Sam Bamford: Hi, guys. Welcome back to the Two Worlds Collide podcast. On today’s episode, we have James and Joanna Howe.

 

Now, for the first, 205 minutes, we talk about Joanna’s pro-life Bill that she’s getting through Parliament in South Australia. And after that, we had a healthy debate about immigration and what it truly means to be Australian.

 

Now, this debate did get pretty heavy. It did get a bit nasty. But at the end of the day, we had enough respect for each other to sit there and debate, sometimes listen, sometimes get angry. But at the end of it, we all seemed to come together.

 

Because at the end of the day, if we can’t have debates like this, then who are we really? What are your thoughts? And there we go.

 

I’m at, like, 100—I think I’m at 102 now—episodes.

 

Joanna Howe: That’s good. They say if you survive after 100, you are more likely to keep going.

 

James Howe: I think 98% of people quit by their 25th episode or something. Yeah, I’m gonna keep forgetting that.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. Someone said something—I think it was… Who’s that guy? Chris Williamson. Chris Williams—maybe him.

 

James Howe: Yeah, I know the guy.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, he said something like 85% of podcasts don’t get past their episode 30. So, yeah. Anyway, my last podcast has picked up a bit of a stink with Australia.

 

Joanna Howe: Yep.

 

Sam Bamford: Everyone seems to bloody hate me. Well, no, they don’t hate me. They either— I mean, I’ve sold a lot of T‑shirts. But Joanna and James, welcome to the Two Worlds Collide podcast. How you guys going?

 

 

James Howe: Good, mate. Thanks for having us.

 

Sam Bamford: You’re welcome. Now we’re gonna get to stuff after about what we want Australia to be, what we want Australia to potentially look like—does that matter? And the basis of the argument will—probably not. The argument—Jesus, what are you thinking? You guys are coming in to argue. The base of the debate would be: What truly is an Australian? How you guys see it; how I see it. And we’ll go from there.

 

But first there’s more important stuff to get to, which is the Bill that you’re going to push through Parliament. And now that One Nation have got the balance of power, looks like this is going to happen. So, Joanna—

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah. Thanks so much for having me back, Sam.

 

Sam Bamford: You’re welcome.

 

Joanna Howe: I remember you said that if I was doing something, I could come back and we could talk about it, which I’m grateful for.

 

So we have legislation in the Parliament at the moment that seeks to ban abortion in the third trimester, so 25 weeks upward.

 

So at the moment it’s legal up until birth for any reason in South Australia, except for sex selection. What we’re seeking to do is now ban abortion after 25 weeks, except if it’s necessary to save the life of the mother. Now, we’ve got that in there just as something so that people can see that the mother’s life is valued and prioritised, but the reality is in a late‑term abortion, it’s never necessary to save the life of the mother. If the mother’s got pre‑eclampsia or some kind of risk to her life, what they will do is bring that baby out alive via an emergency Caesarean. So they won’t waste time on a time‑consuming late‑term abortion; they’ll just get that baby out alive through a C‑section in less than an hour.

 

Now, the process for a late‑term abortion—do you know what it is, Sam?

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, you explained it to me last time and it ripped my heart away.

 

Joanna Howe: So I think last time I talked to you about, actually, a dilation and evacuation, which is when they wrench the arms and legs off a child—

 

Sam Bamford: Literally, like, rip them out!

 

Joanna Howe: But after 22 weeks, the process in South Australia is different. That’s actually a second‑trimester abortion method. The third‑trimester abortion method is you’ve literally got a psychopath looking at a baby on an ultrasound. And they have to look at the ultrasound because this next bit has to be very precise.

 

So they’re looking at a baby on an ultrasound. The mum’s under anaesthetic—she can’t feel this—but they’re locating the Left ventricle of the baby’s heart.

 

So they’re looking at a baby that’s sucking their thumb, playing in the womb, just hiccuping—all the things that babies do in the womb.

 

And then they locate the Left ventricle of the baby’s heart. They fill a needle up—a 20‑gauge needle—with potassium chloride, which is a poisonous substance. They use it on death row to kill rapists and murderers. And here they fill that needle up with approximately 10 millilitres of potassium chloride, KCL, and inject that into the Left ventricle of the baby’s heart. The baby goes from being alive to suddenly being tortured to death! It’s intended to induce a cardiac arrest. It causes excruciating pain.

 

And we know that because sometimes prisoners on death row have not been sedated first, and so they’ve actually lived to tell the tale of how horrifying this is, and so they now do get properly sedated. This doesn’t happen for babies in South Australia, and it happened to 105 babies older than 23 weeks and up until birth since abortion up to birth was introduced and enacted in July 2022.

 

So they inject the baby’s heart with poison. If it doesn’t kill them shortly thereafter, they’ll see that on the ultrasound and they will do a second injection.

 

So they’re just torturing this child to death, who eventually dies in the womb. Now, how do they get that dead baby out? Well, they give the mum labour‑inducing drugs and she goes through the process of labour—just like your wife did, just like I’ve done five times. And she delivers that baby intentionally stillborn. So she delivers—she has the contractions, she has the pushing—and she delivers a dead baby who, under South Australian law, can just get placed in the medical waste bin at 30–35 weeks.

 

[05:17]

 

Sam Bamford: So she’s still going through the same process?

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, just—

 

Sam Bamford: Just giving birth to a dead baby.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah. Yep.

 

And so we’re saying: Ban this barbaric procedure! It has no place in our modern healthcare system. It’s not pro‑women. Actually the data shows that women are often very traumatised and scarred by this. But evidently it kills a baby that would be alive today because they’re viable, they’re healthy. Seventy‑five percent of late‑term abortions kill healthy babies in South Australia.

 

So this is a really exciting new bill, and Sarah’s introduced it straight away—so people are still doing their maiden speeches and she’s put that Bill forward—because there isn’t any time to lose, because babies are dying in this state right up until birth. This is the first attempt now, in this term of Parliament, to try and take that back.

 

Sam Bamford: What did you say—100 over the last year?

 

Joanna Howe: A hundred and five in the last two and a half years. That’s one every couple of weeks. That’s late‑term abortions. But it’s actually 5,000 abortions a year in South Australia, so it’s a lot.

 

Sam Bamford: Now, you had a very different idea on abortion when you were younger.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: And the man to my right, your left, changed it. Talk me through that.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, well, I liked him. I had a bit of a crush on him [chuckling] at the time, but he didn’t know that. And we would argue about a lot of things because I was a Leftist arch‑feminist. We would have gotten great, Sam, back when I was 20!

 

And so we would argue about a lot of these things, and then the topic of abortion came up. Now, I’ve told the story a lot, but why don’t you say what it was like from your perspective?

 

James Howe: Oh, I mean, you were just like this—like, just rabidly woke Indian chick [chuckling] that I happened to sort of happen to encounter. And we got into an argument about women in sport and you were trying to tell me that it was disgusting prejudice that women’s sport didn’t do as well as men’s sport.

 

And I remember just thinking, like:

 

“What the fuck are you talking about!”

 

The reason why women’s sport doesn’t do as well is because they’re not as good at it. Like, people watch sport—well, they watch men in sport—because men are the pinnacle of excellence in whatever sport you haven’t been watching.

 

So we kind of had that debate. And I just said:

 

“Look, I don’t care if you like it or not—men’s sport is always going to do well because people want to watch the absolute peak of ability in any given kind of physical field.”

 

Joanna Howe: And I found those arguments really annoying! He just thought he was better than me because he was a man.

 

But then I think when you look into it and you point out the things like Serena Williams plays the 20th‑best male player in the world and she loses six–love, six–love.

 

And so I think there is, clearly in evidence, a difference between women’s performance in the same sport as men’s, and people prefer—and they pay—to watch the men’s sport.

 

Sam Bamford: Well, I’d also just suggest as well, you just gotta look at the numbers and where the money flows to—people speak with their viewership.

 

James Howe: Sure. Yeah, exactly! Yeah. And I don’t want to be rude—like, I’m not saying that women’s sport doesn’t matter—but it’s really just not even about that. It’s not that I thought I was better than you. It’s also just that you, like, had a—you were defending a stupid ideology. So, like credit where it’s due. Like, it must have been rough being you know, let’s be honest.

 

And then we got onto abortion and you started saying:

 

“Oh, women have a right to have an abortion.”

 

And I think I just said:

 

“Well, like, what even is an abortion?”

 

And you’re like— it was almost like you’re like:

 

“I never really thought about it.”

 

Joanna Howe: Well, because I hadn’t. Because when you’re brainwashed by feminism, you just swallow the party line. You don’t necessarily—you don’t think through all these things. You’re just told what to think! You’re told what to think. I was an economics–law student at Sydney University when we met.

 

Sam Bamford: You know, well, that happens with a lot of us, right? With society—everything. Like, you get brainwashed soldiers, you get brainwashed Parliament members, you get brainwashed Leftists.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: You get brainwashed people from the Right.

 

James Howe: Yeah. 100%.

 

Sam Bamford: Happens with everyone.

 

James Howe: Yeah, it does. And you can’t help it to some degree because you have to just learn some stuff in life. There’s too much information to do your own investigation about everything.

 

But ultimately, I do think it’s incumbent upon people to, when they’re presented with the evidence on an issue, to have the moral courage to actually grapple with it and find out where the truth is and to be willing to go with the truth!

 

Because I think, like, you can’t blame people for being brainwashed, but you can blame people for deciding to stay brainwashed. You know? And to your credit, after I pointed out to you, like:

 

“Well, okay, so it’s a baby after it gets born. What is it five minutes before it gets born?”

 

And you had absolutely no answer for it. Jo went—she was working for Bill Shorten at the time, who used to be the Labor leader, but he was the head of the Australian Workers’ Union—and he’d headhunted Jo to work for him two days a week because he said:

 

“I’ve never met anyone who is more hated by Labor Left than you.”

 

And I asked around and—

 

Joanna Howe: Because he was Labor Right?

 

James Howe: He was Labor Right, yeah, exactly!

 

Sam Bamford: I don’t get this stuff.

 

James Howe: Yeah, neither do I but anyway. And so she snuck into her office and shut the door and just Googled “aborted fetuses.” And some academic articles came up which had some photographs of aborted babies. And she could see that these were little people who’d just been sliced to pieces and ripped apart.

 

Sam Bamford: It genuinely affected me—our conversation. When we sat down, I remember sitting there, like, changing the diaper of my baby, like, an hour later, and I was like:

 

“Yeah, what the fuck’s going on here?”

 

Yeah, I genuinely—like, I was genuinely sitting there. I remember it was one of the only times I got teary on a podcast. I genuinely sat there and I was listening to this. I’m like:

 

“This is too much! We’re really doing this to babies, and everyone’s just going about their normal life.”

 

Yeah, it genuinely tore me up.

 

James Howe: Yeah, it’s horrible!

 

And the only reason it still happens is because people don’t talk about it. And the Left tries to silence you if you even raise it.

 

But it’s insane, man! Like, even last night we were just watching this movie, Knocked Up—

 

Sam Bamford: The old‑school one from—

 

James Howe: Yeah, same one. We’ve seen it before, but somehow we just found ourselves watching it again. And there’s the birth scene, and I’ve—like, each time we’ve had a baby and that baby comes out and starts crying, it just—it makes me teary, just because I’m like:

 

“Just the miracle of life!”

 

You just see—holy shit! There’s a person here on the scene. And I even had that experience just watching this movie last night. And I’m just thinking, man, that baby—it’s the same baby that was in there five minutes ago. It’s no different! It’s the same baby, so it can’t cry because its lungs are full of fluid.

 

But it’s the same baby. It’s capable of having all of the same experiences. It’s capable of having the same kind of sensations of pain. Same sort of comfort at the sound of its mother’s voice. Same child, same human being. And just the thought of killing that baby—it’s just murder like any other form of murder. And we just can’t tolerate it in a sane and civilised society. It’s just disgusting!

 

So, yeah—long story short!

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah. So I had to admit to him, maybe a fortnight later, that I’d changed my mind and that he was right and I was wrong.

 

Sam Bamford: It’s good, though. It shows you’re adaptable.

 

James Howe: Yeah.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

James Howe: And she’s just had to do that again and again!

 

Joanna Howe: That’s [chuckling] not true! He’s had to—

 

James Howe: No, it’s gone the other way pretty much ever since, …

 

Joanna Howe: No, it hasn’t. But we’ve just—I guess— Yeah, we fell in love!

 

James Howe: On every personal argument, it’s had to go the other way.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah. But I was a brainwashed Leftist and I’ve had to—I guess I’ve had to unpack all of the things I believed and realise which ones I still believe and which ones I still don’t. And that’s a journey that I would encourage other people to go on as well.

 

And if you are in South Australia, or even if you’re not, I encourage you to fly in for our rally on June 17 outside the South Australian Parliament, because that’s when we will be rallying and protesting for this bill. And I do think for these babies—after 25 weeks—we’re up against it. All of the peak medical bodies are against us; all of the media establishment; the Labor and the Greens like it; some of the Liberal Party, even.

 

And so you’re really up against it. But if we pass this bill, that’ll be the first pro‑life Bill to pass a House of Parliament in Australian history. But it’ll also be the first socially conservative Bill to have passed the South Australian Parliament—in history. So it’s big. And we do need—like, the Left is so good at turning up for evil. And our side, we’re just useless a lot of the time!

 

Sam Bamford: Because we’re all busy working.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, [chuckling] but this is after work. It’s 5:30 PM in the city. And so—

 

Sam Bamford: Well, most people have kids. Conservative families have kids.

 

Joanna Howe: Well, bring your kids. We bring our kids. Like, sorry, Sam, there’s not an excuse you can throw to me other than if you’re in Labor. If you’re in Labor or you’re dead, you don’t get to come. But you don’t have to come—you getta leave pass. But everybody else—like, these babies have no voice other than us.

 

And so if we don’t turn up, then the politicians just know we don’t care.

 

Sam Bamford: Yep.

 

Okay, so when is it again?

 

Joanna Howe: 17th of June. Tuesday, 5:30 PM to 6:30 PM, outside the SA Parliament, the City—North Terrace. Yeah. Really hope you can come by. Hope other people can come, too. It is really important. We bring our—we’ve got a six‑year‑old—and we’ve been bringing the kids to these things since they were just out of the womb—like, a couple of months old, three years old, four years old. They have to know what they’re up against in this society, in this culture. I think it’s important to raise them educated and awake.

 

[15:18]

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, definitely! Because the other side is doing it as well.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: But the thing with the other side is they’ve got—they seem to have—kindergarten, schools and universities to do that. As well, that’s why you asked me on the way in:

 

“Are you gonna home‑school?”

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: Did you ask me that question because—you know—because you’re know, …

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, you’re awake. And I guess in the public education system in South Australia, you’re being taught the gender bred person. You’re celebrating—you’re told to dress up in purple for IDAHOBIT Day. You know, so there’s all these trans ideologies, …

 

James Howe: It’s about trans—and yeah, I don’t know what it’s about.

 

Sam Bamford: Are you saying I’m short?

 

James Howe: No, I was just looking at your hairy feet.

 

Joanna Howe: If you send your kid to a public school, they’re gonna come out indoctrinated by this.

 

And so then, yeah, we had to try pretty hard to find a school where this sort of BS wasn’t happening.

 

Sam Bamford: Well, it’s also happening everywhere now because the government can’t even define a woman.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: I did a post about this the other day, right? And I sat down before I did the post—I’m like:

 

“What am I going to talk about here?”

 

And there was a clear thing there that I came up with: If you can’t define something, you can’t defend it. It’s like the “what is a woman” argument, you know what I mean? Like, same with the baby thing.

 

Like, if you just think that a baby, like you were saying before, isn’t the same baby when it’s born five minutes after, then you can’t define what that is, so then you can’t defend what that is.

 

And, I mean, the government at the moment—they do not have the capability to be able to control your economy that’s over a trillion dollars, while sitting there and telling us they can’t define a woman. Like, how are we supposed to defend women? How are we supposed to defend their rights, their spaces and their sports? And it’s good to see, actually, that although the Liberal Party for over a decade were in power after Julia Gillard—that stupid lady—decided to change the legislation around the definition of a woman, that they’ve finally come out and spoken out against it.

 

Do you think this will ever happen mainstream with abortions—fully?

 

Joanna Howe: Yep. Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: Truly believe that?

 

Joanna Howe: No, I truly believe it.

 

So I think if you look at anything, like how slavery was overcome or any kind of injustice, you’ll find that initially the people that are jumping up and down about it are seen as extremists and everything’s done to kind of attack them and marginalise them.

 

But eventually it becomes mainstream. So, 10 years ago—like Sal Grover—right now every conservative politician in the country is trying to get her for a photo shoot, and they’re tweeting about it.

 

Sam Bamford: I need to reach out to her to get her on the pod.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, but everyone’s doing it. But five years ago that wasn’t the case—10 years ago, you know, it was even more not the case—at the time when Julia Gillard changed the, …

 

Sam Bamford: I remember a couple of years ago they got her on—what’s that stupid show where that W‑lead dude was on, …

 

Joanna Howe: The Project. Channel 7. The Project.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. And they tried to grill her a year ago, but now it’s like:

 

“Whoa! We’ve changed! Yeah, we have. Changed!”

 

Joanna Howe: No, things have changed. People are awake. The One Nation vote is surging. So people can—even the mainstream media can see things are shifting. People aren’t listening to them anymore. They’re now trying to come along to the party. Like, we’ve even noticed—in the coverage of our abortion issue—they have changed somewhat from being openly hostile to now almost being fair in the coverage we had last week on the announcement of the bill.

 

So I believe that on abortion this will happen. It takes time. But if you just think about—like, two years ago, we were at the Olympics and you’ve got a male boxer punching on a female in the women’s division and then getting gold.

 

But then Trump gets elected, does an Executive Order, that biology is the basis of male and female. The Olympic Committee’s now changed its tune and said they’re going to be checking birth certificates and doing tests to make sure that female sport is for women—biological females—only. So things take time. And in Australia we are quite behind—like, behind whether you can—three to four years.

 

So I think on abortion the fundamentals are there. This is a child in the womb who’s a human being. If you’re on the side of abortion, you support killing human beings. We’ll eventually catch up. We’ll eventually get there. It just takes time.

 

Sam Bamford: And how many babies do we abort in Australia per year?

 

Joanna Howe: So, close to 100,000. The most recent data suggests 88,000. But that data is a bit old.

 

And so it’s a lot. We talk about a migration, a population crisis and a fertility crisis, but part of that crisis is that we’re killing so many babies and we’re not replacing our population.

 

Sam Bamford: Yes—which is where my main argument comes in, right? Where we’re importing two, three migrants per birth in this country. Our birth rate is at one point—if it goes below 1.4, that’s generally, like, an extinction‑level event. And I guess this is where my glaring argument has come out over the past few days about stuff. But I don’t want to get to that yet. I want to stay on your stuff.

 

So, what’s your next step after this Bill passes in the SA Parliament?

 

[20:02]

 

Joanna Howe: Okay, so to get it through to law, it has to pass in the Upper House and the Lower House. We think we’ve got the numbers for the first time to pass it in the Upper House.

 

Sam Bamford: Is that because of the One Nation—

 

Joanna Howe: Yep. And so that’s really significant!

 

But then to get it through the Lower House, which Labor runs, that’s going to be tough.

 

But having said that, their MPs are now going to be forced, for the first time, to put on the record their support for killing babies after 25 weeks. Literally, they’ll have to say:

 

“We’re on the side of injecting these babies with poison into their hearts.”

 

Now, many of those MPs live in electorates where the people would not be with them on such an extremist position.

 

And so I think it’s going to be interesting. I think we’ll have a mountain to climb to get it through the Lower House. But I think we could. When they sold abortion up to birth in South Australia, they stood on the steps with this sign that said “decriminalisation”.

 

And so the lie that they sold was that we need this new law because we need to stop women going to jail. But no women had been jailed for abortion in anyone’s memory—like, that just had not happened. It was a total lie! What they were really doing was removing all upper gestational limits on abortion so that it could be available up until birth and for any reason.

 

So the good thing about this campaign is, for the first time, we can now have this debate on our own terms and we can say:

 

“Are you on the side of killing babies older than 25 weeks, or are you not?”

 

And if you are on that side—of killing babies older than 25 weeks—then you’re really an extreme person! Like, you’re a murderer. There’s no other way to describe it, because you support injecting that baby with poison and then delivering them dead when you could just induce that baby early, deliver them alive and place them for adoption. Like, you could do those babies have to come out. They either come out dead or they come out alive. You guys are on the side of bringing them out dead! And so I think having that debate publicly is really significant!

 

But then beyond that, once you have that debate—and whether we pass that law or we don’t—we keep having those debates then. Because I think, as James said to me when we were debating this when I was 21, was:

 

“Well, what’s the difference between a baby five minutes before birth and five minutes after?”

 

I guess I would say to people:

 

“Well, what’s the difference between a 24‑week‑old baby and a 25‑week‑old baby, or a 20‑week and a 25‑week—and so on and so on—that they are human from conception. And at any point in human history when we’ve taken human rights away from a group of humans, it’s always ended in a pretty bad place.”

 

Sam Bamford: But what about the right of the baby in the womb?

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah—

 

Sam Bamford: Like, what about their right of living? I know you’re talking about taking away the rights of someone else, but the right of that baby when they’re conceived?

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah. I would argue they have human rights because they’re human beings.

 

Sam Bamford: 100%.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah. And so, even from the moment of fertilisation, you have a new and distinct human person that is created and, if left alone, will develop and grow and contribute to our society.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. And this is where—this is where we’ll probably flow into the argument of immigration as well. Like, we—I always talk about importing the next generation when I’m sitting here and we’re aborting the next generation!

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: We wouldn’t need high levels of immigration if we didn’t abort the next generation*.

 

[* The promotion of abortion fits in with the anti-White agenda that is pushed throughout the West by (((those))) that hate Whites and want to get rid of us by all means possible.]

 

Joanna Howe: Twenty‑eight percent of Gen Z is aborted.

 

Sam Bamford: What?

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, 28%! So we are—because it’s one, …

 

Sam Bamford: Over one in four!

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, because it’s the most unsafe place for a child to be, it’s not like on the playground unsupervised and a paedophile might come and grab him. It’s actually just in the womb. Like, that’s— we just—we are killing babies for any reason in this country. And yeah, it has to stop! This is the West—the West is doing this.

 

And so they’re importing—we’re importing—people and we’re killing our own babies. And it is having massive cultural disruption.

 

Sam Bamford: It’s even having the most massive cultural disruption now that people are, for the first time in history—and this is where we spoke about the other night—we’re debating between what’s an “Australian.” Like, this is a cultural division now that immigration is causing. I wouldn’t be having this argument if I was—five years ago—and, like, immigration wasn’t so high, right? No one had these arguments.

 

So before we have a discussion about this, I just want to say that the people that are doing this to us is the Labor government—through high levels of immigration, through their unsafe practices of immigration, through their terrible laws of aborting babies.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: And now they’re making people on the Right jump and fight and disagree with each other, which is healthy to have debate. But we’re at a point now where—what I’m trying to say is—everything’s been pushed down to us by this Leftist, communist government that are trying to replace us in our own country, and they’re actually allowing the abortion of the next generation coming through.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

So I would say abortion up to birth, radical trans ideology in classrooms, the eSafety Commissioner, the erosion of freedom of speech, and the migration mess that we find ourselves in—I think it’s a both‑sides issue. So I recognise that Labor is far worse than the Libs! But the migration blowout that’s happened since 1996 until the present day—that is a both‑sides issue.

 

And it’s only now that we’ve seen Pauline Hanson kind of force it open and that—and she somehow managed to break through since Bondi in a way that she wasn’t able to beforehand. Australians are awake now, or they’re awakening.

 

And now you see Angus Taylor and the Libs talk about:

 

“Well, we need a values test; we need a clampdown on mass migration.”

 

But they weren’t saying this before. I’ve worked with both governments, in my position as a researcher at Adelaide Uni in migration research. They both have always been on the side of a “big Australia”. And it’s only Pauline Hanson who’s consistently said, from her maiden speech in the ’90s, that if we have immigration, we need to have integration and assimilation, and the programme needs to be managed in a coherent way. Yeah.

 

[25:39]

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, I’m sort of going one step further than her and saying—and this is where my argument is— like, I think Australians—let’s say your Anglo‑Celtic and/or Indigenous Australians— where we’re being replaced at a rate that is glaringly obvious! Right? I’m walking around, I’m seeing different cultures everywhere, where five years ago we didn’t really see that.

 

And my sort of argument at the moment is that there are so many people coming in at such a rapid rate. And the government are telling us that all these people are “Australian”. And I’m sitting back and I’m being like:

 

“Well, no! They’ve been here since breakfast! They can’t just be Australian if they’ve been here such a short time.”

 

Someone like yourself—this is where the debate is, right? Like, are you Australian? When did you come here?

 

Joanna Howe: So it would have been 1988.

 

Sam Bamford: 1988. How old?

 

Joanna Howe: I was about four years old. And my dad, … So this was before we introduced temporary work visas. We only had permanent work visas. So we came as permanent residents.

 

There was an IT need. My dad was highly skilled. He was able to bring over his wife and his three children. We settled in suburban Sydney, bought a house, made it our home. He actually died six months after. We didn’t get booted back because he was no longer able to do that job. We stayed because we were all permanent residents by that point. And we’ve made Australia our home. You know, we’ve got five children.

 

I guess—in our last conversation—I asked you:

 

“Do you think I’m Australian?”

 

And recently I’ve been seeing on X that your position on that has changed somewhat. Yeah—why have you changed your position? And what would be your answer now to that question? Am I Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: No—not ethnically. Values, culturally wise—this is where the argument is because there’s so many people like you that have come in, and you’ve come in when Anglo‑Celtic and/or Indigenous Australians have been the overwhelming majority. So you’ve been able to come in and assimilate to our culture pretty easily, and you’ve sort of left your culture at the door.

 

Now, the reason I’ve changed recently is because I’ve sort of done a lot of inner thinking, I’ve done a lot of reading, reviewing, and I think that if we can’t define something, we can’t defend it! And I purely think that Australia isn’t Australia without the Australian people. Just like Japan: Japan’s not Japan because it sits on the island of Japan; Japan’s Japan because of the Japanese people.

 

And I think that the culture comes from the people. And that if we replace the people, we replace Australia. And Australia then is some, …

 

James Howe: True.

 

Sam Bamford: Fluid—or some non‑binary, whatever it is—and it can just be changed. And I don’t want that change.

 

James Howe: You have to define what Australia is. But at the same time, we’re talking about her—who has everything that a White Australian would have, except for the colour of her skin. Would you agree with that?

 

Sam Bamford: Like, 100%.

 

James Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: Completely came into this culture, completely adapted, and would arguably probably be doing more for Australia than anyone else in the history of Australia, given the [anti-abortion] Bill that she’s about to pass.

 

James Howe: Yeah. So we’re talking about Whiteness then, at the end of the day—not culture per se—because culture—that would just cancel out the culture issue, because culture’s the same. So we can just tick that off the list. We share that—share the same culture. So the only thing that you and I would not share with her would be her skin colour*.

 

[* Skin colour is just an obvious sign of racial difference, which are extensive including personality, temperament, general intelligence, propensity for violence, etc. Racial differences are not just skin deep, they are to the bone. And different racial groups have different cultures because of these innate racial differences.]

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. Okay. So what built this nation then, from 1901 all the way up until 2001?

 

James Howe: White people! Yeah. So—hang on. Just to understand, though—you would say your ability to call yourself Australian would be that you share the same skin colour as the people who built the country?

 

Sam Bamford: Same origins. Anglo‑Celtic.

 

James Howe: Anglo‑Celtic, though—but that’s specific to the British Isles.

 

Sam Bamford: So who were the people that formed government?

 

James Howe: The Brits. So—but what I’m saying is, what’s your heritage?

 

[30:06]

 

 

Sam Bamford: So both of my family originated from the UK.

 

James Howe: So you’re Anglo‑Celtic.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. I think Dad’s family came here very early 1900s.

 

James Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: Mum’s was a little different—maybe around the war.

 

James Howe: Okay.

 

Sam Bamford: First or second? I don’t really know.

 

James Howe: Okay. But I find it hard to believe that—just tell me if I’m putting words in your mouth, I don’t want to misrepresent your position. But I find it hard to believe that you would qualify her Australianness based on her skin colour or her Indian heritage, but that you would look at a guy who is like me—say, for example. Now, it just so happens that I have Irish blood, so I am technically half Anglo‑Celtic, but my other half comes from Holland. Imagine if both of my ancestors were from Holland. But I’m still just sitting here in front of you talking with an Australian accent.

 

Sam Bamford: Yes. I like to always say as well, that the Anglo‑Celtic and/or European culture—because I think that’s what we’re built off. So Anglo‑Celtic, European culture.

 

A lot of people don’t think that. A lot of people just say Anglo‑Celtic. But I’ve been very upfront, in some of the stuff I put out on Twitter, saying Anglo‑Celtic, European, and Indigenous culture. Because I believe that’s what built us from 1901 all the way until—let’s say— When did mass, …

 

Joanna Howe: ’75. So ’75 was when the Racial Discrimination Act was passed. And then we officially developed a non‑discriminatory migration program. And then, in terms of mass immigration, it’s been growing since 1996 and it really took off in the 2000s.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, yeah.

 

Joanna Howe: And then post‑COVID, it’s been on steroids.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. And that’s where my sort of argument is, because, …

 

James Howe: But would you say that indigenous people built the country?

 

Sam Bamford: No! This is my argument with indigenous people. They had the land before we built all the shit! So they had the land; we built it; now we share it.

 

James Howe: Yeah, but Australia is about the people and the culture, not about the land. So just because they happen to be on the same geographical parcel of land, how does that mean that they’re Australian? Because she’s on the land too. But you would say she’s not.

 

Sam Bamford: No, she didn’t forge the land from 1901 all the way up until mass immigration.

 

James Howe: No, but neither did indigenous people. They just happened to be here, just like she happens to be here.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, but they were here. They definitely were here. And they did forge, …

 

James Howe: They were here but they didn’t do anything to build it. I mean, they did a little bit, but no more than, say, an Afghan camel herder might have done, and various other ethnicities.

 

Sam Bamford: I think they’re definitely a part of the people and the culture which has shaped this country.

 

Joanna Howe: But the Westminster, … James is not denying that. But if you’re thinking about the institutions that the Brits brought over the Westminster system of government, the courts, separation of powers—all of that’s come from a Judeo‑Christian foundation from the British Empire.

 

Sam Bamford: Christian foundation—not Judeo‑Christian! Christian foundation. I think we’ve got to be clear.

 

Joanna Howe: We can acknowledge that.

 

James Howe: Yeah, but, like, I would say that Aboriginal people had a small—a very small—role to play in building modern Australia, but so did some other races as well. Like, Afghan people helped to open up the interior. Chinese people helped to build the railways and whatever. So, yes, they had a small role, but by that same token you would also extend that to other cultures.

 

Sam Bamford: So do you think anyone can be Australian then?

 

James Howe: No, I feel like in order to be consistent in your position, you should also say that Aboriginal people are not Australian—and that wouldn’t be new. Like, that was the position up until recently.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, so they’re indigenous Australians.

 

James Howe: Yeah, but they weren’t considered to be full Australians until the ’60s. Now, I believe that they are, but I’m the guy who doesn’t base things on race.

 

Sam Bamford: So would Joanna be Indian‑Australian then?

 

James Howe: You don’t have to say Indian‑Australian anymore than, …

 

Sam Bamford: We’re calling indigenous people “indigenous-Australians”.

 

James Howe: I would just call them Australians. And they can call themselves indigenous if they want to. She can call herself Indian if she wants to. It’s up to her. Like, I’m half Dutch—I don’t call myself a Dutch-Australian. I think that’s just on the individual; they can choose what—

 

Joanna Howe: But I also think if you come here, you actually should identify as this country.

 

So if you come here and you become a citizen of this country—you’re lucky enough to get that—we’re Australian! Like, people have been asking me on Twitter:

 

“Who do you support in the cricket? Who would you support in a war, if India—?”

