Mark Collett: Hello everybody and welcome to Patriotic Weekly Review, episode number 358. We’re live tonight on Odysee, Rumble, DLive and Entropy. Please do share the links wherever you’re watching it. It really helps.

 

And I have to say this every week, but it really helps. When you’re not on X, when you’re locked out, when you’re one of the people that isn’t allowed on social media it really hurts your reach, which is why they do it. If you can help me by sharing it, we’ve got a great guest and a great show coming up. I’ve also been really busy last week. You will have seen the excellent demo we did Nuneaton that was great! There was a review of that up on my channel. Wherever you are watching my content, you can see the review of that. I’m one of the few people who’s active in real life as well as producing content, so please bear that in mind.

 

Also, I’ve got a lot of things coming up later this week. I back on the David Duke show on Thursday after taking a short hiatus. I am also producing a video for Friday. I’ve not done a scripted video for a while, but there was something that came up that wouldn’t really have been suitable for a stream and I wanted to do a scripted video. I hope you guys like it. It’s been a while since I’ve done one of those. They take a lot of effort. I’ve been scripting it out today. Gonna get that produced. I might do it as a premiere though, so when I launch it goes live in multiple places at multiple times. So that rather than it just being a video that gets uploaded, it’s like a premiere. It’s only gonna be about 10, 15 minutes long, but I hope everyone likes it. But quite a bit of effort into making it informative, short and the kind of thing that you’ll be able to share. We won’t be doing any stream on Sunday. We were going to do the A Team on Sunday with Sam Melia returning, but unfortunately we’re not. Unfortunately it just is Easter Sunday this weekend.

 

So we’re not going to be doing a stream on Easter Sunday because I’m sure most people will be with their families. Most people will be spending time with their loved ones, having a nice lamb roast and all of that. And they probably don’t want to do a stream on Sunday.

 

And also I should imagine that many of the people that I do those streams with will be busy Sunday night with their family and won’t want them sort of peeling off to do a stream. But we’ll be back to normal programming the week after. So I will be doing other streams this week, but this will be the only stream I’ll be doing on my channel. The other will be a pre-recorded video which will hopefully be a premiere.

 

So moving forward from that, if you want to contribute to my work, it would be massively appreciated. I can’t do this without your help. I can’t keep going without your help. That’s just the way it is if you appreciate my work, please do consider giving a donation. You can do so via Entropy or directly through Rumble. Everything is gratefully received. I’ve never put anything behind a paywall. I’ve never ever taken a wage formally from a Patriotic Alternative. Never! So everything I receive on these streams is what I live off.

 

And that means if you help me out, it means the world to me. So please do consider giving a small donation or more if you can afford audit. Obviously we will read out any donations in the second half of the show and any questions will be answered by me and Blair. You can also donate by crypto-currency. All the crypto links are in the description below. And if you’re watching this on replay, please don’t be shy. Make a donation via Entropy or Rumble when I’m not online. You know we have over the course of the show a couple of thousand people probably dip in and out of the stream watching live. But when it comes to the replay, many many more people watch it on replay. And if you are one of those people who watches on replay every week and enjoy it, please do consider giving something. You can also write to me if you need my help at mark@thefallofwesternman.com and I’m always here if you need me.

 

Anyway, we’ve got an amazing guest on the show tonight. I’m lucky enough to have met this man in person. He’s a good friend of mine. We do talk and correspond when we’re not streaming. He not somebody I just message out the blue saying do a stream. We do talk to each other and I really like being in his company actually. He’s one of those people that I’ve met offline, met in the real world and he’s an amazing guy. And he really is the kind of person that you should look up to, you should support because he is the real deal! He’s a true gentleman in the real world as much as he is on stream and he is someone you can look up to. He’s intelligent he keeps himself in good shape, and he helps young men overcome the problems of obesity, inactivity and low testosterone by helping them get in shape, designing them fitness plans. And these things are super important because they help boost people’s confidence, which help them get on in life where they need to be. This guy is a hero of our people, and he’s living in one of the most oppressive nations in the world.

 

Blair, how are you doing, my friend? It’s good to have you back. It’s been a while. I hope you’ve been well.

 

[05:00]

 

Blair Cottrell: I’m doing great, mate. Thanks for the warm welcome, as always, and it’s good to be back. It’s been a little while since our last catch up, our last live catch up, and I think it’s been a few months since I’ve done a live stream as well. The last one I did would have been by myself, but then prior to that, I would regularly stream with my colleague Joel, Joel Davis, who on that point, he’s got a Supreme Court bail hearing today. So Joel’s going for bail today. If you don’t know who Joel is, Joel is a close colleague of mine and an activist known for public demonstrations, public speeches, and streaming down here in Australia. He’s Australian nationalist, very active, very aggressive, and quickly became very popular over the last couple of years. But because of a Telegram post allegedly threatening a politician, Joel’s been in jail. He hasn’t been found guilty of anything, but they’ve held him anyway and they’ve stacked a lot of other charges on him while he’s been in jail, all in relation to, quote, unquote, “hate speech”.

 

So when Mark says, this is one of the most oppressive nations, Australia, my country, is one of the most oppressive nations right now! I’m sure he’s referring to that, among other things. But Joel’s going for bail today and he should get it. I think. I’d be very surprised if the Supreme Court didn’t grant him bail.

 

So if you do know who Joel is and you have supported him, thanks very much. But if you don’t and you’re looking for more information, I’ll send a link to Mark and he can maybe share it with you guys in the comments. But that’s the most pressing part of news for Australia for today.

 

Mark Collett: How’s he holding up? Is he still in good spirits? Because I know that jail affects different people in a different way. And there’s some people who go through the system and they come out of jail and they’re like:

 

“Well, it wasn’t too bad. I met loads of cool people. I’ve got friends, I was popular on the wing.”

 

And there’s other people who have a tough time and they can’t cope with being in there. They get into confrontations. There’s other things that go wrong for them and they just find it very difficult. How is Joel dealing with his time inside?

 

Blair Cottrell: Very well, I think. Especially considering that when he was arrested, his girlfriend was pregnant with his first child. And a few days after he was arrested she was heavily pregnant. Joe she gave birth to their first son. His boy is very healthy. Joel hasn’t actually been able to spend a lot of time with. I think he’s had one visit officially. He’s been in prison for four months and because of his status as a high profile offender, but because of the nature of his offending, because of his politics, basically because of his ideology, Mark, let’s be honest, he’s been classified as a “national security risk or threat” and that means he goes in isolation. He doesn’t get a lot of contact with any people except a select few. He wasn’t even given a Bible or access to a lawyer for a couple of weeks. It took them weeks to get a lawyer back onto his phone list. He’s been kept in pretty low conditions, pretty harsh conditions. But considering all of that, considering that he’s sitting in jail thinking:

 

“God, my girlfriend just had my son and I can’t even hold him.”

 

Considering that he’s holding up pretty well. I’ve spoken to him probably over a dozen times. He isn’t able to call me anymore though. For some reason they just took me off his phone list, and they didn’t explain why, initially, they didn’t explain why. And then they said:

 

“It’s because of your national security classification, you’re not allowed to talk to that person.”

 

But look, I’m hoping that he’s released today. I was hoping to get up because he’s in another state in Australia to me and Australia is a big country. I was hoping to travel up there [from Victoria to NSW] to be there for him today, but I’m not going to be able to make it. But I’m sure a lot of the boys up there will be waiting for him at the front of the Supreme Court. And it’s going to be great to have him out. I’m pretty confident he will get bail. I’ll be really shocked if he doesn’t.

 

If he doesn’t, it just demonstrates that the courts, the judges, could be compromised all the way up to Supreme Court. And if that’s the case, that’s really shocking! And the reason it’s so shocking, …

 

Mark Collett: It wouldn’t shock me.

 

Blair Cottrell: Just so you guys understand the situation, the charge that Joel is being held for is “menacing or harassing someone through a carriage service”, you know, mentioning someone in an online post. It was only one post, okay? It wasn’t actually proven to have caused any harassment or resulted in any damages. That charge is a pretty low tier offence and doesn’t usually result in a term of imprisonment, even when convicted, even when found guilty. It’s got a less than 6.5% rate of imprisonment. That means almost 95% of people who get charged with this never even go to jail. They get bail, they go to court, they might get a fine. That’s it!

 

Joel is being held without being proven guilty, and has been held in a maximum security facility as classified as a national security threat for the last four months. Hasn’t been able to have access to basic rights that other prisoners get access to.

 

And the irony is he was arrested in the same suburb where our worst terror attack in the nation’s history just took place late last year. The Bondi shooting, where a couple of Muslim characters targeted some people on a beach, specifically trying to target jewish people. That terrorist is literally, has literally had access to more rights than Joel. He’s had access to an imam inside the, inside the prison, which is like the you guys probably know this. It’s like our version of a priest. He’s been given a Quran, which is like our version of a Bible. He’s been able to contact friends and family. Joel’s had none of that! Okay? Joel wasn’t given access to a priest. He wasn’t given a Bible. He wasn’t able to call his friends and family. He wasn’t even given access to a lawyer for a while there, all because of his “national security classification”.

 

So that’s the situation. I’m hoping to see him out today, though. He should get bail today.

 

[11:34]

 

Mark Collett: Well, I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t. And I’m not saying that because I want to depress anybody. I’m saying it because it’s just the way I see things. You know, I watch one of my best friends go to jail for stickers that the police said:

 

“Well, the stickers were legal. We are not going to argue the truth of any of them because as far as we can see, they were truthful. But we think they’re intended to stir racial hatred.”

 

Obviously, that’s Sam Melia. I just find that if they want to screw you, they will screw you! And it’s cases like the Rob Rundo case. I mean, Rob Rundo punched a guy on a campus somewhere. Well, okay, punching a guy on a campus, what’s that, three months in jail? You know, a fine. Well, they chased him halfway across the world and deported him on a private jet with a bag over his head, as if he was Osama Bin Laden’s right hand man, for just sticking it on some Leftie at a demo!

 

And I sometimes wonder when we talk about cruelty and police brutality, when the police and the system go for us, they go for us in a way that they would never go for any other group, or have gone for any other group. And I mean, if somebody wants to point out, like there’s another group that have experienced this kind of prejudice, this kind of extreme level of sentencing, this kind of extreme level of persecution, I don’t know, I’ve never heard of it. I mean, you know that there are groups in America, Left-wing groups that committed crimes, horrendous crimes, acts of terrorism. They were all allowed to leave jail and came out and became college and university lecturers and wrote books and became phenomenally wealthy because of their crimes. There are people out there in this country who were serious Muslim terrorists. And there are essentially state funded groups that are there to work out ways to ensure these men get out early. And they all appear to be “reformed”.

 

Whereas with us you might as well just lock us up and throw away the key. And when people like Sam Melia came out of jail, one of the worst things for him is they were like:

 

“Well, you can come out of jail, but you can’t go and live with your family. You’ve got to go and live in a hostel. And you’ve got to be back in the hostel for 7 PM every night. You can’t even playut your kids to bed.”

 

And I sometimes wonder the people behind this, they must be the most soulless, wicked people imaginable! And what they’ve done to Joel is arguably from what you’re saying, I would argue this point is actually worse than what they’ve done to Sam because at least Sam got regular visitation and at least Sam was allowed to move freely in general population, made friends, got a job in prison. It seems with Joel, they’re doing everything they can to break his spirit. I just hope that when he does come out, somehow you guys manage to give him some incredible warm welcome.

 

Blair Cottrell: How is Sam going? Have you been? I didn’t actually catch the stream that you did with him or the show that you just did.

 

Mark Collett: He’s really. He’s doing really well! His book became a number one bestseller on Amazon. He’s doing really well! He’s knocking out the park. He feels really good about everything. You know, obviously he’s been back with his family now for some time. He’s back at protests, he’s back giving speeches. He’s an incredible guy, and I am so pleased that he’s come out of this the other side. And if anything, it’s made him stronger and more sort of dedicated in terms of his “love” for the system. I’m sure that’ll do that for Joel as well, I mean probably Joel better than anyone. How do you think he’ll react when he gets out?

 

Blair Cottrell: I think he’ll be very glad! The first time you go to jail, for whatever reason, I’ve been a long time ago, when I was a young scamp. The first time they release you, the first thing you notice is how green everything is, because you don’t see trees or grass, especially not in Australian prison. Everything’s just concrete and you don’t see the horizon. There’s just this huge concrete wall on the outside of your field of vision.

 

So the size, the scale of society, of the world and how green it is, you start to really take all that in and you appreciate everything. So it’s going to be an experience for him. Joel’s very good at sort of coldly experiencing reality, though. Joel’s good at processing his emotions in such a way where he doesn’t really necessarily express them or allow them to affect his demeanor.

 

[16:14]

 

So if he’s gonna walk out, for example, and there’s going to be, like media cameras there filming him, I’m sure he’ll walk out as a real cool cat that doesn’t really feel much at all! [chuckling] But I miss the guy so much, I’m just really looking forward to seeing him.

 

But in relation to what you said about how hard the authorities go on, people who come from nationalism, nationalist activism, I think what happens, I really think it comes down to human naivety. I wish I could be a fly on the wall, actually, in a meeting like this. I think certain police units that are quite green to this kind of politics and this kind of activism. That is to say they are taken from other fields where they’ve been stationed for a while. So they don’t really know much about characters such as you and me. They haven’t been exposed to this stuff before. They’re put into a room, these coppers, and some political bureaucrat, some police bureaucrat stands there and explains that these guys are “terrorists”! Basically:

 

“They’re a terror threat, they’re extremely dangerous. They have knowledge of all sorts of dangerous stuff, weapons, etc, they’re known to be violence, etc, etc, etc!”

 

So they basically brainwash these naive cops that don’t really know much about us. And the cops go in really hard thinking that they’re doing something great for the community. When really they’re being focused on pretty much the ownly, the last semblance of resistance against the end of society! That’s kind of how I see what we’re doing sometimes the fall of our civilisation. We’re trying to resist that.

 

But I think that’s what happens. It’s just naivety and it’ll continue because speaking of prison, they do the same thing in prison, Mark. They shuffle around the prison guards so that you don’t get the same guards in your unit for any longer than about a month. They put new ones in that you haven’t seen before and then they stay for about a month, maybe six weeks. They move them on. Their new guards come through maybe from another prison, because the prisons are typically run by either the government or private security companies that have a great deal of personnel working across the entire country. Right. So you often don’t spend a lot of time with the same prison officers when you’re in jail. Just as you probably won’t deal with the same police officers very frequently in Australian activism, nationalist activism. And the reason that that revolving door of personnel exists is to keep everyone naive as to the reality of like, what these people are actually doing and to prevent anyone from developing sympathies or friends. Do you understand what I mean?

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, I can imagine that it makes it harder as well. So when you’re in jail. I’ve never been in jail, but I can imagine when you’re in jail, things like familiar faces, people that you used to make it feel slightly easier. And Sam did say this to me, he said:

 

“When he was inside, knowing the lads on the wing, knowing the guys that you did your job with.”

 

So one of Sam’s jobs was the cafeteria in the cafeteria. Now, interestingly, he said that basically the pedos made the food, the pedos cooked the food so they were out of the way. Then they would send it up and then him and his team would serve it in the servery to everyone, and then they would clean up afterwards.

 

And one of the great things about being on the servery was not only were you out of your cell, but you’re out of your cell for a long time and working with the same group of lads. And after a while it felt a little bit like it was your group of friends you knew everyone, you got on them. There was a bit of banter, but he said by moving people around, it took that away from them. And it’s almost like a reset.

 

So if you’re getting on really well with everyone in one prison and they move you to another prison, you are starting from scratch again. Everyone’s got to get to know you. Everyone’s like:

 

“What are you in for, mate?”

 

And you have this sort of big reset.

 

And obviously all of this is designed to persecute some more than others, because if they want to make your life slightly easier, they keep you around the same people, they keep you on the same tasks, they allow you to build friendships. If they don’t want you to have any of those things, they keep moving you, they keep you on lockdown, they keep moving you from wing to wing, stop letting you have a consistent job. And that’s all part of the punishment. And then it punishment starts to stray into the territory, almost of torture, because some of these guys aren’t allowed to speak to friends and family.

 

And we’ve had the same thing in the UK where we’ve been speaking to political prisoners. And then all of a sudden the guy stops calling and you get word from someone else that he’s still allowed to call, that he’s not allowed to call you anymore because the state have just updated their lists of people he isn’t allowed to speak to. It’s all very unfair.

 

But one other thing I wanted to ask you is what’s happening with obviously the NSN was forced to close down. What’s happening with that law? Has that law been formally brought in yet? Or is it still sort of in the process of coming in?

 

And obviously I’m going to get Tom Sewell on again at some point to give us an update on the legal case. But since all of that, what’s the feeling from normal Aussies there about freedom of speech? Because to us in the UK, when we were watching this from the outside looking in, it just seemed this huge blow for freedom and huge blow for any nationalist group that even wanted to start a political party.

 

[22:24]

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s a good question, actually. I’m not really sure what’s happening with that law. I’m also not sure what’s happening with the process of challenging that law.

 

But from what I understand, there is currently a some sort of move to try to get the High Court, and this was my understanding of what Thomas Sewell is currently doing. He’s dealing with lawyers behind the scenes. He’s trying to get the High Court in Australia to make an injunction that the, … Let me start from scratch in case people don’t understand what’s happened. After the Bondi terror attack in Australia, that I mentioned earlier, where people were shot on Bondi beach. It’s like a major beach in New South Wales, Australia. It was the worst terror attack in our country’s history. Off the back of that terror attack, the government introduced a new threshold of crime they’re calling “hate crime”. It doesn’t have to be violent crime.

 

Basically, “hate crime” can be something you’re saying on the Internet. It can be an ideology that you’re subscribing to and certain groups with an ideological or religious basis that the government feels is threatening, they can be outlawed as “hate groups”.

 

Basically, it’s a whole new category of crime, and it’s a whole new way for the government in Australia to list so certain groups as terror groups without them actually doing anything related to violence or terrorism. It’s a pretty egregious law. In the actual legislation, it says things like, “no criminal convictions required, no procedural fairness required”.

 

Basically, there will be a bureaucratic process within government, amongst certain government officials that decides who’s allowed to exist as a political protest group, or a political party and who’s not, on the basis of their ideology and perhaps even their personal character. It basically cancels democracy, Mark put it that way. We have new hate crime legislation in Australia which cancels democracy! And it’s being celebrated by the government as a fantastic thing! So far, though, interestingly, they haven’t used it to list the National Socialist Network or Tom Sewell’s White Australia as a hate group.

 

However, while the legislation was being passed, and you kind of know stuff like this is going to pass, even though it shouldn’t pass in any fair, Democratic country, you know it’s going to pass when they introduce it. You just like when you hear the sort of people that are trying to get it through. The Prime Minister supports it. The opposition kind of supports it too. You’re like:

 

“Okay, this is going to pass. Jesus!”

 

So while it was passing, Tom Sewell disbanded the National Socialist Network and White Australia, completely. Well, I think the White Australia Party, the logistics required to register that party still exists, but the registration hasn’t been completed because the Australian Electoral Commission basically hasn’t responded to them. They’re not really sure whether they can register them on the basis of these new laws. That’s my understanding. I could be wrong. I could be getting my facts wrong with the AEC. I’m not sure if a registration has been put forward to the AEC. It was my understanding that it had been done, but I’m not exactly sure at this stage.

 

But what I will say is what’s happening now, my understanding of what’s happening now is that in order for the White Australia Party to be registered so people like Thomas Sewell and Joel Davis and Jacob Hersant and Jack Eltis can contest elections in the future, and you know, various other candidates can pop up, Senate candidates or regional candidates. You know, everyone who’s anyone in Australia in Right-wing activism is considering being involved or was considering being involved with this White Australia Party, … Which I believe is what prompted the government to introduce this hate crime law and rush it through off the back of a terror attack. Because right now there is a giant space for a far-Right presence to really pick up a lot of votes in Australia. There’s a very dissatisfied White Australian working class down here! They just don’t have anyone to vote for.

