[00:00]

Ford: I’m here with Andrew Joyce, who’s got a book coming out called “Talmud and Taboo”. So Andrew, can you to tell me about your forthcoming book?

Joyce: Yes. Well anyone who has taken a look at my articles at the Occidental Observer, or in the Occidental Quarterly and some of the other sort of Alt-Right journals will be familiar with the subject matter that I deal with. And the book is no exception to that.

The book really concerns, in the broadest capacity possible jewish influence, jewish history, and aspects of jewish culture, from the perspective of a White European who possesses, I would argue, a level of ethnocentrism that would be equivalent to many within the, I suppose, inner core of the jewish community, to the extent that it would represent people who are highly ethnocentric, or certainly care for their ethnic interests and see themselves as a group to a very strong degree.

So the book, I guess, is the response of a highly identified, strongly identified European against similar ethnic feelings within the jewish community.

Breaking it down it looks at jewish influence in academia, in particular the writing of history. And also in contemporary politics. There’s some nineteenth century politics and I also look at some offshoots of literature and how jewish influence has manifested itself in relation to efforts to promote the concept of jewish genius, with particular focus on, Spinoza and some other figures.

The book really is a collection of what I have regarded as my best materials at the Occidental Observer and the Occidental Quarterly, with some new material, but most importantly the [word unclear] edition.

What really makes it a book is I’ve written a quite lengthy introduction of some fifteen thousand words, or so, in which I try and condense, not jewish history in its entirety, but certainly the history of jews in Europe into a kind of easily digestible narrative, pulling out some of the main themes in that history. Some of the major problematic areas of interaction between Jews and Europeans.

Ford: What precisely is your ethnic background? Are you English? Are you Irish? What are you?

Joyce: My own ethnic background, I actually have no Irish in me. I was born in Ireland. But I was raised in several different countries actually. I come from a military background. And in terms of my immediate ethnic background my parents, there’s English, Welsh, and Scottish there. And nothing else, as far as I can tell. I’ve done quite extensive work on my own family tree. And certainly on my father’s side I’ve researched back to the fourteenth century. I haven’t been able to go back anywhere as far on all my mother’s side, but it’s predominately English people from Yorkshire. And also the south of Wales to the extent that there were sort of English and Norman settlers in that part of Wales.

Ford: It’s interesting how dramatic the differences are between say, the English and their genetics, and the type of variety they create in the Irish. So when you had the Irish coming to the United States, it took many generations to assimilate them, because they’re much more ethnocentric than the English. And much more likely to commit crimes, and to be drunk. And it’s interesting the dramatic genetic differences, you know, within that still pretty similar geographic locale and how they play out in the way group statistics play out.

Joyce: The Irish are fascinating! I have many, many Irish friends. And, I have a great deal of respect for them I would agree with you that the Irish possessed a heightened sense of ethnocentrism, to a degree. It’s kind of become perversely plastic and the late 20th century. In the way that we have this kind of “plastic paddy” phenomena, where you have the sort of the orange beards and the Leprechaun hats that accompany St Patrick’s Day tomfoolery.

But yes, going back into the middle the nineteenth century, certainly through, say the 1940s there was a very, very strong drive for Irish nationalism. A very strong emphasis on the importance of ethnocentrism within Ireland during that period. There are substantial differences between the English and the Irish.

I think overall those differences have been exaggerated at times. And some of the recent genetic studies, for example a book called “Blood of the Isles” it was discovered that the English and the Irish, and also the Scots and Welsh share a lot more in common genetically that was ever thought previously. And this was down to the fact that the study of English DNA revealed that there was a lot more remnants of the pre Celtic even, and certainly pre-Germanic sort of settlers within, … The remnants were still there of their DNA.

So this kind of image that people have in their minds of the Anglo Saxons, of all of all these German tribes migrating from Saxony, and Freesia, and some of those German lands, and basically pushing the Celtic or pre-Celtic peoples into the Celtic countries of Wales or Scotland, are largely a myth. There was a great deal of intermixing there. Certainly between a relatively small group of Saxons, and many of the indigenous tribes that the Romans would have been familiar with, for example.

So yes, there are differences there. I think they’ve been overplayed. But certainly if you look at the studies produced by someone like Richard Lyn on IQ. The IQ gap between English and Irish has been very substantial at times. And the Irish IQ actually has been remarkably low for Western Europe. It was on par I think with, or was it, with Romania and some other incredibly impoverished European countries.

Ford: You’ve mentioned that the beginning that you are someone with a strong European identity. What about English identity vs European identity?

Joyce: Yeah, this is a question I get asked quite frequently. I was actually contacted not so long ago on social media by a guy who, he had a question, I think he was French. But he asked me:

“Did I think it was right, …”

It was a hypothetical question:

“Did I think it was right, for example, if a sizable German population came into France and assumed positions all power and influence in the top levels of French government, …”

And he basically said:

“You’re describing yourself as a White nationalist. So, if these are fellow Whites, at kind of problem would you have with such a scenario?”

The first thing I said, well, I conceded that the problem that he posed was a good one. But at the same time it was quite unlikely scenario. And thirdly, in order to give him a straight answer to it. I said:

“No. I don’t think that that would be a good idea.”

I think that, because of the threat, some people would argue obviously against me. Certainly a Social Justice Warrior say there is no threat to the White race currently. But I do perceive it there to be a broad demographic threat to the White race as a whole. And I do believe that the White race is being targeted for what it is.

For those reasons alone, I think we need strategies which are in some respects international. I think that some of the threats that are being posed to us are international in nature, and certainly their international in their scope and in their strategy. And we need a response that is going to work on that level.

For example, if I was to support any sort of White nationalist government, or English nationalist government that is race aware and is keen to redress the demographic decline, et cetera, et cetera, such a government may well, hypothetically, take hold over England and then succeed to some extent. But the international community would still bring enough pressure to bear on that country, on England, in that hypothetical scenario, to the extent that any gains that it may make would be minuscule.

And certainly if you look at the modern apparatus of international government sanctions, and the worst case scenario of military responses, I don’t think that any White country can go it alone, so to speak. I believe in a kind of pan European strategy, if you will. And by that I don’t mean anything remotely similar to the European Union.

But, I do believe that Whites must learn to come together and operate in different nations, towards the same goals, in the same way, for example, the jews have all operated across borders in order to look after their interests and achieve their ethnic goals.

Ford: At the beginning of his book, The Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald makes the point that people of northwestern European heritage tend to be about the least ethnocentrist people around while, jews and other Middle Eastern people tend to be very highly ethnocentric. But, you know, under a certain level of stress people from northern Europe can start to become increasingly ethnocentric. I’m wondering how much of your strong European identity is a response to say, strong jewish identity, and the challenge that presents to your people?

Joyce: I would say that plays a large part in the development of my own ethnocentrism. I think that ethnocentrism can arise from a number of positions within the mentality of the person. One way in which ethnocentrism can develop is on an emotional level.

So for example in Eastern Europe in the 19th century, in daily interactions with with jews many of the peasant populations lost money, they lost possessions, whether it was through the money lending system, the tavern system, petty pawn brokering, or different things. In general and cumulatively, and together, the Russian peasantry was losing out to the Jews. And this gave way to a groundswell of resentment, and to anger. And I think that was a huge point in fueling the development of ethnocentrism in that part of the world, at that time.

Have I ever been ripped off by a Jew? Or have I ever been financially exploited or otherwise? No! My own journey towards a more ethnocentric outlook bears a a lot of similarity to Kevin MacDonald actually, about how he describes his development. I think in his introduction to Culture of Critique he does say something like:

“This has been an intellectual journey. When I wrote ‘A People that Dwell Alone’ I was sort of pushing this from a purely intellectual standpoint but as time has gone on I discovered more things. I’ve become more aware of my own ethnic interests.”

And I think that my own journey has been roughly similar, although I think I started significantly younger age than Kevin MacDonald. I’m not sure what age he was when he started writing Culture of Critique. Certainly by the time I was about twenty years old, I had a fairly well developed sense of ethnocentrism.

One of the things that I would add actually my sense of ethnocentrism was, even to this day when I write something like “my people”, or “our people”. These phrases actually don’t sit well, they don’t come out of my mouth or my pen easily. It’s still something that I’m not exactly sure why. But I find it difficult. It doesn’t slip off the tongue. And certainly there’s a lot within my own culture that currently I’m not very happy with. There’s a lot in the past that I’m proud of, but sometimes it can difficult .

One of the great things that Western Europeans, or Europeans in general are good at, perhaps human beings are good at is, a kind of self-criticism, or a critical approach of one’s self. And sometimes that takes a conscious overpowering in order to really assert, that:

“Yes, okay, my tribe has its flaws, but it’s my tribe! And it has to be defended if it is to have a future.”

So in terms of ethnocentrism, yes, it’s fairly strong in me. It’s not, I wouldn’t say it’s sort of ADL strong, or SPLC strong! [chuckling] But it’s definitely stronger than the average. And the reason it’s got there is, I think is largely due to an intellectual process. At times there are things that have infuriated me during that intellectual process. But overall, it’s been through study and observation of facts, as I have interpreted them.

[16:18]

Ford: I think I heard in a previous podcast that you did. That in high school you wrote a critique of Schindler’s List, so you must have been pretty red pilled on the Jewish Question in high school!

Joyce: Well the thing is at that point I knew very little about Jews in high school. When I was very young my mother sent me to a Presbyterian Sunday school. And it was one of those branches of the Presbyterian, … A small breakaway factions of the Presbyterian Church where jews were revered! And my first encounter with jews was that they were the apple of God’s eye. That they originated in some far off sunny land. It certainly wasn’t cloudy, windy, rainy. Northwest Europe.

And they had all these exotic fruits, you know, there was talk of pomegranates in the Old Testament. And all this was made much of and discussed with great fanfare within that Sunday school. But between that very young age that I attended that school, and that essay that I wrote on Schindler’s List, there was nothing. There was a blank space!

I didn’t encounter any jews, read anything about jews. It was only really when I encountered the high school curriculum, in which the rise of the Nazis, the “Holocaust”. And within the curriculum was Schindler’s List that they really came out. And even at that stage, when I critiqued the film, from what I thought was just a purely analytical perspective. But I should also say that even at that young age my personality was quite contrarian.

And so I was led to believe that this was a film I should feel sad, or that I should have great sympathy with the victims as portrayed in this film. It would have been much my personality at the time to adopt the opposite approach. So I would have adopted a kind of a hostile approach to the mainstream narrative presented within that film. I think anyway.

This is me, you know, some, almost two decades later reading something back to my younger self. A flawed exercise perhaps, and certainly I need to be very careful in how much I read back into my younger self.

But was I well versed in the JQ [Jewish Question] at the age of fifteen, or sixteen? No, I wasn’t. I wouldn’t claim to be that precocious or a child that was well read at that age. I just had a film in front of me in which I saw flaws. And certainly had some level of bias in its presentation. And I just wanted to argue against it.

Ford: So what about at university? What did you study? And how did that bear on your developing response to the jewish question?

Joyce: I studied history and literature. And that is something that I stuck with throughout my academic career. Again I didn’t study anything explicitly jewish at any point during that. I did focus on twentieth century United States history.

And that really didn’t even offer much scope in terms of looking at Jews. I did encounter some reference with the jews, or I think, I guess from the age of eighteen, or nineteen. From Nixon, the mentions that he made in the Watergate tapes, for example. And I also encountered Jews again through, I guess a more in-depth study of the “Holocaust” during that time. But only ever as part of a broad sweep, you know, this general classes on the 20th century international history, 20th century European history.

But at the age of, I think it was coming to the end of twenty, I might have turned twenty one. And I was wanting a good meaty book that was also controversial. I just wanted something that would capture my interest. And I heard about this book by Daniel Goldhagen, called the [word unclear] Willing Executioners [? Hitler’s Willing Executioners]. And it was a book that was largely hammered actually by the critics. And certainly I read many criticisms from some jewish critics, who said that it was awful. Purely from a professional standpoint.

But I wanted to know [chuckling] what “bad history” looked like! So I read it, and I thought it was actually fascinating! I actually liked the way Goldhagen wrote. It was a very well written book, even if in terms of its argument, it was very deeply flawed. But I enjoyed reading it, none the less.

It stimulated me to start reading independently, and use some of the skills I learned picking up my degree and later my PhD., into a broader study of what went wrong in Europe, in the early 1940s. Because there were certainly mass killings. And they certainly did occur right across Europe at the time. And I wanted to know why. I wanted to dig deeper.

So I got Paul Johnson’s “History of the Jews” and started from there. And then I just branched out. And I read as much as I could, whenever I could. And over the years that knowledge accumulated and expanded, and I started developing my own ideas.

But within a couple of years really started with my current work with Kevin MacDonald, which was both affirming in a sense. In the sense that I found echoes of my own thoughts in his work. And also it was directional in the sense that it pointed me in the areas that I wanted to go, or felt that I should go.

And certainly having read, even by the time, I think I just finished reading Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s “Foundations of the Nineteenth Century”, when I find Kevin MacDonald’s work. And at that time I had read one, or two, maybe three or four actually of the nineteenth century seminal texts on the jewish question. And for all of their plus points there was a certain vulgarity or bluntness of approach in many of those texts that wasn’t there with Kevin MacDonald. MacDonald’s work is very clear! It’s very exact! And that has very unique in terms of writing about the jewish question.

Historically, writing for the jewish question has involved lots of emotion, a little bit of analysis, and quite a lot of, just bitterness! Which is understandable. It is an emotive and emotional subject matter when you look at it’s, all it’s implications, for jews underpinnings, and Europeans.

But it has taken us a long time to get to the point where Europeans can write at least somewhat objectively about this subject matter. It’s been getting better over time. I think that Henry Ford’s “The International Jew” actually was a leap forward in the sense that there’s a break from some of the writings, certainly from French writers like Drumont, [words unclear], and some of the, … Well Germany always had a traditional sort of intellectual anti-semitism, if you want to give it that title.

But MacDonald’s work really was, marked, a huge break from the past.

[24:57]

Ford: We keep talking about the Jewish questions, so my definition of the jewish question is that it’s Gentiles are asking:

“What do we do about the jews in our country?” [chuckling]

 

What’s your understanding of the definition of the Jewish Question?

Joyce: That’s fairly, that is nice and concise! I actually like it! But, it’s almost like we’re jumping the gun a little bit, in terms of what do we do. For me the jewish question is really two questions. What we’re asking when we talk about the jewish question is, do Jews really possess more influence in European societies than they should?

And then sort of the second part of the jewish question would be, what you just said there. Would be like, well what do we do about it? How do we manage this? And within each of those questions are a lot of smaller questions. The jewish question is a nice title for what are endless socio-economic, political, and cultural questions.

And I think that before we talk talk in any sense of about what are we going to do about jews. We really need to be very careful about what we mean about jewish influence, how we understand it, where next itself manifest, how it makes itself manifest.

And only when we fully understand those things can we even begin to discuss remedies. Now I know that in Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald says something along the likes of, we might need something like affirmative action in order to redress certain manifestations of jewish influence in European societies.

For example, jewish over-representation in the universities, and in some professions. This has been attempted before. It’s been attempted countless times before with the quota system, with the numerous clauses that were in place in the United States. When did that end? I think sometime in the 1920s.

Ford: No, like the 1960s.

Joyce: 1960s? Wow!

So efforts to kind of curb via legislation, or codes, or admissions requirements, and things like this, they have kind of come and gone. They were also in place in Russia. They were also present in different parts of Western Europe at various times.

Then they were an effort at a solution. And for me, it’s just so far down the line I never think about solutions, to use [chuckling] a dubious term, “solutions to the jewish question”. I’m more interested in simply investigating it’s manifestations.

Ford: How old were you when you read Culture of Critique?

Joyce: I think I was maybe twenty two at the time. I think twenty two.

Ford: And I don’t know anyone can be the same after reading that book.

Joyce: No. It was transformative! As I said I was already on some of the track. Culture of Critique wasn’t the first MacDonald’s books that I read. I was, as I said, I was predominately interested in anti-semitism. I came away from Goldhagen’s book wanting to know more about why people didn’t like jews.

As I said, I didn’t have any personal interaction with them growing up, so I reached the age of my early twenty’s, without ever having met a single jew.

And I was fascinated! I just thought:

“Why all this trouble? Why all these centuries of conflict and bloodshed? There must be a reason.”

So my own investigation did not begin with wanting to find out about jews, or the Jewish Question. My investigation started with wanting to find out about anti-semitism, and why it came about.

So the first book that I read of MacDonald’s was his book on anti-semitism, “Separation and Its Discontents”, which was an evolutionary analysis of anti-semitisms it was, and remains, my favorite of MacDonald’s books. I like “Culture of Critique”. But everyone adopts a position on the jewish question that reflects some sense, some aspect of their personality. For example, Martin Luther was a thunderous preacher. And his approach to the jewish question was that of thunderous preacher. “On the Jews and Their Lies” is just a long ranting sermon about jews, and about eternal damnation, all the things that really appeal to Luther.

And, on the other hand, you’ve got the kind of journalistic type people, like Wilhelm Marr who coined the term anti-semitism. He wrote the pamphlet tract, “The Victory of Judaism Over Germany”. And his book, … And also I would argue Drumont’s as well, “La France juive” [1886 by Édouard Drumont], “Jewish France”, those are written by journalists. And the tone of their text that they develop are journalistic texts. So they always sort of err on the side of the exposé! The whole tone of the book is “let’s expose the jews”. And they bounce from one revelation to the next. Some are more authentic than others.