 

Sam Bamford: I literally saw one and someone was like:

 

“This will end the argument. Who do you follow in cricket, India or Australia?”

 

And they’re like:

 

“If she says whoever, then she’s that!”

 

James Howe: Well, she doesn’t even know what cricket is—

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, I don’t [chuckling] watch the cricket, but if I were to follow a team, it would be the Australian team. Like, in the Olympics or whatever. And if we’re at war, it would be Australia. I’ve only been to India once. And at home, the only language that was ever spoken other than English was Portuguese, because my mum and my grandmother, maternal side, speak it. I don’t—because I never spoke it. So we learnt English from day dot. Because I was born in England.

 

I think I do have a problem with the “ethnically Australian” thing that you’re banging on about now.

 

Sam Bamford: So what is it?

 

Joanna Howe: Well, because I don’t think it’s intellectually rigorous as a concept. Like, what is an “ethnic Australian”?

 

Sam Bamford: Anglo‑Celtic and or European, indigenous Australian. Because there’s a difference between “ethnic Australian” and then “Australian citizen.” The problem is now, if we cannot define what this is, then we cannot defend the massive flood coming in. Because Anthony Albanese [Aussie Labor PM] just keeps telling us that:

 

“Oh, these are people, are all Australian because their boots hit our shores.”

 

Joanna Howe: Okay, so we all agree, …

 

James Howe: We all agree that that’s bullshit, though. That’s not the question that’s under debate.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, we all agree that that’s bullshit!

 

Sam Bamford: So would you agree that if you can’t define that, then you can’t defend that.

 

James Howe: I agree but, …

 

Sam Bamford: Because by everyone’s logic, everyone should just be able to be put into Australia.

 

James Howe: We are not arguing on whether we should define it. We all agree that we should define it. What we’re arguing about is your definition of it.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, so what is your definition?

 

James Howe: Well, first, let me ask you a question.

 

Sam Bamford: No, no, no—you give me your definition. What’s your definition of an Australian?

 

James Howe: Well, I don’t necessarily have a coherent one. I’ve been thinking about it ever since this first came up. It’s not something I’ve given that much thought to. I think I don’t need to provide a perfect definition of what I think an Australian is in order to try and prove that yours is wrong. Do you understand? Like, I can, …

 

Sam Bamford: Should we both have a base‑level argument of what an Australian is to be able to prove what it isn’t?

 

James Howe: No—because we should, …

 

Sam Bamford: No, no—that’s how you start a debate. You can’t just come out and be like:

 

“Okay, this is your argument. I’m going to pick it to pieces.”

 

But you don’t even give me your definition of “Australian,”. So you have to give me a definition of “Australian”.

 

James Howe: No—don’t— Let me explain.

 

Sam Bamford: Well, then what are we doing here then, dude? If you’re not going to define what an Australian is—what are we doing here?

 

James Howe: Just let me finish.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

James Howe: Okay. If we find—say, like, we’re out digging a hole, right? We both dig a hole and we come across a large bone, okay? Now, if you say this bone came from, say a giant flying fairy, I can actually say:

 

“That’s not the case.”

 

And then you say:

 

“Well, what do you think it came from?”

 

And I go:

 

“I don’t fucking know! I just know it’s not from a giant flying fairy, because that’s a dumb theory.”

 

So—just me not having a coherent theory of my own—I try to be intellectually honest. I’m not going to sit here and go:

 

“Oh, well, here’s what I think.”

 

When I don’t know what I think yet. It’s hard to come up with this stuff. Okay. I agree with you that when people’s boots first land on the land, they’re not Australian straight away. I also don’t know if I think citizenship is the moment that that happens—although it could be, or maybe it happens sometime afterwards. It’s a vague line. I don’t know. It’s complicated!

 

It’s a little bit like when you start work at a new workplace. Right? At first, it’s a little bit awkward and you’ve got to, kind of, like—you’ve got to be a little bit submissive to the other people who’ve been there for 20 years, you know what I mean? But at some point you do become a true, like, fully fledged member of that company, you know what I mean? There is a point there and it’s a bit vague—like, it’s not necessarily super‑easy to nail down when that happens.

 

But I’m telling you this—I’m telling you this: If there’s one guy there who goes, you’ve both been there for 20 years, but this guy keeps on telling you that his grandfather started the company and therefore he has rights that you don’t have—you’re going to tell him to go get fucked, because it’s annoying, you know what I mean? Like, you’re like:

 

“We’ve both been here—we’ve both contributed—so shut the fuck up about your grandfather! I actually couldn’t give a shit!”

 

Sam Bamford: You’re getting angry that I’m calling your wife a non‑Australia.

 

James Howe: Oh, well, I’m not getting angry about that. I’m angry about—yeah, like, I’m angry at the theory because it’s stupid! Sorry—no offence. I think it’s dumb!

 

Look, let me ask you this question. Would you accept responsibility for White treatment of Aboriginal people in Australia if someone said:

 

“You’re a White guy, you should feel ashamed of yourself for the treatment of Aboriginal people!”

 

Sam Bamford: Not at all!

 

James Howe: Why? Explain.

 

Sam Bamford: Because it’s got nothing to do with me.

 

James Howe: Why?

 

Sam Bamford: Personally, I’ve done nothing to them.

 

James Howe: So then how come— all right, so you want to—as a White guy—you want to take the credit for building this country, but you want to reject all of the responsibility for anything negative that happened.

 

Sam Bamford: No, I’ve never said that.

 

James Howe: You want all of the rights but none of the responsibility! No, no, no—but do you understand the point that I’m getting at?

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, like—so do you think that I can just go to Japan, get a Japanese citizenship and then become Japanese? Is that what we’re saying?

 

James Howe: No, because—

 

Sam Bamford: Because there are definitions around this that we need to have a really tough stance on, and be like:

 

“Well, this is an Australian, and if we can’t define it, we can’t defend it.”

 

The same thing with the “what is a woman” argument. If we can’t define a woman, we can’t defend women. So if we can’t define Australian, …

 

James Howe: Dude, the way you’re defining an Australian is pretty much, bloody, the same as the Left’s definition of a woman!

 

Sam Bamford: How! How?

 

James Howe: Because you’re going all on superficial appearance*. The Left will define a woman as anything that looks kind of like a woman. You define an Australian as someone that you think looks kind of like an Australian. It’s the same shit!

 

[* Again racial differences are both superficial and deep.]

 

Sam Bamford: What, and demographics don’t matter? What, demographics don’t matter?

 

James Howe: I’m not saying, …

 

Sam Bamford: So you are literally saying that if we got 30 million Arabs here tomorrow—brought them all—and then just said they just adapted to our way of life for the next 15 years, that they’re all just Australian?

 

[40:04]

 

 

James Howe: Could be. You don’t know what that looks like.

 

Sam Bamford: You just said 30 million Arabs could be Australian if they came here tomorrow and adapted to our way of life over fifteen years!

 

Joanna Howe: Adapting to our way of life.

 

Sam Bamford: They could be. And then we just demographically change Australia, and we’re all just sitting here going:

 

“Yeah, that’s all right!”

 

Joanna Howe: Well, Italy might be an interesting case study for that.

 

James Howe: Well, hang on—you just brought up Japan. Okay. I think that Japan is a case that people always bring up because it’s, like demographically it’s just one race of people.

 

Sam Bamford: Or we could bring up India or whatever, if you want.

 

James Howe: Well, why don’t you bring up Russia?

 

Sam Bamford: We could bring up Africa.

 

James Howe: Why don’t you bring up Russia, right? Because you’ve got Sámi reindeer herders in the north; you’ve got, like, White people in the middle; you’ve got people that look Chinese down the bottom. You’ve got a whole range of different people.

 

But the other thing is, people always bring up Japan and say:

 

“Well, they don’t let people move into their country.”

 

It’s like the Japanese are pretty fucking bigoted! Like, they’re pretty racist and they’re a bunch of psychos! Like—no offence if there’s any Japanese listening—but I don’t have that much respect for Japanese culture. If you read about what happened in World War II, it was absolutely freaking horrific, man! They marched into China—into Nanjing—and they slaughtered 300,000 people*; they put 200,000 women into prostitution. No, but seriously-we don’t take cues from Japan!

 

[* This is highly disputed regarding the number and what actually happened. The Chinese themselves had no issue with killing millions of fellow Chinese during the early communist years.]

 

Sam Bamford: Like, yeah, but I’m not saying that. Yeah. So, like, you’re happily just sitting here saying:

 

“Yeah, you would gladly just watch Australians be demographically replaced in our own country because we’re not willing to sit here and define it.”

 

Like, this is the problem!

 

James Howe: I don’t think you’re defining it any more than I am. You just said it’s a White person.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, you haven’t even—I have not said it’s just a white person. Stop trying to put words into my mouth! This is what you’re trying to do. You’re trying to sit here and just say:

 

“He wants a white only Australia!”

 

Like they all try and sit out there and do—they all try and sit there and say that:

 

“You just want a White Australia!”

 

So you can pin me up as some type of Nazi. It’s pissing me off! And you’ve been sitting here doing it for the last 10 minutes, mate!

 

James Howe: Well, that’s because I think that you are, …

 

Sam Bamford: Do you think I’m a Nazi?

 

James Howe: I think you’ve got an ideology that’s on the Nazi spectrum.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah—for protecting Australia. For saying that Anglo‑Celtic, European and/or Indigenous Australians are, in my opinion, Australian. You think that is a Nazi? You think that ideology is being a Nazi?

 

James Howe: No, I don’t think you’re being a Nazi, but, …

 

Sam Bamford: No, no—you think that ideology is being a Nazi?

 

James Howe: Are you gonna let me talk?

 

Sam Bamford: No, you, …

 

James Howe: You’re asking me questions—every time I try and answer, …

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, well, you sit over there, sitting over me, trying to talk over me, weren’t you?

 

Joanna Howe: Okay, guys, …

 

James Howe: Don’t say:

 

“Okay, guys.”

 

I’m trying to answer your questions, but you’re not letting me answer.

 

Sam Bamford: You can’t even define an Australian, bro. What is an Australian? What is an Australian?

 

Joanna Howe: You’re changing, …

 

James Howe: Okay—no, shut up! You need to define what an Australian is.

 

Sam Bamford: How many times have I done it? I’ve done it four times now! An Australian is an Anglo‑Celtic, European and/or indigenous‑descent person. That’s what I think—demographically, …

 

James Howe: So, a white person! So then you say—

 

Sam Bamford: I literally said European. “European” covers, like, Italy, Greek—the majority of Europe—because a lot of people migrated from Europe.

 

James Howe: Okay.

 

Sam Bamford: And then indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians are brown!

 

James Howe: Okay. White people and indigenous Australians.

 

Sam Bamford: Indigenous Australians are brown! *

 

[* Unless there are freebies being handed out, then they can be blue-eyed Whites, with hundreds of thousands popping up!]

 

James Howe: Okay. So if someone comes—she’s been here for 20 years— If someone comes over from Europe 20 years ago and speaks with a broad Australian accent, then they just—purely because of their race—they’re an Australian, in your view. So, you asked me:

 

“Do I think that’s Nazi?”

 

Well, it’s not Nazi because you’re not talking about gassing jews* or whatever.

 

But it’s like a racist ideology!

 

[* As revisionists have conclusively proven there was zero gassing of jews by the Germans. It’s diabolical black “racist” propaganda against Germans and Whites in general. See the many links to this issue below.]

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, I’m happy to be called “racist” then.

 

James Howe: I’m not calling you racist—it’s the definition of the word!

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, well, I am happy to have a racist ideology then. That’s fine.

 

James Howe: Fine. It’s up to you. I don’t really care. But if you’re asking my opinion, that’s my opinion.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, so what is an Australian?

 

James Howe: I already explained. I don’t, …

 

Sam Bamford: Can’t answer it!

 

James Howe: No—don’t do this podcasty thing. It’s annoying!

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: What is an Australian?

 

Joanna Howe: In my view, an Australian is someone who comes here—because everybody came here. Right?

 

Sam Bamford: Yep.

 

Sam Bamford: So—even the Brits that came here—they’re ethnically British. Like, your parents are ethnically British, right? Like—you talking about “ethnically Australian” — I’m not sure that there is such a concept, Scot.

 

Sam Bamford: Sam.

 

Joanna Howe: Sorry, Sam. [chuckling] I think I’m talking to Scot.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, yeah.

 

Joanna Howe: But I think that—because I’ve had a lot of these arguments with him, too.

 

But I think one of the issues is—like, and this might be why James is positing that this is a racist position for you to take—is because you’re happy to include all the people—like, you’ve got indigenous Australians in there—but it doesn’t actually make sense with your— If your definition is “the people that build the institutions that make the country what it is” —that wasn’t indigenous Australians. That was, …

 

Sam Bamford: Oh, no, no, no—it wasn’t. But we sort of took the land off them.

 

Joanna Howe: So I feel—yeah—so I feel like you’re including them in because you sort of feel like you have to.

 

But at the end of the day, your position says that if you have brown skin like me—because you came from India—it doesn’t matter that you’ve never been to India, you never lived there. It doesn’t matter that, …

 

Sam Bamford: Are you proud of your Indian heritage?

 

Joanna Howe: Well, I’ll be honest, Sam—I don’t even really know anything about it. Like, I don’t! The curries [chuckling] that I’ve learnt to cook have been from a cookbook. Right? And I’m a Catholic, a Christian, so it just feels to me that what your definition comes down to is essentially—it’s people with White skin, because, …

 

Sam Bamford: Indigenous people don’t have white skin!

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, but I feel like you’re including them.

 

James Howe: Why would you include Indigenous people? It just makes no sense. Because they happen to be on the land.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, we had the land—sorry, they had the land. We took it off them and we built all the shit! And now they use all the shit that we built. I think they’re Australian.

 

[45:35]

 

 

James Howe: We [shouting] built all the shit! And she uses the shit that we built! But you don’t call her Australian!

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, but she came here in the ’90s, …

 

James Howe: That’s just arbitrary! Making an arbitrary rule, …

 

Sam Bamford: With her family from India. Originated from India. I know they came from Britain or from England, but they originated from India. We are denying basic origin and biology here for saying someone isn’t what they are! Like, we are literally being like:

 

“That person didn’t originate from India. That person didn’t originate from Japan. That person didn’t originate, …”

 

James Howe: But you said Europeans count. So if a person did originate from Germany, then they’re just as Australian as a guy who came from England, even though it was British people who founded this country!

 

Sam Bamford: But where did they originate?

 

James Howe: You’re denying basic biology, too!

 

Sam Bamford: Where did they originate from?

 

James Howe: They originated from Germany, bro! It’s a different country. It’s literally not even the same island.

 

Sam Bamford: No, no.

 

James Howe: Britain over here, island, Germany over here. Mainland!

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, yeah.

 

James Howe: Not the same country.

 

Sam Bamford: Anglo‑Celtic people actually started in Europe. You know that.

 

James Howe: Look, dude, we all started in Africa*, mate!

 

[* So the implied argument is that we are all the same, that racial differences are only superficial, etc., and therefore it doesn’t really matter who we bring into Australia as they can all become “Australian”. How would that work if Australia imported millions of pygmies from the Congo? Would they eventually act and behave as White Aussies now? It’s a ridiculous argument.]

 

Sam Bamford: I know. We all walked up, didn’t we?

 

James Howe: Yeah, we walked up and we, like, bred with fucking Neanderthals! You know what I mean? Literal fact—that happened. We had sex with Neanderthals. And so we all have a bit of that in us. So, but—like—

 

Sam Bamford: So this is—sorry, sorry— to jump in.

 

So this is my thing, right. And this is one of my arguments. I heard you say the other day, and I liked it. And I really thought about it:

 

“We’re all equal in the eyes of God.”

 

And I was like:

 

“I think he has a point.”

 

But from my point of view—let’s say Sudanese kids—they equate for maybe, what, 90% of machete crime? But they’re under 1% of the population. I would not want to live around a street full of Sudanese people, given the data.

 

James Howe: Yeah.

 

Joanna Howe: No shit! [chuckling]

 

James Howe: We are all on the same page.

 

Sam Bamford: So, like, for me, I’m not going to be like, … But with something coming out and saying:

 

“We’re all equal in the eyes of God.”

 

Well, I don’t know that all cultures are equal in this, …

 

James Howe: I couldn’t agree more.

 

Sam Bamford: In the same way.

 

James Howe: We’re all on the same page bro.

 

Sam Bamford: So how do we, …

 

James Howe: There’s a lot of White fuckwits as well!

 

Sam Bamford: 100%

 

James Howe: I would totally deport someone dickhead with pink hair and a septum piercing from Gertrude Street over a good Christian, nice person.

 

Sam Bamford: Where are you going to deport them to?

 

James Howe: Back to fucking England where they came from, mate!

 

Sam Bamford: Back to England.

 

James Howe: Because that’s the thing—you say:

 

“Oh, I’m ethnically Australian.”

 

No, bro, you’re ethnically British! Okay?

 

[James is showing an underlying animosity towards Whites here, i.e., a self-hating programming by mass media.]

 

Sam Bamford: No, no, no, no! I’m ethnically Australian because we formed the government in 1901.

 

James Howe: Okay, sure. So, but then, once again, you said that people who are ethnically Australian—then you wouldn’t give them that— But you would say people who are ethnically Japanese are fully Japanese, …

 

Sam Bamford: So you’re saying anyone now can be deported back to England?

 

Joanna Howe: No, no!

 

James Howe: If you gave me two people to deport, I would probably pick that one.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

James Howe: So—

 

Joanna Howe: But I think there’s some fundamentals that we all agree on. Immigration system’s out of control! We should deport the, …

 

Sam Bamford: This is why we’re having this argument in the first place.

 

Joanna Howe: We should deport the criminals. Right? Like, anyone that’s breaking the law who’s a permanent visa holder and does have dual citizenship—send them home!

 

But then I think—I guess my issue, Sam—is the argument that you and Scott Challen are prosecuting. To me, it’s really, like, it is problematic. And I want to work with you because I like you and I feel like there’s so much that we can agree on, but I do think this is going down the wrong path because James can’t properly define yet what is Australian. But I think what he can do is say that your definition excludes someone like me from being Australian.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, so if we, …

 

Joanna Howe: Should we talk about that? I’m not Australian in your eyes anymore?

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, but if we, yeah, you’re an Australian citizen.

 

So, if we move away from demographically what we are, do you think that moves into insecurity in Australia? Insecurity in our future?

 

Joanna Howe: Well, I think one of the problems we’ve had is that we’ve introduced immigrants at such a great scale that it’s been incredibly disruptive. There’s been no obligation to assimilate or integrate. No English‑language requirement. So there are so many, …

 

Sam Bamford: And why is that? Because we were the overwhelming majority in our own country. That’s why!

 

Joanna Howe: If you look at, …

 

Sam Bamford: So if we are the overwhelming majority in our own country when you came in, that’s fine. Integrated—fine. Now we’ve been slipping away from being the overwhelming majority in our own country. And I mean by overwhelming majority Anglo‑Celtic and—can I just say “Australian” when I, …

 

James Howe: Just say “White,” bro!

 

Sam Bamford: No! Anglo‑Celtic and or European, …

 

James Howe: Where the fuck are White people in the world? England, …

 

Sam Bamford: Stop trying to lure me in to be like:

 

“Can you just say White!”

 

Like, every single time, dude! Every single time! Anglo‑Celtic and or European Australians, indigenous Australians. How many times!

 

James Howe: You get annoyed at me for calling you on making euphemisms like the Left does. Just use the words, bro. I know you mean White. Okay?

 

Sam Bamford: Anglo‑Celtic and or Europe, … Anglo‑Celtic, … Anglo‑Celtic, … Angelo‑Celtic, … Anglo‑Celtic, … Anglo‑Celtic and or European, …

 

Thank you for letting me finish. Anglo, … I don’t even know where we’re at! Anglo‑Celtic and or European Australians. When we don’t become the overwhelming majority in our own country, then how are people meant to integrate? Because right now they’re just coming in. Anthony Albanese came out this morning, he’s like:

 

“I just want to say thanks to the Indian community for helping build modern Australia.”

 

Why isn’t he saying, “I just want to thank the Australian community”? Why is he referring to them as the Indian community?

 

Joanna Howe: Look, both of us, …

 

Sam Bamford: Because they originated from India?

 

Joanna Howe: Both of us don’t like Albo, so I don’t think we need— I would ask you—the Irish that came in the Global Financial Crisis. So in the mid‑ to late‑2000s, we had an influx of Irish people because their economy was tanking and they wanted to come here. They came as backpackers and then they switched to 457 visa holders. Then they became permanent residents.

 

So the same thing that Indians are doing now, the Irish were doing in huge numbers in the mid‑2000s. Should we send them home?

 

Sam Bamford: When were they coming?

 

Joanna Howe: Global Financial Crisis—between 2008–2016. We had a lot of White people from Ireland coming.

 

Sam Bamford: No, no, no, no, no! Well, what I’m saying—and what I’ve always been saying, true to my word—is these people aren’t assimilating. And we were the overwhelming majority in our own country. I think back then, in 2016, Anglo‑Celtic and/or European Australians were 76% of Australians.

 

Joanna Howe: What’s the policy prescription here, Sam? Is it, …

 

Sam Bamford: I don’t have a policy prescription*—why do I need a policy prescription?

 

[The policy prescription is to return to the original White Australia Policy and re-establish Australia as a super majority White country. Place the multi-culti, multi-racial destructive policy in the trash, where it should have always remained.]

 

Joanna Howe: Well, because I think language— I think that what you’re doing is really— It really concerns me as someone with brown skin.

 

Sam Bamford: I’m moving on and off this argument. After I’m having you on today, I’m literally moving on from it.

 

James Howe: You’re not going to be able to though!

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, well, that’s fine. People can say what they’ve been saying for years now, about it.

 

James Howe: I don’t think you realise just how big a thing this is.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay.

 

James Howe: I don’t think it is something that you can move on from. I

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah! Because I think it’s a mess.

 

Sam Bamford: Oh, no! Oh no! I can move on. You can say that an Australian is this, and I can define that. And I can say:

 

“These people are great Australian citizens.”

 

James Howe: You can’t define what an Australian is!

 

Sam Bamford: Dude, you can’t define what it is! I’ve literally—I don’t know how many times you have come out and said, …

 

James Howe: But you can’t even acknowledge that you can’t!

 

Joanna Howe: Your definition doesn’t work!

 

James Howe: Okay, let me ask you some questions.

 

Sam Bamford: You can’t tell me my definition doesn’t work. I just defined it—it is defining something.

 

James Howe: Let’s see if you can.

 

Sam Bamford: I’ve just defined it.

 

James Howe: Let’s see if you can.

 

Sam Bamford: Let’s see if you can! You first. What’s an Australian? What’s an Australian? What’s an Australian?

 

James Howe: I don’t know!

 

Sam Bamford: There you go! So don’t come at me!

 

James Howe: He won’t let me answer my, …

 

Sam Bamford: Don’t come at me!

 

James Howe: He thinks he knows what an Australian is.

 

Joanna Howe: Let, …

 

Sam Bamford: I just told you what an Australian is, dude!

 

James Howe: No, I’m asking—

 

Sam Bamford: This is getting ridiculous!

 

James Howe: He won’t let me ask him questions!

 

Sam Bamford: This is getting ridiculous!

 

James Howe: You won’t let me test your thesis!

 

Joanna Howe: Can we please, …

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah go, test my thesis!

 

James Howe: Okay—but you’re going to shut up and let me actually ask the question?

 

Sam Bamford: Pot calling the kettle black, mate!

 

Joanna Howe: All right, let James, ask some questions.

 

Sam Bamford: No. Well—no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no! If you’re going to sit here and sit there and insult me in my own fucking house, mate! This is getting bullshit! Actual bullshit! You can’t just sit there and have a crack at me and tell me my thesis is bullshit, when you can’t even define it yourself, mate! You can’t even sit here and define an Australian! Yeah—well, this is ridiculous! Get out of my fucking house then, mate!

 

Joanna Howe: Come down!

 

Sam Bamford: You think this is ridiculous?

 

Joanna Howe: Hey! Hey! Hey!

 

Sam Bamford: You want to sit there and have a crack at me in, …

 

James Howe: Your:

 

“This is ridiculous!”

 

Is it? Okay, what’s an Australian?

 

Joanna Howe: Let’s ask him.

 

James Howe: You are making fun of me for not being able to define what an Australian is!

 

Sam Bamford: Because you keep going, …

 

James Howe: Because you’re too scared for me to even ask you a question!

 

Sam Bamford: Just ask it then! Ask it then!

 

James Howe: But you won’t shut up, so I can’t.

 

Sam Bamford: Go!

 

Joanna Howe: Ask the question!

 

James Howe: You’re being ridiculous!

 

Sam Bamford: You’re being ridiculous!

 

Joanna Howe: Shut up! Stop calling each other names! Oh my goodness!

 

Sam Bamford: You are being ridiculous!

 

Joanna Howe: I should [chuckling] be sitting in the middle. Ask him some fucking questions! He will answer them!

 

James Howe: All right.

 

Joanna Howe: Deep breaths.

 

James Howe: A German person who arrived 20 years ago and has Australian citizenship. Are they Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: They are from Germany?

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay.

 

James Howe: Yes or no?

 

Sam Bamford: What?

 

James Howe: Are they Australian?

 

Joanna Howe: Have they come from Germany?

 

James Howe: Yeah, they’re from Germany.

 

Sam Bamford: Yes. Anglo‑Celtic and or Europeans. Have they assimilated into our society?

 

James Howe: Yes.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah—well, then I’ll probably class them as a German‑Australian.

 

James Howe: Are they Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: German‑Australian.

 

James Howe: Is she, what’s she?

 

Sam Bamford: Indian‑Australian! Okay, she’s of Indian descent with Australian citizenship.

 

James Howe: Right—so they’re the same amount Australian. Fine.

 

Okay, so an English person who arrived 30 years ago, …

 

Sam Bamford: I can’t believe, … Like debating basic biology here.

 

James Howe: It’s not biology. It’s your definition of what an Australian is! Because you were just mocking me for not knowing. And I’m testing if you know. So let’s go.

 

All right—a British person who arrived 30 years ago and has fully assimilated—has an Australian accent. What are they?

 

Sam Bamford: British‑Australian.

 

[55:07]

 

 

James Howe: They’re not Australian.

 

Sam Bamford: Sorry?

 

James Howe: They’re not “full‑blown Australian.” Are they as Australian as you?

 

Sam Bamford: Well—no, because I was born here.

 

James Howe: So you have to be born here to be Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: No, no, no—I didn’t say that.

 

James Howe: Okay—so what is it? At which point do you become an Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: Well, let’s say your kids, right? Your kids are half Indian, half Australian. That guy that came over—explain him again.

 

James Howe: Say—like—someone from 30 years ago arrived in the country from England. Are they Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: I would probably say that is an English‑Australian. And their kids would be Australian.

 

James Howe: Okay—what if they came over when they were two? They’re 50 years old, they speak with a broad Aussie accent, they work on a cattle station. Are they Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: From where?

 

Joanna Howe: England.

 

Sam Bamford: Well, he was probably born in England.

 

James Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: English‑Australian.

 

James Howe: So he’s not—so that’s what it is, just birth?

 

Sam Bamford: No, no—it’s not birth. It’s also origin.

 

James Howe: Okay, sure. So—all right—what about if she was born in Australia? Would she be Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: No, because she is from India!

 

Joanna Howe: What about my kids?

 

Sam Bamford: Your kids are Indian-Australian. What was our government built off? What was our government built off?

 

Joanna Howe: The Westminster tradition.

 

Sam Bamford: British law.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: European law. Is India European? No.

 

James Howe: Okay—so what are my kids then? What are they?

 

Sam Bamford: They are half Indian, half Australian!

 

James Howe: So, half Indian, half Australian, Australian.

 

Sam Bamford: Half Indian, half Australian!

 

James Howe: Are they Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: They are Australian kids born here, but they are of half‑Indian descent; half‑Australian descent. How are you not getting this?

 

Joanna Howe: Because, …

 

James Howe: Because we’re just asking about what it is an Australian!

 

Sam Bamford: Like, honestly, honestly. When we have to use, …

 

James Howe: Everyone has their own category.

 

Sam Bamford: When we sit there, …

 

James Howe: Instead of just one category, now we’ve got a million!

 

Sam Bamford: When we sit there, …

 

James Howe: I don’t think your system’s any better than mine.

 

Sam Bamford: Ha?

 

James Howe: I don’t think your system’s any better than mine. You mocked me for not knowing what an Australian is. But it’s like, …

 

Sam Bamford: You would, … You literally came out and said:

 

“If there are 30 million Arabs, and they all just came here and adopted our way of life, then they’re just Australian.”

 

James Howe: No—if they adopted our way of life. I don’t think it’s likely that they would adopt our way.

 

Sam Bamford: And they had Sharia law!

 

James Howe: But I’m just going with your hypothesis.

 

Joanna Howe: No, because Sharia law is incompatible!

 

Sam Bamford: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no! Australia is free from religious law. But you can practise your religious law! That’s in our, …

 

Joanna Howe: We’re built on Christian traditions. We acknowledged that at the start.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, I know, but that’s called freedom! If someone wants to come here and just practise their, … They do it all the time. Are you saying that we need to deport all Muslims?

 

James Howe: I don’t think that Islam is compatible with Australian values! I think it’s a fucking up religion! I think it’s barbaric and primitive and wicked. But we’re not talking about that—we’re talking about race!

 

Joanna Howe: And I think the thing is—can I say something now about this? So, I feel like—

 

So, first of all, Sam, I feel like this is— I feel like for the first time, people on our side of politics have an opportunity to take on the Left. And I feel—and I feel—like we’re winning. And—no, please, just let me finish for a second.

 

You boys have talked a lot. But I feel like we could do this—like, we could actually defeat them—and we need to! I work in a university system that is controlled by Leftists. The media is controlled by Leftists; the government’s controlled by Leftists. This is the first time in my lifetime that we’ve had this opportunity. And I feel like if we go down this path that you and Scotty are potentially trying to take us down—saying we need to be like the Japanese—when the Japanese are racist! *

 

I feel like that’s a dangerous path. Like, I don’t want, … My kids aren’t Indian, …

 

[* The Japanese are racist because being “racist” is the commonsense and healthy attitude that you look after your own kind first. Every organism on earth does this naturally, except (((brainwashed))) Whites.]

 

Sam Bamford: We’ve never said that, though.

 

Joanna Howe: My kids aren’t Indian‑Australian.

 

James Howe: Scott says that!

 

Joanna Howe: Yes—Scott said it to me in my interview.

 

Sam Bamford: Like what?

 

Joanna Howe: Like:

 

“The Japanese is a beautiful thing.”

 

Yeah—he said that.

 

James Howe: That we should do what the Japanese do.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, but—like—do you guys disagree that Australians should be the overwhelming majority in their own country? And then, by definition—not using—because you don’t want to do it, but by my definition?

 

James Howe: No. Look, bro—can I just say something? I understand your instinct. Just let me finish on this.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, I’m over the yelling.

 

James Howe: Okay, sweet—me too. I understand your instinct, okay? Sometimes I feel also fond of White people and—whatever you want to call it, …

 

Sam Bamford: Anglo culture.

 

James Howe: Yep, fine. And I don’t necessarily like seeing my own race disappear either.*

 

[* The (((agenda))) is to “disappear” the White race, yet he is really not concerned about this? He is acting as a race traitor unwittingly.]

 

But can I just make a point here? I don’t think that that part of me is the best part of me. Now—I don’t want to be a fucking Leftist, okay, and be like:

 

“Well, everybody’s an Australian.”

 

That’s not the answer either, okay?

 

But I don’t think that racist part* of myself is my best part, okay?

 

[* The (((brainwashing))) has created a contradiction here, He would be all for defending his “multiracial” family to the end, but doesn’t want to defend his actual racial heritage of being White. He’s been guilt tripped into hating being White by anti-Whites.]

