

Now, as I said to Dr Rushton at the time, if this is true, if this is truth, this would imply, in fact, people are walking, right? Because they haven’t got cars, they haven’t got wagons and they haven’t got anything, they’re walking, they’re walking a hell of a long way to get to Europe and to get to Asia. Normal migration periods would take hundreds of years, to cross even a small part of Africa, never mind those huge distances. So we’re actually probably looking at genetic mutation period of maybe half of the time. Maybe 50,000 years, maybe 60,000 years?

[25:24]

So what you’re trying to tell me, is that the, “Out of Africa Theory” means that some form of Homo habilis, some form of semi-ape thing, sort of jumped out of the trees, ran across the plains of Africa. Ran, ran into Asia, ran into and over the Alps into Europe and within 50,000 years evolved into Nordics, evolved into Mongoloid racial types, evolved into the various specific racial types that we have today. And I just can’t see it! You know, I just I just cannot see it!

And for me the killer argument against that theory, is, of course, the existence of racial differences. Because that theory relies on a belief that environment causes racial, causes genetic mutations, i.e., Europeans have light skins because they live in the cold north and they need to absorb much more sunlight and that’s how they got light eyes and light hair and I don’t know what else. And that Africans are black because they live in that deep hot, deep, deep south of the southern hemisphere, where it’s very dark and very hot all the time and you don’t need to absorb a lot of vitamin D, and that’s why they got dark skins and all this type of stuff.

My problem with that theory is that the Asians, the Mongoloids, because I’m generalizing now because they are different subgroups amongst them, as well, but, they all live in the northern hemisphere as well. And if the north-south division theory holds true, which is a critical part of the, “Out of Africa Theory”. If the north-south genetic mutation theory holds true, people living in, all people living in the northern hemisphere should look the same. Because they are subjected to the same environmental influencing.

Lana: Right.

Arthur: Harsh winters, relatively warm, sometimes moderate summers, back into a harsh winter. They should all look [the same], but, of course, they don’t. You’ll find that people living on the same latitude, or longitude, whichever it is [latitude], with the ones that run horizontally across the globe, I can’t even recall which one it is now. I’ve got advanced dementia! You’ll find that people living in the same geographic spread look very different, and if environment was the cause of genetic mutations they would should all look the same.

Lana: But we’ve also had some interesting White people have had interesting migrations. I know some of this is probably, obviously later, but we had European mummies in China, we have White Indians in America, White xxx of Peru, the Canary Islands, Easter Island, I mean it’s just really all over the place where you see, you know, White civilizations and they have just mysteriously disappeared. But, we seem to have been everywhere one point, but you include a mural in your book of a White prisoner being sacrificed by a xxx warrior’s. So is it farfetched to say, maybe there have been, you know, White genocides in the past?

[Image] A mural, reconstructed in life-size showing a white prisoner, with long blond hair, being sacrificed by Chichen Itza warriors.

Arthur: Yes. I’m absolutely convinced of it. Depending on how you define White genocides. For example, the Tarim Basin mummies which is the Indo-European group that got to western China, the Gobi Desert.* They were genocided out, not through physical extermination, but certainly through mixing with the locals, the people of the Tarim Basin to this day speak Turkic**, they don’t speak Chinese. And you can see the actual physical characteristics, it’s clearly a mix between Chinese and European.

[* The Tarim mummies are a series of mummies discovered in the Tarim Basin in present-day Xinjiang, China, which date from 1800 BCE to the first centuries BCE. The mummies, particularly the early ones, are frequently associated with the presence of the Indo-European Tocharian languages in the Tarim Basin, although the evidence is not totally conclusive and many centuries separate these mummies from the first attestation of the Tocharian languages in writing. Victor H. Mair’s team concluded that the mummies are Europoid, likely speakers of Indo-European languages.

Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarim_mummies]

[** The Turkic languages are a language family of at least thirty-five languages, spoken by Turkic peoples from Southeastern Europe and the Mediterranean to Siberia and Western China. The Turkic languages originated in a region spanning Western China to Mongolia from where it expanded to Central Asia and farther west.]

[Image] Map of Eurasia showing the location of the Tarim Basin and the areas occupied by cultures associated with the settlement of the Tarim Basin.

Now the whole, it’s still very much up for debate and it’s made more difficult by the establishment’s refusal to investigate the full extent of who were the original North and South Americans. The the very basic evidence that we have now, indicates that there were certainly a European presence of some sort. It’s very difficult to say exactly whether that was a dominant presence or whether it was an xxx presence. There’s certainly more than enough evidence to indicate that this was.

The Tenochtitlan sacrifice that you’re talking about I think those were probably just Canary Island wash overs who managed to, who were caught in the cross current, the same one that took Columbus to that part of the world, and they ended up in what is today modern Mexico. And they probably got sacrificed for their trouble.

[30:07]

I’m not sure one can go as far as saying that those were huge numbers of Whites who were genocided. But, as I said, all that’s speculation. We don’t know if one day, perhaps, there is a reordering of governments in society which will allow proper investigation of these things, which will allow proper analysis of ancient remains in North America and Central America. Which as I’m sure, you know, is currently forbidden by law. The law which George Bush brought in forbidding anyone except Indian, American Indians, from claiming ancient remains on the presumption that they are Mongoloid origin.

If that gets reversed and we’re able to start doing, for example, what I’d really love to do, what would really be interesting, for example, would be to investigate the graves around the Nevada cliff dwellings.

Lana: Oh yeah.

Arthur:That would be really interesting to have a look at the skeletal and find out what DNA we could extract from the tooth enamel of graves in that area. Because the Nevada cliff dwellings, for example, are so un-Indian, that it simply isn’t true. They are particularly European looking cliff dwellings and they’re just not replicated anywhere else in the entire North American continent. So, that would indicate that they that was built by people different from the American Indians. But until the political climate changes, I don’t think we’re going to have to make any final call on that.

[Image] Cliff Palace, Mesa Verde’s largest cliff dwelling.

Lana: And that’s unfortunate. I want to go back to an idea, we were talking about colonizers. Now, in your opinion, you know, we always hear that Europeans, they were also fleeing to find better conditions. So was it wrong for them to abandon Europe and go somewhere else? Should they have stayed there and fought hard for their continent?

Arthur: Well, [during] the Age of Exploration and the Age of Colonization, Europe wasn’t under a direct threat at that stage of the game. The great non-European invasions had all be more or less defeated by the time of the Age of Exploration and the Age of Colonization. And yes, you can see, for example, it’s no coincidence that Christopher Columbus was sent off to discover the Americas, he didn’t know he was discovering the Americas, of course, but he was sent off across the Atlantic in the same year that the Moors were finally driven out of Spain, 1492. And that’s not a coincidence. The Turks being the Ottomans, the Muslims had been defeated at the gates of Vienna in 1683, and they were being pushed back all the time. So it’s no coincidence that the European colonization process started once the great non European invasions of Europe had been defeated and turned back and were being driven back.

So, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that that they were fleeing anything. It was just the natural European inquisitiveness. They knew where India was and they were looking for a better place to, or quicker way to get to India. And probably more of an economic motivation. If anybody did flee Europe, it was probably to escape Feudalism. Probably for economic reasons. You know, most of the early homesteaders who came to the US, unless you were born into privilege and wealth in Europe, you basically had no chance of acquiring land or property of your own. In this regard, I’m reminded of what Thomas Jefferson wrote about, he warned America are about building cities and he said, very famous quote, he said:

“No we can’t build cities because we will soon become as heaped up with each, upon each other, and become as corrupt as the Europeans”.

Warned against cities, would have been a lot more ideal to keep America a more rural place I think.

Lana: I agree. Definitely agree.

Arthur:Yeah. It suddenly struck me, I think it was the Roman historian, Terence, I think it was Terence who wrote about Rome in the year 200 BC 200 and something. That Rome, that metropolis to which all evil things in the world are drawn. [chuckling] the nature cities hasn’t changed much.

Lana: Have you explored much of Scandinavia and some of the mounds up there? It’s amazing how they don’t do any digging around Scandinavia. It’s like it’s not allowed, they don’t want people to know about their Nordic heritage up there.

Arthur: Very much so, very much. Unfortunately that is not only limited to Scandinavia. The last time I was in Malmo in Sweden I was really disappointed, because Malmo is becoming a hell, as you know. But, yes, you’re right.

[35:00]

Unfortunately that anti-Nordicism is not limited to Scandinavia. I’m sure you’re aware of the discoveries made by a Canadian archaeologist, a year or two ago. She found another Viking settlement in Canada. And she was, I forget her name, offhand, but she was just sacked from the job. The Canadian government withdrew her subsidies. She had all her papers seized, it was unbelievable!

Incredible, you know, this goes in line with everything I’m saying about the physical climate. Unfortunately you’re allowed to be black conscious, you’re allowed to be Hispanic conscious, you’re allowed to be American Indian conscious, you’re allowed to have a Black caucus, you’re allowed to have a Black History Month, you’re allowed to have a Jewish History Month, you’re allowed to have an American Indian History Month. But God help you, if you have a White History Month! Then you’re just a racist.

Lana: Well, we’ll just have to do it and not care about what people think.

Arthur: I think that’s a stage where it’s come to. I was greatly amused to see a recent RamzPaul video where we finally address the issue of being labeled, … Where he said, look people actually just don’t care about the labels. They are so used if you say anything, you just get accused of it. If you say, well Israel, … Why does the Jewish lobby in America object to Donald Trump suggesting that they build a wall on the border with Mexico? Where Israel’s got a huge wall around it. So it’s good for Israel but bad for America. And their only answer is, “Oh, anti-semite, anti-semite!” and, you know, it doesn’t work any more. I don’t [think] anyone cares anymore.

Lana: By the way, RamZPaul, we’re friends and he said to tell you that he loved your book, so it’s funny that you bring him up, because he asked me to say, “Hi!”

Arthur: Oh, that is great, I’ve never actually spoken to him. I must try to get hold of him. I was watching his latest or what I presume is his latest videos, “How to beat anti-Semitism” I think that’s the latest. Very good video to watch, very, very good video.

[Image] Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8t6s-9S3Ys

Lana: Now, you made a good point I wanted to come back to, because a lot of people worry about, you know, the European population. But we hear there’s more Europeans alive today than ever in history, right? We’ve gone through massive, you know, population losses in the past, so your idea that we don’t have to be so worried about that. It’s not as dire as we think, right?

Arthur: Well, it is on the face of it. I wrote a book called, “Nova Europa” which you might or might not be familiar with, and I’m made this exact point. I said:

“It’s ironic that although there’s never been as many Europeans alive, ever in history as there are today. In reality we have never been so close to extermination as we are today”.

[Image] Nova Europa: European Survival Strategy in a Darkening World

Because each time in history where there’s been a collapse, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Sumeria, and so on. For each time when there has been a collapse there has always been a White heartland which has been able to provide a new wave of European gene pool. A new wave of explorers, settlers, this type of thing. We’re reaching the stage now where most of our heartlands are now being actually taken over.

And if Europe should fall, and I must admit it, I’m pessimistic about Western Europe, if Western Europe should fall there’s actually not that many places left over. So, No you’re right, we do have very large numbers. But unfortunately we are probably in the most dire situation that we have probably ever been in before.

And, once again, it’s largely Europeans’ fault, I’m sorry to say.

Lana: Yep.

Arthur: If I look, … Let’s use Germany as an example, right? Now I know there’s lots of causes of this and that’s a separate topic, but let’s look at Germany today, where they say they’ve had 1.2 million, quote, refugees, unquote, come into Germany. It’s a lot more than that, because they don’t even know how many have come in. It’s an absurd situation. Apart from the fact they’re not refugees at all, because they’ve all left Turkey, which is a safe country. Anyway, they’ve poured into Germany now, and the Germans are trying to cope with them. They’re raping, rampaging, criminal rampage through Germany and through the surrounding countries. And they’ve bombed Paris, they’ve bombed Brussels. It’s just mad what’s going on! It is absolutely insane, and you would have thought anyone who had half a brain cell, not even half a brain, but half a brain cell, would say:

“Woo, this is a bad idea! This is a really bad idea” and they would vote for someone who would say right now, “End this! Not having any more of this. We’re going to throw this lot out. They can all go back and, you know, we’re going to be humanitarian about it to help them and their countries. We’ll stop backing the rebels in, so-called rebels in Syria and will stop the war in Syria by backing Assad. And the good guys in Syria will crush ISIS! That way, we won’t arm them and supply them under the guise of being moderate rebels, and we’ll make sure we’ll help them rebuild Syria, the Syrian cities in Syria. We won’t invite them all to come here and smash our place.”

[40:25]

So, you would think that would in the logical, consequential, anyone anyone normal would say that. So what do they do? They have elections in Germany and, “Wow!” thirty percent of them or twenty five percent of them vote for Alternative für Deutschland, the Alternative for Germany. Which, between you and me and pardon the language, is a real half assed party!

Lana: I’ve gathered that.

Arthur: Well, now they’re saying the right things but they’re not saying things which need to be said. Basically, what needs to be said is:

“Woo, now that’s it! Stop immigration and all non-White immigrants out!”

Lana: They don’t want to look like Nazis, right? They are the alternative to the right.

Arthur: But they don’t even believe [that]. That they actually expelled some some branch somewhere outside Frankfurt, I think it was. Which actually struck a local election deal with the NDP. They actually expelled them, because they dared to have an alliance with the NDP, which is saying the things which need to be done.

Anyway, the point being that only twenty five percent of the voters in those three areas, the three states which voted recently, dared vote for the NDP. Which means that sixty five or seventy five percent of voters still voted for the parties who bringing all the invasion in!

Now that’s a really worrying figure, that’s a really worry, … It’s only worrying if you are unlike me. Because I’ve crossed the psychological Rubicon and I’ll explain what I mean by that in a second. That’s really worrying if you think:

“Wow, anyone in their right mind would say, no we need to stop this!”

And, you know, what, you look at the Front National in France. The Front National has also watered down it’s policies a lot. But even they struggle to get more than thirty five percent of the vote. Which means that sixty percent of Frenchmen, and that’s why they keep on losing when they have the run-offs in the presidential elections. That’s why the Le Pens keep on losing the runoffs. They come second and then all the communists, the conservatives, the liberals and the communists all gang together, and all of a sudden they are one party and they vote for the other people. And it’s the same thing over and over again.

So, while I agree with you that there are lots and lots of Europeans alive today. Sadly we’re, what appears to be a majority of them, still don’t know or understand what is going on. Now we can take two approaches. Just one approach we can take is to say:

“Yes well we need to alert them and wake them up, you know, we just need to reach, them tell them the truth and the truth will make them free blah, blah, blah” all that stuff.

Well let’s just say I’ve tried that and I’ve found most people have formed their opinions and facts have very little to do with how they how they reach their opinions. A lot is driven on emotion, a lot of it is driven on personality, a lot of it is driven on on a number of other factors. Basically any other factor except the facts.

So, while we can, whatever we say can be true, unless you can motivate a large number of people, and there’s only been a few periods in history where that’s actually been done. I don’t have to mention which ones they are. A lot of people, most people are motivated not by facts. So, that’s a real problem. Having said that, I’m not pessimistic over the future of the European people or the White race, per se. The reason for that, is that I think, although we have large numbers, ever larger numbers than ever before, I think we’re going to go into a population bottleneck simply because our large numbers have up-bred the stupid class amongst Europeans. That there are now more degenerate stupid, brain-dead Europeans than before.

Lana: Oh, yeah!

Arthur: Again, I think nature is remorseless. Nature isn’t immoral, nature is amoral. Nature doesn’t say this is right or wrong, nature says these are the rules, abide by them or die. And I think those Europeans incapable of understanding the laws of nature will die.

Lana: Yep.

[44:54]

Arthur: And I don’t think we we can do anything about that, but what I do think, is that, as long as we who understand it and can take the necessary steps to secure a geographic area which is homogenous and which can then serve as an attraction point for Europeans who understand what it is all about. Then, even if we are substantially reduced, even if we are reduced by eighty percent, our core will remain solid and anything is possible once all the White liberals vanish, which they will vanish, as well.

Lana: So, is thinking in terms of ethnostates really a luxury here, or a big dream at this point?

Arthur:No, I don’t think so. I think it’s going to come about naturally. I think, White flight is an inadvertent acknowledgment of the reality of that principle. It’s not, people say, “Oh, White flight is just racism”. No, it’s not racism, simply because Whites can’t live in Third World standards. I think that the concept of the enthnostates will come about. And I think it’ll come about sooner than what many people think. I think the developments in Eastern Europe are going to come about within the next couple of decades.

Lana: Now, do you see people moving to a different area, or should they stay where they’re at, if someone’s Swedish and they stay in Sweden and fight for that land?

Arthur:Yeah, that’s a real difficult one. It’s easy for me to say having moved around a lot.

Lana: At the same time you need people to watch your back, right? You need your tribe of people, you know.

Arthur: It’s all good and well to sit and say, “Yes, I’m standing my ground” and you’re in Los Angeles and you’re standing your ground and then the next minute there’s only you and five other Europeans left. You can stand your ground as long as you want to then you can be murdered, for your principles. Or, you can do like what like, what’s happening in South Africa. You, … people can say:

“We’re never leaving the Transvaal, the Orange Free State, that’s the traditional Boer Republic, that is our home!”

Yeah, you can do that, or you can move to Orania, where you actually are not going to be murdered instantly. You might have to defend it eventually. I’m sure you’ll have to defend it eventually, of that there is no doubt. But you can stand and be murdered for your principles, or you can move somewhere else where you can generate the seed of a new revival.

Lana: And it’s going to take hard work. And I think some people don’t want to do that, they don’t want to make the sacrifices and have to start over somewhere else, but that’s what it’s going to take. We’re going to have to be pioneers, once again.

Arthur: Absolutely, absolutely. And if you think it can’t be done, think of your ancestors who did it over and over again. America was created by those people. I mean, the people who arrived in early America, what did they arrive with? They arrived with a few tools, which they had brought across and that was it! They were dumped down on the East Coast and man, that was it. They had to get on with it. They had to move out. They had to build their own houses, they had to build their own wagons, they had to eventually start building their own weapons, that had to do everything from scratch. No, we can do it, it’s easy to do it. Much more difficult to get the will-power to do it.