 

There’s One Nation but it’s just not far-Right enough. People need something a little bit more hardline. And they’re looking for someone to vote for. And the White Australia Party, although it might sound a little crass to people who don’t understand the history of Australia, the policy upon which Australia was founded was called the “White Australia Policy”. So it has roots in Australian history, this stuff. It’s very clever what the boys were doing. But the government introduced, introduced this hate crime legislation and in order to prevent him, all of his boys from going to jail overnight, Tom Sewell publicly disbanded the group.

 

But what he’s doing is trying to get the High Court, he’s working with some lawyers to try to get the High Court to make a special injunction that that hate crime legislation cannot apply to a political party.

 

And I think it’s a reasonable injunction for the High Court to make. I think in order to preserve any semblance of democracy, they would need to make that injunction, because political parties being denied registration or banned and outlawed on the basis of their ideology without having committed a crime, without having encouraged violence and without any procedural fairness or any route of appeal, like that’s not even a democracy! It has no relation to democracy!

 

[28:00]

 

So that’s my understanding of what’s going on. I’m not sure where that’s at. I do talk to Tom pretty regularly. He’s a close friend of mine, but he’s been pretty busy for the last few weeks and I suppose I’ll drop him a line and he’ll give everybody an update as to what’s going on with that. The ideal result, Mark, the ideal result is that the High Court does accept or make an injunction. The High Court does rule that this hate crime legislation cannot be used to ban or wipe out political parties. Can’t apply to political parties. The boys register White Australia, and then all the remaining traditional working Australians have someone to vote for. They have a banner to rally behind. I think that’s what the current government is terrified of and I think that’s why they’ve done what they’ve done with the hate crime legislation, with the police pressure, with the stacks of criminal charges they’ve pretty much slapped on every single member or leading members of White Australia. And I don’t usually get into, I’m pretty fair, I don’t usually weigh in too much on the conspiratorial stuff, but when you look at all the evidence, there’s a strong effort by the existing government, the existing political parties, to gatekeep their community, to gatekeep their class, the political class. They don’t want to allow White Australia a seat at the table because I think they know White Australia could run away with a victory and pretty much seize control of the country if they’re not careful. So a lot is being done to prevent that at a government level.

 

Mark Collett: Well, I’m not sure whether a party like White Australia would sort of storm it at the ballot box. It’s very difficult to do that. And I’ve thought that many times myself. You know, when I was in the BNP, I was expecting us to walk away with it. And there was always a softer option presented at exactly the same time. And that softer option was always the thing that the public decided to vote for, instead of voting for us.

 

But I think what they fear with groups like White Australia is once you are a political party, once you’re on the ballot paper, it gives you a degree of, or over an ear of respectability where you can say:

 

“Look, we are the real deal. We are officially registered.”

 

And at that point you have protections. And I believe that that’s what they were scared of in your case.

 

Because if you had the protections to keep doing what you were doing and you were officially registered, I think it would have been very hard at that point for them to do the things they were doing to.

 

Blair Cottrell: You are right. You are right! You have to understand that I had the same opinion. I thought even if these guys get registered, I don’t think they’ll get a lot of votes. I was thinking it’s going to take them a long time to cement themselves into official political culture because people tend to vote either one way or the other with this is like a two party system that we have in Australia, just like in most countries. And they’re very traditional about that. But the Boomers are traditional about that. There’s this whole new generation even us, we will vote more radically than the Boomers. We don’t want to vote for any major party. You know, we’re in our 30s and 40s, so pretty much anyone that age and below is going to vote for something more radical and is really fed up with what’s going on in the country.

 

And when I saw, August 31st last year, the first ever March for Australia rally, which was a huge phenomenon, and Tom Sewell and the NSN, how should I explain? They acted as sort of a makeshift security that allowed that rally to go ahead. When I saw how regular people reacted to literal Nazis walking into this rally to participate in it, to protect it and to play a leading role in it, I was shocked! I was actually shocked. I didn’t expect to see that. And when people, the way they reacted is they supported them wholeheartedly. They cheered them, they shook their hands, they wanted to get in photos with them.

 

And when I saw interviews later of regular people being asked about Tom Sewell and the guys, like:

 

“What do you think about these guys? Like, isn’t it a problem that there’s Nazis at your rally?”

 

The people shrugged. The people shrugged and said:

 

“Well, they’re against immigration. That’s what the rally’s about. So I don’t care!”

 

And someone would say:

 

“Really you don’t?”

 

Some journalist was trying to bait them, saying:

 

“You don’t care that there’s a Nazi up there speaking right now?”

 

And they’re like:

 

“Nah!”

 

I [chuckling] was like:

 

“Wow, that’s how fed up people are!”

 

People are so fed up that I think they would vote for a White nationalist party in Australia. I think that’s the way, you have to understand the Australian demeanor, the Australian character. We won’t always fight aggressively and in the moment, but I think sticking it to you know, rejecting official bureaucracy in a way that’s like profound, sudden, unexpected, we’re a rebellious spirit down here.

 

And that’s why I think the White Australia Party would actually get a fair few votes. Well, you got to understand, One Nation down here was a party that was a bit of a phenomenon. It kind of broke into the scene of official politics very suddenly, and Pauline Hanson was the leader of that party, still is, and she had a lot of problems back in the day. She even was put in jail for a while for some tax reason or something. But it was all political, whatever. But I feel that that phenomenon could have been repeating with White Australia, which is why in this case, the existing government, the existing political class, they were thinking:

 

“Hey, we’ve seen this before. We’re kind of more schooled in this process than we were the first time, so let’s not let it happen again.”

 

I’m just hoping the High Court makes that ruling so they can participate in official politics.

 

[34:05]

 

Mark Collett: I have a slightly different sort of more grim view of things than you, obviously, but it might be different in Australia and I hope it is. Here in the UK, when push comes to shove, people always take the how can I say it? The softer option. So people in this country are so scared of being called “racist”.

 

But anyway, one of the big things I wanted to talk to you about, and you’ve been talking about this a little bit on your own sort of Telegram page, is the situation that’s unfolding with petrol prices, with food prices, with really the fallout from what’s going on in Iran.

 

Now, I’m not sure what your take is on this, but since my sort of earliest days in nationalism, the old hands in the nationalist movement, the people that I was meeting and talking with, that had been doing, so when I came into things in about the year 2000, the 1970s weren’t that long ago. I was only sort of in my early 20s and there was people who had been in the National Front in their 20s or in their 30s, and now they’re in the BNP. And they were in their sort of 40s or 50s, a lot of life left in them very eager. And they would always sort of cool us down when the younger ones were saying:

 

“This is our time! We’re going to do this, we’re going to smash it!”

 

And they would always say:

 

“Look, it’s not going to be that easy. If we’re going to win the first thing that we need is a situation whereby there is genuine economic hardship.”

 

You know, these guys had seen years of election campaigns, they’d seen sort of decades of nationalists building up through big marches and then getting nowhere and then at the ballot box getting a derisory vote.

 

And one of the things that I was always told was:

 

“Until we get this big economic collapse, until there’s a depression, until, until people can’t afford to turn the heating on and don’t know if they can feed their family anymore, people aren’t going to be dislodged. People aren’t going to decide to vote for an outsider group.”

 

And here we are and we are starting to see genuine hardship. You know, I was traveling past a forecourt the other day which is usually the cheapest in our area. It’s over £1.50 a litre for petrol and nearly £1. 90 a litre for diesel, which is record, record price levels. People won’t be able to afford that. Is this what people need for the final push over the edge? Or do you just think this is going to be another big blip where:

 

“Oh, well, you know, two, three years down the line. Well, remember when it was really bad and Trump took people into Iran and the petrol almost ran out, but here we are and we’ve forgotten about it and we’ve moved on and we’ve got on with life!”

 

Or do you think we are moving to a time where there is going to be genuine hardship? Or maybe this is going to be something that our government seizes upon, to get rid of petrol cars, to ration petrol, to bring in more controls on our lives like they did through Covid? How do you think this is going to play out?

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s only one piece of the puzzle. You have to be ready for a crisis like this. You have to be prepared. You have to have the right kind of manpower and political force to capitalise on it if you are going to use it to your advantage, or if you are if you’re going to use any sort of crisis to your advantage.

 

And that’s why it’s curious that such a strong effort. It’s curious to me, that so much has been done to shut down and White Australia Party, shut down and criminalise them right before this crisis has panned out. Maybe that’s connected, maybe not.

 

But I know that if the White Australia Party did get registered, let’s say late last year when they intended to, before the hate crime legislation was rushed through Parliament, they’d be in a very strong position right now to deconstruct or de-legitimize the existing government and assure people that they could put their faith into them rather than the existing Labour government in Australia. But rather the situation we have instead is that that group has been forced to disband by emergency law changes off the back of a terror attack. This crisis has come into being and Albanese is just ruling Australia with an iron fist. His main political opposition, the Liberal Party, is just in absolute tatters. They can’t even figure out who’s going to lead which state.

 

And so it’s going to be a Labour government in Australia for a while. They’re going to be able to do whatever it is they please, which is another reason Joel’s just being thrown in jail without really any fair due process, like they pretend that there is, but there’s not.

 

[39:08]

 

But look, the petrol prices, the diesel prices are similar in Australia. When you compare the differences in currency for us, we’re looking at about $2.50 a litre for petrol, and that’s shitty 91 petrol, which they don’t even have. When I went to England 18 months ago and caught up with you, Mark, I noticed they don’t even sell 91 through most of England. It’s 95 minimum, I’m pretty sure. And so 91 is a rat grade, rat shit grade of fuel that most of Europe doesn’t even sell. And in Australia that’s $2.50 a litre, just for that. Plus the government has made some ruling here that the sulfur content of fuel can now be higher in order to stretch it out more. So it’s even worse than 91, probably. It’s really probably bad for your car, but they don’t care. They just want to keep everything ticking over as long as they can.

 

Diesel is the real problem. Australia is a huge consumer of diesel. And as a result of diesel being understood as more efficient, which I think it is, it burns a little slower and pound for pound, it gets you a little further. A lot of diesel engines have been sold to people. Diesel cars, just regular SUVs for families. But anyone who thought they were being smart by buying a diesel engine is now really suffering because the price of diesel just recently approached $3.50 per liter, which works out to be about the same as the fuel prices in England, as I said.

 

But look, the government’s come in recently and said:

 

“Hey, we’re going to cut the fuel tax in half to ease the pressure for you guys.”

 

So 50% less tax on fuel for everybody. But the funny thing is it took about a week for that price reduction to come into being, to be implemented by the fuel stations.

 

And by the time a week rolled around, the price had actually increased so much. All the fuel tax cut achieved was actually leveling out prices for a few days. It didn’t really reduce prices very much, maybe by about 15 cents in some regions, but it didn’t really have that much of an impact.

 

But this war, this war, I suppose we’ve got a lot to say about this war. Mark, what do you think about this war? Did you foresee something like this? Is this the time it was supposed to happen? What are you thinking?

 

Mark Collett: Well, I’ve been posting a few mashups on my Telegram of Trump saying he’s going to be the President of peace, he’s going to be the guy that stops the wars, he’s going to be the guy that stops American military interventions. This is going to be a new era. It’s America First. But he has become slavishly pro-Israel to the point where he would do anything they said.

 

Now, with Trump, it’s always hard to kind of see where he’s going to go. So when he went into North Korea, what happened? Well, he came out of North Korea, you know, singing the praises of the North Korean leader, the North Korean establishment, and being best buddies with you know, and that was the end of North Korea as the bad guy. And Trump is very unpredictable in how he behaves. You’re not quite sure what you’re going to get with him, and it’s little things that can throw him off.

 

But with Iran, he seems to have been absolutely doggedly pro-war, but that’s part of a wider shift. And all of a sudden, you know, it started around Venezuela, then he started threatening Colombia, Cuba, Greenland. Now it’s Iran. It almost seems like he’s on a little bit of a rampage. And some of this, I’m not saying that the guy’s a good guy or anything like this, but he’s obviously being led round by the nose by Israel. They have got him into this to a large degree. And even the mainstream media have said that originally Israel was saying:

 

“Look, this is only going to be a week of bombing. We just need your help for maybe three or four days, you know, eight days tops!”

 

And here they are like a month later and the world economy’s grinding to a halt. America has been largely humiliated. There are now dead Americans, and Trump can’t see his way out other than by sending ground troops in. And some of this is obviously Israel, but I’ve spoken about this on other shows and said some of this is actually a result of how isolated Trump is so when you look at Trump now, he’s not in the White House, he’s not in the Pentagon, he’s at Mar a Lago surrounded by fewer and fewer people. The people he was close with, the people that did surround him in the White House, they’re not there anymore. The people who are surrounding him are increasingly of jewish descent, very war hawkish. They’re the ones he’s listening to. And he’s even cut off on social media. So rather than making proper social media posts on X, he posts on Truth Social. So he can immediately ban anybody who says something that he doesn’t agree with. An isolation of that kind is usually very bad for people.

 

Now, I don’t want to go down the line of being like:

 

“Well, the Democrats were so professional because when they did war, they did it from the White House or the Pentagon!”

 

But there is something about doing war from the White House or the Pentagon.

 

And one of the things that shows that Trump is in this state of mental flux, and I spoke about this earlier in the week on Patrick Slattery show, is if you remember when we went to war with Iraq, the lies were quite consistent for a long period:

 

“Weapons of mass destruction, 45 minutes to deploy the missiles. We’ve got to get Saddam Hussein in a box before he puts us in a box. Where’s he going to strike next?”

 

That was consistent. It was a lie, but it was a consistent lie.

 

[45:18]

 

 

Now, what we’ve heard around this war, it changes on a daily basis. Regime change, energy stability, getting rid of the Ayatollah, supporting people in Iran who are protesting, stopping Israel from being wiped off the face of the map, stopping the nuclear weapons. Well, they weren’t going to have a nuclear weapon, but maybe they were going to have one. They were developing one, but they’ve been developing one for 50 years:

 

“Oh, well, we have to get rid of the Ayatollah.”

 

Well, you’ve already said that, but then you said that wasn’t the reason. And you’re looking at Trump and it’s almost schizophrenic.

 

And you can see that in four weeks of Iran, there has been less consistency, more chaos, more lies, more uncertainty and more humiliations for Trump than there was really for Bush and the Americans in the whole of the Iraq war.

 

Now, I know more soldiers, more American soldiers died in the Iraq war, but Bush didn’t claim he was negotiating with the Iraqi leaders, only for them to release a press statement saying:

 

“We’ve not even spoken to this guy. He’s a clown, he’s making it up.”

 

I mean, the world’s looking at him thinking, what are you doing? You know, mainstream newspapers are producing memes or cartoons where Trump’s talking to himself in the mirror. Saying:

 

“These negotiations are going very well indeed!”

 

You know, he looks like a madman. He’s isolated, cut off. There’s reports that he’s had some arguments with Israel, which is insane because he basically works for them. And it’s quite hard to understand where he’ll go next. You know, I wouldn’t be surprised if I woke up in the morning and Trump had said:

 

“It’s over! We’ve proved everything we’ve needed to prove. We’re backing away. They’ve agreed to no more nuclear missiles. I’m the President of peace because I’ve got rid of nukes in the Middle East!”

 

I wouldn’t be surprised if he did that. If I woke up in the morning and 40,000 Marines were headed to Iran for a full on ground invasion, I wouldn’t be surprised about that either because it’s just total chaos! And the people he’s surrounding himself with are the worst of the worst! Pete Hegseth, he’s not a professional. You know, he’s a, I think he was a Fox News analyst. They’re people who are sycophants. And employing sycophants, it might make you feel good, but they’re not the right people. You know, if you say:

 

“Well, who are you going to employ as your doctor? This guy who doesn’t really agree with you on a lot of things, but he’s a trained medical professional or your best mate who watched a couple of episodes of Casualty once?”

 

And he’s like:

 

“Well, I’m your best mate. You know, I have watched a few TV documentaries on surgery, so employ me!”

 

You’re not going to employ your best mate just because he’s your best mate. But Trump, unfortunately, has employed all of his, like, low IQ mates who can’t actually do the job. And it’s not really working out for him, is it?

 

Blair Cottrell: A friend of mine uses a term, “quantum politics”. Basically, it means that in Modern Politics, it’s like everything is happening and not happening at the same time. Trump is invading Iran! He’s not! He is at war with Iran, but he’s also not! He’s going to keep bombing Iran. He’s not! The straits open, the straits closed! It’s like, which do you want to believe? And the Internet is just so overloaded with opposing viewpoints that are representing opposite realities that whatever you want to believe is there for you to believe if you choose to.

 

And I don’t know if that’s a good or bad thing for average people. It’s probably not a good thing. Probably better for everyone to be kept on the same page by a more centralised source of information. But usually when that happens, the centralised source of information is controlled by the wrong people.

 

So, look, I agree with you. I agree with you. I’ve been watching, I’ve been reading too much and watching too much about this conflict between America and Iran. Israel, America and Iran, or just the Middle East, however you want to describe this. I’ve been reading and studying it so much, reading about and studying it so much that it seems to have almost affected my outlook on life generally. I’ve become much more cynical and negative. And I noticed this in myself a few days ago because I was starting to think, what’s even the point of going to work today? And I realised its because my mind is so fixated on these broader worldly matters. This foreign conflict, which isn’t necessarily consequential to me right now!

 

And so I pulled myself up and for the last couple of days, I haven’t been looking into it as much. Because I’m learning so much as this conflict unfolds, it’s like every 30 minutes there’s something new happening that I didn’t understand, I initially don’t understand, and then I begin to understand it. There’s so much I can say about it. I’ll do my best to be concise, give you my opinions.

 

Trump seems to be embarrassed. He’s visibly embarrassed and frustrated. Okay, when he says that Iran is begging to make a deal, clearly that’s not the case. Truth. Maybe people are telling him that and maybe he’s believing it, maybe they’re saying it to make him feel better.

 

But look, hats off to the guy for basically taking over America and just doing whatever he wants, going into other countries, bombing schools, stealing leaders, kidnapping leaders, and starting wars that he just writes off as military operations. They’re not actually wars for legal reasons. The guy has basically taken over America and is now the commander in chief of what is understood to be the most powerful military in the world.*

 

[* No, Trump is a puppet of ZOG and is their PR front man/actor entertaining and befuddling the masses with his antics. Same with all the other jokers that are presented as making decisions – Kat]

 

And I’m sure various statesmen and politicians in the recent, in recent history have dreamt of doing that with America, but never quite got there. They had to go through the proper processes, the Congress and whatever else goes on with the bureaucratic procedures there.

 

But Trump, to use a Churchill expression, seems to have “gripped America by the hair on its head” and is doing whatever he wants with its forces. Look, some people are saying they’re going as far as suggesting that it’s just a proxy war and an excuse to cause economic chaos, to bring about 15 Minute Cities, get rid of meat, get rid of petrol, cars, you know, Agenda 2030, that kind of stuff. And that very much could be the case. But for us mortals down here on the bottom plane, where we unfortunately have to reside, all we can do is speculate about stuff like that.

 

[52:04]

 

However, based on the way things are panned out and based on what I’m hearing, what I’m seeing from all the different sources of information I’m getting on the war, I do feel it will escalate quite sharply over the Easter weekend. That’s this weekend.