So, and then you course you have the academics who think everything can be solved by breaking them down into minute parts and analyzing it and putting it together and developing theories about it. And the first two books, by MacDonald, were the most truly academic in my opinion. And certainly the second appealed most to me.

The Culture of Critique on the other hand, certainly while being a very academic book — and I don’t take anything away from that regard — but it’s content, and also some of its tone, because MacDonald does shift his tone in that third book, and some of his phraseology certainly adopts a more journalistic tone. There is more in there that has a kind of a journalistic feel, there’s something of the exposé about it. Particularly when he’s talking about Freud. He gets into some aspects of this, and the Frankfurt School, exposing the jewish nature of the Frankfurt School. It’s exposing the jewishness of Freudianism.

So “Separation and Its Discontents” has always been my favorite. And it was a good primer in a lot of ways, anyway, for Culture of Critique.

But yeah, I read it! It sits on my bookshelf. I think it’s an absolute tremendous, timeless classic that will be read and re-read in decades to come. And perhaps centuries.

But I would say that it didn’t dramatically, or radically change any aspect of my thinking. It helped in my development. I just wouldn’t say that there was a transformative effect.

[32:39]

Ford: What subject did you get your PhD in?

Joyce: My PhD was, … I don’t want to be too specific, but it was on a quite famous 19th century literary figure. But the thesis took in quite a good bit of nineteenth century British history, economics and literature.

And I think that the breadth of reading on that, certainly just in terms of how to craft a piece of history, helped me along in my development. Certainly, the analytical approach. I still have a great fondness for literature. I do write a lot about jews, obviously, for Kevin MacDonald.

But recently, I’ve kind of intertwined that with my passion for TS Eliot, Ezra Pound. I have in the past written some pieces in the Occidental Quarterly which has taken in some of the works of Charles Dickens, and some other nineteenth century authors.

Ford: When did you arrive on the scene, of the Alt-right writing under, you know, Andrew Joyce? Was it two or three years ago?

Joyce: No, no, no. It’s been longer than that actually. I’ve been in contact with Kevin MacDonald for at least eight years. Well, yeah, at least eight years. And we corresponded for a long time, about a number of different topics. And I think it’s about six years ago now. Five, or six, years ago, I suggested that I’ll send him a piece of writing and perhaps he’d want to publish it at the Occidental Observer.

And he did. But I read written little bits, little blog posts anonymously. And I’d read the lengthy pieces in chat forums and things previously.

So it wasn’t like a sort of a radical and sudden appearance on the scene. It developed incrementally over time. But I think it was in 2012 that I first wrote for the Occidental Observer under Andrew Joyce. And at first I didn’t have the time — I still don’t have the time — [chuckling] to write as much as I do. But first I wrote something every six months, four, or five months. It is quite a distance between the pieces that I was producing.

And then a couple of years ago, I just started pushing myself a little bit more in part. I think I do have a contribution that I could make. I have read a lot of stuff, at this point. So, I’m going to try and up the work rate and increase the input.

And I try to, as much as possible, to produce content for the Occidental Observer on a fairly regular basis. And sometimes, sometimes there’s nothing to write about! Sometimes you’ve got so much to write about, whether it’s current affairs, or something that you’re reading, or something that’s come into your head, that you don’t have the time to write or, … At the minute I’m writing like three pieces! I just need to get them out on paper.

[36:23]

Ford: How do you deal with the tension between being an activist and an academic?

Joyce: It’s difficult. It’s difficult. Academia is hostile territory for some of my beliefs, so they need to be concealed, almost entirely! Because it’s very sensitive environment. It’s a very, it’s like the spotlight is always shining on anyone who may have any ideas which are dissident to the status quo.

Academia is very difficult. I’ve had many conversations with Kevin MacDonald about this. Obviously he was practically tortured and hounded by the SPLC [Southern Poverty Law Center] in the latter years of his position at, the University of Southern California, Santa Barbara?

Ford: He was at Cali State, Long Beach.

Joyce: Yeah, that is right, Long Beach. They made his time there quite terrible towards the end. And I think it was a great relief to him when he [chuckling] finally found his way into retirement!

But the tension. Just, … There is almost there is no tension simply because you cannot allow the two sides to come into contact. To be openly Alt-Right within the university system, within the college system, is impossible!

Ford: Yeah! Well, ..

How, … You’re on the more tough end of dealing with the Jewish Question. Like Kevin is not nearly as tough on jews as you are. [chuckling] How did you end up on your end of the spectrum? You know, you’re to the Right, so to speak, of Kevin MacDonald on dealing with the jews.

Joyce: Umm, … [chuckling] I didn’t realize that I came across so far to the Right of Kevin MacDonald! I think it’s more a matter of writing style, than position. Certainly in conversations that I’ve had with Kevin MacDonald, intellectually we’re sort of in the same position. We’re both kind of questing, and we’re both pushing, and we both are aware of our own interests, our ethnic interests in this entire [?] conflict.

But before I answer, I guess maybe I could ask you a question as to what is it in my work that makes you think I’m particularly hard on the jews?

Ford: I think it’s just a feeling that I get. I mean, also I could point to your essay for Radix Journal in January, “The Jewish Question and Some Answers”. I mean, you really want complete separation between jews and non jews. And Kevin MacDonald has not, you know, advocating anything like that. I mean, that’s a pretty big difference!

Like you and Richard Spencer now advocating for complete separation. While Kevin MacDonald is not calling for something like that. So that’s why I would say that you’re to the Right. Also, it’s just a feeling tone that I get, like when I read Kevin MacDonald I feel, you know, very much that I’m reading, generally speaking, the work of a surgeon.

And when I read you it just feels more hostile. You know, I could be wrong. That’s just the feeling. It’s like I have to put on a thicker layer of armor to engage with your writing on the jews than I do with Kevin MacDonald.

Joyce: Hmm.

Ford: Because, you know, as someone who converted to orthodox judaism who naturally, like everybody who strongly identifies with his group, tends to naturally think of his group being awesome, and members of other groups being less awesome!

And Kevin MacDonald is a challenge to deal with, but I have to put on even more armor to put myself in a place where I can engage with your writings.

[41:20]

Joyce: I think I can understand where you’re coming from. I think of the part of the reason why my work might be seen as a step up in terms of hostility, part of it might be due to the tone I write, and writing style. I do have an abruptness of style where I don’t like grey areas. And sometimes if it comes between taking the foot off the gas, or putting the pedal to the floor, I’ll put the pedal to the floor. So that’s part of a personality thing.

But in another sense some of the things that I have encountered in my research do make me angry! And sometimes that may come across in something that I’ve written. And certainly it’s not impossible that readers could pick up on that sense of grievance in my writing.

In terms of the Radix piece and advocating complete separation. I thought long and hard about the introduction to that interview. If you think back to when it was published it was kind of an iffy time in the Alt-Right in terms of how do you address the jewish Question. Red Ice Radio had a guy called “Reactionary Jew”, I think. Yeah, they had Reactionary Jew from Twitter, on. And they did an interview with him.

And a lot of the kind of 4chan crowd were unhappy that Red Ice had done this. So they started complaining, or some kind of online activism against Red Ice Radio. Which was picked up by The Right Stuff. And The Right Stuff took Red Ice’s side on this matter. And then the 4chan guys that started attacking the Right Stuff guys, which resulted in the doxing of a few of them.

I watched this. This was all very interesting to me, because it was a tussle about do Jews have any say even in how the Alt-Right approaches the jewish question. And I actually didn’t listen to the Reactionary Jew interview, but in the summaries that I heard about it, I think that, … Well this is all secondhand, this is all hearsay, as I said, I did listen to the interview.

But the word on the street, so to speak, was that Lana [Lokteff] had been quite soft on this guy, Reactionary Jew, in the first place. And that’s where the problems all began, that Lana had basically gone, made approving noises to this guy, saying, you know, there could be quite some kind of common ground there. So all of this was floating around and I thought to myself at the time:

“I would actually like to interview some jews!”

Some so-called, Right wing, reactionary jews.

Who I undoubtedly would have some kind of common ground with, in the sense that they were ethnocentric, and I was ethnocentric. And I wanted to ask them some pretty blunt and honest questions, which is the way that I would, with my personality, conduct an interview.

So, at the time I had been exchanging words with a couple of these people on Twitter. Really it was Reactionary Jew I conversed with most. And then he, got the other guy, their rabbi [?], I think he was either a convert, or this is mother, or someone, was not ethnically jewish, but he was very, very strongly identified as a Jew. It was almost like, because he was only half jewish, he had to like make up for it with a super amount of strong jewish identification. He was fascinating to talk to.

So we have some honest discussion. I said:

“Look. Here’s the deal guys. Here’s my email address, let’s us the take a step further.”

So I did this interview and I was happy with the responses. And I said to MacCaddis:

“Look. One thing I’m going to promise you with this interview is that I’m not going to alter your answers any way, shape, or form! What you send me is what will go in Radix. And I will send you a full copy of everything! Even my introduction before it is published and you guys can give me any feedback that you want.”

So I want a really transparent interaction with them where we walked through every step of the way.

Once I had the interview I thought to myself:

“Right how do I introduce this?”

And, it’s funny when you say that I’m really, really hard on the jews Well, there were people on that interview when was posted that were like:

“Oh, you know, Joyce has completely cucked out! [Ford laughs] I was soft on the jews!”

And there were people, a bit like yourself, who read that, … I know you reviewed the interview on your own blog. And I thought many of the criticisms, if not all of them, that you made about that interview in the blog were pretty valid. I don’t dispute, I don’t think that my writings is perfect, or even that was the perfect interview.

But it was difficult for me to frame. But I try to think about all angles of objection, first of all, to publication on Radix. And, you know, the first objection is:

“Look! Jews have no place in any of our publications, or, we don’t need to discuss anything with them. They are the enemy. And they just need to be opposed one hundred percent! We don’t need to listen to a single word they say.”

And I can understand that sentiment. But at the same time, from an intellectual point of view, it’s almost like:

“Well if won’t even discuss anything with them, there’s no point in really studying them, or anything else, neither. There’s no point in studying our interactions, or the history of it, you know, Culture of Critique can go out the window, or in the trash can. And so many other publications that have been produced over the centuries as well.”

Actually, engaging in some kind of dialogue even if you go into it with a certain amount of bias. Like, for example, if you want to make the argument that I went into that interview with those two jews with a fully loaded set of preconceptions, biases, and hostility, that still does not preclude the fact that elements of that interview could be useful to me and also to them.

So for me there was always going to be some kind of usefulness in interacting with these people, as I said, to some critics, and some people, who applauded the interview. I would interview Heidi Beirich [SPLC] if she let me. I would interview her for Radix, for the Occidental Observer. If you wanted to. Or Abe Foxman [former head of the ADL], or anyone else, in what I would regard as a jewish establishment.

Because, if we are confident of our position, we can’t guarantee that we’ll ever get honest answers to our questions, but if we are truly confident of our position, then we will take all of our arguments and all the questions that we have to pose, and put it’s of these people who we have designated as our opponents. And in my opinion, rightfully so.

So that interview was free and explained in accordance with how I understood it would be perceived. And I also wanted to explain to people why the interview even took place. And perhaps the only thing I left out in that introduction was, it was to satisfy, in some respects, my own curiosity.

A lot of the things that I write about, the things that I engage in are part of my own intellectual journey, which is ongoing. This is still something that I try to understand as time goes on.

I think Kevin MacDonald is still learning and developing things within his own mind, and his own understanding too. Although I think in recent years, certainly in last five, or six years, his emphasis and his focus in terms of what he is seeking to understand, have shifted inward in the sense that he has stopped looking so much for anything new on the jewish side. And he’s now looking into White pathology, the origins of Europeans. He’s trying to understand European man more.

Whereas I think I’m so really deeply in the stage of trying to understand why jews operate within European societies, and how that provokes responses from those societies. And how that vicious cycle, it sort of perpetuates itself.

[51:07]

Ford: And part of what you’re talking about when you give the framework for the Radix essay and interview is a problem faced, but everybody who belongs to a group. And that is the problem of virtue signaling and purity spiralling.

So, for instance I’m in Orthodox Judaism, so there’s always a strong incentive to be more religious, and more observant of jewish law, and more of a warrior for jews and jewish causes, than the next jew! So there’s always this inherent tension in any group that your more pure, you are more devoted to the cause, stronger in your devotion to the cause than the next guy. And it’s a real obstacle for honesty! [laughter] You’re always under, … Like I know in Orthodox Judaism you’re always under the pressure to show how observant you are, and how devoted you are to jews.

And so there’s a strong incentive then to deceive, or to say things that you don’t believe, or do things that you don’t believe, in order to appear more pure and more virtuous in the eyes of your group. And it seems to me that the same sort of dynamic, you know, operates in White Nationalism, along with every other group.

Joyce: It certainly does to an extent. And within any group you also have a certain type of person, or persons, who may not have anything particular original to contribute to the discussion, but they will find some sense of self-worth within that movement by acting in a certain capacity. And that capacity is to be the the guardian of purity spiralling, or the perpetual critic. And that’s the person who will just sit there all day long and say:

“Oh he’s cucking hard, or he’s selling out, or he didn’t name the jew on this one thousand two hundred sixteenth occasion! He didn’t mention jews this time. What’s going on there?”

And you go find this level of autism, you know, periodically within any movement, or any organization. It’s someone who has nothing else to say, so they will just simply engage in that behavior. It’s not helpful! I agree that it’s a barrier to honesty.

The question of jewish interactions in Europe, in European societies, and visa versa Europeans have responding to jews being in their midst, is so complex! It’s incredibly demanding! I mean, I’ve really lost count of the number of books I’ve read on the subject. I have not a hope of ever counting up the number of academic journal articles I’ve read on the subject matter, or the references in the literature and art. It is mind blowing the amount of effort, time, and ink, that has been consumed in dealing with this question!

And some people will prefer not to engage in even the slightest bit of effort to understand any of it, and will simply just say:

“Oh, it’s all the jews!”

And if you don’t say that, you’re cucking then. So you have to contend with that. But also you have to understand the emotional reactions, you actually understand the problem where in. And unfortunately, there’s no beating around the bush here, Whites are in really rather demographic decline across the board. We are losing rapidly our dominant position, and even our ancestral homelands! It does not look good! This is a very high pressure environment!

Perhaps the time of calmly analyzing this problems academically is drawing to a close. Simply, because of circumstances and the environment that we are in. That is unfortunate. It’s always unfortunate in any situation in which time runs out for calm discussion and the war drums start beating in the distance.

It is certainly not a situation that I want to see in my lifetime. It’s not a situation that I want for my children, or my grandchildren. But there is a certain hopelessness, certainly that I feel about the situation that may well preclude Kevin MacDonald’s of the future from having their voices heard, because for all the SPLC, the hysteria about the work of Kevin MacDonald he is certainly not an extremist! And he is certainly not any of those slurs that they made against him.

He is actually, in my opinion, a voice of incredible reason! His appeal is actually is at the end of the Culture of Critique is astonishing in a lot of ways, and in some ways touching. And it reminded me in some respects of the work by Hilaire Belloc, “The Jews”, 1922 in which the whole book is basically an appeal! It’s an attempt at reason that said:

“Look! We have friction here in our society. And if we ignore this friction it will continue to increase. If we lie about the friction it’s really going to set this tinder box on fire.”

And, of course, Belloc’s warnings were ignored. And just over ten years later we had the advent of a explicitly anti-semitic government in Germany, in which things really were forced onto a new level.

And this is just something that has occupied my thoughts a lot recently, actually. For how much longer will the Occidental Observer type material, have any kind of sway. Or we go towards the simplest message. For example, the Daily Stormer type content. And that’s not to take anything away from the Daily Stormer either. It presents a message that is broken down so simply that it can be digested by just about anyone. Certainly the popular message is always going to be the most powerful.

[58:09]

Ford: Right. I mean the Daily Stormer and David Duke are aiming at, you know, 100 IQ. The Occidental Observer is aimed at an audience with an IQ 120.

Joyce: Mmm, …

Ford: Obviously any successful movement is going to have different messages for different levels of IQ. So that’s why I get up upset by Daily Stormer and David Duke, because I see them as appealing to the 100 IQ crowd, and so they’re obviously not going to have the nuance of someone who aims his work at the 130 IQ crowd. I mean your work is aimed at people north of 120. It’s not acceptable to people with a 100 IQ.

Joyce: Yeah, … [chuckling] I’m always surprised, you know, I meet some people, I met some people at an Alt-Right meeting in Washington DC, I guess a year and a half ago now. It was all young guys, some of them were subscribers to the Occidental Quarterly and certainly read some of my work, but they explained to me that they weren’t regular visitors to the Occidental Observer because the stuff is heavy, it is dense. It does require a significant level of background reading and education.

You know, the last time I looked at Alexa, I was just having a quick glance at the ranking of the Occidental Observer. But it breakdowns visitor educational background. How they gather this information, I don’t know. Whether it’s by survey, or whatever. But the majority of people that visit the Occidental Observer had not just a first degree, but a higher degree. So I guess that is when you when you are talking about Masters and PhD’s, you are talking about an IQ level in the range of what you just described. So yeah, and then in a way that limits your audience. But that kind of argument still needs to get out there.

And in terms of leaders, and culture shapers, you really have to reach people with that level of IQ if you have any kind of influence too.

Ford: Yeah. One thing that makes me pessimistic about the relationship between Whites and Jews, is that I can’t think of many historical examples of White cohesion and Jewish strength going together in a country. Can you think of any examples of that?