Lana: Now, how, this is always the question. How do we appeal to the White masses, if the facts and the hard hitting truth isn’t working? I mean what’s it going to take to reach those people? I mean, it seems like they respond to things like entertainment and superficial pop culture, right?

Arthur: You’re asking the wrong person, to answer what appeals to the masses. I have crossed what I mentioned earlier, a psychological Rubicon. When I was younger and I was first involved in this craziness, called the “movement”, I believed, all you have to do is tell people what’s going on. They’ll say:

“Oh yes, of course, I understand who controls the media. I understand! Oh yes, racial demographics, of course! Why didn’t I see this?”

And I saw this in South Africa, you know. You’d explain to people that having a black maid and a black gardener and a cook boy in a White, …

Let me let me tell you about the house which I was raised in Southern Rhodesia. We had a cook boy, black, we had a ironing boy, who would do all the ironing. We had a garden boy and we had a house boy. So we had we had four and their wives and all their piccaninnies [kids]. I mean, when I think about it now, and this is normal for White colonists in Africa, I must tell you. They had virtually an entire tribe living with you.

Lana: Yeah.

[49:43]

Arthur: It was incredible. And it’s still happening today, because they still don’t understand, you know. Everyone talks about the White farmers being murdered in South Africa, and it is a tragedy, don’t get me wrong. It’s terrible, I hate reading about it. But, you know, how many times haven’t, … I spoke at a Transvaal agricultural union meeting in 1991 in Pretoria. And I told him that the die was cast, and the ANC Government was coming and what they needed to do quickly was mechanize, get rid of all the black laborers and get what they needed for security and for land claim purposes. They were going to have trouble, if they’ve got, as they do, even to this day, hundreds of black laborers on their farms, it’s just going to cause trouble with crime. It’s going to cause a problem with land claims, all that type of stuff.

Anyway of course they ignored me. Some of the even booed me:

“Oh no, Philomon been working on my farm for, him and his family, for the last hundred years, you know, even the family they’ll never do anything to us!” blah, blah, blah.

When you’re living on a farm and your outnumbered by your black farm workers, two hundred to one, you’re asking for trouble. Absolutely asking for trouble! So people who fail to understand that demographics controls everything, you can take a horse to water, but you can make it drink. You can lay out all the facts to them and if they don’t, if they refuse to accept it as a reality, there’s nothing more you can do.

And this is where I passed my psychological Rubicon.

I used to believe that if I just explained all of this to everyone, they’ll say:

“Oh, yes of course ha ha. How could we be this stupid. You’re right Arthur! We will quickly support you, we will vote for whatever party you tell us to vote for, and everything will be all right.”

Of course they don’t. Absolutely don’t! And eventually after many, many years, maybe twenty five, thirty years of activism I thought well, it’s either I’m crazy and deluded, or they are. One of the two. I like to think that I’m not, so therefore they are. And then it suddenly struck me. People who are going to die, will die, no matter what you tell them.

I’m I’m reminded of a speech by Hitler, if I’m allowed to mention Hitler?

Lana: Of course.

Arthur: A speech that Hitler gave once, he said:

“Do not imagine that a nation of sixty million cannot die. All it has to do, is decide to die, and it will.”

He was talking about Germany of course. And that’s a very valid thing. If people refuse to, if people decide to ignore racial reality, decide to ignore lessons of history and demographics and race, then they will die. That’s a conscious decision they’re going to take. And so, I have switched my approach completely. I no longer attempt to win with the masses for a great revolution.

My approach now is to recruit as many as I can, to the understanding of what it’s going to take. Consolidate them in a geographic area, stroke, areas, and generate a new resource, a new gene pool for something that can happen in the future.

Lana: That is right, quality not quantity, right? More of a eugenic approach here.

Arthur: That is right. I mean, honestly, sometimes when you look around at Whites around you, do you really, even want to live with them?

Lana: No. No.

Arthur: Well, this is it. A hundred years of maybe, not a hundred, maybe sixty, seventy years of social welfare dependency in Britain has created a huge White underclass! Which God forbid, I would prefer to live in Thailand, rather than live with the British underclass, the White British underclass. And that’s the same everywhere and that’s not knocking, … Everybody, everyone knows what I’m talking about. You get degenerate Whites and I just wouldn’t want to live with them, anymore than anyone else. And now I’m convinced that we can recruit enough White people to restart again somewhere else. The critical thing is the geographic area. I’m not even worried about the numbers, the critical thing is the geographic area. Let me give an example of what, I’m sorry I’m talking so much, …

Lana: No, it’s great. That is why you are here.

Arthur: Let me give you an example of what I’m talking about with numbers, all right. People say:

“Oh, how many people do you need in an ethnostate to make it viable?”

Not, actually, that many. There is a NASA Project called, Hyperion, I think it’s called Hyperion, where they planned, … It’s a theoretical thing because NASA is on it’s last legs. But, it’s a theoretical group of scientists and people planning for interplanetary travel, what it would take to travel inter-planetary.

[55:00]

And with current propulsion systems they say, to get to the nearest solar system, if they should ever send a rocket out there with people needed to colonize a new planet. How many people would they have to send to make a genetically viable planet? You know, to colonize, to set up. But what they’ve done is they’ve calculated, they use geneticists, they’ve calculated that if they are to send a certain number of people to another planet without any additional genetic input from earth, how many people would they have to send to create a genetically viable colony which would not be afflicted by the problems of inbreeding? Okay, have I made myself clear?

Lana: Yeah

Arthur: The answer which came up was quite quite amazing. And it is really, I’m just going to actually put it up here because it’s actually well worth reading. The answer is quite incredible! You would think that you would need millions at least. In actual fact not. They’ve worked it out, a Doctor Cameron Smith, he’s an anthropologist and a prehistorian at State University in Oregon. He compiled the reported in question and I’m right, it’s called Project Hyperion. His report which he compiled and handed in to them, said that the number of people which you would need to create a genetically viable colony on another planet, … You could create it between 14,000 and 40,000 people.

Lana: Huh! Well that’s encouraging.

Arthur: That is! He says, I’m quoting from his report:

“A safe and well considered figure is 40,000 for interstellar migration population. Composed of an effective population of 23, 400 reproductive male and females, the rest being pre or post reproductive individuals. This number would maintain good health over five generations despite (a) increased inbreeding resulting from the relatively small human population, (b) depressed genetic diversity due to the founder effect, (c) demographic change through time and (and) expectation of at least one severe population catastrophe over the five generation voyage.”

So there you go. I mean that’s an extreme example, but the truth is if you think about it logically and you think of the original founding European population, you’ll see that probably the original founding population of all Europeans, all of them, it’s probably not more than a few hundred thousand.

So no, I’m not worried about the grand scheme of things. I think we are going to lose in the coming racial bottleneck, because they simply don’t understand or don’t want to understand what’s happening. I think we’re going to lose huge numbers and we’re going to be compressed geographically. We’re going to lose a lot of territory. But I think we have the advantage now, having an understanding of race history demographics.

If we are reduced down to a few million, we have this understanding we will survive and I’m sure we will create a huge resurgence later on, in a generation or two’s time.

Lana: I suppose to you to want to recruit people who are very technological and maybe work in weaponry, right?

Arthur: That goes by the by. The other angle about ethnostates, is that people say:

“Oh, well the Jewish lobby won’t let you do it!” or, “America will bomb you or whatever.”

The counter argument to that is, of course, is Mexico a world power? That’s my question to you. Just say yes or no.

Lana: No!

Arthur: Right. Why isn’t Mexico a world power?

Lana: Well, because it’s got a Third World population.

Arthur: Because it’s full of Mexicans. Now when America fills up with Mexicans will America be a world power? I can’t imagine Mexicans keeping those B17 [?] bombers going and all the missiles and the, …

Lana: They don’t have a space program in Mexico. So, no.

Arthur: There you go. So you understand that the demographic changes we’re talking about is so immense people don’t grasp the vastness of it. Of what is coming, providing it isn’t reversed. I must add that I’m always, obviously, my first choice is that it’s reversed. If there’s a populist political victory somewhere and then it’s reversed, that’s the first choice, obviously. But I just like to plan for plan B, just in case. But if it goes as it appears to be going, the racial demographic change is going to be so vast that the geo-political order which we know today is going to be turned on it’s head.

[60:08]

Lana: Yes. And if we could use that, actually, to our benefit in the future.

Arthur: Absolutely! There isn’t going to be a great big policeman America, saying:

“Oh no, you can’t have an ethnostate in Eastern Europe” or, “No, you can’t have an ethnostate in Oregon” or, “No, you can’t have an ethnostate where ever”.

Because there ain’t going to be no big American policeman.

Lana: Yeah.

Arthur: There’s going to be a Second, stroke, Third World shambles. And they will be too busy fighting over the scraps, or, who owns the palace, to worry about what a few million Europeans are doing on the other side of the planet or the other side of the continent.

Lana: I think that’s why it’s good what you’re saying, we need to be planning for the future and start building something that people can come to in the future, because it’s inevitable. This is going to fall. We’re watching it fall. So, we shouldn’t be so concerned with all the hows and the who’s, but more of like:

“What are we going to do about it now?” Right?

Arthur:That’s the critical thing. The ethnostate idea and it’s ironic in the extreme. I mean, as you know, the ethnostate idea has been around for a long time. In fact the first ethno-estate theorist was, of course, Theodor Herzl. Zionism is just nothing but a Jewish ethnostate, as you know.

Lana: Yep.

Arthur: And he drew that up in 1896. The next ethnostate project was, of course, National Socialist Germany, and that was destroyed.

And after that it’s basically been put on the back burner, or Japan is probably a good example of a functioning ethnostate. They are coming under increasing pressure. China is, Pakistan is, India is. They’ve all got laws which encourage Indian, Pakistani, Chinese, Japanese immigration only. So, therefore they could be, in the broader sense of the word, that could be called ethnostates.

But apart from that, apart from Israel, the only other near ethnostate project to date, has been the Orania people in South Africa and the Pioneer Little Europe which emerged in the 1990s, I think.

[Image] Orania is an Afrikaner-only South African town located along the Orange River in the arid Karoo region of Northern Cape province. The town is split in two halves by the R369 road, and lies halfway between Cape Town and Pretoria.

[Image] Orania lies halfway between Cape Town (bottom left) and Pretoria (top right).

All that I’ve been trying to do with with my Nova Europa book and my little website and that, is just to try to popularize the idea and give it some practical impetus, that is all. But yes, no, we do need to be planning for that.

Having said all of that, one must never abandon completely the possibility that Europeans will wake up. If Europeans wake up, they can reverse everything overnight, literally. Europeans are so powerful they just have to think that they can survive and they will. Just to invert what Hitler said earlier. And I’m not yet completely convinced that Austria isn’t going to be the first country in Europe to rebel, formally. I mean Hungary already has. Hungary’s a great country. If you ever want to go and visit that country, it’s a great place to visit. Poland’s great. That Czech Republic’s great. Slovakia’s great. Those are all nations which have already, European Russia, Byelorussia, those places.

Those are all nations that are already seen and understood what’s going on. And they are already nations with firmly established infrastructures and I’m not convinced that there won’t come a revival from that point of view. In this regard you can watch what happens at the May 22nd Austrian presidential run-off where the FPO [Freedom Party of Austria] stands a good chance of taking the presidency of Austria. And that might spark off an FPO Government, which the rest of Europe is going to go mad. The rest of liberal Europe’s going to get mad again. And who knows where that can lead? But, just in case that doesn’t happen we should have a plan B.

Lana: And simultaneously have our people, have our people getting into politics! I say this all the time, where’s our people, where’s our party, where is our watch groups, we shouldn’t abandon that either, right?

Arthur:Absolutely! I do think that was a great mistake of the post 1970s, 1980s and 1990s so-called movement in America of retreating and waiting for the establishment to fall, in the great Turner Diaries White liberation army would rise up and seize power. Of course it’s just fantasy. I think that people should have been out there campaigning as hard as they could. Even if you didn’t win you would have just racially conscientized* so many more people.

[* To conscientize somebody/yourself (South African English) is to make somebody/yourself aware of important social or political issues.

Example: People need to be conscientized about their rights.]

[65:03]

You know, Donald Trump’s the case in point. He hasn’t set out to racially conscientize anything. I think, if anything is run an incredibly multiracial campaign. But just saying one or two half sensible things has conscientized millions of people. And that shows what can be done under the right circumstances.

Lana: Meanwhile in London, your first Muslim mayor, right? How’s that going?

Arthur: Well, that’s only a shock for those who don’t, who haven’t been following the immigration invasion into Europe. People don’t know, Birmingham had a Muslim mayor before. Birmingham’s the second largest city. There is a black mayor of Bristol, the town of Bristol. That’s old hat. I mean Whites are an absolute minority in London. Whites are an absolute minority in Birmingham. They’re close to minority in Manchester, and those are your three biggest cities in Britain.

Lana: And people are celebrating becoming a minority over there, right? Meanwhile all the nonWhites know that demographics matter most. They know that’s what it takes to win!

Arthur: Well, there’s an intrinsic understanding to that. Just getting back to what I was saying earlier about people worried about what the Jewish lobby will say about a European ethnostate. The Jewish lobby is only powerful as long as Europeans are in charge. For some peculiar reason, there has to be a reason for it, not having had the time or the interest to fathom it, but when countries swing majority nonWhite, the Jewish Lobby loses it’s power.

So that, it’s a very self-defeating thing for the Jewish lobby to encourage nonWhite immigration because they will end up losing. Can you imagine, for example, a Vicente Fox [a Mexican businessman who was President of Mexico from 2000 to 2006] controlled US government in Washington DC, continuing to pump four billion dollars a year into Israel?

Lana: No.

Arthur: When they’ve got hundreds of millions of Hispanics on their food stamps. It’s not going to happen. Israel’s funding is going to dry up. The day that America collapses is the day Israel’s funding dries up.

Lana: That’s right. It’s generally only White people that care about Israel.

Arthur: Correct! In fact, I would go even further and say the nonWhite world is probably inherently hostile to Israel because of the way Israel has treated the Palestinians. So, it’s a very self-defeating thing and that also, … I think one once that happens, once as a swing of that nature happens, it’s also going to take the teeth out of the Jewish lobbies ability to effect anything else, anywhere, as well.

Lana: And I know we’re getting ready to close here, but I wanted to ask you about one more thing. You write about the third great race war which is, you know, the Moors invading Europe. How is it that Europeans have forgotten that we fought off Arabs before?

Arthur: It’s a good question. I think ultimately the outcome of the Second World War has to be the biggest deciding factor in that. I think, prior to the Second World War and all the propaganda that has followed it, I think most Europeans were, had an understanding of race and racial world issues. I think America led the world before World War Two in terms of eugenic research. And certainly far more developed than what anything the Germans had. And I think the advent of the Second World War and the propaganda fallout from that war has caused the science of race to be completely suppressed. And anyone who even raises the topic on the subject, has been subjected to endless smears and attacks.

And the at the same time the communists reds have had their long march through the institutions [the Frankfurt School with its Critical Theory and cultural Marxism]. And with the result people don’t know anything about race, anymore. I think that’s the real reason.

They actually believe that importing the Middle East into Europe is going to make them Europeans in a few years, instead of importing the chaos of the Middle East into Europe, that’s what they actually appear to believe. And as I said, I can only ascribe it to the outcome and the propaganda following the end of the Second World War.

Lana: It just blows my mind. I mean European women in Europe had been raped by non White invading hordes for a long time now. And now we’re inviting back in some of the same bloodlines. Its pretty outrageous, and they’re doing the same thing, right?

Arthur: Someone said to me just today, he made the exact point which you are making now, is that the only people who are prepared to change, appear be the Europeans. Everyone else is acting true to form. Which is really a sad thing to think about. But! As I said to you, if that’s what they’re going to believe in, and when all the facts are staring them in the face, well then that’s what they’re going to believe.

What we have to do, we have to step up our recruiting efforts and recruit as many people, awaken as many people as possible. To those who are receptive to the idea and make them understand that great sacrifices are coming, but if they make the sacrifices our future is assured.

[70:20]

Lana: What always drives me nuts too, when I hear European people say:

“Well, we need to race mix, you know, it’s survival. It’s about adapting to change, so we need to blend in.”

Have you heard that?

Arthur: I’ve heard that and much worse. [laughing] I’ve heard people say:

“Yeah, well there’s nothing you can do about it”.

The one thing, and this might tread on listeners’ toes, and if it does, it’s a case of, “Veritas odium parit”, “truth purchases hatred”. One thing that I have noticed, is that the so-called White nationalist activists tend to be those with the fewest children.

Lana: Yep, that’s true.

Arthur: And I think that’s a serious issue which unless all these activists who run around saying:

“Fourteen words and preserve a future for our children!”

Unless they themselves start living this out, everything becomes pointless without children.

Lana: That’s true. That is absolutely right!

Well Arthur, I really appreciated your time today. I’m honored to have you here. Please tell everyone how they can buy your books. They really need to help support you. I actually bought your complete volume of March Of The Titans last night, so I could have it digitally, loving it. It’s great to go back to and I think people should share it with their friends and family and children. But, tell people how they can get your work.

Arthur: Well OK, you can get March of the Titans on Amazon, of course. A great miracle of modern marketing, that website is. Or you can get a good spread of everything else that I do on ostarapublications.com. That is Ostara as in the goddess of the spring, Ostara Publications dot com. Ostarapublications.com, ostarapublications, one word, and you basically get everything that you need to know there.

Lana: So does that mean you enjoy a lot of the Nordic pre-Christian traditions?

Arthur: Yeah, well, Ostara I chose because it symbolizes rebirth, you know. Easter, the celebration of Easter as we have it today is taken from Ostara. And the goddess Ostara was the goddess of spring, of new life, that’s where, that’s why she had the egg and the rabbit as her symbols, because the egg is the symbol of fertility and there are few animals more fertile and more reproductive than the rabbit. And that’s where the Easter Bunny comes from. And that’s where the Easter egg comes from. So, I thought, well I’m going to pick something with symbolizes what I feel, then it’s going to be about revival, rebirth of new life.

[Image] The Goddess of Ostara (or Eostre in old English) with symbols of fertility and new life.

Lana: Very nice. Well thank you so much for your time this evening. I really appreciate it.

Arthur: Lana, thanks so much for having me.

[72:55]

END

_________________________

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

Click to download a PDF of this post (3.0 MB). Please download and spread around:

Red Ice – Arthur Kemp — TRANSCRIPT

_____________________

Version History

Version 4: Jun 1, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

Version 3: Dec 29, 2016 — Formatting improvements.