 

Basically, if Trump is going to send in ground forces to secure oil infrastructure, which it looks like he might want to do, however, he’s making it seem like he doesn’t need to do that. He’s making it seem like America has plenty of oil:

 

“I don’t even care about the Strait of Hormuz! (He’s saying) if Australia, Europe, England, if you guys want oil, go to the Strait of Hormuz and open it yourself!”

 

It’s almost like a dismissive, passive-aggressive statement too, because I think he feels let down by the lack of support from Europe, from England and Australia as well. I think he expected them to send some war boats and there was going to be some coalition. You know:

 

“The cool guys are going to come in together, the boys are going to come in together. And reopen the strait forcibly and then go into Iran and conquer it together!”

 

I think Trump felt like that he could, with one word and no real process, just summon all the forces of the world to his bidding. And because that didn’t happen, he’s now saying:

 

“Well, screw you guys like I don’t even care about you. If you guys want something, you go take it for yourself. I’m not babysitting you anymore.”

 

So that and other things seem to be demonstrating to me that the world is receding, reverting back into a place that consists more of exclusive empires that are a little more independent and self sufficient, that the world of the future won’t be so interconnected and countries around the world won’t be so dependent on very volatile and unreliable sources, routes of resources.

 

Australia, for example, doesn’t actually logistically need the Strait of Hormuz. It does because it hasn’t got the infrastructure to pump its own oil out of the ground. But we have up to 50 years of oil to refine and provide to keep our country going at its current consumption rate, for about 50 years. And I’m sure we could find ways to stretch that out to make it even longer. But because of globalism and politicians that are just generally unscrupulous, they cave to foreign market planning and manipulation, they’re easily bought off, easily led into traps. Politicians over the last few decades in Australia have literally shut down all of Australia’s oil refineries, have built no infrastructure to pump our own oil out of the ground, and are just buying everything from overseas!

 

But we don’t even have 30 days worth of diesel or petrol stored in this country. So we rely on places or routes of resource, routes like the Strait of Hormuz. We rely on that not because we actually need it, because we do have what we need here in this country, but just because of weak and unscrupulous scrupulous leadership, just corrupt leadership that sells out to the international market and leaves the country completely open to foreign market manipulation. That’s why, like Albanese doesn’t want to say it, the Australian government officials don’t want to say it.

 

But the reason petrol prices, diesel prices are so high, yes, it’s downstream from the war in Iran, but the real reason is because the political class in Australia has left Australia open to this manipulation. These volatile regions in the world, because they’ve refused to make our country self sufficient. They’ve plugged us into the global matrix. Even though it was a very unreliable and bad decision, they plugged us into this globalist system and now Australia is suffering the consequences when we never needed to be plugged in the first place, which is the frustrating thing!

 

But look, you know what the truth is, Mark? The truth is the if Trump is going to send ground forces into Iran, he’s going to have to bomb the shit out of it beforehand. He’s going to have to decimate the Iranian forces to make it more accessible to American troops, because otherwise American troops are going to get smashed!

 

I mean, they’ll win, they’ll eventually win, but they’ll incur heavy losses. And there’s been talk about dropping a nuke on Iran, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they did it. I wouldn’t be surprised. Israel would do it in a heartbeat. Israel’s like, think of it this way, Mark. Trump’s war room. I guarantee you this has happened. Trump’s war room. One AM, one night, someone said:

 

“We could just nuke them!”

 

And then there was some low chuckles around the table. And then the guy who said that made the comment in the first place, he leaned back and as the laughter died down, they all exchanged some looks and he goes:

 

“I’m serious, we could.”

 

And then the response would have been:

 

“What kind of what shape are our nuclear facilities? What shape are they in? Have we tested a nuclear bomb in the last few years? Do they even work? Can someone look into this?”

 

[57:09]

 

 

So that’s what’s happening right now in America, or that probably happened three weeks ago. So and Israel will nuke the shit out of Iran in a heartbeat! They don’t care! They don’t care about anyone who’s not jewish. They’ll nuke the shit out of Iran. And America has dropped an atomic bomb called Little Boy on Japan, after Japan refused to surrender at the end of World War II. So there’s nothing, there’s no humanitarian barrier for them doing this. If it means a faster end of the war and getting rid of Iran as an opponent in the region, then they’d be considering it, that’d be seriously considering it. And I think there’s been open talk about it, too, coming out of your Israel, maybe.

 

But I’m just trying to focus on what it means for us down here in Australia, as I’m sure you’re trying to think about what it means for England. And my gut feeling, because I’ve carried on about this for some time now, my gut feeling is that what this means is there is going to be a reshaping of the world to some extent. This is going to change our lives permanently. It’s going to change the way things roll out.

 

We just had an address to the nation, as I think you guys did too, from Kier Starmer. We had an address to the nation from Anthony Albanese. And Donald Trump also gave an address to the nation regarding the price of fuel and the effect that the war is having on the global economy. But what’s curious is this address to the nation. I don’t know what yours was like, but it was kind of a nothing burger! There was not really much in it. It was just “everyone needs to do their part”, lines like that:

 

“Use less fuel, drive less if you can, and everyone needs to do their part to get us through this difficult time.”

 

So really, there was no point in anything that Albanese said in this address to the nation. But the last time there was an address to the nation by England, Australia and America simultaneously at the same time, that was just prior to the Covid dilemma and the lockdowns.

 

And a lot of people think that we could run dry of fuel to the extent where people are confined to certain regions, driving a petrol car will be viewed as something abhorrent that you shouldn’t be doing because it’s too costly and it’s bad for the environment. Obviously, there’s elitists in the world who aren’t going to waste this opportunity to impose a sort of regime like that there are people in the world who want people to live in a regime like that. And this looks like it could be a very good opportunity to impose something like that. So we’ll see what happens.

 

But I’m just curious to see what’s going to happen over this weekend, this Easter weekend. I feel like it will be, I don’t know, I don’t want to say decisive. I don’t know if there’s anything that can bring about a fast end to the war. Trump doesn’t want to be embarrassed. He’s looking for the least embarrassing exit from the situation, but there’s no way to get out of it without sort of either acknowledging some level of defeat or dropping a nuke and just decimating the out of him. So then he can finally say:

 

“Hey, I told you I won. They said they wanted to do a deal, but then they wouldn’t agree, so we took him out! Fuck them!”

 

You know, something like that. If he’s going to be driven by ego, he could do something like that, and I’m sure Israel would back it. But it’s a terrible thing when something like this happens. I suppose I’m getting a bit softer as I get older and I think about children getting killed. I think about this school that’s being blown up, the girls school, and you think more about that stuff, especially when you’ve got people in the family having children, you Mark have your own children, you get a little bit softer on the humanitarian side of things, despite us being depicted by mainstream media as “gruesome fascists”. You know, it leaves you with a bad feeling when you see the kind of devastation that war like this causes for people that aren’t even involved and don’t want to be involved, for people who are just trying to live their lives. And that’s I suppose that’s always just a consideration in war or it’s a consideration for some people, for some people that are considerate at all!

 

But how do you think it’s going to go? What do you think the point is?

 

[1:01:08]

 

Mark Collett: As I said earlier, there’s so much chaos around this, it’s difficult to ascertain. So the other day Trump was saying:

 

“Well, we’re in this to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.”

 

Well, the Strait of Hormuz was open until you started this! You know, it was your meddling interventionism nonsense, naked aggression that closed the Strait of Hormuz. It wasn’t Iran, it was America’s actions that led to the Strait of Hormuz being closed.

 

But now one of the reasons we’re doing this is for energy stability. Well, we had energy stability until this began, until America started off down this route. And as I said with Trump, I think there was something on the Daily Mail site earlier, Trump had made another. I’ll see if it’s still there. But Trump’s all over the place!

 

So this is one of the things:

 

“Trump reveals he’ll torch NATO in landmark speech tonight as he absolutely threatens to quit disgusting alliance.”

 

So here’s Trump sperging out because no one wants to be involved in the conflict. You know, that’s pretty telling about the mental state he’s in, that he’s not calling meetings.* He isn’t getting people together and saying:

 

“Right, let’s get all the heads of NATO around to discuss this, discuss what we should do.”

 

He’s just saying:

 

“Right, I’m going to make a speech and tell everyone they’re absolute asses in front of the world’s media, because that’s going to make things better!”

 

I think there was something earlier today and I’m looking for it in the news feed, but I can’t find it. And it was about, …

 

[* Trump’s chaotic behaviour is all just theatrics for public consumption as a kind of live stream drama. Real calculated decisions are made behind the ZOG curtain.]

 

Blair Cottrell: He seems to be doubting that much of Europe even has the military might or the will to help anyone in any war.

 

And the problem with a lot of Europe, especially Western Europe, England has the same problem as Australia, is they’re so locked down in a demographic crisis with mass immigration just basically tearing the countries apart, tearing England apart, tearing Australia, dividing Australia, that neither country is in a position to support anyone’s war.

 

I wrote about that in a Telegram post recently. Like, we have such a large Muslim population that’s influential. If Australia openly supported a war against a Muslim country, you’ve got like war on the streets in some suburbs here that are heavily Muslim populated. You’ve got a massively increased threshold of terrorism and possibility of terrorism suddenly. So getting into any foreign war for England or Australia means chaos for us in our streets, in our homes! And I think, like that’s what kind of prevented Australia from supporting Trump’s war more directly.

 

Mark Collett: Well, another headline that was up today:

 

“Trump says Iran’s new leader has asked for a ceasefire and he’s considering it if Hormuz is opened. Britain to host 35 nation talks on reopening the Strait of Hormuz and getting oil and gas flowing again to the lower prices. After Trump’s get your own outburst.”

 

It’s complete chaos. And this is what I mean about the Iraq war. The Iraq war wasn’t a good thing. It wasn’t a just thing. It was a terrible thing! But despite all of those assessments, it was at least something that seemed orderly. And the countries that participated had clear goals and they did things in a way that seemed militarily expedient. And anything could happen next.

 

But I mean, look, it’s like these 15 Minute Cities, okay? Now, people are going to crucify me for saying this, but Britain was full of 15 Minute Cities at one point. Britain was a country where people would bike or walk to the shops in their village because working class people didn’t have motor cars really in vast numbers until the 1980s. Both of my grandparents, both sets of my grandparents never even learnt to drive. They walked to the shops, they biked to the shops. They got their groceries from the local green grocers, the butchers, the bakers. It’s quite recent that every family had two motor cars. That’s something that’s a post 1980s change.

 

Now, if you said to me we were going back to a homogenous White nation where people, rather than using motor cars and going to the supermarket, walk down to the village green grocers to get their vegetables, went to the butchers, went to the bakers to get their goods every week, i’d be far happier with that than I am now with families piling into the car, driving 25 minutes to buy all of their food from a giant solar supermarket that has its foot on the neck of every farmer and supplier, driving down their quality of life and making this country a worse place. It’s a complex thing, and to me I see sort of threats and opportunities here.

 

Now, obviously, 15 Minute Cities are a dirty word, it’s a dirty concept now because everyone’s used to cars. But was Britain a better place when motor car ownership was less common and people use local services and amenities? Or is it better now when we’ve got rid of the trains, the bus services all the local shops and you just travel to out of town retail parks to buy you shopping. And even they’re closing down now because Amazon does it all. You know, if you want community back, you have to deal with community, you have to deal with your local butchers, your bakers, you have to go to the local shops, you have to know everyone in your village. You know, one of the things that atomized us was this idea that we’d all sit our own little cars and drive 30 minutes to get our food. You know, that wasn’t how this country ever was, until very recently.

 

So I’m not against people building local communities again. As for the war and whether that will do that, I doubt it. I should imagine that, if I was a betting man, I always bet on nothing really ever happening and things returning to normal. And if people say:

 

“Well, why do I, why do I bet on that?”

 

I bet on that because I lived through Covid and I saw people locked down in their houses, … Do you know what, this is weird, but there was a woman in my city centre the other week, probably the first I’ve seen in a while still wearing a Covid mask. So there are people still walking around in Covid masks.

 

[1:08:11]

 

But one of the things I’ve got to say is, the strange thing is a lot of people thought things would never go back to normal after Covid. There were a lot of content creators saying, when Covid hits:

 

“This is different, this is the game changer!”

 

But everything went back to normal. So somehow I always just foresee things going back to normal and are still just engaging in this slow decline towards minority status and the end of our people. That’s just how it’s been and how I foresee it. If I was a betting man now, as I said, I could wake up tomorrow morning and Trump’s new [word unclear], and you’re looking at it thinking:

 

“Oh, my God! Why did he do that?”

 

But he could also wake up tomorrow morning and he’s pulled everyone out and gone off in a huff saying:

 

“I’m not helping anyone again, and I’m starting my own version of NATO because I’m a big fat baby!”

 

You know, he is just. He is sort of so chaotic and wild, you honestly don’t know what he’s going to do.

 

And now he’s embroiled in problems at home, too, because it looks as if his anti-birthright citizenship bill, not bill, presidential decree, is going to fall as well at the Supreme Court. So he’s sort of embroiled in failure every which way. And if he seemed to be the president of failure, his own party will turn on him. Because he’s only got one sort of term as president left. He’s only got until the end of this term and then he’s done anyway, because you can’t be a president for three terms. But here’s the issue, Blair. There’s lots of politicians surrounding him that are banking on being a Congressman, or a Senator for many more terms. And if they’re eternally tied to Trump, if he goes down like the Hindenburg, they go down with him!

 

And I think what might restrain him is the fact that these midterms are coming up in November and that’s closer than you think. And there are many people within the Republicans who are getting very worried about their prospects of re-election and potentially a disastrous midterm election ending up leading to a second impeachment.

 

Blair Cottrell: Did things go back to normal after Covid? Do you really feel like they went back to normal the way they were before?

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, people forgot about it. People got on with life. No one cares, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Ostensibly. But to me, it feels like post Covid society is like a pretend world that only resembles reality, a pretend world preceding some sort of vicious change. That’s what it feels like. Everyone’s retarded, Mark, and everyone hates each other now. That’s what Covid achieved. There’s so many people out there not working now with medical issues on a disability pension. You go down to the shopping centre in the middle of the week at like 11 o’clock in the morning or 2 o’ clock in the afternoon when everyone would typically be at work and there are so many people there! There are so many cars, you can’t even get a car park. And everyone is fat and bitter! Everyone is fat and bitter!

 

And I just think to myself every time I go out in public:

 

“This can’t go on much longer. Where’s this going? A colony which feeds its sick and it’s weak and puts the worst of itself first. Where’s that going? It’s going into the ground and it’s going into the ground within a generation or two!”

 

So I’m looking at this whole post Covid system and just how sick and embittered everybody is.

 

And in my heart, in my gut, I feel that it’s about to have a big full stop put on it! I don’t know how that’s going to happen, but, …

 

Mark Collett: Don’t you worry, Blair, that, don’t you worry because what you’re saying, I can’t argue with anything you’ve said. Okay. But don’t you worry that all these fat, useless, embittered, permanently sickly people who live off the state are all essentially in some kind of chains. Like I bet I think I know you pretty well. You’re an intelligent guy, but you’re resilient and you’re the kind of guy that wouldn’t like to live off anybody else. And if somebody said to you can live in a gilded cage, or you can be free and go and build a shack over by that watering hole and essentially live a harder life, but have total freedom over what you do, what you say, the way you think. Or you can live in this gilded cage and you can have lots of nice things and free money and computer games and TV, but you have to say the right thing and come out of your house and clap every night for the Covid special workers. I bet you’d go and live by the watering hole, build a shack and live free.

 

But most people wouldn’t!

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, I might initially think:

 

“Well, the nice things sound pretty good. I might try that out.”

 

But then it wouldn’t last very long. Like within 48 hours I’ve already committed a hate crime and done some hate speech without even meaning it. And now I’m forced to go out to the shack, and I’ve probably got the coppers chasing me on my way there.

 

But yeah, I don’t know. What I’m trying to say is I’d be very surprised, I’d be very surprised if some society reshaping didn’t come about as a result of this Iran situation. I’d be very surprised. Because it’s a huge, it’s a huge opportunity, Mark. Even if it hasn’t been planned around this specific incident, even if this is Trump being wild, I think like the Strait of Hormuz being shut effectively is huge! It’s a huge excuse to suddenly shake up the economy and change the way things work. It’s a huge opportunity and I’d be surprised if elitists wasted it. I mean, at the very least it’s going to be used to make a lot of money and that’s already happening for some people in the right place.

 

[1:14:23]

 

 

Mark Collett: It is! Yeah. And that’s how it’s going to be. But I worry that everything you’ve just described is going to lead our people further into chains. I mean, one thing I’ve noticed today, I was reading something, it said that one in eight children born today will be registered as disabled. That seems insane to me!

 

Blair Cottrell: It seems higher like that doesn’t even seem like it matches what I’m seeing in society. When you say one in eight, it feels more like one in four. And it probably will get there. And what’s this desire people have to be disabled?

 

Mark Collett: Oh, [chuckling] I was gonna say that!

 

Blair Cottrell: Why does it? Yeah, you’re gonna get to this, right? It’s almost like that’s your identity:

 

“I have this disability, I have this mental illness. This is who I am.”

 

Well, there’s two things at play there.

 

First of all, it’s financially incentivised. You get paid to be disabled, you get paid to have a mental illness, you get full-time care and you get to sit at home and do whatever you want on a government pension. When there’s a financial incentive to do something, people try to do it! And people will even lie and say that that’s what I am in order to get the money, in order to get the care, in order to get the benefits.

 

The second thing at play is people aren’t given any strong sense of identity or personal pride. We don’t live in a society that allows national or personal pride to any significant degree.

 

And so people are searching for identity, they’re looking for two things. They’re looking for money, they’re looking for identity. And disabilities, mental health crisis, whatever, mental health issues fill both those voids. They give them something to identify with:

 

“I’m bipolar now, I’m super ADHD depressive disorder. And that sort of is my whole existence.”

 

They’ll write it in their bio, on Instagram or something. That’s who they’re not Australian, they’re not English, they’re “ADHD, bipolar”. That’s their identity.

 

And like I said, they also need money. Everybody needs money and they get that from it as well! So this system is rewarding people and giving people identity for being retarded!

 

And so that’s why everyone is retarded! Because there’s incentive, there’s a reason, it’s very easy to understand. The way to stop that is to do the opposite is to actually incentivise people to be healthy, to take care of themselves is to reward people who are saying no to the immediate benefits and who are putting in the work to actually live a healthier lifestyle and build something to make themselves self sufficient. If the government would stop taking the easy route and just exploiting people’s base nature and selling them bullshit and convincing them that they’re super anxiety depressive disorder, so they could sell them drugs. You know, if there was incentive and reason for people to be healthy and strong, if there was a identity that they could plug into their national identity that they could take pride in, then they wouldn’t be searching for drugs and mental health issues to identify with in the first place. Right?

 

So that’s the essence of the problem. It’s very simple! Like people are doing what they’re paid to do and they’re doing what they feel identity for doing. You know, like this, the sense of identity.

 

Mark Collett: Do you know what, though? We’ll have to the Superchats thing. Not many people are Superchatting tonight, especially on Entropy. I don’t know if there’s a problem there. I’ve heard they’re having problems, or maybe no one wants to donate one or the other. But like it has been very sort of not really anyone has made a donation. Well, we’ve got one.

 

Blair Cottrell: Get some Superchats in, guys! If you’re watching this from Australia, it’s too early in Australia for most people.

 

Mark Collett: Come on, guys! If everyone gave a bloody dollar, they wouldn’t even notice it. But I’d be very happy, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Give some support to Mark Collett, man! Give some support, guys, come on!

 

Mark Collett: But look, I need to see.

 

Blair Cottrell: Open our hearts! Let’s open our hearts and open our wallets too. Ask us a question. Ask me a question. Ask Mark a question. Give us a subject matter and we’ll get into it. Let’s do it!