Joyce: Not genuine examples. No. Some of the more, … There have been examples given for what you’ve just described. One of them would be the growth of commerce in the Netherlands from the late sixteenth century, onwards. So you’ve got the growth of the Amsterdam jewish community, the development of merchant shipping, their involvement in the financing of that. And you have a genuine rise and growth in the geopolitical power of the Netherlands at the time.

The question is how interlinked or deliberate is any of that, or is it purely coincidental? Unfortunately, the dominant pattern in history, certainly when you look at England in the Middle Ages, in France, and some of the German principalities, but most definitely in Eastern Europe, where jews were strong and they did not derive their strength in those periods from within themselves.

It wasn’t that the jews arrived extremely powerful and just kind of stamped down the peasantry. It was that they came in and they were opportunistic, talented, in certain areas, certainly in the financial areas. And their entry into European society, and into some of these countries, was just so perfectly timed. And the system of government was so perfectly set up for the entrance of a middleman minority like the jews at that time, that that’s what the strengths really came from. And as long as jews were strong, the development of a middle class was pretty much precluded at that point in time.

But, I hesitate to say just because, … Again this issue of nuance. Just, because the jews were a strong position does not necessarily mean that the peasants were completely down trodden for that reason. There was a whole system of government going on at the time, where the king and the nobles were dominant. The jews came in just under them, sometimes alongside the nobles. The peasants were always going to be the peasants.

That doesn’t mean that they weren’t exploited by jewish money lending, but it does mean that were on a lower level.

Ford: And then you’re also about the American South prior to the Civil War. No rabbi in the American South spoke out against slavery. Like jews in the American south prior to the Civil War had no problem with slavery. And jews were quite popular in the South. They got along better in the South, than in the North. And jews it was that played a prominent role in the Confederacy. So to me that’s one example of jewish, … There are very few numbers in the South but, you know, they got on great! Jews and Whites seemed to have gotten on great in the American South prior to the Civil War.

And also jews in say, nineteenth century England, you know, there’s just a small number. But England continued to flourish. And the small number of Jews also did well. So these seem to me to be examples of Jewish strength and White cohesion growing together.

Joyce: Well, … I would certainly debate the example of nineteenth century England. I think it’s always important to say, if we’re talking even about jews and those in the American South getting along well, it’s important to talk about who’s getting along well? Let’s just break it down. We are talking in both cases, in England and the American South of relatively small numbers of jews. Which is always going to lead to slightly better relations, in some circumstances.

But the problem with England in the nineteenth century, is yes, there were a relatively small number of jews. They were all quite well assimilated. They weren’t from [word unclear] immigrant class. They where not engaged in kind of petty money lending that gave rise to a lot of resentment in Eastern Europe. But on the other hand there were other problems. Yes, there was intermarriage, the beginnings of intermarriage into the English aristocracy. So you could point at that and say:

“Look that is them getting on well. The British Empire is at its strength.”

But there were also problems and antagonisms. There were issues, for example, the Marconi scandal, the Indian silver scandal. And these big governmental, financial, scandals of the nineteenth century in Britain involved Jewish nepotism. For example, a lot of the high positions within the British Empire were occupied by, really only three, or four, jewish families! They were the Nathan’s, the Montefiore’s, the Goldsmith’s, and who were the others? I think, …

Ford: Rothschilds!

Joyce: Yeah, … The Rothschild’s weren’t explicitly involved in the sense of taking named explicit positions within the British Empire. But they were intermarried with those families. They were intermarried with the Nathan’s and the Goldsmith’s and the Montefiore’s and some of the others there, the Montague’s. So, they were all intermarried. They were called “The Cousinhead”. Because they were literally all cousins to each other. And they all married each other’s cousins. So there was higher level of consanguinity going on at the time.

A lot of it was about being jewish. A lot of of it was about seeing themselves as an aristocracy. And, of course, aristocrats tended to arrange marriages within themselves, even the non-jewish nobles of the time. So inbreeding was sort of the order of the day in terms of trying to keep wealth within a certain family circle, and also influence.

But certainly jews were very prominent in a lot of the scandals of the day. So there were difficulties there. There were objections to jewish influence in those positions, particularly when we see the coming of the Boer War, which was denounced by many socialist politicians actually at the time, as a war for the jews. For jewish diamond mines in South Africa. And certainly the British Army at one point was described by one socialist politician as the “Janissaries of the jews”.

See: Andrew Hitchcock with Dr Peter Hammond – “Remembering the Late Great Stephen Mitford Goodson!” — TRANSCRIPT

So, there were problems. But are there any terrific examples of a growth in jewish power and a non jewish population that also seems to be growing, and doing well, at the same time? Nothing really stands out.

Ford: How do you see Israel? As an inspiring example of an ethnostate, or what?

[68:55]

Joyce: As an ethnostate? Yes. It’s a pretty good example obviously. It’s a State founded on ethnic principles. It’s immigration policies, it’s walls. It’s explicit and unapologetic description of itself as a jewish state is admirable. And something that any White nationalist really if he’s honest would want to replicate for himself and his own.

However, I’ve always been hesitant to go beyond that in terms of anything valuable I see in the State of Israel, because it just doesn’t stand on its own two feet. None of what we see in terms of how it performs on the international stage is truly authentic. Because so much of what it is and how it performs is backed by copious amounts of non-jewish aid in the form of military support, financial support, diplomatic support. It’s like Israel has some kind of umbilical cord attachment to the West!

Ford: Yeah. Yeah. Going back to Kevin MacDonald. I’m thinking that one can regard all of Kevin MacDonald’s major points about Jews as true. But then you get the implications of what should we then do, just all over the map. And it doesn’t seem to me like there’s a straight line between, you know, accepting the basics of MacDonald’s evolutionary psychology analysis of jews, and then, what we then do. It seems to me like the implications are quite varied.

Joyce: They are. And we can come back to this thing of my advocating the complete separation of jews and non-jews. Which some could say that’s incredibly harsh. It’s inhumane, it’s unnecessary, it’s impractical. There are any number of criticisms which could be made against such a proposal. However, when we even begin to think about alternatives, the effort involved in trying to devise any number of social solutions would be so vast that we would have to eventually come to some kind of questions for ourselves in terms of:

“Is this worth it? Or has this been tried before and failed?”

And in many cases we would say:

“Yes. That has been tried before and failed!”

Because there is nothing new under the sun. And, you know, whether it’s quotas, whether it’s, you know, go right book whether it’s some form of ghettoization, whether it’s limiting jewish ability to enter into certain professions.

All this has been done before. All of it has failed. It’s really difficult to be original in terms of coming up with solutions in this field of social interaction and ethnic relations. Because, as I said earlier, [chuckling] this is something that has been written about for centuries, portrayed in art. It has been the subject of sermons, fulminations, publications, screeds, legal proceedings, legislative acts, … Everything has been done under the sun! And we always seem to find ourselves back at square one with this stuff.

So, … It’s, you know, solutions are something that I try to stay away from! It’s really difficult!

The only thing I would come back to the issue of “effort”. Is it worth it? And I go through the same sort thought process when I think of multiculturalism.

Even on my best day, and with the best of will, and if I get out of bed on the Right side and the sun is shining, and, you know, my kids have done their homework, and all the chores are done, whatever it might be. Everything’s going well. And I listen to some person on TV talking about multiculturalism, how good it is, and how, you know, some black school in London has just won some kind of prize for doing some kind of academic contest, … Even on my best day, in those circumstances, I still have to think:

“What with all the other difficulties, is it still worth it? Is it still worth it.”

I mean, are all of these gang rapes by Muslim immigrants, and all of this crime that we are seeing in the multicultural society, and all the money, … I mean, the amount of money that is invested in trying to make the multicultural society even seems somewhat sane is got to be phenomenal!

A book should be written one day on the financial cost of multiculturalism! We all know the human cost. We all know the cultural cost. But I’m certain that the financial cost, in terms of the funding that some minorities require just to function in Britain. The The cost of the NHS [National Health Service], the cost of education, the cost in policing the crime, the cost in foreign aid, and all the other financial aspects of this. It’s huge! And that’s just one aspect of it! Is it worth it? It’s not worth it in my opinion!

And we have to kind of put on our super rational hats on when we deal with this topic, I was listening to radio show a couple weeks ago, where they were talking about developing machinery in which the human consciousness will be able to leave the human biological body and be uploaded on to some kind of hard drive. And they were discussing the scientists behind this as hyper rational people. There are people that literally are so black and white, so committed to just blunt reason that nothing is out of the question! And ethics doesn’t really play a part. And morals doesn’t com into it. Because they’re just looking at the end goals.

Perhaps in some ways, that’s what I am. It’s the hyper rational person. I look at all the difficulties, I look at two thousand years, or more, of bloodshed, of heartache, and wars, and constant antagonism, and cultural decay, and the resurgence and then decay again after generation! Is it worth it?

[76:22]

Ford: Richard Spencer made this great point he said:

“One of the challenges of dealing with the Jews is that they are in our head!”

Meaning that Jews have lived within Western civilization for over a millennia. And many of unspoken assumptions, ways of thinking, come from the Jews and are just automatically absorbed by non-jews, so it’s hard for non-jews trying to think about, you know what’s best for their people, to separate out what is jewish, and what is authentic to their own tradition.

Joyce: Yeah. I would agree with that to an an extent, although I think Richard gives, he always gives Jews too much credit with a statement like that. I don’t agree with it fully. I think that we imbibed a lot of ideas from jewish intellectuals, and some jewish interactions in our culture. But would I go so far as to say that they are really at our heads in a really strong sense, and a real literal sense of that statement? I don’t think. So I also think that it would be wrong to assume that we aren’t in jewish minds to the same extent.

I remember a quote from a guy called Anthony Julius who was jewish lawyer to Princess Diana some years ago, during her divorce from Prince Charles. And he wrote a book, “Trials of the Diaspora — a History of Anti-semitism in England”. It’s not a very good book at all. I wrote a review critiquing it for the Occidental Quarterly, and the Occidental Observer, also.

But in it he wrote that one of the attractions of anti-semitism was that it gives a troubled non-jew an opportunity to appear as an expert in something. It’s kind of a typically arrogant statement from Julius. It’s a perfect Julius statement to come out with. But one of the things Julius, even if I were to grant him that, which I don’t, but even if I was to grant him that, and say:

“Julius, there are some people who really don’t have much going on in their lives, you know, just like any kind of crank conspiracy theorist, this gives them an opportunity to appear as an expert on something, and they can a few quotes and sound smart, Jews suffer with exactly the same thing!”

Jews like to appear as experts on the anti-semitism.

It is in so many of the books that I’ve read on anti-semitism but Jews, there’s such a level of naivety and arrogance in the writings of those books. And I’m thinking in particular of historians like Robert Wistrick [?], Leon Placoth [?], and what’s his name? Not Jerrery Katz, he’s actually not that bad. But certainly Robert Wistrict. Striekter [?] was another one. But just the level of naivety there! They think that they can be completely objective when looking at anti-semitism when, of course, they can’t. Because they’re one of the warring parties.

I think the only truly objective history of anti-semitism is probably yet to come. And it will come from somewhere like China, or a different continent. Not Africa, because [chuckling] you probably won’t get that many good books written from Africa, anyway!

But it might it might be left to the Japanese, or the, or the Chinese to really write some kind of more impartial account, anyway. But there’s an arrogance there, there’s a naivety there. But I think that we are in the jewish mind as much as the jews are in ours.

Ford: It’s a shame that there’s no term like “anti-gentilism”, because as a convert to Orthodox Judaism I know that there’s just as much antipathy towards Gentiles among many jews, to varying degrees, as there is antipathy to jews amongst Gentiles to varying degrees.

Joyce: Yeah, … It’s there. I mean, I’m certainly aware from all my research, I believe that there is a deeply ingrained hostility among jews towards Europeans.

When you look at the, even the philosopher of someone like Leavenas [?], a Jewish philosopher. When he discusses European he talks about the Greeks, and how jews should not be like the Greeks. And he doesn’t mean the Greeks literally in terms of the ancient Greeks, but he means the Greeks in terms of, … That’s all Europeans.

And the reason why he’s using the terminology is this is going back to the [word unclear] [name of people]. This is going back to the original conflict between the jews and the Hellenes in ancient times. And it was a conflict that they largely believed to be ongoing. It just kind of fluctuates in different times and it adopts different phases. We are all familiar with this terminology that is used a lot by strongly identified Jews, :

“Anti-semitism is a virus that mutates.”

It’s not! It’s just that it follows Jews wherever they go. So the only concept they can come up with to rationalize it is:

“Oh! It’s just a virus just keeps adapting no matter what we do! It keeps adapting!”

But in truth anti-semitism has never had to adapt, because jewish behavior has never adapted, it has never changed! Jewish behavior has been largely continual, and remarkably stable, and consistent, over many centuries, if not millennia.

For that reason anti-semitism really has not changed, even if we were to regard it in some fairy-tale land as a virus, it’s a virus that has never had to mutate because all the arguments always been the same! Whether you pick up your Cicero or whether you pick up your Kevin MacDonald, the argument there is the same:

“Jews are highly cohesive, they stick together, they look out for their interests.”

Literally! The same argument made by Cicero is made by Kevin MacDonald, separated by some two thousand years the argument is the same! How is this a virus that’s mutating? Where is the mutation? Where is the change? There is no change.

[83:27]

Ford: Right, … But I mean, for much of European history in the last two thousand years it seems like much of the animus directed against jews came from theological differences, that the very existence of Jews argues against the theological truth of Christianity.

Each day that there are jews walking around their they are crucifying Christ anew. So that’s a different dimension of the incentive to have negative views of jews.

Joyce: That’s part of that. But I think the theological argument has been overplayed.

There is a book by a jewish historian called Dan Cohn-Sherbok called “The Crucified Jew” [The Crucified Jew: Twenty Centuries of Christian Anti-Semitism (1997) ] and he really overplays it. He basically says that anti-semitism began with Christianity. When in truth we know that in ancient pagan times there were criticisms made of jews as being highly ethnocentric, and that they separated themselves from other peoples. That they were in money lending and different forms of financial exploitation.

What we see of the Christian era, is yes, there was still was a theological overlay that was placed on top of those grievances. But those earlier grievances never went away. So we see, for example, as much as [Martin] Luther in all “The Jews and Their Lies” in the sixteenth century he may well rant against the jews as sort of the sons of Satan, or as deniers of Christ, et cetera, et cetera. A large part of the book is still taken up with some very old themes that we had already seen in pagan times and in the pre-Christian era.

So anti-semitism does not fundamentally change with the advent of Christianity. It takes on a new complexion for a while, but fundamentally it remains the same. So there is no dramatic alteration in that anti-semitism over a historical time. It is remarkably consistent.

As I say, if you really pick up the works, for example, church fathers, Ambrose, some others, you get many of the complaints within those texts
Don’t appeal as much as theological reasoning as you might suspect, if you were basing your understanding of the subject purely works [word unclear] like the “The Crucified Jew” by Cohn-Sherbok.

Ford: There maybe some great analogies to the topics that we were talking about that can kind of reduce the emotion, if we simply look at the world of animals and the world of plants.

And there’s a perspective called “invasive species”. Just a quote from Wikipedia:

“An invasive species of a plant, fungus, or animal species, that is not native to a specific location, which has a tendency to spread through a degree you believe to cause damage to the environment, human economy, or human health.”

So, when you introduce a people who are not native to the location it is very likely to have negative consequences for the native populations. Such as the United States and the land mass of North America when Europeans came here, you know, the Europeans were going to triumph or the Native Americans are going to succeed in repelling them. The two groups are not going to live in peace.

And so, when you bring eucalyptus trees to southern California — I’m from Australia, I love eucalyptus trees, I’ll walking around something California seeing eucalyptus trees — but they have this property whereby they kill out, you know, [chuckling] others plant, or tree, that falls under it’s branches. So they also suck up a lot of water resources.

So I’m thinking the naturalistic perspective of invasive species is a way for people to approach the difficult and emotional laden topic that we’ve been discussing, with a less emotion. And just, seeing the human interactions and human immigration as just another form of invasive species of nature.

Joyce: I agree with that to an extent. The only thing I would say is that I would be very cautious about appealing to the animal kingdom, or the plant kingdom in that respect, or even microbiology, before I would start talking about types of virus, or insect, or whatever it might be. Because there is an element of dehumanization there. And jews are humans! There are human beings! I think that needs to be kept in mind at all times.

They have different. Interests to Europeans. They pursue their interests very aggressively in my opinion. That needs to be met aggressively. But I think we can never lose sight of the fact they are human beings.

If I was to look for analogies, that would enable us to deal with the subject in a less emotional way, I might not look necessarily to things like plant species and things like that. I think it might be more helpful to look at similar middleman minorities.

For example, Indians in Uganda, or the Chinese in other parts of South East Asia. Where they have performed functions and reached levels of influence that are broadly similar to those of the jews in Europe and European societies. There are some differences, for example, jews tend to be very unique in the way that they become actors culturally, and the way they seem to have a detrimental cultural effect on their surrounding societies. The analogies are not perfect.

However, I think that I would stand by my argument that we need to see Jews as human beings, and always to conduct our struggle for our own self-determination against negative jewish influence with our heads held high. And in order to do that I think we should always look at our opponents of the eye, and that does not entail writing them off as, on a level, or in any way some way, as some kind of virus, some kind of bacteria, infection, cancer, or insect.