Version 2: Jun 2, 2016 — Added PDF of post.

Version 1: May 29, 2016 — Created post.

Nick Griffin and Jack Sen: The Battle for the Future of Europe — TRANSCRIPT

admin — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 05:50:10 +0000

[Red Ice Radio interviews the well known, in British politics, Nick Griffin and also a relative new-comer to British politics, Jack Sen. Both these men are in some circles controversial, for their own reasons, but nevertheless this interview is quite interesting — KATANA]

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2016/03/RIR-160325.php

Nick Griffin & Jack Sen – The Battle for the Future of Europe – Hour 1

Posted on Mar 25, 2016

Nick Griffin, described at various times as “the most dangerous man in British politics” and “the most successful far-right leader in British history,” has been active in radical nationalist politics since he joined the National Front in 1974 at the age of 15. In 2009 he was elected as a member of the European Parliament while leader of the British National Party. Mr. Griffin is now Vice-President of the pan-European Alliance for Peace and Freedom and Political Adviser to the British Unity Party.

Jack Sen was the United Kingdom Independence Party’s (UKIP) prospective Member of Parliament for West Lancashire before being unceremoniously, and quite publicly, suspended. Jack then served the British National Party as its North West spokesman in 2015, but stepped down to concentrate on his British Renaissance Policy Institute and finish his book, “How to Get Suspended from UKIP and the BNP in 10 Articles and 2 Tweets.”

Nick and Jack discuss their current political engagement and the series of films that BRPI is producing to document the work of British and American Nationalists and create a permanent public record unsullied by the warped and inaccurate accounts of the anti-European establishment and its controlled media. We sum up the main concerns being addressed by genuine Nationalists, including the Islamification of Western Europe and the overarching state of dispossession the indigenous population is experiencing. Jack and Nick explain how the White birth rate decline transpired at the same time as 2nd wave feminism, and we look deeper into the deliberately provoked, divisional force of this anti-male hysteria. We also talk about the Zionist thrust to create a multicultural mishmash out of the West, and the issue of popular alt-news outlets glossing over the relationship between immigration and the rise of terrorism and everyday violence. We touch on the turf wars going on inside the Muslim faction within Europe, and how attacks by radical terrorism networks are fueling more cause for the federalization of the European police force. Then, Nick and Jack outline the APF’s objectives and its meta-political mission to shift the Overton Window to the right.

In the members’ segment, we focus on the steps that must be taken to turn around the ailing state of England and Europe at large, which involves a bit of a debate over the viability of the current political system. Nick illustrates the sheer corruption and manipulation that surrounds the election process, and he describes his infamous Question Time lynching on the BBC that surprisingly resulted in a quadrupling of the BNP’s poll ratings. Then, we look to the possibility of a European civil war erupting and the feasibility of an armed resistance by average citizens with an aversion to firearms and, conversely, the Muslim population that is infatuated by and fully loaded with advanced weaponry. Later, we discuss how Europe can rid itself of the liberal, cultural Marxist, SJW infection that has stolen the pride and identity of its people, and we consider how renewed ethnic cohesion can reinvigorate a desire for young people to have children and stand by traditional family values.

Nick Griffin & Jack Sen

The Battle for the

Future of Europe

TRANSCRIPT

HOUR 1

[00:00]

Henrik Palmgren: Welcome ladies and gentlemen, friends and enemies. It’s a pleasures to speak with you. I’m Henrik Palmgren. This is Red Ice Radio. I hope you had a good week. Easter season is upon us. A perfect time for renewal, growth, and fertility. Something we of course desperately need to get back into our lives. Pick up the old rituals, the old customs, renew them again if you feel like it and watch the change take place. We have to get back into the cycles of nature and work with it not, against it.

[Image] Jack Sen at the introduction to his video about Nick Griffin.

Today we have Nick Griffin and Jack Sen on the program to discuss a film, a British Renaissance conversation with Nick Griffin, which is part of the series that Jack’s organization, the British Renaissance Policy Institute is doing. Nick Griffin is described at various times as, the “most dangerous man in British politics” and the “most successful far Right leader in British history“. He’s been active in radical nationalist politics since he joined the National Front in 1974 at the age of fifteen. Now a father four with four grandchildren, he’s best known in Britain for having gone from facing jail for high profile, Race Law prosecutions, for speaking out against Muslim grooming gangs in 2004, to being elected a member of the European Parliament, while leader of the British National Party.

He is now vice president of the Pan European Alliance for Peace and Freedom, and a political advisor to the British Unity Party. Jack Sen was the United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP, prospective member of Parliament for West Lancashire, before being unceremoniously and quite publicly suspended by Nigel Farage, one week prior to the general election for alleged anti-semitism and attempting to broach the subject of indigenous displacement in Britain and British culture suicide.

Despite being dismissed from the party Jack placed a strong third in the parliamentary election, receiving over six thousand votes. A total greater than UKIP’s Deputy Leader, Paul Nutall. And the other UKIP MEPs representing this region. Jack then served the British National Party as it’s northwest spokesman from May through mid-October, 2015, but stepped down to concentrate on his British Renaissance Policy Institute, and finishing his book, “How to Get Suspended from UKIP and the BNP in 10 Articles and two Tweets.”

The “Fate and Future and Fight of Europe” is our main topic.

Good show ahead and stay tuned.

Henrik: Welcome back Jack. Thank you so much for coming on with us again. It’s always a pleasure speaking with you and I hope you’re doing well today.

Jack Sen: I am, Henrik. Thanks for having me, I really appreciate it.

Henrik: You bet and thank you. And also a welcome to Nick Griffin. A pleasure to speak with you Nick. Thank you so much for taking the time doing the show with us here today.

Nick Griffin: Well again, thank you and thank your listeners.

Henrik: All right! Well, guys before you talk more about the film that you guys have been involved in and obviously some of the current projects both in terms of the European Project at political parties. And of course some of the problems that we face as well that I want to talk a bit about Brussels. But before we do that, maybe we can just briefly introduce Nick, a bit, to our audience. I think you, to be honest, most are actually familiar with you and what not. But tell us a bit about your political career and what you maybe think some newcomers should, should know about you Nick.

[Image] Nick Griffin (circled) graduating in law at Cambridge.

Nick: Well, I guess, I’m a fifty seven now, a father of four with four grandchildren. And I started off in the National Front when I was fifteen, back in 1974. And I’ve been involved in radical national politics ever since in Britain. I was elected as a Member of the European Parliament for the British National Party in 2009. And sat for five years, there. And I’m now pretty much a freelancer and looking for ways to help put the battered nationalist movement back together, here in Britain.

[Image] Nick Griffin in trim condition during his early days in the National Front.

Henrik: How did things go for in the European Parliament? I think one of my favorite moments with you Nick that I saw, was when you spoke about the Kalergi Plan in the parliament. Thank you for doing that, by the way! [laughing]

[Image] Nick Griffin delivering his exposure of the on-going Kalergi Plan to genocide Whites in Europe through a program of Third World invasion, miscegenation and other methods.

Griffin said:

“When the godfather of the European Union, Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, published the plan for a united Europe and the ethnocide of the peoples of Europe, the encouragement of mass non-white immigration was central to the plot. Since then, an unholy alliance of leftists, capitalists and Zionist supremacists has schemed to promote immigration and miscegenation with the deliberate aim of breeding us out of existence in our homelands.

As indigenous resistance to this human genetic-modification industry grows, the criminal elite seeks new ways to camouflage their project. First, their immigrant pawns were temporary guest workers; then it was a multiracial experiment; then they were refugees, and then the answer to a shrinking population. Different excuses, different lies — and asylum is just another one. But the real aim stays the same: the biggest genocide in human history, the final solution to the Christian European problem. This crime demands a new set of Nuremberg trials, and you people will be in the dock.“

Nick: Yes, well it’s a fascinating place to have been. Essentially you’re understanding that you’re just a piece of a giant fig leaf. The MEPs don’t actually do anything useful. Everything done by the European Commission. And they in turn jump according to what their corporate paymasters tell them to do. So Monsanto and people like that really make the rules and the MEPs are just there to make now so he it look decent.

But it was a very interesting time. A lot hostility from the British MEPs. From the majority of the MEPs from the rest of the European Union, overall, they are pretty much tolerate everybody. But I’m pleased to say that I was the, in that term the biggest, probably, black sheep of the whole lot. Of course there are now our comrades from Golden Dawn there, so they are now the black sheep. But back, back in 2009 to 14, it was me.

[05:10]

And as you say it was that one, the [Richard von] Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan. My personal favorite was, I confronted one of the main spokesman of the European Jewish Congress in a committee meeting, when they were, of course, preaching about how racism had to be stamped out and all the rest of it. And I pointed out that they were the biggest racist of the lot.

Henrik: I missed that one! I can’t believe that I missed that one. I didn’t see that. That’s great! What kind of setting was that, by the way? Because I know that they have their own Parliament and their own Congress as well, I believe, right? So, were they in the main Parliament having a meeting or were you at their place, their location, so to speak?

Nick: No, they came in to give evidence, or rather, give orders to the committee of the European Parliament that deals with civil liberties. So why were to say, you need to restrict your civil liberties somewhat, or rather, somewhat more. And they weren’t expecting me.

Henrick: Wow! Gee! All right, well maybe we can have talk a bit more about that later. Why don’t we just briefly just kind of talk about some of things that’s going on with you, ow gentleman? We want to bring you guys on because you have a new film out. You’re also of course involved in the Alliance for Peace and Freedom. That’s a European Party. And then, you’re still involved with British Renaissance and you guys are actually kind of converging a bit with some of your project right now. Tell us more about that Jack.

[Image] Jack Sen interviewing the former leader of the BNP, Nick Griffin.

Jack: Yeah, well. The British Renaissance policy is to, has been around for a few months now. Several different objectives as you can go over a little bit later. But regarding the film we wanted to create a, … I’ve been thinking about creating a fair and accurate historical record of British nationalism. On the Internet there’s not much that we see in the mainstream media. Especially nothing that’s professionally produced.

So what I want to do is produce a few professional quality films, with a proper director. And I thought to myself, I should interview the former members of European Parliament, the British National Party. And that’s when I got in contact with Nick, as well as Andrew Brons.

[Image] Jack Sen protesting the anti-White Slavery Museum.

And then we created a couple of films and then we also did a film outside a slavery museum. But I suppose the two most important films I’ve done have been the interviews. First which was done with with Nick. Maybe Nick can tell you a little bit about how we did it and why he did it.

Nick: Yeah, yeah, sure. Well Jack suggested the idea as a way of really putting into the permanent public record, an account of, where in my case, you know, my career, what I’ve done and would have done what I’m trying to do now. So that people now and in the future. Don’t have to rely on the extraordinary bias snippets put out by the likes of the BBC and Sky News.

And so, necessarily it was quite a long interview, several hours long, which has been split into three. And we cover my career, the circumstances of nationalism in Britain and the rest of the world now. And what we think is going to happen next. So I think it’s a very very useful project. Obviously it’s only the first one, only went out a couple of days ago. So I don’t know how long it will be before we really get the numbers that the work of the editing team deserves in terms of the risk. But I’m sure we will get there.

And whatever is the case in the next few months, I’m sure it would have done what it set out to do, which is to create a long term public record of a sensible discussion. Neither grotesque hostility that gets in the way of the facts, nor fawning sycophantism. It was a straight down the line interview which can be used by nationalists now, and perhaps by, if there is a history of our people in due course, by historians, as well.

Henrick: Yeah, exactly. I mean the media is just incredibly dishonest and a bunch of, a bunch of liars. It’s just a fact. Now. OK, so obviously we can refer people to the film for the really detailed story here, obviously. That you guys have already done the heavy lifting, so to speak on that. But Nick, what do you think people should know about the British National Party? I mean, how long were you involved in and what would you say now in hindsight. What, what worked and, and what didn’t? Kind of a difficult question perhaps. Well what do you think?

Nick: Well I, first of all I was in the National Front from 1974 to 1989. And then, I was involved, got involved with the British National Party, almost by mistake, really, from about 1993 onwards. When I found, I got in touch with people I had known in the NF and realised that they were a good bunch, they were attracting a lot of young people, but I could see they were making some of the same mistakes the we made. And felt the I had a duty to help. So I got involved with the BNP.

I really got heavily involved, from 1996. John Tyndall had me as editor of his magazine, Spearhead for three years exactly, thirty six issues, between [19] 96 and [19] 99, when I became leader, elected leader of our party and carried on from there until, when was it, 2014.

[Image] The National Front chairman, John Tyndall (14 July 1934 – 19 July 2005), at a rally in Lewisham in 1977.

[10:16]

So what can we learn? In a way a lot of it will be historic, I think. Because, certainly in Britain, if you look demographically and politically, I would say that the last chance for a genuine nationalist party, to come to power through the ballot box — and, let’s make no bones about it, we were stopped. And we, at one stage, in say 2007, 2008, we terrified the establishment. We had in one set of local elections, our average vote was fourteen percent across the board, across vast swathes of the country.

Now of we had that in any Europe country with proportional representation, that would have given us, hundreds, hundreds upon hundreds of councilors and a vast financial base. And things would have been very different. And it was, all it did was to draw down the combined united wrath of the establishment upon us, and with a combination of outside attacks, inside attacks and lawfare, quite, quite simply, in the end really, they broke us.

So, you can look at it as a historical thing, but perhaps some of that, it can’t be replicated. There’s simply no time to replicate that and I’m sure we’ll go on to discuss the circumstances about about to blow up in Europe. Meaning that, going for a long haul, party political road is now simply not on the table.

Henrik: OK. So let’s talk actually about that now Jack. So feel free to jump in Nick, of course. I want to get to the essence a bit of what the fight really is about here. Let’s assume that we have someone tuning in right that don’t, that don’t understand your concerns with the demographics, the great replacement, the attack on English people, the British people and of course the heritage and the culture. Tell us a bit of what is happening in Britain right now. And we can begin with you Nick, and encapsulate your concerns for us.

Nick: Well. In simplistic terms, in London, our capital city, in Birmingham, our second city, the indigenous British, including the Irish are now a minority in our two greatest cities. In our schools something like twenty five percent of school children are now from immigrant parents. And the numbers are catastrophic.

It’s not just a question of continued immigration, we’re still having immigration from the Third World at the rate of nearly half a million every year. And at the same time as that, there’s three hundred thousand people leave the country, each year. Now, invariably skilled upper working class Whites with young families leaving, because they can’t stand the place any more.

Henrik: Where are they going? Do, you know where they are going?

Nick: They’re going everywhere they can. Australia, quite a few to the USA, a few to Canada, large numbers to Spain. France, that has come to a grinding halt, because going to France is out of the frying pan into the fire. They’re going anywhere they can, in order to get out of the country which they see very clearly is screwed by immigration and the birthrate.

But worst than that, when our people, when nationalists talk about demographics, very few of them has yet understood, really, the demographics isn’t just about the immigration and immigrant birthrates, it’s also about our population. And our population is aging at such a pace. Out birthrates across Europe, the indigenous birthrate, once you strip out the immigrants, is such that something like, between 0.9 every child per woman of child bearing age, up to about 1.4, 1.5. That means by the end of the century, the population in every single European country, on present trends, will be about 20% of what they are now.

So even without the immigration we face a societal breaking, a demographic problem. And when you include immigration, and deliberately, not necessarily enforced, but deliberately encouraged miscegenation, our people in Western Europe are already past the point where we can talk about remaining a minority [majority?] in our own homelands. It’s simply not going to happen.

Henrik: Jack. Let me switch to you a bit here you. We spoke a little bit, briefly yesterday before the recording here, to coordinate a bit. Tell us a bit about what’s happening in Bradford, as an example of, you know, of how this kind of plays out right now.

Jack: Sure. In Bradford it’s a major problem because the demographic have changed to such an extent that the vast majority of the city now is Islamic. Whites have moved to the suburbs, where they still are predominately indigenous British. But the vast majority the city, and of course unfortunately, the elected officials will be Labor until the last, because of the demographic force of the Muslim population. And it’s happening all across the nation, unfortunately.

[15:05]

Henrik: Yeah, exactly! We see Whites, we see White flight, and I mean this very aspect of, you know, native English or British people are a minority in their own capital. This is something that actually gained, somewhat focus even in the mainstream. I think there was a clip of John Cleese, of all people, actually speaking out and then talking about the fact that something is horribly wrong. When, when this is occurring. How do we, what I mean, how do we even, I mean people still fight, people like you Nick, for even, for even bringing attention to this.

I mean, how, how the heck can we can awaken people to the aspect that this, if this happened, if this same thing happened in any other country, if we had a population coming in and replacing the local one, especially we in the West would be up in arms and we would be screaming, “Genocide!” at this point. But it’s not happening because it’s happening in Western countries, right?

Nick: Sure, yes, and then, well. See, we’ve been saying this for decades, haven’t we? This is the problem.

Henrik: Yeah.

Nick: So, just saying it isn’t going to wake people up. I think now, certainly huge numbers of people that I’ve spoken to, and obviously I’m, I’m still, by far, the most recognised, or recognizable figure in British nationalism in the country. So people still come up to me, you know, in, by the way service stations, supermarkets and so on, and have a chat and tell me how they feel. And they all get it now. Huge numbers understand it, but they now feel, “What can we do a bit?” And actually, that’s a very sensible and legitimate question, because just pretending we can wave a magic wand and come to power and change it, isn’t going to work.

So, I think we’re now at the stage of having to prepare to, take advantage of at least one good thing that I think will happen. And that is that, every single minority, everywhere in the world that I’ve ever studied, once they become a minority — and we will still be the largest minority in Britain and Western Europe for a long time to come — when people become a minority and they and their children are therefore treated like dirt, that’s when they tend to fight.

You know, if you look at say, in politics, the internal politics of Britain, the English are always the majority, their politics is a class struggle. Whereas in Ireland and in Scotland and in Wales, because people were put down by what they saw as a foreign power, it became a national struggle, an ethnic struggle. You know, a linguistic and cultural struggle. And I think that we’ll inevitably find that our people will be more willing to accept our message and more prepared to defend themselves, because now they will have to. You had a choice until now, running away or pretending it isn’t happening. And that choice is now coming to a grinding halt.