 

Mark Collett: But look, this is something I want to say. There’s two things I want to say here, Blair. One is I am a bit of a freak! And I want to admit this, right? When I collect computer games, I like the boxes to be in perfect condition. And if the corner of the box gets dented, because I drop it, it upsets me.

 

Now, I wouldn’t say I’m mentally ill, okay? I just like my boxes in good condition. I like everything on the wall in the right order and I like all the boxes to be neat and I like the labels on the games to be perfect.

 

Blair Cottrell: No, no. I think you need to go to a specialist. This sounds like, you need medication, … [chuckling]

 

Mark Collett: This is what I mean, like today, but today a child will be playing in the sand pit and he’d be like, I don’t want to get my, like sand in the joints of my Power Ranger because it’ll ruin it. And somebody like:

 

“Whoa! You’ve got ADHD, kids better get him a diagnosis!”

 

So on one hand, everything today is a mental illness. You like to keep things nice. You’re mentally ill! You don’t want to do some of the things the other kids want to do. You’re mentally ill!

 

[1:19:29]

 

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s very self centred, isn’t it? Like you would need to be thinking a lot inwardly about yourself. I’ve said that before, that mental illness is like the religion of the self. It’s like:

 

“How can I develop this identity around my own lived experience, my own personal vessel, this vehicle that I’m in? Everything’s about me and my special demeanour and my special way of doing things. Here’s my bottle of special pills. It has my name on the bottle, see, it’s specially for me!”

 

Never mind that 60% of the population is in the exact same frame of mind, living in the exact same bubble, taking the relevant, same drugs. It’s not actually special. You’re just doing what everyone else is doing.

 

Mark Collett: It’s worse. Because the second part of what I was going to say before we do these couple of Superchats, is fundamentally, and this is the crazy thing, the parents are proud of it!

 

So when we were kids, if there was something wrong with you try to overcome what was wrong with you and you didn’t want people to know. So if somebody was ill, or somebody had something wrong with them, or like say you were slightly dyslexic, you would go to special classes, you would get special books, you do special things to try and overcome it, but you won’t wear a big badge saying, “I am dyslexic!”

 

And then there was a thing that came in where if you were dyslexic, you could have an extra 15 minutes in the examination room because you found it harder to understand the question. So you got a little bit more time. But now you might as well get a special hat, a sparkler, a big badge, and everyone wants the big badge!

 

And I’ll tell you this, as a dad who meets other parents, you get parents who come up to you and they boast about the autism, or the things that are wrong with their kids. So you will actually have parents who will come up to you and be like when you know, like kids in the playground talk about which Pokemon they’ve caught. They will talk about their kids mental illnesses, like their Pokemon, like:

 

“Gotta catch them all. This one’s got this one’s got that. He’s neurodivergent!”

 

And they love it!

 

Blair Cottrell: They’re all waiting to talk about themselves and their own kid. They’re not even listening to you. They’re all waiting for their turn to talk about their own problems. Imagine living in a community like that. Here’s the thing is, Mark, I’ve, since I was young, I’ve expressed plenty of qualities of ADHD, as I’m sure you’ve been told. You’ve got the same thing. Mild autism. Everyone’s always said that there’s something wrong with me, but I’m just like, even if there is, it’s just the way I’m wired, man! I’m not getting into it. I’m not going to get some fucking, pardon my language, some diagnosis. I’m not getting someone to tell me to categorize me.

 

Humans love to categorize each other, don’t they, Mark? You know why they do that? Because it helps them think, they understand things. It helps them feel like they’ve got it figured out when they really don’t know shit about anything! Even the, especially the experts. All these categories that we develop for different types of people, whether it’s ADHD or depression or autism or Asperger’s. I’m not saying these things don’t exist. There’s something going on that makes people, just neurologically different, unique. But developing these word based categories to make us think that we understand things is a very arrogant human endeavour. We don’t actually understand what’s going on. And we certainly can’t control it with drugs, but we can make money through drugs. And that’s what it’s all about, guys.

 

But I think this is why we’re talking about this as a problem. But I always like, because I’m a male, Mark’s male, so he probably thinks the same thing. I like to think of solutions. I like to just think about how do we get around this, how do we stop this happening instead of just complaining about it.

 

That’s why I’ve always been in favour of the Church making a comeback, a centralised religious institution. I know that these can become pretty corrupt as well. Or at least that’s what the mainstream media has led us to believe about the Church. Probably for subtle reasons. They’re probably trying to achieve an outcome where the Church didn’t have as much power anymore because it was a problem. It was a problem for selling junk to people, for selling drugs to people, and for bringing mass amounts of foreigners into your country. The church probably would have stood against that in its old form. So getting rid of the Church was a necessary step for whatever this excuse of a country we have now is.

 

But see, when you have a central church that everyone goes to on Sunday, when you have mass or something like that, when you have a religious structure that everyone kind of links into everyone’s Christian, whatever it might be, it doesn’t really matter what it is, just as long as everybody agrees that that’s the Church of the nation. Well then when someone else comes into your country and says:

 

“Bipolar disorder, here’s my Medicine for the cure!”

 

You say:

 

“No, no, like we don’t do that here. We go to church on Sunday, we talk to the priest if we have a problem, we don’t take drugs here. We don’t do this ADHD thing. Sorry mate!”

 

So you reject outside identities and efforts to try to sell shit, whether it’s pornography, the Church would be against that, whether it’s drugs, some other identifying factor that some grifter, some (((merchant))) is trying to sell to you’ll reject it on the basis that you already have a strong identity, a national religious identity.

 

[1:25:02]

 

And I think that’s what the benefit of having a strong central church was in the beginning. It basically makes people necessarily stubborn. You might say that people being closed minded as a result of being exposed to too much religious dogma is a bad thing! I would argue against that. I would say it’s a good thing. Because look what open mindedness has done to our country. When people don’t have that closed minded, “this is my country, this is my church” kind of mentality, then they just become a worm of consumption that accepts and consumes whatever it is that some merchant is trying to sell to them. Suddenly everything and everything just swamps that nation and it just becomes a place for merchants to decimate and exploit.

 

A strong church, I think would have, I think a big comeback from the Church would prevent that. I just don’t know if it’s possible. The ideal situation for a church to make a comeback actually, or the Church to make a comeback is people suffering, people really suffering. Because when you’re suffering, when you’ve actually got nothing left and you’re in a really bad place, that’s when you’ll find yourself hoping that God’s real and hoping that maybe he’ll listen.

 

Now I’m not even religious, guys. I’m not trying to shill Christianity, I’m not trying to shill a religion. I’m just saying that going or reverting back to a time, to a set of circumstances where we had a little bit more faith in something central and something unifying would protect us psychologically from the sort of bullshit ideologies and drugs and mental health crap that is so effectively sold to people today.

 

Mark Collett: Well, look, really quickly before we do the Superchats, something you said there. Something is something I said to Adam Green. Me and Adam Green had a bit of a debate the other week and by the way, David Duke has agreed to debate Adam Green. So we’re sorting that out. They’re gonna have a debate about Christianity, whether it was good for the West or bad for the West. Duke thinks Christianity was good. It was a uniting cause. It helped, you know, know Europe beat back Muslim invasions. Adam Green thinks it’s basically the biggest evil in the West. That debate’s going to happen.

 

But one thing I’ll ask you is “struggle”. You see, I actually like struggle and I think as a man without struggle, you are less of a man. And you go to the gym and I go to the gym, I don’t know whether you feel this way, but do you ever go to the gym and you work a muscle in a way that you haven’t worked it for some time, and the day or so later, you feel sore, but the soreness is kind of a constant reminder that you pushed your limits, that you sort of went to a new level.

 

And I actually like that! I like that sort of feeling that, like my body is reacting to the pressures I put upon it. And part of sort of improving is fighting through that discomfort. That’s why I liked running. I like that challenge, that struggle. And I think when you remove struggle from the life, especially of men, not so much women, but especially men, men without struggle do become worthless slobs!

 

And I think the comfort that we have been given by our masters, the bread and circuses, have a lot to answer for and why we are now weak.

 

Blair Cottrell: That soreness you’re talking about, the soreness in the muscles after having done some vigorous exercise, that is a signal that that muscle is regenerating. The cells in that region are regenerating. In order for those cells in the muscle to regenerate, they need a good amount of blood flow and a good amount of oxygen and a good amount of nutrients to come from the GI tract, the gut.

 

And that means the gut needs to work more efficiently in order to feed and repair the muscle. And so the gut does actually start to process and absorb nutrients at a superior rate than it would have if the muscle was not used.

 

What I’m saying is pretty simple to understand. If we’re not regenerating, then we’re just getting weaker, we’re dying. If you’re not suffering to some degree, it’s called the “fitness effect”, and it actually has been applied in a social, political sense by an author named David Kilcullen, who’s someone that I’ve read quite a bit. I actually brought him up in the speech that I gave at the conference you hosted. Not the last one, but the one before in the October conference in England.

 

It’s called the fitness effect, basically, and with the right amount of pressure, the organism we’re talking about, and here we’re talking about individual people, your biology. Your body gets stronger, it develops itself, and you just become stronger. Everything works better in your body because it has to. You’re creating a reason for your body to work more efficiently, so the experience of life becomes better, because the more efficiently the body’s working, the happier you’re going to feel, the better mood you’re going to be in the better your gut’s working, the better you’re going to feel. It’s very simple.

 

That’s why I don’t understand how people don’t stress their muscles to the bare minimum necessary degree each week, which I think is minimum three times per week in the gym for about an hour each time. You know, hitting things like squat, overhead press, deadlift, leg press, major compound movements that are going to stress your body and your central nervous system in a way that your body has to adapt, it’s forced to regenerate and therefore everything starts to turn over more efficiently because it has to in order to regenerate the muscle effectively.

 

[1:30:53]

 

 

So muscle mass actually is one of the, scientifically, one of the greatest determiners of longevity. Meaning generally speaking, the more muscle you have, the longer you live. And that ties exactly into what I’m saying, because in order for your body to retain, to build and retain more muscle, your cellular regeneration process, your gut, your brain, your nervous system, everything has to fire optimally in order to make that happen. And if you’re putting your body under the necessary stress, the bare minimum three times a week in the gym, and you’re giving your body a reason to have that extra muscle mass, then everything in your body has the reason to operate efficiently. It’s like a machine getting greased up, so to speak. But it’s much more complex really because of our turnover, our cell regeneration system.

 

Yeah, if you’re not training, you’re dying. You’re not getting stronger, you’re getting weaker. There’s no average existence where you can just sit at and stay healthy. If you just do nothing, you just get fatter and sicker and sadder and weaker. Gradually you always have to be exposed to that bare minimum level of stress, which in my view is three times a week, three hours in the gym doing the major compound exercises relatively heavy.

 

Mark Collett: Well, thank you. Well, let’s do these Superchats. Thank you to everyone who has Superchatted. There’s still plenty of time if you want to. We’ve had one from Open Borders for Israel for $5. Thank you so much! He said:

 

“Hail Blair. Would be good to get him on for a PA Aussie movie night, maybe. Rabbit Proof Fence?”

 

Yeah, we do movie reviews once a month and you’ve not actually been a guest. I don’t know if you’re a fan of movies, but if you chose a movie, we’d be happy to review it.

 

Blair Cottrell: Hang on, hang on, you guys you do movie reviews personally?

 

Mark Collett: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’d be awesome! I’ve done one for. What was it? Guide to Kulture? Do you know Guide to Kulture?

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, I do. I’ve done them. I’ve done every one of his film festivals all. So yeah, I know. We literally do a movie every month. We must have done probably about 50 or 60 movies now.

 

Blair Cottrell: Maybe my review wasn’t so good, but I’ll try to find it. I did a review on Good Time with Robert Pattinson. Have you seen that?

 

Mark Collett: No, I’ve not even heard of that, to be honest.

 

Blair Cottrell: I reckon, write that down, Mark, because I reckon, and you guys in the audience, too. It’s a very underrated film. It’s a very simple plot. It just starts with a bank robbery, but it’s set in modern America. And I find it very gritty and realistic! And I find the main character very interesting to psychoanalyze. He’s clearly mildly sociopathic, but he’s intelligent and it’s entertaining and fascinating to see how he deals with the degrading circumstances after this bank robbery. So good time with Robert Pattinson, actually I really rate Robert Pattinson as an actor.

 

Mark Collett: He’s a great actor. He did a version of Batman. He was really good at that.

 

Blair Cottrell: He was, but he’s also talented. He’s the kind of guy who can do a lot. He’s a musician and he can play different roles. He doesn’t always play the same role over and over again! He can play a different character, which I think is a good indication of talent in acting.

 

Mark Collett: I agree. And as I said, I thought he was going to be terrible as a new Batman. And when I saw him as Batman man, I thought it was a really enjoyable film. And I was actually looking forward to the sequel. I’m not a guy that usually looks forward to sequels. But, yeah, he was good. He was very good.

 

So if you want to choose a movie, Blair, you’d be welcome on any month. All you have to do, choose one. And we will get you booked.

 

Blair Cottrell: Is it always movies or can it be shows? Does it have to be a film?

 

Mark Collett: We’ll usually do a film. I’ve just looked it up. We’ve reviewed 57 films. It’s actually 59 because some have been double features where we reviewed two films together that are both linked. So we did Zulu and Zulu Dawn and we’ve also done several comparisons where we’ve done the original Snow White and the modern Snow White or we’ve done the original Running Man and the new Running Man.

 

Blair Cottrell: I can imagine there’s a breakdown of modern propaganda.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah. Two hours long. This little panel who are regular us. But look, pick a film, tell me when you’re free, and we’ll get you booked in. It’d be very good. Purple Sage gave $10. Thank you. And he said:

 

“Thank you both for all you do.”

 

Well, thank you so much, my friend. It’s very kind of you to donate. Kenny Smith gave $10. Thank [chuckling] you so much:

 

“Sir, I’ll be fine in any food shortages thanks to my fat stores. All those kebabs will pay off!”

 

Thank [chuckling] you. Full Camelot gave $3. Thank you so much! And he said:

 

“Well, Blair, Victoria is the Garden State. Absolutely! I had a ZD Fairlane V8 dual fuel. And regularly travelled south to volcanic bush and rock beach, camping alone for days. Return to society refreshed.”

 

[1:35:48]

 

Blair Cottrell: My dad had a Fairlane. I remember when I was 18, I just got my driver’s licence a couple of weeks prior. And I asked my dad if I could borrow the car. I had this date organised with a girl, and my dad said:

 

“No, because you’re not on the insurance, if you crash it, then., …”

 

And I said:

 

Ahh! Anyhow he had two cars, so he went out somewhere. So I took it anyway. Of course, I’m 18! I’m gonna take his car anyway. Took his car, went on the date, came back. When I came back, he was home. I got punched in the face for it! So, yeah, it was a tough gig being 18.

 

 

Mark Collett: Do you know what? I always find it really strange because you meet people that have had a fight with their dad and have been punched in the face by their dad. And have fought back, and then you meet other guys and you say, like:

 

“Have you ever punched your dad in the face?”

 

And they say:

 

“No, no, me and my dad have never had that.”

 

Blair Cottrell: I wouldn’t do it. No, no, I wouldn’t do it! My dad’s the only person I wouldn’t hit back. My dad’s only hit me once, actually. It was this car thing. I don’t know why I think it was, …

 

Mark Collett: You’ve never actually had a, … Have you ever had a fight with your dad? So you’ve never actually had a fight?

 

Blair Cottrell: No, no, never! No. And my dad’s the only bloke that if he hit me, I’ll just stand there and take it. I wouldn’t hit him back. Never!

 

Mark Collett: Yeah. I don’t have that level of restraint. Me and my dad when I was younger we have had sort of physical altercations because I was quite wild at times and you know, it’s not something I’m sort of like mega proud of, but as a young guy I find it kind of weird when you meet people that have never had any kind of altercation with their dad. I could never understand that. Because I often did things where I did deserve a sound whacking. You know, I could be quite, I could do stupid things but then be quite sort of unrepentant or cheeky!

 

Blair Cottrell: I got a funny story, I got a small funny story I can interject with. Like my dad and I definitely had some rows. Is that how you say it? Rose or rows? Yeah. We had some, we had some disagreements and, but we didn’t want to hurt each other because my dad, his father, my grandfather, he used to beat the shit out of my dad. So my dad was against hitting me. He didn’t want to do that to his son.

 

But you know, maybe he needed to sometimes because I was a real little shit! But one day he just broke my computer. He broke my computer in a rage because I can’t remember the reason I hadn’t done something. And he was so frustrated that I hadn’t done it that he saw my computer sitting there and I had World of Warcraft sitting there just idle. I’d been playing it. And he just broke it. I remember he threw it across the room and it broke.

 

So then I went and took his big sliding saw, expensive Makita sliding saw out of his shed that next day and I took it down to The Pawnbroker and I swapped it for a new computer! I did a deal with The Pawnbroker! And then he noticed a week later that his sliding saw was gone. So he came in and sort of, he said:

 

“Where’s my sliding saw?”

 

And I said:

 

“Well you broke my computer and you didn’t pay for it. So it had to be replaced, dad. That’s the way things work!”

 

So you know what I mean? There was, that’s the sort of run-ins that I’d have with my dad.

 

 

Mark Collett: Well, I can tell you this. I have had physical altercations with my dad and I have fought back as a young guy but I would never have been bold enough to have taken something my father’s and sell it because he would have, I think the thrashing at that point, I wouldn’t have I. As a young man, I never got the better of my dad. I mean, now things are different. Obviously he’s like an older man. So like if he got mad with me, I’m not gonna start going give him a good kicking.

 

But as a kid, I did get up to things that I shouldn’t have done and there was a couple of situations where he gave me really sound advice, and I didn’t take it, to sort of my detriment. And it was one of those things where I probably should have listened to him a little bit more when I was younger and being sort of, … But when you’re young, your head-strong, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Did your dad try to get you to buy property early?

 

[1:40:01]

 

 

Mark Collett: No, my dad, my dad sort of, it’s kind of strange because my dad was obviously a big part of my life, but I used to talk to my mom more about decisions that I was going to make. And it was one of those things where I was very close to my mum and obviously she passed away a few years and sort of left a big hole in my life. But I was brought up in a world where mum was the stay at home mum. Your dad was out at work nearly all the time. You spent very little time with your dad as a kid, but you spent a lot of time with your mum. And because of that, I was kind of super close with her and my mum was. My mum and dad were both really political, but my mum was sort of super uber political! So she loved talking about politics, like constantly. And that was something where me and her could speak for like an hour or so on the phone about the way the world was, how things were.

 

And so it’s not that I’m not close with my dad, but I was just super close with my mum. So when it came to that kind of advice, I take more time talking things through with my mum than my dad, to be honest. Who were you sort of closer with? Was it your dad who was the advice giver or your mom?

 

Blair Cottrell: My dad was a very quiet, hard working man. He was just always at work. His only day off he would take me to either track and field athletics or football when I was a kid and he would volunteer as an umpire. My dad was the kind of guy who showed affection, he showed his dedication to you through action. He didn’t really say like, I’ve never hugged my dad, never in my life. That we just didn’t have that physical relationship at all! But he would do a lot for me. He would spend his only day off taking me to football and volunteering to help out, that kind of stuff. So he was just the strong silent type sort of thing.

 

And I think he felt like showing me any affection would perhaps portray weakness. And he thought that that would be wrong because he was always trying to demonstrate himself as a strong father, you know, someone to aspire to. And I appreciate that. I understand it. Probably I’ll be much the same with my own son. But we’ll move on from the dad subject in a sec. What was the last thing I was gonna say? My dad used to own property and he used to tell me that I need to buy property, even if it’s a block of land. He said:

 

“Just buy something!”