Ford: OK, great! Is there, I’m going to throw the interview to a close, but I want to leave you with any final words, or any final topic, that you feel are necessary.

Joyce: No. I think this has been a very, very, enjoyable interview, one of the most enjoyable I’ve given. Actually your questions have been terrific.

One thing I would sort of leave off with is that it looks like this is going to be a very interesting remainder to Donald Trump’s presidency.

I was always a Trump skeptic. I did publish a piece on the Occidental Observer some time ago about Jewish intermarriage. And I did always say that the Jewish intermarriage into the Trump’s family was always going to be problematic on some level. And would probably make itself manifest quite early into his presidency.

All that had to be set aside for a time I think across the Alt-Right. I think many of us had our suspicions about Trump, and perhaps for those reasons, but the prospect of a Clinton presidency was just so horrific, that the gamble had to be taken.

So we find ourselves not only post election, and post Trump victory, but by we find ourselves post Trump realisation in the sense that some of the predictions that we were hoping would not come true, have come true. And certainly looks like, in terms of foreign policy and in some other aspects of culture, it doesn’t look like much is going to change.

Ford: Well, thank you Andrew. This interview is recorded on April 30th of 2017. Thank you very much for your time.

[92:59]

END

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

See Also

top

Luke Ford – Andrew Joyce On The Jewish Question — Apr 17, 2017 — Transcript

David Duke Interviews Dr Andrew Joyce — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio: Dr Andrew Joyce – The History of Jewish Influence — TRANSCRIPT (Part 1)

Red Ice Radio: Dr Andrew Joyce – The History of Jewish Influence — TRANSCRIPT (Part 2)

TOO – Andrew Joyce’s Podcast – Talmud and Taboo — Part 01 – Jun 30, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce’s Podcast – T & T No. 1 – The Skype Directory — Jul 15, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce – T&T No 2 – And then one day… – Jul 20, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce – T&T No 3 – Kicking Over the Bucket – Jul 27, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce – T&T 4 – The Man Who Put the Jews on Trial – Aug 3, 2020

Andrew Joyce – T&T 5 – The Return of the Bucket – Aug 5, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce – T&T 6 – The Antisemite’s Handbook – Aug 11, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce – T&T 7 – The TOO Takedown – Aug 14, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce – T&T 8 – SEMITISM – Aug 28, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce – Trumpism, Bidenism, and the System – Nov 9, 2020 — Transcript

Guide to Kulchur – The Protocols of the Elders of Zion – Andrew Joyce – Nov 22, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce – BLM – Irish Edition – Dec 31, 2020 – Transcript

Horus – Discussing the ‘Russian Pogroms’ with Andrew Joyce – Jan 20, 2021 — Transcript

Guide to Kulchur – The Merchant of Venice – Abusive Victim-Identity Syndrome – Andrew Joyce – Jan 20, 2021 — Transcript

Barbara Lerner Spectre

Luke Ford – JQ Debate with Age Of Treason – Mar 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

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

xx UNFINISHED TRANSCRIPTS — Volunteers Needed

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

PDF Download

top

* Total words = 12,592
* Total images = 13
* Total A4 pages = xxx

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

(Available later)

Version History

top

Version 9: Feb 2, 2022 — Added Age of Treason transcript link. Improved formatting.

Version 8: Mar 21, 2021 — Added See Also Part 3 image and links.

Version 7: Nov 15, 2020 — Updated See Also links.

Version 6: Oct 18, 2020 — Added last 15 more minutes of transcript.  Transcript text now complete = 93 minutes.

Version 5: Oct 17, 2020 — Added 9 more minutes of transcript. Added 2 more images. Total transcript complete = 78/93 minutes.

Version 4: Oct 16, 2020 — Added 18 more minutes of transcript. Total transcript complete = 69/93 minutes.

Version 3: Oct 15, 2020 — Added 18 more minutes of transcript. Total transcript complete = 51/93 minutes.

Version 2: Oct 14, 2020 — Added another See Also link. Added 6 images. Added 17 more minutes of transcript. Total transcript complete = 33/93 minutes.

Version 1: Oct 13, 2020 — Published post. Total transcript complete = 16/93 minutes.

John Friend: All right folks. Welcome back to another edition of the Realist Report. This is your host John Friend.

Joining me today is Tanstaafl, who maintains the excellent website Age of Treason. Tanstaafl is one of the most insightful and articulate commentators in the alternative independent media today, especially when it comes to the jewish problem. A topic that we will be discussing at length during this podcast.

Tan, thanks for joining me. How are you today, sir?

Tanstaafl: Good John. I’m just getting over a cold as you know. But feeling much better today.

John Friend: Well, you sound fine and, you know, if you’ve got to sneeze, or cough, or anything, …

Tanstaafl: I may! [laughing]

John Friend: … Just put yourself on mute and I’m sure we can deal with it.

Thanks for coming on the program. Last time you were on was actually a year ago, exactly. I was just looking at my website, and one year ago, today. Well, I guess when I post this program, which will be technically tomorrow, December 7th. You were on. And I had been wanting to interview you for a long time because I followed your work for a number of years and listened to pretty much all of your podcasts. And you’ve been a big influence in my thinking, especially when it comes to racial issues and, of course, the jewish problem.

So, just to get started, could you talk about what you’ve been up to lately? I know you were recently shoahed from Twitter. So you are no longer on Twitter, but I see you’ve been blogging a lot lately. So, why don’t you just tell us what you’ve been up to.

Tanstaafl: Well, yeah, I wouldn’t call it a lot. I’ve actually been pretty inactive for the last year. Actually, it started even before I talked to you last.

But, I’ve been active mostly on Twitter. I had stopped blogging so much. Before I had been in the habit of posting about once a week, once every couple of weeks, and it really dropped off to almost nothing.

But Twitter is, … It wasn’t because I was not paying attention to what was going on and didn’t have thoughts. It was just because I was expressing myself mainly through Twitter. Which is really a different form of media. It’s like, it’s been called a “micro blog”, and that is really a good description for it.

So, instead of writing these long posts on a blog, you write little snippets of thoughts that fit in 140 characters. And you can whip them off pretty quickly, and in response to lots of different stories. So it’s becomes addictive! You know, you’re sitting there paying attention to what’s going on in the news, what everybody’s excited about and you have some insight into it, or you just want to bring it to other people’s attention and you comment on it.

And the big problem with it, as I found out — I was well aware I was just wondering when it would happen — but I found out a couple of weeks ago right, you know, few weeks after the election. When Twitter decides that you’re too much of a problem, they can just delete your account and it’s as if you never existed.

So, I don’t really plan on going back, as useful as I found it. Most of the value was, for me, besides sharing thoughts with other like minds, was, … What I found on Twitter was that basically the enemy is using it as a communication platform. Very similar to what was uncovered back several years ago. I think 2012 election cycle. The journalist email list that they used to use back then — it might have been even 2008 cycle? I can’t recall now. It was quite a while ago.

But basically before Twitter existed, the jews and the jews media, and their fellow travellers, used to communicate with each other via a private email list, that was invite only. But it was a massive number of people. And when it was uncovered and the e-mails were shared by somebody, it was shocking to a lot of people. That these people were colluding and, you know, coming up with a shared narrative about how to deal with certain scandals that broke.

And we’ve seen it again in this election cycle with the Wiki Leaks thing, I mean there was there was a bit of that.

But every day on Twitter — and you don’t even have to have an account on Twitter — you can sign up. And the main reason to sign up is so you can make a list. But even if you don’t sign up for Twitter you can just go to these different accounts one by one and look at what they’re saying. It’s convenient when you make a list, because it basically mashes them all together. And that’s one of the first things I did after they kicked me off. I just created a dummy account so that I could create a list of all these jews media jews, so that I could see what they were chattering about, what they were screeching about today. And so basically it’s what they call that, “opposition research”? Sure, it’s very effective for that.

[05:00]

John Friend: Yeah and you can kind of see how they sort of collude to control the narrative in a way that advance specifically jewish interests. And it doesn’t matter if they’re on the Left, or the Right, you know, so-called Left and Right, you know, jews always operate and collude together to advance specifically jewish interests. And in many cases they’re very blatant and out in the open with it.

Tanstaafl: Yeah. You can see a difference between the Left and Right jews — the Conservatives and liberals — and how they kind of pose and posture, as opponents. But then on Twitter, you know, they’re part of a team. They’ll argue with each other on Twitter as well.

But, what I’ve noticed is this, and it was even before Twitter, of course, that I noticed this, but, on Twitter you can see it developing in real time. This cycle that they get into. This positive feedback cycle where one jew will start screeching about something that’s going on, … Steve Bannon is a good — the “Bannocaust” that I wrote about just recently — was a good example of what was happening just as I got kicked off of Twitter.

Some jew, I noticed, was saying:

“Steve Bannon, it’s incredible that he’s been appointed to this position of power. He’s a horrible anti-Semite!”

And then, other jews pick this up and they all start, you know, screeching in unison on Twitter! And this was all the day before it all came out in public stories that they wrote for their jews media corporations, and were actually published in papers and online zines, and so forth. That toned down that the jewish aspect of it for public consumption.

They, instead of describing Bannon as a horrible anti-Semite, they emphasized and said that he was a:

“White supremacist, White nationalist, racist, bigot, whatever!”

But you could see on Twitter, twenty four hours before that broke out in the mainstream media and took it to public attention, how they had colluded on this very jewish attitude about Bannon. And it was all about the jews from their point of view.

John Friend: Right. And it always is. And I was following that story, you know, when it first broke. And, as you said, they were, there were literally hundreds of articles about how Bannon was this anti-Semite, and a racist, and a leader of the Alt-Right, etc.

And I mean, even the ADL had to sort of come out and backtrack on all that and say:

“Well, you know, maybe this guy really isn’t an anti-Semite. But he’s still bad! Trump is still bad!”

So I mean, it’s just amazing how they, … Truly, I mean they are very delusional! These people are just totally delusional.

Tanstaafl: Well, it was very much like the “Hagelocaust”, back when Chuck Hagel was nominated for Secretary of Defense. I forget the year, it was couple years ago. Obama nominated him. And he was, you know, a centrist Republican, but kind of anti-war. And he had made statements in the past. One in particular sticks out in my mind that he had said that:

“I’m a Senator of the United States, not a Senator of Israel.”

When he was pushed on some issue about protecting Israel, or something.

And what happened when he was nominated, the same thing. The jews, basically in private, started making a stink about it and it rose and rose, the crescendo rose until it broke out into the mainstream media as these charges against Hagel. That he’s unfit for the job, he cannot do it!

Now in the end, Hagel got appointed and passed, but he first had to go and on bended knee, apologize to the jews for ever saying anything negative about them and promised that he was going to be the best Secretary of Defense for Israel, that he could be.

And that’s what I pointed out at the time was, you know, here are two groups of jews. There were jews for him and jews against him. But the basis for their argument was that he’s “good for the jews”. Both sides had a different opinion about it, but that was the basis, the common ground, that they were arguing on. It was totally jewish! And totally about what’s best for the jews, what’s best for Israel, not what’s best for United States. Even as a abstract idea.

And I saw the same thing with the “Bannonocaust”. It was a bunch of jews arguing about whether he was good, or bad for the jews.

John Friend: Right. And isn’t it amazing how, … I mean we see this all the time, you know, anytime anyone says anything even slightly critical of jews, or makes simple, basic, factual statements, about jews and their power and influence and their agenda, you know, that’s anti-Semitism to these people! That is paranoia and conspiracy theories.

And really, they’ve been so effective at preventing people from openly discussing their power and influence, even when jews themselves, openly write about it and openly talk about it.

[10:07]

I mean, this is something that you’ve been doing for quite a while, just, you know, quoting jews. And as you said, you go on Twitter and you see what they’re talking about. You see how they’re trying to frame issues, and how they’re colluding with other jews to frame things to advance specifically jewish interests.

And yet, if you notice these things, if you scholarly document them and comment on them, you’re:

“A hater. You’re paranoid. You’re delusional. You’re a conspiracy theorist!”

It’s really amazing! I mean, to me, it’s so amazing that they’ve been able to do this for so long and to prevent any, you know, rational inquiry, any rational discussion of the jews and of their power and influence. It really blows my mind! I mean, to me it’s so ridiculous and just childish that we can’t even openly talk about these things.

Tanstaafl: Well first of all, it is a conspiracy. They do conspire for their own interests, as a group. So, it’s kind of a bad joke that they have created this term “conspiracy theory” and associated it with people being insane, for basically, ….

What it means, “conspiracy theory”, this is a term, if it wasn’t coined by Karl Popper it was popularized by him in a paper years ago. Karl Popper is a famous jew philosopher. He’s also the source of this “Open Society” thing that George Soros pushes today. But, Karl Popper talked about conspiracy theory and I think — he was speaking in pretty coded language — but basically it means:

“The goyim know! Shut it down!”

John Friend: Right!

Tanstaafl: You know, in contemporary terms.

John Friend: Right!

Tanstaafl: Conspiracy theory is is the term that jews use and they use it every day. This is another term I see popping up on the jew Twitter, every day, multiple times. Any time they think that the goyim are becoming aware of something. They call that a “conspiracy theory”, right!

Now, us “goyim” think of the term in more general terms. That it just means any kooky theory, any stupid, crazy, theory that, you know, maybe goes off into the weeds of the details of some obscure, you know, maybe even unimportant thing. That’s what the term means to us.

But, it means that because the jews have imparted that meaning to it by implying that anyone talking about the jews specifically, but anything that even hints at it, or touches on the jews is a, quote, unquote, “conspiracy theory”..

The word conspiracy, it’s a legal term, it actually has a legal meaning. But it has a more, you know, … The legal meaning is that you actually, like two, or more people are actually planning to do something illegal. Right. That’s a legal conspiracy.

But, the term in common parlance just means doing something untoward, something, you know, negative, something bad. And it’s more loose. It doesn’t have to necessarily be illegal. And, in fact, the jews have so much power that basically what they do is legal! They’re able to do what they do, most of it, anyway, legally.

And what they focus on today — they’ve got so much power — is making what we do, illegal! So that we can’t even speak about what they’re doing, without it being defined as “hate speech”, and criminalized.

John Friend: Right! Exactly! And I mean, you know, on Twitter, I’m sure you were banned, in part, because you were making factual statements and observations about jews, and their very openly anti-White agenda.

Tanstaafl: Yeah it was the words, “kikeservative”, “faggot” [laughing] “nigger”. You know, I used a couple of different slurs that I probably could have got my message across, while avoiding them.

Although “kikeservative” I think is, I would defend that term, because even though, you know, most people might recoil at it. It is actually very descriptive word of what’s what’s going on. It’s more descriptive than “cuckservative”, which I’m also happy to use. But it’s a little too broad.

You know, a lot of people use the term “cuckservative” and they really, I don’t think that they appreciate the analogy that’s being implied there. That, you know, the cuckoo bird and parasitism, basically, that we talked about last time. And to call it “kikeservative” to call somebody who is basically serving the jews, a “kikeservative” really puts a fine point on, you know, on the word “cuckservative”. Instead of just calling them a cuck, which means that any nonwhite they might be serving, you know, it’s putting the focus more on the main non-White power that is actually puppeteering most of the other non-Whites. And sharing their playbook with them.

[15:13]

John Friend: So, basically it’s a more precise analysis, a more precise definition of other cuckservatives, of these Republicans. And I mean, even, I guess, Democrats to a certain extent, literally selling out their own people to advance jewish interests.

And, of course, jews are behind all the other minority groups. They always organize them and, you know, fight for civil rights and all this other nonsense. That goes all the way back to the fifty’s and sixty’s they’ve been doing that. And we still see it today with illegal immigration, and transgenderism now, like homosexuality, …

Tanstaafl: “Black Live Matter” is a direct analogy. If you weren’t alive back during Civil Rights, you can see what’s happening with the Black Lives Matter thing. The kind of role that the jews play is to amplify and broadcast their message. And to put a positive spin on it. To put it out there, in front of people, in a sympathetic way.

If they don’t like something, like say, the Alt-Right, neo-Nazism or, you know, even just White Identity, they put it out there with a negative spin on it, and with obviously anti-pathetic attitudes, and psycho-pathologizing it, too.

You mentioned earlier, having to do with this, … Their tactics of how they deal with criticism. The main way they deal with criticism is to call it “crazy”! They call their enemies “crazy”! And they have specialized in this. I mean, Sigmund Freud is the first and most famous example, the most well known example that pops in the mind, but I’m sure it goes back further than Freud. And it’s certainly since Freud it has become the main tool.

I mentioned already Karl Popper in the “conspiracy theory” thing, but there’s a long history just in this past century of, for instance, the “Authoritarian Personality” from the Cultural Marxist, the Frankfurt School, Adorno, and company.

There’s the “Paranoid Style in American Politics” by Hofstetter who was half jew, a mischling. And then there’s the “Conspiracy Theory of Society” which was written by Popper.

And then, Cass Sunstein, more recently, wrote sort of an updated version of this conspiracy theory paper. Long piece, basically reiterating Popper’s point that, you know, when people come up with these theories about how certain small groups have too much control, and run the media, and run finances, you know, that’s what they mean when they say, “conspiracy theory”. And that is bad for the jews.

He doesn’t put it — neither one of them, Popper, or Sunstein — put it that plainly, but that’s what they’re talking about. And it really came to a point, …

John Friend: That sort of what it amounts to, …

Tanstaafl: At the end of Trump’s campaign.