So people therefore, they will fight, but of course they don’t know how to. And it is very, very important for us to stop the fantasies of drastic sweeping change from the top, and start to do what all nationalist and revolutionary organizations did, do. Which is to work to organize their communities, to empower their communities, to radicalize their communities. And to help their community learn how to defend themselves.

Henrik: OK, I want to ask you more about radicalize there. But you said, before that, you said minorities are treated like dirt. Now, would you say that the English treated the non-European minorities like dirt?

Nick: No. No, obviously that’s, …

Henrik: Right.

Nick: No, no, most definitely not. Everywhere else in the world, apart from the world colonized by our people, who probably are uniquely, amongst human populations, have the ability to empathize and put yourself in the other man’s shoes. And want to be, and therefore treat them as he want to be treated himself. But, when we look at the rest of the world, we see all too clearly that’s not what’s coming to Britain and Europe and for that matter the United States. Because the USA is only, what, twenty five or thirty years less far down the line, but heading in the same direction.

Henrik: Yeah, but, exactly. It’s almost like I do want to, … If someone is listening that lives, that lives in London, that they can give us a few examples and talk with us and explain what’s happening and how they’re treated, and how they’re feeling living there. Maybe they’re is a situation where they can’t, you know, they’re in one of these transitional neighborhoods where, ….

Jack: I can, …

Henrik: Yeah, yeah. Go ahead.

Jack: I can give you a good example.

Henrik: Sure, sure.

Jack: I can give you a good example. A few months ago when I started the British Renaissance, a young man reached out to me, via the Internet, and asked me if he could join the party. And I said that we’re not a political party. And he said, “Well what do you do?” And I said we’re looking to stand up for the rights of the indigenous population, and find a way to move the “Overton Window” over, slightly, to the right, so we can discuss things that are impacting our communities.

He then went into how he feels like a stranger in his own community. He was actually growing, he grew up a liberal in a liberal family. However over the years, he noticed his head would get lower and lower and lower when he walked down the street. First it was a feeling of guilt for seeing people who, minorities living in bad situations.

Then, he noticed that as the minorities gained in power and strength in number, they’d started to intimidate him. He felt he had become almost unwanted in his own community and it was quite alarming for him. And he told me how he would walk down the street with his head down. Because he was fearful of what they would say to him, simply for being indigenous White British.

[20:26]

Henrik: Yeah. Yeah, there you go. Actually, Brussels is a prime example of this. My wife and I went through Antwerp, when was this, three years ago now I believe and it was very interesting to see that. I think Brussels is a good example of also a nation of course that is internally, even without the immigration, in internal turmoil of sorts, because it’s like, … It is a forced nation. You have the Flemish nationalist, which seems to be the most cohesive, but then you have a German speaking population, a French one. It is just all over the place.

But, I remember this one thing. We were stopping, and trying to ask someone for directions, for help. And OK, granted I spoke English to the gentleman but, I couldn’t get any contact with the guy. I tried a couple of other people too. And it even seems that now after the terrorist attacks in Brussels, that even the Belgian authorities have been treating the situation, is very disorganized. It’s almost like that all this forced diversity on top of the nation that’s already pretty shattered and fractured is breeding these people that are incredibly atomized and so individualized that just as you say Jack, they keep their head down. They don’t engage in anybody.

When I asked for the directions, I couldn’t even get in contact with them, anybody. It was like, this, this, … They’re living side by side, right next to each other, but no one knows each other. They’re not even speaking their own language, and this is of course a hundred times worse with all the immigration now in Brussels. And I couldn’t believe it when we came into Antwerp, it was like the traffic rules were out the window, it was basically like being in Egypt. We have these beautiful, beautiful European buildings around us with a population that was like, not a single White person left anymore. It was just incredible to see.

Nick: That is how I feel, you know, going to London. I was born, brought up in London. I spent a lot of my early political career on the streets in London and when I go back there now, it’s both heartbreaking and makes me very angry. And certainly I don’t feel at home there and nor does any normal person.

Henrik: Yeah.

Jack: And Nick mentioned the fact that British families aren’t having children. And quite remarkably there’s been a UN study that they recently released, which, which states for the record that the solution to this problem is bringing in immigrants. To actually, save the population of Western Europe,. They actually believe that bringing in immigrant populations and migrations of Africans and Asians will actually rescue Great Britain from it’s failure to have children.

Nick: Well of course that is what, … There’s an enormous of pressure for that, because there’s the ideological pressure from the, from the far left, from the Talmudists, and so on. And then there’s the financial pressure from capitalism. Whereby, when you are trying to make a profit you’ve got to have plenty of consumers and plenty of cheap labour.

So you put on top of the ideological reasons for destroying our people. And all sorts of very powerful forces want to encourage, keep encouraging mass immigration. Just the last few weeks, actually, I’ve noticed it’s changed. Going back anything past a few weeks and people like me and people like us, we are the only people who ever use the word, “demographic”. Whereas now, on the BBC, and so on, Radio Four is their political flagship, program. Every morning, time and time again on that now you’ll hear leftists, saying:

“Oh, we’ve got to have mass immigration for demographic reasons. Because there’s not enough of us. No one will look after us when we are old, and we haven’t had enough children.”

It’s an incredible cheek when you consider the reason our people haven’t had enough children, is precisely the same people with their pressure against having kids, with abortion on demand. And one of the things as well, which I’m very sure they knew about, because I found out about it, and I’m not a rocket scientists.

There were studies done in the USA at the time of, as State by State were desegregated, and they found back, so we are talking in the early mid-sixties. They found direct correlation between desegregation and a collapse in the White birthrate, as people thought:

“Well is it really worth bringing kids into this uncertain world that is increasingly isn’t ours?”

Henrik: Yeah.

Nick: So, they have known for a long, long, time that bringing in immigrants from other places, especially ones who have some thoroughly anti-social tendencies, will, one of the things it will do is to disrupt and drive down the birthrate of good law-abiding peoples. And that is exactly what it has done.

[25:02]

Jack: Yeah, which transpired at the exact same time as, what, Second Wave feminism. So you have another driving force to pit women against man and divides families and preaches the importance of material, materialism and, … Having women in the workplace driving down labor costs, and you’re increasing tax revenue to the state.

So you have this massive force coming from all different angles but, which ends up with the same result. People don’t get married, they don’t have children, and the only people having children are the underclass, the minority populations and immigrants who believe that the family is the bedrock of their, their society.

Nick: Yes, indeed.

Henrik: Yeah. So on top of this, of course, you do have then, radical organized Islam, you have terrorism and of course, couple that with what Whites usually have, which is high investment parenting. That’s a recipe for disaster right there! There’s nothing, I mean if you can’t move out of those cities and maybe get to the countryside where there’s other people like you, the chances that you want to have children, at least, you know, many, is very slim I think, right?

Nick: Very, very slim and then there’s a new factor coming in, which I feel, I want to mention it, because it’s particularly relevant to young nationalist males. That there’s the, the new thing, that there’s a reaction to the ugliness and the anti-male hysteria of feminism. There’s now this, “All men together type approach” that is the likes of Milo, who some people say, “Oh, he’s some kind of hero”, you know, by standing up for the rights of men. No! He’s a homosexual, he’s Jewish and he very, very clearly has an agenda, in encouraging further hostility between women and men.

Up until now the hostility has come from the feminists, towards men. There’s now this very ugly drive to encourage our people to take an anti-women stance, not anti-feminist stance, an anti-dyke stance, but an anti-women stance, altogether. And, you know, to go off in little groups of men and not want to be associated with women. Well, it’s the kiss of death, isn’t it?

Henrik: Yeah, the, …

Jack: It is. You know, … Sorry, I was going to say that, yes, look at the message boards and the comments on a lot of the national sites. There is a palpable hatred towards women from White men and it is quite shocking. You know, some of the language I see directed at women. And, like Nick said, I think it is this anti-feminist people, like this Milo as well as men like, who would attend a conference in the United States. Who preach this sort of, “It’s us against them”. But the “them” is not the Muslims or the Jews, the “them” is the women, and it’s quite remarkable. Because, you know, in a healthy society men need women and women need men. And unfortunately we’ve been driven to hate one another by the left and now are unfortunately the right.

Nick: What makes it particularly effective is that a lot of, what the likes of Milo say about feminism and so on, it’s all true. There’s a close parallel with the Zionists and the Neocons who want to try and use very genuine legitimate concerns about Islamisation and radical Islam, to have us all go off and fight wars for Israel.

And again about 90% of what they are saying about the Islamisation problem in the West, is true. But when they take that final 10% and therefore we have to stand with the very people that did so much to create the problem in the first place, that’s where, that’s where we have to draw the line.

Henrik: Well, very good point. You know, I wanted to bring that up, but you’re right. I mean, Milo Yiannopoulos, as he’s called, an editor at Breitbart and, you know, this kind of similar publications. I knew that he was homosexual, but I did not know that he was Jewish! That’s interesting, and even on Wikipeadia, right there, so.

So, that’s a good point, because we do have Breitbart and I mean, don’t get me wrong, just as you say Nick, they have some excellent articles that exposes the problem with Islam, right? And these are legitimate steam valves that opens up now and then so that the discontent that the people have is channeled and funneled into the right direction where they, never ever, of course, talk about the main lobby that’s behind pushing mass immigration into the West, right?

Nick: I’d say yes. I absolutely agree with you. But I would say it’s worse than just a steam valve! They’re not just getting us to let off steam so we don’t do anything. They’re deliberately trying to provoke a total clash of civilizations. Where it’s all of us against all of them. One, whereby we lose, because, for instance, if you look at the Muslim population, even if we were against all the Sunnis, well that makes the Shia our natural allies. It makes Iran a natural civilizational ally and so on. So we don’t want to be fighting all of them.

But in any case, the minute you start thinking about fighting all of them, as opposed to having a sensible agreement and divorce to part company. But the minute you start about fighting all of them, you end up on the side of the people who created the mess in the first place. And that’s what they want. They want a civil war in Europe. And they’re working very hard to get one. And the ISIS and other scumbags on the other side ,will of course help them because, they want the same thing.

[30:15]

Henrik: Yeah, very good point. And it’s also of course very, very difficult in that, in that place to, to go a step further, to a level two, if you will, for people. Because, most of what they see is things that’s occurring right in front of their eyes, right? They’re going to see that Islam is a problem, they’re going to see that these people are not integrating. And all those things are true, just as we, you know, just as you say. But to try to go that extra length and ask, or rather to push upon, these people. “Well these are the people behind it” and what not.

I hope that there is enough interest in people alone, that they will some, … They will ask that question, I mean we have to provide the answers of course to them but, you know, in some cases I just know the situation in Sweden right. That you have a whole lot of people that are very upset with the Islamic invasion, if you will. But as soon as you begin to talking about, you know, that there’s, you know, Jewish influences in the country and what not. They’re looking at you like you’re from Mars or something, right? I mean it’s very difficult to to see them connect. It’s almost like them to say:

“Well now, now you’re talking like them because these Islamicists, they’re the new Nazis, right?”

[laughing] So it’s difficult, it’s very difficult!

Jack: We need to move the Overton Window to the Right. But also to, a portion of the Right, I could actually discuss issues other than Islam. Unfortunately there is no party in Britain that is, and there’s no part of the Right that will actually discuss the influence Jews have had on our society, any more. Even the BNP refused to discuss it. When I was in the BNP, I was told pretty much, “You can’t mention kosher with haram”. You can say a “halal” but you can’t say “kosher”.

Henrik: Yeah.

Jack: That, that was pretty much the, that was pretty much the path they wanted to head down. I mean UKIP, if you look at UKIP. I mean moments after Lee Rigby was decapitated by Muslims, they ran to a local mosque to appease the Muslims in private. But then publicly, they would say that they were culturally, possibly, not really incompatible, but there were issues.

So they’re things we can’t talk about, things we can’t speak about. And what I think we should do is move the Overton Window. In a slightly different direction so, things that people are thinking we can actually speak about again. Our politicians won’t even engage us until, until enough people start talking about these issues.

Henrik: Let me interject this. Isn’t there also then an interface here, because what I’ve noticed is that, despite the fact that, you know, Breitbart and the Rebel media, the Truth Revolt, a number of these that have adopted names that, you know, kind of the Alternative Truth Movement had ten years ago. But anyway, they have, they’ve also, they do have an interface with the mainstream media that now and then, they, they do get on mainstream TV.

I believe Milo, he’s like on these panels and stuff like that. He gets some media exposure, right? So that, there’s still an interface, despite the fact that they are seen as a kind of an opposition, or an alternative, or a new rising media. They’re enough, you know, on board, if you will, so that they get that attention in the media. Unlike, you know, us or, you know, in some cases you guys as well of course, that, … We don’t get that airplay, we don’t get that time. We, no one kind of on the mass scale knows that, not with you Nick, of course, people know who you are. But, I’m talking about certain outlets that we don’t get that same interface and recognition that some of these guys do. Right?

Nick: Of course not. No, because they’re essentially part of the same system. They’re the, the system, … They understood, I think they looked at the way in which White nationalist movements and individuals all over the world really dominated and to an extent still dominant, the Alternative media and the internet.

They saw that this was very, very dangerous and initially they put a lot of effort into trying to control the web. And I think they have concluded that they may well not be able to now. So they have moved into creating such a large block of interrelated alternative media. That when people go hunting and go looking and they give up on the BBC or CNN. So they get on the internet, they are still going to find the same poison, rebottled in different bottles.

Henrik: Yeah, good point, good point. Let’s talk a bit about how, I mean this, the media war of course is an issue in itself and, we can we can hold off on that a little bit. Let’s just talk about the politics of this now, too. Because you mentioned Nick that people now, they can see, right even, even with the terrorism that we’re now seeing in Europe on a almost monthly basis now. At some point it will be there, it will just increase and increase and increase.

There is a great time of opportunity, it’s a great danger of course to, to many people, but it’s a great opportunity. And it’s important for us to be there and what not. But, would you say that politically, is the option there or off the table? Is this now about a meta-political battle or how do you see that in terms of forming a, you know, yet another party, or do, you know, is there time for that? What do you think?

[35:02]

Nick: There’s certainly, … Now, we have to form another party, because having a party, it’s an easy way in for people. Some people would choose to join in a political movement, or become followers, something like Red Ice Radio, for instance. Other people, they think they want to make a change:

“How do I that, I’ve got to join a political party.”

So, for those people, and it’s not all of them, but it’s a significant number of potential rebels, and we need every last one we can get. Some of them, joining a party is what they will do. So therefore, there has to be a party which offers them the possibility and which just got the answers.

But if you think that, that party is going to be allowed to legitimately to contest elections and treated fairly by the mass media, and simply to come to power the other’s will hand us the keys to the government buildings. You know, and the codes to the nuclear weapons and so on. Well, if you think that, you are obviously stark staring mad! Because that is not going to happen.

So a party has a place, but it is only a place in, in a bigger movement. And the danger in forming another party is, you then tend to get sucked down the road:

“Well, we have to contest elections. We have to do well. How do you do well in elections? Where do you trim your message, a bit?”

So you are only saying what people want to hear, and your book going round that same circle.

And as I was said, it was, I think it was legitimate to try that one last time, until very recently, because demographically, there was still the faintest possibility of winning that way. Now that is gone, then, you have a party, but it’s got to be part of a bigger group which also fights the battle of ideas, and also looks to fight on the international level. I think that’s very, very important. Our enemies all operate at an international level, which gives them immense power. We can and increasingly are doing the same and that’s very, very valuable.

And there are some places in Europe that could in due case, course be some places in the United States, if it falls apart, as it might. There are some places where you can have a national revolution in one area. But, I think it’s absolutely clear, that a national revolution, which is only in one area, is not going to survive very long. So wherever we make the breakthrough, and I’m thinking now, again for demographic reasons as well as politics, it’s looking like Central or Eastern Europe. Wherever we really make the breakthrough, we’ll have to pile our efforts into encourage and defend that breakthrough.

Henrik: So it is like a pan-European effort, because as, … We’ve actually spoken about this in the program and it is, a… There’s some good points within this that obviously we are, you know, against the European Union, but at the same time, the, the framework that has been built with that, is obviously something potentially, … Don’t know if we will, but it’s something that we could use to our advantage. A pan-European effort is something that is necessary in this case, I believe.

Nick: A pan-European effort is absolutely essential! And there’s, if we would talk a bit later on about, I’m sure, about the Alliance for Peace and Freedom. You know, we’re getting this year, the genuine radical nationalist movement, including Golden Dawn, the National Democrats in Germany, Forza Nuova [New Force] in Italy and so on. So the real hardcore, genuine nationalist radicals in Europe, were getting half a million euros from the European Union. And they could jump through hoops for it. But it’s a useful sum of money, so that we can use.

Again, I think the idea that real nationalists can really dominate the European Union, … Someone once said to me:

“Well they’ve building a house for us. If they build it we can take it over”.

And look at all, look at all the nationalists in the European Union, the big block from the Front National, the big block from Italy and so on, … Let’s get it clear, they are not nationalists! A lot of the rank and file are, and Jean-Marie Le Pen was a nationalist, although he had civic overtones, or undertones which went with the French experience, and so on. And his own experience, you know, in the Army in Algeria and such like.

But certainly under his daughter the Front National is not a nationalist party, it’s a pro-Zionist party, which is OK or good on Islam, as far as it goes. But even on immigration, in their position, because they’ve got to stop, the same as UKIP, we’ve got to stop all the immigration from some countries, Islamic countries or Eastern Europe, so that we can have more of our traditional immigrants from Africa. Well, you know, I can assure you, thanks but no thanks.

Henrik: Right.

Jack: Yeah, and I think Miss Le Pen’s, … Her, … Some of her biggest backers are homosexuals in France. I’ve read somewhere that her second in command is a homosexual male. And I think there’s about four or five homosexuals that are actually in her block. I’m not quite sure if that’s the case, but from what I’ve read that she has quite a few high ranking homosexuals in her party.

[40:00]

Nick: The party machine is dominated by them. And these are people, … They are not the occasional ones who happen to be that way and they keep it to themselves and it doesn’t affect their politics. They act and they think and act as a gay block and part of their push on Marine is that she can also make herself very, very respectable by making an alliance with the Jews.

As a parallel there, you’ve got the Northern League and Casa Pound with other nationalists thinkers, a great bunch in Italy. You know, the League have an official link with Likud in Israel.

Henrik: Oh, jeez!