 

Because I was making a lot of money when I was young, because thanks to my dad as well, he got me various jobs with big building companies. I was a supervisor for a building company when I was only 18, somehow. All the other supervisors were like 50 year old builders and carpenters. And here I am playing a supervisory role thanks to my dad. My dad’s like:

 

“Buy property, mate! Take some of this money you make him and put it into property. Your future self will thank you for it.”

 

But because my dad was always so stressed and broke, I thought:

 

“The old prick just wants me to be miserable like him. He’s just pissed off that I’ve got money, so I’m not going to listen to him!”

 

And I’m thinking to myself:

 

“You idiot! You idiot!”

 

If I did buy property when I was young, I probably, I’d be in a position right now where I wouldn’t even have to work full-time. But because I didn’t listen. Yeah, but that’s just classic hindsight.

 

Mark Collett: Oh, my dad he’s a very good man and he is a nationalist, but sort of his sort of era of man was a man that didn’t spend a huge amount of time with the family. You spent time with him on a Sunday, maybe a little bit on a Saturday. But dads of that era were always at work, they were always doing everything and they showed their love for their family by providing. This is an odd thing because today everyone’s sort of programmed that your dad shows love for you with loads of hugs and doing everything with you. But back then the dads were and more or less every dad, all my friends dads were the same. They were always out at work, they were up super early, they went out to work, they brought home, …

 

Blair Cottrell: You respected him, right? You wouldn’t act up around, because you respected him. And you kind of feed him a little bit too, in a healthy way. When it was just mom, you knew you could get away with a bit more. You knew you could act up a little bit, you could eat a little bit extra if you could sneak stuff out of the cupboard, whatever. But when dad was around, you didn’t act up because you didn’t give your dad any shit! You respected your dad.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah. And not only that, but because you knew how hard your dad worked when he was in the house you wouldn’t be raucous. Like, if it was just your mum around and you had your friends over or you were fighting with your sister. You knew that was kind of all right because Mum sort of put up with that because she was there to sort of oversee you as kids and that was her day job. So:

 

“Sod it! I’m gonna make noise and be a bit crazy!”

 

But if your dad came in and had a long day at work, there was no jumping on the sofa. There was no hooting and hollering and chucking things about. You were respectful. You cleaned up your toys. You did your best because you knew that dad had., … And your mom would be like:

 

“Don’t you be doing this when your dad comes home. Because he’s been out since, you know, 7:30 this morning. He’s had a long day and when he comes in, he doesn’t want you to be playing hell. He wants to come into a respectful family.”

 

And I think these things are largely gone now.

 

[1:45:23]

 

Blair Cottrell: That dynamic was essential from my upbringing, really. I think. Like, my mom could say a thousand words to me and get no result, trying to get me to do something, but my dad just had to speak once, just say a few words, and I would do it straight away.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And I fear the person I might have become if I didn’t have my dad in my life. I probably would have become a much more relentless criminal. Because I feared my dad that kept me, it had some sort of influence over me, which was positive.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, I agree. Similar with me. The Resident Baker gave $20. Thank you so much! And said:

 

“Evening, Mark. I was going to give some money to charity for some new jewish ambulances. However, I’ve reconsidered because I don’t really like jewish ambulances and you’re a much more worthy cause.”

 

Thank you so much! [chuckling] I’ve got a video coming out at the weekend about the jewish ambulances, so look out for that. That’s the end of the Entropy Superchats. We’re going to go over to Rumble now.

 

Come on, guys, the Entropy fans. Where were you tonight? The bearded Indian gave $8. Thank you so much! And said:

 

“Blair, have you ever brought bread from a man in Brussels who was 6 foot 4 and full of muscles, big love, praying for Joel and the political prisoners.”

 

I get that. I love that song. And you could be the man in Brussels who was also a man from down under, if you listen to the song.

 

Blair Cottrell: I think there’s a sad story behind that song, actually. I won’t tell it because I don’t know it, but I’m pretty sure that song, or maybe it’s not that song. But there’s a stereotypical iconic Australian song that was actually stolen from someone and they lost the rights to it and stuff like that. But anyway, I understand the pun, so I appreciate it.

 

Mark Collett: One of the sad things about Men at Work, the guys who did it, they all sort of fell out with each other. And the original lineup of Men at Work, they’re not all sort of still together. And I don’t think they actually speak to each other, which is really sad! So now there is only one member of Men at Work left, which is the main guy, Colin Hay. But all of the other guys and the ones who came up with the iconic songs, they’ve all left. And I find that quite sad because it’d be nice if after all this time, they were still playing gigs together. But no, it’s just they, …

 

Blair Cottrell: To me, it’s always weird how people fall out. I’ve never fully fallen out with anyone. You know, people have done things upset me and haven’t done the right thing by me always. But I still like to think about the good times I have with those people. So I never really fall out with anyone. Like when I call someone my friend, it’s like a lifelong thing for me. But I suppose, you know, things happen to some people that are bad enough that bridges are burned. I just try not to burn bridges, personally,

 

Mark Collett: I think in the musical world it’s a common thing because I think you’re stuck together with people. When you’re touring, you’re always with them. And then often people have different ideas of where they want their band or their group to go. And I think it’s a very different world. I think that’s a commonplace thing. Bod Nielsen gave three gifted subscriptions. Thank you so much! If you get a gifted subscript subscription, please do keep it up.

 

Blair Cottrell: What is a gifted subscription? Is that like a, …

 

Mark Collett: On Rumble you can gift subscriptions that anyone can claim and then they can keep them going if they want. So the idea is that you get paid subscribers. So say I had 200 paid subscribers at $5 a month from each one. That means you’re gonna get a thousand dollars American every month less the processing fee. And it’s just obviously everyone’s dream is to get to the point where as a content creator, rather than having to sort of hope and pray for Superchats, you end up getting the other stuff where people just gift.

 

And that’s the key thing. Like if you’re on some kind of thing where everyone, a thousand of your supporters gave you $5 a month at the beginning of every month, you don’t have to worry and you don’t have to do Superchats, you know what I mean? It’s just one of the sort of things of how it works, basically. But thank you for giving the gifted subs and if you do get a gifted subs, please maintain it because it means a lot to me. So thank you so much!

 

Serena JB gave $8. Thank you so much! And said:

 

“Love to all our fellow nationalists in Australia, especially to Joel.”

 

Thank you very much. Purple sage gave $10 and thank you and said:

 

“Thank you both for all you do.”

 

Well, thank you so much! Einsky gave $5. Thank you so much! He said:

 

“Hail to you, Mark and Blair. Powerful show and powerful takes. Struggle is the father of all things.”

 

Well, I agree. Hazelnut 3,000 gave $10. Thank you and said:

 

“Thank you. Mark and Blair.”

 

Do you know, this is just a little an aside here, but I remember reading about the butterfly. And butterflies struggle coming out of their cocoon, but if you cut the cocoon open and you help the butterfly out, it basically retards the butterfly and it can’t then operate. The butterfly needs that struggle in order to get out. Conversely, it’s different for chickens coming out of eggs. If you are hatching chickens and you don’t wet the eggs and soften them, the chickens actually do need a hand getting out of the eggs, they die.

 

[1:50:45]

 

 

Blair Cottrell: There’s so much balance to be considered in these things. And I think the female role in this process is to empathize with the creature in the immediate sense and the masculine role is to kind of empathize with the broader implications of what you’re doing in the moment. So women will always, or the more feminine creatures or people, they’ll always try to help the person in the moment, make the person feel good in the moment. And that’s the way feminine empathy is expressed.

 

Whereas, whereas male empathy will be allow whatever it is to figure it out for itself and interfere not so much in the moment in order that things are stronger and more developed in a broader sense. More of a, what do you call it, survival of the fittest type thing. That’s like mass masculine altruism, you might say, whereas the feminine altruism is much more immediate.

 

But I think having a balance of those things, because they’re both very natural expressions, aren’t they? It’s like one isn’t bad or worse than the other. I think when you go one way too far, like modern society has gone way too far to the feminine, well then you end up with a weak and sickly society because everyone gets cared for in the moment too much. They get what they want in the moment, what they feel like, they get validated too much for not really doing anything of value.

 

So I think in future, as Tom Sewell would say, when we take this country, when we take control, when we take power, we need to strike a really appropriate balance between those two forces and we need to maintain it and really prevent things from going too far one way or the other.

 

Mark Collett: Thank you. The Bearded Indian gave $6. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“The Trump or the police aren’t victims because they’re being misled. They are self serving pigs who’ll step on anyone to keep their snout in the trough. They know exactly what they’re doing.”

 

Well, thank you so much! Igs 22, gave $5. Thank you so much! And he said:

 

“I stayed with an Italian family in Lima, Peru. Both sons, 40, live at home with partners. They pool resources and own four successful businesses. Should we teach our kids to build wealth as a family unit?”

 

Well, that’s a very interesting question. My answer to that would be, I would love my children to grow up near me and have a relationship with them longer and later in life. I moved away from where my parents are, but I do also think it’s important for people to have space.

 

So for example if my daughter met a nice guy and they wanted to settle down, I would want to help them get their own house. I’d want to help them settle, settle down so they have their own space. Because I don’t think you can truly flourish as a young couple if you’re living under the roof of one of your parents. So I do understand that people in some cultures have these large family gatherings under one roof. But I think as a young couple, it’s nice to have your own space and to be able to branch out a little bit. It’s nice to have the parents there and the extended family close, but too close, I think can be stifling. What do you think, Blair?

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, you don’t want to live under the same roof as like too many different families, extended family, friends. Living under the same roof with friends is actually the fastest way to ruin relationships with friends because you get to see what your friend is actually like most of the time. Like cracks start to appear, laziness, stuff like that. And it’s really problematic for ongoing friendships and even living with family sometimes. People end up really disliking their own siblings if they [chuckling] spend too much time too close to each other.

 

So everyone needs their space. That’s why we all go to our own bedrooms at the end of the day. So even if you’re living in a community based environment, everyone having their own space, space, like even if it’s on the same property, you have different little houses on the same property that you can go to and you still have your room, your office, your bedroom you can retreat to at the end of the day. I think that’s really important, especially important for me. I like to spend a long, long periods of time alone. Actually people close to me say they don’t know anyone, they’ve said that they don’t know anyone who needs as much time to himself as I do.

 

So it’s really important for some people it’s just a necessary facet of the human condition, I think.

 

Mark Collett: I completely agree! I like time on my own. And I don’t understand people who always have to be, …

 

[1:55:21]

 

Blair Cottrell: I watched a video recently, the top 10 things like intelligent people do or something. And I watched it because I thought, I want to see if I do any of these things. Now I’m not gonna brag and tell you how many of the things I ended up doing, but the one thing that surprised me was talking to yourself.

 

One of the things apparently intelligent people do is they talk to themselves. And I’m thinking that blew my mind when that one popped up on the screen because I thought:

 

“I’ve been doing that since I was a kid, a lot!”

 

I’ve been waiting for no one to be in the house so I can pace the hallway and discuss things with myself. And I’m wondering, do you do that, Mark?

 

Mark Collett: Oh, God, [chuckling] I’m laughing because I do. I do! And the worst thing is, the worst thing is the Mrs will like, come into the house and I won’t hear her coming in, and I’ll be in sort of like conversation. She’s like:

 

“Who are you talking to earlier?”

 

And I was just like:

 

“Just myself. I was running through a few ideas and doing a back and forth and my sort of inner monologue was coming out.”

 

And I do this when I’m running as well. I used to go on long runs on a Sunday morning and I’d have a conversation about ideas. And if I’m planning out a speech or something like that, I will do it and run through it under my breath.

 

And sometimes I walk past people in the street and they’ll be looking at me like:

 

“He’s talking to himself!”

 

But you speak to some people and you’ll be like:

 

“That’s just my inner monologue.”

 

And they’re like:

 

“What’s one of them?”

 

And you’ll be like:

 

“What do you mean? So you don’t have conversations with yourself about ideas and plans, and you don’t have a back and forth?”

 

And they’re like:

 

“No.”

 

Blair Cottrell: We’ll get to the point where they’re planting microphones in your house, and you’ll be committing hate speech to yourself! Yeah, and you’ll be a charge for hate speech to yourself, Mark. You’ve got to be careful!

 

Mark Collett: But [chuckling] I do it all the time and it sometimes frustrates and freaks people out.

 

And sometimes, as I say, the Mrs will come up and says:

 

“Who are you talking to? Your phone wasn’t even, …”

 

“Yeah, well, that’s just me. Just me.”

 

And it really annoys you if I say:

 

“It’s the best conversation I get in this house, which is like, that’s the best!”

 

If you want to start a real argument is when your misses catches you having the inner monologue, remind her that it’s more intelligent conversation than you get out of her. And then you will get that is the fast track to being punched by your partner.

 

All Good, How’s It Going gave two dollars. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Hail Mark! Hail, Blair! If you could both meet up IRL in each other’s countries, where is the first place you would go to Showcase your homeland? I’m glad you’re still alive and well, Blair.”

 

Well, I didn’t actually get to do as much with Blair as I do with, usually when people come over. And it’s because Blair arrived, I met him then. He had to go and do things with his partner and they went on little exploratory journeys themselves. But if I could have taken Blair anywhere, it would have been to a place called Bradgate Park in Leicestershire which has got historic ruins, wild running deer, and some of the oldest trees in the whole country. Like these trees, some of them are 7, 800 years old.

 

So the things they’ve seen in their lifetime is just incredible! You know, they really are these incredible sort of they’re not obviously alive in the sense of like a creature, but living entities that have seen changes over their lifetime that we couldn’t, we couldn’t imagine.

 

And I think that connection with nature to me is important. It’s a place I went as a child, and sharing that with somebody like Blair would have been awesome! But unfortunately, we didn’t get as much time together as I hoped.

 

Blair Cottrell: When I was a kid, I used to wish that I could touch an old tree and absorb its knowledge. I used to imagine that that was happening if I touched an old tree. But I’m kind of torn. I want to take Mark. I would take Mark to the Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne and explain, like, exactly the significance of all the different features, because it’s very significant, not just to Australians, but to, I think, all extended members of our race. And I’ve learnt that only recently, actually in the past few years.

 

But then I also want to take Mark to the athletics track, the track and field institution setup that I used to compete on when I was younger. And I want to see if I can beat him in a 200 metre or 100 metre foot race. That’s what I’d really want to do!

 

Mark Collett: I’m an old man now. I’m 45. And one thing I’ve noticed, as I get older, I don’t seem to get that much weaker. So I can still go to the gym and do decent lifts and build myself up. But that burst energy where you can, not long distance. You can still do you get a lot of long distance instance runners who were old men. But that burst energy you have when you’re young, it’s just gone. So you might beat me there. Spartan Sadaka gave $2. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“My view is this planet needs a moral, wise, compassionate White emperor that has legally restrained authority over every single military and space travel, peace by centralisation and strict laws of war.”

 

Well, thank you so much! Ironically, I made a joke earlier, privately to Blair that he would make an excellent sort of Conan the King style character that could rule by a compassionate force. I actually said that to you earlier, didn’t I? There’s something I actually said to you. So would you take the role of Conan the King?

 

[2:00:38]

 

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, I do. I remember. And the reason Mark said that is because I said the picture he used in the backdrop for this screen, the picture of me, I hadn’t seen that picture before, And I thought, when I saw it, I thought I look like a junior Bill Gates.

 

Mark Collett: Yes, you have seen it. It’s the picture me and you had together at the conference, because.

 

Blair Cottrell: Okay, right.

 

But it’s like I look like a junior Bill Gates, like a psycho banker or something who wants to take over the world. And I said, I promise Mark, I don’t want to take over the world. He said to me:

 

“You know what? You probably should!”

 

Mark Collett: Well, I always see, apparently the Arnold Schwarzenegger Conan franchise was meant to run for about 10 films and the final one was meant to be called Conan the King, where you had an old Schwarzenegger sat atop a throne, worn out, old, but proud of everything he’d built and created.

 

And I always sort of thought of that as like the great White ruler that united his people, conquered everything and died still on top. A very rare ideal because most leaders don’t make it that far.

 

But I think you’d be a worthy man, … Or everything could go to hell and you could be kind of the great humongous in like a Mad Max world.

 

Blair Cottrell: Whatever works. As long as I’m getting what I need and as long as I’ve got my boys with me, I’m happy.

 

Mark Collett: Good, good. The Shogun gave $5. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Feels surreal that we have the honour of witnessing two heroes of the White race live on screen and can send $5, but just don’t.”

 

Well, thank you so much! And you did. Baba2 gave $50! Thank you so much for your generosity. And he said:

 

“White American, proud National Socialist here. Showing my support for you both. Hail folks. Hoping tomorrow brings freedom for Joel.”

 

Well, so do I. Thank you. Thank you so much! And if he can come on a stream soon, I’d love to do a special with him to talk about his time in jail. How’s It Going gave $5. Thank you so much! And he said:

 

“For Blair and Mark. I was in a car accident three years ago. (I’m sorry to hear that.) And haven’t had the motivation to get back in the gym. Any ideas or motivation you could send my way. Hail Mark and Blair! Free Joel!”

 

Well, sometimes car accidents can have a massive effect on you. A big accident. So I hope you get out of the place you’re in mentally. But I think sometimes when you have sort of a trauma, it can affect you in other ways. And my best advice for anybody, and this is what my dad always used to say, most people who fail to get where they want to be fail because tomorrow is always the start date for every single project. But tomorrow never comes!:

 

“I’m always going to start tomorrow. Now I’ll start at the beginning of next month. I’m going to start when we get to summer next year. First of January. I’ll start. Had a heavy night last night. Starting the first new week in January!”

 

There’s always an excuse. Today has to be the day. And it takes real mental will and iron and steel in your heart to do that.

 

And to me, if you want to get down to the gym, don’t plan it. One day just get up and do it. There is no plan. Just do it! That’s got to be the way. And commit to it. I used to do this on a Sunday morning. I used to run 10k every Sunday morning before I had the kids. And I’ll tell you this, there’s always a good excuse every Sunday morning not to get out of bed at 6 am and run 10k.

 

But if you don’t do it, you feel like an absolute piece of crap for the rest of the day. If you do it, you feel fantastic and you’re glad you did it.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, I would not be so enthusiastic about life if I didn’t lift weights in the gym. I feel like it helps me cope. Really. It’s like my Medicine, right? It’s like my therapy and my Medicine at the same time. So am I not going to take my Medicine?

 

Of course not. I’m going to take my Medicine, but I don’t actually take any pills. I just go to the gym. That’s my Medicine! Makes me feel better. It makes me. Makes me feel like nothing else really compares to the pain I just experienced in there. So then everything else is easy compared to that? That’s part of it. But I agree with Mark. Sometimes you just gotta do whatever it is that you want to do in the moment, or an idea that you’ve got, something you want to try, you put it into practice immediately.

 

Because you have to understand as a human, you need to know your limits as a human, you need to understand the human condition. You’re lazy! You’re lazy and you’re habit prone.

 

[2:05:19]

 

So the only way you’re going to break the habit is to just immediately break it. As soon as you get an idea in your head of how to break it, put it into action straight away, literally. Drive to the gym, join it and go in there with your bag and your towel in the bag, you singlet on and just do a workout, see what you come up with. If you don’t know how to work out, look it up on YouTube or watch what the other guys in the gym are doing and copy them. Sit on some machines and just see how they move, see how they work. Just taking that first step of getting out of your comfort zone and breaking the habit, that’s like 50% of the work. Trust me, you’re halfway there already, once you’ve broken the habit.