When he had that infamous commercial. The jews really, drove them nuts! That last commercial he came out with, where he talks about the globalist elite and the globalist media and finance. And then put up at least three jews in the video. That’s why they were flipping out, because “that’s a conspiracy theory!” And you’re trafficking in anti-semitic tropes and conspiracy theories. It’s funny, they expose themselves, basically.

When somebody like Trump, who love the jews, or is a willing servant of the jews, a kikeservative in the true sense of the word. When they suspect that he is actually a secret anti-semite, that’s where it does come across that they are crazy! That they themselves are paranoid and crazy. And what they’re doing is projecting it on to us, when they call us crazy!

John Friend: Right.

Tanstaafl: It’s sick! It’s really sick!

John Friend: It is! And I mean, it’s so bad where now, and I mean, I guess this is been going on for a long time. I mean, literally they view any form of White racial consciousness as a delusional conspiracy. I don’t want to say “conspiracy theory”, but it’s “delusional, it’s irrational, it’s illegitimate”..

And yet they’d champion that, …

Tanstaafl: The jews are, …

John Friend: Right! But they’d champion that in everyone else, especially themselves, right? I mean, jews are very ethnocentric and very aware of their jewish identity, and are very proud of it. Which, I mean, is fine by me, but when they turn around and say anybody who’s White who does the same thing is crazy, and is hateful, and is a bigot. I mean, again, it’s just completely ridiculous!

[19:53]

Tanstaafl: Well, it’s not ridiculous! It’s actually an attack. And that’s how it should be interpreted, as an offensive against Whites.

And that’s kind of the main point that I’ve been harping on for years now, but especially in this past year. The jew war on Whites!

And so many people kind of water it down, or see it in less extreme terms. But it isn’t really extreme, it’s just the honest, it’s the most honest way to describe what’s going on.

The jews are at war with Whites! Are warring upon Whites! Are aggressing against Whites! Are hostile to Whites! Are landing all of these blows against Whites!

And Whites are unwilling, unable, to respond!

The ones that do respond, respond violently. You know, a trickle of them. And then, what happens? You know, a lot of White people get up and say:

“Oh that’s horrible! Violence isn’t the answer!”

And something that, it really bugs me because the, … And I see it changing, so there’s hope that this is shifting now. Attitudes in the last two years, and partly because of Trump, and partly it was happening anyway, there is been a surge in “White consciousness”. Of White people waking up to the reality, as Richard Spencer puts it, that race is real, and race matters!

You know, I’ve been saying that stuff for years, but now a lot of people are starting to realize that that’s true! And that is the first step, is just having that basic, … When you say, you know, “racial consciousness”, there’s, I think of it, there’s two, they’re not separate, but they’re like different ends of the spectrum, … The first and most basic consciousness is just knowing that race is real, knowing that you have a race, a group, a larger group that you belong to. And there’s nothing you can really do about it, you’re part of that group, you’re born into it.

And feeling, you know, aware of that, on a day to day basis.

So, when you see people on television and they’re talking about something your first thought is:

“Well what is that person? Are they part of my group, or are they not part of my group?”

And jews – this is important – because, maybe we’ll get into this a bit later too, the way that jews posture and pretend to be White. And they feed us poison that way.

That’s how you can stop that from happening is by paying attention to who is saying what. And recognizing that this person I think I can trust them, they look like a member of my own group. And, you know what they’re saying makes sense to me. Versus this Krauthammer asshole! You know, I don’t like what he’s saying and he’s telling us, talking about going to war in the Middle East., you know, that doesn’t make any sense to me.

And when you start to understand who the jews are, and what’s been going on, and see it as a war, then you understand. Well, yeah, these jews are they are not us! And they see us as their main enemy!

John Friend: Right. They’re not us, and they openly say this and they’re openly hostile to our interests. And this is been made clear almost every single day! I mean, it’s very clear if you’re just paying attention.

And I’m glad you brought that up, this jewish war on Whites, this jewish war on Western civilization, and this White genocide agenda. That is what the jews promote, is White genocide!

Tanstaafl: White genocide agenda.

John Friend: And yeah, I mean, that is ultimately what it’s all about.

And I wanted to ask you, if you could maybe just summarize the “jewish problem” in a nutshell. And I mean, I guess that would probably be your answer [laughing]. If it’s not really a “jewish problem”, it is a “jewish war” on White people! And needs to be understood, in those explicit terms. Because that is what it is!

Tanstaafl: Yes, the “jewish problem” from a White point of view, is the problem that jews cause for Whites. And in the past it didn’t seem like it was so serious. It was like discomfort. It was that the jews cause problems. Maybe they cause some wars.

Well today, it’s pretty obvious that it’s an existential threat! That they are not going to be happy until Whites don’t exist anymore. They changed their attitudes round about the middle of last century, with the rise of the National Socialist regime. And they were fully exposed and that scared the shit out of them! And they changed tactics.

And now the agenda is to get rid of us, entirely.

And, you know, whereas before they were happy to just feed on us and they really maybe only had the power to feed on us in the past. But now, they’re they’ve actually got the upper hand with the media control that they have, the financial control they have. And all of these kikeservatives willing to do their bidding for them. That think they’re on the winning team.

[24:49]

We’re on our backs and they’ve got their feet on our throats and they don’t, … Unlike Whites who foolishly feel sympathy for defeated enemies and let them up and help them out, jews don’t do that. Jews like to brag about how they’ve exterminated all of the people that they’ve ever come up against in their history.

You know, they describe themselves as victims of these people. That’s how they see themselves, and that’s how they justify offing this long list of civilizations that they’ve parasitized in the past.

But we are just the most recent one to them and they won’t think twice about just offing us! It doesn’t bother them in the slightest.

John Friend: Well, I think, if you if you look back, you know, the past hundred years, or so, jews, especially organized jewish community, and groups like the ADL, for example, the World jewish Congress, they are driven fundamentally by a desire to prevent any sort of White revolution, any sort of national socialist, you know, takeover of society. They’re trying to prevent what happened in Germany from happening anywhere else. And obviously they’ve been very effective all over the Western world.

And I think, I mean, I think that is really what drives them because, you know, the jews always had a lot of power and influence in Western society, you know, going back, I mean, really all throughout time. But now, as you said, they’re at a point where they literally control our societies in virtually every respect.

And Hitler’s Germany was a solution to that problem. I mean, they openly talked about these things. They were articulating them publicly. Your average German probably knew about these issues, and could explain it. And that’s what they fear!

Tanstaafl: Yes. Yeah, it was the first time that European man really, on a large scale, was aware of the jews, of the true nature of the jews. Saw them for what they are, and organized at a governmental scale against them! In self defense against the jews.

And ultimately it failed, because not enough other people outside of Germany were able to accept what the Germans had come to accept themselves, and were trying to make other people understand.

As you mention, the ADL and other jewish organizations, … The jews organize compulsively, and they communicate. They have meetings, you know, every day of the year! There is some jewish organization meeting, conspiring, to increase their control, increase their power. And not only in a positive way for themselves.

What a big part of what they do, especially organizations like the SPLC, the ADL, is they focus on suppressing our communication. This thing that Twitter did, not just, you know, I wasn’t the only one deleted, there were a whole bunch of people and accounts shut down. And there were many before that, but there was a big spate of them right after the election.

That was, no doubt, due to the puppeteering of the ADL. The ADL had several months earlier, insinuated themselves into the process of defining what should and shouldn’t be allowed and they finally, you know, dropped the hammer on that day, most of that week, when a bunch of people were kicked off.

So, you know, that’s the purpose of that particular organization is to sniff out anyone who is talking, any White people who are talking amongst themselves, and shut it down!

John Friend: Right. Yeah, exactly! And I’ve been following the Daily Stormer, they’ve been, [Andrew] Anglin has been covering this issue pretty well. And I mean, he’s been stripped from, what I understand, he’s pretty much banned as a person from even using Twitter.

But yeah, this is out in the open. There are clearly organizing to shut it down, as you said.

Do you think, I mean, what are your thoughts, like long term? Do you think that this is something that, I mean, are they going to be able to shut everyone down, you know what I mean? There’s a lot of people using Twitter and getting this message out. I mean, how far are they going to take this, do you think?

Tanstaafl: It will go farther. It’s been called, “the shuttening” this, not just Twitter, but the general idea. I kind of like the term, “the shuttening”, because it refers to the jew tendency to shut it down.

Facebook has always been like this. That’s why I didn’t, that is why I never bothered to even sign up for Facebook, because I knew that, Facebook doesn’t tolerate, doesn’t even, you know, maybe it makes some gestures about tolerating free speech and all that.

But Twitter made sort of a name for itself, early on, by being the free speech platform and that’s why I thought – it was still a risk – to invest any time in posting anything there. But, after the first few months when I saw that they weren’t banning people Left and Right, I kind of, you know, got comfortable there.

[30:05]

And what we see is that, you know, that stuff can change. And that’s exactly what the jews agitate for and organizing and pressure people politically, behind the scenes, to shut these things down.

It’s going to get worse! What, the next step, I mean, besides other social media stuff like Gab that’s cropping up, you know, they’ll eventually come under the gun of the ADL and other jewish organizations. And they’ll probably cave as well, if they aren’t already a jewish organization, you know, anyway. Basically providing the Jews with information on all the people using their service.

All of these services will eventually get shut down.

And the next step beyond that, that I can foresee happening too, is that they’ll just remove the DNS entries. They may not be able to, it’s not cost effective for them to try and go to every ISP and get sites like mine, or yours removed. They have done that in the past, but it’s expensive, and it’s time consuming. And there are certain services that won’t delete the stuff. They won’t give in to the threats. So, the way they’ll they’ll deal with that is just by convincing the government, or whoever is controlling that the DNS system, to delist those sites, so they won’t be convenient to get to.

And so, you’ll have people sharing around the names and IP addresses of certain favorite sites and giving the technical details:

“Here’s how you get there.”

But it will drop dramatically reduce the ease of which people can get to our ideas. That won’t be a totally a bad thing because, you know, the harder they try to shut us down, the more obvious they make it, the more they expose themselves, expose their power, and expose how illegitimate their power is. That they pretend to be victims and they’re going around, there’s that famous saying:

“The jew cries out in pain as he strikes you!”

That is an eye-opening thing, when people who have been hearing about how criticism of jews is just crazy, for all their lives., actually, see jews behaving like wild animals, savaging people who are just mild mannered, and saying, you know, polite things, like Richard Spencer, they have something [that] snaps in their mind and they realize:

“Hey, wait a minute! Maybe the people who have been saying these things aren’t crazy?”

I know it happened for me, years ago. And over the last two years I’ve seen more and more testimonies from people in interviews, or just chatting online, where these are people who self professed a year ago:

“I was a liberal, a shitlib.”

Or whatever:

“I was just a normie!”

And in the course of being exposed basically to jewish shenanigans, they realize:

“This isn’t a joke! This is real! The jews really are in power. And they really are nasty!”

John Friend: Exactly! Yeah. Well, that’s really the big story of this past election season. Is just how clear this is all becoming. And, I mean, we’re seeing the media become discredited on a mass scale, which is huge. I mean, that to me has been the number one weapon that the jews have used to wage war against us. It’s largely been psychological.

I mean, they literally brainwash us with false history and pseudo science. You mentioned Freud and all these other con artists. And I mean, that’s really to me how they’ve been so successful, is controlling the narrative and weaponizing history and weaponizing our political discourse.

But this is all coming out in the open now. And it’s all being made clear. You mentioned the Trump campaign video where he doesn’t even mention the word “jew”! In the speech he made down in West Palm Beach Florida, where he was railing against, you know, the global interests, … Again, you know, he could have named the jew and it would have been a lot more accurate. But he didn’t even have to.

And the very next day, or even that night, you know, all these jews on Twitter, the ADL, they’re condemning this speech as, you know, trafficking in, quote, unquote, “anti-Semitic conspiracy theories” and all this other nonsense.

So I mean, these people are outing themselves! And to me, I don’t know how people can notice this. I mean, people are obviously noticing it, but it’s just they just can’t help themselves! I mean, these jews are just so delusional. They just cannot help themselves!

[34:38]

Tanstaafl: Yeah, to a certain extent they can’t help themselves. It’s their nature to screech when they sense that they are being attacked. And they are hyper sensitive!

That’s why it’s hard for me to accept that jews are just innocently going along with somebody else’s agenda, that this isn’t a jewish agenda that’s killing Whites as a race. It’s impossible to believe, because the jews are so hyper sensitive to race and to what is good for survival of a group and what is bad. And they make sure that for their own group they have policies that preserve their group and that they push the opposite for us.

But you mention the narrative. And the jews, … I’ve pointed out before, the jews are sort of born storytellers, you know, from the Bible, which I think I mentioned in, “The Great Jewish Mask”. That book from about a hundred years ago. The jews are have been storytellers, their whole history. To the point where, the very history that they tell is a big lie, all the way back!

And today’s Hollywood. And White people in America, and globally too, I think, you know, they kind of understand this. They don’t like Hollywood. I mean, they may go to those movies and they may be thrilled by those things, but they also are kind of put off by it. It’s sort of like chewing on a poisoned Twinkie! It’s like, it tastes good, but it also, you feel sick to your stomach afterwards!

And that’s the kind of feeling that White people get when they look at the jewish media.

And Trump didn’t create that distrust, he just sort of exposed it. And he tapped into it. He saw, he’s very perceptive in sensing what it is that, … Well, first of all, that White people weren’t being pandered to,  weren’t being served by previous candidates. And that’s the path, basically, that was the key to his electoral strategy, and the key to his victory ultimately was to tap into that by talking about White issues. What the Leftists call “dog whistling”. And it just means speaking in code. When politicians speak in code to get White votes.

I’ve made the point before, that if a politician has to speak in code, that’s kind of a disadvantage, you know, because Trump is a good example. He spoke explicitly to blacks about what he was going to do for blacks! And he said, you know, I’m going to basically poor lots of money and lots of attention on the inner city, you know, talking directly to blacks.

And similarly to Hispanics, and Latinos, and to jews! He spoke explicitly about how well he was going to serve them and their interests!

And he did not speak, at all, during the campaign, he never said the word, “White” that I’m aware of and never in a positive context like:

“I love White people! I’m a White person and I’m going to make sure that White people are well served by my administration.”

But he did speak about jobs. I think in the past, it was called, “Nixon’s Southern Strategy”.

This time around they’re going to start to call it, I think, “Trump’s Rustbelt Strategy”, because he did, basically the same thing. He talked to Whites, indirectly, but still in a language that they understood. That:

“Hey this guy gets it. He’s going to do things and have policies that address our concerns. This country is changing. We don’t like the new normal.”

But my point is, my overall point is that, I think most White people just they don’t see the jews, they don’t understand the jews as a threat. They think that’s crazy! They, I mean, they’ve heard people say it, but they think that is discredited idea, it’s a conspiracy theory, it’s not true! And it’s largely, because that’s what the jews say! The jews have control over the media, they pump out that message twenty four seven, that it’s crazy to think anything bad about the jews:

“Only stupid people do that!”

And they present alternatives. They:

“Here, blame these people instead! Blame White people! It’s really White privilege! It’s not that the jews are too privileged. It’s White privilege!”

And so, it’s a mix of techniques that they use. But it’s also easy to understand, once the scales fall from your eyes and you stop thinking of the jews as these innocent, this innocent powerless minority, and start to see them for what they really are.

Then it all makes sense! Things that in the past you might have thought that:

“It’s odd, like the poison Twinky thing, but I don’t really understand why? Why would Hollywood serve up poisoned Twinkies?”

It’s:

“Why do they do that?”

Well, once you realize Hollywood is controlled by jews, it was created by jews, and they manipulate your thoughts. They actually define what is good and what is bad, just as they have ever since the Bible, it all make sense.

[39:53]

John Friend: Right! You know and isn’t it just so sad that Trump, you know how many times had it has he been called a racist and a bigot? And, you know, he’s promoting hatred and all this other nonsense. And yet as you said, he never, and to my knowledge as well, he never once, you know, said:

“I’m White.”

Or said:

“I’m championing White interests!”

He never once explicitly said that.

Although, I agree, I think he did use some, you know, coded language that, you know, people kind of read between the lines. And yet he’s openly saying how he’s going to do this for the black community. He’s going to help the Mexicans. He’s going to help the immigrants. I mean, it’s just so sad!

This is a country founded and built by White people! And we can’t even talk about that! We can’t even talk about White interests. Thanks to the jews! Thanks to the jews’ control of the narrative!

Tanstaafl: Yeah. Well, they’re the ones who created this environment and, as I like to say, “anti-racism” is a jew construct! It serves their interests, and they were the ones who promoted the idea that race is just a “social construct”, and racists are the worst people on the planet! You know, blame the “racists” for all the problems!

And, anyway, “racist” is really just a euphemism for “Whites” anyway. When you hear somebody call somebody a racist, the best way to understand that, is to call him a White person!

And it’s similar during this election, the jews in the jews media were using the word, the term, “Trump supporter”, in that way. “Trump supporter” and with venom, you know, means White person!

John Friend: Yeah, exactly!

Tanstaafl: That’s why they hated Trump! And that’s why they hated Trump supporters, because they were White! Not, you know, they never talked about black, or non-White supporters of Trump, except maybe in terms of racial treason, you know, that they were betraying their own kind by siding with Trump and the evil racists!

John Friend: Well, going back to, you know, we are talking about Hitler and National Socialist Germany, and how the jews just absolutely fear that sort of movement coming to power ever again. They viewed these rallies, with thousands of White people chanting and cheering for Donald Trump. This is what they saw! They saw National Socialism all over again!