Nick: So, you know, when people say:

“Oh, these are nationalists, we can work with them.”

You know, the answer is no. What I do think we can do and Jack and I have spoken about this a lot and have written about it. We can view them in a different way, you don’t have to view these people and their organizations as something utterly beyond the pale, that we mustn’t touch, it’s an appalling development. It’s only an appalling development bad for our cause if we don’t find a way to deal with it and gain from it.

And what organizations like UKIP or in France the Front National have done. They’ve given a hope, false hope but it’s hope nevertheless to large numbers of people, new people. And they’re bringing on board new people. They’re politicizing people who previously weren’t political and once they’re politicized, especially in the time of the internet, you are only a few clicks, one night away, from discovering, you know, a whole world of things, that you never knew existed or had happened. And there’s a radicalization process.

Henrik: Yes, yes.

Nick: Historically these parties I think are part of a really important process of the people waking up. But it’s only any good if people like us, develop ways to go fishing in this big pond being created by these people and catch the best fish and then make good use of them.

Jack: I have a question for Nick, if I could ask. Two part question, Nick. Do the homosexuals embrace the Front National and Miss Le Pen because they feel that Islam is a threat to their existence?

Henrik: Of course.

Jack: And the second question would be, is there any way to radicalize people in Front National and in parties like UKIP, in your opinion?

Nick: You know. Yes, the first part, I think that is very clearly the case. Same as, throughout the whole Neocon organization and all their mass media things on either the mainstream media or the alternative [media]. You’ll find, if there’s an intelligent young spokesman for these politics, he’s either Jewish or he’s an upper-class gentile homosexual.

And, they’re also fanatically against Putin and Russia. And, it’s quite simply that, you know, Putin is less than favorable towards open displays of homosexuality. And they take it very personally and their whole world view is affected by their own personal thing. So, obviously in that respect they are very much like members of the Jewish community. Many, or most of whom, also do the same thing. So that is why they are there. And that means you can’t really turn them round.

Can we radicalize members of UKIP, the Front National? Absolutely so! I’ve no doubt about that. It’s a matter of setting up the machinery, which includes things as old fashioned as books and as modern as internet radio stations and especially internet television.

Because are only certain kinds of people who will listen to a political discussion that goes on an hour and a half, even though we are scintillatingly interesting, all three of us. You know, whereas, if you can boil your message down to a forty five second video clip, then you are going to reach a hell of a lot more people. I mean, between us in different ways, we create a ladder of radicalisation, then some of them, not all all of them, will get on that ladder.

Henrik: Let me add something here. I think this is an extremely important part of the discussion here. Because, despite the fact that we can, we can find these discrepancies that we can find the fact that this is, you know heading in a, you know, pretty bad direction. The fact that this is, that the discontent is being hijacked if you will. But I think, we have to work with it despite everything, right? It’s very important for us to ride that wave. I don’t think that we can work against that stream of discontent. We have to also learn how to surf that, just as you said Nick. We, you know, we need to fish that pond, if you will.

Because as things get worse with terrorism within Europe, and the more they, these parties and organizations stick to the simplicity of, like, “Get Islam out!” You’re not going to be able to get in there and say, “No, no!” you know, it is just not going to work. You have to, we have to use that energy and, … But we have to be, we have to be friends, we are friends with these people, right? Because we’re, in this regard, we are on the same page. I mean, at the end result of it, sure, we might have a different opinion of where this needs to go. You know, we might not want to see, you know, war with Islam in the Middle East, right?

[45:00]

Where the European forces move in to have a World War III with Islam or something. That’s not what we want. Right. But we want to get them out of our countries nonetheless. We have to work with them up to a certain point and try to get as many of them as possible to see where we’re coming from. And the very fact that we need to have intelligence organisations and our own lobby groups that work towards the fact that at the end of this, we don’t want a war.

We want a Europe which is natively European. We want to get out of these horrible foreign policy issues and all these kinds of issues. I think it’s an incredibly important time right now to try to not make enemies, but make friends, but know what’s at the end of that tunnel. The goal, basically. What’s the carrot, you know.

Nick Griffin: Yeah, absolutely so!

Henrik Palmgren: Jack, any additions to that?

Jack Sen: Yeah, certainly. I think you have to work with them.

I mean, we have to exploit every single opportunity we have. Right now, there’s obviously almost, people are petrified of Islamic people living in Europe. And it might sound strange, but I’ve noticed when I speak to people that are not nationalists and they see someone wearing a full hijab, they are immediately terrified by that person. And it would be nice to exploit the fears of these people.

At the end of the day, I think we have to at this point, because there is a genuine concern that they will take over the country at some point, whether it’s demographically through outbreeding the native population or eventually through an armed uprising. They are certainly looking to take over Western Europe.

I mean, there’s no doubt in my mind that’s their plan. I think they’re just fighting their time because they do recognise that [we have] 1.9 children per family, where they have seven. So within 50 years, they will be able to pretty much control the government through the electoral, through the ballot box. But certainly there is also a risk that some of the more extreme elements of the Islamic community will grab their weapons and get out in the street and commit horrendous acts as we’ve just seen in Brussels.

Henrik Palmgren: Yeah.

[47:10]

Nick Griffin: Sure. And if I can come in there.

Firstly, Jack’s absolutely right that they don’t need to kick off now and the sensible ones don’t want to. All they simply do is tell their people:

“Just have children, just have children and rear them, right, and we’re going to win in the end!”

And the Muslim Brotherhood are the ones hugely financed by the Saudi Arabians.

So they’re talking vast amounts of money, vast amounts of influence, particularly in Britain, but elsewhere in Europe as well, in the Sunni Muslim community, which is, of course, the majority. And I’ve spoken with Muslims from both main branches of the faith, actually in Britain. I meet them on planes generally and sit and talk to them. Most to the bemusement of other passengers. And several different groups, chaps have said to me something like:

“25, 30, 40 in some areas, 50% of young Sunni Muslims are now basically fully radicalised. And it’s terrifying and there’s nothing we can do about it. And the government’s doing nothing to stop the Saudi Arabian money pouring in. And you people have no idea how much trouble this is about to cause!”

So that’s certainly going on.

Now, as I say, the Muslim Brotherhood, they’re wise enough and they’ve been around long enough to understand all they’ve got to do is bide their time and therefore they’re trying to keep things under control. When you look, for instance, at when the bears with little brains from Britain First, have turned up outside mosques and so on, and been extraordinarily provocative. The discipline shown by the young Muslims is astounding! They turn out in large numbers in order to protect the mosque and protect their community and so on.

But generally they retain their discipline in a way that White youngsters, under those circumstances, if they outnumbered the police, they outnumbered the opposition on the scale they do, they would simply go berserk.

So these people are very disciplined. They know exactly what they’re doing.

But the thing, which again, Jack points to is that some of the more extreme elements don’t want to wait. That’s an absolutely key thing! We’ve got to understand that there’s turf wars going on within the Muslim population and there’s jockeying for position and power and money and status. And that there’s the hardliners, they’re no more extreme than the others, it’s a tactical difference. It’s revolutionaries versus Fabians. The hardliners want to kick it off now.

And there’s no point us actually thinking, I don’t think, making our plans really, on the assumption that things will carry on pretty much as they are just getting steadily worse with more terrorist explosions. It’s not going to be like that, I don’t believe, because you’ve got the hardliners on the Muslim side and the hardliners on the Zionist neocon side, both of them pushing not just for more problems, but they’re pushing for a civil war in Europe. When you’ve got two blocs as powerful doing that, you have to assume that they will get what they want. And when it happens, it’ll happen within a matter of a couple of weeks. It’ll go from being normal to being changed, utterly changed!

[50:25]

And the best example, anyone who wants to see what is going to happen in Britain and France and western Germany and Holland and so on, all they need to do is look at the history of Belfast and Londonderry in 1968 and 1969.

And just to tell you, your listeners, before I hand back to you, because I talk quite a bit here, what happened there is that 10,000 people in Belfast, a small city of sort of 250,000 people at the time, 10,000 people moved in a single night, in one night in 1968. This was communities who they had old historical divisions and so on, but they basically lived side by side in mixed communities in most of the city. And they’d lived like that for decades. And in a few nights in 1968, those communities fell apart, with people burning their own homes as they left them, rather than falling into the hands of the other side.

Or in other areas the paramilitaries, which rapidly grew up, arranged a peaceful but very swift and rough population transfer, whereby Protestants and Catholics, different sides of this little city, simply switched side. And it took the British army. They had 26,000 men trying to keep that place calm, and they couldn’t really keep it calm when the IRA, at their height, had only 400 armed volunteers. That’s all they had. There’s more than that in Bradford.

Jack Sen: Yeah. And I mean, God, quite remarkable. I mean, look at it this way. Nick said took 27,000 soldiers to quell an uprising of 400 IRA rebels.

I mean, the Muslim community in Great Britain has been stockpiling hundreds of thousands of high powered weapons. I’m not talking about brass knuckles, nunchucks and 22s. We’re talking about high power rated handguns, assault rifles like MP7s and M240s, even surface to air rocket launches and antitank weapons. Believe it or not, they’ve gotten into the country like Javelins that can take out a convoy of tanks with the push of a button.

The Muslim community, along with Britain’s Afro-Caribbean community, whether you want to believe it or not, has a lot of weapons. And the average British person has no idea what’s going to happen once these people decide to turn the weapons on the indigenous population, which I think they will do at some point.

As Nick stated, the people at the top will probably tell them to bide their time and keep calm and have children. In 50 years on, they can take over the country democratically, and then they can impose Sharia law. But there are people that are pretty hot headed and will get amongst themselves and decide that they want to go out in a night and kick off. And what will happen when they do? They have a lot of firepower.

Henrik Palmgren: Yeah.

Nick Griffin: Sorry.

Jack Sen: No, let me just, …

[53:12]

Henrik Palmgren: Yeah, I just wanted to actually take a short break here now because there’s other couple of things we need to get out here.

Before we do that, I just want to mention we have much more to discuss. This aspect is very important in terms of the weaponry. We’re going to talk more about that in the second segment as well.

But I also want to ask a bit more about Belgium. There’s some of these radical networks in London and England. And also how the European bureaucrats are seeking to use the terrorism that we saw in Brussels, Paris and London to what I think is going to be a federalised European police force and intelligence networks that is going to be more, at the end of it, prone to spy on people like us than on the radical Islamists. And here we are maybe in a position where we actually encourage that because we think this is going to be there to protect us. But let’s save that for the second hour. Let’s talk a bit about Alliance for Peace and Freedom first.

And I want to make sure that you guys give out information about the video, the film that you have as well, the interview, and where people can see that.

So let’s begin with the Alliance for Peace and Freedom. Whoever want to pick up on that.

Nick Griffin: Yeah. Okay.

So the European Eurocrats have decided they want to federalise everything, as you’ve just said, and they use every possible opportunity.

So one of the opportunities is they want to federalise political parties.

So they’ve created a pot. It’s about €23 million every year. It’s roughly the same in dollars at present, which goes to party political groups which were established across Europe.

And previously there’s been the communists, the Greens, the Liberal Democrats, the Christian Democrats, the Socialists, et cetera. They’ve all had these parties. There have been several attempts to create a nationalist one. And from the previous failures, really, we learnt a great deal. So, best part of two years ago, I approached Roberta Fiore and one of the main people in the NPD in Germany and said:

“Look, we should create one of these parties ourselves.”

You have to have a Member of Parliament or an NEP from at least seven countries in order to be recognised, and so on.

And so we decided to create this one the first year.

Last year we created the party. We were turned down on funding on an outrageous technicality. We decided not to waste our time taking to court and all the rest of it, enriching only the lawyers and simply got on with the job of running the party. We did a lot last year, actually, with no resources. We went to Syria, we went to Moscow, did a conference, sorry, St. Petersburg, did a conference there, held a number of joint demonstrations, started the process of converging nationalist ideologies.

[55:45]

So that was last year without funds.

This year, as I said earlier, we’ve had about half a million Euros of funds for the Alliance for Peace and Freedom as what is technically called a European level political party. And each party is also entitled to establish a Foundation which deals more with education and ideas. So in our case, our foundation is Europa Terrainostra, “Europe, Our Land”. And both the party and the foundation are now functioning. And we’ve got a lot of exciting plans for this year. Publishing house, various conferences, common activity programs, training for young people, and developing a lot more reach in social media.

Henrik Palmgren: Very, very good. We had actually, Stefan Jokovson [sp] from the former Party of the Swedes with us. And he’s a member, of course, as well.

Nick Griffin: Yes, indeed. He’s our general [word unclear].

Henrik Palmgren: Very good. Yeah, exactly! Very good gentleman.

And I think he told us that you guys are building or getting a new domain as well. Right. But what is the domain right now so people can get to the website for it?

Nick Griffin: At present, it’s Alliance-peace-freedom, with a hyphen between each one. So it’s a little bit difficult to remember.

So if people simply search alliance for peace and freedom, then they’ll find us pretty easily. And we’re, you say, getting a better domain. We’re improving the websites, but straight away there, there’s all the basic facts and so on and how they can join. Because as well as having affiliated party members such as Golden dawn and individual members of MPs and so on, it’s also now just opened for membership for individual nationalists and supporters anywhere in the world, who want to be involved and to help us develop this thing. It’s absolutely vital. I think everyone gets it now that we exchange intelligence, that we exchange best practice, that we work together.

So, for instance, when both Golden dawn and the NPD in Germany have come under attack in the last few months from their respective establishments, we’ve held joint demonstrations and encouraged joint demonstrations outside embassies all over Europe.

And although it doesn’t actually make any difference in a material sense, it makes a very important difference to the morale of the members under attack, that they’re not forgotten, that there’s people all over Europe who say:

“I stand with Golden Dawn, I stand with the NPD!”

It’s very important for their morale.

Henrik Palmgren: Yeah, that’s great!

So it’s like an umbrella organisation, and it’s some kind of overarching, centralised effort to help link together smaller groups, organisations and political parties as well.

So that’s really what’s needed. I think that’s a great idea.

All right, Jack, tell us about the film.

Jack Sen: Okay. Well, we produced the film. Well, Nick and I met. We produced the film over about 5 hours. We came up with about two and a half hours worth of footage. And really, basically, just as Nick said earlier, to record something accurate in the historical record, it would be online permanently that people can find when they want to know about Nick Griffin and what he’s accomplished. That’s all we really wanted to do.

When I search for something on Nick Griffin or any of the nationalists in Great Britain, inevitably I find something from the BBC, and it’s distorted, it’s distasteful, and it’s unfair. So all I wanted to do is create something fair and truthful, and I think we’ve done that.

[59:21]

So if you go onto the British Renaissance website, which is Britishenaissance.org, or you go onto our YouTube channel, which will be linked via the red Ice radio, the promo for this broadcast, you can find the video, and we’ve had a few thousand people find it in the first two days. It’s been out there. It’s been shared on The Occidental Observer already on the main page, right at the top.

So you can actually go to theoccidentalobserver.net, and you just see the video on the top. It’ll say, “Nick Griffin Interview with Jack Sen”.

So I think it’s quite an important interview. I think we covered all the bases. We discussed how Nick was treated by the BBC, the rise of UKIP, how UKIP is basically used as controlled opposition by the establishment, besides a safety valve, for the establishment, but also steer genuine nationalists in the wrong direction.

We cover the rise of plastic patriotic groups in the United States and in Europe, and we discuss Front National and pretty much a wide variety of topics that most people are thinking about at this moment. We also discuss Islamism in the United Kingdom, mass immigration from Asia, Middle east and Africa into Great Britain, and the displacement of the indigenous population. It’s quite an interesting interview, and I think that if people sit down and spend the evening listening to it, they’ll thoroughly enjoy it.

Henrik Palmgren: The website Britishrenaissance.org, of course, that’s where people can find more information about the organisation as well.

Is there anything else we want to say about that? Quickly, Jack, before we break here?

Jack Sen: No, that’s fine. It’s great! We’re producing a lot of films and other projects simply just to reshape hearts and minds of the general population, so at some point they can make a more educated decision into who they want to elect into office. Because I do believe that once we shift the Overton Window to the Right, that the people in our government will start to discuss things we need them to discuss. I do believe there’s still a chance for the democratic process to work.

Call me maybe naive, but I do believe that if we start telling our politicians that they have to discuss immigration, we have to discuss even deciding who comes into the country, who does not come into the country. We can get ourselves out the European Union, and then come up with a proper plan to stem the tide of mass immigration from the rest of the world.

[1:01:39]

Henrik Palmgren: Very good. Thank you, gentlemen. We’ll take a short break right here.

And as Jack said, of course, the URLs, the links, the websites are going to be up on Red Ice Creations.com. But, yeah, we’ll take a short break. Stay with us. We’ll be right back with more.

— — — — — — — —

[Song – There’ll Always Be an England by Vera Lynn]

I give you a toast Ladies and gentlemen
I give you a toast Ladies and gentlemen
May this fair land we love so well
In Dignity and freedom dwell
While worlds may change and go awry
There’ll always be an England
While there’s a country lane
Wherever there’s a cottage small
Beside a field of grain
There’ll always be an England
While there’s a busy street
Wherever there’s a turning wheel
A million marching feet
Red, white and blue
What does it mean to you?
Surely you’re proud
Shout it loud
Britons awake!
The Empire too
We can depend on you
Freedom remains
These are the chains
Nothing can break
There’ll always be an England
And England shall be free
If England means as much to you
As England means to me!

[1:04:40]

——————-

Note: To listen to Hour 2 at Red Ice Radio you need to be a member. I would encourage all readers to support Red Ice Radio by becoming a subscriber. The monthly subscription is only 18 Euros for 3 months.

HOUR 2

[00:00]

Henrik: Welcome back ladies and gentlemen. Thank you so much for joining us here in the second segment. We are speaking with Nick Griffin from the Alliance for Peace and Freedom. And also Jack Sen from British Renaissance.

Very interesting discussion here in terms of both what’s happening in England but also in Europe at large and what we need to do basically, to turn things around. Let’s actually pick up on something that Jack mentioned at the end of the first segment there, because I know you had some points on that Nick, in terms of, basically not really agreeing with Jack, what he said. So please first pick up for us and explain your disagreement there.