 

And if you’ve been in a car accident, you’ve sustained some relatively serious injuries, there’s a good chance you could still be taking opioids. People get into a habit of taking the Panadine, or the Tramadol or whatever it is that they get put on. And then two years later, after a broken leg, or a crushed pelvis in a car accident, they’re completely healed, but they’re still taking the opioids because the body’s developed a mild dependency on the drug. And the medical institutions love that! Because they can keep selling you the drug indefinitely and telling you that you need it. And you feel like you need it. Your brain thinks it does. Swap out that Medicine or whatever else it is that you’re doing to cope with life, drinking, eating, sugar, I guarantee you’ve got some cope. Even smoking cigarettes. Swap that out for the gym. Make the gym your cope! Make the gym your Medicine, your therapy, your body will reward you for it, believe me.

 

Mark Collett: Thank you. Son of Wessex is now a monthly supporter. Thank you so much! Einsteroski gave $5. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Blair. I find your Telegram, videos and weightlifting useful and the same goes for your posts on various topics. As for our enemies, their rotten bones are trembling. Defeat never, victory forever!”

 

Well, thank you so much! Ranulph White wolf 11 gave $5. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“One of my English students here has been having me read a jewish book about how all races are just as smart and Whites advanced because of farming. Any thoughts on attention attempts to modernise the Aborigines?”

 

Well, look, I would say this, anyone that says all races are equally smart is by nature a fraud. Farming is a result of intelligence, but it’s also a result of being able to defer pleasure and to plan. And that is a function of intelligence. People who are not very intelligent just can’t defer pleasure. It’s like the trick which you do. Well, not a trick. It’s like a little game you do with your children. Say:

 

“Would you like one chocolate egg now or two chocolate eggs in 10 minutes?”

 

And the child that isn’t very smart will take the egg immediately. But not, and wouldn’t won’t understand that waiting and having patience is a good thing. And you tend to find find this with certain racial groups that if you say to them:

 

“Would you like £10 now, or a hundred pounds in a day’s time?”

 

They’ll take the ten pounds, go and spend it, and in a few days time they won’t even remember what really happened.

 

Whereas intelligence people will genuinely defer. It’s why more intelligent people sort of save their money rather than just spending it. So they plan for the future.

 

Whereas people who are very impulsive and have low impulse control who are less intelligent, they get themselves into financial bother because they can’t work it out. And it’s why White people who aren’t as intelligent are preyed upon so heavily by financial institutions. Because the financial institutions know that if they dangle the carrot of have the car now, but pay stupidly high amounts for repayments on finance, less intelligent people will always fall for that. And it’s why our ancestors had such strong laws against usury and against coercive forms of finance and money lending, because they knew that more vulnerable people in society would get in sort of permanently in debt to the money lenders.

 

Blair Cottrell: Whoever said that, by the way, that:

 

“All races are equally intelligent and White people just did better because of farming.”

 

They’re worse, … Mark said that person’s obviously a fraud. It’s worse than fraudulent. They’re probably hostile, laying the groundwork for racial equality so they can open your borders or contribute to your tolerance of open borders which leads to your own ethnic replacement. The whole idea that White people just use some kind of cheat code that everyone’s the same and White people cheated. See, when you start believing in racial equality and the equality of all people, then the only way one race or ethnic group of people could be doing better in terms of creativity and civilisation. The only way that you can make sense of that if you believe in equality is:

 

“Well, they must have cheated!”

 

[2:10:31]

 

And so then your feeling, your objective in life is basically centreed around bringing that race down! Because they’ve cheated, they’re not allowed to be better! Because them being better conflicts with my idea about racial equality. And if the races are equal, then they need to be made equal not by lifting up the lesser, but by dragging down the ones that cheated, the better ones. Because the only way they could be better is if they cheated.

 

Or people like that could rethink their worldview and just acknowledge basic reality that the races aren’t equal. Look, there’s plenty of low IQ White people. Not all White people are creative geniuses or intelligent. We have plenty of White people out there that have the intelligence of somebody from Africa. There’s plenty of them. But on average, White people [average IQ of 100] tend to be slightly more intelligent or higher IQ than people from Africa [average IQ of 70] *. There’s a mean to consider there.

 

[* IQ and Race-See RACE, EVOLUTION, AND BEHAVIOR: A Life History Perspective. By Professor J. Philippe Rushton: “Is race real? Do the races differ in behaviour as well as in body? Are such views just the result of White racism? Modern science shows a three-way pattern of race differences in both physical traits and behaviour. On average, Orientals are slower to mature, less fertile, less sexually active, less aggressive, and have larger brains and higher IQ scores. Blacks are at the other pole. Whites fall in the middle, but closer to Orientals than to Blacks.” https://katana17.com/2014/06/10/race-evolution-And-behaviour-part-1/]

 

[Here, Canadian Prof. Phillipe J. Rushton at the Amren Conference 2000, reports on his travels to South Africa to find out for himself whether studies showing that Africans have an average IQ of 70, is true or not.

The very idea that there are differences in intelligence between the races has been made into a taboo topic by organized jewry, turning commonsense on its head and forcing people to believe nonsense about “racial equality”. One main purposes why organized jewry pushes this propaganda lie about the “equality of races” is to remove objections from White people to the flooding of their society with masses of low IQ blacks and browns. This is why rare academics, like Rushton, who tell the truth about racial differences are vilified in our jewish controlled media — KATANA.]

 

 

And like as you suggested just then, Mark, in this case, the chicken came before the egg. Like, you don’t farm, you don’t put any effort into preparing a system of resources for the future unless you already have the intelligence to do so in the beginning. Unless you have the foresight which is related to intelligence.

 

So, like, one of the worst things you can do for yourself is believe in human equality, specifically human racial equality, because it’s going to make you very angry! You’re going to be very angry downstream from that viewpoint because you’re going to expect that everyone should and can perform equally when they obviously can’t! And you’re going to become very frustrated with everybody because what they’re actually doing and the way they’re performing does not reflect the preconceived idea of equality that you’ve been sold and you’ve invested yourself into.

 

So if you are watching this and you tend towards that equality stuff, if you’re a Leftist, if you’re a cop working for the system, they probably watch this stuff, take a step back because human equality is not real and it’s going to piss you off! And you’re going to spend a lot of time trying to cope and enforce something that doesn’t exist. So like trust me, life, when you realise people aren’t equal, you become more forgiving. You become a little more forgiving of the average person who can’t move at the same pace as the others. You actually have more empathy in my opinion, when you don’t believe in human equality. But I won’t get into that. I won’t discuss that anymore. Just say that believing in equality is not just wrong, it’s going to make your life more difficult.

 

Mark Collett: Certainly is. How’s It Going gave $2. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Deciding on the right food to eat is my big issue, my biggest issue. I don’t know how to cook really well! Do you guys have any go to easy healthy meals? Thank you.”

 

Yeah, I do. I’ll give you mine very quickly. I make smash burgers at home. They’re really easy to make. You just get two balls of ground beef that weigh around, to your taste. I always do it 60 grams. I get the 60 gram balls of ground beef. I’ve got a burger smasher. I smash them into a really low frying pan. I haven’t actually got a skillet. I make them, I top them with cheese, put them in a brioche bun. I load it up with things that I like, lettuce, onion, tomato. There’s a really good protein content there. I either eat one of those or two of those if I fancy four burger patties. So somewhere between 60 and 120 grams of 5% fat minced beef. So it’s the higher protein minced beef. These are very cheap. Much cheaper and much healthier than buying at McDonald’s. You can buy the ground beef in bulk. You can get your mayonnaise, your sauces in bulk. The cheese is really cheap. You buy your brioche buns really cheap in bulk. They don’t go off either. They’ve got about a 30 day shelf life because of the sugar content. They’re not like normal bread. I could eat those all day! In fact, I made those for tea for the whole family tonight because they like them too.

 

I’ve been to the gym today and I get a lot out of eating like that. I also enjoy things like steak, but that’s a lot more expensive! So I go for the ground beef option and I make my own burgers and they’re very healthy. There’s no added ingredients. It is just the ground beef in the pan with the burger smasher.

 

Blair Cottrell: Eight eggs, eight good eggs! Eggs you can get in bulk pretty cheap, if you can find like a farm or regional source, local source, you can get them in trays, trays of 30. If you’re going to cook them, you want to just crack them all into the pan, scramble them up, throw in some onion and some garlic. If you’re going to drink them raw, which you can also do, just do it one at a time. And don’t break the yolk. Because when you break the yolk, if you’re drinking an egg, you get like a fat, salty taste, which can make some people gag. Like drinking eggs is actually fine, in my opinion. I’ve drank hundreds of eggs because I haven’t had the time to cook them. I’ve done it as like a quick snack. In my life I haven’t drank hundreds of eggs in one sitting, but in my life I’ve drank hundreds and I’ve been fine!

 

So yeah, if my go to snack, it’s easy. Eight eggs. Eight good eggs!

 

Mark Collett: Blair, I will. I’ve done the egg thing. I like him scrambled, but I add to mine little bit of ham and some kind of chili sauce. I like a bit of like really hot chili sauce in the pan. So scrambled. I have ham and that. I’ve never tried the garlic, but yeah, I’ve done that as well in the morning. So I’ve done the eggs in the morning. The smash burgers for lunch, whatever I get cooked for my evening meal. Then before bed, a big whey protein shake. So I’m sleeping on the protein. The eggs are really good as well.

 

Blair Cottrell: Careful, there’s no vegetable oil in that sweet chili sauce. It’ll make you gay. [chuckling]

 

[2:16:37]

 

Mark Collett: Well, I mean, [chuckling] I’m doing pretty well already. Two kids obviously not doing the homo thing, yet. But to be honest. Do you know what got me into the thing? Me and my missus don’t really buy each other presents for Christmas and things. It’s waste of money. We’ve got most things we need, but we buy each other sort of silly things. And one year she bought me the complete collection of like chilies.

 

And it started off with like, I’m a big fanny. Anyone could drink this with. If you drink this you’re gonna die. And she was like, are we gonna do that? If we drink this, you’re gonna die.

 

And I was like:

 

“Yeah!”

 

She had a little bit. And she was like, this is fine. I’m like, you’re being a complete freak! Let’s get some of this down. Oh, my God, I did nearly die, I can tell you! My eyes were watering, my nose was, … It was one of the top three chilies in the world sort of condensed into a sauce. And I thought I could just tank in and boy, did I regret it! I don’t put that on my eggs. I can tell you!

 

Blair Cottrell: Someone is wondering if oil, like vegetable oil, does make you gay the way sugar does? I don’t know. You just got to assume the worst with this stuff, guys. And hey, it makes you weaker and sicker. So gay weak sick, it’s all the same, isn’t it?

 

Mark Collett: Look, I’ll say this. Do you know what? I actually spend less time worrying about what’s in food and more time worrying about what’s in non-prescription and prescription drugs. And one of the things that I think really weakens men is this cannabis addiction. Everyone’s smoking cannabis!

 

Blair Cottrell: I smelt marijuana in England quite frequently and I don’t smell it as much here. I gotta say. It might be a thing there, or maybe there’s a thing here too, I don’t know.

 

But yeah, it’s not very popular among the Right-wing or nationalist community down here in Australia. Not that I know of there’s actually some staunch opinions against it.

 

Mark Collett: Everyone does it here and I think it’s gonna have real mental problems for people in the future. Baba2 gave $20. Thank you for your continued support. Said:

 

“It’s good to be in solidarity like men with men like you two. Looking forward to the Duke-Green debate. I’m a Green supporter, but also a Duke supporter. I’m 61 and still work out hard.”

 

Well done. And he said:

 

“Just join Nova now.”

 

I would really like to talk to the Nova people. They reached out to me by email. I replied and they never got back to me. I offered them a show to discuss what they do. If anyone from Nova wants to do that as a Sunday or Friday night special, I’d be interested in doing that. Ulrich wrangle gave $3. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Mark and Blair. Would be good to see Jacob Hersant on PWR to complete the Aussie Guys.”

 

He’s already been on!:

 

“Blair, does he do interviews?”

 

Yes, he does:

 

“And Mark, could you be his long lost Aussie brother?”

 

Yes, I could. He’s been on before. He’s welcome to come on again. Phoenix National gave $3 and said:

 

“Great stream!”

 

Well, thank you so much! Santandex gave $21. Thank you so much! And said:

 

“Hi, Mark and Blair. I’m currently trying to organise Whites in my area by putting at flyers and stickers with a link to my Telegram. Just wondering if either of you have any advice for other ways also.”

 

And he said:

 

“By the way, I’m in Australia.”

 

I think the best thing in Australia personally with the new laws coming in is to build sort of informal networks. So it’s not a codified group. I mean, what do you think, Blair?

 

Blair Cottrell: I think the guys are trying to figure it out. Everybody’s trying to figure it out. It’s one of those situations where you’re forced to adapt a new strategy, obviously. And a new strategy will be adapted.

 

There’s been the boys are converging. I don’t even know. I don’t know! At this point, it’s all so fresh that it’s something that’s being discussed amongst different groups and people like, I don’t know. There’s still groups, there’s still activist groups that exist. They just don’t do a lot of activism right now as a result of how much heat there is on activists from our side of politics. It’s basically, it’s almost illegal to be a nationalist in Australia right now! It’s basically illegal depending on how you express that nationalism, or whether you express it at all! It’s almost like if you want to be nationalist, you have to be nationalists quietly at home, but you can’t talk about it in public. That’s the point we’re pretty much at in Australia.

 

So how do you actually adapt to that? That’s yet to be determined.

 

Mark Collett: Thank you. Ulrich Wrangler gave another $3. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Mark after the successful show with the Angry Bootnik. Who is next on your hit list of converting to our side? Can I suggest a normie channel called Dinobain? He reminds me of the old Iconoclast.”

 

Look, I’ll chat to any of these people. I’m very welcoming to people. If Dinobain, I’ve heard of him. If he wants to come on my channel and talk about ethno-nationalism, reach out to him. The invite’s there. Dinobain, let’s talk. Evon626 gave $25. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“So I want to give money but I want to ask something. All my thoughts are Fed posty. Okay, here everyone should build an underground cache of creatine and wait for a chance to distribute it to Right-wing friends. That’s not a question. How about agree disagree that creatine cash must be underground and have a hidden entrance so the satellite eyes in the sky are blind to it.”

 

I use creatine. Do you know what? I thought creatine was a lie at first. I thought nothing could have that sort of instant positive effect. But I find if I take the creatine, it boosts my lifts by about 8 to 10% and if I don’t take it, I am noticeably weaker and less pumped. Do you use creatine?

 

[2:22:24]

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s pretty specific, Mark. It boosts your list by about 8 to 10%, by about 8.7 or 10.3% roughly in between that region. Yeah, I do use creatine on occasion and it does work. It’s one of the more studied substances or compounds, and it’s typically derived from red meat.

 

So if you have a diet that’s high in red meat, you’ll probably get enough creatine naturally. But it is a good idea to load it up with a supplement just so you’re not having to eat 17 steaks a week, because it’s not really financially viable in this economy. But there’s all sorts of evidence available suggesting that it’s great for mental health, cognitive function, fertility, even in women. So creatine is almost like a very important building block for general health. You want to look into that too, guys, if you have the time and look at investing in a creatine supplement, I personally find it increases my stamina working out. I can always do extra reps with heavier weight after I have 5 to 10 grams of creatine, usually an hour before I work out. It can also be viable to have it after your workout to replenish, … Because your muscles, you muscle cells are really open after a workout, your sensitivity to absorb nutrients is greater so the creatine can get back in and sort of volumize your muscle cells and assist with the recovery as well.

 

Mark Collett: I also find with the creatine, it’s one of the cheapest supplements as well. You can get 100% pure creatine very cheap. Like some of these things are quite expensive. It’s cheap, it’s effective. Get it guys! Ranulph White Wolf 11 gave $4. Thank you so much! And he said:

 

“Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs and Steel*. Obviously Diamond is an anti-White jew.”

 

[* In this book Diamond pushes the anti-White narrative on race, etc.]

 

Well, thank you so much! How’s It’s Going gave a dollar.

 

Thank you very much. And he said:

 

“Thank you guys so much for the wisdom and encouragement. Mark and Blair are the greatest of all time!”

 

Well, thank you so much! We do our best. Ranulph White Wolf gave another $2. Thank you so much! And said:

 

“Back when I lived in South Korea, I would drink red ginsing before working out. And I found that raised my failure threshold.”

 

Yeah, there are natural things that a lot of people swore by that. I believe that the famous Olympic runner Linford Christie used ginseng tea. Solar Mass gave $20. Thanks so much. Said:

 

“Thanks fellas. Great show as usual.”

 

Aunt Sally gave $5. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Thank you Mark and Blair.”

 

And ScaredyCat gave $8 and said:

 

“Hi Blair, Mark. Right now our stage of politics is all humanity being ruled by the jewish community and its allies, the Christian Zionists and the Muslim Zionists. Planet Earth’s 200 countries are one by one being converted to a single corporate Terms of Service world ruled by hate crime legislation.”

 

Well, thank you so much! And that is very true.

 

And I believe one of the reasons that they will go after, or have gone after Iran is because it’s one of the countries or one of the few countries that does not have a Central Banking system owned by the Rothschilds.

 

Anyway, we’ve done a half an hour more than we were expecting and thank you for everyone who chipped in tonight. It’s really appreciated. But thanks most to Blair. It’s been an amazing stream. You know Blair, it’s really weird because I just want to say this.

 

Firstly, a massive thank you for sticking around for an extra 25 minutes. But look, also, you’re one of the few people, … Like I actually had a plan for this show and it largely went out the window. And you’re one of the few people who when I do a show, I don’t need to stick to the show notes. I kind of feel that we could sort of do a four or five hour show where we were just talking about random things, and it would probably be more entertaining than the usual structured, you know, 20 minute, 20 minute, 20 minute show followed by an hour of questions. You are a very versatile guy and your takes tonight have been absolutely fantastic! But thank you for being here and as always please do have the last word and then we’ll shut things down.

 

Blair Cottrell: Likewise, mate. Yeah, I enjoy the shows. I always, I look forward to when you ask me to come on, to be honest. Whenever you say:

 

“Hey, you’re free this week?”

 

I’m just like:

 

“Hey, that’ll be fun!”

 

And actually, I told my mates about it:

 

“I’m going on with Mark this week.”

 

So, yeah, I enjoy it as well. I find the conversation flows quite quickly, quite naturally. And you’re an inquisitive guy, you’re a curious guy and you’re always curious to discuss things, which I appreciate. And yeah, it is good to not have to stick always too rigidly to the same basic political talking points, because you can go down, you can go down a pretty extensive rabbit hole with that stuff and you still need to keep yourself understandable. It’s just more entertaining, I think, and it’s more enjoyable when you can discuss things that are a little bit more relatable to the standard person, a little bit more human sometimes.

 

So, yeah, I feel the same and I appreciate it. Thanks for the invite. It’s been a good show. We probably could have discussed the whole Trump Iran situation a little more in depth. I do have more feelings about that, more thoughts about that, but I’m sure that there’s so much of that going on the Internet, I don’t feel we need to contribute any more to it, now that I think about it.

 

[2:27:25]

 

Mark Collett: Well, look, I really enjoy having you on and I do have sort of a rotation of guests and to be fair, like, I always feel bad calling on you personally because you have to get up early in the morning. But if you’re willing to, I would happily have you on quarterly, once every three months as a regular recurring guest because it always is such a good show. And to hear that you enjoy coming on, I will ask you more often, but I always felt I was a bit of an inconvenience or potentially a pain in the arse because [chuckling] for you it’s like the early morning show and some people it doesn’t work.

 

Whereas when you invited me on your show, it was always the best thing ever because you always invited me on and you’re like:

 

“Oh, it’s late night in Australia.”

 

But It was like 10 AM here, which was absolutely brilliant for me because I’ve just got up, just necked the first energy drink and I’m sort of feeling as if I can take on the world.

 

Whereas for you it’s a bit early. But thank you so much, it’s been amazing and I will get you on more often. Thank you also to everyone who donated so generously. Everyone was super generous through Rumble tonight, so thank you so much!