 

It’s a little bit like—I have temptations to all sorts of bad ways of thinking and behaving—what I believe at heart. Now, the reason why we have a great country is not because of Whiteness or Anglo‑Celticness or Europeanness or anything like that.

 

The reason why we have a great country is because of Christianity! Christianity! It just is, okay? You won’t see freedom having arisen anywhere else in the world except for in the West, okay? European countries—you’re right—White countries—were Christian, okay? And they created the best legal system in the world, the greatest freedoms for people, the greatest conditions to live, the most prosperous, richest, scientifically advanced countries, okay? But not because they’re White—because they’re Christian! *

 

[* This is nonsense! Africans can become Christian and they won’t create Western civilisation in ten thousand years.]

 

Now, if we turn our back on those fundamental Christian ideas of all men being created equal* in the image and likeness of God, we don’t end up with what we had.

 

[* All men are not created “equal”. In every aspect of being human we all have different abilities as individuals and as races. Are Pygmies as good as Zulus in the high jump? This is just the physical realm, but it applies to all other realms as well.]

 

We end up with something more similar to the rest of the barbaric world, okay? The barbaric non‑Christian world: Genital mutilation, human sacrifice, cousin marriage, …

 

Joanna Howe: Widow burning, …

 

James Howe: Honour killings, slavery. This disgusting shit! All of these things that we have gradually taken out of our culture over many, many, many thousands of years. These things existed in Ireland, too. It’s not just isolated to the brown world or black world either. You know, we have transcended that because of Christianity! But the fundamental idea of Christianity is that all human beings are equally created in the image and likeness of God! You can’t turn your back on that and still hope to get back to what we had here in Australia. You end up in a dark place. That’s my fundamental problem with it.*

 

[* His fundamental problem is his religious beliefs have blinded him to hard racial differences that science observes. Christianity can be interpreted every which way to Sunday and he is promoting the “hate your own people” kind.]

 

[1:01:34]

 

 

Sam Bamford: So—but this is my counter-argument to it. Like, sometimes that gets weaponised against you literally just said again, like:

 

“We’re all equal in the eyes of God.”

 

But you wouldn’t want to live around a street of Sudanese people because they’re so, …

 

Joanna Howe: Of course not! Like—not everybody has a right—like, borders matter.

 

Sam Bamford: So—yeah. So the right to be here—what’s—

 

James Howe: But I wouldn’t like to live near a work fuckwit, who is White and is sending her death threats either—

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah—because I get that a lot of the time—and that’s—

 

Sam Bamford: I get the same thing—yeah. I get the exact same thing. And I don’t want to live around these people as well.

 

Joanna Howe: But see—I think between 1901 and 1975, Whiteness was like a proxy for Christianity, because the people that were coming from White parts of the world were Christian people—because those countries were Christian. They brought those ethics and morality—that system of morals—here. We built our value system on that.

 

Now, if you were to just say:

 

“Let’s open the world up to the White people, like to the Europeans.”

 

Like you saw at the opening ceremony of the Olympics—we’re gonna get total Leftists if we make it like a White thing again. This is more about values—like Muslims are incompatible with the Australian way of life because they believe that men and women aren’t equal. They believe in Sharia law.

 

Sam Bamford: Do you think we should deport them all then?

 

Joanna Howe: I think that what happens when someone’s a citizen it’s harder to get rid of them, right?

 

Sam Bamford: But do you think we should deport all Muslims?

 

Joanna Howe: But I don’t think we should be having—

 

Sam Bamford: In the perfect world, do you think we should deport them?

 

Joanna Howe: Because it’s incompatible—now, if they’re a bad Muslim but a good person—like a good Aussie—because they don’t actually subscribe to the teachings of Islam— And remember, Muhammad was a paedophile!

 

So if they don’t subscribe to that—so they’re a bad Muslim—then we probably could keep them because they’re not really Muslim after all. Right?

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, but where do you draw the line?

 

Joanna Howe: I think, at the end of the day, one thing we could do straight away is to say we’re not going to have immigration from Islam—like, people that are Islamic. We’ll have a values‑based test. There should be an English‑language test. You should have to speak English if you live in this country.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah—100%. I think we all agree on that. But what about, …

 

Joanna Howe: I think the point is—like—we can’t go back to the White Australia Policy, because, I know that’s not what you’re saying, Sam—sorry, please listen.

 

Sam Bamford: Like —no, no—I’m not saying to debate a White Australia Policy. I’m not saying that! I’m not saying the White Australia Policy, …

 

James Howe: You get so mad when people say:

 

“Oh, they’re misrepresenting me!”

 

But it’s like, what do you expect us to take? Like, what do you expect to take from it? Like, you say, “In order to be an Australian, you have to be White.” Now you use the word “Anglo-Celtic”.

 

Once again, you get so offended by that—

 

Sam Bamford: No, because I haven’t said that!

 

James Howe: Yes you have!

 

Sam Bamford: You’re putting words in my mouth. Anglo‑Celtic and/or European descent with indigenous brothers and sisters!

 

James Howe: White! It’s euphemism, bro!

 

Sam Bamford: Oh dude, don’t, …

 

James Howe: I never respected the Left’s euphemisms either!

 

Sam Bamford: Don’t worry about it bro! Don’t fucking worry!

 

Joanna Howe: How com we are back here again!

 

Sam Bamford: You can’t even define it! You can’t even define it, bro!

 

James Howe: Neither can you!

 

Sam Bamford: I just did—30 fucking times mate! 30 times! What’s the point? No, no, no, no! You’re trying to just sit here and get me to admit a word of being “White”! It’s like, …

 

Joanna Howe: No, Sam—are you, …

 

Sam Bamford: No, you are, … You come in here—you come in here with a fucking plan!

 

Joanna Howe: No, no, no, no, no!

 

Sam Bamford: And to try and set me up!

 

Joanna Howe: No!

 

Sam Bamford: You have! You fucking have!

 

James Howe: Okay—if that’s what you think—

 

Sam Bamford: I fucking think that, mate! That’s 100% what I think!

 

Joanna Howe: Sam!

 

And I think you can’t define shit! Just like you couldn’t even define what a woman is! If you can’t define something—you can’t defend it!

 

James Howe: You think I can’t define what a woman is?

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah! Go tell me!

 

“XXY chromosome. Adult human female.”

 

James Howe: Adult human female!

 

Sam Bamford: Well done!

 

James Howe: Silly sausage. Why are you being so aggressive?

 

Sam Bamford: What is an Australian! What is an Australian?

 

[1:05:05]

 

 

Joanna Howe: Could we agree? Could we agree? No! No. Hey! Let’s try and work, … Can we try and work this out now? Can we try and work this out? Okay—shut up, you two! Okay, so, Sam, …

 

Sam Bamford: Yes.

 

Joanna Howe: Let’s just answer this: Am I an Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: No! You are an Australian citizen!

 

Joanna Howe: I think that this is a problem—that you’re creating a demarcation between—

 

Sam Bamford: It’s not!

 

Joanna Howe: It is!

 

James Howe: Just have the moral courage to just admit it, bro! Like, what you’re talking about is racial discrimination.

 

Sam Bamford: No, it’s not!

 

James Howe: Yes it is! Like, your definition of an Australian is broken down on skin colour. All right— Is Denzel Washington an American?

 

Sam Bamford: Huh?

 

James Howe: Is Denzel Washington an American?

 

Sam Bamford: He’s an African‑American. I’m pretty sure he calls himself an African‑American, bro.

 

James Howe: So is he an American?

 

Okay—if you had only a yes or no answer—you’re only allowed to say “yes” or “no” and I asked you the question, is DenzelWashington, …

 

Sam Bamford: No, no, no, no! You can’t just throw that onto me. You can’t.

 

James Howe: Yes, you can—because you keep on throwing things onto me and saying:

 

“What’s an Australian? What’s an Australian?”

 

Sam Bamford: There’s no point going, … We’re just going to keep going around in circles. If you can’t define it, I can’t defend it!

 

James Howe: I reject that! But anyway, I don’t think you can—

 

Sam Bamford: You didn’t even define it.

 

James Howe: Neither did you.

 

Joanna Howe: It seems like there’s a hierarchy here.

 

Sam Bamford: Can we just get some common ground here? Do we want Australians to be the overwhelming majority in their own country? And when you came in here, you found it easier to assimilate— If there were so many people in here that were just of different demographics—from the age of, let’s say, from 2016 to now—they are struggling to integrate into our society because they are coming in their groups.

 

James Howe: No, I agree. So I agree on all of that. The problem is we keep on crossing lines because we’re not allowed to use words like “race”.

 

Sam Bamford: Because if you can’t define something, you can’t defend it.

 

Now, I have defined an Australian multiple times on this podcast.

 

James Howe: You’ve done a shitty job on it!

 

Joanna Howe: If you’ve got like, …

 

Sam Bamford: Cool! That’s your opinion!

 

James Howe: You haven’t provided a clear definition of what and Australian is!

 

Sam Bamford: That is your opinion! I have written this so many times on the internet, and I’ve said it so many times here. And, like if, …

 

James Howe: Yeah, but your definition doesn’t make sense! * It is low resolution!

 

[Sam has defined it multiple times as people of “Anglo‑Celtic and or European descent” and as a special category “indigenous (aka, abos) peoples”. Now this can only mean “Whites” and abos, as James understands it, but for his own reasons Sam doesn’t want to say “Whites”!]

 

Sam Bamford: No, but it does to me! It makes sense to me. I don’t have to tell you any further than my definition. I’ve told you that, bro, so many times!

 

And it’s like you’re just trying to lure me, …

 

James Howe: One more time, …

 

Sam Bamford: No, no, no!

 

Joanna Howe: If there’s 200 people, …

 

Sam Bamford: No. Like, what’s the point in going forward? That is my clear definition. And I am moving on from it after this. It’s fine—I can move on from it. People clip it up everywhere and I’ll just do what I normally do. I’ll sit there this afternoon and I’ll talk about how Phil Thompson—one of my good mates is in the army. They’re getting all the veteran budget ripped away from us and giving it all to immigrants. I’ll go back to talking about that!

 

And then this issue will just move on. Like, I’m done with this issue after today. I came out and said something a couple of weeks ago. We’ve debated it. It’s had good debate. And okay, now we’re just gonna go back to attacking the Left. That’s what I’m gonna do. And you’re gonna sit there saying, “It’s gonna stay with me.” All right. I don’t care!

 

Joanna Howe: I actually think that there is a moral imperative on us to find the areas of agreement and to also try and find the truth, right? Like, I don’t think any of us could be so arrogant as to say that we are the 100% holders of all the truth on this.

 

Sam Bamford: Of course not. Everyone is wrong all the time.

 

Joanna Howe: I think the problem I have with your position is that it allows anyone who’s come from Europe or Britain or who is indigenous to get the full word “Australian.” Like, on their Instagram bio, they can write, “I am Australian,” but someone like me—I write, “I am Indian‑Australian.” Or my five children that were born here “we are Indian‑Australian.” You know—I feel like this is carving things out.

 

Sam Bamford: That’s basically what I’m saying.

 

Joanna Howe: I know that’s what you’re saying, and, …

 

Sam Bamford: I’m not going to change that!

 

Joanna Howe: And I think it creates a hierarchy and it also, …

 

Sam Bamford: I don’t think it creates a hierarchy.

 

Joanna Howe: Well, it does!

 

Sam Bamford: How does it create a hierarchy*?

 

[* It identifies two types of “Australians”, the Anglo-Celtic/White type and the hyphenated “Australian”. A “hierarchy” implies a higher and lower ranking which for those on the lower ranking could be disagreeable, but reality is full of hierarchies, just like humans are not all equal in abilities, etc.]

 

Joanna Howe: Like, as a little girl growing up—and I have to turn around to my daughter and say:

 

“Look, you were born here. This is the only country you’ve ever known. You’ve never been to India. You’ve never been to any other country. You only ever speak English with an Australian accent. And if you go to the Olympics—which my older little daughter, that’s her dream—you are representing Australia. But actually, when it comes down to it, your mum has brown skin and was born in India, so you are an Indian‑Australian*.”

 

[* And what is wrong with that? The reality is the girl is half White and half Indian. A simple racial fact, along with all its implications. Joanna wants to have her curry and eat it too!]

 

Sam Bamford: Are you not proud of that?

 

Joanna Howe: I have no national pride in India! *

 

[* I could imagine some Indians calling Joanna a “self-hating Indian”, whilst James has aspects of being a “self-hating White”! Maybe that’s why they are a pair?]

 

James Howe: I wouldn’t be proud of that at all! If our kids started calling themselves Indian‑Australians, I swear they’d be grounded!

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah!

 

James Howe: That’s bullshit! Because they’re not, …

 

Sam Bamford: So they’ve originated from there.

 

Joanna Howe: It’s like, I think that’s—

 

James Howe: They’ve originated from here, mate! Like, this is where they were born! *

 

[* That old saying, “Being born in a stable doesn’t necessarily make you a horse”.]

 

Sam Bamford: But their mum originated from there. Her parents are Indian.

 

James Howe: Her mum was born in England!

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. Dude, we’re just going to keep going around in circles like this because I’m gonna have my opinions and you’re gonna have your opinion.

 

Joanna Howe: Sam!

 

Sam Bamford: At the end of the day, that’s all we’re gonna have. Dude, I’m not changing that.

 

James Howe: But I don’t mind you challenging my opinions. Why do you get so tense when I challenge yours? Like, I’m just trying to debate this. You don’t have to get so, like angry about it

 

Joanna Howe: Because we like you Sam. I think there are things we can usefully do together as well, Sam.

 

[1:10:05]

 

 

Sam Bamford: Like, of course there is. But I’m gonna have my opinions and you’re going to have yours.

 

Joanna Howe: But—okay, well, let me tell you—

 

Sam Bamford: And that’s where we’re going to sit.

 

James Howe: Sometimes you change those opinions—like, you might change my opinion on something. Like, you would totally be successful in that, I imagine, in many fields. Okay? And I would like to think that you could be open to having your opinion challenged on something, too—because isn’t that how we grow and move forward as people?

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, it has been. And after this conversation, my opinion still is that Joanna is a great Australian citizen, but she’s not what I define as an ethnic Australian.

 

James Howe: Okay, fine, sure! But I think it’s an incoherent position.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, cool. Yeah, I respect your position to have that position on my position.

 

James Howe: Okay, sweet.

 

Joanna Howe: And so when we say—like, I know you’re not Scotty—but he’s put up recently:

 

“Millions must go—deport them!”

 

Sam Bamford: Oh, yeah!

 

Joanna Howe: Who are you guys talking about?

 

Sam Bamford: So—anyone that hasn’t assimilated into our, … So I challenged you, Jullian Hill, to a debate the other day, and I said that anyone that hasn’t assimilated into our society.

 

So, people that haven’t assimilated into our society would be a whole bunch of Indians living in one house together, right? Sometimes there are 20 of them living in one house. It’s literally happening around the street of mine—I drive past every single day. Islamic extremists don’t assimilate into our society. Postcode machete wars—kids running around with machetes—that’s not assimilating to our society. And there’s probably a whole bunch of other—what’s the Iraqi dudes having the wars with the smoking shops over in Melbourne—that’s not assimilating. So we could literally get millions of people out of this country that have not assimilated. If you’re talking about deporting Muslims, there’s 3 million people there. So that means millions, …

 

Joanna Howe: To me that sounds like you’re deporting based on values. But they all happen to be … [chuckling] As in [brown?] like, that’s sort of what it sounds like.

 

Sam Bamford: Well—yes, so that’s, … Then it’s like—yeah!

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, but you’re deporting based on values. I agree, there should be a values test to come into the country.

 

Sam Bamford: So you’re saying that, then, there are different values with White people to brown people.

 

Joanna Howe: No, I’m not—but I’m just saying that I think it’s interesting because, … Okay, so one side of the argument is:

 

“Deport all the people that don’t support our values. They all happen to be brown. Let’s get rid of them.”

 

Sam Bamford: I would deport a whole bunch of people, …

 

Joanna Howe: In terms of bringing people in, …

 

Sam Bamford: If they were bikies—like, they’ve been deported. They can be deported back to New Zealand.

 

Joanna Howe: So then, in terms of bringing people in, where are we pulling from?

 

Sam Bamford: Well, going forward?

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: Back to our Anglo‑Celtic and/or European origins.

 

Joanna Howe: So you’re just bringing in White liberals?

 

Sam Bamford: Europeans.

 

Joanna Howe: Leftists. But, yeah [chuckling] think about France’s opening ceremony. Think about Europe. Like, it’s really messed up!

 

Sam Bamford: Okay. Would you rather deport from, let’s say, the Middle East, where there’s, …

 

Joanna Howe: Well, I’d rather have a Christian from Fiji than—I would like a Leftist from France.

 

Sam Bamford: I would rather just shut the gate on immigration completely and work on our birth rate.

 

James Howe: No, but we’re not going to do that. We’re talking about, if you did., …

 

Sam Bamford: Why not?

 

James Howe: Okay, so you want to have just zero immigration?

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. Yep!

 

James Howe: Okay, fine. So—well—and then we—like—

 

Sam Bamford: And if it—

 

James Howe: So then why are we even having a conversation about who you bring in?

 

Sam Bamford: Exactly right.

 

James Howe: Because you said you would bring people in from Europe. So we can only really refer to what you said.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, but I think, …

 

James Howe: So we’re saying if there were a choice between a Leftist from France, or a Christian from Fiji or whatever.

 

Sam Bamford: If Australians are the overwhelming majority in their country, I would take either.

 

Joanna Howe: But I think what I would define as an Australian, …

 

Sam Bamford: Do you sort of understand what I’m saying? Like, when we’re the overwhelming majority, we can be very picky on who we want to come in this country. We can get the absolute best! And I’ve said before—you know, Ronald, the guy from SBS?

 

Joanna Howe: Yes.

 

Sam Bamford: The perfect immigrant. That has come here, assimilated to our society. And he speaks Australian. He is Australian, but he still originated from India, and he comes here—assimilates perfectly. But I said the fantastic thing about Ronald was he came in under the right circumstances, with Australia, when Australians were the overwhelming majority. The problem is, with people coming in at the moment—we aren’t the overwhelming majority in our own country. We’re being, …

 

Joanna Howe: We don’t even have an expectation that you assimilate. We don’t even have an expectation that you learn the language.

 

Sam Bamford: Exactly right!

 

Joanna Howe: We don’t have an expectation that you move beyond your little ghetto of the people that are from the country that you’re originally from.

 

Sam Bamford: And that’s the problem!

 

Joanna Howe: We can agree with all of that, …

 

Sam Bamford: Because we were the overwhelming majority a long time ago. But we are not that anymore.

 

Joanna Howe: I think we can agree with all of that. I think the point where we depart is when you label me as not really an “Australian” because I’m an Australian citizen, but I’m not Australian like you.

 

Sam Bamford: Correct.

 

Joanna Howe: I’m gonna be honest with you, Sam. As a little girl growing up, like, that’s what my daughter hears. And little girls in the country hear. That’s really fkd! Like, really! That is, I, …

 

Sam Bamford: I’m sorrys But my position ain’t gonna change on that.

 

Joanna Howe: No, but it’s just like, …

 

Sam Bamford: But you’re just denying basically, …

 

Joanna Howe: So I can have the same accent as you. I can contribute more than you fucking do! I can, all of it!

 

Sam Bamford: 100 percent.

 

Joanna Howe: I can have more children than you do! So I’m helping the country grow and you’re not! You’ve got one, I’ve got five. [chuckling]

 

Sam Bamford: I’m hoping to have more.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah. All of that, I can even marry a White guy. But I’m never gonna be “Australian-Australian” like you! I’m always gonna be “Indian‑Australian,” which is something less than “Australian-Australian”.

 

Sam Bamford: It’s not something “less”.*

 

Joanna Howe: Well, what is it then!

 

[* Joanna won’t let the issue go because she is resentful that despite being a model Indian-Australian, a poster-child for assimilation, she’s not accepted as an ethnic Australian. Also what does that imply about Indians who haven’t really assimilated? She’s trying to brow-beat Sam into accepting an untruth to promote her own ethnic group interests.]

 

[1:15:00]

 

 

 

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

 

 

[1:54:23]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Youtube Comments

top

(Comments as of 5/29/2026 = 348)

@SonicBoom12345
5 hours ago
That was unreal guys. Thanks for trying to nut it out. To hear the passion in each other’s voices mean that you are all real and you aren’t paid for bureaucrats.
18

@aussiegypsywarrior
6 hours ago
Just gave 2worldscollide a whole new meaning.
15

@davidcole4229
5 hours ago
I appreciated the way the discourse was allowed to flow and the respect shown to each other even though there was differing perspectives.
Certainly not easy to define what an Australian is definitely.
I found this discussion useful to help me define what an Aussie is in my own mind.
Excellent job guys!
17

@jirvin623
5 hours ago
I absolutely loved listening to the passion you all have. It was intelligent and sincere, from all 3 of you.
I am a Scottish /Australian who came here as a 2 1/2 year old in 1965. I consider myself as being as much of an Australian as the next person. Australian is my home but I am proud of my heritage..
Thanks for having such an open, raw and honest discussion
21

@gpumn1
5 hours ago
Yeah it was a great one. Very passionate.
4

Hide replies

@jasontudehope5518
9 hours ago
You’re right Sam, we Aussies need an identity to protect, defend and fight for.
51

7 replies

@aussiegypsywarrior
8 hours ago
36 minutes in and this is getting awesome. We definitely need more of these types of conversations
11

@BrodieJamesBuchal
7 hours ago
Refreshing to see that on the right side of politics you can get heated without threatening to kill someone.
Take note lefties.
26

@tanztrueblue
5 hours ago
Love this firey debate this is the conversations we all need to hear. Brave of you all!!!!!
7

@aussiegypsywarrior
7 hours ago (edited)
Holy moly. This was brilliant. I can see where both sides are coming from.
9

@DrJoannaHowe
10 hours ago
Thanks Sam for having us on. It was an intense discussion but an important one. For context, it was me (not James) who asked Sam to remove 2 short 5 second clips because of some legal challenges I’m facing in my workplace. Sam graciously agreed, for which I’m grateful. Although James & I and Sam don’t see eye to eye on everything, I hope people can see from this conversation the importance of talking even when we robustly disagree. As Charlie said, when people stop talking that’s when violence begins.
78

@Stankyfrtz
9 hours ago
Scripture has the answer, Deuteronomy says that yes we should take in those vulnerable (immigration) but we should beware of being dependent on transient people as when they outnumber us they will subdue us (mass immigration).
Hopefully this helps with the immigration debate.
8

@suitathletics9074
4 hours ago
You are Australian , but Sams point is there is also founding Australians which are European and Aboriginal. Bu im sick of seeing Aust getting invaded .
8

@BLESSED2XS
9 hours ago
Please don’t let any of this upset Your Marriage, Dr. Jo
6

@domburton
6 hours ago
You’re an aussie to me mate.
6

@jasonwolfe5787
3 hours ago
Poor argument about irish immigration from 2008 to 2016. It was about 15k to 25k net migration from Ireland then compared to 150k to 250k from India
5

@micphoenix8200
2 hours ago
There’s a delicious irony in the fact that our ‘adopted’ sister Joanna is a leading advocate against abortion in Australia and that her tireless advocacy will hopefully result in an uptick in Australians having lots of future Australians.
5

@JessicaWright-t6b
6 hours ago (edited)
There were parts in this discussion where scripture jumps out and both sides should read Ezekial 18 and take it in. NONE of us who are alive today can take one ounce of guilt or one ounce of righteousness from the actions of our forefathers.
If Christians could all wholeheartedly and with unity agree with these teachings clearly spelled out in Ezekial 18 (which we all should if we are being logically coherent) then we could all in one accord say babies are INNOCENT and no baby is deserving of death and we are all created in the womb, of equal value in Gods eyes – then we would be able to rightly and consistently address the issue of abortion and also would give us a clearer/consistent starting place for the immigration discussion.
This is the only consistent basis on which to discuss these topics but the majority of the “Christian” world Catholic and Protestant alike reject Ezekial 18 and cling to doctrines of man invented thousands of years after Christ.
1

@Toastmalone6192
8 hours ago
53:08 that’s so cute

@LD2022-g7t
6 hours ago
Part of the problem with Angelo Celtic is they are slowly turning Muslim and they are no longer examples of great societies… Spain is automatically giving illegal immigrants citizenship. Christian based values under the west minister system is much better definition.
10

@nunoza
10 hours ago (edited)
As a South African, Portuguese, Australian citizen, I want to thank both Sam and Dr Jo for all the work they do. I love freedom of speech, this is a great example.
8

@351SVO
9 hours ago
Joanna, you think and sound like an Aussie, you are an Aussie!
8

@BLESSED2XS
8 hours ago
​ @351SVO If I move to India and earn their Cultural Respect, gain an authentic accent, think like them, talk like them, walk like them, Marry an Indian, and have Children, I am an Australian-Indian and my hypothetical Children would be half-Indian, half-Australian, that DOES NOT make me less than the Indians and DOES NOT make an Indian “racist” for clearly seeing that I am not Indian. Australia is not an NWO experiment, Australia is just as much a Nation as Germany, as Samoa, as Tonga, as all of the other young Nations that got formed in the 1800s & 1900s, no different. We are ethnically Australian and to say that We are no different to British is “racist” to Us just as it is to say that there is no difference between Samoans, Maoris & Hawaiians even though they are all Polynesians, they are DIFFERENT, just like English, Welsh, Scottish & Northern Irish are all British yet they are DIFFERENT, so are Aussies, Kiwis & Canadians, We are of the root race of White/Caucasian but DIFFERENT, just like Indians, Pakis, Nepalese, Sri Lankan & Bengals are all South Asian but DIFFERENT. Respect Heritage Australians!!!
16

@andyrew127
31 minutes ago (edited)
I don’t understand how people can confuse what Sam’s saying? He’s not being racist one bit in the beliefs and comments of his. He’s not saying she’s not Australian. She is an Indian Australian citizen. And an amazing Indian Australian mind you. Probably better than a lot of traditional Australians.
Her husband even started his reply when asked how they met? He said i met this Indian chick?
Isn’t that exactly the opposite of the argument they were fighting? She is an Indian Australian. It was her traditional race from India which naturally defines her skin colour and her families born nationality of their proud culture. So any immigration from different races and cultures are changing our demographical traditional people of these founded lands of our. The traditional Australian race is being outbred by other races and new Australian citizens, originating from other country races. That’s not racist it’s fact.
1

@treewhisperer07
3 hours ago
Can we please start using the word naturalisation instead of assimilation.
3

@deewilson3208
1 hour ago
​ @treewhisperer07 different words with different meanings

@Toastmalone6192
9 hours ago
34:53 you don’t have problem with it, you just don’t want to accept it
1

@Toastmalone6192
9 hours ago
Why doesn’t your husband debate Sam’s alone ?
1

@jacoblowe4247
5 hours ago (edited)
Hi Jo, just adding this to your comment because it’s another comment I posted directed at Sam but thought you might find it interesting because I think it was an angle your husband was trying to explore when Sam kept interrupting his questions
By your own reasoning mate you have to call yourself English Australian and not just Australian because you originated from there. It’s so absurd, your arguments and definition fall apart with even the slightest stress test. What so if someone migrates from India to Germany, then has a child there and then that child grows up and migrates to Australia are they then indian-German-Australian and do they then fit into your classification of being “Anglo-Saxon, European” or whatever? Or would you not want that person to come to Australia because they are somehow not European because their heritage originates elsewhere. Then it becomes just a weird dive back in heritages and if we all go back far enough it’s Africa so I guess I’m an African-English-German-French-natural born Australian.
How about we just say that if you’re a citizen and you love our way of life and culture you’re an Australian and we should drastically reduce immigration so that no matter the colour of your skin or where you come from you can adapt to our way of life, which will of course evolve because we don’t want to live in a bloody stagnate culture. Gosh many other cultures have food culture far superior than ours and we should totally import some of that… Man acts like he hates a curry.
I think the words of Martin Luther King apply that a man should be judged not by the colour of his skin (or where their bloody heritage is from), but upon their character. Being Australian is a matter of character, not heritage. I know plenty of Australians hailing from other countries like South Africa for example who display a level of patriotism for this country that far exceeds that of basically any leftist activist who consistently whine about our Australian heritage and values. Despite many of these activists being however many generation Australians I’d argue they are demonstrably less Australian then our proud Australians who have come from South Africa.
Do South Africans fit in your “Anglo European” categories? What about indigenous South Africans? Be careful how you answer to not make it about the colour of one’s skin hey…
Sorry “bro” but your views
fall apart with even the slightest pressure test.
And like bro how many generations in your mind does one no longer be say Indian Australian and just become Australian? You said Joanna’s kids are half Indian half Australian…. So after 10 generations that’s like 10% Indian and 90% Australian right? So you reckon you can define Australian, so what is a 90% Australian, how are they different than 100% Australian? Are you not 100% Australian because of your British heritage, so like 90% yourself? Genuinely curious…
6

Hide replies

@WinstonRugman
1 hour ago
Am an 85 year old born in England, have been an Australian citizen for 40 years and am proud to be an English Australian.

@davidataturk4357
9 hours ago (edited)
Australian culture is historically majority European/Anglo/Celtic and Aboriginal stock.
It should remain majority that way
But that doesn’t mean mixed blood Aussies who were born in Australia are less Aussie because one of their parents chose to marry outside of euro Anglo aboriginal or Celt.
10

@jacobeldridge5038
5 hours ago
Great job Sam. You’re correct, stick to your guns
7

@Cappuccino-ph7rp
1 hour ago
Fair call. You can’t criticise one person’s answer while being unable to answer the same question.

@HeatherClark-f5b
8 hours ago (edited)
I really admire Sam’s ability to stick to his guns.
12

@HeatherClark-f5b
3 hours ago
I am amazed at the way some people can get very angry with each other but kiss and make up.
2

@fpenman
7 hours ago
Podcast episode of the year
8

@JohnSmith-z4s
7 hours ago
An “ethnic Australian” typically refers to a person of primarily Anglo-Celtic (British and Irish) descent whose family has deep roots in Australia, often tracing back to the colonial period (late 18th century onward). This is distinct from Australian nationality (citizenship) or broader “Australian” identity.
13

@micphoenix8200
6 hours ago

@grannyannie2948
5 hours ago
I differentiate by how you or your ancestors arrived here. Sailing ship, ocean liner, or plane?

@jaydenMRPF
5 hours ago
The issue with that is in said 17-1800s we also had Dutch, German and Chinese all out here carving their own place in the country. SA had a very large amount of free settlers in this time period, a lot of which were German, not English. They also refer to Irish, but there were plenty of Scots too in this time period. Go look at old graves, street names, road names, even town names. There were a few large ethnic groups set up Australia, not just the British.

@JohnSmith-z4s
4 hours ago
​ @jaydenMRPF Germans are extremely close in genetics to the British and the Anglo-Saxons came from northern Germany. Scots are British btw. The Australian ethnicity is unique, forming in the 19th century and is around 50% 󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿English, 28% Irish, 14% Scottish and 5% German in origin. Australia will change drastically unless it only accepts immigrants who are ethnically British, Irish, Dutch, German, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Austrian, Belgian, Swiss or French!
2

@micphoenix8200
4 hours ago
​ @JohnSmith-z4s Exactly. If Australia was given a couple of thousand years applied with similar historical and technology development & circumstances then we’d have similar differences in language and culture etc between each state. Victorians would speak Victorianese, Tasmanians would have similar rates of first cousin marriage as Pakistan..
1

@micphoenix8200
4 hours ago
​ @jaydenMRPF All first world Western nations (Australia, Canada, USA etc) share a common ethnic and cultural heritage. Ethnically European and culturally Christian.