Nick: Yes, you know, obviously I feared this would be one of those discussions where we all agree on everything. Now, fortunately, now we don’t! [Henrick laughing] I’ve got to disagree with Jack on the idea that perhaps the politicians will listen and they will change things. Having been very, very closely involved, by far the most successful episode of, in terms of using the electoral process for a genuine nationalist party, in Britain, in British history, I’ve watched how, after the initial shock and they ground us down, I’ve got to say they’ve got the measure of people like us.

And because they learn internationally, they’ve got the measure of people like us, all across Europe. So the NPD in Germany used to worry them, so now they’ve got the Alternative für Deutschland and the NPD can make no headway. So they have replaced the threat of a rising, genuine national party with something which is some kind of hybrid and certainly doesn’t have a revolutionary mentality and doesn’t really understand the nature of the problem.

So they’ve got the measure of us. When, in the early early 2000s when the BNP was rising, the more we rose the more they attacked us. And the more they attacked us, the more people who were sick of politicians and felt that they were all the same were attracted to us. So it simply didn’t stop us. And an enormous amount of research was done, mainly funded by the Joseph Rowntree Trust, which is one of the the wealthiest of the far left grant making organizations in Britain. They did a lot of research into how to stop us.

They found that smearing wouldn’t basically work, until at that stage, the BBC started talking UKIP up. And they simply created a fake party. So it was a combination of fake parties, and false promises from existing politicians. They will will always be able to persuade the gullible voters. How even, the harder you work at a Nationalist party, to wake people up, once they’re awake, they then still look at who’s most likely get in and make a difference.

And I have had so many people come out to me in the last European elections, saying:

“I voted for you last time, it’s fantastic, you’ve done a great job, etc. I’d love you back in, but I’m going to have to vote UKIP because they’re more important to win. And let’s face it, they basically say the same as you anyway, but they’re less unpopular.”

And they can always pull that and if the one party collapses, they can simply create another. Or if, now they know what to do, if one party becomes too soft, then they create another, which is a little bit more hardline between the real nationalists and the soft kosher nationalists. And they can always do that. And when you add in the demographic problems, the fact that our people have given up on voting. And the worst it gets the more they will. The fact that, the minute ISIS and Al Qaeda really kick off — and we’ve seen absolutely nothing yet — there will be people heading to the doors by the hundreds of thousands.

Nationalists in Britain, we have always had a problem. London is obviously our capital city, and our vote was always always basically static, even as London was getting worse and worse. Because every year for thirty years, a hundred thousand White Londoners, left!

Henrik: Yes. Amazing!

Nick: Just as some of them were reaching a point when they would vote for a Nationalist party, they had their house on the market or they were looking to sell, and get out and go somewhere else. And [it’s] the same electorally, all over.

Henrik: Exactly. By the time they get to that mental place where they’re ready to say like, “This has to stop” then it’s like too late in the area where they are. So when they’ve experienced it enough then it’s too late. The same thing with, certain of these areas in Sweden. Same thing is happening there.

So let me ask you this, Nick. Did the mainstream media, because I’m trying to figure out, the tactic, the way, they managed to do this — because obviously the UKIP, the rise of UKIP then was aided by the mainstream media — did they just shift from, basically criticizing the BNP to UKIP, so that you guys didn’t get the same airplay, or how, or why did that happen?

[Image] The BBC’s “Question Time“, or in Nick Griffin’s case, “Inquisition Time“.

Nick: Well, actually, you can almost date it very, very precisely to the final stage of this, my appearance on Question Time. The BBC were convinced that by establishing, they set out to establish the Left wing mantra that the BNP were, particular myself, were fascist, racist, Islamophobic and homophobic.

[05:07]

And even when they let me speak, they only let me speak in order to establish:

“Well, what do you really think about Islam and what you really think about homosexuals?”

[Image] The BBC’s “Question Time” panel.

They only let me speak in order to establish those points. And to their horror, it was a complete stich-up. And we decided that I should go on and get beaten up on TV. So, therefore I was defensive, and I’m not particularly good when I’m defensive.

But, to the BBC’s horror, the week after the Question Time stich-up, the BNP support went up in the opinion polls, from, … It had never been above four percent, ever! And it went up to twenty two percent. So at that point, they realized that having Griffin on and letting him condemn himself, wasn’t going to work. And from that point they never, ever had me on any mainstream TV or radio channel, except when they absolutely had to under the law at election time.

[Image] Nick Griffin on BBC’s “Question Time” panel.

So that was the cut-off of point. Under their own rules they should have [had] me on Question Time, at least twelve times. And, instead only that one lynching, and, on the contrary, Nigel Farage was on Question Time, had been on Question Time, more than any other politician in its thirty two year history. So, they saw how to deal with nationalist dissent. And they dealt with it very effectively indeed. Having learned that lesson, they’re not going to change.

Jack: I think Nigel Farage has been on Question Time thirteen times, which is a remarkable number, if you think about it. I mean, he’s only been a public figure for less than a decade.

Nick: Did you say thirteen or thirty?

Jack: Thirteen. More than thirteen.

Nick: You know, it was twenty two several years ago.

Jack: Jesus, busted! So I made a mistake! I didn’t realize that. That’s quite a few times and yeah. Yeah, I don’t know why I thought thirteen. But twenty two, that works out two or three times a year.

Nick: Yes. And it’s now more than that, as well. So it’s gone on in a large scale. When you put those problems, because I don’t want to finish that bit of the conversation with:

“Just what the hell do we then? We’re all doomed, I’ve got to go and bow our heads or whatever.”

No, when you put that problem, together with the demographic, complete disaster in Western Europe, and the fact that there’s an equal demographic disaster in terms of decline in our own population, happening, for instance in Hungary. And the Hungarian government knows it! It’s not so bad, because they haven’t, at the same time, got waves of immigrants breeding like rabbits in their own cities as well, and out numbering them in their own country. But on present trends, the population of Hungary will drop from ten million now to two million by the end of the century. Other than the fact that there will be some five million gypsies. So the Hungarians will also be a minority.

Now the Hungarian government, which isn’t perfect, but it’s on a self radicalization path, they’ve realised this, so they are working to boost their population with present, rather crude, measures. But here’s the point. Very, very simply, when you have lost a battle. And we have lost the battle in Western Europe. If you stay in the battlefield in broken, broken segments, with basically no weaponry, no morale, no cohesion, you are simply going to be exterminated.

And where we are now in Western Europe, this is a shocking thing to have to say and it will shock a lot of people! And I would include large parts of Sweden and right from the top to the bottom of Western Europe. We’ve lost the struggle at present. Certainly to dominate Western Europe politically, and therefore turn things around.

We therefore, have to regroup somewhere where we can win. Which is Central and Eastern Europe. And our people, especially nationalists and young nationalists, they need to get themselves and their kids, or their grandchildren to countries like Hungary and Poland, which don’t want to commit suicide and help give them the numbers and the mentality to fight. To help warn their people, as genuine refugees, about what’s coming, coming next.

To make sure that the rich, fat cat liberals aren’t able to shift to those countries, after having ruined ours. They can stay and fucking well die in London and Stockholm, as far as I’m concerned! Pardon the language.

[Image] A jewish engineered Islamification of Europe!

So, we now need to do that and to ensure that Christendom, and the White race survives as the dominant force somewhere. And it can be done in Central and Eastern Europe, at the present. Another twenty five years time, if they don’t turn around what’s happening there, then you have a massive Third World population in Western Europe. They can build all the walls they want. Unless they’ve got large numbers of young men with guns, prepared to use them, behind those walls, those walls will be pushed down by the Third World.

[09:45]

Jack: I was going to say, if things get really bad, you don’t think there’s any way to, I mean honestly, I mean repatriating people could work. There’s no way you think that any government in the next twenty, thirty years will decide that repatriation of undesirables could be an option?

Nick: Well you hit the word on the head there, the “undesirables”. Yes. Repatriating the undesirables could probably be done. But in demographic terms, the undesirables aren’t the problem. It’s the ones who are perfectly desirable and perfectly OK in our county — they’re still a demographic disaster which converts us into a minority in our own country.

Jack:When I said “undesirable” I meant, … When I said undesirable I mean, pretty much, voluntarily repatriating people. All non-English people, and then probably involuntary repatriating the most undesirable population in the minority population. If the political climate in the country changes to such an extent that people realize they are losing their homeland, do you not think that our government will listen to the will of the people and possibly even forcibly repatriate people who do not belong in the country? Because they’ve never assimilated, they can’t assimilate, and there’s no way, there’s no way forward with them. I mean, they brought them at that some stage, so there’s no reason to remove people at a certain stage as well?

Nick: Well, bear in mind, first of all they brought them in not by accident. They brought them in to do what it has done to us. So just because it’s now creating chaos and trouble, they won’t want to reverse it. They were brought in to destroy us and it’s doing the job. The second point, is that it’s really the squeaky hinge, the people who push who get listened to and if there was any hint of any kind of serious repatriation program, then you would have hundreds of thousands, if not millions of the various different ethnics, mobilized, particularly around the Islamic banner and the far left and liberals, all turning out in vast numbers.

And you have the people who run the United States of America having colored revolutions, left, right and center, destroying the economy in order to stop any nationalist revival in any part of Western Europe. It’s simply isn’t realistic to believe that the public will wake up enough to be able, to be prepared to put their country through a state of civil war in the streets and having their economy crushed, from outside by the international banking cartels, and so on. People simply won’t do it.

So, no, it’s not, it’s not realistic. It’s not realistic even to say we can control our own streets. Because when we, when we were talking earlier about the arms that, you know, the Muslim community have and so on, … In a way the arms aren’t the problem. You can always get arms, you can always fight. It’s a mental thing! And the fact is, if you go into any, any gym, anywhere in, certainly Britain, I know it’s very similar in France and Belgium and so on. You won’t find young White men, very many of them, in the gym. You’ll find some Poles in Britain, that is about it.

[Image] Zack ‘King‘ Khan has become the first British Muslim to claim the prestigious International Federation of Body Builders (IFBB) title in 2009.

Most of the people in the gyms are young, are members of young ethnic minorities. The overwhelming majority of the Muslims or half castes or blacks who are about to become Muslim. And they’re training there in order to fight jihad. While young Brits, if they’re good on some Play Station game they think they are the bees knees. [laughter]The fact is we could not win a fight in this country at present. We don’t have a people with a mentality to fight. Ireland is a different matter, for instance, but not Britain and not Belgium and not France.

Jack: I would have to agree with you because of the fact that the vast majority of nationalists that I encounter on the Internet, hide behind pseudonyms and pictures of Thor and Odin. There’s not too many even nationalists who are willing to actually step up and show their face and get on to the street. It’s quite alarming. You won’t find any young Islamic male, covering his face. He probably covers his wife’s face.

Henrik: Well, but then Jack, Jack that is obviously because they do have more to lose in terms of, … They might have a family and employment, etc. If they show their face they might lose their job. I mean we, we do understand why many do that. It doesn’t have to, that doesn’t mean that, of course, that there isn’t people that might, might be in position where they can show their face and they just don’t want to, you know, something else is going on there.

But one point I feel I have to make here, is that, you know, many of the people who come to our countries, they have come voluntarily, right? I mean they have, at least this latest migration wave, they have walked into our countries themselves. They have fled from conditions that now are coming to our countries. We haven’t even gotten into the fight yet. We have much more to lose than they do, right? We shouldn’t underestimate the fact that when we get, really get into this fight. I mean, sure, we might have a state and a police force, a military even, that initially might turn on it’s own people in order to protect these minorities etc.

But what I’m saying is that when conditions get worse and worse, I think that we are going to see something which we have seen, you know, historically in the past, is that we step up to the plate, the whole game changes at that point. I think we’re not there yet, we still, we’re still in a position where we have too much to lose and that’s why I think we’re seeing what we’re seeing right now.

[15:00]

Nick: I think we can actually square the circle with this, because I agree with you there Henrik. For despite what I’ve said, apparently sounding rather different, I think it’s this. You talk about or we’ve been talking about, will people show their faces on the street? Well yes, when it comes to it, quite large numbers will. They will then find that the ones in the front ranks get their faces blown off by radical Muslims, and gangs aligned with them, armed with vast numbers of high powered, serious pump action shotguns and such like.

And any attempt by our people to organize to resist, which would involve obviously the use of armed force, will be ruthlessly crushed by our police forces as they desperately try to keep order. Not least, because they know more about our people, we’re easy to infiltrate than the ethnic minorities and the Muslims.

So, our armed resistance will be heavily, heavily restricted and repressed, where they’re basically allowed to do what they want, because no one can stop them. With the result that the casualty rate amongst our people is going to be horrendous. And the only way that people in West European countries will survive, is if they have contact with people in Central and Eastern Europe, who provide them with the assistance that they need.

And again, you can’t run a guerrilla war, which is what we’re talking about here — now, not saying we want to and this is going to happen — you can’t run a guerrilla without a secure base where you can train people, where you can recuperate, where you can educate people, and where you can store arms. And the Muslims have those secure places, in the mini-failed states of xxxx? And large parts of Bradford, Birmingham and London and god knows where else. They have those failed states where the police can’t go. We don’t.

And if there are going to be an organized armed White resistance in Western Europe it’s going to have to be based, spokemen are going to have to be based, it’s trainers will be based, and it’s quarter masters will be based in parts of Europe which have decided not to commit suicide. And that’s, and that’s where it’s going to be.

I have no doubt there will be a Reconquista*.

[*The Reconquista is the name given to a long series of wars and battles between the Christian Kingdoms and the Muslim Moors for control of the Iberian Peninsula. It lasted for a good portion of the Middle Ages from 718 to 1492.]

No doubt at all, because however many people they slaughter, the historical process of Islam is they slaughter the people who put up some resistance. The ones who submit, they enslave and they use, so the majority of the population of Western Europe will remain ours for potentially sympathetic minorities, such as the Sikhs or the Shia.

And in due course there will be rebellions and suchlike. And the sheer incompetence of most of these peoples, the fact one in four of the young Muslim born in this country is a congenital idiot because they will shag their second, first and second cousins. [Henrick laughing]. The fact that they insist on putting their women in black sacks, so once the health services basically collapses their next generation will all have rickets and all sorts of problems.

Once the White man fighting, we won’t have a problem overcoming them. Provided you got enough sons to lose half of them in war. Which is what we really, realistically looking at. Which is why I say, although the new party we’re going to form , yes it will fight elections, because elections are a way of bringing people in. They are way of giving us cover against being accused of being crazed extremists who have to be suppressed, before they start an armed revolution.

Elections have there place, but if anyone thinks elections are going to change things, then I’m afraid they’re going to find themselves sorely mistaken. And the road is much much harder, much longer and much bloodier.

Henrik: I mean it’s a horrendous picture and I do understand why you painted it Nick. And I also think, I also think that we have very different organizational skills as you say, we have a different level of creativity. There are many different ways, especially these days of fighting and I’m not encouraging anything here. I’m just trying to theorize a bit of what, what could happen when an engineer gets involved, when a technician, even a biomedical researcher or something. I mean there are tons of different things that this could, … Directions that this can go basically.

Jack: So I think Nick’s right. I mean, when he said that the majority of people in the gyms are young black Muslim males and I think of Britons. The average Briton has an almost pathological aversion to firearms, in this country. Remember only a few hundred thousand Brits even have firearms. In a country of over seventy million people. So it’s less than one tenth of one percent of the population has a licensed firearm in Great Britain.

And then you compare that to the vast numbers of the population of Afro-Caribbean people and Muslim people that live and breathe firearms, you have a major problem. In the United States things are a bit different, you know, the average white American has a fascination with weapons.

[20:00]

Whereas Britons are almost fearful. I say that because my my wife, who keeps guns due to her background in sport shooting and hunting, has received a lot of flak from her friends who, when they find out that she does that, that she’s hunted and she’s killed a duck, unbelievably and eaten it. Can you imagine she actually ate the duck she killed! But it drives some of her friends ballistic and some people even scared even to bring their children, “Are you sure the gun is, you know, in the right place and sure it’s locked?”

And, you know, obviously in Great Britain it’s almost impossible to get a firearm without massive background checks. And the police inspect your home to make sure the gun is properly stored. And that it’s locked away. Even then, the average British person that we’ve encountered, when they hear that my wife, you know, we have weapons in the house, they are quite shocked. And I think that’s going to be something that people are going to have to overcome. That there’s something wrong with having weapons in the house. That there’s something wrong with, you know, even like Nick said earlier, the vast majority of young Englishmen are just playing video games on the couch. When they should be keeping in shape, going out, running, exercising, developing their minds, developing their self-defence skills. Just to defend their families even, not necessarily to engage in some kind of, you know, rebellion against the establishment.

But just literally, you know, a man should be strong and smart. And unfortunately, cultural Marxism has made it so men are weak, emasculated and unfortunately now, quite sick. And we need to change that. I think it has to be a complete shift in men’s mentality. Maybe we can even copy, I hate to say, copy the black mentality, but you see the way the black male, postures, at least in public. I don’t want to see young white men posturing out in public and picking fights, but certainly having more confidence in, you know, just strengthening their character would be nice.

We need to kind of, you know, reinvigorate the male figure and, you know, return to a patriarchal society would help. It’s very difficult with, you know, obviously feminism in all young women as they are. But I do think we need to have a transformation, a reshaping of the minds and hearts of young men in this country.

Nick:I’d say it’s absolutely so, reshaping the minds of young men and and young women for that matter. But to what extent can that be done in a society which is so rotten and so riddled with liberalism and Cultural Marxism, as all the countries of Western Europe? Earlier with spoke a little bit, on off, about the European Union, and the latest I’ve seen, I think they have now come up with, there are more than forty genders [laughter] a primary school child is allowed, can chose what gender they are.

Henrik: Right.

Nick: Now, why on earth would anyone in their right mind, want to rear a child, let alone children in a society where that is regard as normal or acceptable? In any normal society the lunatic suggesting that will either be laughed out of court or hung from a lampost! If people understood how really evil it is. And when you’re in a society where everyone goes along with that and they keep on watching the gogglebox, really you have got to think the revolution had to start not with blood all over the streets and everyone arming themselves.

It has to start with a husband and wife deciding that they are going to take the kid out of school. They are going to scrap the television. And they are only let the kids watch videos that they have chosen and they are going to educate their kids themselves with other like minded people in intentional communities. So how many kids are out of the mainstream, are perhaps even a temporary loss to our cause and our way of thinking, it’s a hardcore and growing hardcore who provide the leadership for the future rebellions and revolution. Which is of our minds and our blood.