Tanstaafl: Although they made a video, that was really good, early on, and intended it to discredit Trump by comparing, side by side, snippets of Trump speeches and then snippets of Hitler speeches. And they went back and forth between the two, drawing these parallels. This was maybe in January of last year, earlier this year. And it flopped!

Because, what happened, the reaction was, for most of these Trump supporters, was:

“Hey! I agree with what Trump is saying. And I didn’t know that Hitler said these things too! Maybe this guy Hitler isn’t such bad guy?”

John Friend: Right! [John laughing]

Tanstaafl: They yanked that commercial right away! And it’s true that there are parallels! It’s because you cannot oppose the jewish agenda, in any way, without upsetting the jews!

And whether you recognize it is a jewish agenda, or not, whether you call it a jewish agenda and are conscious of it, or not, the jews know it’s a jewish agenda! And that’s why they go berserk!

John Friend: Yeah.

Well, I want to talk about Trump in the Alt-Right, and sort of what’s happened really over the course of the past year.

To start off, I mean, do you think, … Trump has to be, he has to be aware of the Alt-Right? I mean, he obviously is, he gets asked about it all the time. But I mean, do you think that he’s following what’s going on? Do you think he’s wise to some of these issues at all?

Tanstaafl: In the sense that any politician is, I think, it was Joe Sobran said many years ago, that in order to even survive at the highest levels of government and media in this country, you have to be aware of the jews! Because you have to have some sense of what you’re allowed to say and what you’re not allowed to say.

And so, you know, every couple of months there is some celebrity, or another, I can’t remember his name now. Gary Oldman in Hollywood, who said something in a Playboy interview about how rotten the world is getting to be. And then he switched right immediately to how the jews control Hollywood and [laughing] making sort of the indirect connection, that the world is so terrible, because these jews are putting out a terrible vision of the world! And he got slapped down right away!

And that’s basically how the jews make sure that everybody knows who controls, not just Hollywood, of course, and if you want to work in the media you’ve got to make sure you don’t ever say anything like that about jews. You don’t talk about jewish power.

But also in the government. Can’t think of a, … Well the “Hagelocaust”, and the “Bannonocaust”, are good examples of them doing something similar in government, where they actually trumpet the fact that there are jews there.:

“We’re jews! And we’re upset about, ..! We’re offended by this, and this guy is disqualified! Because jews!”

You know, they make it so explicit! It’s like it’s as if they have veto power! An unwritten line in the Constitution that says:

“The jews have actually the first veto over any nominee!”

[45:27]

John Friend: They have effectively have though! They’ve basically been able to get away with whatever they want, for so long!

Tanstaafl: Well, in the end Hagel and Bannon are examples of where they screech very loudly and they didn’t get what they want in the end. But then again the guy that they were screeching about, they were totally exaggerating. You know, they were making it out like this was the next Hitler. Trump is another good example of this. Where, you know, he’s not.

None of these guys are willing to stand up against the jews. Now maybe the jews suspect that they would be, if other people also stood up at the same time. And in a way it’s a sort of shit test. Besides, you know, the “Saul Alinsky” effect of, you know, focusing on one enemy at a time and vaporizing them. And letting that be a lesson to everybody else.

It’s a shit test! It’s to basically flush out any resistance:

“Any other takers? Anybody else want some of this?”

That’s the kind of attitude that, I don’t know if they have it consciously, but that’s what’s the challenge to everybody else around when they see somebody being savaged in public.

Another one was that I wrote about was Tom Perkins, that billionaire. Who couple years ago made some comment about the one percent that the Occupy Wall Street rhetoric against the one percent. [It] reminded him of the jews and Kristallnacht. And how the one percent might be genocided!

And a bunch of jews made it clear to him, that being rich is not anything to be worried about. You know, it’s really, you know, that’s a special jewish term of warfare, as you mentioned “weaponized terms”. You know, “Kristallnacht” is one of those proprietary jewish weaponized terms that only jews are allowed to use. And only for the purposes of advancing jewish interests.

And so, Tom Perkins is only a mere billionaire! And so, he was shut down right away.

John Friend: Yeah, and we see this when, you know, people invoke the Holocaust, you know, for the wrong reasons and the jews get all upset and say:

“No you can’t do that! It’s only for us!”

Tanstaafl: Yes!

John Friend: You know, I mean, there’s other examples as well. But again, I mean, it’s just their control, their power, their influence is largely, … And the way they’re able to frame things, the way they’re able to control the narrative, control the discourse. And I think that is, you know, sort of breaking down and being eroded slowly. And it’s been spent taking place over time.

But, I think this election and to what Trump has done, has really been a huge boost to that.

And you had sent me an e-mail with some links here and I want to go over one of them, in particular. The Real Clear Politics, where Kellyanne Conway, and I think it was Clinton’s campaign manager. They were having like a discussion after the election.

And the Clinton campaign was saying, and they were saying this all throughout the campaign, that Trump is, you know, “mainstreaming”, quote, unquote, “hatred”! And we saw all sorts of jewish journalists talking about how Trump was, “mainstreaming anti-Semitism”..

There’s a quite revealing article published by Yair Rosenberg, who is one of these jews on Twitter that was going nuts when they had the “echo meme” going on.

Tanstaafl: Yes.

Tanstaafl: No.

John Friend: I think it was really the Alt-Right, who sort of seized the moment, seized the opportunity. Guys like, to his credit, Andrew Anglin, and the guys at “The Right Stuff dot business”. You know, other people on Twitter and whatnot. [They] really just seized this opportunity and seized the moment, to get their voices out there, to get their message out there. And I think it’s been very effective!

And, I mean, that’s what this whole argument was about! Was:

“Look, the Trump campaign is giving a platform to the Alt-Right. It’s giving a platform to, quote, unquote, ‘White supremacists’!”

And I think that is true to a certain extent, although I don’t think that is the goal of the Trump campaign, at least not obviously, not explicitly.

[50:14]

Tanstaafl: No. I think Trump, and I’ve said this before, it was my earlier assessment of him and it still holds. I think he just wanted to be president. He had that ambition for decades and he finally fulfilled it. And he basically promised to himself, I think mainly, that it would be no holds barred. That he would do whatever he needed to do to get it done.

And there’s a story about that with Jared Kushner, and, you know, the Electoral College, and basically what I call the “Rust Belt Strategy”. Where, you know, in order to become President, he needed to say these things to White people, to appeal to White people and get their votes, and get the Electoral College votes that he would need to win. To overcome the non-White votes in other States.

Other people talked about that, but there hasn’t been much emphasis put on the fact that it was Jared Kushner that actually kind of organized that effort, or at least lead it, and headed it up. That was in that Forbes interview, or the Forbes article about him.

John Friend: Right. Now, a question for you. So, I mean, obviously it was a very successful campaign strategy to play on these issues. But do you think that Trump was genuine? Because, to me he seems very genuine about all of these issues!

Tanstaafl: He genuinely wants to be President, to the point where he will put up with all the shit! He’s, as he said many times at his rallies:

“You know, I didn’t have to do this! I could have lived a comfortable life!”

It really was a grueling thing! You know, I watched, night after night of him doing these rallies, and I just thought:

“God! He’s much older than I am!”

John Friend: He’s seventy, I think he seventy years old!

Tanstaafl: He’s a dynamo! I mean, you’ve got to give him credit for just being an incredible work horse!

And he put up with all that stuff. I think he went into it knowing that it was going to be bad, but I don’t think he appreciated how bad it was going to be.

He also basically called out the media early on, and especially toward the end, as the enemy and really played on that. Although that was part of his appealing to White people.

What I wanted to say, was, that I’ve kind of left unsaid here all along, is that Whites are desperate for a leader to say positive things! To give them a positive vision for the future! To the point where even the kind of lukewarm stuff that Trump served up.

You know, the jews painted it as the next holocaust, but it was really, it’s stuff that in Reagan times, in the 80’s, this was just what the norm was!:

“You have a country. You have borders. You have laws against people coming in your country illegally. And you have elected officials that are at least ostensibly supposed to be out for the best interests of that country, and it’s citizens.”

That was the understanding in the 80’s. And before that, it was even better.

You know, National Socialist Germany, it was a racial understanding of nationhood.

But even in the 80’s we still had the tatters of a countryhood and a civic nationalism.

Well, Trump is just, you know, basically resetting by about twenty years, the attitude about nationalism. And that is too much for the jews! But, White people have this instinct and this desire to have somebody speaking for them and that’s why they gravitated to Trump, that’s why they were attracted and put signs in the yards and went to all his rallies.

That’s why it was so easy to see that Trump could win if he was going to continue to speak to Whites the way he was. And not give in to the jews media’s pressure to geld himself, to reign himself in, to stop saying these politically incorrect things, that he would win! And he did win!

And my fear, my greatest fear has always been, not whether Trump would win, or not, it’s been, you know what is he going to do once he’s in?

And I think the most likely thing – it’s kind of a black pill, or negative thing – but I think he’s going to go along with the shuttening that I was talking about earlier. I think he’s going to be, maybe even critical to, … He’ll be the proud signer of Bills illegalizing in hate speech, illegalizing criticism of jews and Israel. Because that’s kind of who he is.

I mean, he’s prided himself, and I think a lot of the reason he was able to take all this withering criticism, that he’s a horrible anti-Semite, a racist, a bigot, is he knows in his heart that he isn’t! At least that’s how he sees himself, that:

“No! I don’t judge people on the color of their skin. I don’t do these things!”

So, you know, it rolls off his back when they say these things about him, because in his own mind, he’s comfortable with who he is.

[55:09]

John Friend: Right. Yeah! Gosh! I really hope Trump, doesn’t go along with that whole agenda! I mean, it would be totally contrary to, you know, pretty much everything he said, especially as it relates to political correctness.

But I mean, who knows? We’re just going to have to wait and see. I think that’s the main thing, is we really, …

Tanstaafl: I think we’ve seen already! He’s a lifelong kikeservative! He’s, for his whole life, and he brags about this, you know. He’s basically in bed with the jews! His family is intermarried with them, and, you know, there’s not much he can do about that at this point, except go along with them.

And so, when they come to him at some point in his first term and say:

“We’ve got to have this legislation against hate speech. It’s crazy out there for jews. And don’t you care about the jews?”

And that’s part of why the jews screech so much about things like Bannon, about how horrible an anti-Semite Trump is, in order to influence him to do the opposite. To prove that he’s not a racist! To prove that he’s not an anti-semite! And so that, he will do things, like sign legislation that favors them.

John Friend: Yeah, … That would not be good! [laughing] I guess we’ll have to wait and see what happens. But I mean, like, for example, with immigration. I mean, do you think he genuinely means everything he said?

Tanstaafl: Yes.

John Friend: Yeah, that’s that is the thing! I think, to me he, I mean, you know, I’ve sort of explained this in previous podcast and what not, but I mean, … I think that everything that he said, all of his campaign promises all of the main issues that he ran on, I think that he really does mean these things, and he really does feel this way about immigration, for example. About trade. About, you know, political correctness run amuck, and all this other stuff. And he was basically, to me, it almost seems like he was surprised at how far he got, right?

Like, I don’t think he went into this thinking that he would be this successful. And I think at the very beginning when he announced that he was running and he gained all this traction and gained all this popularity. To me, it was almost as if he wasn’t expecting that, he wasn’t prepared for it.

Tanstaafl: No! I don’t agree with that, I think that he was!

I think he knew it would be a long slog. And he went into it just confident in his own ability to do it. And his willingness, basically like I said, to pull no punches and to do whatever he needed to do to get the job done.

And I think that mainly, if he had any doubt about it, it was only, because that’s basically the effect of the media. The media was constantly saying, right up until the end, how he was losing in the polls, how, you know, it was like every week this:

“He just did this! And that’s a deadly gaffe! He can’t be president, now!”

And they did that for a year and a half! And every day they were constantly telling people in all the polls, … You know, they totally discredited themselves.

And then, of course, right after the election happens, there was a little brief interlude of shock and silence. And then they immediately started going back to the polls.:

“The polls say this! The polls say that!”

And, you know, it’s the same lying media quoting the same skewed polls.

That is also something even Hitler noticed, and wrote about in Mein Kampf. You know, how you can argue with a jew one day and just totally squash him, and then the next day he come back and the jew’s making the same arguments again, as if it never happened.

John Friend: Right. Well, you know, you had mentioned this about Trump. That the amazing thing is that really everything that he’s saying is, I mean, it’s really not even that controversial at all, right? I mean, he’s basically making just common sense arguments when it comes immigration, when it comes to trade. But our society has gone so far downhill that these things are very radical all of of sudden, especially to the elites running our society.

Tanstaafl: Yeah, …

John Friend: When really nothing he’s saying is that, is really that revolutionary, or that radical, even at all.

Tanstaafl: Well, it’s radical in, … The main sense it’s radical is that he’s talking in terms that White people like. And even the jews media basically puts it that way:

“You know, the KKK endorses him! KKK loves what Trump just said!”

Or, you know:

“The Nazis loved, ….”

And that’s their measurements of whether something is good, or bad, is if racially conscious White people like what they’re hearing from Trump, that’s bad! I mean, it goes back to basically to what I think is the core moral understanding of this current jew run regime.

[60:00]

It’s an anti-White, pro-jew regime, first of all, at heart! And the basic morality of it is:

“Whites are bad! Whites are evil! And non-Whites, with jews being the first and foremost of the non-Whites, are good!”

And that’s the sort of skeleton key by which you understand everything else that is happening.

So, when Trump ran on, you know, right from the get go, talking about immigration in a negative way, that was a no-no! That’s, you know, been banished! They thought they had basically done away with that! It was to the point, …

The big surprise at this election, because Trump won the Electoral College the way he did by going after White voters in the middle of the country. It surprised them, because they thought they had basically sewn that up. They had made that illegal to talk about, if not technically illegal, they had made it politically incorrect, you know, “semitically incorrect” really, to even discuss anything that White voters wanted to hear.

And polling was used in the years between the elections to basically downplay any concern about immigration, or jobs, or anything like that.

And they tried to do that through the election and basically, I think, Whites were just too fed up. They liked what they were hearing from Trump and so they voted for Trump, and now he’s in.

But there are some contradictions in what Trump says. I mean, listen to what he says about war, about ISIS and war. He’s against Iraq. He basically says things to different groups of people that can be heard in whatever way you want, that you like. And war is a good example of this where, you know, he was famously against the Iraq war and part of the way he defeated Jeb Bush during the primaries was by pointing out that the Iraq war was a disaster, and Jeb’s brother was responsible for that disaster.

You know, that’s one thing there is, of course, Trump didn’t mention the jews, who had basically organized and pushed for that war, and are the real people who are responsible for that.

But, you know, he also then makes these saber rattling comments about ISIS!:

“We’re going to destroy ISIS! And we’re going to build the biggest military! We’ve got to be a rich country!”

He was just saying today:

“We’re got to be a rich country again, because we’ve got to basically build up our military and pay for all these veterans!”

And that’s kind of at odds with, I guess it goes, it echoes Reagan again. You know, that’s the idea that you’ve got to be strong and warlike, ready to do war in order to prevent war.

And I think that’s poppycock! It’s basically, you know, the history of war at least amongst Europeans, for the last two, three hundred years, what you could see as one giant European civil war, fighting amongst ourselves, has been at the behest of jews! And certainly profited by the jews, and the White race has lost!

I have said before that the White race lost World War Two and the jews won. But it’s bigger than World War Two. It’s every war before that, at least back to the French Revolution and probably beyond. And every war since World War Two has been for jewish, globalist, corporatist, interests, if not directly for Israel, and attacking Israel’s neighbors.

John Friend: Yeah. I totally agree with you.

Tanstaafl: In that respect [garbled]… For Trump. And he’s put now this Mad Dog Mattis and Pompeo …?

John Friend: Oh yeah. I know who you are talking about. The guy, that’s the guy that’s going to be running the CIA? It’s like Pompeo, or something like that?

Tanstaafl: Yeah. Now these guys are “tough guys”, you know, they’re, … And oh, it’s Flynn, is the other one, that he’s going to make part of his administration, in some capacity.

And, you know, the problem is that they’re strident. They think Muslims are the problem, and Muslims are a problem. But they wouldn’t be a problem if you kept them out of our country. And we don’t need to go and put boots on the ground all around the world to fight Muslims! The only reason we do that stuff is, because jews run our government. Jews are the targeting system for this highly capable, highly technical, highly expensive, military that the US has.

White Americans often slip into this:

“Our military, our government!”

Way of speaking, of thinking about things. And it isn’t really true. It’s not ours! I mean, it’s us filling the ranks, it’s White people in the military giving their lives, doing the dirty work. But it’s really jews in the Pentagon and at the highest levels of government advising Presidents on these wars and instigating these wars.

[65:07]

John Friend: Yeah. Advising them, formulating the policy, crafting the narrative. All explicitly to advance jewish interests and to advance Zionist interests in the Middle East! There’s no doubt about that.

Well I agree with you. I mean pretty much everything you just said I totally agree with.

I mean with Trump, I want to believe that he’s going to be this great President. And do all these great things and really get us back on the Right track. But I understand your concerns. I hope you’re wrong about the whole, you know, free speech thing I mean. Oh my gosh! I would that would just be devastating!

Tanstaafl: I would really like to be pleasantly surprised. That’s why I’m kind of pessimistic about it. But I’m also, you know, there’s precedent for this. This is is not the uncharted territory that everybody seems to like to think it is.