@jaydenMRPF
3 hours ago

@m @micphoenix8200 is is true. But the ethnicity is broad across a bunch of European countries. If you take a Scottish person and drop them in Holland, they’re very different, just like if you drop an English person northern island, the English person disappears lol The colonies, free settlers and freed convicts were made up of a lot of these different European ethnicities. The values, laws and cultures though are what the main common ground is. It was a culmination of all those people coming together and mixing to create what we today call Australian, or the Australian culture. But we can’t ignore the fact that there was also a large Chinese cohort here in the 1800s laying roots as well, you see this places like central Victoria. So I suppose I do agree with premise of at what point did these people tick over to be pure “Australian” and “English Australian” or “Dutch Australian” or “Irish Australian” as it was described. Because in the early 1900s and late 1800s every had come from somewhere and those born here were only 1-2 generations removed from somewhere else. Which means everyone is technically some sort of prefix Australian. No one other than native indigenous Australians have pure Australian Heritage. We are no different to America in that regard. Defining a pure Australian demographic isn’t that easy.

Hide replies

@RajNaidoo-b4e
8 hours ago
All of this doesn’t matter.
If you’re born in Britain, you’re British.
If you migrate to Australia, you’re a brit living in Australia.
Once you get citizenship, you’re still a Brit with an Australian Citizenship.
I think what we need to to define is what and who we give citizenship to… people who are contributing to and assimilating to Australia & hold our values.
If you’re born here you’re Australian. If you’re not, you are what / where you were born. That’s not the argument.
17

@gpumn1
5 hours ago
Totally agree
2

@moniquebeer-korver1107
5 hours ago
I think the problem there is if a person from another country comes here 8 months pregnant and gives birth here, their child is automatically an “Australian”. Now the parents of that child are bound to Australia because of that child, that’s why birth right citizenship probably needs to be looked at
2

@MSummaz
47 minutes ago
So basically, no one is Australian Australian because we all have heritage from all over the world! This make no freaking sense Sam

Hide replies

@MattGray-c9v
2 hours ago
To me Jo is an Australian. But Sam is right about being an Australian
3

@Kateeheel7
8 hours ago
I nearly broke my leg running to the comments
8

@aussiegypsywarrior
7 hours ago

Hide replies

@aussiegypsywarrior
6 hours ago
Sam has a hard time looking at it from a Christian perspective due to not really understanding Christianity. Culture comes from a belief system. Imo.
7

@Numptee86
3 hours ago
Hot debate. Thank you for working through it. I agree with Dr Jo (and as a PROUD Anglo-Celtic Aussie, i think she is an Aussie too) that we are at a GREAT moment in turning the tide…..DONT get lost in the weeds. Her husband is correct….its the Christian aspect that has made Australia what it is….and Christians come in all colours. But i can be fairly certain a Christian moving to Australia is likely to assimilate.
6

@bryce222nice
8 hours ago (edited)
Sam is NOT discriminating or making the argument that different ethnicities have less value. Just because Sam isn’t as articulate as a lifetime academic, it doesn’t mean his position is racist or discriminatory. James is emotionally reactive & can’t understand what the meat and potatoes of the argument is. Sam is trying to protect Australia. He wouldn’t move to India, get a citizenship, assimilate to Indian culture & call himself Indian? He’s now an Australian-Indian
7

@amandapinker2659
54 minutes ago
Guys I have become recent fans of all 3 of you. but I’ve never been comfortable with confrontation, that was hectic!

@justintarczon3347
1 hour ago
That was very well done and I sympathise with both sides but the main enemy is the labour government. Don’t forget that!
2

@jaydenMRPF
1 hour ago (edited)
As always, a great podcast having the conversations that need to be had. This was a good example of how to agree, disagree and agree to disagree without becoming mortal enemies.
On the topic itself, this is a prickly one. But ultimately trying to define an “Australian ethnicity” demographic is rather difficult given that during the 17-1800s, the penal colonies, settlers and freed convicts that banded together to create what we know today all came from different backgrounds themselves. Yes, a lot were of Anglo-Celtic and Western European descent, but there’s different ethnic groups within that bracket, English, Scottish, Irish, Dutch and German. All of these were prominent groups who laid the foundations of what we have today. All very different to one another. You only have to look at the names in old cemeteries, town names, street names, road names, a lot aren’t what you’d call typical “Anglo” names. South Australia being a prime example with Hahndorf or Klemzig. These names didn’t appear from nowhere. But the elephant in the room during that time period is the Chinese. This is another ethnic group that also laid foundations in Australia during that time before federation. So that does hinder the purely European demographic as being the people building Australia before federation. Then you get to the Australia as we know it today, which was ultimately built off the backs of post war migrants from both Western and eastern Europe. Melbourne being a good example with the cities cultural identity for food and coffee basically being forged by what we now fondly call (I mean this respectfully) as Wogs, Italians, Greeks etc. These people laid down roots, had families and their children became Australian. Ultimately it comes down to the values, laws, culture and traditions that these people all shared. Because as an Australian, we aren’t British, our culture and outlook on life is vastly different, drop an Aussie in a room with 3 Brits and the differences become apparent very quickly. As Australians we formed our own culture. Yes this is based of our European ancestry, but is uniquely our own, which is because we had all of these above mentioned ethic groups come together and intermingled to create the ”Australian” we all recognise today. We are the same as the USA and Canada in the fact that we’re all came from somewhere else at some point in our history or ancestry, with exception to the indigenous people. The attempt to define an Australian is important, but the definition that’s been presented is problematic. A clear definition and enforcement of our Values, Laws, Culture and traditions is what’s needed. Immigration frozen like Canada did and then when immigration is started up again, a slow, controlled system that allows for integration is needed. Linage also matters. If you come here from somewhere else and you on to have kids here, grandkids here and great grandkids here and so on, then just like our ancestors who all also came here from somewhere, they are Australian. No prefix added.
Also for Japanese argument, it’s stupid. We are like the USA and Canada in the sense that we were founded by people who came to those lands from elsewhere, we were not native to the land. The Japanese people are native to the land, they are the people of that land and have been there for thousands of years and such, you would expect it to be a homogeneous society demographically. To compare a society like that Australia is just uninformed or disingenuous.
In a modern Australia, the definitions of what an Australian is should be simple. 2 categories, A naturalised Australian citizen, someone who has immigrated here from somewhere else and has qualified to become an Australian citizen. OR a Native born Australian citizen, someone who was born in Australia to parents who are both Australian citizens either naturalised or native born. Dual citizenship shouldn’t be allowed for those immigrating here to Aquire citizenship. Nor should it be allowed in Parliament. Provided our immigration policy and society adequately promotes, protects and enforces the Australian laws, cultures, values and traditions, and we make sure those immigrating here are from places that share our values, then Australia will remain “Aussie” for many years to come regardless of original ethnicity. Unfortunately or governments are failing at this part miserably, which is why this whole conversation is being had in the first place.

@metgirl5429
6 hours ago
My parents came from holland
Here 50 years Dutch Australian never a prob
They saw themselves as that
Assimilated no Dutch club always spoke Australian
I have never seen myself as a Dutch Australian
Please make this make sense
Well we donot mention the elephant in the room
The cult / political ideology
That’s the issue
They are here to overtake not assimilate
And we are paying them to do that
The gov wants votes
Are we awake now
6

@jessiejordan2853
6 minutes ago
The Dutch are Germanic, so are Anglos.
We share common geography, ancestry and cultural heritage going back thousands of years.

Hide replies

@seikochako
6 hours ago
I feel there is only one real answer. If Western countries are built on Christian values, then immigration policy should also reflect those values.
People coming here should respect the foundations of the country, including its Christian heritage, laws, culture, and way of life.
I also believe schools and public institutions should stop pushing every religious belief and festival as if they are all part of Australia’s national identity. People are free to celebrate their own faith and culture, but that can be done in their own homes, churches, temples, community halls, or private spaces.
No one should feel the need to hide Christmas, avoid saying “Merry Christmas,” or remove the nativity just to avoid offending other religions.
5

@FrogBlasters
5 hours ago (edited)
We are one, but we are many, and from all the lands of earth we come, we share a dream and sing with one voice. I am you are we are Australian.
We need everyone who shares our values in the same tribe and we need to also follow the example of those who built Australia. Start there and build together. Dont strangle populism in the cradle.
1

@KathyRan
8 hours ago
Even the Australian Aboriginal came from somewhere else initially. They’ve just been here a bit longer. Australia has a definite culture but the absolute flood of recent immigration is diluting the prevailing Australian culture. The current policy is quantity over quality leading to silos. This needs to stop. Immigrants are visitors & it’s a privilege to become Australian. Treat citizenship like the valuable prize it is.
3

@h.epeterjohnmanthey6295
1 hour ago
The strongest armour a Christian can wear is our faith. Go to church, pray to Jesus for guidance and we’ll do what is right cause Jesus can perform miracles. As a Christian nation and people we love everyone & welcome all those who wish to live with us in peace. But it’s not wise to offer ones house to a stranger & put our own children out into the cold. Love & prudence. Practical judgment & dicipline through the use of reason.
3

@Eravide
4 hours ago
“I think this might be the start of a friendship,” great way to end it! It was intense at times, but that’s what you need- heated conversations with strong people who genuinely care to make positive change. SO glad to see you guys didn’t shy away from a difficult chat.
Ultimately, I found James and Jo very compelling. At first I was open to Sam’s definition of an Australian, but honestly James hit the nail on the head when he said, ‘there is a difference between race and culture.’ I also appreciated Jame’s transparency that it can be tempting to be tribalistic and prioritise your own race, but ultimately at the end of the day all people are equal in the eyes of God. This is a nuanced conversation, but James and Jo are right that the immigration problem can’t be solved on the basis of race, but rather on the basis of culture and values. Well done guys, love this podcast.
3

@martincoyle-o3b
24 minutes ago
Jo is all Aussie the type we need

@Numptee86
57 minutes ago
Duke it out, then find common ground and UNITE. We can’t risk fracturing and giving the labor/green side of politics any more chances

@raelaris
9 hours ago (edited)
the thing that turned me on abortion was when i watched a documentary on babies and they cited a study that found that newborn babies can recognise their father’s voice.
4

@triciamears7338
2 hours ago
Fantastic debate.
Keep them coming Sam.
I don’t have all the answers, but, listening to this type of debate only helps me to “define” what my opinions are and it helps all of us (the ones who are interested and care about where our country is heading) to appreciate the complexities of what we “Australians” are truly facing. Keep talking, we’re listening

@user-uu2ty6xs8l
7 hours ago
Sam much respect.
4

@yogibighouse1
9 hours ago
Yeah me and my wife tried ivf $15000 on procedures and nothing. Me and wife would of jumped on the opportunity to have a baby
6

@mic4788
6 hours ago
Sam, on that point I think you’re incorrect. Their children are Australian. They were born here
7

@batesmate5510
3 hours ago
I think it’s more about potential religious upbringing, European religion for the most part aligns with ours where as somewhere like India worships different gods. Even if Dr Joanna Dosnt practice Indian type religion it’s still that exposure.

@Samsy22
2 hours ago (edited)
Sam is wrong on this, too much ego built into the opinion, needs to rethink in the cold light of day after letting heat cool out of it. Sam is intellectually out of his depth with this debate and just on repeat like a broken record without ever actually listening or absorbing the logic or reason.
How do I know, cause I used to do the same thing, fall back on the stubborn/proud thing and die on that hill just because I had strong opinions held with white knuckles.
1

Hide replies

@GoranRadovanovic-m4b
7 hours ago
Oh my goodness what an episode? Definitely love listening to it. There’s a few points I’d love to have a pick at. but all in all it was good listening to all three of them.
2

@leonmiller4774
10 hours ago
How can any sane human poison and torture a living human baby and call themselves a medical proffesional because all abortion is murder anytime from conception onwards i say BAN ALL ABORTION
11

@grannyannie2948
10 hours ago
When a third of the population is born overseas, who are the Australian women choosing this procedure? It is often done in cultures that don’t value girls.
1

Hide replies

@Thecarnivorecoachkymbullen
4 hours ago
Such an important conversation. 3 strong personalities, you all did well.
2

@MaySpecials
7 hours ago
She’s good
7

@jimini_crikit322
3 hours ago
It’s clearly a complex and emotive issue; I think you have all made incredibly valid points. I meet the “definition” of what Sam deems to be Australian. However, I don’t agree that excluding people from being Australian based on their ethnic background is the answer here.
In my opinion, being Australian is that you were 1) Born here 2) Share our Christian values and culture 3) Denounce all other cultures
It’s not a perfect list, but I think it makes the most sense
2

@tonypalmer9575
7 hours ago
It is so important to have these debates. Most of us do not yet have the cultural vocabulary for these arguments. So many cultural and political terms in use at the moment are coded with meanings and histories derived from post war liberalism. I hope in time conservatives will formulate their own meanings on their own terms. Well done, Sam.
2

@kimeccleston5586
7 hours ago
Well said

Hide replies

@TrishOwen
1 hour ago
My definition of an aussie is someone who was born here or came here when they were small children, grew up celebrating Australia day with back yard cricket, beach, bbqs and beers and would fight for Australia.
I wouldn’t move to the middle east and refer to myself as middle eastern. I was call myself an aussie. And if war broke out, i wouod be back here in Australia fighting with Australia.

@kimeccleston5586
10 hours ago
It’s heavy going but probably necessary. Kind of like argueing on the deck of the Titanic if a Violin is Viola as the ship sinks beneath the waves.
4

@mic4788
7 hours ago (edited)
Sam you can use the annology of “rabbits & cane toads with regard to immigration” if we import the wrong immigrants they don’t assimilate. I can understand your point.
3

@treewhisperer07
2 hours ago
Great debate
2

@RajNaidoo-b4e
9 hours ago
James & Sam sound like long lost mates! Love it. (saying this 18 mins in, we’ll see how it goes)
3

@hamish2884
5 hours ago
Cant wait to watch this!
2

@Steve-HIMSELF
6 hours ago
Sam, your debating training pays for itself. This bloke definitely came in with an agenda and you clapped him with logic. This shows that he has the labour party mentality if he can’t even define what an Australian is.
10

@wildstallionbby6369
8 hours ago
Enjoyed this see it is possible to debate opposing ideas .. without (imagining )violence .. mostly
3

@greeningfam8359
2 hours ago
You’re right, that did get a little heated
1

@johnrogers5825
7 hours ago
Love the fiery arguments. So much better to have it out in the open as opposed to sleazy politicians who talk politely and deceptively. Stop the PC bullshit and say it how it is ffs.
3

@MaySpecials
7 hours ago
Fair debate
3

@leonmiller4774
9 hours ago
The 4 parts of my forebares came here as follows 1832 English whalers 1841 German in Klemzig Adelaide 1854 Ehglish 1904 Scottish Kiwi so what am i now i consider myself a true blue Aussie yes my ancestors help build this country we went to jail for this country (1st world war because of our German heritage even though we were 2nd and 3rd generation Aussie) i am white all my family is white and I’m proud to be a white Australian, i do believe in the white Australia policy and that it should be bought back for the fact people had to speak english and assimilate to our culture by denouncing where they come from and accept our way of life
5

@colin76545
4 hours ago
This debate has to happen and keep happening and every where this debate it always ends up the same way which is (I’m a civic national vs I’m an ethnic national) and no matter what happens it’s never going to stop

@darrenparsons5299
8 hours ago
Christianity is the key fundamental
3

@APP1E5
4 hours ago (edited)
By Sam’s definition, I would be Australian.
My parents were Australian. Three of my grandparents were Australian. The other was British and fought for Australia in the First World War 977 DCM.
So I am not objecting because his definition excludes me. I am objecting because it points nationality in the wrong direction.
Australia should not be reduced to Indian Australian, English Australian, Scottish Australian, German Australian, or any other divided label. There should be Australians.
A person’s ancestry may explain where their family came from, but it should not become their permanent political identity.
The real question is loyalty, assimilation, culture, language, law, and shared values.
If someone comes here, makes Australia their home, accepts Australia’s inherited institutions, speaks our common language, raises Australian children, and gives their loyalty to this country, then they should become Australian.
Not partly Australian. Not hyphenated Australian. Australian.
That is why Joanna matters in this conversation. She is of Indian descent, born in the UK, speaks with an Australian accent, holds Australian values, and the most important point is that she is Christian.
That places her much closer to the old civilisational inheritance of Australia than many people who may have the right ancestry but reject everything Australia was built upon.
Australia must control immigration. Australia must demand assimilation. Australia should not allow divided loyalty. Australian or nothing.
But the answer is not to turn nationality into race.
The answer is one people, one country, one loyalty.
Australians.
5

@blakewaugh2536
4 hours ago
could not sum it up better

@MSummaz
14 minutes ago

Hide replies

@Butcherbirdsarecool
9 hours ago (edited)
Geez this was a frustrating video. Sam did a great job to sit there and listen to that. Being yelled at by Dr Jo’s husband. I know he’s defending Jo but geez mate I felt like I needed to block my ears. I agree with Sam on this one.
Rude asf dude!! Jo’s husband was in full attack mode. He wouldn’t listen and didn’t want to listen. What a dick! Sorry but wtf!
16

@slash1989
1 hour ago
Give Gov A cut And a pay cut No big Australia get there heads out of the clouds

@MagicManintheSky-j9q
3 hours ago
Sam is right. These people don’t understand the difference between ethnicity and citizenship. It’s not rocket science.
1

@benkhosh
6 hours ago
An Australian is someone who comes here and completely adopts Australian values and heritage and does not congregate in there Enclave of ethnicities. And by my definitions you can become Australian before you get citizenship or by the same token you are not Australian even if you have citizenship but do not integrate fully
3

@aphaseelec
5 hours ago
Sam you are the man. I 100% agree with you. He was fine and I liked his points but that part where he kept going to skin color was frustrating as hell. One thing I disagree with you on is you invited him to your house that didnt need to come up.
1

@ColdPatterns
9 hours ago
Well hopefully I can go over to India as a white woman and be considered an Indian
4

@grannyannie2948
10 hours ago
Ban abortion And ban immigration. Problem solved.
4

@gpumn1
5 hours ago
Not enough of the conversation is being had around completely shutting down immigration for 4-5 years. It will buy us much needed time to fix our nation and help determine the right path moving forward.
1

@Guska95
8 hours ago (edited)
James came across far more thought out and intellectually honest. His family is Australian ditch the sub class catagories we can only unite on Christian values and culture
3

@blakewaugh2536
5 hours ago
Anglo Celtic is different to Anglo saxon (which is what you are referring to in Germanic). Which one are we using here…?
1

@akingsroad
7 hours ago (edited)
That would have been really good without all the name calling.
It was actually really interesting to listen when you guys were teasing out some of the ideas around what is an Australian.
Don’t stop talking about this guys. I hope you catchup again, and remove the personal attacks because there were some really interesting ideas being discussed.
1

@Kingxr6t
5 hours ago
I liked Sams argument and i admire hes attempt at defining what (Australians) are, but i also understand old mates view and the flaw hes seeing, it might sound bad and theres probably most definitely flaws here! But myself= a cut off point? When did the people living here become Australians? Land was Mostly made up of brittish “subjects” and indigenous in 1949 no longer subjects or (just indigenous) we become our own individual people i.e Australians and there is a difference we mingled with indigenous and weve mixed together to make something different no longer just! a brittish subject or just! Indigenous, Put an Australian and a brit in a room together? Are they the same? Can you tell them Apart? Who’s who? 1 word gets spoken & BANG! You know exactly who is who hes an Aussie hes an brit, different lingo or accent, we are different how? Still working on it! the only thing we have in common is religion/ Christian values, drop an Aussies in Britain or ANY! white country he wont instantly adapt because theres different social norms behaviours, celebrations ect brits tea and crumpets Aussies bacon and eggs we are different the way we interact theres so many differences ,and yea it can be hard to pin down thats only because the conversations haven’t happened, that doesnt mean we haven’t shaped into our own individual people (Australians) and this country was shaped into what it is today due to a mixture of indigenous/ white Christian based subjects (similar) to other Christian nations, a white American isnt now Australian because hes white and was born here, the population of 8 million that lived here in 1949 and the millions born over the decades are what Australians are! In my opinion if you decent from that 8 million then you define what Australians are
2

@Alessandro-b4k
1 hour ago
Hey guys, good to debate these things. I want to share that this was directly addressed during the Eureka rebellion, as the government accussed ‘foreigners’, basically non-english, as causing the rebellion. The Ballarat Times Jan 01 1855 has a letter where the author refer to new arrivals as being the newest Australians etc. Give it a read, I don’t have the link with me now and cbf typing it up. But it reflects a very early perspective on the matter, granted they are talking mainly about other Europeans, like Italians etc. that were a part of the rebellion, such as Carboni. I think it is a convenient definition the host has for Australian, when I was at school the anglos couldn’t work out if Euro wogs were Australian or not…thanks to the arrival of muslims and indians we are now conveniently Australian, well I won’t complain, but we are certainly NOT the same ethnicity as the anglos, and culturely massively different thanks be to God. Happy for Australia to stay British though says I. Cheers

@Shallowchal
10 hours ago
What did I just watch -holy heck.
7

@williamguile1788
6 hours ago
That was a tough listen.
1

@kimeccleston5586
10 hours ago
Do you have a definition around the 42 min mark?

@domburton
5 hours ago
Crazy aye

Hide replies

@DB-in3jy
4 hours ago
Brilliant episode!
1

@APP1E5
4 hours ago
Sam’s argument falls apart on “Anglo Celtic” Look up John Christian Watson reputedly born in Valparaiso, Chile. King OMalley, Evidence points to USA. Two of the first Parliament.
1

@JustJoshofficial89
3 hours ago
Good work pushing through guys, hashed it out in the end.
Want to hear more on the mass immigration part you all agreed on a thoughts on what could be done.
Perhaps a new rule for the pod, 15 mins stuck on the same argument move on.
1

@breban18
4 hours ago
I think Sam doesn’t really believe people from a non-European background aren’t Australian. Audience capture is a problem and clicks are a powerful driver of opinion.
1

@CoenKR
4 hours ago
While both parties have things I do and don’t agree with my opinion is that you can’t say someone has Nazi and racial ideology about what they believe is an Australian while saying they don’t know how to define what an Aussie is in saying that I’m pleased that these discussions and debates are being had the way it should be even if it gets heated

@ausbushman2347
2 hours ago
The key word that seems to be getting dropped too often is Ethnic. To be an ethnic Australian you have to have descent from here and Anglo-Celtic descent. If you come from an Anglo-Celtic heritage but aren’t born here, you are not an ethnic Australian, but you can be an Australian citizen. Everyone else can only be a citizen. Jo is a great Australian… citizen. She can never be an ethnic Australian because she wasnt born here. Her kids could be seen as ethnic Australians because they have an Australian father, even if they do have a mixed heritage. I dont think we can avoid having mixed heritage these days.
1

@leonmiller4774
9 hours ago (edited)
Sam in Joes case to me shes a pom not an Indian also as a Christian you should believe in creation not that crappy evolution in that case we all came out of Mesopotamia not Africa
On another level didn’t you say your forebares came here after 1901?
Jo there is only a few million Irish there is 1.5 billion Indians and we didn’t import 100,000 of thousands of them like we have Indians and Jo being born in England was a pom before becoming
Jo is an english Australian not Indian Australian
Actually Sam India was part of the British commonwealth up until just after WW2
According to our constitution we do not have freedom of religion but freedom of association and there is a difference and Jo’s kids are Aussie not Indian Australian
Sorry my comments are slightly incoherent but I’m following along your conversation
3

@reubensrichardson
3 hours ago (edited)
Great interview. Defining something is the first step in protecting it.

@NicholasWitham
2 hours ago
Sam, I hope you have watched this back by yourself.
James was trying to show that when you differentiate someone as Indian-Australian or just Australian you do actually create a hierarchy of Australian.
I am Australian born on Australia. My father is from England in the 70s and my Mother is from Malaysia. With your definition my “Australian” label is somewhat grey….and to James’ point, this is similar to how the left define woman…it’s grey when it shouldn’t be.
I’m glad you had this debate, and I’m glad there were no fists thrown lol.
I hope your debate skills can grow in the future, and that you do become open to other ideas, your ideas and opinions are great and well rooted in yourself, but being open to other ideas makes a much better debater as you can see things from the opposite side….which I don’t think you can do very well right now. You seem to be very staunch with your argument and not willing to hear the arguments against them…although James didn’t do a great job at explaining the argument.
Keep up the good work, I’m looking forward to more.
1

@SueMurphy-l2n
6 hours ago (edited)
James referred to the people in the NT as Chinese people. He actually identified them based on their looks, which is just what Sam is trying to establish
1

@jimhaggerty2741
4 hours ago
Question for Sam Bamford:
If Australia became a full republic tomorrow, cut constitutional ties to Britain, changed the flag, and built a completely independent Australian identity separate from the Crown — where would you stand on that?
Would you support a fully sovereign Australian nationalism with an Australian flag, independent identity, and recognition that Aboriginal Australians were the original people of the continent?
Or is your idea of Australia still ultimately tied to British heritage and the Anglo world?

@ShaneCooper-b2u
3 hours ago
thank you very much

@DanAttewell-y5b
45 minutes ago
So it’s a mentality.

@jacoblowe4247
5 hours ago (edited)
India was part of the British Commonwealth the same British empire that founded Australia. So I guess because of their British heritage they can call themselves Australians and not just Australian citizens right? They technically have British heritage too… Just like you pal… I really don’t think you thought about this deeper than skin deep!
In fact their country was colonised before ours so I guess you could say that they have a longer British heritage than you do man. So can we lump India into Anglo and European because of their British heritage?
2

@Citraz62
9 minutes ago
NO.

Hide replies

@Cappuccino-ph7rp
1 hour ago
He shouldn’t be able to ask questions he can’t answer himself.
1

@southern-samurai
6 hours ago
Join the Australian Natives Association. Sounds like they are in sync with your position.
1

@nomoremaybes
6 minutes ago
She did the meme lol

@johnrogers5825
7 hours ago
James has wiggled his way into the Dr Jo podcast and I have been unsure about him, but now, watching him here, I don’t like what I see. He has agendas, and his potty mouth is one of the worst I have ever heard.
4

@aussiegypsywarrior
6 hours ago
His potty mouth is one of the worst you’ve ever heard? Really? I don’t agree with foul language in any way however, I’ve heard much worse.
2

Hide replies

@slash1989
13 minutes ago
Not hard men we need strong men

@kjing8109
5 hours ago
So what’s an Australian according to each side? Someone save me watching this entire episode

@victorgomes7585
2 hours ago
Dr Jo is simply gorgeous. You guys are a wonderful compatible couple. And I had no idea Dr Jo has Portuguese heritage. Well… hugs from a proud Portuguese born Australian citizen. PS … to be in positions of power, politics etc… no dual citizenship should be allowed for such person. Our biggest enemy is within.
5

@brontepetropoulos4755
9 hours ago
Great video
2

@scooter183
6 hours ago
South Africa and Rhodesia, Take a look at the 70s and take a look Now.. Australia is Next . Case Closed.
1

@danielpearce7585
8 hours ago (edited)
Yeah. That’s the stuff. I can see me in you Sammy. It’s that logic that kicks in and its hard to talk to these folks. Your a good man and I hear your argument’s and your personality shining through. I love it. Ex navy myself of 11 years and I wonder how much of this logic come from subservience to your country and a cause.

@becomng
2 hours ago
Pausing immigration isn’t such a crazy idea. Pausing immigration gave Canadian renters their first nationwide rent relief in five years, pushing vacancy rates above their 10-year average and driving 12 straight months of falling asking prices.

@raphaelbotelho91
3 hours ago
What a fcking great episode, guys

@uebergangster
3 hours ago
An ‘Australian’ is a legal citizen of the country who adopts the cultural and religious norms (which are inter-related). Skin colour and prior national background aren’t relevant in that equation. However, the argument against mass immigration and exclusion of majority immigration of certain nationalities is that both may threaten to either overwhelm the cultural norm, or that there is a heightened risk that immigrants under such cirumstances will not endeavour to adapt.
1

@uebergangster
3 hours ago
So the definition of what we are protecting is the cultural norm, not a biological race (which is not a real thing anyway). The cultural norm of Australian is then defined as: Christian (you don’t have to be practising, but be at least sympathetic), family oriented, capitalist (not socialist), generally politically conservative, accepting Westminster style democratic parliamentary rule and equality under the law.
1

Hide replies

@wotslife
6 hours ago

@marleymeathook1975
9 hours ago
On 23 December 1901 the Immigration Restriction Act came into law. White australia policy. We would be a lot better off if it was still law. Do you think we would have a lot of these problems today? i dare say we wouldnt even be talking bout this. love this podcast bro!
3

@grannyannie2948
8 hours ago
Exactly. Our forefathers federated to achieve two objectives. To implement the WAP, and to build a navy capable of defending the country. I would argue that the federal government has been a complete failure and should be suspended.
I can’t understand why all three of them ran away from the term the White Australia Policy, which was very popular and should come back.
2

Hide replies

@BLESSED2XS
9 hours ago
Dr. Jo, I Love You soooo much, You are an AUSTRALIAN, Nationality & Culturally, and brilliant one at that!!! But You ethnically an Indian.
The British aren’t from Britain naturally, they are from mainland Europe and before that Israel and before that the Caucus Mountain Range hence “Caucasians.”
To say that there is no such thing as Ethnically Australian just because We’ve only been here since 1788 (yes, my Ancestors came over on the First Fleet) HAS to be matched with “there’s no such thing as Ethnically British, or any National-Ethnic Identity other than the 3 root races of old social science: Whites/Caucasians, Blacks/Negroids & Asians/Mongoloids, and everyone is just one of those or a mix of those.” But that is not true, Samoans are Samoans (not just Polynesians), Irish are Irish (not just Whites), Fijians are Fijians (not just Melanesians), Ethiopians are Ethiopians (not just Africans), etc.
I am all for a multi-racial Australia as long as everyone lives the Australian monoculture and Ethnically Australian Australians are put first and that ONLY Australians can be in Parliament/Federal Government, and in State & Local Governments.
I Love You just as much as any Australian and I would fight for You to be protected and secure in Australia.
GOD Bless
5

@BLESSED2XS
8 hours ago
If I move to India and earn their Cultural Respect, gain an authentic accent, think like them, talk like them, walk like them, Marry an Indian, and have Children, I am an Australian-Indian and my hypothetical Children would be half-Indian, half-Australian, that DOES NOT make me less than the Indians and DOES NOT make an Indian “racist” for clearly seeing that I am not Indian. Australia is not an NWO experiment, Australia is just as much a Nation as Germany, as Samoa, as Tonga, as all of the other young Nations that got formed in the 1800s & 1900s, no different. We are ethnically Australian and to say that We are no different to British is “racist” to Us just as it is to say that there is no difference between Samoans, Maoris & Hawaiians even though they are all Polynesians, they are DIFFERENT, just like English, Welsh, Scottish & Northern Irish are all British yet they are DIFFERENT, so are Aussies, Kiwis & Canadians, We are of the root race of White/Caucasian but DIFFERENT, just like Indians, Pakis, Nepalese, Sri Lankan & Bengals are all South Asian but DIFFERENT. Respect Heritage Australians!!!
1

Hide replies

@gregsags3364
2 hours ago
F-ing good podcast.

@Howdnz
8 hours ago
That escalated quickly

@trishwilson8141
5 hours ago
I agree values are Australian

@Toastmalone6192
7 hours ago
Aussie Logan Paul being triggered for 2 hours
3

@ItsMe-vy1wt
3 hours ago
I’d absolutely LUV to see that “Fuck the ABC” sign done up all nice & professional…..& LARGE!

@Itsmevgc
5 hours ago
My mum has been here since 77, she’s still British
1

@MSummaz
11 minutes ago
Is she a citizen? If she is, she’s an Aussie with an English background! This whole hyphenated thing is a load of nonsense and I refuse to play that game. I’m Australian first and foremost who happens to have English ancestry. Sam’s argument is asinine!

@Itsmevgc
7 minutes ago

@MSummazher words not mine. And she’s a hell of a lot wiser than you. You’re wrong, listen and learn. Sam is %100 correct.

Hide replies

@jittmet7766
1 hour ago
James – the GREEKS created democracy.