Henrik: Yes. And don’t underestimate. The kids, there’s a lot of kids now that are rebelling against this Social Justice Warrior, you know, infection, that’s running rampant through our society. There are, there are people that are actually waking up to these, these kinds of questions and issues. Due to the fact that our governments are so vehemently pushing them, you know, upon them, right? And so we have to be there and this is already happening. It’s happening naturally, it’s happening, you know, through, through Reddit, through POL, through, you know, 4chan. It’s like, these kids are sick and fed up with it. They want structure, they want some kind of order. They want to have traditional, you know, family life. Traditional, you know, male female relations again.

I mean this is, we have to jump on that and, this is, we’re going to rebel against the mainstream and that’s happening now. We’re in a completely new place, I think now. So we shouldn’t, we shouldn’t underestimate all of the, … It’s a dire situation! But I mean, if we, if we think about it, things can change incredibly fast! We don’t have to rebuild society, we don’t have to even recreate the whole political structure. It’s just the minds and hearts of the people that need to be transformed!

[24:56]

Nick: Absolutely so! And there is, if for some incredible reason we don’t have, our, basically civil war, just around the corner, … If the Wahhabis and the Zionists, between them don’t manage to reduce Europe to a smoking ruin, then there is an alternative, possible future, in Western Europe. To say, to think that these people can all be encouraged to leave and they’ll all go. It’s not realistic. And economically, our society now couldn’t do it, remarkably enough, because there simply wouldn’t be enough people to keep things functioning to keep the capitalist society going, going around.

You could do it if you gave up on capitalism, if you gave up on consumerism, if you have a banking revolution, a way of life revolution and go back, basically, to living on family farms. Then you could do it. I’d love that, but realistically our people aren’t going to want that to happen. They are going to want to keep on, you know, their nice cozy comfortable consumer society. So you can’t revolutionize it and you can’t get rid of those people.

And for that matter, you know, there’s fifty million native Brits and everyone’s got one good immigrant they wouldn’t want to see sent home. So that more than covers all of them. That’s not going to happen, but you could have a system where we develop something like Syria was before the usual culprits decided to destroy it. Where you got different communities who live side by side for hundreds even thousands of years and they work together and they play football together and they support the same national team and they are in the army together.

But when it comes to their kids falling in love and marrying and having other kids, it’s within their own community. If they’re Christians or they’re Druz or they’re Sunni or they’re Shia or whatever. I’ve been to Syria a number of times and you can see in Damascus still, that system. They actually found a way to make that work perfectly well.

But before it can work for our people, in fact before it can work for any of us, we have to ideologically, spiritually develop all of us, different ethnic communities as well, a complete set of antibodies to the genocidal level of deliberately enforcing integration and race mixing.

And we have to, all of us, develop, particularly our people, we have to develop, what the, most of the ethnic groups have, a proper pride in our own people and it is normal for your kids to grow up learning the songs that their grandparents knew. And it’s not uncool to sing those songs. You know, that’s what you do. And you could have a society, we’re never going to put it back to what it was, this side of a bloody revolution. But you could have a society where our people live side by side with them and our kids still grow up and have kids just like us. Which is a damn sight better than we are now!

But the only way you can possibly get that, is, if our kids and people like us come to understand that doing the right thing is something you have to do. That wanting to be with your own kind isn’t some kind of wicked sin. That you have a duty to rear your kids up to value our culture, our society and so on. And then you can have something like a peaceful solution, as long as in the end the ethnic minorities, or rather the other ethnic minorities understand that if they mess around with the Swedes or the English or the French, the Swedes, or the English, or the French are going to kick their arses!

Henrik: Well, I think, I think there’s going to be an economic collapse due to what we’re seeing right now. They’re warning people not to travel in Europe right now and definitely, you know, in Brussels, right. But, it’s going to have a tremendous impact on the economy. It’s going to have a tremendous impact on, you know, tourism and the fact that if more and more of these events happen, people are going to be scared. It’s going to shut down everything.

And frankly, when the “gibsmedat”* is gone, many of these people, they came for the welfare systems and all this. They are going to self deport! That’s, and I think that that’s obviously an ideal situation out of it, right? Because I think that we could, we could rebuild and we can, we have done that before there.

Look at Germany after the Second World War in terms of how they’ve rebuilt some of their infrastructure and stuff like that, and I don’t think it’s going to be that, that bad, to be honest. But, I think that a great travesty, like an economic collapse, is something that we can have work towards our favor. And I think, again, a lot of people would actually self deport in that situation.

*[“gibsmedat”: Ebonics – “give me that”. The perennial demand for more handouts. The African begging bowl mentality, combined with an attitude of entitlement.]

Jack: Well, I mean, if, … The Muslim endgame is total domination and replacement of the population and it’s culture with Muslim people and people then who are raped into submission. So, do you really think that they would self-deport if their intention for being here is not just to make money, but actually to convert the entire British, the entire country of Great Britain into an Islamic state?

Henrik: Yeah, but they’re so small right? Because it’s fairly, … It’s, I mean, that’s not the majority of people there in our countries, right? Am I’m wrong?

[29:50]

Nick: No, you’re right, you’re right there. Because it’s, … You know, it’s not Muslim, it’s Wahhabi. All Wahhabis are Muslim but not all Muslims are Wahhabis. Of course, once you get to the stage of two communities falling out and burning each others houses down and all the rest of it, then the people in the middle tend to get squeezed and pushed to the extreme. So the large majority will go that way. But, even when you take all the Sunni Muslim population and you add in large numbers of the blacks and the half castes, who will tend to go with them as a way of hitting White society and a way of being somebody and all the rest. When you put that in, there’s not everybody else, there’s lots of, as you say, others, the Hindus, the Sikhs, the genuinely moderate ones who left their own countries to get away from that kind of lunacy. And the answer for them, is your right, to self deport. Because they have got somewhere quite comfortable to go.

I remember when we first, when we won our first little council seat in 2001, there was an opinion poll done by one the ethnic newspapers. I can’t remember which one. And they came up with a figure, something like thirty percent of the ethnic minorities in Britain were now actively considering whether at some point they would have to go back to their own homelands, because of the rise of the BNP. We won a council in a little bit of? Blackburn? with, I think, it was a total electorate of about 4,000. And thirty percent was saying, “We might have to go home”.

So you’re absolutely right. A lot would self-deport. But the ones who the real problem, the young violent fighting ones, simply won’t want to go and they’ll be a horrible mess before we sort that out. And because our elites are on their side more than on our side, that’s why, if it comes to that, we are going to lose big style, before finally our people, got to start fighting, but also develop the organization and the mentality to make sure that fighting works.

It’ll be far, far more comfortable, if by a combination of good luck, good fortune and people like us arguing against the English Defence League, Pamela Geller types:

“We’ve got to go to war with every last one of them”.

And if we’re very, very lucky, we might get to the stage, like I say, where we can create out of these multi racial hell hole shambles, something whereby our community has an identity and a pride and a cohesion within itself. And at point can survive, even as a minority, quite happily as the dominant minority for as long as it takes.

Henrik: It’s almost like that this is a kind of a cleansing going on of sorts, as society, and unfortunately I’m ashamed to say it, but I mean, our culture has just ended up in the toilet, and I mean it’s not directly our fault obviously. Because we have we have a lot of powerful people, a lot of money working on breaking, breaking down our our cultural cohesion, breaking down our, you know, our ethnic consciousness. You know, attacking us for who we are, making us feel guilt and shame for who we are, etc.

At the same time we have, we have allowed that, right? We have not had a defense system, we haven’t had the antibodies to fight this, we haven’t had the mind to fight this. And it’s almost like that the, the rot in our society is something that is being, you know, it’s being exposed right now. And the weak tenets of it is going to be, you know, eaten up by all these parasites, to be honest. [laughing]

And I wonder to a certain degree, you know, anything that is, anything that’s starting to die in nature, … I mean this is what happens, right? You have a lot of things just come in and that start to break that thing down, right? I mean, I can’t help to see it in that perspective. I think that this will be a, … What I’m saying ultimately is that, this is a good, it is a good thing, right? Because, I mean obviously as society stands right now, Western society, it’s not fit to survive! What do you gentlemen think?

Nick: I agree entirely with that. Yeah. And I think it’s very easy for people, … specifically in Western Europe thinking in terms of, well, if Western Europe sinks, you know, it’s the end of everything. It’s the end of our culture and our civilization, and of our race. And that is simply not the case. You know the United States of America is so vast that a white ethno state could occupy a fraction of it and still be a thoroughly viable, a wonderful place to live and rebuild.

And similarly, just as Rome collapsed, from point of view of Eastern Europe, Rome didn’t collapse. Western Rome collapsed, but Byzantium continued for another thousand years and then it shifted to the third Rome, Moscow.

So, just because Paris and London and Stockholm and so on, may well end up as occupied — just as Spain was occupied for seven hundred years — it doesn’t mean it’s all over for our people. And the key thing, a reconquista, as I said before, there will be a reconquista. A reconquista is about two things; force of arms, and it’s about the numbers that hold the land. And it’s just about having kids, lots and lots and lots of kids. That’s the bottom line of the whole damn thing!

[35:14]

And if people get that, then inevitably we will win because of the incompetence of the other side, will eventually tell. Once people are forced to fight and if people don’t get it and think:

“Oh we’ve just got to fight on now and will win in ten years time, it doesn’t matter if I don’t have kids”.

If our people think like that, then when they’re old and childless, they’ll realize they’ve lost. Because even if they have won the land back, they haven’t got any descendants to hold it. Or for that matter, the thing I want to see, one last thing. When we go back to the Paris’ and the Londons, and the Madrids, and so on, and we flatten all the twenty and twenty first century Marxoid concrete horrors and all the rest of it, and when we rebuild the cathedrals and the great architecture of our ancestors, we don’t have to have enormous numbers to do that. We have to have some number of people who are living in a stable, healthy society, and that is going to be overwhelming living on their own farms.

Jack: What we need the media obviously to reprogram people to wanting to having children. I mean the vast majority of young people have no desire to have children. I have several friends who have no children and they’re in their thirty’s. My sister has no children and unfortunately the vast majority of young people that I know in my community have one or zero children. And they have no desire to have children. They have totally been indoctrinated from the cradle, until it’s too late to have children.

I don’t see how we can reprogram them until we control our education system, we control the media and control the, control the airwaves again. As it stands we have no influence over what’s on the television. We have no influence in what’s in the school books. And we have no influence on what people think. And so, until we’ve reprogrammed them I don’t see how anybody will even have, start having children.

Nick: You’ve got to look at certain groups. And because Americans has always been open to religious lunatics, and most religious lunatics, with respect to our American listeners, most of the religious lunatics of Europe for four hundred years have gone to America. So America has got more than their normal share of genes of people who are European descended and are slightly wacky.

Well if you look at, … I was reading, … Was it, Idaho, the other day, there was this enormous vote against Trump, only because it’s a Mormon state. Because the Mormons have lots of kids. It’s all about geometric progression and they are not one generation but three, four generations. And if you have ten families, all determined to have ten children, which is a human norm, then in the first generation after you do that, it doesn’t make a huge difference. The third, fourth generation after you do that, you’re talking about hundreds of thousands of people. And that is it.

So, you can forget, … Don’t waste our time trying to reprogram people who think that they can be metrosexual and it doesn’t matter if they don’t have kids, someone else will look after them in their dotage. Leave them to rot and find out their own way, it’s not going to be like that. We have to set about, not trying to change everybody. But let’s all change ourselves, change our movement, change our friends, change our families. And when we find some who can’t be changed move on to somebody who can be.

Henrik: Yeah.

Nick: Nationalism has to be a sort of, a school for White Survival. And the first lesson is to reproduce.

Jack: It’s interesting you say that because I’ve been to the Mormon church a few times. I’ve got a good friend who’s Mormon. And my mother is actually Mormon. And it’s the one place where there is a semblance of normality. The people, … There are children running around and there are people that actually think in a more old fashioned manner. And it’s interesting you mention the Mormons, because they are probably the one group of people in the United Kingdom. There’s actually a large Mormon community in the UK. They are probably the one group of indigenous Britons that are having two and three and four children per household.

Nick: As are traditional Catholics as well.

Henrik: In Utah, they should have voted for Trump! Why did they vote against Trump? [laughter] Yeah, I know, I know. Anyway, yeah well, you know this is a really good point. I don’t know if, if the desire not to have children is, is genetic and there’s a predisposition to that genetically in any way. But what seems to be the case anyway, is that people who are more conservative minded are the ones that are having kids. You know, again, I don’t know if that’s just, is it just upbringing, is there more to it? But it’s interesting.

Nick: I don’t think it can be genetic, because if it was a genetic tendency not to have kids, it would self evidently have bred itself out.

Henrik: Exactly.

[40:00]

Nick: So I think it’s the people who, … There’s a genetic tendency for people to conform. Especially when conforming within your own self, perceived self interest in practical and economic terms. So it’s the conformist who are breeding themselves out.

It’s the radicals and the crazies like us, who are most likely to carry on breeding. And there’s one other factor, one of the jokers in the pack. One of the things which persuades people to have kids is actually war. Whenever you have a war, birth rates go up. So at some point it’s quite likely that something will flip, very suddenly, as Henrik, you said earlier on, things can change in a blink of an eye, really. Something will flip and people will go from, feeling because they are in a multicultural society, subconsciously, that is not a good place to have kids, to suddenly feeling, subconsciously:

“We are at war, I might die, I’ve got to have kids!”

And that can change very, very quickly. We simply don’t, we simply don’t know. We have to hold out hope that it will and in the meantime, as I said before, and I’ll say it again, in case someone hasn’t yet got it, is that you don’t change the demographics of an entire country by waving a magic wand. You change it by the decision of an individual man and woman, and then another couple doing the same thing and another couple. It starts, listener, with you.

Henrik: Why are you alive, right? You know, there has to be an underpinning, an undercurrent that, you know, anchors them to their culture, to who they are, to their heritage, their ethnic consciousness and that, that is going to what makes them want to stay alive and continue who they are, right? That is what’s important.

Jack: And that’s why also, … just to go back to a point we made earlier. Why it’s so dangerous, this homosexual infiltration of nationalism, because we have people here that are entering nationalism and they are basically corrupting the minds of the people that will have children, moving forward.

And telling them that women are the enemy, families aren’t worth anything. And not to bother having families and having children, and that’s why I think it’s really important that, one of the primary messages we have in the nationalist movement is that people should be monogamous. Have one woman, to have a family, create babies, live in the countryside, hunt, fish, farm. Go back to traditional values. That’s why we should exclude people that believe that we should kind of promote or even accept alternative lifestyles and a kind of modernist lifestyle. We have to go back to traditional values, I think.

Nick: I agree absolutely. One thing I’d like to say on the back of that. I saw a response, I know who, I won’t say, because he’s not here to defend himself or to argue it. I saw a response from an American nationalist with quite a big reach and so on. He said:

“Yeah there’s no point having kids, because if you look at various nationalists, Don Black, David Duke and so on, you know, their kids haven’t grown up as nationalists.”

Now that’s missing the point. One thing, because actually, when it comes to, … If it is going to come to a shooting war, it doesn’t matter whether they were a nationalist last year or not. If they’re going to survive, they are going to be with us or not [survive]. So that is the first thing.

But the other is, having children is the first step. It’s then how you rear them. And for anyone to have, … And then again a lot of the, I think the Mormons and the traditional Catholics and so on, and the Muslims, they have already got this. First of all, you have the children and then you ensure you’re sufficiently withdrawn from the disgusting and decadent society around us. That you do enough of the rearing of them and the shaping of their values, to make sure there’s a good chance they’ll grow up like you.

The most dangerous lie the liberals tell of all is:

“Oh, if you indoctrinate your children they’ll rebel against it. So you mustn’t indoctrinate your children”.

This is what they say to the traditionalists. If they really believed that, why can’t they have a TV program or advert without mixed race couples, without multi-racialism? Why can’t they have a school lesson without indoctrination about the evils of slavery and all the rest of it? So they don’t believe it. It’s simply a con! The simplest thing is that if you have kids and then you let them watch the conventional television, you will lose those kids by the time they are sixteen.

If you have kids and you make sure, as I’ve said before, that you as a family decide what they’re going to watch. Then it’s a different matter. And perhaps in some parts of the world in Europe, until recently, you have children and send them to the state school and they would get a decent education. If you send children now to a state school, you are guaranteeing that they’re going to be brought up thinking that they can choose which are forty two genders they belong to!

So, you have got to toughen yourself up enough for that. And we’ve got to work on preparing our own curriculum. On teaching our own kids and teaching our community’s kids. And if they won’t let us do that in certain countries in Europe that we have to abandon that country, let it go down the tubes to hell, until one day our great grandchildren go back in, with heavy weapons, and take those countries back. That’s the reality of Europe today.

Jack:And this is something that weighs heavily on my mind, because I actually have, obviously, young children and, you know, whether to home school, whether or not to home school? Can we afford a private school, because we want to avoid sending our daughter off to the public school which will indoctrinate her?

[45:11]

You mention controlling what our families watch. I mean, I hate to say this and I probably shouldn’t, but, I control what my wife watches because I’m petrified that, … I say, I probably shouldn’t say this, …yes exactly. I’m petrified that, you know, if, I noticed that when certain things are on the the television there’s a different discourse at the dinner table. So I try to steer the conversation and also steer what we watch on television and what we expose ourselves to. Because I know, point blank, that the stuff on television will just manipulate the minds of the, maybe the most vulnerable people in the household.

And certainly, I mean I’ll give you a nice example. When I was in North America about ten years ago my mother had a close friend who was married, had seven children. And my mother used to go to this kind of cooperative that was run by a Jewish lady. And the doctor’s wife, who was our neighbor, never went out the house, she stayed home and took care of the kids. The kids had turned eighteen, there was five of them. And this Jewish lady asked my mom to bring this lady to the cooperative. To sit down, drink tea and talk. My mother didn’t, my mother didn’t like them. But within six months of that lady actually going to this little kind of Kibbutz in the countryside, she divorced her husband.

So really, who your families interact with, is hugely important to maintaining the health of your family. So if they interact with people that are destructive, your family will end up destroying itself. So, television and who, as Nick said earlier, if someone is, someone is causing your family harm just by the way they think, shut them out, get rid of them and move on.