 

I don’t know what was going on with Entropy and I’m not saying this because I’m asking for more Entropy donations, but if there is a problem with Entropy, I’ve had a few reports of issues and Henrik was having an issue. So if there is an issue with that platform, please let me know so I can feed it back to the developers. Because you know that is important and Henrik was talking about that last time I was on his show.

 

Anyway, thank you also to everyone who tuned in. So thank you to Blair, thank you to everyone who donated so generously and thank you to everyone who was watching live. We were quite high up and boosted on Rumble tonight in the trending news thing. We’re on the front page of the trending live stream. So thank you to everyone who got us there.

 

I will be back later in the week with a pre-recorded video. I’m doing some more streams. Keep an eye on Telegram for those and I’ll be back next week with Steve Laws for another episode of Patriotic Weekly Review.

 

And if you want to donate when I’m offline, please do so if you’re one of those people watching on replay, you can give then.

 

Anyway, thank you so much, see you next week. Good night everyone. I appreciate your support. Love you all.

 

 

[2:29:54]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

(Comments as of 4/2/2026 = 277)

Mark Collett
6 hours ago
Pinned by @MarkCollett
If you would like to contribute to the stream, please use Entropy:
https://entropystream.live/app/markcollett

2
0

@Obit_Anus_Onus_Abit
3 hours ago

@ancientviking
all these outward nazis are rumoured to be feds

0
1
withey
3 hours ago
great show, goodnight all 14/88 28

1
0
ancientviking
3 hours ago
evening dupes

0
1

@Obit_Anus_Onus_Abit
3 hours ago

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
ye tnx

0
1
Sir Trancealot
3 hours ago
14

1
0

@Joesmith
3 hours ago
14

1
0

@Obit_Anus_Onus_Abit
3 hours ago

@MarkCollett
you have so many guests, but imagine unz laughing at your back for making you believe his scam he is some kind of right winger

0
1
ancientviking
3 hours ago
so mark can praise iran more? lets not

0
1

@Obit_Anus_Onus_Abit
3 hours ago
ye Blair is a beast

0
1
ancientviking
3 hours ago
might as well be a jew himself

0
1
ancientviking
3 hours ago
according to duke nothing was good before christianity/judiasm

0
1

@Obit_Anus_Onus_Abit
3 hours ago

@BlairCottrell
can you snatch? clean&jerk?

0
1
ancientviking
3 hours ago
and duke is a zionist

0
1

@Obit_Anus_Onus_Abit
3 hours ago
Unz is basically a Liberal Jew, he simply seems not able to grasp the very concept of racial identity.
He just publishes a lot of right wing content, for the sake of the traffic it engenders, not because he is our friend.

0
1

@Obit_Anus_Onus_Abit
3 hours ago
and others in heavily mixed California. this was in the link

0
1

@Obit_Anus_Onus_Abit
3 hours ago

@MarkCollett
https://www.unz.com/runz/an-open-letter-to-the-alt-right-and-others/
why do you invite unz to your show? he believes that the ideal of a White ethnostate as the most desirable political outcome is debunked by the reality of low crime and unproblematic coexistence of Whites, Hispanics

0
1
ancientviking
3 hours ago
so whats the benefit in UK when everyone is prediposed to hating it?

0
1
ancientviking
3 hours ago
we don’t have the same law and you will get locked up .. and noboy supports it here

0
1
ancientviking
3 hours ago
you deserve to go to jail if don’t realise the ramifications of using hiterl outside of USA

0
1
Prison Ships
3 hours ago
I hope DUKE beats the cancer and out lives trump.

1
0
ancientviking
3 hours ago
stop being revelators of hitler in commonwealth countries

0
1

@Obit_Anus_Onus_Abit
3 hours ago

@BlairCottrell
of course it is illegal, look at the warfare tom sewell you and others are subjected to

0
1

@Obit_Anus_Onus_Abit
3 hours ago

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
what about if there is a redpilled scientist egghead, would he trigger inferiority complexes and how do you escape from that if you accept human inequality?

0
1
ancientviking
3 hours ago

@withey
Not on the top 10

0
1

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
3 hours ago

@Obit_Anus_Onus_Abit
IDK that’s of course your original question for Blair, not something I have a problem accepting having worked with such academics on projects together.

0
1
Sir Trancealot
3 hours ago
Dinobane is based

0
1
ancientviking
3 hours ago
its stupid as shiiit

0
1
Alice1488
32 minutes ago
Blair is a real White man, a national treasure for Australia. It’s rare to see a Nationalist that doesn’t get involved with drama!

Barnes isn’t Noble
32 minutes ago
I believe entropy has had payment processing issues if I remember correctly Henrick mentioned having not received donation funds from one of his payment processors.

@Obit_Anus_Onus_Abit
3 hours ago
i don’t think they monitor this chat

@Ihtultu
3 hours ago
Good evening everyone.

Obscure Truth
3 hours ago
True.

@Ihtultu
3 hours ago
take it alongside beta alanine.

withey
3 hours ago

@ancientviking
but it is a problem

@Obit_Anus_Onus_Abit
3 hours ago
2.2 *grams per kg

ancientviking
3 hours ago
like thats the biggest problem

ancientviking
3 hours ago
wahhh people smoke weed …

@Obit_Anus_Onus_Abit
3 hours ago

@Mar

@BlairCottrell
how do i get to 2.2 proteins per kg of weight though, with eggs only?

ancientviking
3 hours ago
its a good level to be at

ancientviking
3 hours ago
carolina reaper or scorpion pepper

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
3 hours ago

@Obit_Anus_Onus_Abit
I’ve spent a lot of time around some incredibly intelligent academics, I like to call the lampshades because they make the bright appear dimmer, but they too tow the line and rather tell a lie rather than be aberrant and tell the truth on certain matters

withey
3 hours ago

@Philip.Kollberg
i drink raw eggs it’s lovely either 1 at a time or 3 in a glass and drink drink drink

@Ihtultu
3 hours ago
They’re trying to make the goys gay!!!

ancientviking
3 hours ago
Yet ……

@Obit_Anus_Onus_Abit
4 hours ago
Richard Spencer liked hamburgers with caramelised onion or something like that

@Philip.Kollberg
4 hours ago
drink egg is awful

@Obit_Anus_Onus_Abit
4 hours ago
i mean, do you justify priviledge by way human inequality?

@Obit_Anus_Onus_Abit
4 hours ago

@BlairCottrell
..and how do you think you stack against a scientist or someone like that, do you accept your intellectual inferiority as downstream from human inequality, or … do you cope by claiming you are cleverer because you are red-pilled, they are just privileged pencilnecked eggheads, etc

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
4 hours ago
Cannot recommend that enough

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
4 hours ago
If you don’t know how to cook start with stews

@Ihtultu
4 hours ago
I found 20% fat better for smash burgers with onions.

@Ihtultu
4 hours ago
5%??

ancientviking
4 hours ago
suger filled buns

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
4 hours ago
It’s the European stable food

ancientviking
4 hours ago
terible

ancientviking
4 hours ago
brioch?

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
4 hours ago
Lobscouse

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
4 hours ago
Scouse

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
4 hours ago
Stew

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
4 hours ago

@withey
LOL same

withey
4 hours ago

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
i’m an ectomorph i could never get to blair probably not even with steroids

ancientviking
4 hours ago
does blair here raise chickens? i doubt it

ancientviking
4 hours ago
this seems like a better time than early sleep

withey
4 hours ago

@ancientviking
and i remind you that you cannot use slurs on this channel

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
4 hours ago

@withey
Self rebutal – you most certainly will not get as jacked as Blair doing that, but it is better for most people psychologically and it is productive.

ancientviking
4 hours ago

@withey
im simply bored

withey
4 hours ago

@ancientviking
your attacks have amounted to nothing

ancientviking
4 hours ago
so nice goin for white movements

ancientviking
4 hours ago
no he is a paki

withey
4 hours ago

@ancientviking
i’ve met tollah as well, he is swarthy nothing more

ancientviking
4 hours ago
and iin their pics

ancientviking
4 hours ago
and paki

ancientviking
4 hours ago
midget as well

ancientviking
4 hours ago

@withey
Ayotolah i think he is called

withey
4 hours ago

@ancientviking
who?

ancientviking
4 hours ago
dunno

ancientviking
4 hours ago
why he was in the pic i dunnop

0KT0BER
4 hours ago
*dwarven

ancientviking
4 hours ago
or that paki guy

0KT0BER
4 hours ago

@ancientviking
no dissing our warven kings

withey
4 hours ago

@ancientviking
yes woodlander is short

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
4 hours ago

@withey
Focusing on your appearance like that is narcissistic. laying a driveway of 1000 1footx1footx2″ thick paving stones its a workout and you can look at what you’ve done at the end of the day

ancientviking
4 hours ago
like that woodlander guy? he is 5’0 a litteral dwarf

withey
4 hours ago
i’m parallel with steve laws shoulders

0KT0BER
4 hours ago
https://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/HJS-Israel-2048-%E2%80%93-A-Blueprint-Report-web-4.pdf

withey
4 hours ago

@ancientviking
those fellas are 6’4

ancientviking
4 hours ago
doubt

withey
4 hours ago

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
have a home gym

ancientviking
4 hours ago

@withey
I dount after some of the people he is pictured with

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
4 hours ago
It’s far more rewarding than the gym which just has you paying to move things around back to the start

withey
4 hours ago

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
looking good and feeling great is the achievement

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
4 hours ago
Anything

@Joesmith
4 hours ago
that bike crash was a blessing in discuise

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
4 hours ago
Dig a ditch or something

@Joesmith
4 hours ago
i had a motobike accdent broke sevral bones and when i got better i got to the fitst ive ever been i was a fat bloob b4 that

withey
4 hours ago

@ancientviking
you’re about the same height as Mark, and only a little taller than me

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
4 hours ago
Build something! The most rewarding exercise is when you can look back at the end of the day and see you’ve achieved something more than lifted a lump of iron only to put it back where you found it.

ancientviking
4 hours ago
5’10

ancientviking
4 hours ago

@withey
he is a jew so id imagine so

withey
4 hours ago

@ancientviking
how tall are you?

withey
4 hours ago

@ancientviking
do you have issue with mike enoch?

ancientviking
4 hours ago
midgets

Obscure Truth
4 hours ago
Lol

ancientviking
4 hours ago
where mark is like 5’5 lol

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
4 hours ago
As you get older you do find it harder to have that burst of strength to bench press a gearbox up onto an engine while lying under a car

withey
4 hours ago
we whites cannot live like indians, we are too geared to being in charge of our own destiny, we are all leaders, any difference is cause for conflict, we only cooperate when we agree

@Joesmith
4 hours ago
lake distric

ancientviking
4 hours ago
what a guy ….

ancientviking
4 hours ago
the supposed nuerologist that preyed on retarded women?

ancientviking
4 hours ago
wow

ancientviking
4 hours ago

@withey
you really think that creep is innocent?

@Joesmith
4 hours ago
its like 10% dont

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
4 hours ago
Wait you guys don’t do that in your internal monologue? You actually say it?

@Ir0nW1LL
4 hours ago
You meet a better class of person that way

withey
4 hours ago

@ancientviking
call the police who dealt with this lie and have them tell you

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
4 hours ago
My uncle had a stroke and could no longer do that in silence.

Prison Ships
4 hours ago
AntiChrists; Unregenerate Queers; and c”rap” listeners deserve an insurmountable Alien invasion.

@Joesmith
4 hours ago

@withey
i got a council flat its nice being close to famaly i share a dog with him the dog wanted to go to his yestday so she draged me there lol

ancientviking
4 hours ago
he was not wearing a hazmat suit for no reason

ancientviking
4 hours ago

@withey
M8? that shit was done with years ago, ofc he killed her

withey
4 hours ago

@Joesmith
same here

withey
4 hours ago

@ancientviking
that’s a lie and you know it, JF is a good man, a hero of our race

@Joesmith
4 hours ago
i am a 10 min walk from my dad

ancientviking
4 hours ago

@withey
Unless you are JF Gariepy and kill off your own wife

Sir Trancealot
4 hours ago
which then lead to MGTOW

withey
4 hours ago

@ancientviking
you see your dad every day, but it’s only brief, you need your mother for affection and your father for leadership this is wholesome nuclear family, everyone plays a part, all roles are crucial

ancientviking
4 hours ago
do some partime farm work

ancientviking
4 hours ago
stop being lazy

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
4 hours ago
*sued

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
4 hours ago
They got sewed for plagiarising the kookaburra song

@RP
4 hours ago
Where do you guys stand on sperm donation? Should young, fit and healthy nationalists consider donating to healthy, attractive and intelligent European women even if they’re lesbians? I’d argue having healthy white babies is a net positive for us.

ancientviking
4 hours ago
what a shit show

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
4 hours ago
vegemite sandwiches are disgusting. Marmite is better

ancientviking
4 hours ago
and gods help you if you go back on ethan ralphs again mark

Prison Ships
4 hours ago
If EuroPagan “gods” were believable they would have remained at minimum 30% more popular than they did.

@TheOldOneTwo
4 hours ago
A god is only as believable as the mystic who peddles him.

ancientviking
4 hours ago
what kind of message would that be?

ancientviking
4 hours ago
Only on weekends? so men should be more like blacks? .. just went out for a pack of smokes?

withey
4 hours ago
true dads worked mums gave affection

withey
4 hours ago
my cheeks are hurting that’s so funny

@Joesmith
4 hours ago
no

@Joesmith
4 hours ago
i have

@Joesmith
4 hours ago
lol

ancientviking
4 hours ago
not been years of that already

ancientviking
4 hours ago
sure to save the white people is film reviews

Prison Ships
4 hours ago

@james
Adams MCkenzie Peer pressure.

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
4 hours ago
I’d rather achieve something than spend it in the gym. Breaking up concrete and wheelbarrowing it into a big pile around the other side of the section is a good start

@Ihtultu
4 hours ago

@ancientviking
that’s insane to say. look at ancient rome, greeks, makedonians, celts, thracians, germans. even today everyone wants to be a successor of rome.

withey
4 hours ago

@ancientviking
true Adam will win, but only because religion is fantasy and in part subversive, facts and reality always wins

ancientviking
4 hours ago
Duke even said we did nothing before christianity … the gall on that fooker

@Ihtultu
4 hours ago
especially when doing legs.

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
4 hours ago
Have you not seen the tik tok pastors promoting LGBT stuff?

ancientviking
4 hours ago
Adam will wipe the floor with old christian idiot

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
4 hours ago
That won’t work, they go about subverting any organisation of authority, even the church.

@Ihtultu
4 hours ago
an ethnoreligion will reappear. it’s inevitable.

Obscure Truth
4 hours ago
Right.

@SvenLongshanks
4 hours ago
great conversation tonight

ancientviking
4 hours ago
they shill for ‘god’ at every oppertunity

ancientviking
4 hours ago
nobody seems to care anymore

@Ihtultu
4 hours ago

@ancientviking
we have to thank Theodosius I for that. along with inserting a foreign universalist religion, he allowed the mahommedans to flourish centuries later ater the battle of Frigidus.

0KT0BER
4 hours ago
lol

James Adams MCkenzie
4 hours ago

@VesselofGrace
how the hell is Darwn a satanist

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
4 hours ago
You sleep better that’s for sure

ancientviking
4 hours ago
why i never trusted him

ancientviking
4 hours ago

@Ihtultu
The jewish religion holds alot of sway in him

Prison Ships
4 hours ago
Darwin; Freud; Marx; Nietzsche are the most Amplified Satanists.

James Adams MCkenzie
4 hours ago
Before Christianity we had control over our spirituality that had deep ancestral roots, after it started getting controled by a foreign cult

Prison Ships
4 hours ago
Saint Martin Luther knew better.

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
4 hours ago
Oh you don’t like trash everywhere and like things organised, you’re ADHD and autistic (AKA just simply a white man)

withey
4 hours ago

@ancientviking
it would have to be cash in hand work, because every employer pays into a bank account

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
4 hours ago
Being white is a mental illness under the jewish defined DSM

ancientviking
4 hours ago

@withey
Get a job an do this in free time, relying on money from poor whites with no hope but paying internet personalites is not exactly a plus

@Joesmith
4 hours ago
no parent would be proud of a aspd son lol

@Joesmith
4 hours ago
when i was a kid duslex and adhd was techanly specal needs but not relly specal needs

withey
4 hours ago

@ancientviking
how can mark carry on without money to pay for his family and pay to run this organisation?

@Diogenes
4 hours ago
“Oh that’s all nonsense, it’s a racket for the …”

@Joesmith
5 hours ago

@withey
lol after u should check out a short aspd explaned by duck its so me lol

Callaghan
5 hours ago
FREE JOEL DAVIS

James Adams MCkenzie
5 hours ago

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
5 hours ago
It’s the jewish driven dysgenic goycattle breeding program at play there Blair

withey
5 hours ago

@Joesmith
it sounds cool

ancientviking
5 hours ago

@withey
Easily doable without subscriptions

Reginald Collett
5 hours ago
the new supergirl actress is autralian

@Joesmith
5 hours ago
aspd means socalpath

withey
5 hours ago

@ancientviking
others aren’t in it and don’t either understand it or don’t believe it, but it’s real, my soul is free, free from woke

@Joesmith
5 hours ago
i like my anti socal personalty disorder lable

@Philip.Kollberg
5 hours ago
Does the shack include Mark Collett stream?

ancientviking
5 hours ago

@withey
About yourselves, nobody else.

@Diogenes
5 hours ago
everyone is retarded and everyone hates each other – sounds like the baseline for today’s world

@Joesmith
5 hours ago
lol thats me i get big benfits for bpd and anti socal personalty disorder

withey
5 hours ago

@ancientviking
i’ve seen it first hand, i’ve talked to other members, we’re all positive and enthusiastic

ancientviking
5 hours ago
its been years

ancientviking
5 hours ago
Keep telling yourself that

withey
5 hours ago

@ancientviking
PA is getting better it’s always got better

ancientviking
5 hours ago
then why does it still get worse?

withey
5 hours ago

@ancientviking
camping together, hiking together, is collectivism, we think the same we feel the same and we can cooperate, it’s all proven, and from that we build

ancientviking
5 hours ago

@withey
Pitching tents will instill fear in all foreigners?

withey
5 hours ago

@ancientviking
but if you’re happy to just stay online, well god for you

withey
5 hours ago

@ancientviking
showing what can be achieved is priceless

ancientviking
5 hours ago

@withey
Im sure going for a hike and then ponying up some hundreds of pounds for a quick camp session will cure our ills colour me with optimism

withey
5 hours ago
it wouldn’t be long after we are denied fuel that the state runs out, no running ambulances, fire engines nor police cars

withey
5 hours ago
america will probably drop an A bomb on every city in iran

@Diogenes
5 hours ago
dropped two of them please

withey
5 hours ago
a nuke is the only way for america to win

withey
5 hours ago

@ancientviking
the demo only gives a glimpse about PA this gives more of the picture, the website is words and pictures, all of this is necessary for people before they attend the camp or the conference, before they become emersed in what Mark is creating

ancientviking
5 hours ago
but like i said

ancientviking
5 hours ago
if i believed in them i would

withey
5 hours ago

@ancientviking
do you attend PA demo’s?

ancientviking
5 hours ago
none of this online shit does anything i think that is quite obvious now

ancientviking
5 hours ago
years of this and nothing changed

withey
5 hours ago

@ancientviking
what’s your problem?

ancientviking
5 hours ago
if the downvote button was available? id hit that, but its not available, like a youtube channel

withey
5 hours ago
click

ancientviking
5 hours ago
its shit

ancientviking
5 hours ago
why

withey
5 hours ago
come on people 132 watching but only 22 likes….like the stream

withey
5 hours ago
fyi i liked the stream earlier

withey
5 hours ago
good evening all 14/88 28 wpwp wpww

ancientviking
5 hours ago
not like they are arabs or anything

ancientviking
5 hours ago
praising iran is the way to go am i right?