@broke3008
3 hours ago

@unipartywonagainstthepeople
9 hours ago
Great stuff
1

@Pauly-v9j
1 hour ago (edited)
As a Aboriginal descent and European descent. A Australian is a person been here from birth or been here 6 years plus when they received their citizenship AND speaking English AND Christian beliefs AND leaving any other cultures war’s at our Australian door before they come in. My thoughts. Probably not agreed by some people. But it’s okay everyone has a different opinion.
Problem not speaking English is my wife is a nurse and some nurses can’t speak English properly and my wife finds it hard to understand them.
So Dr Joanna Howe you would fit into my definition as a Australian. Been here more than 6 years with citizenship papers, speak amazing English AND Christian beliefs.
4

@KathyRan
7 hours ago
There are some Chinese families that have been here since before Federation, so many, many generations. They are Australian in my opinion. Not Chinese Australian.
2

@domburton
5 hours ago
You’re absolutely right.
1

Hide replies

@slash1989
1 hour ago
No foul Langauge

@domburton
5 hours ago
I like Sam, but his definition is very problematic. To say Joe’s kids are not fully Australian cause they have brown skin is unjust and ridiculous. They share our religion and values and culture. They have no connection to India, as i have no connection to Ireland or Britain, except parts of their culture.
3

@RajNaidoo-b4e
10 hours ago
Abortion is murder!
4

@h.epeterjohnmanthey6295
7 hours ago
Yeah those who get angry know they are wrong.
1

@blakewaugh2536
4 hours ago
for looking out for others who aren’t ethnically from here, but put much more heart, effort, meaning, emphasis on integration and following the very values the place was built on? You would be disregarding the work that many non Europeans have done. Should we have the arguments about immigration? Yes, but not based on ethnicity, becasue that is the basis of prejudice. It will be, and it must be, VALUES first.

Hide replies

@redfinfisho
3 seconds ago
Imagine comparing Ireland with a population of 5 Million people to India with a population of 1.4 BILLION!! Also Irish people integrate perfectly into Australian culture and were never taking large proportions of welfare. Whilst Indians are not integrating, costing a fortune whilst disrespecting our country through littering, illegal dumping, polluting rivers just to scrape the surface.

@sarahs2764
8 hours ago
“Why are you saying a bunch?” – uhhh because thats actually whats happening

@Coke_Addiction
2 hours ago
The debate is between nature vs nurture. Is culture down stream of biology or is culture down stream of theology? It would be very difficult to argue that it is solely one sided. The people that do, cannot answer the generalisation once it gets broken down to the individual level.

@PixieTinsel
8 hours ago
If one of Sam’s kids breeds with an Anglo Indian Australian born kid then his grandchild will be a citizen but technically an Anglo Indian but if his other child breeds with the Aussie born child of Pommy immigrants then it’s Australian through and through tru blue….
1

@Howdnz
7 hours ago
We just need Jesus
2

@aussiegypsywarrior
6 hours ago
I totally agree. Sam especially needs Jesus. He has good values and would make such a good Christian. He’s not understanding where these 2 are coming from.

Hide replies

@lukemagro6060
7 hours ago
I see both sides and both seem completely valid in my mind. Yes I get called racist all the time. If we stop citizenship for a year, kick out all non citizens and replace abortion with truely anonymous adoption, financialy encourage big families and restart immigration limited to .1% of the population per year. Thats 10% over 100 years we can integrate that many to be just like us without loosing who we are (that’s still replacement in 1,000 years but a preserved culture. That’s 28,000 “heavily vetted skilled migrants” at 28 million population) do this and the difference in these opinions will be a moot point.

@matthewleonardi247
3 hours ago
Sam’s argument is flawed for example a lot of Bosnians are Muslim but are also from Europe so how would he seperate the two? Say they’re Aussie because they’re European? Or say they’re not because they’re Muslim?
It should purely be cultural, does your culture follow the western Christian modal? If not, would you become a Christian or at least follow our cultural norms to assimilate into Australia? If no , you can visit but you can’t live here.
1

@leonmiller4774
9 hours ago (edited)
SAM ANGLO CELTIC EUROPEAN IS WHITE don’t be so defetist as to not use the word white Jo is an Aussie she wasn’t born in India she was born in our mother country England so Jo is an Aussie i don’t care her skin colour and i am a WHITE AUSTRALIAN and my family has been here for a bloody lot longer than yours so who is Australian we are matey all 4 of us. I’m 7th generation Aussie so therefoe Aussie NOT German Australian ol’mate and you’re only 2nd generation so who is an Aussie i am. I speak Strine so do you that makes an Aussie anyway i hope you read all of my comments oh to Jo’s hubby the Greeks invented democracy our forebares created the Westminster system
If i want to go back far enough I’m a Viking on one side and a Germanic barbarian on the other side how far do you want to go back we all came from one family Adam and Eve
I have to disagree Christianity is not a white mans religion original Christians were from the Middle East (out of Israel), and Greece(olive skin colour) not white anglo-celtic European
4

@grannyannie2948
8 hours ago
I’m also seventh generation Australian on all my lines. Funnily this includes a German family escaping the wars of German unification in the mid 1800s.
1

@Snappernose
4 hours ago
She’s Indian/austalian
If I mirrored her life in China would they say I’m Chinese?
Didn’t think so
1

Hide replies

@blakewaugh2536
5 hours ago
How does federation being the coming together of all 5 states and territories, be the essence of who ethnically built this country? The Anglo’s started building the colonies but lets just say its ‘federation’ when it happened. History speaks for itself, so you obviously don’t understand history…
1

@batesmate5510
3 hours ago
53ish mins bro, bloke would’ve been on the ground for telling me to shut up in my own house

@DanAttewell-y5b
49 minutes ago
Who would you consider Australian, albo= no Sam thaiday=yes

@jasonwolfe5787
3 hours ago
51:13 Poor argument about irish immigration from 2008 to 2016. It was about 15k to 25k net migration from Ireland then compared to 150k to 250k from India. Still x more back then. Dr Jo is great but that was weak.

@southern-samurai
6 hours ago (edited)
What is an Australian? An Australian is one born here and descended from the host and founding ethnic group. It defines us as a Nation. What is happening now is pure replacement of people and culture, of Country itself. It is as bad as military invasion and takeover, only this is supported and promoted by our seditious government.

@flexo-c
3 hours ago (edited)
32:19 Completely disagree, indigenous people helped build this country, they have thousands of years of connection with it, they’ve made big strides in politics and art, helped shape our laws and culture, as much as I like Joanna she doesn’t have that ancestry connection, apart from a few notable figures Indian people and culture wasn’t really a part of what built this nation, but I’d say she’s become Australian, she’s spent her life here, built a family, she has an Aussie accent lmao, and from what I’ve seen she puts Australia first, that’s what it means. Like those old videos of Greek and Italian people, they moved here and assimilated, they saw Australia as the new country, they respected the culture, they built lives within it, became a part of it and are always so grateful to have had the opportunity to live in one of the best, safest places in the world

@maxyorke2453
3 hours ago
First of all, culture is inextricably linked to race. So Australian “culture” is race made manifest. I’ve never been so embarrassed as listening to James use leftist ideology to explain away what it means to be Australian. What a train wreck. Really tough listen.
This debate has been settled; now it’s time to fix the problem.
2

@Alessandro-b4k
33 minutes ago
Bro he is nailing you on the point that you can’t define an Australian, you need to work through that . An Australian is anyone who votes for ON, all you others fall short.

@darrenparsons5299
8 hours ago
And im not religious

@boags9098
8 hours ago
This is wicked

@jessiejordan2853
40 minutes ago
Sam, 100% agree with you but I don’t know why you’re using Federation in 1901 as the beginning of our foundation as people when we’ve been here for 240years.

@aussiegypsywarrior
7 hours ago
53 minutes

@scooter183
7 hours ago
Woman’s Sport.. I love Woman’s Beach Volleyball..

@RichardJohnson-nq9ys
8 hours ago
Calm down James or you will have a coronary.
1

@mannus7776
7 hours ago (edited)
Something to consider on the ethnicity versus culture discussion. The reason peoples from our ethnic background Sam built all this was because of the culture that they were immersed in, that being the Judeo-Christian belief system. And yes those two are inextricably linked, there can be no Christianity without there first being Judaism. The New testament relies on the Old and Jesus and the apostles were all jews. You cut Christianity off from Judaism and it’s a cut flower. In short it’s culture that determines destiny not ethnicity.
Ps Really enjoy your podcast, keep up the good work and keep thinking

@blakewaugh2536
4 hours ago
I’m absolutely pissed off that he took the Judeo bit out. If he wants to turn his back on a community that has not only integrated but done more for this country than many Anglo saxon or whatever he refers them to be, he can get fked and we must CALL this OUT for what it is. All we look for is to be regarded as Australian’s especially after Bondi. If he is putting all his eggs in the ‘lobby basket’ he can F OFF with that ideology. That is sincerely Anti Australia to a tee.

Hide replies

@slash1989
8 minutes ago
You dont need churches or Priests You can talk to god he will answer you if your serios

@saqaleka
9 hours ago
1:02:58 why did her response about deporting muslims get cut out?
2

@Trunka34
8 hours ago
Why do you think haha
1

@grannyannie2948
8 hours ago
She explains it in the comments
1

Hide replies

@MaryAnzac
7 hours ago
My family I married into are German/Polish they embraced the Australian culture and had children here.
They still classed themselves as Europeans that live Australia, their children are Australian as they are born here.
Anyone who comes to Australia and embraces Australian culture are Australian.
These new people who come here are not embracing Australian culture !
But I personally know people who come from Iran and are Christian and live in Australia with an Australian passport but they still see themselves as Persian!
This race debate and who is Australian is silly as we are Multi cultural country?

@johnryan1386
9 hours ago (edited)
This is the argument in the Uk, Everyone can be British but you cannot be English,Irish or Welsh etc.
James is confusing ethnicity and nationality, sounds like a leftist frankly!
My wife is Chinese and my daughter is half Australian and half Chinese, it’s pretty simple
9

@gogeorgia707
10 hours ago
Go Jo . Any fool knows abortion is murder. Admitting it – another story. Yes pregnancy can be sad, complicated when young, or risk. ‘ a psychopath looking down an ultrasound..” Hilarious but horrifying. Adopted children are loved . Needed like the air we breathe.
I was on the left too, then realised this is too important.
3

@grannyannie2948
10 hours ago
I can’t understand how any mother chooses this instead of placing the baby for adoption. Pure evil.
2

@gogeorgia707
8 hours ago
@grannyannie2948 life is so precious. We’ve clearly been misled. It’s a tragedy if someone is young and can’t afford the baby. But the joy they create can come either for themselves, or a family who will love them forever .
1

@grannyannie2948
8 hours ago
​ @gogeorgia707 Instead of paying migrants Centrelink, we should be ensuring that young couple have the resources they need if they decide to keep the baby. If not I’m sure there are 100,000 Aussies who would love to adopt a newborn.

Hide replies

@nam55A
9 hours ago
There’s a reason for these terminations. The choice isn’t easy.
1

@grannyannie2948
8 hours ago (edited)
Yes they do it because the government gives them taxpayers money for having a “stillbirth.” To engage in such a depraved level of evil a nd greed might be difficult for some. Though I doubt it.
1

@Kateeheel7
8 hours ago
Elaborate on these reasons?

Hide replies

@NicholasWitham
2 hours ago
James’ argument on 10,000 Christians from India or 10,000 randoms from France is great. Sam, it sounded like you were going to say you’d prefer the randoms from France.
Well I believe those randoms from France will have ideologies that go against the Australian way of life than the Christian Indians. I wonder that if you did go ahead and say you prefer the French 10,000….I’d like to hear your argument for that preference….because it does seem you’d prefer them because they are white.
I’m not calling you a racist or a nazi, just trying to point out that it seems there’s a gap there.
I do disagree with your definition being based on geography over ideals/morals/ethics etc, but will still continue to support you, keep it going Sam…cheers

@peterscudds7299
8 hours ago
I have a mate in the NT whose heritage is Afghan Aboriginal Chinese, he grew up in the bush and had no choice about his heritage. So according to Sam he’s 1/3 Australian. It’s not about race it’s about values. Oh and by the way do some research Sam and find out how many races of people make up Anglo-Celtic European origins. They’re not all white caucasian.
1

@domburton
5 hours ago
100 percent mate. He’s aussie as.

Hide replies

@blakewaugh2536
5 hours ago
So someone who comes here at the age of 4, doesn’t hold their traditional ethnic culture, grows up in Australia, is still classed as an Australian Indian because of her heritage? Well then clearly your definition is ethnically based because you want to separate someone’s ancestry that they left at the door but have done everything asked of them and integrated? Christ almighty!
1

@slash1989
59 minutes ago
Two against one not fair and there waxing

@marleymeathook1975
8 hours ago
i think lock the gates perid become a self sufficiant country we build grow make everything we need in this country. zero imigration until this happens. lets see how that goes.

@slash1989
47 minutes ago (edited)
I cant beleive Australian Government had a whites only Policy I am a white ozzy bourne here We will nut this out plan in progress God is KING

@julianshalders6047
6 hours ago
We broke from england in1901 and identified our selves as australians under parlimentary law. Its called federation. The immigrants do not reconise this.

@blakewaugh2536
4 hours ago
The Anglo’s helped found and build the colonies. So why is the definition then in federation, not when the same race that has been identifed, come here to commence work to make this a country? If he was consistent in definition, it would be that date, but i can see why he would say federation as a nation forming event. If we are to define it as that, we would have to look further back from that in defining that term. Just doesnt make sense to me…

Hide replies

@JohnClark-l5p
6 hours ago
At some point in the future Australia will be renamed

@4litrespoolyboi206
6 hours ago
42:41, bro just literally told his wife to shut up because she tried to speak…

@DrJoannaHowe
5 hours ago
If you listen to the whole thing, you’ll see that I also tell James to shut up. We have a very robust marriage. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea but it is our dynamic, and I’m fortunate to be married to an incredible man.
1

Hide replies

@sinaimbriano8317
7 hours ago
His trans argument is going against him, I think there’s a middle ground

@adensticher6842
13 minutes ago
You killed it Sam, the amount of times you repeated yourself was painful mate
1

@77Coddie
24 seconds ago
You’re all trying to define what is an Aussie on both an international and national view at the same time, the chick would be considered Aussie by a foreigner but an Indian-Australian to someone like Sam. Can we get this straight?

@darrenparsons5299
7 hours ago
WELL SAID JO
5

@victorgomes7585
2 hours ago
An Australian is anyone who’s been born here. They follow they respect and uphold culture and history. If their parents were born overseas the children are still Australian. Some Australians like to show great pride to the nationality of their foreign born parents. And this is because there’s not much pride in celebrating Australia anymore. We are shamed by government, bureaucrats, education system… there’s a globalist communist agenda. You guys were debating it at a superficial level. Anyone causing trouble and destruction over foreign issues in australia should go to jail!

@peterrichards1058
40 minutes ago (edited)
Multiculturalism policies and their definitions is the issue Sam .Australian identifies are defined by our Christian based values which define our Australian culture skin colour has nothing to do with.

@leonmiller4774
9 hours ago
Sam I’m sorry to say the one who loses their temper first has lost the argument and you did exactly that so sorry matey go take 10 stop lossing it then you may win your debate point
1

@jasonwolfe5787
8 hours ago
I thought James went 1st. I don’t think these things wouldn’t have really been as big an issue but across the west demographics are under attack. I don’t have an issue with organic immigration, but the horse has bolted and drastic action is needed.
1

Hide replies

@nunyaconsern5590
6 hours ago
This guy’s history sucks Christianity started in the west lol democracy start in England lol what’s he rambling about he should learn these things because it’s embarrassing if your going to talk about these things on a public forum
1

@APP1E5
4 hours ago
James has a good point. Half man half woman.

@neilrwatts
7 hours ago
It’s quite simple Sam, your birth certificate defines your country of origin, what you are debating is something totally different and I hope that one day you can step back and fully comprehend that.
I’m an English immigrant from 1966 and was 6 years old when we arrived in Australia. I’m a permanent resident who has grown up in Australia so rest assured that posses Australian values. I have been educated, worked here and paid my taxes on my taxes like every other Australian, I consider myself as an Aussie and would gladly die for this country. However unlike my mother and sister I am still yet to take out citizenship. I refuse to pay to accept citizenship as a piece of paper and a little tree doesn’t change the fact that I have already contributed and paid my way for this country.
I have two children and by your analogy they are British Australian just like your daughter.
I originally started listening to your podcasts as like many other Aussies (see what I did there, just joking) I am totally disgusted with what is happening to our retuned soldiers. I realise and accept that we all have different opinions in life and hope that we all accept the need to respect that but I do fear that your position on this his matter is playing into the he White Supremisisme debate.
Let’s be clear, not labelling you as one though.
Stay safe.
An old British Aussie.

@marleymeathook1975
8 hours ago
Idont think the immigration restriction act had nothing about WHITE in there

@Coke_Addiction
4 hours ago
Did the Chinese who came here gold rush build this country, Sam ?

@chrisdavis6436
1 hour ago
Love your stuff Sam but you are way off here .
What you are talking about is being born in Australian makes you indigenous to this country no matter who your parents are .
Joanne is Australian .
My family some come out on second fleet , I have welsh , English , Jewish blood in my line .
So I’m am white and that Anglo as they come .
Just a thought I live in country our family moved here from Sydney when I was 3 growing up we were accepted by locals . It took 20 years for us to be seen as a local and I accept that get used to living in area and fit in . Now we are the locals being here for almost 50 years .
Now I used this as to being Australian . I’ve been to India love many of people I met . But in Singapore at universal studios on holiday just chatting to people in the line of a ride because they looked Indian got chatting enjoying time . I asked where they were from thinking maybe India they said Sydney I went wow ok cool no problems there . But yes they are Indian I said how long lived in Australia they said 20 years . Aww your Australians
They were so happy a white man said they were Australians and proud and we kept chatting . Mate you need to adopt this view . Because you are not going prove what an Australian is by race .
I’ll tell you what Australian is defined .
And Australian is someone who lives in this Australia and loves this country for all its best and its worst but want to work towards making the flag , the anthem , our history and respect for it , you assimilate to the Australia law and way of life .
You can’t make it ethnic Australia doesn’t work like that . I agree with Joanne’s husband many people have built this country .
I’m still watching Sam you taking this way to far brother . And I think you are talking to wrong people and you do owe Joanne an apology she is Australian mate .
Still love your stuff and I’m sure you are one who would accept truth if it was put to you the right way . This maybe not the best conversation in this video because it’s not only heated but personal on all sides. I’m up for the debate if ya want bro

@overpotato4133
10 hours ago
This guy is clueless lmao
2

@JohnClark-l5p
6 hours ago
The only Australian is an Australian with an Australian accent

@suitathletics9074
4 hours ago
Australian born of European heritage and indigenous are “founding ethnic Australians” , thats the facts….just call it
“”founding Australians “ Sam…, the rest are Australian born Australians or Australian citizens…..time to freeze all Citizenships. James is right about christians but he just does not get it about founding Australians..which should be the majority ….but he seems like a decent guy… Joanna is culturally and spiritually Australian……. It is time re migration. Deportations. This is all the Govt’s fault. Bring back the 1980s demographic.

@maxyorke2453
3 hours ago
Notice how these ‘conservatives’ (Jo and James) actually keep using liberal/leftist arguments and also argue within the leftist moral framework? This is so important for people to understand. Even Sam occasionally argues within this leftist moral framework.
That’s what needs to be dismantled. Also the “what is an Australian?” debate shouldn’t be a debate any longer — it’s White Anglo-Celtic peoples, with additional broader European ancestry. Shut and closed discussion. Now the problems need to be fixed.
2

@samg8313
6 hours ago
Ok god squad, Christians will not just save this country because half the country are non religeous.

@jacoblowe4247
5 hours ago
By your own reasoning mate you have to call yourself English Australian and not just Australian because you originated from there. It’s so absurd, your arguments and definition fall apart with even the slightest stress test. What so if someone migrates from India to Germany, then has a child there and then that child grows up and migrates to Australia are they then indian-German-Australian and do they then fit into your classification of being “Anglo-Saxon, European” or whatever? Or would you not want that person to come to Australia because they are somehow not European because their heritage originates elsewhere. Then it becomes just a weird dive back in heritages and if we all go back far enough it’s Africa so I guess I’m an African-English-German-French-natural born Australian.
How about we just say that if you’re a citizen and you love our way of life and culture you’re an Australian and we should drastically reduce immigration so that no matter the colour of your skin or where you come from you can adapt to our way of life, which will of course evolve because we don’t want to live in a bloody stagnate culture. Gosh many other cultures have food culture far superior than ours and we should totally import some of that… Man acts like he hates a curry.
I think the words of Martin Luther King apply that a man should be judged not by the colour of his skin (or where their bloody heritage is from), but upon their character. Being Australian is a matter of character, not heritage. I know plenty of Australians hailing from other countries like South Africa for example who display a level of patriotism for this country that far exceeds that of basically any leftist activist who consistently whine about our Australian heritage and values. Despite many of these activists being however many generation Australians I’d argue they are demonstrably less Australian then our proud Australians who have come from South Africa.
Do South Africans fit in your “Anglo European” categories? What about indigenous South Africans? Be careful how you answer to not make it about the colour of one’s skin hey…
Sorry “bro” but your views
fall apart with even the slightest pressure test.
1

@jacoblowe4247
5 hours ago
And like bro how many generations in your mind does one no longer be say Indian Australian and just become Australian? You said Joanna’s kids are half Indian half Australian…. So after 10 generations that’s like 10% Indian and 90% Australian right? So you reckon you can define Australian, so what is a 90% Australian, how are they different than 100% Australian? Are you not 100% Australian because of your British heritage, so like 90% yourself? Genuinely curious…
1

@grannyannie2948
5 hours ago
Australia federated in 1901 to implement the White Australia Policy. In the 1970s this was changed without a referendum. It can be argued Australia as a nation nolonger exists as the federal government nolonger serves its purpose.
1

@jacoblowe4247
4 hours ago
​ @grannyannie2948 so you’re saying the Australian government should exist to keep Australia white? That if you aren’t white you shouldn’t be Australian? Holy smokes that’s racist. I think most people these days subscribe to the superior ideology that things should be determined based upon the content of one’s character and not the colour of their skin. I’m sorry you’re stuck in the past pre Martin Luther King era.
1

@grannyannie2948
3 hours ago (edited)
​​​​ @jacoblowe4247 To be fair the federal government did have another purpose. It was to build a navy capable of defending the country. This has also been a failure.
I am saying no more than what was taught in history classes in the 80s. I have since read extensively on the subject and on constitutional law and facts don’t care about your feelings. This immigration policy was extremely popular. Their were pop songs written about it in the 1890s and early 1900s.
The reasons were not what you imagine. One was that sugar cane farmers in Queensland indentured servants from Pacific islands. These were virtual slaves. Australians hated this.
At this period Australia was the wealthiest country in the world. We also had the highest wages. History had taught Australians that Asians in particular, undercut wages. (Yes the WAP was left winged, unions etc. ). We were also an early democracy. All the states were self governing democracies, where even the working class could vote. To put this in proportion, the working class could not vote in Britain until after WW1. It was feared that collectivist cultures could corrupt our democracy.
My father collected antiques. Australian antique furniture is often marked with a stamp, saying, made with European labour. This was to show the workers were paid high wages. This continued into the 1950s.

@jacoblowe4247
2 hours ago
​ @grannyannie2948 a very long winded way of saying you are racist and a fan of parts of our history that were racist. Are you also a fan of the murder of indigenous Australians and them having less human rights that is also a sordid part of our history? Just because Australia had a prosperous time during its white Australia policy does not make it the morally correct approach for the future… America was pretty prosperous during slavery, doesn’t mean we should pull that ol’ one back out, jeez. Once again it should be about the content of one’s character not the colour of their skin or their heritage, otherwise it would be racist. It’s not that hard.

Hide replies

@slash1989
1 hour ago
If you leave islam you could be assasinated by shari law

@jessiejordan2853
24 minutes ago
Joanna, I like you but you’re not understanding what you’re asking of Australians like me.
My great great great great grandparents were BORN in Australia.
My most recent ancestor to migrate here arrived before Federation.
You’re not “just as Australian” as me, and it absolutely diminishes and trivialises everything that my family and our people endured and overcame over generations when you claim you are.

@adzshez
3 hours ago
Identity politics are lame. Dont break up the right with this crap.

@crankin77
2 minutes ago
Aboriginals were born in Australia so they’re Australian. It’s not that hard.

@clintanthony1779
1 hour ago
Sorry James, I really like you and Jo mate but you’re wrong in regards to what an Australian is. Totally wrong. And the nazi/racist name tag is nothing but a silencing tactic for when you’ve got no argument.
1

@MSummaz
54 minutes ago
Bullshit! Is Sam an Australian/Australian? Just asking questions….

Hide replies

@darrenparsons5299
7 hours ago
Jo n james overwelming win sorry sam
2

@simdavis4830
5 hours ago
Sam was an atheist until 5 minutes ago, changes his views
like he changes his jox. I’m a Christian and the old testament is Jewish, the new testament is Christian hence the terminology Judeo Christian not all that difficult. Sam isn’t a Nazi but he is seriously brushing up against it with his crappy non thought out positions.
1

@MSummaz
14 minutes ago
I couldn’t agree more…

Hide replies
Top is selected, so you’ll see featured comments

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Blair Cottrell: Picture this. Your country is overwhelmed by immigration and poor leadership. There’s rampant crime, there’s terrorism, and housing is completely unaffordable. You’ll never own a home like your parents did! And it’s really not even safe to just go for a walk in the streets where you grew up. But the presiding government ignores the problems and just keeps doing what (((the money))) tells them to do.

 

So you and your mates get together and you start talking about how to solve some of these problems. But you realise to have a lasting impact, you need a political party. You need to contest elections and win some seats in Parliament. You start by making some videos online, you host some protests, some meetings, and your message is really resonating with the people. Within a year, you’ve got almost, 2,000 members signed on and many more supporters. More than enough to register a party with the Electoral Commission. Your plan is to halt immigration, which will instantly drop the price of property and rent. You want to restore national manufacturing, get our oil refineries going again and put the Australian people, the original working class, first.

 

But then, early one morning, riot police kick your door in! They drag you out of bed and say:

 

“You’re a member of a prohibited hate group! And you’re under arrest!”

 

You ask them what that means and what crime you’ve committed, but they don’t answer you. They don’t actually know what you did or didn’t do. They’re just on orders to arrest you. And the truth is, you didn’t do anything! You haven’t actually broken any laws. The problem is your political party just got made illegal. In the weeks following, all your party members are arrested because while you were trying to register your party, the presiding government used a new law which allows them to ban political parties on the basis that those parties are “hateful”.

 

Some of your members do deals with cops to stay out of prison. Others go to jail for 10 or 15 years. That’s the end of your party and you’re in jail for the foreseeable future. That might sound crazy that could only happen in some Banana Republic, or a very corrupt third world country.

 

But as of January this year, the Australian government can and has been doing this! On May 15th of this year, Foreign Minister Tony Burke used new laws rushed through Parliament after the Bondi terror attack [Dec 14, 2025] to ban the White Australia Party as a prohibited “hate group”.

 

Now, the government in Australia hasn’t tried to do anything like this in a long time. Back in 1951, Prime Minister Robert Menzies tried to make a law to ban the Communist Party of Australia. But the High Court stepped in and said:

 

“You can’t just ban political parties. That basically violates everything we stand for as a democracy.”

 

Menzies wasn’t ready to give up though. He put a referendum to the people seeking public support to ban the Communist Party, but the people refused. The public wasn’t too keen on Communism, but they still agreed that banning political parties was undemocratic. So the precedent was set. Outlawing political parties wasn’t allowed.

 

Back to the present day, the White Australia Party obviously had nothing to do with the Bondi terror attack, but they’ve been outlawed as a hate group anyway based on laws that were made immediately after that terror attack and as a consequence of that attack. How does banning the White Australia Party stop terrorism? It doesn’t! At all! The government is just set on banning certain political parties.

 

But why? Well, new political parties are rising all across the West, opposing mass immigration and vowing to undo the damage former governments have done to their own nations. These new parties are generating huge amounts of support. Ever since social media changed the way we access information and the kind of information we can see, old governments or the traditional two party voting systems have never been more unpopular.

 

Basically, people’s eyes are wide open now! Especially after Covid-19. The traditional major parties of the West have really fallen out of favour with the people and they’re on the way out.

 

But in Australia, the presiding government has created a scheme for clinging to power in a way which really steamrolls our national constitution and essentially amounts to treason. It’s a very simple three step scheme:

 

– Immigration to replace the existing voter base.

 

– Censorship to stop you from talking about it.

 

– And banning political parties, so there’s no way we can vote them out.

 

The laws they just rushed through at the start of 2026 are called Combating Anti-semitism, Hate and Extremism Bill. They allow the government to ban political parties and jail their political opponents for up to 15 years! And they’ve done this in spite of the legal precedent set by the High Court in 1951. It’s like they don’t even care what the Federal Court says.

 

But here’s the crazy part. No one in a party that’s being banned needs to have committed any actual crimes. The presiding government only needs to be satisfied that the targeted party’s members have engaged in “hateful conduct”, even if that hateful conduct was years in the past.

 

What is “hateful conduct”? The definition is loose. It’s basically whatever the government decides it wants “hateful” to mean. The meaning of hate in the context of this law is almost entirely subjective, meaning it doesn’t have a strong fixed definition. And they’ve used this term deliberately so they can flexibly apply this law to any group or party the government wants to cancel.

 

So when you hear government ministers talk about hate or even hate crime, that’s not a term referencing any legitimate criminal activity. It can mean pretty much anything. You can say something that challenges government policy in a way which embarrasses a certain minister and they can decide you’re guilty of a hate crime. Any group you’re involved in, even loosely, you don’t have to be a direct member. Any group you’re associated with can be outlawed as a hate group on the basis of your comments or your conduct, which doesn’t even have to be criminal. It doesn’t matter if the group we’re talking about is a registered political organisation or religious group. There’s no legal protections here.

 

Now, I’m not someone who tries to drum up outrage for clicks. I’m not trying to sell you a Tshirt. I’m trying to tell you that if you’re Australian like me, we’re in a lot of trouble here! The major parties in our country have exploited terrorism to make a deal to cancel democracy, so we can’t vote them out!

 

Until this year, every Australian citizen had the right to register political parties, contest elections and vote for a party of their choosing. But that just got cancelled. While the media talks about taxes and the definition of a “woman”, your right to fully participate in politics, express yourself freely and vote the way you choose to vote just got shut down. This is the worst thing that’s ever happened to Australia and no one’s talking about it, because the government has deliberately misframed it as banning “Nazis”! But they’re lying! Because this law isn’t actually about banning Nazis!

 

This is about cancelling your right to contest elections, forge new political parties and vote freely. The Labor Party is using anti-Nazi moral hysteria to try to prevent people from understanding or criticising this new law:

 

“If you don’t like the hate group law, then you must be a Nazi!”

 

That’s what they’re trying to imply. But isn’t the whole reason “Nazis” are even considered bad is because they ban political parties and try to eradicate certain people and ideologies? So what? To fight Nazis, the government needs to do exactly what Nazis did historically?

 

And the White Australia Party was trying to participate in politics legally through a registered political party. So even if they are “Nazis”, whatever that even actually means these days, they were forced to operate within a certain legal framework which prevented violence and extremism, which is the whole point of democracy. But that framework is now gone! Which obviously encourages political violence!

 

And what happens when thousands of White Australia members and supporters retreat to One Nation, which they’re currently doing since their original party was banned? Well, then the government can just ban One Nation as well, on the basis that its new members and associates are guilty of hate! And there’s no realistic way for One Nation to protect itself from this outcome. Even if they shut down their branches and introduce strict vetting process, people are going to slip through the cracks and someone will have done something the government decides is “hateful”, at some point in the past.

 

The government will try to ban One Nation next and any of its major contenders. One Nation really has no choice but to demand these laws are repealed immediately and campaign on that basis. Because even if One Nation or other political parties are not banned immediately on the basis of this law, the threat of a ban will constantly loom overhead, coercing the way these parties behave and forcing them into deals they otherwise wouldn’t have done.