Henrik: I mean, television is a weapon. It has to be seen as that way. It’s something that’s being used against us to break us down. Equally on the opposite side, the media, which includes the news, television programs, movies coming out of Hollywood, is also something that actually can be used against the system itself. I think if you accurately, actually point out how they are seeking to manipulate you, how they’re seeking to distort the truth, how they’re seeking to turn you into something you’re not, etc. You will actually win people over to the fact that they will realize that:

“Oh, dammit, the whole system, this is what they’re trying to push on us”.

It will immediately insulate, not, no not immediately but, if you can accurately point out and show that to them, that basically means that you have a multi million dollar effort to try to control people, that is now actually turned against itself. Right? It just like jujitsu or something. You’ve turned that force and the energy that they’re trying to push on you, against them. And that’s what we continuously have to have people who analyzes the news and even television shows and media and so.

If you do you watch it, actually do take some time and watch it. But analyze it at the very least. Talk with your family about it, talk with your kids if you see something, educate them, tell, tell them what’s going on, so that we can use that as a weapon itself. That’s what I would say.

Jack: The Mormons are quite good in actually shielding their children from the sort of stuff and that’s why those children end up being quite healthy growing up. I think it’s easier to try and shield your family from this sort of thing. I don’t know if children are able to comprehend what they are seeing. Obviously, just get indoctrinated and then you lose them. Because they will go to school, they will have friends outside the household. So it’s probably easier in the short term to move to the countryside, surround yourself with healthy people who think as you do and then hopefully your children will grow up strong.

You know, on a societal level, certainly I agree that it’s good to talk to our children, because they’re going to be exposed to things. But I’m hopeful that I’ll be able to raise a family where we won’t be exposed by [to] those things. Maybe it’s a pipe dream? You know, maybe I’m living in dreamland, but I really hope that I can, you know, move my family to a place in the next couple of years where we will be away from all these problems. And that they want to think about these things moving forward. We could be happy and peaceful, safe and my daughter will grow up very traditional and old fashioned.

Henrik; Right, right. Well and also, additional points here on the demographics that, I think we shouldn’t also be too freaked out about the projections, right? Because, they have, historically they have gone up and down, drastically! I mean you look after the Black Plague, something like, what a third of Europe was was wiped out?

And after the First and Second World War? It’s initially not about, you know, quantity. I think it is about quality first and foremost and then that quality can actually go on to create a quantity. You know, so we have to think about it differently in all these projections, it might not be true, you know. I mean, obviously we have to warn people so that they, you know, get incentivized to actually have children, more children, etc., but it can change rapidly. So, you know, we shouldn’t get too disheartened and discouraged by that.

[49:57]

Nick: The projections are true. It’s simply the iron laws of mathematics and reality. But, it’s always a question off, “on present trends” and trends can change. But there’s no economic reason for them to change, at all. There’s no media reason or Government ruling body reason for them to change. They are very happy, the people who run the West, are very happy with what is happening.

So the change can only come from individuals and people within the movement. Which is why it’s so important that we, that our people get it. And constantly talk about it, to hammer it home. So it becomes a normal thing just as you can recognize a Catholic family, or a traditional Catholic family. Because they are larger than a normal family. Or equally, see a large family, it’s probably because they are nationalist. Over the course of two or three generations that will change the balance of our society. You don’t need that many people who are confident and organized to totally transform a society and to lead everybody else.

So, all we need is a significant number of people who are confident and organized. And it struck me, … I always think it strange how nationalists who, … We are long termists, you know, instinctively and ideologically, and then nationalists who talk about a future for our children and how society will still be here in a thousand years, and all the rest of it. But then, they don’t seem to get the that fact that, there has to be a link in the chain. And the link in the chain is the individual kids and the individual family.

Henrik: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. I want to ask you about something else here. We’re coming up at the end here. So we make sure to squeeze everything else in here towards the end to that you guys want to make sure we get out and get to. But, the European bureaucrats I think are using to see that, they’re seeking to use terrorism, for their own advantage. They never let a disaster go to waste. We’ve seen, now in Brussels, we’ve seen it in Paris twice, it’s been in London, it’s just the beginning I think, right? But no one, no one ever, anywhere, as far as I heard, is actually talking about the very fact that:

“Oh it’s immigration that is causing these problems, we need to close the borders, we need to get our population under control”.

No one is talking about this, right? But they are talking about however, is to create an intelligence network, to begin to share information across these so called borders, which doesn’t even exist internally in Europe anymore. And they’re also seeking, I think, to create a federal police force, maybe within the military, etc. What’s your take on this Nick? Is it, … Because, they’re very happy when this occurs, because there is a great opportunity for them to push the further federalization of Europe, right?

Nick: Yep! You know I, you know I’ve been there, I’ve I sat with them. I’ve gone on missions to different places with them. You know, heard them talking after they have had a drink. And the exact phrase they use, and they use it as a sort of joke, but they mean it, is:

“Never let a good crisis go to waste”.

The European dream, or nightmare to us, of this ever closer union. At one stage they thought it was going to be achieved through, economics and through Schengen and all the rest of it. And they have been blocked in that. But when they’re blocked in one direction they simply cast around to something else that can be done. And you’re absolutely right. That the, if the sheeple can’t be dragooned into wanting a Federal Europe in due course, moving toward One World. If they can’t be dragooned into it with economic bribery or economic blackmail, then a security threat, …

“You know we don’t want to give up our freedoms, but we’ve got to”,

that is the most effective of all.

When these people talk about, we have to have, you know, Europe security and we have to have a Federal police force in order to guard against terrorists. I’ll tell you how bogus that is. When I was last in Damascus, I was with some comrades from the APF in the office of the Minister of Information. And on his desk he had a pile of books more than two feet high, and these were books, each book was from a different country.

From Britain, from France, from America, from Belgium and all the rest. And each book was the intelligence files that they had on the jihadists, ISIS and al Qaeda, fighting in Syria who had come from all those countries. And, they had, each file had a photograph, had the details where they were from, everything that was know about them, where they were fighting. Some were dead, but some of them were still alive. And they’ve got all this intelligence. And they said:

“We’ve repeatedly offered this intelligence to all the European nations and to the USA, to their governments and their intelligence departments. And they refused to accept it from us, because to do so they say would be to recognize the Assad government.”

So in all probability, you know, the fighter, who even the Turks were saying this man is a foreign jihadists, who was responsible for the murders in Brussels, the other day. His details were almost certainly in the book that the Syrian Intelligence officers who at great risk to their own lives.

Because these are people who operate in jihadist controlled areas, that had identified, and that their information which would have allowed that man to be caught, was still sitting on the desk of the Minister of Information in Damascus. Because the British government, the Belgian government and the EU and the Obama regime won’t go to them and say:

“All right, we recognize that you are the legitimate government of that country, now please give us the intelligence so that we can stop these people killing people in our own countries.”

And until they do that, which of course they won’t do, then any claim that they have, that they have to have further powers in order to deal with terrorism, is a lie!

[56:00]

Henrik; Hmm, Yeah. Yeah, absolutely! Well gentlemen what else should we, you know, talk about here, towards, as we approach the end here. Is there anything else that’s important that you guys think our audience should be aware of and know about. Jack, let’s begin with you.

Jack: No, I think we covered a wide variety of topics. I would just ask that people watch the videos on the channel. And stay tuned for more. We’re going to create a nice library of videos. We’re doing one on immigration and the impact it’s had on Great Britain. Possibly filming in Bradford and possibly even doing a video about the destruction of the nation’s capital.

We’re thinking about having a camp at some point as well. Possibly a training camp where we can bring in young nationalists to learn about what’s transpiring and how, what they can do to change things. And now I’m looking forward to working with the APF and Nick. It’s been a good month and I think we’ve accomplished quite a lot and we should be accomplishing a lot over the next six months, as well.

Henrick: Very good. How about you Nick?

Nick: Well the full URL of the APF, I’m looking it up here, and as I say it’s going to be improved because you’ll understand why. It’s “alliance” then a hyphen “for” hyphen “peace” hyphen “and” hyphen “freedom dot com”. That’s what happens when people set up things they don’t understand how the internet works. [laughter]Alliance for peace and freedom dot come with hyphens all the way through it. You can follow me on Twitter @nickgriffinbu. “bu” stands for “British Unity”.

You can also find me on Facebook, if you look British Unity Party. We’re working on, as we discussed a little bit. We are working all a proper launch for a genuine hard line nationalist party in Britain. And Jack and I and others are working on that. If you keep an eye on those place you’ll find out more, in due course.

I do hope to reiterate to people wherever you are in Europe or the United States, Australia, wherever, if you are one of us you are very very welcome in the Alliance for Peace and Freedom. You will get the chance to rub shoulders with some of the most notorious ne’er-do-wells in modern European politics, such as Golden Dawn and the NPDs, so don’t miss out on that chance. One last commercial slot for me, if I may. In Hungry on the 23rd of July. I’m involved, and the APF is involved with a coalition of different nationalists and cultural groups and so on, and proper decent churches as well, for, … It’s to put a big pro-life march out in Hungry, because Hungry’s anti-human abortion laws which were designed by, and put through by a previous socialist government.

In Hungary now you’ve got a government which is well to the right of UKIP or Trump and an opposition party, who are only people I have ever known who is concerned should they be associated with Nick Griffin. Because they thought I might be too moderate. And now they are the official opposition. And yet they still got this archaic law whereby, although the government is spending lots of taxpayers’ money to encourage people to have kids, at the same time they still effectively got abortion on demand. They want to move to the position that they had say in Poland where there’s abortion in the real heart rending cases. You know, rape, real risks to the mother’s life, terrible handicap in the unborn child. And because they got that they have 700 abortions a year. That’s all, in the whole of Poland.

And the Hungarians want to shift their government, they have got a real chance of shifting their government, and thereby, not only, forget the moral Christian angle and so, as a hardcore nationalist, if you want, just think about it in demographics. They got the chance of persuading their government to radically transform that law to encourage more Hungarians to go ahead and have more children.

So we’re holding a pro-life demonstration, as a part of a big campaign to encourage the government to change the law and do the right thing. And there is going to be a big, big demo in Budapest, which is a fantastic city to visit. It really is with lots of really good nationalists on 23rd of July. Things going on the whole of that weekend and we hope to see people from all over our world there.

Henrik: Wonderful! Very, very good. Is there any specific, like website or something that people can go to, to try to join in on that, if they want to actually be there?

Nick: Yes, it’s going to be “March for Life Hungary”. It’s about to be launched on that. If you’re looking for “March for Life Hungary” on the Alliance for Peace and Freedom or just generally on the internet, or follow me on Twitter @nickgriffinbu, then you’ll get all the information you need. But the date is set in stone, 23rd of July, hope to see you there.

Henrik: Very very good. OK, well thank you gentlemen. Very interesting and excellent to have you both with us. Thank you both for your time today and also of course for the work you do to help spread the word about the difficulties and also of course the, the interesting and challenging times that we are in.

I think it’s a fantastic time to be alive and to fight for something and to really get into something which has it, which is a cause that few people get to experience. So, I’m actually, despite everything and despite how horrible the conditions are, I’m excited about the fact that we are at a stage where we can actually take part in this. So, thank you to both of you again for doing what you’re doing.

Nick: Thank you.

Jack: Thanks for having us.

Henrik: There you go ladies and gentlemen, that’s our show for today and that wraps up this week. Thank you for listening. Intense but probable. Just remember one thing, Europa is ours! We are not going to give up Europe. Ever! It’s just not going to happen!

Thank you for being a member. Some exciting announcements coming shortly. We’ll let, you know more about that soon. We have upcoming, Frank Horei, Jan Ott, Rob Kieski, Oscar Turner and a round table from Australia and New Zealand. All in the pipeline. Have a great weekend my friends. Take care of yourself and your family. Talk more soon.

[62:00]

END

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

Simon Harris – EF 19 – A Conversation with Nick Griffin – Apr 14, 2020 — Transcript

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

Click to download a PDF of this post: (not yet available)

Version History

Version 15: Feb 24, 2024 — Updated image links. Completed Hour 1 transcript.

Version 14: Apr 23, 2020 — Re-uploaded images for the katana17.com/wp/ version. Improved formatting, Added a See Also link.

Version 13: Apr 24, 2016 — Added another 5 minutes of transcript. Total = 102 minutes.

Version 12: Apr 20, 2016 — Added another 5 minutes of transcript. Total = 97 minutes.

Version 11: Apr 18, 2016 — Added another 5 minutes of transcript. Total = 92 minutes.

Version 10: Apr 5, 2016 — Added another 10 minutes of transcript. Total = 87 minutes.

Version 9: Apr 3, 2016 — Added another 5 minutes of transcript. Added two images. Total = 77 minutes.

Version 8: Apr 2, 2016 — Added another 5 minutes of transcript. Total = 72 minutes.

Version 7: Mar 31, 2016 — Added another 6 minutes of transcript. Completed Hour 2. Total = 67 minutes.

Version 6: Mar 30, 2016 — Added another 11 minutes of transcript. Total = 61 minutes.

Version 5: Mar 29, 2016 — Added another 15 minutes of transcript. Total = 50 minutes.

Version 4: Mar 28, 2016 — Added another 10 minutes of transcript. Total = 35 minutes.

Version 3: Mar 27, 2016 — Added another 5 minutes of transcript. Added some images.Added 5 more minutes. Total = 25 minutes.

Version 2: Mar 26, 2016 — Added first 5 minutes of transcript. Added another 10 minutes of transcript.

Version 1: Published Mar 26, 2016

Sweden – katana17

Joel Davis – The Goonright Pipeline – with Mark Collett – Aug 6, 2025 – Transcript

Joel Davis

The Goonright Pipeline

with Mark Collett

Wed, Aug 6, 2025

Description

Following Transcript Quality = 5 Stars

TRANSCRIPT

CONTENTS

01 Introducing Special Guest Mark Collett from Patriotic Alternative, UK

02 Mark Banned from the EU for 15 Years and Deported from Sweden

03 Detained at the Airport by a Black Policeman and a White Policewoman

04 No Right to Remain Silent

“I don’t want to say a word until my solicitor gets here.”

05 Blair Recounts His Own Recent Police Raid at His Home

06 Mark Asked to Explain His Ex-Girlfriend with the Swastika Tattoo

“You know, can you explain this?”

“Well look, I can.”

“What’s he gonna say?”

“Well, I was in my mid-30s, I was going through a bit of a dry patch with relationships. And then it’s extremely hot but extremely crazy girl approached me and you, …”

“You know what it’s like when you get the hot crazy thing. You just dive straight in! And it’s an amazing ride, but it’s like a roller coaster. One minute it’s up, one minute it’s down!”

“You’re not going to laugh. You stop, Stop! This is meant to be serious!”

“Oh, you don’t need this to explain this one to me!”

“But then she moves in and it gets even crazy and you can’t handle it. And, oh, my God!”

“Say no more!”

“Would you like a coffee? Would you like water? No food, but just coffee and water.”

“No, thanks. I don’t drink coffee.”

“Look, I’m gonna sit here and wait.”

07 Mark Told He’s, “A Threat to the Fundamental Fabric of Society”

“I’m a threat to public order, a threat to the fundamental fabric of society, and a threat to the values on which Sweden and the EU were built!”

“Oh, my God!”

“Look, this is getting serious!”

“No, put the phone down, you’re not allowed to touch your phone.”

“Oh, God!”

“Well, the signature might be worth something one day, so here you go.”

“Have I got anything left to say?”

“No.”

“Look you are going to be taken out of Sweden now.”

“Well, what’s going to happen?”

“Well, we’ll book you on a plane or you can you could always book yourself on one.”

“Well, I can’t book myself on one because I haven’t got a passport and I can’t board anything because I haven’t got a passport and I don’t know where my luggage is.”

08 Held up in the Departure Lounge for 25 Hours Waiting for Return Flight

09 Escorted by Police onto the Plane

“Look, this is a dangerous guy!”

“Why has the police got this one guy? Why is he being sat near the front of the plane?”

10 System Worried About Real-Life Activism

“This is all going in the right direction. We got somebody on YouTube again, like Mark, who’s going to speak our language. I can watch that. It feels good. Somebody’s regurgitating points that I would make myself. I can listen to him and I feel like somebody’s speaking for me.”

“I want to be more than a content creator. I want to organise in the real world. I want people to get out there to protest, to demonstrate. To organise, to be involved in legal advocacy, to be involved in activism.”

11 Mark Has 21 Days to Appeal EU Ban

“Based on all of the factual evidence presented, this is a undemocratic and disproportionate punishment for somebody who has never committed a crime and was not intending to commit a crime.”

“Well, it might hurt your feeling, it might impact your family, it might affect your ability to take your children on holiday.”

“Well you can’t deprive that child of his dad. You can’t!”

“I’m really fond of the food in the UK. And it would damage my digestive system if I had to go back to my native country and eat the slop they serve. So, oh, well, we better let him stay then. He likes the food!”

“You know, save Mark Collett!”

12 Tommy Robinson and His Grifting off of Supporters

13 Tommy and His His Coke Habit

“Mate, what’s going wrong?”

“Oi, Tommy! You’re racist bastard!”

“Hey, perfect. Good idea, Tommy. That’s the perfect thing we need. Let’s start the fundraisers to free Tommy from legal consequence for his, … Improvised. Good man!”

14 Mark’s Interaction with a Muslim Female Deportee at the Airport Lounge

“Oh, well, they were deporting a Muslim as well!”

“Oh, man, I don’t need this as well.”

“Oh, I’m all cold!”

“I’m cold. Give me your Hoodie.”

“Yeah, you’re not having my Hoodie.”

“I’m gonna be cold!”

“Yeah, but if I give it to you, then I’m gonna be cold as well. It’s like, if I had two Hoodies, you know, I’d consider it. But I only have one Hoodie and it’s for me.”

“Oh, my phone charger’s not working.”

15 Mark’s Kind Deed

“Can you fix my phone charger?”

“I can’t believe this!”

“What if they don’t let you come home? What are we gonna do?”

“What if they detain you at Manchester for 48 hours? How are we gonna deal with this?”

“Hi, you trapped!”

“Hi, mate, how you doing?”

16 People That Rang Mark from All over the World

“Oh, well, we might make you pay for your own flight back.”

“Oh, God!”

“Unless you shut this down, unless you target the main figureheads for this community, this thing is going to become huge! This thing is going to get out of control. Everyone’s going to vote for these guys and this is going to be the next big political thing.”