Ronald Reagan is a pretty good precedent for what Trump has done and what Trump and what we can expect from Trump. This is something that White politicians, this dog whistling thing, is something that they’ve been doing for decades.

Ever since World War Two when White leaders basically abandon the field and stopped thinking and talking in terms of race, at least explicitly, they have realized that they can win White votes by just sort of talking code to Whites. Saying what Whites want to hear and that Whites are pretty desperate for because we have nobody since, maybe McGovern. And even George McGovern wasn’t, … Was it McGovern? I can’t recall it. But back in the sixty’s, you know.

John Friend: George Wallace?

Tanstaafl: Right. And George Wallace wasn’t even sincere about it. He was just doing it. He was willing to say it out loud. Whereas other politicians around him weren’t even willing to say it out loud. But Wallace, afterwards – I forget where I read about this – basically admitted he wasn’t sincere.

And I know Trump isn’t sincere. He’s not a sincere racist. He doesn’t think in racial terms. He just thinks in “anti-racist” term. So I don’t have much optimism.

John Friend: Well, what do you think about the Alt-Right and sort of what’s been happening on that front? I mean to me, ultimately until we’re talking about the jews and recognizing them as a racial enemy, until we’re thinking in racial terms, we’re really never going to truly solve any of these problems.

And I think the Alt-Right has been effective in at least getting that message out, and getting more people on board with these ideas.

So I think clearly that’s where the change is going to come. It’s not going to come from Trump, it’s going to come from people like us who are willing to talk about these things.

Tanstaafl: Yeah it’s bigger than the Alt-Right basically. The jews media before they were attacking the Alt-Right, they attacked White people generally. And I made the point early in Trump’s campaign that basically their rhetoric, their anti-White rhetoric would have been the same even if Jeb Bush had won the nomination and was the candidate for the Republicans.

They’ve been doing it for at least the 2008, 2012 cycles. Jews writing editorials about how the Republican Party is the “White party”, and they should be ashamed of that. And they should do something to reach out to minorities. They’ve been doing it for a long time now. So that’s nothing new.

What’s new is the Alt-Right. And this basically self identification. It’s a label basically for this rising awareness that, ….

I made the analogy when I was talking to Kyle Hunt about this that it reminded me of the Tea Party. It’s basically the Tea Party 2.0. But it is an improved version. It’s a more aware version.

I saw the Tea Party when it was happening, when it rose up in 2008, 2009 in the wake of the election of Obama, as a step towards racial consciousness. Although it was still full of all of these people that were saying:

“Oh no! I’m not a racist! Look at this black guy that I respect and want to hear speak. I’m just for constitutionalism and low taxes.”

But it was a rebellion of sorts. And it was triggered by the election of Obama. And throughout the last eight years it’s sort of been co-opted and defanged, and the energy has dissipated.

The Alt-Right was sort of a return. And this time with a more explicit understanding that the problem, the conflict is racial! And that at the heart of it are the jews!

And the people that see that most clearly are even beyond Alt-Right. But, the people who self identify as Alt-Right at the best part of it, at least get that it’s race. And you can’t avoid the jewish question, the jewish problem. Beyond that is, you know, National Socialism and a true understanding that’s beyond Alt-Right.

[70:11]

But then they have this Alt-Light phenomenon the other end of the spectrum, of people who are just ordinary White people who are basically realizing something’s wrong here:

“This Trayvon Martin stuff, this Mike brown stuff, Black Lives Matter. Muslims blowing themselves up every now and then, killing lots of Europeans, or Americans. Something’s wrong! And oh, by the way, you know, all our jobs are gone. Our country, while is being hollowed out, none of our government officials seem to care about us! They care more about protecting immigrants and making safe spaces for them, and sanctuary cities for them!”

And then they hear about this Alt-Right stuff. And so they’re basically flocking to the light, and they get exposed to basically the truth about what’s going on.

And that’s how I see the Alt-Right as fitting into this.

The name Alt-Right, a lot of the people associated with that in the early days, and really when that was founded it, bug me, because they’re very weak on the jewish problem, and recognizing that the jews are at war with Whites. They kind of tend to be – I’m thinking now of Richard Spencer. But also his two partners originally at the Alternative Right Website that he started up, and who continue to be kind of associated with the Alt-Right, and critics of it.

They’re soft on the jews! You know, they talk about the symptoms. And Trump in a way is like this too. He’ll talk about the symptoms, but he won’t name the jews. And there’s a lot of Alt-Light type people, same thing! They’ll talk about what they see as wrong with society. But when it gets to:

“What’s causing it? What’s at the root of the problem?”

They kind of dance around that issue. And that’s really what defines this spectrum of Alt-Light to Alt-Right to, on beyond, you know, National Socialism, and beyond.

John Friend: Yeah, I agree with you! And I mean, I like Spencer. I like what he says. I think he makes a lot of good points. I do think you’re right though in that, at least from what I can tell, he hasn’t really been particularly as hard hitting on the jewish problem as say you, or I would. And I think it is key. I think it’s absolutely central to everything! But at the same time he doesn’t back down on it. He doesn’t deny it, or something like that. Which is fine… I mean, I like Spencer. I like what he’s doing.

And I wanted to get your take on the whole thing that happened at the recent NPI Conference, [Tan laughs] and how that’s kind of, … I don’t want to say “divided the Alt-Right”. But sort of made it very clear like:

“Look the Alt-Right is a racist, you know, anti-semitic movement!”

And like this does need to be made clear and needs to be made explicit. And I think Spencer has handled it very, very, well actually.

Tanstaafl: Yes. Let me make myself clear on Spencer.

First of all, I don’t dislike him. And I don’t distrust him even. I think that he’s basically a White man standing up for White interests, and he’s doing it in public. He has all my respect. I was listening to him, watching him, at Texas A and M, earlier this evening.

And while there are some things that I thought he was weak about. In particular the way he was describing things it was sort of like:

“Well, we just sort of got here.”

How did we get into this mess was never really something that he grappled with. And none of the questions that I saw anyway, …

John Friend: He probably never explicitly said:

“Look, jews did this!”

I don’t [chuckling] mean like that!

Tanstaafl: I don’t think he thinks that, so, …

John Friend: Yeah, exactly!

Tanstaafl: He does think that White White people are sort of:

“All powerful and omnipotent. And if we just get our shit together then we can do anything we want!”

And I kind of agree with that. I think it’s the problem is in our heads. That we if we decide that we want to do something we organized to do it. We can kick ass! But it’s still going to be a battle! It’s not like there’s no opponent. And that’s what bothers me about the “soft on the jews” point of view, is it basically is ignorant of, or is ignoring this giant competitor that we have! That, at the moment, has us on the defensive and basically prostrate. It’s not the right way to actually go about fighting.

But back to Spencer. He comes across as a very likable guy, you know, personable. He’s very articulate and he gets it. I think he’s aware of the jews, and he’s learning. I think I’ve seen basically a progression over the years in his attitudes and his recognition that:

“Yeah. This is serious!”

Sometimes he’s a little bit too jocular about it, you know, sarcastic, or whatever. But basically he’s being a leader. He’s trying to get out there and get in people’s faces, and raise White consciousness. And he’s a he gets all my respect for doing that.

But as far as the NPI conference, the “Heil Gate”, the “Heil Trump” and all that, and people giving the Roman salute. I think it says more about the people who freaked out about that and immediately surrendered [chuckling] in reaction to that! Or basically thought that was some sort of like telling, self-defeating! Greg Johnson’s reaction was particularly hysterical.

John Friend: I missed his! Was he freaking out about it?

Tanstaafl: Yeah. It’s pathetic. It was like thirteen, fourteen, minutes of him basically just with a womanly attitude about the whole thing.

And I’ve made this point before, going back to the Dylan Roof thing. Is if people don’t like what’s happening you can always keep your mouth shut! If you think that the something is bad, instead of being basically negative and undermining. You could just be quiet.

And people are going to say the same about me, that I could just keep my mouth shut about the stuff. And I even say it about myself. That I someone who’s involved with, married to a woman whose father was jewish. I have no moral standing, no right, to speak to White people about what they should, or shouldn’t do, or lead White people. But I’m sorry! Seeing people using the Roman salute, saying:

“Heil Trump!”

What bugs me about that mostly is the disrespect towards the actual National Socialists who are best known for that, and who deserve respect, not mocking, not a joking attitude, a sarcastic attitude about it.

I took it as though the guys, at least some of them who were doing it, were serious. They were excited! They liked what they were hearing. And it’s great when somebody can stir up a crowd like that. That’s of a positive thing! That’s exactly why the jews try to psychopathology that:

“That only crazy, stupid, evil, haters do that kind of thing! And you shouldn’t do that!”

And to see people, long term people, who know better like. Greg Johnson, get so disturbed by it. It’s demoralizing [chuckling] to see that happen!

He cited as evidence that, or maybe not as evidence, but it’s just sort of like the people who inspired him were people like Mike Cernovich, and Vox Day, and who’s the other the jew who does who’s the philosopher? Molyneux. All Alt-Light people who aren’t pro-White, who are part jews, or jews. Vox Day likes to brag about he’s tri-racial.

I mean, if I got no standing to talk about things, then they certainly don’t. And why is Greg Johnson even concerned.

I don’t even know what I’m talking about Greg Johnson! I wasn’t even going to write about it, or talk about it. It’s a sort of when you ask me my reaction about that Heil Gate thing, the reaction from White people, and especially White so-called leaders, or Alt-Right type people, is telling.

I agree with the people who have said this has exposed some cucks, and maybe will scare them off. And that’s a good thing! Go away!

Race is real! It’s about race. And the jews are at the heart of it!

And you’re not going to be able to just:

“Step over the ‘Holocaust’!”

To be able to:

“Step over the Nazis.”

And call them the:

“Old Right.”

And say that:

“We don’t associate with those ideas.”

Because as that whole Trump campaign made clear, you can basically be a servant to the jews, and if you talk about things that the jews don’t like they’re going to call you a Nazi and Hitler anyway! Because in a sense you are! If you advocate anything that’s healthy for White people, in any way, even if at the same time you say:

“I hate Hitler! I hate the Nazis!”

They’re still going to call you Hitler and Nazis!

And what’s more important than what they call you is how they will treat you! Because what those labels mean is basically:

“Sic ‘em! Get that guy! Kill him! Put him in prison!”

That’s what they mean when they say those words. That’s what those words mean to them.

[80:00]

John Friend: I completely agree with everything you’ve said.

And this is a point that I’ve been trying to make for, jeez, probably years now. Is if we are serious about this and we really want to set things right, we cannot avoid Revisionism, we can’t avoid confronting this fake “Holocaust” narrative head on! And openly saying that:

“This is not true! None of this is true!”

It’s a weaponized narrative history that is entirely concocted by jews to advance jewish interests. It is a weapon being used against Whites. And we need to openly say that we have all of the evidence and proof on our side. It’s not as if this is in debate anymore. It’s been conclusively demonstrated that this story is not true!

And Hitler was a good guy! Read the damn book! Read Mein Kampf! What is he wrong about? Listen to some of the speeches.

I mean, that’s a thing. And I mean, we need to be openly saying this! I mean, what is so wrong with that?

Tanstaafl: That was something that Greg Johnson, that was one of the claims that he made is:

“Why would we want to attack the jews where they were strongest?”

They aren’t strongest there! They defend the “Holocaust”. They make it literally illegal to question it, because it is their weakest point! Because they have harmed us so tremendously!

It’s that the war was caused by jews and jewing! It was a reaction! The National Socialists were reacting in self defense of the German people against the depredations that jews had done to them. The harm that they had caused with their parasitism! And the parasitism was not just the Germans. It’s just the Germans were the ones who stood up against it!

John Friend: Yeah.

Tanstaafl: The parasitism happened for centuries, if not millennia before that, to other people. And it’s happened to other Europeans at the time when the Germans stood up against it.

And it’s happening now! It’s even clearer!

And once you realize that, once that’s something clicks in your head and you realize that you’ve been lied to your whole life about this fucking “Holocaust” thing! You realize Hitler was right! The National Socialists were right!

White people have been basically fed upon by these jews for millennia now, and it’s coming to a head! They’re going to kill us! They are killing us!

John Friend: Yeah. I totally agree.

Tanstaafl: We are morally in the Right. We have nothing to run away from! We don’t need to “step over the ‘Holocaust’”! We need to refute it directly!

John Friend: Yes, I completely agree! And I mean there’s no avoiding this issue. There’s no stepping over this if issue if you care about White people. It is unavoidable.

Tanstaafl: As I say, it’s been weaponized. And it’s a weapon that’s used against Whites! It’s harming Whites! Literally sucking, … I mean, you can measure it in dollars, or in pounds, or in marks, or now in Euros, the money that they take, they literally siphoned out of our countries and direct to Israel, because of the “Holocaust”.

And, of course, that’s only a fraction of the overall harm that’s caused! There’s all of the crime. And all of the violence. And all of the murders, and the rapes, going on in Europe, because of this “refugee” invasion. And in the United States, because of our open borders.

That all happens, because we can’t have a country. Because that’s like Nazis and Hitler!

John Friend: Yeah! Exactly! Exactly.

Tanstaafl: If you want a a country you’ve got to deal with that issue head on!

John Friend: Yes. I totally agree. One quick comment I want to make about the whole Heil Gate situation. I mean, based on some of the interviews I’ve heard, and it’s mostly Mike Enoch, one of the guys from The Right Stuff, he was on. And he was there and apparently he kind of initiated the salute there. It sounded like that they were very genuine. They weren’t trying to sort of, …

Tanstaafl: Exuberant!

John Friend: Yeah. I mean, I think there’s nothing wrong with doing a Roman salute. I mean, my God! Who cares? What struck me, and I mean, it doesn’t surprise me, but it’s just so incredible that the media was so focused on this.

Meanwhile outside we have these radical antifa protesters attacking people, disrupting restaurants, barging in and assaulting people, and spraying people with, … I mean, literally they apparently had some container filled with human excrement. And they were like spraying it on Spencer and other people there.

[85:00]

I mean, this gets no coverage! And kids at school, young kids at school, young White kids at school who go on Facebook and say they voted for Trump, or say they like Trump, they’re getting beat up. No coverage! No coverage at all!

A White reporter – I just heard a story about this – a White reporter down in Houston went on Facebook the very next day after the election saying she was thankful that Trump was elected and made a couple other comments. She’s fired from her job. No coverage!

I mean, issues so insane that they’re freaking out about someone throwing up a Roman salute. A simple gesture, and meanwhile all these anti-Trump people are rampaging in the streets, burning down cities, attacking people. I mean, it’s just so insane! And so infuriating to see this.

Tanstaafl: Well it’s ironic, you know. They have this sort of two faced reaction. I made a little meme, an image meme about it. That the jews, they like out of one side of their face to mock us, that we’re so insignificant, we’re never going to win.

And then at the very next moment at the other side of their face, you know, they’re fretting about what’s going to happen when we do win!

And that you saw that with their reaction to the NPI thing. Which was such a blow up! The media blew that up way out of proportion, because it’s the jewish media.

I don’t say “media”, I call it the “jews media” even though it takes more characters in Twitter. I always wrote “jews media”, because it’s good to emphasize what is behind it. Instead of calling it the “mainstream media”, or the “liberal media”, and the “liberal bias” of the media, it’s a jewish bias in the media! It’s a jewish agenda, it’s jewish narrative.

They say they disguise it just like they disguise themselves sometimes. And other times they make it crystal clear.

And when they freak out about some guys given the Roman salute and saying “Heil”, they are basically telling us, … It’s like with their reaction to Trump’s speech about globalist elite, and bankers and media, that they’re telling you that it’s all about the jews, and exposing themselves!

John Friend: Yeah. Hey real quick. What do you think of Spencer’s speech down there at Texas A and M? Did you get a chance to watch it?

Tanstaafl: The initial coverage was pretty bad from Red Ice. I tuned in to a different link that was clearer for like I think the second half of the speech. And then the question & A, I caught the first half of that before that link went bad.

My reaction is respect. That he’s out there speaking openly to – in hostile territory – these people. Basically trolling them in real life. And that must be what he’s doing. Because I mean, it’s part of, …

One thing I don’t like really is why is he even talking to the enemy? Once I woke up to see race and my own feelings towards Whites, and myself as a White man, I had no interest in debating with blacks. And even as much as I now focus on jews, and trying to understand their arguments, and trying to understand their tactics and their techniques, I don’t have any interest in debating them about anything!

There is nothing to debate with our enemies! All we need to do is debate with ourselves to come to the conclusion that they are enemies! And that’s, I think, the most important thing, that they are enemies! And we need to fight them.

John Friend: Well, the thing is, and you can see this, … I didn’t really see much of his speech. I saw a few little video segments on Twitter before, you know, we started reporting this. So I really didn’t see hardly anything that happened there. But I did see some of the Q & A, some the questions asked.

And the thing is, and I’ve discovered this online, and comments, and whatnot, trying to engage and trying to have an honest discussion about these issues with jews, or with non-Whites, and you try and try, you try to be is honest and genuine as you can and explain your point of view as best you can, without being insulting, or condescending.

And these people are just dishonest! They don’t even want to try! They don’t even attempt to understand where you’re coming from. It’s that, or they’re so delusional, so brainwashed, by this anti-White narrative that you cannot have a discussion with these people.