 

Any political party which expects to participate in politics independently and forge its own policies freely has to contest the next election purely on the grounds of repealing these new laws. If these laws stand, they allow the government to ban any political party without any due process and no criminal convictions required.

 

Constitutional legal expert Dr. Anne Twomey* just three days ago sounded the alarm, using her YouTube channel to warn Australia that the government has implemented these laws to set a precedent for banning political parties to preserve its position and cancel its opponents. As long as this hate group law exists, there’s literally no point in voting, and no political solution.

 

[ *See: Constitutional Clarion – The Challenge by ‘White Australia’ to the Prohibited Hate Group Law – May 24, 2026 – Transcript ]

 

Former White Australia Party member Thomas Sewell has applied for an emergency injunction at the High Court, which was accepted and is scheduled for a hearing in September to try to fight these laws. But you don’t need to support Thomas Sewell or Thomas Sewell’s ideology directly in order to understand the severity of these laws and oppose them. Every Australian with a brain has a moral duty to oppose these laws! Every sensible person will stop worrying about the definition of a woman and start talking about these hate group laws. Nothing in Australia is more pressing right now!

 

So share this video with your friends and family and help them understand.

 

[9:33]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 5/28/2026 = 4)

TVR_
5 hours ago
Great video on what is ultimately the greatest pressing issue in Australia today
9
0

Gretashapiro
1 hour ago
needs to be shared to normies
3
0

Skygod2020
3 hours ago
I left Australia 14 years ago, moved to China, and I feel sorry for the Australian people for what they are going through and what’s to come. China is light years ahead of Australia in every aspect. Australians need to ask themselves why they are subject to anti-China propaganda 24/7.
1
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
somethingforthisbox
7 minutes ago
Strange how my Chinese friends find the west more comfortable at least for them, though more expensive here… and they are monitored here too. Many things they won’t discuss
0
0

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Harry Richardson: Multiculturalism in Australia, as elsewhere in the Anglo-sphere, is irrational and inconsistent. In order to perpetuate this monstrous ideology, its champions are compelled to attack free speech, that great Anglo tradition which exposes and ridicules such nonsense!

 

A recent example is Peter Drew, an Australian artist who produced a series of posters depicting people of non-European ethnicity who lived in Australia at the time of the so-called White Australia Policy. The posters all have the word “Aussie” underneath, implying that these people were Aussies because they’d lived here. These people faced difficulties because they were told that if they left Australia, they would not necessarily be able to return.

 

It’s a similar situation to that faced today by foreigners living in Thailand. European foreigners are known as “farang” and, unlike Thai people, they’re required to leave Thailand periodically and reapply to return. No guarantee is given that they will be allowed back into the country. These farang are not Thai, and nobody thinks that they are. Nobody thinks any less of Thailand for insisting on this policy, despite the inconvenience and upset that it causes many of these farang.

 

Peter Drew put up his posters around Melbourne without permission. Here he is explaining that in his own words:

 

“It’s a very popular project. It’s so popular that even though it’s illegal, I can put my name to it and I’m still allowed to do it, because people like it, whereas these copycat posters are done anonymously because nobody likes them.”

 

Peter Drew’s artwork is propaganda which reinforces the preferred narrative of the establishment elites who run the government, the media, the education system, the legal system, and the bureaucracies. And maybe it’s a coincidence, but it appears that Peter Drew has a picture of Chairman Mao on his wall. The establishment who are supposed to enforce laws don’t enforce this law, perhaps because they like what Peter Drew is doing. The rule of law doesn’t apply to propaganda that supports their narrative, apparently.

 

So fast forward to a short time ago, and a provocative young social media influencer decided to make a statement by creating posters in a similar style to those of Peter Drew. Instead of the faces of historical minorities, however, Auspill, as he’s known, put the faces of diverse Australians who’ve committed horrible crimes, as well as some others, including Donald Trump, with the word “Aussie” underneath them. The most confronting of these posters had the face of Naveed Akram on it. He was one of the two alleged perpetrators accused of the Bondi massacre.

 

Auspill then made a video of himself and a friend putting these posters up around Melbourne, as well as some of the reactions of establishment figures, with commentary from himself and his friend.

 

Full disclosure here: The BAC made two videos a couple of years ago about the Drew posters, and part of one of these was featured in Auspill’s video. We’ll post links to our videos in the description below, along with some references.

 

At this point, Dr. Dvir Abramovich stepped into the fray. Dr. Abramovich runs a well-known jewish defence and advocacy organisation called the Anti-Defamation Commission. Here’s what he had to say about Auspill’s posters:

 

“They should utilise every measure, every law, to make sure that these people end up behind bars. It was a kick in the guts. This is a hate crime, pure and simple. It’s dancing on the grave of those massacred in Bondi.”

 

Quote:

 

“They should utilise every measure, every law, to make sure that these people end up behind bars.”

 

And Dvir Abramovich again:

 

“It was a kick in the guts. This is a hate crime, pure and simple. It’s dancing on the grave of those massacred in Bondi. It’s psychological intimidation.”

 

Dr. Abramovich’s comments are interesting on a number of levels, especially in light of some of his previous statements. The first thing that strikes us is the severity of the punishment. He’s calling for. Prison time for putting up a poster? This is very extreme by Australian legal standards. Secondly, and perhaps most strikingly, is the way Dr. Abramovich has completely misunderstood the point of the posters. His statement characterises it as a deliberate attack on the grieving jewish community, when both common sense and Auspill’s own words suggest otherwise.

 

Peter Drew himself admits to attempting to deconstruct Australian identity and help ensure that anyone of any racial, religious, or cultural background can be an Aussie. To this end, he portrays a group of racially diverse people who lived in Australia and are perceived as positive for the nation.

 

Auspill has turned this concept on its head and made posters in the same style depicting racially diverse people who are either clearly bad for the nation or, in the case of Donald Trump, someone who’s never lived here. This dialectic is a form of discussion about the identity of the nation. It would seem that way to us, and Auspill appears to agree. Here he is explaining it in his own words:

 

“This project—this funny little Donald Trump, Naveed Akram—this is taking it to its natural conclusion. Naveed Akram—an Aussie; Donald Trump—an Aussie! It’s not exclusive, right? ‘No one’s illegal on stolen land! Everyone’s an Aussie! It’s a piece of paper!’ I don’t think many Australians the Anzacs or the founding people of this country, would agree with that. It is an invention—a very modern invention—that needs to be upheld by, literally, street propaganda. But we can counter it in the street and get people to look at the extreme conclusions of this ideology. And that’s what this really is about.”

 

Note that he also put up a poster of a Chinese man who’s believed to have deliberately scalded an Aussie baby with a boiling hot cup of coffee. This was a horrific attack on a vulnerable member of the Anglo community, but no one thinks that this was “dancing on the misery” of an injured baby. The image of Naveed Akram is well known because it has been shown repeatedly on mainstream media.

 

As far as we know, Dr. Abramovich had not complained about the image previously. It is understandable, however, that using this image to make a political statement could be upsetting. With that said, however, we feel that Dr. Abramovich is completely missing the point of Auspill’s video.

 

The reason I’m bringing up Dvir Abramovich’s comments is that he has a history of commenting on this topic. Back in 2016, TV personality Sonia Kruger made some remarks during a discussion on TV about Islamic immigration into Australia. I’ll quote from a news.com.au article at the time. She said, whilst talking about Islamic immigration:

 

“Personally, I would like to see it stop now for Australia.”

 

She referred to Japan, a racially homogenous country with a low proportion of Muslim migrants, and pointed out—correctly—that they don’t experience terror attacks by Islamic extremists. She also said that she would like to see freedom of speech. Bear in mind that Kruger made her comments in the wake of a horrific Islamic terror attack in France.

 

But we’d also had attacks in Australia. There was the Skaf [Bilal Skaf] rape gang of 50 Anglo girls in 2000; the Cronulla gang in 2005; the Endeavour Hills stabbings of 2014; the appalling Lindt Cafe siege, also in 2014; and the Parr a matter a shooting of a Chinese-Australian accountant who worked for the police in 2015.

 

In the same article, Ms. Kruger is given a severe dressing-down by none other than Dr. Abramovich, who said, and I quote:

 

“I am dismayed and concerned by this misguided and outrageous statement! Sonia Kruger’s call to ban Muslim immigration to Australia is deeply offensive, irrational and unacceptable.”

 

End quote. So I have to say, that statement didn’t age well at all! And, okay, maybe it was offensive to some Muslims, but “irrational” in light of recent events? Worse than that is Dr. Abramovich’s final claim that this position is “unacceptable.” In other words, no one should be even allowed to argue against this viewpoint. Freedom of speech should be suspended for this topic. Insisting on shutting down everyone else’s speech on a topic suggests a belief in one’s own infallibility. In this case, it turns out that Dr. Abramovich and his opinions were not as infallible as he’d assumed.

 

There’s a particularly sad irony to the staunch opposition to free speech expressed by some jewish community leaders, especially around immigration and diversity. For instance, parts of the organised jewish community were instrumental in draughting Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and defending it against Tony Abbott, who’d promised to repeal it.

 

The peak jewish national body were also consulted in the formation of the latest laws against anti-semitism, hate, and extremism, which gut the Anglo tradition of free speech, particularly where it includes criticism of minorities. During this consultation process, they advocated for stronger provisions and harsher sentencing.

 

Ethnic diversity tends to have serious and well-documented costs wherever it’s found, and this is true for all Australians. But in this latest tragic episode, it’s jews who have borne the brunt of these costs. This just Showcases the irrationality of multicultural minority politics. Australians are expected to suspend common sense when discussing minority interests. The policies of multiculturalism and its feed corn of indiscriminate immigration have never been discussed at an adult level. The shifting allegiances on which multiculturalism is based can shatter when people least expect it.

 

Dr. Abramovich continued his 2016 comment, stating that, quote:

 

“Banning anyone from entry to our country on the basis of their religion goes against long-standing Australian values of respect, inclusivity and religious freedom.”

 

End quote. What he fails to mention here is that for most of our history, Australian immigration policy restricted non-White intakes in order to minimise ethno-religious diversity. We did, however, have some jews in the colony from the beginning, and this was one of the safest and most welcoming countries for them. We had Sir Isaac Isaacs, who was jewish, as our first native-born Governor-General, which is the highest office in the land. General Sir John Monash, who was the pre-eminent Australian general in the First World War and was widely regarded as one of the finest Allied commanders on the Western Front, was also jewish.

 

Dr. Abramovich continued on in his criticism of Sonia Kruger. He said, quote:

 

“Such singling out and demonizing of Muslims is counterproductive and will only serve to foment fear and hatred. As we face the threat of radical Islamist terror, we must avoid falling into the trap of blaming individuals and communities.”

 

This just makes no sense at all! He admits that we face the threat of radical Islamist terror, but insists that we shouldn’t ban Muslim immigration because that will cause fear and hatred of Muslims. Bear in mind that he expressed this opinion after a string of Islamic-inspired attacks, and recent events simply emphasise how appallingly wrong-headed this approach is!

 

The only reason such weak arguments could prevail was the chilling of free speech, which put pressure on people like Sonia Kruger for opposing them.

 

The abolition of free speech means that influential people get to decide on vital policy directions for the whole nation. When these people are shielded from common-sense arguments, their fallibility is protected by a wall of censorship. Dr. Abramovich reinforced this approach when he continued, saying:

 

“Our nation is strengthened by diversity and it is crucial that all leaders stand united in combating any manifestations of bigotry and prejudice.”

 

End quote. This ideological nonsense just has to stop! Diversity is a strength? The fact is that our once peaceful nation of Australia is now riven by blood feuds that have been imported from around the world.

 

Unfortunately, minority advocates are not the only ones attacking free speech. Chris Minns, who’s the Leftist Premier of New South Wales, has been cheer leading the abolition of free speech for some time now. Why? Well, to protect diversity, of course:

 

Minns: When did I say ‘free speech is incompatible with a free society’?

John Ruddick: Mr Premier, you have said that on multiple occasions!

Minns: Would you mind repeating it to me where I have said it and what I said?

John Ruddick: Are you denying that you said it, Mr Premier?

Minns: I would love it for you to quote it back to me.

Minns: I recognise it and I’ve said it from the beginning, that we don’t have the same freedom of speech laws that they have in the United States. And the reason for that is that we want to hold together a multicultural community.

Minns: We don’t have the same free speech rules that they have in the United States. We’ve got strict interpretation of hate speech in the state. If that needs to go further in a legislative sense, that’s exactly what I’ll do!

Minns: We have to take steps to protect that. It can’t just be a willy-nilly race to the bottom where civic society turns a blind eye and says, ‘Well, look, freedom of speech reigns here. People can say what they want.’ That’s not the case in New South Wales. We don’t have the same freedom of speech laws that they have in the United States. And the reason is because we love the country that we’ve got here and we are going to take steps to protect what has been built up over decades.

Minns: And I don’t apologise for the fact that we don’t have the same free speech laws that they have in the United States. It’s clear that we don’t! We don’t have the same set of regulations. It’s not embedded in our constitution the same way it is in the US.

Naturally, he isn’t the only one, but he is arrogant enough to say the quiet part out loud. This has to stop! Because, as George Washington once said:

 

“If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter!”

 

A majority never wanted mass, indiscriminate, immigration. And the elites who insisted on it are now intent on shutting down our rights to free speech so that we can no longer voice opposition to it. And maybe if Peter Drew wants to abolish a national identity, he should have a go at the Indians or the Chinese or the Palestinians, just to show that it isn’t only Anglo-Celtic identity that he wants to abolish.

 

The whole point of this is that these posters represent free speech. Peter Drew’s posters express an opinion on who can be an Aussie, and so do Auspill’s. Both of them should be allowed to express their opinions.

 

Unfortunately, when we allow powerful elites to destroy free speech, then they will decide what can and cannot be expressed. This is a very slippery slope which leads to tyranny and oppression!

 

In the meantime, the British-Australian Community will continue to defend the identity, the interests, and the free speech rights of our people, just as the rest of the multicultural community defend their people. If you think that this is a worthwhile goal, then join us now!

 

Thank you.

 

[14:46]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Youtube Comments

top

(Comments as of 5/4/2026 = 38)

@iksootm
1 day ago
If you don’t have a border, you don’t have a country.
30

@LucienCanon
1 day ago
You must upload more BAC. Thanks so much for your work.
32

@britishaustraliancommunity
1 day ago
Thank you Lucien, agreed. We are more active on X and Instagram however – youtube doesn’t like us very much.
8

Hide replies

@SirJad_
1 day ago
Multiculturalism will always degrade a society into totalitarianism as the state naturally needs to expand its power to ensure all groups remain cohesive and the overall structure of society remains functional. There is no coincidence as Australia becomes more ‘diverse’, it becomes less free.
21

@southern-samurai
23 hours ago (edited)
The fact that we cannot even have an open conversation about this without risking violating hate speech laws if someone decides to interpret one side as racially offensive highlights the erosion of basic freedoms and cultural norms in Australia as a result of protecting multicultural ideology.
7

@keilgre5319
17 hours ago
Freedom. Remigration.
7

@Zinnia-x9c
1 day ago
Peter Drew is still crashing out over Auspill’s art series.
13

@Generico301
1 day ago
Nice 1, Harry. Need more like it.
7

@Whats_newss
1 day ago
Great video
7

@user-di8gh5fw6d
23 hours ago
Africa 54 countries, SA is now kicking out other africans from their South Africa country because their not South African. Are they racist.
5

@what_social_contract
1 day ago
Cracking video
4

@leonhanford5560
4 hours ago
Peter Drew is a delusional lefty.Full regime backing.And don’t get me started on Dvir
2

@joelwhaley8182
23 hours ago
Where is your 1901 federal red flag. Where is your Commonwealth of Australia. Where is your townspeople. Where is your self determination. Lest ye forget is strsight out of the AKJV bible. A warning that rings true today as Australians forgot who they are and what their ANZAC even fought for at all.
2

@Cohen-cidenceinspector
1 day ago
2:47 ….. looks like the ghost of a mud slime woman floating down the street.

@Westyrulz
3 hours ago
The European Race could cease to exist as all European societies have opened up to mass Non-White immigration.

@masscreationbroadcasts
1 day ago
Why do you try to convince people? Sorry, I’m not being clear enough. These people got power by taking advantage of your good will and giving themselves power over you because they hate their own kind for status. Debate won’t fix this.
2

@Melbournelost66
1 day ago
Those posters I utterly despise. I have noticed them around inner Melbourne, in particular Fitzroy, Collingwood etc. Who said its popular? Have they taken a poll? What if we rip them down????
4

@John-p7i5g
17 hours ago
Multiculti society = logical contradiction = balkanisation
1

@persiandrum9871
1 day ago (edited)
Can you imagine the outrage and backlash, if China were to have an Australian-Anglo as its ‘Foreign Minister’, or if India were to have an Australian-Irishman as one of its parliamentary senators? Or if Israel were to have a non-Jewish, Australian Christian prime minister? Or if Saudi Arabia were to have an Australian atheist serve in its Council of Ministers? (continued below)
Why is it that we are expected to applaud all other nations of the earth for having their people represented by their founding stock, while White nations only are expected to prove their ‘diversity’ and ‘multicultural’ bonafides?
How log will this ridiculous canard be tolerated?
11

@Is_This_Really_Necessary
19 hours ago
Multiculturism only works when it’s NOT forced down everyone’s throats all the goddamn time. But because Western governments have chosen to impose multiculturalism onto everyone, as an Auzzie I choose freedom.
So I will say whatever I want, however I want, whenever I want, I don’t have a damn what anyone else thinks.
1

@raycap
2 hours ago
Minns is telling us we don’t matter, it’s, I will take away your freedoms, and you will keep your mouth shut, or it’s jail time. Slowly but surely, like any extreme left party, they are implementing communism.

@THEOFFICEOFHELP
1 day ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4YMXPiM6Jc

@insolent6702
15 hours ago
Mouse click sound effect is ruining this video
1

@australiasindustrialage689
4 hours ago
What Chris Minns said is a load of trash, he fails to understand that Australia was founded on Anglo-Australianism, free-speech was an implied right

@MELcontents.not.american
6 hours ago
You lost me in your first statement. Multiculturalism makes us strong, liveable, rich.
Multiculturalism is the kernel of the Australian experience.

@tsopmocful1958
6 hours ago
No, Australia and the entire West has gone downhill ever since multicultural policies were implemented as early as the 1970’s.
2

@MELcontents.not.american
4 hours ago
@tsopmocful1958 are you suggesting that for example, Vietnamese immigration has been a bad thing for Australia?

Hide replies
Top is selected, so you’ll see featured comments

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Mark Collett: Hello everybody and welcome to tonight’s special stream live with Tom Sewell. We’re going to do a very quick introduction. This stream is live on Rumble and Odysee only. It’s also live on Entropy, but that is, if you want to send a Superchat. Please do share the Odysee and Rumble links. Whichever one’s your favourite, get it up on X, get it up on Telegram, get it up on Facebook, get it wherever you want, but please do share it. It’s very difficult for me to share things because I’m only allowed on Telegram and Gab. I’ve already shared it in those two good places. If you can share it, it’d be very much appreciated. If you are new to my channel, especially if you’re watching on Rumble, please do give me a sub if you can and help me build the channel. We usually have big streams when Tom is on and I’m looking forward to tonight very much.

 

Now, if you would like to support my work, if you’d like to contribute to what I do, please do consider making a Superchat either through Entropy or through Rumble. All donations go to a good cause and this is what I do every week, as well as all of the political work. If you like that, please do consider making a donation. $3, $5, $10, whatever you can afford. And if you’re watching on replay, you can also donate at any time through Entropy. You can also donate via Crypto. All the crypto links from the description below and you can write to me at mark@thefallofwesternman.com.

 

Now if you do give a donation in the second part of the show, we will read out all of the donations and ask any questions to myself or Tom, regardless of who they are directed to, or both give answers. We’re going to talk about the situation in Australia, some of the world politics.

 

This was going to be a PWR, but Tom couldn’t make it on Wednesday because of the super early start. So we’re doing it now and we’re going to discuss a range of different topics starting with the situation in Australia. So any questions you want to ask that have a donation attached, we will ask them. And if you support my work and you want me to keep doing the things that I’m doing, please do consider giving something.

 

Anyway, let’s get into the show right now! Tom, it’s been a while since we spoke. In fact, the last time we spoke we were talking about the NSN [National Socialist Network] being disbanded. You had led the NSN to a point where it had become a major national force and possibly the largest NS organisation in the whole world at the time, certainly the most active and the one that was probably the most covered by the media. You were getting a huge amount of coverage in Australia as well as here in places the UK, Europe and even in America. And you become, well, were becoming something of a household name. He’d had a couple of really big interviews with famous people, including with Dan Bilzerian, which was a pretty big one. That was something that really put you in the spotlight in the US. And it seemed at the time as if things were going so well for you that you were going to register your political party, White Australia. Then all of a sudden the state came in with this huge ban, something you’re fighting. And around the same time Joel Davis was sadly arrested and held on remand. He’s now being released.

 

So we’ve got a lot to catch up on, a lot to talk about. But you certainly are one of the world’s most famous National Socialist. You’re somebody who doesn’t hide that fact. You’re somebody who is very honest about what you do and you’re unashamed behaviour has made you somewhat of a hero in Australia. And now not only are they going after the NSN, they’re also apparently trying to jail you as well, which is not surprising considering all the good work you’ve done.

 

So how have things been since we last spoke? How have you been getting on and what’s the mood like there since the organisation was disbanded?

 

Thomas Sewell: Well everybody, thank you, Mark. That’s a very good introduction. And it’s been a very pleasant couple months for myself. It’s nice to focus on things that aren’t 100% politics all the time. Go, go, go!

 

So definitely slightly slower pace and time to reflect and think and focus on the future. I’ve spoken to Joel since he’s been out of jail almost every day or every second day. He’s doing really well! He’s very clear minded. Certainly the lack of stimulation and online chitter-chatter has closed a lot of tabs in his head and he can focus on the tabs that are open. And that’s definitely a key to concentration. And they do put you in a “concentration camp”, when they punish you for being a political prisoner. You get plenty of time to concentrate and think. And yeah, he’s doing really well! He’s in a really good mood.

 

I spoke to him yesterday, two days ago and as we were talking on the phone, the media put an article out about him saying that, like they found him at a 7/11 at a service station filling up petrol and he wasn’t with his missus and he must be fighting with his missus and he’s been kicked out of Bondi and he’s living with mum! And it was just this really nasty Daily Mail gossip article about him. And the bail conditions say he can’t live with his family, he’s got to live with his mother.

 

[05:43]

 

So these are like gutter journalists and we were just laughing about that on the phone. And they weren’t even honest enough to say who wrote the article, which we thought was pretty funny.

 

And obviously, yeah, he passes on his regards to everyone in the White community. He loves everything that’s happening, and he’s obviously like most of us he’s a bit upset that we’re going through a phase where it’s not so much about promotion. Joel’s a big promoter. He loves promoting the worldview, he loves promoting our opinions, our thoughts, our takes, our ideology. You know, he’s a very sharp guy that’s always on the money with geopolitics and these are things he loves talking about every day. He’s always running at full steam.

 

So he’s transitioning into concentrating all that energy into a book, and he’s been telling me he’s writing a book. And I won’t spoil it, I’ll let it, let the book be about him, but more or less it’s about geopolitics. He wants to talk about, I guess, Australia’s role in, and specifically White Australia’s role in the geopolitics of the multipolar world going forward. Like how America is going to respond to BRICS [Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa] and what he perceives Australia’s role in that dynamic.

 

So, yeah, he’s loving having access to., … He might not be able to post on the Internet or I don’t think he’s even got access to the Internet really, but he’s loving having access to just new sources and materials and more books and stuff like that. And just not being in a concrete box is always a pleasure. So he’s kind of got the best of both worlds in some ways that he’s not in jail. But then he’s got state mandated, like, concentration time and like he’s got state mandated focus time. Like he can’t get caught up in Twitter debates and debacles and all this nonsense! And, yeah, he can only focus on the important things and he’s actually kind of enjoying that as much as he, like, misses all the dopamine from being able to interact with the boys and cause a storm online. So each are given what they deserve in some way. What else? You asked about Joel.

 

Mark Collett: Joel’s an interesting one because sort of I’ve obviously met Joel. A lot of people won’t have because he obviously lives in Australia. But Joel is one of those guys that is. He’s very sort of how can I say this? I don’t want to say he’s hyperactive and make him sound like he’s some ADHD.

 

Thomas Sewell: No, that’s fair. That’s fair. He is full of he’s full of beans!

 

Mark Collett: He’s like a live wire and he’s constantly thinking, talking, and I kind of saw that online with him, that he was always replying to people, he was always interacting. And when our guys usually get released, whether it’s after a sentence or whether they’ve been on remand and they’re released before their trial, there’s usually quite heavy restrictions on what they can do online. And I didn’t know how that would affect Joel, but I hope he’s enjoying fatherhood as well, because that was something I wanted to mention because obviously becoming a dad changes you in so many ways. And Joel, he’s a lot younger than you and I, but he’s a dad now, and I hope that he’s had some quality time with his partner and their newborn.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. Yeah, he’s loving it. He says he’s got the best of both worlds, which I won’t go into too much detail on that, but young fathers or fathers of young children will understand what I mean by the best of both worlds. He gets to see his kid and gets all the privileges of that without the punishment of being woken up all night, you know, two o’ clock in the morning, to screaming babies. So, yeah, he’s getting the best of both worlds.

 

What else? Yeah, he said the funniest thing on the phone. He’s like:

 

“We go to the shops and I carry the baby and I’m like, ‘This is easy. What does everyone complain about?’ And then the baby cries and I’m like, ‘Oh, I’ve got someone for you’.”

 

He’s like:

 

“Just passes the baby off to mum because I don’t know why people complain about fatherhood. It’s pretty easy actually!”

 

And I’m like:

 

“Legend! Excellent! Thank you!”

 

So yeah, he’s loving it. Big strong boy he’s got. And yeah, he’s been spending a lot of time with the missus, and as much as he can. Sydney’s a really big place and it’s like state mandated that he can’t live, he can’t go into the suburb that she lives and obviously she’s like in her nest. So yeah, it’s pretty silly what they’ve done to him with these bail.

 

Mark Collett: Why can’t he go into the suburb where, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Because the Member of Parliament [Allegra Spender*] that he allegedly threatened is the member for Bondi or Wentworth.

 

[* Allegra Spender (born 1978) is not a jew; however, she represents the Wentworth electorate, which has a significant jew population, and she has been an advocate for the jewish community. Since her election in 2022, Spender’s policy platform has focused on strong action on climate change; economic reform; integrity in politics; and support for gender equity, humanitarian treatment of refugees, LGBTQs inclusion, and action on anti-semitism. The Division of Wentworth is an Australian electoral division in the state of New South Wales. The division encompasses the suburbs east of Sydney CBD, mostly Woollahra and Waverley councils in Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs. Wentworth is the smallest geographical electoral division in Australia with an area of just 31 square kilometres (12 sq mi), covering Woolloomooloo along the southern shore of Sydney Harbour to Watsons Bay and down the coast to Clovelly—an area largely coextensive with Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs. Since 2022 its MP has been Allegra Spender, an Independent. From 2004 to 2018, the seat was held by Malcolm Turnbull, who served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2015 to 2018. Source: Wikipedia]

 

Mark Collett: Basically he allegedly threatened his own neighbour and that’s got him out of nappy changes at 2 AM! Was this all part of his like evil master plan to make himself more famous and not have to change nappies?

 

Thomas Sewell: This is Joel Davis, 4D chess! Yeah. [chuckling] That’s the primary motivation. Yeah. So regarding other court nonsense, I won’t go too much into the High Court challenge, but that is “cooking”. These things don’t happen overnight.

 

A lot of people are being impatient and have been messaging me asking:

 

“What’s going on, what’s going on!”

 

And yeah, everyone just needs to be patient. It’s only been, I mean it’s what, April? I mean it’s been two months or something. Just everyone needs to chill. I’m talking about Australians, not yourself, Mark. A lot of Australians are messaging me like:

 

“What’s the update? What’s the update?”

 

Everyone’s just standing back and standing by.

 

[11:41]

 

But yeah, I’ll give an update when there’s an update to give. So there should be an update very soon. “Two more weeks!” So they say during Covid, two more weeks of lockdowns.

 

And regarding my court stuff, geez, I don’t know how much I want to say. We’ve got a court date coming up soon. It could get wrapped up within the next four weeks or we could go to trial. So the lawyers are still negotiating. It really comes down to the violent disorder, the so-called violent disorder which happened at the rally on August last year. And yeah, we’ll see what happens. I might have to do a little bit more jail time. We’ll see what the deal is. I might probably, worst case scenario, might have to go to jail for like three to six months. Best case scenario, probably time served. So, yeah, it is what it is. I got plenty of, I got plenty of books to bring with me this time, so I’m not too stressed.

 

And yeah, we’ve just been my little clique of guys we’re still training every day, we’re still hanging out. You know, nationalism is just localised now. We’re not able to organise, you know, 400, 500 people across the country into activism, into community events and political events. We’re not able to do that at the moment, but we are still allowed to have friends.

 

So obviously there’s a lot of do’s and don’ts. I had to tell a whole bunch of idiots off, I think two or three weeks ago there was a bunch of kids that were trying to do like a, “we’re not the NSN group”. And I just had to remind them about particular things that happen in the UK, and that that’s what they’re hoping you do and don’t do this. And we’re playing the game by the rules. And we have an opportunity here where we haven’t been prescribed. I want to make it very clear to everyone, we are not a banned organisation. We’re not a prescribed organisation. And we’re disbanded. But again, it’s a disbandment pending a High Court trial.

 

So it’s not like we’re giving up and we’re like:

 

“All right, back to the drawing board, guys!”

 

It’s pending a High Court trial. How long will they drag that out for? They can probably drag it out for a year, but these things actually move faster than you’d expect. And people just need to be patient. People need to build their local community. And that’s it. Everyone’s so focused on what’s happening in Iran and what’s happening in Israel and what’s happening on the other side of the country. And it’s like:

 

“How many nationalists do you know in your suburb?”

 

And so this is a really golden opportunity for people to just focus on their own area, their own close little circle of friends and build local connections.

 

And so it’s easy for me to say that because I’m a public personality, I’m a known face, and everywhere I go, that conversation arises. Like just yesterday I had two conversations with businesses in my area. And they recognised me and they started asking me:

 

“What do I think about the jews? Do you think there’s an anti-White agenda? What do you think about Iran?”

 

And so, like everywhere I go, it becomes political. You know, I talk to businessmen in the area, like shopkeepers the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker, so to speak. And these conversations arise. So I’m always, I’m constantly building community, I’m constantly networking. And if you’re not a known face, you can still do that. You’ve just got to do a little bit of foreplay first and see who’s your friend and who’s your foe.

 

And where I live is definitely like a White flight corridor. And so a lot of the local businesses, a lot of the people in my area, they recognise me and they’re honest enough and confident enough to admit that they recognise me and that they support what we’re doing.

 

So it’s really awesome! Like, Australia is massively polarised and people are so political in Australia. I mean, Australia had a really bad reputation of having an attitude of:

 

“She’ll be right!”

 

This laissez faire, politics is for dummies. Just focus on getting a Hilux ute and focusing on your trade and minding your own business. And the Australian dream is having a Hilux ute, or a Toyota Land Cruiser or both, a jet ski, a dog, 2.5 kids, a white picket fence, and four [weeks] holidays a year. And Australians are actually starting to, I can feel it, I can see it. I’m talking to people my age, older, younger, and I can see so clearly that Australians are putting that as a secondary principle now. And Australians are going:

 

“Well, hang on a minute. I’m not actually concerned about that idealistic dream anymore. I’m concerned about survival now. I’m concerned about the survival of our country. It’s clear we’re under attack!”

 

This fuel shortage thing that’s happening here in Australia and the price of petrol and the price of diesel going up like 1.5 or 1.7 times, like diesel almost doubled instantly, overnight. And so if you’re a tradesman, if you know you’re reliant on transporting yourself and goods around, that’s just smashed your business, because you can’t charge double for what you’re doing. So it just hits you. It’s just another tax. I noticed in Ireland there was some protests.

 

[17:08]

 

Here in Australia, we haven’t had any protests yet, but I assure you things are getting very tense. And the Australian government has set up Australia to fail! The current Australian government and previous administrations of this regime have set Australia up to fail! We are one of the least fuel secure countries in the world and we’re meant to be a developed nation. We’re meant to be a first world nation and we’re in a worse position than a lot of second world and third world nations when it comes to fuel security.

 

And so we haven’t even really felt the brunt of it yet. I think we’re going to start feeling the brunt of it in the next fortnight with this crisis in the Middle East, which I don’t want to talk about too much. Obviously it’s 6 am here and it’s a bit too early for geopolitics.

 

But what I will talk about is the feeling on the ground here in Australia is that the average Aussie is like, people just come up to me in the street and just say:

 

“The government has set us up to fail! The government set us up to fail!”

 

Basically it’s the same rhetoric as like Weimar Republic where people were saying:

 

“You know, we’ve been stabbed in the back! We didn’t lose the war, we’ve been stabbed in the back!”

 

It’s the exact same rhetoric like:

 

“We’re being betrayed from within, we’re being stabbed in the back, we’re being set up to fail!”

 

That’s like the Aussism of being stabbed in the back, is we’ve been set up to fail. And people are pissed off about that. They’re like:

 

“How did they not know that this was a liability? Oh, they did know! And they did nothing!”

 

They did absolutely nothing to make sure that we were secure.

 

So anyway, I could waffle on about that forever. What else? Mark, what do you want to talk about today?

 

Mark Collett: Well, I was going to ask. So in Australia, just before you guys disbanded, there’s a couple more things I wanted to ask about Australia. Before you guys disbanded, there seemed to be a sort of a real street movement coming about. Now we have a street movement in the UK which is quite small, that myself and Steve Laws and numerous other groups have sort of come together to try and get going with the ethno-nationalists. But our large scale street movement, Unite the Kingdom, is basically run by people that have a very dim view of ethno-nationalism. Tommy Robinson’s the front guy for that. He’s already said that:

 

“If he saw the sort of people who are at Charlottesville coming down his street, he would attack them, he would side with the far-Left rather than stand with us.”

 

You know that’s where he stands at.

 

Thomas Sewell: He’s an anti, …

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, effectively he’s a multiculturalist that just claims Islam is the problem because he’s pro-Israel. But you guys, your street movement doesn’t seem to have been co-opted in the same way. And when there was a big rally you guys turned up and you were actually welcomed there. And it seemed to be that normal people were there and they were like:

 

“Look, we’re all here together!”

 

And people like Avi Yemeni were told:

 

“We don’t want you here because you’re not here for Australia, you’re here for Israel!”

 

Now that was pretty heartening. From a UK perspective, I was over the moon for you guys because we have so many problems with Tommy Robinson, with these Civnats just the other day, people putting these big flags up and giving speeches in front of them saying:

 

“Britain was built on migration! It’s just gone a bit too far.”

 

Once you’ve got that message, you’ve lost already. Once you’re saying that, it’s like you’ve already lost. But you guys seem to have escaped all that. There doesn’t seem to be that big celebrity controlled opposition movement in Australia.

 

So you guys turn up, you get treated really well! It looks like things are going to take off. What’s happening with those sort of rallies at the moment in Australia? Are they continuing to be arranged? Have the organisers said we’re going to give those up? We or are they still doing it? And if they are still doing it, can your guys go along? What direction do you think those gatherings will take after these laws have come in?

 

Thomas Sewell: Well, ultimately I’m not a supporter of rallying for the sake of rallying. I think rallying has to be, you can have a planned rally. Rallies are always planned. But there has to be an organic will of the mass to come out and demonstrate. There has to be an energy, there has to be a really good reason to try to get hundreds of thousands of people out on the street across the country to demonstrate.

 

And that’s why a lot of these things, they migrate. Well, that’s probably a bad word to use, but they move from specific subject issue like immigration into:

 

“Well we can’t just keep rallying for anti-immigration, rallying for anti-immigration, rallying for anti-immigration. It doesn’t seem to be doing anything.”

 

And it has like a law of diminishing returns. And so where it’s moving to is more subject specific and it’s trying to branch out and instead of being a myopic movement, because in Australia it’s called March for Australia, that’s our equivalent. And they’re currently focused on things like what’s happening to Ben Roberts-Smith. I don’t know if in the UK you guys have seen with the decorated war hero, the SAS guy, Ben Roberts-Smith, most decorated or one of the most decorated soldiers in Australia’s history, the guy is genuinely a war hero.

 

[22:40]

 

Regardless of what people think about geopolitics and whether we should have been in Afghanistan or not, the reality is he was sent there and he got the job done. And there’s many, many famous stories about Ben Roberts-Smith. Like one of the most famous ones is about when an ANA soldier or when a Taliban soldier pretending to be an ANA soldier, which if you know, there’s really not much difference between the ANA and the Taliban. It was very easy for the Taliban to take back control of Afghanistan after the Americans, after the Allies withdrew, because the ANA was a fraud. It wasn’t a real army. It was just the Taliban on a government paycheck. And these guys dressed up as ANA, shot Australian soldiers in the back at a forward operating base. And they gave Ben Roberts-Smith a call to go hunt these guys down and find them, hunt this guy and his friends down and bring him to justice. And he did that. He hunted this guy down, he killed him and all his friends in his village. And now he’s being charged with war crimes, hunting this guy down.

 

 

I can’t, can’t remember the guy’s name. I don’t think he actually killed the guy that did it, but he managed to get all the fuckers that helped him in his village. And this is, it’s a dirty war. It’s a dirty war! I don’t believe, I mean, we don’t need to talk too much about the metaphysics of war crimes, but I don’t believe in a guerrilla war that the enemy can shoot at you and then put the rifle, … They’re wearing civilian clothes, they shoot at you, they put the rifle down and you know, they’re suddenly not an enemy combatant. And the Taliban laugh at our nonsense laws of warfare. They don’t follow the laws of warfare and so neither should we.

 

The laws of warfare are a contract between civilised People, in order to avoid civilian casualties. If Australia goes to war with New Zealand, we have laws of war and we say:

 

“You fucking New Zealanders! You know you’re gonna get it!”

 

And then you have a fight, but you have like a contract that you don’t do this and you don’t do that, and it’s to prevent innocent people dying. But if one side starts breaking the rules, the other side’s gonna start breaking it.

 

And the Australian government’s not punishing the Taliban. In fact they’re inviting them into the country and giving the Taliban money. So Ben Roberts-Smith is being charged with five counts of war crime murder. And he just got bail yesterday, which everyone was shocked at. I mean I did not expect that’s something weird is going on about that. I don’t know what is going on in the background. But the March for Australia and like that kind of whole scene, they seem to be rallying behind Ben Roberts-Smith at the moment. That’s like the subject issue of the day.

 

And people might think that that’s not as important as the anti-immigration sentiment. And I would argue it’s as important as the anti-immigration sentiment to rally behind national icons, to rally behind national figures. I mean, Ben Roberts-Smith represents the spirit of the hero, he represents the spirit of the Anzac. What you’ve got in this country is a complete lack of will to fight in general. You’ve got this laissez faire attitude, and we have politicians that are trying to stab us in the back by emasculating society. They’re trying to emasculate our men! They’re trying to denationalise our society.

 

They’ve done a really good job at destroying the army. Like the Australian army is like a politically correct cesspit now. The people in charge of it are more interested in being politically correct than they are in the strategic defense of the nation. I mean I consistently see in their speeches and I was even trying to read some policy stuff recently online, and it was a speech from one of the generals here in Australia, Lieutenant General. And he started the speech, the lecture and it’s about national security. He started it with a “Welcome to Country”, saying that:

 

“We’re on sovereign Aboriginal land and sovereignty was never ceded.”

 

And it’s like, hang on a minute, are you, like you’re a traitor! This is outright treason! We’ve got people that are leading us, and these are the people throwing Ben Roberts-Smith, under the bus.

 

And so it’s as Joel said in his interview:

 

“It’s emblematic of all the problems in this country!”

 

Where actual soldiers fighting for Australia are getting thrown under the bus by politicians and generals that are saying that Australia is not a sovereign nation, that it’s actually the sovereign territory of the “Kulin people” or some garbage like that. And yeah, that’s obviously very, I mean, offensive is one way to put it. It’s sacrilegious!

 

And it’s also an argument about the sovereignty of Australia we currently have. A sovereign is, as much as I don’t like the guy, it’s the King of England. The King of England is also the King of Australia. And I don’t like him personally. And I think the institution has become rotten.

 

However, I acknowledge that is the sovereign. He represents the British people and the British people are the predominant founding stock of Australia. We’re speaking English, and that’s the way our government works. The foundation of our Nation is in 1901 is a Parliament built on the sovereignty of the King of England. And that flag being stabbed into the soil of this continent in the antipodes in the southern hemisphere. And so to say:

 

“Well, hang on a minute. Actually, that’s not the sovereign. The sovereign is the local flora and fauna that did nothing with this place for 40,000 years!”

 

To say that we’re not sovereign here, they’re the sovereign, well, what defense force are they joining? What defense force are you joining? What Parliament are we sitting in? What, anything that we do. What tax are we paying? Are we just paying tax and serving in the defence force and serving in the institutions?

 

And so, yeah, I can see that’s where this ethno-nationalist movement in our absence, that’s where it’s focusing on. It’s topic specific.

 

Yeah. What else, Mark?

 

[29:13]

 

Mark Collett: Well, no, I want to respond to something, what you said about this soldier. And hear me out here, because when I see people like him, I’m not quite as enthusiastic about them as you are. Now I look at that man and he goes to Afghanistan. The Afghans essentially pose, especially the Afghans, you know, load of Afghan goat herders in Afghanistan. They pose no threat to Australia, Australian people or the West. This guy’s essentially at this point, a paid mercenary who points his gun at anyone his government tells him to. And if the allegations about him are true, that he did shoot civilians and he shot civilians and asked other young, impressionable soldiers to also.

 

Thomas Sewell: He’s not being charged. Yeah. He’s not being charged with shooting civilians. He’s been charged with shooting “disarmed combatants”.

 

Mark Collett: Okay. Disarmed combatants. Okay. Yes. Right. I take that on board!

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah.

 

Mark Collett: Let’s say he’s actually done that. These are allegations, …

 

Thomas Sewell: I don’t doubt that he’s done it!

 

Mark Collett: Yeah. If he’s done that, though, he’s a bit of a piece of shit! And I’ll tell you why, because, …

 

Thomas Sewell: I disagree, but all right.

 

Mark Collett: Well, I’m going to tell you why. And I’m going to tell you why you’re wrong. With all due respect.

 

The Australian government decided the Afghan people were their enemies because the Australian government are basically a branch of ZOG.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yes.

 

Mark Collett: The Australian government also believe that you are their enemy! And people like this Ben Roberts or Ben Roberts-Smith or whatever his name is, he’s the kind of person, the kind of, if this is true, unscrupulous person that the government will employ to police Australia and to clamp down on anyone that the government deems an enemy at any time. And one day, mate, it may well be that Australia’s falling to pieces and that your family are “disarmed combatants” sat with their hands tied behind their backs, staring down the barrels of guns held by ZOGbot enforcers employed by the Australian government. At that point, is it right for those guys to pull the trigger on your wife, your kids, or you? Because the Australian government don’t like you and they’re doing their job and you’re the enemy of the day because Nazis are taking over Australia.

 

Was it right for the men that firebombed Dresden, killed some 450,000 White women, children, elderly Germans and wounded soldiers? Was it right that the American GIs, in many cases shot disarmed young German boys who had been part of Hitler Youth and had signed up to the Wehrmacht? Was it right that Russian soldiers raped German women at the end of the war? Or that Eisenhower essentially starved hundreds of thousands of Germans that were disarmed? You know, people say:

 

“Well, they had it coming! We’re at war with them!”

 

I do believe there are rules. And I think for somebody like you, who is Australia’s arguably Australia’s best known political dissident, it wasn’t that long ago that police officers were brutalizing you and I believe two police officers even joked about killing members of NSN. They’re the kind of, …

 

Thomas Sewell: That’s true.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, and don’t get me wrong, I believe those cops, if they’d had the chance and no cameras were pointed in their way and they thought they could get away with it, would have shot your lads because they were doing what the Australian government and their superiors thought was right in defense of multicultural Australia. Is that right?

 

I mean, all these ZOG enforcers, whether you fly off to Afghanistan to shoot Afghans because ZOG tells you, or whether you shoot Tom Sewell and the NSN members because ZOG tells you’re still a bit of a ZOG enforcer! And I look at you and I think to myself:

 

“Come on we’ve got to have this straight!”

 

A lot of these people who follow the government’s mandate as soldiers, as police officers, as people that would be used against us, may well one day turn their weapons on us in this way.

 

And I think we need to aim for sort of a higher standard because I firmly believe that if things start breaking down, people like you, myself, dissidents all over the world could well be facing down the barrel of Ben Roberts gun. And what if somebody like him was put in charge of breaking dissident political groups that his government said were a true threat to Australian or British or American democracy? Would it be right for him to kill us?

 

Thomas Sewell: Well, I appreciate the hypothetical, and I can certainly play the game, and play the hypothetical scenario with you, Mark, but I would put forward to you that’s a false equivalency. And that I’m not making an argument some Zogbots are different to other Zogbots. I’d make the argument that our war against Islam in the Middle East was partly justified.

 

Regardless of Israeli influence, I don’t have any sympathy for the Islamic world. I think that Islam is a giant rape gang on a global scale. I don’t care about dead Talibanos at all! I think what Israel’s doing in Palestine is disgusting, because of their moral hypocrisy and because of the fact that they’ve got such control over Western nations they can get away with sniping babies and toddlers and all the crazy stuff that’s going on.

 

[35:03]

 

But we’re not talking about Ben Roberts-Smith going over there as part of ZOG to go snipe babies. Ben Roberts-Smith was part of the Australian Defense Force. He swore an oath to defend the Crown, as I did. And he didn’t make the decision to be deployed to Afghanistan. He didn’t make that decision. He made the decision to be part of an elite unit of Australian soldiers to defend Australian interests, to be part of the Defense Force. And I don’t have any sympathy for these bachabazi, you know, boy fuckers! The Taliban are the most putrid, disgusting human beings on earth! The stories that come out, and it’s not war propaganda. The stories that come out of how these Afghanis live in Afghanistan and how they behave and how they treat their own civilians. I don’t care! And I think it’s a false equivalency to say:

 

“Oh the Taliban are just as noble and fair as the Germans fighting in the Second World War.”

 

I these. I’m not against people having pointy sticks, Mark. I’m not against the fact that he’s paid by the Australian government. You know, he’s technically a mercenary. He’s the same kind of guy that comes and kicks my door in. He might be of the same stock and he might be part of the same or very similar institution to the people kicking my door down, but he didn’t kick my door down. So he didn’t choose to kick my door down. He didn’t kick my door down. He’s not part of the police, he’s part of the SAS*.

 

[* The Special Air Service Regiment, officially abbreviated SASR and commonly known as SAS, is a Special Forces unit of the Australian Army. Formed in 1957 as a company, it was modelled on the British SAS with which it shares the motto “Who Dares Wins”. Expanded to a regiment in August 1964, it is based at Campbell Barracks, in Swanbourne, a suburb of Perth, Western Australia, and is a direct command unit of the Special Operations Command. The regiment first saw active service in Borneo in 1965 and 1966 during the Indonesian Confrontation, mainly conducting reconnaissance patrols, including secret cross-border operations into Indonesian territory.]

 

And I think we’re putting him on a false trial, moral trial here, because he followed the orders that he wanted to follow. I think that you vote with your feet. And if he was morally upset about the war in Afghanistan, he would have left the army. Just as if I was morally upset about the war in Afghanistan, I would have left the army. I wouldn’t have been trying to deploy to Afghanistan.

 

And so my opinion about war is you need men with pointy sticks, and you need men with pointy sticks fighting the enemy. You need men with pointy sticks facing outside, not inside. And I don’t support the men with pointy sticks pointing them inside. I’m totally against what ZOG, obviously, is doing to our own people in our own country, but I think that we should have gone to Afghanistan with the correct intentions. I’m not against the war in Afghanistan. I’m against this nonsense of spreading democracy and freedom and McDonald’s and sodomy to the Middle East. Well, they’re already doing sodomy, but LGBT rights to the Middle East. I think we should have gone to Afghanistan either not at all, or with the intention of absolutely, totally obliterating the Taliban, and completely eradicating the enemy!

 

And then you don’t need to install a new government. The old government is completely gone. And other people will come in to power, and they’re either aligned with our geopolitical interests or they’re not. They’re either allowing Al Qaeda training camps in their mountain hills or they’re not. And they’ll learn the hard way.

 

And I believe in force projection. I don’t believe in a universal morality. I think what’s right for my people is what’s right. I don’t think there’s a universal right and wrong. I think that the laws of combat apply to brothers wars. I don’t think they apply to people that don’t have our value system. The Taliban weren’t. Why should we treat the Taliban better than they were treating us? Well, because we’re in their country?

 

So I think it’s a false equivalency. I think you can’t put Ben Roberts-Smith on trial because the actions of police officers that kick down my door and threaten to kill me. I’ve been in ZOG! I was an Australian soldier, and I’m telling you, the world is changing. And less and less White men are joining the army. And I don’t encourage White men to join the army that much anymore. I tell people. I generally tell people not to. Some men, they kind of have to. They kind of get to get it out of their system. But I told them to focus on politics. I tell them, we got to fix the country, and then we can fix the army. We can’t fix the army from inside the armies. There’s no point joining.

 

But, you know, less and less men of our calibre that are patriotic and nationalistic are joining the army. And more and more, or police, and more and more are joining not to serve their community or serve their nation. They’re joining for a paycheck. And I don’t believe Ben Roberts-Smith is one of those people. And I don’t believe the SAS is that kind of institution. And I get a lot of messages on social media from guys, former SAS guys and current SAS guys. And they say to me:

 

“We all support what you’re doing. Keep up the good work. You’re a name with us. Like, people know who you are. They know that you’re fighting for, that you’re on the money.”

 

People know. And so the government is actually out. In my opinion, the government is at war with people like Ben Roberts-Smith. I don’t think Ben Roberts-Smith is their toy the way it’s been made out. I think they’re afraid of people like Ben Roberts Smith. They’re afraid of Special Forces guys that can’t be controlled. They’re ungovernable and they’re trying to break him. They’re trying to break him for what he represents. He represents these groups of elite soldiers that ultimately they could be a praetorian guard. They could in theory turn on the government. But they’re not going to do that without public support.

 

And so we have to do our job. I think everyone’s doing their job with politics and some people are in the institutions and some people are not. And yeah,

 

Mark Collett: But I’d argue like, …

 

[40:42]

 

Thomas Sewell: Okay, I can entertain the argument that we shouldn’t have been in Afghanistan. Like that we can just bomb the Al Qaeda training camps and we can just defund Israel and blah blah, blah, and ISIS will disappear. Or Al Qaeda at the time was the organisation prior to ISIS. But Al Qaeda will disappear if we bomb enough people, but then we’re bombing people. You know, it’s like, I don’t believe in this, Muslims are generally peaceful, blah, blah.

 

Of course, there’s 1.1 billion of them. There are nefarious entities with a lot of money in the Islamic world. And they want to hurt us and they want to engage in a war with the West. You know, they do want to engage in a war with the West. They don’t hate us for our freedom. I’m not an idiot! [chuckling] They hate us because we’re non-believers! We won’t submit to their God. That’s why they hate us. And yeah, don’t send men like Ben Roberts-Smith to occupy a foreign country unless you want that.

 

So the politicians should be on trial, not Ben Roberts-Smith. So I am going to defend the guy.

 

Mark Collett: But the point is the Taliban aren’t really your enemies.

 

Thomas Sewell: They are! 100%.

 

Mark Collett: No one is 100% your enemy. Your enemy are the people sat in Canberra. Your enemies are the people sat in Australian Parliament.

 

Thomas Sewell: I think they’re both. Both can be true.

 

Mark Collett: No, they’re not.

 

Thomas Sewell: Taliban is my enemy!

 

Mark Collett: No Afghan in Afghanistan poses you any threat whatsoever! Your government poses you the threat and they pay people like Ben Roberts Smith.

 

And I believe quite firmly that if tomorrow the government said to the Australian military, as I’ve said to the Australian police force and Civil Service and social services and all the other, all the other arms of sort of law enforcement in the state that you guys are the ultimate enemy. You would be facing off against those guys who are in Special Forces.

 

And unfortunately we’ve seen that if you look at all the elite police units, counter terror units, if you look at all the branches of the Secret Service who are extremely elite individuals, some of them are drawn from Special Forces. They are the people responsible for kicking nationalist doors in at 6 am and dragging us out of our houses. And I can tell you this, there’s not a single person in Afghanistan who’s ever done anything that has harmed me. But there are plenty of people who work for the British state that have harmed me, my friends, people that I’m close to and have worked to either malign, frustrate or shut down organisations in the UK that are fighting for the betterment of White people.

 

And I think this idea that you know, the Taliban and Al Qaeda and all these groups are our enemies is basically just ZOG propaganda to get young, strong White men out there fighting wars for Israel, when really young, strong White men should be joining nationalist groups and working to get rid of anti-White governments here in the West.

 

The war isn’t in the Middle East, it’s never been in the Middle East. There’s no need for us to be in the Middle East other than the fact that Israel’s there and needs our protection, because ultimately most of these soldiers are just pawns on the chessboard for a bunch of supremacist jews that run Israel!

 

My belief is young White men, they need to be at home pushing back against their government and they don’t need to be part of the government brainwashing machine.

 

And that’s another thing. When people join the army today and I know people who are in the army, I know people who work in different branches of the government, whether it’s social services, local council services, etc, these people are regularly indoctrinated, monitored, and they are told that the greatest threat to what they serve and the country that they work for is actually people like us and our thought processes.

 

Thomas Sewell: I know. I know. Do they believe it?

 

Mark Collett: Well, many do, or they wouldn’t be kicking our doors in, would they mate? You know those cops who wanted to kill you and your friends? They did believe it. And they are the people, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, I think they’re a minority. I think the average cop that kicks my door in, because I ask them, I say to them:

 

“How do you feel about doing this to me and my family?”

 

And they are mercenaries for ZOG, and they admit that they’re mercenaries for ZOG, and they say:

 

“Well, look, mate, I wouldn’t be doing this if I won the lotto.”

 

That’s what they all say to me:

 

“Oh, look, mate, I gotta pay a mortgage.”

 

That’s what they all say to me. That’s their justification for doing it:

 

“I’m just following orders.”

 

And I say:

 

“That sounds familiar.”

 

So I know what you’re talking about. But I don’t equate the men with pointy sticks pointing outwards with the men with pointy sticks pointing inwards.

 

You know, I think men should be judged on their merits. I think men should be judged on their merits. And can we say that Ben Roberts-Smith is politically naive? Yes, of course. Absolutely! He’s politically naive. Is he in bad faith? No.

 

[45:56]

 

 

And I think that there’s a difference between people who have, I see what Ben Robert-Smith, what he’s done. I see it in the same moral paradigm as any man in this country that goes to work and pays tax and has a job. I don’t see his behaviour is any less moral than going to work and paying tax and paying a mortgage to international finance. Because every single man that I know, when I say:

 

“You should get more involved, you should be more political.”

 

You know what they say to me?:

 

“Oh, I’ve got a mortgage. Oh, I’ve got all these bills. Oh my job, my career!”

 

And it’s like your career in what? Who are you paying tax to? A government that’s destroying us. Who are you paying a mortgage to? A nefarious group of people that hate us and are trying to destroy us. So it’s easy to hate on Ben Robert-Smith for shooting the Taliban and in the back of the head while they’re in the killing field. It’s really easy to hate on him. But what about all the men that every day fuel the beast? Every day go to work and pay tax to a system that is just bringing in more and more migrants to ethnically replace us in our own country? I think, honestly, if I want to compare the two, I would say they’re more immoral! I would say the average man in this country that goes to work and pays tax is more immoral than Ben Roberts-Smith. Ben Roberts-Smith is overseas killing what I define as the enemy. That’s how I see it.

 

And so when you’re going to work, … Because I don’t think that they’re doing it for ZOG. I don’t think these men are doing it for ZOG and I think that he’s of a calibre, …

 

Mark Collett: He’s not making life better for Australians, has he? And that’s the point., …

 

Thomas Sewell: One less, one less Saracen jihadist on earth! So total happiness improves.

 

Mark Collett: Muslims living in the West must go. But some random goat herder who’s [chuckling] never going to leave Afghanistan is not our problem. And this is the issue. This is the, … You’re buying into the Tommy Robinson narrative.

 

Thomas Sewell: There’s a black and white here, Mark, and I don’t believe it’s black and white like that. I think there’s a hierarchy and I agree with you on your hierarchy. But you have to admit that it’s a hierarchy. It’s not black and white. These people aren’t a threat and these people are a threat. They’re both a threat. But obviously they, people destroying our society are in government, or they’re in banking, they’re in media, they’re in finance. This is obviously the major issue!

 

But I’m not going to hate on someone because he’s dealing with a lesser threat. And you can argue that it’s a much lesser threat. And I more or less agree with that argument. The average goat herder in Afghanistan is not the major threat.

 

Mark Collett: It’s a zero threat!

 

Thomas Sewell: It’s not zero threat. It’s not zero, because, …

 

Mark Collett: They’re never going to get here. The only reason they get here is because we’ve got traitorous governments. It’s like you don’t have a problem with people overseas until your government allows them to come in and welcome them in the Afghans are never going to invade Australia, until the Australian government gave them council houses and said:

 

“Come here and do as you please!”

 

The invasion isn’t even masterminded by Afghans. It’s masterminded by men and women sat in Canberra who are taking away your freedom of speech.

 

Thomas Sewell: Sure, Absolutely! Absolutely! But this idea that Islamists in the Middle East are not part of a civilisational threat to us, I think is wrong! If we’re looking at this isolated individual, if, for example, we’re saying this one little Afghan farmer, he’s no threat to us. It’s like, of course, he’s a little ant on the other side of the earth.

 

But you know, Alexander the Great, when he’s invading northern India, what did northern Indians do to Macedonia? I’m just looking at this from a, beyond geopolitics. I’m looking at this from a civilisational perspective. The Northern Indians didn’t do anything to Macedonia. So why is he there with 40,000 Macedonian, you know, phalanx? Why is he, why is he there with all his Macedonian soldiers all the way in Northern India, invading Northern India? I actually don’t care about the Northern India. I care about Alexander the Great! I care about the greatness of Western civilisation and the expansiveness of the Aryan race. Europe either breathes in or breathes out.

 

Now obviously these guys got played. They obviously got played, right? Don’t get me wrong, they got played, okay? And I agree with that they got played. But their intentions were righteous. And when we look at you brought up Dresden and stuff like that. My great grandfather was a Lancaster bomber pilot. But they joined the Air force and they fought for king and country for what was intended to be a noble reason. Obviously wars get dirty and it was a disgusting war, the Second World War. And obviously the British people, the Australian people, the American people and the Russian people as well. The Russians were co-opted by the Soviets. Obviously these men, they fought with an ounce of patriotism and nationalism and it was obviously manipulated against the interests of Western civilisation. It ultimately was not in the interest of Britain to engage in that war.

 

[50:58]

 

But I’m not going to say that the British soldiers aren’t heroes like in general for their courage. I worship, well, worship is probably a very strong word. But I respect the hero on the merit of heroism. And Ben Roberts-Smith isn’t just shooting civilians like in the field. Like there was encounters where Ben Roberts-Smith, they were in ambushes. The ANA betrayed them and ambushed them with the Taliban. And Ben Roberts-Smith in one encounter killed 50 of these people in one encounter by himself. You know, I mean the guy is just, he’s an archetype of the hero. The guy was running at machine guns with three steel plates on his chest. I can respect the heroism being on the battlefield and running at the machine gun and fighting tooth and nail. And that’s my belief system, Mark. And like we can agree to disagree on it. But I can appreciate, I can appreciate the warrior for the warrior. He’s not a priest! I’m not claiming he’s a priest. I’m not claiming he understands politics super well. I’m not saying:

 

“I’m not saying this guy is God, emperor, warrior, priest Ben Roberts-Smith!”

 

But what I’m saying is he represents the archetype of the warrior. Just like the British soldiers in World War II. We can agree that what they fought for ultimately has damaged Britain. But we can agree that they fought. Just like the Anzacs. Like, we worship the ANZACS here in Australia. We say the Anzacs are our foundation legacy, they’re a part of our civic religion. We have a civic religion here in Australia, where Australia’s foundation is built around the Anzac mythos.

 

But these men ultimately fought for Israel, for the creation of Israel. Like, they fought to break the Ottoman Empire in Gallipoli. In Turkey, they broke the Ottoman Empire that caused the British Palestine Mandate, which later caused Israel. So I should just throw all the Anzacs under the bus? I don’t believe in that. I can respect that, the hero for being the hero. I can respect the ANZAC for being the Anzac and at the same time say like, I can respect the 16 year old boys that died in Kokoda in the trail fighting the Japanese Empire and at the same time be like:

 

“We manipulated Japan into declaring war with the West. They could have just focused on China and extracted resources and blah, blah, blah!”

 

And those that wanted war with Germany created war with Japan and we never needed to go to war with Japan. They weren’t a threat. You know, the Japanese weren’t really a threat to Australia. They only declared war on America and Australia because they were forced into it.

 

And so we can have this take on geopolitics. That doesn’t mean the guys that fought at Kokoda weren’t heroes, Mark. No Japanese soldier ever shut down the bank accounts of the fascist movement in Australia in 1930. It’s like, so?

 

Mark Collett: But that’s an important point, because otherwise you fall down the Tommy Robinson narrative. So Tommy Robinson, he raises one valid point, that Muslims here in the UK do horrific things to young British girls and in some cases young British boys.

 

And I want to make it totally clear, I don’t want any Muslims in Britain at all! I want them all to go. I want every mosque to be closed down. I want this to be 95% White British country, where the few that remain are overwhelmingly of White European descent from elsewhere in the world.

 

So you have some White Australians here, some White Americans here some Germans, some French, but we’re 95% White British. But Tommy Robinson, he’ll raise this valid point and then he’ll say:

 

“Look, we need to have the warrior spirit, we need fighting men. And the best way to put it up the Muslims is to go and fight in places like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan!”

 

He spreads that narrative. And then when we do go and fight there, it has three effects. The first effect is we spend lots of money and lots of our young men either die or come back with horrific injuries. The second effect is the Muslims here in Britain become far, far more radicalised and do far more horrible things to our people in terms of revenge.

 

And the third thing that it does is it creates a never ending stream of Muslims coming to the West as refugees, as translators. And for all the piss and vinegar from people like Tommy Robinson and all these “we’ve got to go and fight them abroad”, the net effect is British people suffer because money spent abroad. British people suffer because their sons and daughters go over there and fight and come back in body bags or maimed. And then British people suffer because more people come from Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Middle East because we’ve kicked the hornet’s nest. Never once has one of these foreign wars that Ben Roberts has fought in resulted in a better world for Europeans!

 

In fact, quite the opposite. And we’ve got lots of people who are great warriors, wonderful with guns, expertly trained, incredibly fit, people who would make me wince with the physical feats they can carry out. And they went to Afghanistan, they went to Iraq, they’re probably on the borders of Iran as we speak. They’ve operated in places like Syria and Libya. And I’m sure they’re great warriors in your book, but their actions unfortunately have led to a greater demographic shift here.

 

And if you go and do something and you are part of a machine whose actions reduce us to a minority and make our life worse whilst only enriching one particular group of people who are the Zionists, the people that Tommy Robinson works for, how is that a good outcome for us?