There’s one clip I put it up on my Twitter feed right now. It’s a brief video of this big fat black chick at the university. She gets up, and she asked Spencer this question. And she’s saying how blacks founded civilization, and how blacks taught White people philosophy, and architecture, and everything else. And it’s like this lady, this black woman really does genuinely believe this! And not a single word she said is true, or backed up by any historical evidence, any archaeological evidence. She’s just so gone!

It’s like, how do you even engage in a discussion with someone like that? And the answer is, you can’t! Yeah you can’t, you don’t! It’s a waste of time.

I mean, I totally support what Spencer is doing. I think it’s good to have at least get up there and present our perspective. Something from a pro-White perspective. And I think he does a good job at that.

Tanstaafl: He did it without apology.

John Friend: Yeah. I think he’s good.

Tanstaafl: George Lincoln Rockwell used to do something similar. He used to go to colleges and give speeches in front of large audiences, to hostile jews, and anti-White Whites. And they were very popular.

And in fact, they were so popular that basically that was part of why this strategy of the jews to what they call “No platforming”. To basically stop debating!

I mean, they understand this existential struggle. And the fact that we are enemies! And once they understand that, they have this attitude that I’m talking about, or that you see, they don’t debate honestly. There’s nothing to debate! You’re a Nazi! You’re a racist! We you’re supposed to be destroyed:

“I’m surprised you’re still around. I thought we got rid of all you guys?”

That kind of attitude. And it’s a relentless and uncompromising attitude.

I learned that lesson early with this guy, Lawrence Auster online, who used to write in such “intellectual”, you know, nit picky. He would tear apart logically liberal arguments. And the minute you touched on the jews, he just lost his, … All the intellect went out the window! All that desire to argue and pick apart the little details, out the window!:

“You’re an anti-semite! Your basically a non-person, a non human being!”

Wouldn’t even talk to you directly anymore. Just talked about you in the third person like you were non human. And that was a shock to me, because I was like, as you described, at that point I was still kind of like not clear on just how deep this went. And how the racial animus, I didn’t understand it as racial animus.

I understood that the jews were enemies. I said that, I think, in the first post I made about it. Is they are not only our enemies, but their enemies. Which is kind of like I think the right idea! I had it pretty early on, I guess, when things snapped in my head I got it right away.

But it took me years then to basically fill in the pieces, the missing pieces, about how we got here. How did this happen, and the basic techniques that they used, the psychology of it.

John Friend: Yeah. Very well said. And there’s been a good conversation.

I have one final question and it relates to, … You had mentioned how the jews pursued a strategy back when Rockwell was giving all these speeches, of basically just not covering anything he was doing, at least for a certain period of time. They just deplatformed him, …

Tanstaafl: Banning him!

John Friend: Yeah. And banning him and shutting it down, of course.

But now it’s like they can’t give us enough ink, you know, they’re promoting the Alt-Right and all this, even though they’re doing it in many cases very dishonestly, and trying their best to demonize us.

[93:39]

Tanstaafl: What I hear from the hive mind is that they’re torn on this. It’s like with Trump too. They gave Trump what they thought was enough rope to hang himself with. And it didn’t turn out the way they thought.

They thought by covering him that they would basically expose what a nutcase he was and people wouldn’t vote for him. And it didn’t turn out that way. They don’t have the level of control that they thought they had.

So that’s the sort of the positive message here. Is the jews are omnipotent. They’re not all powerful. They can be fought! And they can be defeated! Trump defeated them.

Unfortunately for us, he’s not a racialist, he’s not pro-White, he’s not anti jewish. But he was able to defeat them in spite of them throwing almost everything they had at him, short of bullets in the head.

John Friend: Well, what’s amazing to me is that they are giving us so much coverage. When they could just not be covering any of this.

Tanstaafl: It’s the rope thing. Like with the Heil Gate and the Bannon thing. It’s their concern and they’re airing it. And they’re putting their spin on it. And they’re basically building on decades of propaganda and billions of dollars invested in this negative associations with these things.

And so when they write a story about the NPI conference and these people giving Nazi salutes in Washington DC, There are basically trying to scare each other, and sort of warn each other:

“Hey! It’s happening again! It’s happening! And we’ve got to do something squash this!”

That’s why they do it. And I think they will switch to just silencing us. And it’s basically they can do both. I mean, they’ve got the ADL and other organizations lobbying constantly to get us shutdown. They try to shut down the NPI thing. They do both at the same time. They cover it with their spin on it, and [chuckling] they try to shut it down same time! And there’s not a contradiction there.

And it’s a constant debate, as I was saying amongst the hive mind of the jews media. On Twitter you can see them having this debate every day about this whether they should do this, or that, or more of this, or less of that. That kind of thing:

“Is it good, or bad for the jews?”

Basically.

John Friend: Right.

Tanstaafl: Constantly.

John Friend: What do you think is the future of the Alt-Right? Do you see this as something that’s going to have a legitimate political impact in the years to come?

[96:18]

Tanstaafl: Yes. I think like the Tea Party, it will go on. There’s been struggles for this past year and a half over the soul of it, and who gets to define it. And I know Andrew Anglin has fought very hard to make sure that people did not “steal it”. And that Alt-Light didn’t get away with it.

Even Spencer himself has defended it from Alt-Light type people coming into it and trying to redefine it. The jews media tried early on to define it as Milo. Milo Yiannopoulos was the leader of it. And I forget who else. Several other like not just Alt-Light, but, you know, jew friendly type figures that they tried to nominate.

And even recently Jared Taylor, up until this Heil Gate thing, jared Taylor was being touted as a leader of Alt-Right. And that’s kind of disgusting to me!

Because, you know, Taylor, as much as I can credit him with waking people up to racial consciousness, he is a person that has spent far too much time thinking about what the problems are to not see the jews, to not see the jews role in this!

And every time he’s pressed on the issue, he cucks for the jews! He defends the jews! Says that they’re White basically, or at least some of them are, and that we sort of have to welcome some of them.

Because why? Well, he never really explains. Why do White people need to accept jews as White? There is no good reason that he offers for that. And he’s really pressed on it. And when he is pressed on that he disappoints as far as understanding that the jews are the enemy.

I think that his statement about the Heil Gate thing was basically he went right to the point of:

“I don’t think it’s a good idea to call jews enemies. The jews can be White.”

He said. And that’s exactly wrong! That’s worse than Alt-Light! That’s worse than normie White! That’s like you’re basically an enemy yourself!

John Friend: Yeah.

Tanstaafl: If you don’t recognize the enemy and call it “the enemy”, and, in fact, say the opposite, that they’re not our enemy, that they’re actually White people who maybe have lost their way, or whatever, and we should accept them. That’s actually like enemy activity!

John Friend: Treason, yeah? It really is. And I mean, the guy’s very intelligent obviously. And he said a lot of very good things. But on this one issue. I mean, I’ve always felt this way about him. Because I remember the first time I discovered his work. It was him cucking on the jews. And I’m like:

“What is this guy talking about!”

Jews are not White. I mean, ask a jew yourself and they will tell you they’re not White. They hate White people [chuckling]. They’ll tell you themselves!

Tanstaafl: They dance around it! This is something that has been coming out during this election cycle is this “goy posing”, where they pretend to be White. And there’s value to pretending to be White for them.

And that’s the only time they will pretend to be White is when there’s value in it for them. Either to shift the blame to White people. Like say when some jew gets caught doing something really bad, you know, they’re portrayed in the jewish media as a “White” person!:

“This is just another example of White privilege and White abuses!”

And they’re not identified as jews. That’s one thing. But then they’ll also, and this is even smaller jews. And online, on Twitter, this really got exposed very badly. And the (((echo meme))) thing was a big part of this.

That the jews will say something negative about White people, speaking for White people, speaking to White people, as a White person:

“I think this, or that shitty thing about White people!”

And they would posture as if they were White.

And people started to basically call them on it and put parentheses around their (((name))), or mock them, and laugh at them. And say:

“You’re not White! You’re a jew!”

And the best was when they post some picture, a snapshot of some previous tweet, that they had made where they were saying:

“As a jew, I think this, or that!”

And this isn’t just some new thing. It’s newly discovered, and it’s a new form of calling the jews on it. It’s actually a very positive sign that White people are calling the jews on this. For decades the jews have gotten away with this posturing as White, in order to tell us what to do, to basically posture as moral authorities about what White people should, or shouldn’t do, should, or shouldn’t say!

And then, sort of like that the double talk of it, is that then if they are pressed on the issue, it’ll be like:

“Well, because I’m a jew, I really understand these issues best about hate and minorities being oppressed, and, because of the ‘Holocaust’ and all!”

So it’s a real example of privilege where they can basically be White when they want to shit on White people, and shovel blame our way. And they can be jews when they want to be treated specially in a positive way and be protected, because they’re jews.

And this is something that they’ve done throughout history. This posing as their host. I mean, it has this biological analogy where a parasite will literally disguise itself. It’s called “Crypsis”. So that the host mistakes it as one of its own.

And understanding it at that level, it’s very explicative. It really explains what’s going on in a solid sense. But it’s also like the most stomach churning way of seeing it, that it makes so much sense, it’s like:

“God, this is bad!”

John Friend: Yeah. [chuckling]

Tanstaafl: This is for me, I’m a kind of embroiled in it. And Trump is too!

You see how it happens. The jews gravitate, at least some of them do, towards mixing with the most powerful in their host. And they use that infiltration then to enhance their ability to manipulate that host.

And by doing it amongst the most powerful people, of course, they get the most leverage that way. By intermixing with the aristocracy, or the leaders of a given society.

I think of it as like claws, or fangs biting into the host, and it allows then the larger body of jews, the other half of the jews the jewry, the Orthodox, Hasidim, who basically are a closed gene pool, transfer the wealth and the energy that they suck out of their host to that sort of fruiting body to feed on! It’s disgusting! But that’s what’s happening right now.

Jew York City especially, sort of like the epicenter of this, where you got these Orthodox jew communities springing up, colonies really, you could think of them as, all around the New York City area. Where basically they take over. And it’s like a little Israel in those places!

John Friend: Yeah. It’s a real problem. The jewish problem! That is the best way to look at it. And as he said before it really is a jewish war on White people. That’s the way it should be understood. Because that’s exactly what’s going on. And the sooner Whites recognize that, the sooner we can finally deal with it!

And in order to deal with it we have to be clear about race. We have to be clear about what the jews are up to. And we have to be real about our history! And not accept these weaponized jewish narratives of World War Two especially, but many other aspects of our collective history.

And we cannot let them manipulate us with these with these buzzwords, “racist”, “anti-semite”. I mean, we have to totally break free of all of their aspects of control. And I think we’re making steps in that direction.

[104:56]

Tanstaafl: Oh yes! Big progress! Lots of people, it’s incredible how many people and how quickly they’re waking up to it. I remember when I first woke up myself. It seemed like it was kind of depressing, because there were so few people that were actually discussing it. I mean, it was literally a handful of websites. And all credit to the generations of men and women who’ve gone before, that were aware of the problem and died for it! Died fighting!

But by the early 2000s it was like just a handful of people in the corners of the web where we’re discussing these things. And now it’s just a totally different environment. It’s like a giant websites with obviously hundreds, or thousands of people getting together and discussing these things. And discussing it, like I said, on Twitter, openly mocking the jews, as jews, for trying to pull their old tricks that used to work.

And they’re not working. So the reaction to that is to shut down. That’s why they ban people when you do confront them and expose them directly. Then that’s when they have to shut you down.

John Friend: That’s right. Well Tan, I don’t know if you had any other closing remarks?

If you do please let us know. And if not, you go ahead and plug your website. And we will wrap up this program.

Tanstaafl: Yeah. This just one last point. Which is that a theme I’ve hit on many times over the last couple of years, is this “suicide meme”, which is also “pathological altruism”, it’s sometimes called. Which I think of a “suicide meme 2.0”. It’s more a more sciency thing.

I think it’s been discredited. And I think it wasn’t because of the arguments that I made – maybe a small part because of that. But it was mainly because the events going on around us discredited the idea that White people are doing this to ourselves! We see that it was the invasion of Europe when the so-called “refugee” thing got out of control in 2015. A lot of people, even people who previously had been silent, spoke up about it and could see for themselves that this is destruction! This is not self-inflicted.

This is like a somebody inside the Gates has opened the Gates for the outside world to pour in. And our leaders, our supposedly leaders are welcoming it! And defending these aliens against us! And that was exactly the kind of thing that I realized back in 2007, or so, when I woke up, that it was a clear to me.

But a lot of people, … Just like Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, and these things that the jewish media have had hyped out of control, “Black Lives Matter”, what it finally culminated in, it actually ends up a wakening people to what’s going on. And so I think that’s a good thing.

And I’m sick of hearing about the suicide meme! I thought in its original form it originated from jews who are basically just trying to make an excuse for the fact that it was a jew war on Whites. That’s what’s going on. It’s a genocide agenda! And it’s a jewish genocide agenda of Whites.

I think a lot of people getting that. They’re not just getting that it’s about race and about jews. But they get that Whites are in big trouble. And yes, we’ve got all sorts of pathological behaviors and all sorts of sick things, degenerate things that we’re up to.

But this is not something that arose naturally within ourselves and would have happened without the jews. This is totally instigated by this alien people that see us as their enemy! And have basically inflicted this upon us. And it wouldn’t be happening without them. So it’s, …

John Friend: Yes. I totally agree.

Tanstaafl: We have to fight! I mean, that’s the main way. When people say:

“Oh! But we have to improve ourselves! We have to do better and, …”

Yeah! Let’s do better! Let’s recognize our enemies as enemies! And let’s fight them! Instead of pretending that we’re the only thing that exists in the world. And we’re the only force to be reckoned with.

That’s not going to work. I mean, that’s like if you were, I don’t know, infected with some small parasite that makes you sick. And you just pretend:

“All I have to do is think positive thoughts, and have a strong identity, and then this wouldn’t happen to me!”

No! It would happen! And you need to recognize what the real root of the problem is and deal with that problem!

So that’s the last thought. My web site is Age of Treason dot com.

[110:04]

There’s not much activity between say January, February of this year, and just this past month. And I don’t know how long have the energy to keep writing. As I said in the past, I don’t really like repeating myself. I see these themes over, and over, again.

Twitter kind of got me in the habit of, on a daily basis, posting at least short things. So people may notice compared to my older blog posts which were very long and detailed. And I don’t trouble with that anymore. I don’t make elaborate arguments anymore.

Maybe I still have that in me at some point I will post that. But right now I’m more concerned to get important issues, and focus on them, make a blog post focusing on an issue that I think is actually crucial. And maybe say something pretty simple about it.

And it’s a good way to get past writer’s block for me. Because after being away from it – blog posting for so long – actually, it was quite a struggle to write the first blog post [chuckling]! I was instigated by the pent up energy of not being able to post on Twitter anymore. So it happened.

And once it happened once that I was able to start writing more. But I don’t intend to go back to multi page long things. And I don’t even know about podcasting. I mean, it took a lot of energy to make the podcasts I’ve made. And I covered all the basics.

At this point, I’d only be adding a few little details. So I don’t know what I’ll be doing in the future, is basically what I’m trying to say.

If people are curious about these issues and they think that what I’m saying is exaggerated, go read some of the things I’ve written on my blog, and documented, and linked to. I make detailed arguments. For people who are truly curious, they’ll go and they can find the information.

John Friend: Yeah, I completely agree. And I hope people do check out your website and check out your radio archives. And also check out the previous podcast that we did a year ago, that I mentioned at the very beginning of this program.

Tanstaafl: I agree.

John Friend: Yeah, I think that was very good. And, in fact, the title of that podcast was “The jew as a Parasite”! So we really get into the jewish problem in probably even greater detail than we did in this show.

But yeah, man, you’re always welcome here. I mean, it’s always great talking to you. I think between you and MacDonald, I think you guys are really kind of done more than then, … I mean, I guess in a contemporary context I think Hitler’s had a huge impact on my understanding of the jewish problem.

But you and MacDonald have added a lot to it. Help me come to the conclusions that I’ve come to. And I think they’re very well founded and unavoidable!

Tanstaafl: Yeah.

John Friend: If you simply do the research.

Tanstaafl: Well, thank you John. And it makes me happy to hear that I’ve had an influence, a positive influence, on other White people. And I’ve heard that from a handful of people over the last couple of years. And it makes me happy!

I mean, I’ve invested quite a few hours in trying not only to understand it myself, but then to try and explain it in terms that other people would maybe have an easier time then, if I laid it out, the work that I had invested. And I’m glad I did that. And I’ll continue to do it as long as I can find the time and energy to do it.

John Friend: Excellent! Well, thank you so much for joining me today. We will have to do another program in the future, maybe once Trump finally gets in and, …

Tanstaafl: Once we see what he’s, …

John Friend: Once we see what he’s doing, exactly! Yeah that’s really what I’ve been… I mean, we can sit here and speculate all day long. But I really want to see what he’s going to do. I think some of his picks are kind of revealing. But ultimately will this kind of have to wait and see what happens. But hopefully we’ll still be able to communicate if, you know, [chuckling] at that point assuming he doesn’t sign some crazy legislation.

So anyways, thanks a lot than! And I really do appreciate it. And please do keep up the great work. And I hope people check out your website. And we will talk again soon.

Tanstaafl: Thanks John.

[114:24]

END

 See Also:

The Realist Report Interviews TANSTAAFL — 2016 — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report – Tanstaafl: The Jew As A Parasite — TRANSCRIPT

Luke Ford – JQ Debate with Age Of Treason – Mar 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report

Tanstaafl: The Jew As A Parasite

December 7, 2015.

The Realist Report