 

[57:08]

 

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, I stand by the point I made earlier that that is not the isolated fault and guilt and responsibility of one particular class of people just because they’re trained gunmen. Every single person in this society that’s not a full-time nationalist is contributing to the machine. I agree with a lot of what you’ve said on this subject, that it has. These wars have not helped us. Absolutely, you’re right. These wars haven’t helped us. These wars have harmed us. Absolutely! I 100% agree with you! They have harmed us, they have brought in a never ending stream of immigration. That wasn’t Ben Roberts-Smith’s decision. I assure you if Ben Roberts-Smith was Prime Minister or he was in Parliament, he would be trying to stop that. So, and I think that’s my central point is that it’s actually men like Ben Roberts-Smith that they’re taking out.

 

There’s a guy in government at the moment called Andrew Hastie and he is part of the machine and he was in the SAS and him and two of his buddies testified against Ben Roberts-Smith and that’s why he’s being put up on these war crime charges. And he is part of ZOG! He is part of the machine! He is responsible for destroying this country! And he is the deputy leader of the Liberal Party, which is our version of the Conservative Party, here in Australia. They pretend to be conservative to get votes, no different to yours. But like yours at least they kind of are conservative, which is a shit ideology. These people aren’t even agreeing with the shit ideology. They’re pretending to agree with the shit ideology.

 

And so Ben Roberts-Smith could become a political force in this country. I think it’s quite obvious the way Ben Roberts-Smith was gearing himself up after leaving the SAS. He was making political manoeuvres. Ben Roberts-Smith was getting on the boards of the Return Service League. He was getting on the boards of all these like ex-soldier organisations, community organisations. He was getting involved with the War Museum, he was getting involved culturally, he was getting active, he was getting political, Mark. And he wasn’t joining the Liberal Party because obviously he doesn’t like the Liberal Party. He doesn’t like what they’ve done to Australia. And he was looking at other options.

 

And I believe that Hastie, Andrew Hastie, sees Ben Roberts-Smith as a political threat to him. I think in a different timeline we could have had a Ben Roberts-Smith, you know, MP as opposed to an Andrew Hastie MP. I don’t think it’s as clear cut as everyone that’s in the army or everyone that fights in these wars is a Zogbot. I don’t think it’s as clear cut as that. I think some people like, am I a Zogbot, because I was in the Australian Army? Like obviously I came to my senses. I obviously came to my senses, but the point is that I joined the army. I applied to join the army at 17 years old because I loved my country and I wanted to fight for my country and I wanted to fight my country’s enemies and I wanted to put that to good use.

 

And so the soldiers on the ground, I think it’s a false equivalent equivalency to say:

 

“Well, you’re part of the beast, you’re responsible!”

 

And it’s, well, hang on a minute! They going over to Afghanistan because they don’t want Afghanis in Australia. And yes, you’re right, …

 

Mark Collett: But that results in more of them coming there!

 

Thomas Sewell: It has.

 

Mark Collett: That’s what’s happened!

 

Thomas Sewell: Yes, it has. Yes, it has. You’re right! That is what’s happened.

 

Mark Collett: It’s like me saying:

 

“I don’t want war!”

 

It’s like me saying, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Because they’re getting stabbed in the back!

 

Mark Collett: It’s like I don’t want more water into my house, but then I feed a hose through my window and turn it to max! That is not the way to go about drying the house out, is it?

 

Thomas Sewell: I think that’s a false metaphor or false equivalency. It’s like saying:

 

“I don’t like pit bulls.”

 

And then you go to the suburb over and go, kill a pit bull in the suburb over. And then somebody else is bringing pit bulls into your suburb because the suburbs not safe for pit bulls that you’re killing in the other suburb. That’s to me a more accurate metaphor. It’s like, Ben, Roberts-Smith is going over to Afghanistan because he doesn’t like pit bulls. He’s trying to get rid of them. He’s trying to get rid of this dangerous breed. And it’s like, meanwhile, he’s getting stabbed in the back. They’re bringing this dangerous breed into Australia!

 

And so it’s like he’s not pouring the water into his own house, Mark. He’s trying to deal with this issue externally because he’s pointing the pointy stick outside Australia.

 

Mark Collett: He’s pointing the pointy stick and chasing them into Australia, because that’s what happens. When these soldiers go abroad and fight these wars the undoubted end, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Roberts-Smith didn’t open the borders. And no one in the Australian army joins the Australian arm for that reason.

 

Mark Collett: And every time soldiers from Britain, America, Australia go to the Middle East, the net effect is more Muslims come to Britain and never once, …

 

Thomas Sewell: And how often Mark, how old are you? Mark, how old are you?

 

Mark Collett: I’m 45.

 

[1:02:04]

 

 

Thomas Sewell: And I’m 33. And we have the wisdom in our middle years. We’re definitely not old men. We’re fit, young, middle aged men or slightly younger than middle aged men perhaps. And we have the wisdom to know this. We have the wisdom to know this.

 

But you know, guys that are 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, like when do these guys join the army? You don’t join the army at 33 years old. You don’t join the army at 45

 

Mark Collett: Which is good.

 

Thomas Sewell: It doesn’t happen. When I was at basic training, the oldest guy like the “grandpa, gramps” at basic training was 25. A guy called Coxy, he was 20. That was the oldest guy at basic training. Everyone was 17, 18, everyone. The second oldest guy was like 22. And we were like:

 

“Whoa! It’s like a grown arse man!”

 

He’s as old as the corporals. We were like, you know what I mean? Like a 22 year old. When I was at basic training, a 22 year old was like an old guy that we looked up to and we were like asking him questions about shit! We’re like:

 

“What do you think of so and so? What do you think of this guy?”

 

You know, we were fucking kids, Mark! You know, we didn’t know joining the army that they’re going to be flooding Australia full of Muslims. We joined the army to fight Muslims! We thought that if we fight them on the front line in their country, they’re not going to be fighting on our turf.

 

Mark Collett: But the exact opposite happened.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yes. And we can reflect on that now as older men and we can say:

 

“Hey, don’t join the army!”

 

And we can say to young guys, blah, blah, blah, we can steer guys in the right direction:

 

“The real issue, the real threat is government. The real threat are the traitors in government that are stabbing us in the back!”

 

And they’re not putting Ben Roberts-Smith on a pedestal and having him in the Liberal Party and soak in votes and say:

 

“We need to bring more Afghan refugees into the country.”

 

Like Andrew Hastie, his counterpart. Another guy that was in the SAS, that has stabbed Ben Roberts-Smith in the back! He’s testified against him, he’s ratted on his own boys! He’s the piece of shit! Andrew Hastie’s the piece of shit! So that’s my position on it.

 

Like Hitler talks about this in Mein Kampf. When you’re fighting on the front line, your focus is on the enemy. And so Hitler was so pissed off and he got involved in politics at the conclusion of the First World War because his focus was fighting on the front line, rightly or wrongly! You know what I mean? It’s like Hitler’s fighting on the front line. What? You know the British are there to defend the little countries, to defend Belgium and the Netherlands, and the Germans are there to fight for the empire, the German Empire. And it’s like, so you’ve got these young guys being manipulated to fight against each other. And then where this political energy comes from in this expansion of fascism in the 1920s and 1930s across Europe was like:

 

“Well, hang on a minute. While the warriors were not thinking about politics and just doing what they thought was the right thing and serving their nation, they were getting stabbed in the back by politicians and a political class and a communist class and a traitor class!”

 

And that creates the rise of fascism. And I can feel that happening in Australia, in America, in Britain, with people that are leaving defense or people that are fed up with these institutions, people that are leaving the police force. Look, Mark, you know how I feel about police officers. I’ve obviously been treated pretty badly by police officers. My men have been treated badly by police officers.

 

But there’s a lot of ex-police officers that come up to me in the street and say:

 

“I support what you’re doing. I’ve retired from Victoria Police now, so I can say it, blah, blah, blah, keep on track, I think you’re a good man, blah, blah, blah.”

 

And they’re sorry for what’s happened to us by the institution. It’s the leadership that are responsible. It’s the institution. These guys just obviously it’s changing and less and less good quality men are joining these institutions.

 

Is that a good thing? Yes, in some ways, it’s to and fro. There’s pros and cons to good men not joining these institutions. There’s pros and cons! I think there are some cons because if it sucks having your own kind of men, seeing men of your own calibre, seeing guys point machine guns at your family. But I have spoken to some of these special operations guys that have pointed guns at people’s families. And I have spoken to them. And I won’t go into too much detail. I don’t want to get them in trouble. But their position on it is:

 

“Hey, this is nothing compared to how bad it could be!”

 

And I know that sounds like a, I’m not saying this, like a defeatist thing, but what they’re saying is:

 

“It’s just your turn at the moment, and it’s not even that bad. Get over it, soldier!”

 

And that might be hard to accept at face value, but it’s like, can we turn this around? What does that look like? The possibilities are infinite. What does it look like?

 

I mean, you got Nick Fuentes saying:

 

“Join these institutions and subvert them from within. And un-subvert them from within and get involved in institutional power.”

 

You’ve got people like Jacob [Hersant] saying:

 

“Drain the beast, or Masons.”

 

You’ve got like “put the system under siege” mentality. You’ve got people saying the exact opposite of Fuentes. And I usually side with that mentality. I say:

 

“Don’t join the police, don’t join the army!”

 

But some people are going to do that regardless of whether we tell them to or not. And there’s a lot of good, spirited young men that aren’t listening to us. We have a relatively small audience compared to Tommy Robinson or compared to the mainstream media. And so they’re going to do it.

 

And so it’s like, how do we jujitsu that? That’s probably a bad way of putting it, but how do we mobilise that into political victory downstream?

 

[1:07:53]

 

And so, yes, they are getting lectured. They are getting lectured. But the Soviet Union, before it collapsed, lectured a lot of people on Soviet values. It doesn’t last! Their regime’s not going to last. You know, they can talk about LGBT rights and:

 

“The greatest threat to democracy are these neo-Nazi guys like Thomas Sewell!”

 

And there’s a lot of guys in these institutions that are secretly in the group chat going like:

 

“Thomas Sewell’s a legend!”

 

So they’re not falling for it. Those that are falling for it want to fall for it. You know that guy that threatened, that cop that threatened to kill my boys in South Australia? He’s a lil’ Reddit, you know, low IQ, fucking hive mind, you know, cuck boy! I would say he’s in the minority now. It’s a good point. Golden Dawn, it’s a good case study. Golden Dawn, allegedly 50% of the riot police in Greece were members of Golden Dawn. And the riot police still acted in regards to the Greek government in shutting down Golden Dawn.

 

But you know that that’s obviously a very bad statistic. You’ve got 50% control of the police members of your political party and your political party still gets banned? How do we deal with this, Mark? How do we move forward?

 

Mark Collett: I’ll tell you, I’ll tell you! I think you’re talking nonsense mate! And I’ll tell you why.

 

Here in Britain, the police force, and this is why you need to be slightly more open to what I’m saying. Here in Britain, the police force who are there to protect and serve, social services who are charged with specifically children’s welfare and looking after children, okay? They, between them, along with other government groups, conspired not only to cover up the greatest case of organised mass rape Britain has ever seen! Where more than a hundred thousand White British girls have been sexually abused, raped, trafficked, even murdered by Muslim men. And the police and social services conspired to cover it up.

 

But not only did they conspire to cover it up, they also worked relentlessly to brutalise, harassment, silence, arrest any people including parents groups, political organisations, who tried to blow the whistle on what was happening. Now I think the idea that secretly amongst these police forces that cover up these crimes, harass us, and silence genuine victims of anti-White crime, amongst these police forces there’s just ranks and ranks of them ready to take up arms with us. I think that is wishful thinking to the greatest degree!

 

And I think secondly, …

 

Thomas Sewell: I didn’t say about England, you know how I feel about British police.

 

Mark Collett: But I think the police force in Australia would be the same. And I think if push came to, …

 

Thomas Sewell: I think it’s turning that way. No, I think it’s absolutely turning that way!

 

Mark Collett: If push came to shove and the government declared you a terrorist group and told the police that anyone who’d ever been a member of NSN had to be rounded up tomorrow, the police would eagerly do it. And then I think if, …

 

Thomas Sewell: They would do it.

 

Mark Collett: If they ordered the army to assist, I think the army would do it too.

 

Thomas Sewell: They probably would too.

 

Mark Collett: So at that point, yeah, so at that point you’re dealing with hostile people.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah.

 

Mark Collett: And I would say this, I don’t know what goes on exactly in Australia with non-White criminality or anti-White crime. But it wouldn’t shock me if there wasn’t cover ups going on now. And I’ll tell you why.

 

There have been cover ups in France with these church burnings. There have been mass cover ups in Germany around crimes specifically related to Turkish criminals, gangsters groups bringing in firearms from Turkey and controlling the criminal underworld in Germany. And I would find it to be very strange if all these cover ups were taking place in European nations, but weren’t taking place in Australia.

 

And I think we’re living in a world now where people who work for the system, especially those in law enforcement, are being specifically vetted to be against people like you and I, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Yes!

 

Mark Collett: And I see all of this as a package of people that are our enemies. And look, I believe in the warrior spirit. I believe in struggle, I believe in men being Hardy. I talk about this all the time. But if you’re going to be a warrior, you’ve got to fight the right enemy to be in my good books.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. Look, absolutely there is institutional corruption in Australia! Is it as bad as Britain? No! Did we have a mass rape epidemic in Australia like there is in Britain? There’s isolated cases, yes. But it’s not anywhere near on the same industrial scale. Did the police in Australia do their job? Mostly. They did. When these rapes started happening, the Australian police and the Australian court actually like threw all these Muslims in jail. And there’s some classic cases that were popularised in the media where they didn’t actually try to do that here in Australia. I don’t know why it didn’t work. I can only put it down to the fact that we have an old guard that are not child rapists. And I do believe there is an old guard in Australia. Is this old guard dying and retiring? Yes, absolutely, absolutely! They’re retiring from the police force or they’ve already retired. They’re retiring from, …

 

Mark Collett: Just to interject there, Tom, I think we sent all our actual real criminals, like hardened street fighters to Australia, but we kept the child abusing paedophiles here in Britain, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah.

 

Mark Collett: And that’s why our entire establishment is run by child abusing paedophiles who obviously love the Muslim child abusing paedophiles. Whereas your criminals and your police, I will admit, may be cut from a slightly different cloth.

 

[1:14:05]

 

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. There are 27 high profile paedophiles in Australia that are being protected. Including a former Prime Minister. I can’t remember the name of the files, but some people call it “The John Howard Files”. It’s not John Howard that’s in it. Well, he probably is, but he’s not the paedophile that’s been accused. But John Howard, a former Prime Minister, put a 99 year seal on 27 high profile judges, senior police officers, politicians, and one prime minister, and probably people in defense as well, that are convicted paedophiles and they’re convicted in secret courts. For the sake of the Australian integrity of the system these people have not been named.

 

And so there is institutional corruption here in Australia. And that’s pretty heinous that it’s from the top down. The fish stinks from the top [head] down. And obviously the Australian political class were just as deeply involved with the Epstein scandal and the Epstein files. I think it was Paul Keating’s daughter was basically like one of Epstein’s little girls. So there’s many photos of Paul Keating’s daughter going in and out of Epstein’s Manhattan apartment. While she was in her, I think, late teens, an adult, but in her late teens.

 

And so who knows when that relationship started, how young she was. And when he sold his daughter to Epstein to be part of the political class here in Australia. No doubt there’s mass institutional corruption!

 

But yeah, again we are, yeah, things, it’s all coming out in the wash when it comes to the, as you say, the special units they’re using to hunt down political dissidents are being vetted for having particular Left-wing values. And they are being vetted to having particular anti-national and anti-White values. That is true. That is happening in real time. I’ve seen it transform in the time I’ve been involved in nationalism. I’ve seen it go from one end to this end over 10 years. And the reason why I continue to defend Ben Roberts-Smith is because if this was to have happened right now, where we’ve got a great awakening and a great zeitgeist of thought and understanding, I think the attitudes would be a little bit different.

 

But when we go back 15 years ago, I mean, who knew what was going on 15 years ago? A bunch of conspiracy theorists on the Internet. I mean there was some anti-war protesting, but it was from the Left-wing perspective. They were protesting war because they’re anti-war in general. I’m not anti-war in general. And obviously I wasn’t old enough or an, or intelligent enough or well read enough at the time to take a Right-wing anti-war position on say, Iraq.

 

So yeah, I think we should get off the topic. You’ve had your say. I’ve had my say.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, look, I’ve got to say I want to thank you for being such a good sport. I like it when you come on and we have a bit of a back and forth. And to the people in the chat who some of them are saying like I love Muslims or Tom’s ZOGed, look, …

 

Thomas Sewell: I haven’t checked the chat.

 

Mark Collett: Two people having a reasoned debate, okay? As friends, neither of us are insulting each other. Both of us have been extremely respectful. No one’s even said the slightest insulting thing to one another. This is how movements deal with issues. Figureheads discuss them like adults. And if you’re in the chat insulting either one of us, you’re not really in the spirit of what we. Of what we’re doing here tonight. And I have muted a couple of comments who have said insulting things about both myself and Tom.

 

So if you’re one of the people who is saying that either, Tom’s a Zogbot or I’m a Muslim lover, well, I think that’s unfair and there’s just absolutely unnecessary to do so because this has been completely polite. And if figureheads in a movement can’t debate one another and have a reasoned discussion as friends, I don’t know what we can do.

 

But look, let’s move on. I think that’s about the end of the topics we were going to discuss anyway. We’ve gone an hour and, 20 minutes. We’ll do the Superchats. If you haven’t Superchatted yet and you’d like to contribute to the show, please do ask any questions. We’ll answer them. But please do be respectful. And the people have muted. I’ll unmute them after the show when they’ve calmed down and stopped acting like complete spergs.

 

Because I think both me and Tom can agree that part of being a White man is understanding how to control your emotions. When somebody says something that you may disagree with. If you can’t control your emotions and you have to start jumping around [chuckling] screaming and shouting like a madman, you probably not being the best avatar for our people.

 

Anyway, let’s do some of these Superchats. Thank you to everyone who’s donated so far. If people want to donate, that would be absolutely fantastic! It really helps me out and I think it’s been a really entertaining show tonight. And I love doing these chats with Tom, especially when we debate.

 

In fact, Tom is so good at these debates, I could easily schedule him for once a month to debate on a topic with me. If there was one, because I do enjoy it. It’s been a really good back and forth. Nationless Nationalist gave $5. Thanks so much. Said:

 

“Good interpretation of the subject.”

 

Thank you so much! UK granny gave $25 and said:

 

“Thank you, Mark.”

 

Thank you so much! Open Borders for Israel said:

 

“Tom is an Australian hero. Great to see his exchange with the female Channel 7 reporter the other night.”

 

What was that? I haven’t seen that.

 

[1:19:50]

 

Thomas Sewell: Sorry, what? I was reading the comments. What was the question?

 

Mark Collett: The Channel 7 reporter.

 

Thomas Sewell: Oh, that was months ago. That must have just popped up in whoever’s NewsFeed. The Channel 7 reporter outside the court that was like, behaving in a kind of fawning manner. Is that what he was asking about?

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, he said he liked seeing it.

 

Thomas Sewell: Well, I think we discussed this last time, or maybe I discussed it with somebody else on stream. But yeah, I mean, ultimately, you know, politics is so boring, mainstream media politics and women are not actually used to. I mean, the public is not used to, but especially women are not used to men just saying it as it is. And we don’t have a filter. We just say what we think the truth is. We just say our truth. And women find that absolutely tingling! Whether they agree with it or not.

 

And people need to stop being, … It’s just more proof that you can. What’s important is saying the truth and saying it confidently and strongly. It’s not. You don’t need to morally police yourself to appease women or appease the feminine masses. The feminine masses, Hitler describes the masses as being inherently feminine. They kind of go with the strongest force. And if you’re giving them negative tingles, it’s ultimately a good thing. That’s more powerful politics than being boring. There’s basically nothing worse in politics than being boring. So just say the truth, say it loud, say it strong. And even people that disagree with you, unless they’re revolting, like Lefties, like, with blue hair, and they look like freaks!

 

But if they’re just like a normal person that’s kind of brainwashed by the Lefty institutions, when they hear the other side some people call it juxtaposition. It’s like when they hear the other side in such a way, it kind of rattles them, but it rattles them in a good way. Like, it makes them excited, it makes them interested, it makes them, like, pay attention. And you can’t say that journalists are, they’re obviously horrible people, but you can’t say that they’re bored when they’re interviewing me, they’re just like:

 

“This is what I come to work for. This is awesome!”

 

And so then you can’t get silenced that way. No matter how many times Left academics write article saying:

 

“Stop promoting these people. You need to asphyxiate them! Stop interviewing them!”

 

They have to do it. They have to do it! And so how do you counter Leftist academics instructing the media to silence us? Obviously they’re going to manipulate what we say. You know, it is what it is. You just got to play your cards as best you can.

 

Mark Collett: What Tom is describing is an interesting quirk of the female personality. Whereas men are generally most happy when a female listens contently to what the man has to say and politely agrees and giggles at the right time, women actually don’t particularly like that. Women don’t look for partners who basically roll over and just listen to them Prattle on.

 

In fact, women quite like men who are strong, can challenge them and hold their own points and show themselves to be dominant. So men generally don’t look for., … Well, men who are wired correctly do not look for a dominant female. They look for a female that is going to be basically their support. The person who listens to them, agrees with them, learns from them. That is attractive for a male. The opposite is generally attractive for a female. The female wants a man who will stand his ground. And even when she’s saying:

 

“Well, I don’t think I like what you’re saying.”

 

If the man states it confidently, calmly, and doesn’t back down, that makes her melt inside. Because women, generally speaking, if they’re wired correctly, do desire an alpha male. They do look for a man who isn’t going to bow to their every whim. That’s why men who get friend zoned are generally guys that agree with the woman who they like, incessantly. So they agree with everything they say:

 

“Everything they do is great.”

 

They can never give them any criticism. And women get bored of that. And they see that man as a doormat. No woman’s going to see Tom as a doormat.

 

In fact, some of these liberal women who work in sort of TV studios are probably surrounded by gimpy little doormats all day. And Tom’s probably the first man that woman has met doing her job, that is actually an alpha, and that just blows her away!

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, a lot of the criticism I see from these kind of liberal men is the same dynamic as simping and White knighting. So even when you take the sexual or the sex of the journalist out of the equation, what you’ll find is that when nationalists stand up and they’re strong and they’re confident about what’s happening. The kind of men that agree with that are men that are wired correctly. There are other patriots, there are other nationalists and they’ll say:

 

“This guy gets it, this guy understands what’s wrong with the country.”

 

And they say:

 

“I support this guy.”

 

And then what you’ll find is the same snarky kind of like libtard Redditor beta males that would like try and snipe you in part of their beta. It’s part of their sexual, … Like you can’t actually separate sex and politics. Sex and politics are inherently tied together.

 

[1:25:22]

 

 

So when people see it on camera, when they see like a sexual energy within a political force, or a dynamic, it like obviously it excites them because it’s like:

 

“Oh, okay, I’m actually seeing this in real time, bleed together.”

 

But all politics is sexual. And so understanding that the weak men are always going to snipe the strong men, that’s what weak men do, they snipe. And it’s part of a strategy. They feel intimidated by the presence, so they’ve got to tear down the alpha. And it’s an attempt to White knight in order to win favour from the women. And ultimately the women don’t respect them.

 

Women don’t respect liberal men. Liberal men are like eight times more likely to see a therapist and they’re eight times, 10 times more likely to be on antidepressants and all this sort of like liberal men, they’re not breeding, they’re getting cucked they’re below replacement. They’re not wired correctly and they’re basically funneling themselves out of the gene pool.

 

Whereas like strong men, strong hearted men, whether you want to call that conservative men, patriotic man, nationalist man, whatever label you put on it, there are men that are wired correctly. And we’re reproducing, maybe not in our 20s, but most guys in their 30s and 40s are reproducing. We’re above replacement. You know, we’re having big families, we’ve got these strong values. And yeah, when the system says:

 

“Your values are wrong, I’m offended. Blah, blah, blah!”

 

Just treat it like the same you would in a relationship. It’s just like you don’t disagree with what I’m saying. You just don’t like the way I’m saying. It’s like, so just be quiet and do as you’re told! And that’s basically what fascism or National Socialism or ethno-nationalism, that’s ultimately a force that needs to be driving behind it.

 

Last night, I know you probably weren’t paying attention, Mark, and rightly so, but in Australia, there was a nonsense debate between Michael Nelson, one of the young Zoomers, and a Zoomer girl called Bass Blondie, who’s not actually blonde. And they had a Twitter space and it went on for hours. And I was losing brain cells. But I listened to it because I wanted to hear the dynamic because these are people in their early, very early 20s. And they were having an argument over, I guess, like, women’s role in politics. And it was entertaining, to some degree.

 

But, yeah, listening to that last night was, yes, fascinating! I could talk about that for a while, but I’ll spare you. But there is a lot of that. People are trying to find their feet and figure out what the right approach is for these energies. What is the right application of the feminine energy within the political sphere in totality. And what’s the right energy that men need to put forward. And yeah, I think nature is going to solve the problem. Birds and bees!

 

Mark Collett: So thank you. DerCherusker gave $5. Thanks so much. Said:

 

“Powerful episode. Hail to you, Mark and Thomas. De camp ist de vanta Aladinga. Struggle is the father of all things.”

 

Well, I couldn’t agree more. ThinRedLine gave $5. Thanks so much. Said:

 

“Secure the future of our people. One minute ago, Mark Collett. Mark, can you ask Tom if he thinks the Australian military would., …”

 

Oh, it’s sort of relating to our little debate. He said:

 

“Do you think the Australian military would open fire on Australians if ordered to?”

 

Thomas Sewell: Oh, I mean, that’s, … I think some would. I don’t think they, … I think some would. The Australian military, I mean, we’re talking about 60,000 people. I think some would. There’s a percentage that would be just straight goy cattle that would. What is that exact percentage? I don’t know. Somewhere between 1% and maybe 10%. I don’t think the average Australian soldier would do that. No, absolutely not! I think you’re more likely to find a police officer that would do it.

 

And I think that was proven during the Covid lockdowns. That the average police officer, like probably more than 50% of police officers, if it came, if push came to shove, they’ll point the spear at their own people, and they’ve just been conditioned to do that. You’ll find that Australian soldiers were put in Melbourne, they were put next to police officers at military style checkpoints in these like 5k radius zones trying to block people from like going and visiting their friends during Covid. And I got pulled over and it was a cop and a soldier. And the soldier had his rifle on him, which is pretty like:

 

“Oh, that’s pretty Orwellian!”

 

And they pulled me over because I was going for a drive to see a friend, and I was way outside, I was like 40km outside my radius, my 5k radius. And instead of showing my driver’s licence, I pulled out my old like 10 year expired military ID that I still had in my wallet and the soldier just looked at it and was like:

 

“This is expired.”

 

And I was like:

 

“Yeah.”

 

And he was like:

 

“What are you doing?”

 

And I was like:

 

“I’m just seeing a mate.”

 

And he was like:

 

“Anyway, have a nice day bro.”

 

And then just let me drove off. So, I don’t have much anecdotal encounters with ZOG like with the army and the police. But I’ll tell you this right now, like a police officer probably would have fined me $5,000, but the soldier looked at it and was just like:

 

“Oh, he’s one of the boys, I’ll just give him a pass.”

 

But you know, so many people have got these horrible stories where like soldiers and police officers are pulling them out of their car and assaulting them. And you know what I mean? So it’s like it’s fucked up! It’s a really fucked up situation. I don’t have an exact answer for you. It’s case by case. Yeah, there are pieces of, in society that would turn on their own people. Would they open fire? Well, let’s say they did. Let’s run the scenario. I think you’d find that it would probably cause a civil war! I think you’d find there would be more people in defense that would be like:

 

“Why are we shooting Australians? I didn’t sign up for this!”

 

And it would cause a civil war. So the likelihood of it ever happening is possible. Of course, on a long enough timeline, anything’s possible, but I don’t see it happening in the current conditions.

 

[1:31:34]

 

Mark Collett: I think one thing that we have to be very careful about is although we don’t want to sort of alienate people in the forces who do support us, we can’t sort of ignore the fact that the police has become sort of more and more anti-White to the point where it would be legitimate to see them as a whole, as a rather hostile group.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yep.

 

Mark Collett: But the really worrying thing is, I believe, and some people aren’t going to like what I’m going to say here, I think the army is going the same way and the powers that have transformed the police are now doing the same with the army.

 

Thomas Sewell: Absolutely!

 

Mark Collett: And if you look in Britain especially, there is a massive, massive drive to recruit soldiers, as there has been police, from ethnic minority communities, which I think by its very nature would create a situation where the military became more hostile to sort of indigenous Brits. And I think that’s a worrying thing in the future.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, absolutely!

 

And a lot of people don’t see much value in the argument of trying to separate individuals from institutions. And it is much clearer, it’s a clearer propaganda message or it’s a clearer perception of reality to just address an institution as a whole.

 

And obviously the defense force in Britain and Australia and the police force in Britain and in Australia, they are institutions that are destroying our country! That is true. That is true! And so separating the individual or separating individuals out of an institution becomes messy work. It certainly becomes messy work.

 

So you, yeah, Australia is going down the same path, where, as I was saying before, I’ve seen two speeches now, one written and one visually, on video. I’ve seen two speeches from two of the most senior people in the Australian army starting their lectures with a “Welcome to Country”. When you think about the significance of that these Welcome to Country’s started, I don’t know, in the 2010s, like mid 2010s, they appeared out of nowhere. When one Aboriginal group visited another Aboriginal group, the local council would put on a little smoking ceremony. And they would say like:

 

“Oh, one group’s welcoming the other group to their turf.”

 

And it was just like this LARP [Live Action Role Play], it was this little placation of these two little groups of people. Like in Melbourne, there’s probably like 10 full blooded Aboriginals, you know what I mean? Like, it’s a joke!

 

And so it’s like one group saying to the other group. And then it, in a five year period, it went from that to every school started doing it on Monday morning! You know what I mean? Like in five years I went from this thing that no one had ever seen or heard of to every footy match, every school! And then within five years of it being in every school, you’ve now got senior members of defense, who have sworn an oath to the sovereign. Like the whole military is a hierarchy. You follow orders, blah, blah, blah. The whole idea of being one of the top generals in the country is you are literally a direct servant basically of the Crown. You follow the direction of the Crown, slash the Parliament that represents the Crown.

 

And so then to say that all of that is nonsense, to say that none of that is sovereign and that this is actually the land of the Aboriginal people and not of Australians, like to start your speech and then go and lecture people on national security, the absurdity of that! The absurdity of that! It shows that the fish stinks from the head down! The whole thing is rotten because this is what the leadership are doing.

 

Now, can leaders change? Yes, but we have to address it at its root, at its source. I don’t think the army can be fixed from within the army. We have to focus on politics. That has to be our trade. People that are patriotic shouldn’t, as you rightly put before, they shouldn’t have their patriotic impulses manipulated into joining these institutions. The same way they shouldn’t have their patriotic instincts manipulated into barracking for their local football team and dressing up like a clown and worshiping the football hooliganism obviously needs to mutate into politics or mobilise into politics, and it needs to leave football hooliganism for teenagers. And then ideally the teenagers leave it behind and realise politics is more important than football.

 

But you’ve got grown men behaving like teenage boys. And clearly the football culture in Australia, in America, the sports ball culture is, and don’t get me wrong, Mark, and I’ve said this many times, I fucking love football! I do. I love AFL! I think it’s one of the greatest sports in the world. I played a grade soccer for 11 years. My boys are going to play soccer. My boys are going to play AFL as well, I’m going to make sure they’re playing lots of team sports. I think it’s really important for childhood development, but it’s important for childhood development. You know, when you become a fucking adult, you focus on politics, not fucking Richmond versus Hawthorne! Like that doesn’t fucking matter! What matters is who’s running the country and why is that? Why are they running it into the ground? We need new leaders.

 

So, yeah, that’s we got to address things at the root. We’ve got to address things at the root.

 

[1:37:23]