@noreplacement
5 hours ago
that happened here in England. Diesel was cheap, until it got popular

Prison Ships
5 hours ago
Militant BabyKillers and Sodomites are the NeoBolshevik vanguard.

Sir Trancealot
5 hours ago
evening all

ancientviking
5 hours ago
that was all nonsense

@noreplacement
5 hours ago
It was bad in Thatchers time Mark. Mortgages at 15% rising inflation. Yet few voted for the NF

ancientviking
5 hours ago
nobody froze in covid either

@SvenLongshanks
5 hours ago
1.48 here

@noreplacement
5 hours ago
Mark is right here. Always a % of boomers were nationalists. Same % in younger folk, not enough, yet.

Vettekid1488
5 hours ago
lets opt for the road less traveled

Vettekid1488
5 hours ago
path of least resistance?

Aryan Futurist Joker
5 hours ago
o/

ancientviking
5 hours ago
not playing into jews hands might be a good start

Vettekid1488
5 hours ago

@ancientviking
fight fire with fire is my mantra

@Mcb
5 hours ago

@ancientviking
Ideas man

Vettekid1488
5 hours ago
support of the general public will grow as diversity expands

@noreplacement
5 hours ago
Hate to burst any bubbles, but I don’t see much evidence of non-boomers stepping up in any greater numbers than within the boomer cohort

ancientviking
5 hours ago
venerate hitler in countries that despise him should work wonders

ancientviking
5 hours ago
So more swastikas and getting arrested helps?

Vettekid1488
5 hours ago
white kids were the bullies …my school in Central Wisconsin had very little diversity then

@LottaSense
5 hours ago
whadda you mean “White children”? You mean other kids, right?

Vettekid1488
5 hours ago
but their treatment motivated me to hit the gym and i got super jacked so jokes on them

Vettekid1488
5 hours ago
white children bullied me for being so godamn white

@LottaSense
5 hours ago
all my favorite friends that were boys when I was little were gingers lol

Vettekid1488
5 hours ago
i never formed friendships as a child i was a ginger

@LottaSense
5 hours ago
american public schools do the same thing to White children. constantly mix them up when they go to the next grade so they cant stay with their friends.

Vettekid1488
5 hours ago
that’s Diabolical

@SvenLongshanks
5 hours ago
they move prisoners around a lot as well, and you dont know what prison you will end up at when they bundle you into the van

@Mcb
6 hours ago
thanks Robert sorry I muted you

@SvenLongshanks
6 hours ago
Hi Chief

Chief Moody
6 hours ago
Evening troops

@robert1184
6 hours ago
Southport is lovely

@mcb

Vettekid1488
6 hours ago
traitors of the highest order is What they are

Vettekid1488
6 hours ago
2nd class status in your own homelands… despicable

Prison Ships
6 hours ago
No surprises. Our NeoBolshevik Oppressors murder us whenever they can get away with it.

@LottaSense
6 hours ago
“law” is subjective now. Not objective.

@Joesmith
6 hours ago
odysee keeps freezing

@Mcb
6 hours ago
I’ve got a bad feeling he won’t get bail

ancientviking
6 hours ago
i spose another heil hitler will do it, no trouble ever comes of it in commonwealth countries im sure

@vengeance
6 hours ago
o/

Vettekid1488
6 hours ago
hail mr. cotrell

DerCherusker
6 hours ago
Hail!

@Mcb
6 hours ago

@Daniel

Prison Ships
6 hours ago
OnlyQueers take requests on when or if to smile.

@Ihtultu
6 hours ago
Good evening everyone.

@Daniel
6 hours ago
You can’t win in seaside towns no matter what the actual demographics of the town are

@Mcb
6 hours ago
ok cheers

@Daniel
6 hours ago
Last time I was in Southport the actual residents were very white but full of Indians visiting

@SvenLongshanks
6 hours ago
hi serena

@Mcb
6 hours ago
BC

@SerenaJB
6 hours ago
Good evening.

@Mcb
6 hours ago
many nigs??

@Mcb
6 hours ago
Is Southport ok or a fcking hole??

@Obit_Anus_Onus_Abit
23 hours ago
but he’d better off frowning when pictures are taken of him

@Obit_Anus_Onus_Abit
23 hours ago
Why the new thumbnail for Blair – he looks like he is affected by mental retardation. The old thumbnail with him frowning was much better, he looked somewhat heroic. He doesn’t look good smiling in photo, he doesn’t have the right features for that. Although he often grins when talking and that’s ok

0
0

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Joel Davis: Okay, we should be live. It is the 4th of July, so if we’re in America, it would be Independence Day. But Obviously in Australia, 4th of July doesn’t mean anything. And interesting show for you tonight, I hope. Big show for you this evening, even though we are missing Blair. There’s a lot I wanted to break down, a lot I wanted to discuss. Blair’s sick, so I gave him the night off and decided to ride solo for this one.

 

So, yeah, you’re going to be getting two hours of me yapping, but presumably that’s what you’re all here for. So, sorry, I don’t have any Blair to kind of break it up. But it is what it is. The man’s sick. I think Mark Collett made him get out of bed early the 4 o’ clock in the morning or whatever for a Mark Collett stream the other day. And it kind of tipped him over the edge. It is winter down here in Australia and so he’s a bit under the weather.

 

But yeah, there’s a few big stories I wanted to touch tonight. The main thing I wanted to do, I’ve been doing a bit of a deep dive into Chinese politics lately and the last few days because there’s a lot of very interesting kind of subtle dynamics going on there. And it’s really interesting precisely because the timetable for potentially World War III kind of hinges upon Chinese politics. And that has massive implications for Australia, for America, for the world. So it’s hard to get good information and to kind of break through all the propaganda on both sides and figure out what’s happening because of the nature of the Chinese system. But I’ve done a considerable amount of reading and study.

 

And so I was going to set out my preliminary analysis this evening for all of you to kind of like red pill you on recent developments in China and what’s potentially happening and what to look for over the next few months as more signs will become evident as to what direction things are going at in Chinese politics where potentially, yeah, a lot hinges on kind of what happens over the next few months.

 

But before I get into that, there’s a few other stories. There’s a shocking story here in Australia with this, I think probably the most egregious child rape paedophile allegations I can remember in Australia. So there’s probably been something worse over the years, but I just don’t remember anything as bad as this. I pull this up here from The Noticer:

 

“Homosexual childcare worker charged with raping eight babies and toddlers. A homosexual child care worker has been charged with sexually abusing babies and toddlers at a child care centre in Point Cook, Melbourne. Alleged child rapist Joshua Dale Brown, 26, was arrested on May 12 and charged with 70 child sex offences against eight children aged between five months and two years old at Creative Gardens Early Learning centre, Point Cook between April 2022 and January 2023. The charges included sexual penetration of a child under 12, sexual assault, sexual activity in the presence of a child, possess child abuse material for use through a carriage service and possess child abuse material. Brown, who appeared with pink and blue dyed hair in a Facebook photo with his boyfriend during the same time period he worked at the Point Cook centre, had no criminal record and had a valid working with children check. It has since been cancelled.”

 

“Victoria police said on Tuesday they are now investigating whether there are more victims as Brown worked at 20 child care centres around Melbourne between January 2017 and May 2025 and are examining evidence of an allegation at a second centre at Essendon. The alleged child sex predator appears in a photo at that centre shared on its Facebook page on March 21st for so-called Harmony Day with the caption, quote, ‘today we recognise Australia’s cultural diversity’. Brown also tested positive for a sexually transmitted disease and authorities have contacted the families of 1200 children who attended the same child care centres to urge them to get tested. The alleged paedophile first appeared in court in May, but a suppression order issued by Magistrate Michael White and applied for by police and the Office of Public Prosecutions meant the case could not be made public at the time.”

 

“But as the investigation has developed in scale, the need to notify more than 2, 600 families as a precaution became apparent. Suppression order was therefore revoked and police announced the charges and made the unusual decision to release the alleged child rapist name.”

 

Yeah, anyway, you can go read the whole thing on Noticer. I mean I read most of it, but I mean horrific! And look at, he’s gone to so many different child care centres. He’s flip-flopping around doing days at all these different child care centres.

 

And so now thousands of parents have to get their children tested for STDs. This is beyond fucked up! Like it’s actually like it’s hard to even believe this is even real from my point of view. Like it’s hard to, I mean I’m not denying that it’s real. It’s obviously real, but it’s hard to fathom. It’s hard to come to terms with that this is real, this is happening. And there’s a lot of obvious things that one could say about this. Right? You know, I’ve heard calls for:

 

“Oh, we need to ban men from working in child care centres!”

 

Probably not the most unreasonable thing in the world, but, like, wouldn’t that break, like, discrimination laws? The kind of contradictions of the system are kind of being shown up there. You know, obviously gay dudes, highly disproportionately paedophiles. That discussion has been opening up.

 

[06:20]

 

But I think the real discussions that are important here and that are pertinent here, are these. Number one, nobody in Australian politics with any kind of power or influence, no major political party is calling for the death penalty. This guy is raping kids. Some of them haven’t even turned one. This guy is raping children that young in a systematic, predatory way and filming it. He needs to die! Like, I don’t. Who’s going to come and debate me on this subject? Who’s going to offer the counter argument, no, we need to keep this guy alive. For what reason?

 

Pedophiles need to be executed. But particularly it’s a case like this. I mean it’s. How is it even, … Why the fuck did we get rid of the death penalty? And it’s just putrid that we have to breathe the same air that this scum breathes. It’s unacceptable. It’s an insult to the honour of our nation that someone can commit crimes like this against our children and stay alive. He needs to die! He needs to be put to death. Obviously the system won’t do that. And I’m seeing barely anyone call for this.

 

When we launch our political party. This is going to be one of key items on our platform. I think this is a message, a national conversation that we need to have. I think pretty much everyone in Australia agrees we need to put child rapists to death.

 

So that’s going to be one of the key issues I think that we’re going to attack, because we just need a far more serious response.

 

I mean, there’s too many cases. I mean, this person hasn’t been caught before, but there’s been too many cases of child rapists that have gone to jail, served short jail sentences, where they get held in protective custody so the other prisoners don’t kill them, released back into the community and then reoffend.

 

I mean, how is this even happening? How are we ever releasing someone who is a child rapist back onto the street ever! Like that’s just insane! That’s insane! It begs the question, the people making these decisions, why are they so lenient? Is it because they themselves are engaging in this kind of behaviour? Why are politicians not doing anything about this? Is it because they themselves are engaging in this kind of behaviour? It really does beg the question. Why else would you try to protect paedophiles unless you are one yourself, or you’re working with them in some systematic way or somethings surely this is something that we can all agree on. Left-wing, Right-wing. It’s just disgusting!

 

I mean, second thing that I also would like to say about this is another key policy that we’re going to be putting forward in this country. We have the child care rebate. Now I’ll look into this. Actually, I’ll look it up right now. How much is the average child care rebate a year for working mothers in Australia? Looking it up right now. So there’s child care studies, subsidies.

 

So the child care subsidy percentage decreases as family income increases. For instance, families earning up to 80,000 may receive up to a 90% subsidy, while those earning above $530,000 a year are not eligible. So what it’s saying here is, basically if you earning like an average wage, the government basically pays for your kid to go to childcare. If you’ve got children under school age. Why are we paying? Like if the mother of the child literally can’t afford to pay for child care, why are we subsidizing that? Why don’t instead of paying mothers to dump their kids at like random child care centres run by foreigners infested with paedophiles so they can get raped? How about instead of that, we pay that money to mothers to stay home and take care of their own children.

 

In society today you can be moralistic about it. Mothers should be taking care of their own children. And I agree with that. But obviously economically it’s quite difficult today to have stay at home mothers. You know, it’s difficult to raise a family on one income and for many reasons related to cost of living.

 

So what’s the number one thing that we could do if we want to increase the birth rate and protect children, pay mothers to stay home! I think that’d be an incredibly popular policy. Popular with women and with men. Right? Most men would like their missus to stay home and take care of the house and take care of the kids. The state should pay. That’s a social good. The state should pay for it. Taxpayers, I’d rather pay my taxes so that White mothers can stay at home raising White babies, then paying child care subsidies so they can go and work and send their kid off to some like, paedophile rape centre. So we can protect the kids. We can get the mothers back in the homes so the kids are raised properly. People will have more children because women, won’t be as busy with their careers. They’ll be able to have more children, feel more comfortable to have more children, be incentivised to have more children because they’ll probably get bigger payments the more children they have.

 

And then we won’t need immigration anymore to expand the population. I mean, it’s just a beautiful policy. Everyone wins. It’d be an expensive policy, but we’ve got like 15% of the country on NDIS, the disability insurance scheme. Most of them are rorting it. Most of them are capable of working and just have like a diagnosis, like a bullshit, like psychology diagnosis to allow them to just grift off the system. Got all these like immigrants that come here from the Middle East and just sit on Centerlink grift off that. So many people are grifting off this system. If we shut down all those grifts and redirected that money to young White mothers to have White babies. I’d much rather they be the ones grifting. I’d much rather reproduction be the grift. A lot of people say:

 

“Oh, how are you going to get women to vote for Nazis? How are you going to get women to vote for nationalism?”

 

I think this is a pretty fucking good policy that we can get their votes on, but men as well. We want to be able to bring back the Australian dream, raising a family on one income.

 

[12:56]

 

So I think this issue here really just illustrates how great policies like this just don’t exist in the political system. Like, no one’s really interested in trying to fix the major social problems of our time that have very simple solutions that no one talks about, no one thinks of, that would be 90% of the country behind you, popular. So I think we can really do some damage in a political system like this, presenting these kinds of ideas to the people.

 

I think a lot of people are going to be very pleasantly surprised:

 

“How come the Nazis have such good policies? What the fuck!”

 

And yeah, we can hopefully move the debate onto our terms. And yeah, but I mean, just disgusting the story. I mean, what else can you say about it? We just got to kill this fucker. We’re not advocating for to do anything illegal, but he needs to be legally executed, anyway.

 

Another I’m not going to go into another issue. I’m going to focus on this China thing because there’s a lot to unpack.

 

So basically what I’ve been looking into lately is there’s been a lot of rumours swirling that President Xi Jinping in China is, his power is being curtailed, basically. That his grip on power is significantly slipping, that other elements within the Chinese Communist Party are reasserting themselves. And there’s many reasons why people are suspecting this. And I heard this at first months ago and I suspected it was Western propaganda and the type of thing you hear all the time:

 

“Oh, Vladimir Putin is going to drop dead, he has cancer, he’ll die within six months!”

 

Or you hear these kinds of stories all the time, but very rarely does anything materialise. So I didn’t really look into it too much because I kind of dismissed it as typical Western propaganda. But after taking a serious look at what these people are saying, I think that are calling this out, it does seem that there’s no smoke without fire on this. It does seem like there’s something to there’s been a whole series of purges of high ranking members of the PLA, the Chinese military, of generals appointed by Xi, that was, Xi loyalists that have been taken out, whether they’ve died, been in prison, disappeared from public life, been forced to step down, what have you. A very large amount of these things have occurred.

 

There’s been more critique on Xi’s policies in Chinese major publications, particularly his policy on Taiwan, but also his economic policies. And yeah, the Chinese economy isn’t doing so well. They’re hurdling towards potentially a major war with the United States over Taiwan. If they play that situation in a particular way.

 

And so it would make sense actually that certain elements within the party would maybe try to assert themselves at this time. Apparently rumours were, because basically the way that the Chinese system works, every five years you have, they have like a big, you know, general meeting, like conference where all the members of the party come together and like all the senior members of the party and like vote on the direction of the party and so on. And the last time this happened was in 2022.

 

And I remember at the time it was significant because the previous president, Hu Jintao, was kind of publicly disgraced. Xi kind of ceremonially in front of all the cameras, had him kind of like marched out of the meeting. And he represents like the Communist Youth League faction, which is a faction of more moderate elements within the Chinese Communist Party. Xi’s faction is more nationalistic and militaristic and authoritarian, whereas this other faction is more liberal in the sense that obviously they’re still communists and they’re still like technically and they still support like a one party state, but they support more economic liberalisation, more capitalism, more opening of China to foreign markets, a better kind of better relationship with the United States, a less hostile relationship with the United States, and they want to maintain more kind of stability and diplomacy for foreign policy, economic policy, etc. And Xi kind of won out against them.

 

And then over the years since he became president has made a series of moves to essentially like stack the party with loyalists to him and to his agenda and kind of sideline all these other factions. And leaders of these old factions often get referred to as the so-called party elders now because they once held the highest positions in the party and are very famous in China. And you know, they’ve made note kind of in subtle ways, they don’t explicitly criticise the party or Xi, but in subtle ways they make it known that they don’t approve of Xi’s militarism towards Taiwan and kind of more aggressive and assertive foreign policy.

 

[18:45]

 

But what’s interesting is that at the, as I said, every five years they have a big meeting and then they have what they call plenary sessions, which are their like major meetings that they have once every year or like less than every year, maybe every 10 months or so, roughly speaking, I can’t remember exactly. And it’s kind of like the leaders of the party get together and decide what the direction of the party is going to be.

 

At the most recent of these meetings last year, there were all these rumours that he was sick. There wasn’t very much footage put out by Chinese State media of him really doing anything at the meeting or presiding over much. And it was presented that these party elders, so to speak, that Xi had sidelined were now involved and were talking at the meeting and were, and it was kind of spun:

 

“Oh, Xi is trying to show unity by being graceful and allowing his old fashioned rivals to come and participate in the plenary session.”

 

But in retrospect that seems like a cope, because ever since that plenary session, Xi’s public role has greatly diminished. Recently they just had like a BRICS meeting. He didn’t even go. And there’s been several big events and big meetings where he hasn’t really attended. Many are speculating he has health issues, which is probably part of that.

 

But let’s say he does have health issues. He has no obvious successor. It would make sense that that would undermine him, people’s confidence in him and his agenda. Because if he’s gonna drop dead or become too sick to be president, then the obvious question of, well, who’s going to take over from him comes into play. And it seems like elements within the elite, even though many of them were allies of Xi at one time or another, many of them have turned against him.

 

One of these, according to rumours, top military figures that have turned against him is General Zhang Yuga, which is basically the most senior kind of military figure in China. You know, basically only Xi really outranks him in military matters. He is the Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission.

 

And basically it’s the guy that’s like running the military. He’s kind of getting on a bit. He’s getting old. I think he’s in his 70s, and he was kind of in line to be potentially replaced by generals that were installed by Xi below him. And I can’t remember all the Chinese names. I’m not going to like list off all the names, but basically those guys that were kind of earmarked to kind of succeed him, and everyone was expecting to succeed him, have recently been purged. They’re Xi loyalists, which has kind of been shocking news, and many other high ranking officials across the military.

 

Meanwhile, Zhang Yuga in his public statements on Taiwan is a very different line to Xi. I can break this down a little bit. Xi’s vision on Taiwan, which is kind of nuanced and complex. So since Xi has come to power, his rhetoric on Taiwan has become progressively more and more aggressive. It kind of peaked just before Covid then it kind of let off a little bit, and then once Covid was over, it’s been even more aggressive.

 

So Taiwan, for those who don’t know, according to the official position of the Taiwanese government and the official position of the Chinese government, Taiwan is not a separate country. Taiwan is a part of China, and it simply has a different government.

 

And this is a layover from after the Second World War. You had an alliance between the old Nationalist government and the Communists, where they ceased their civil war and made an alliance to fight the Japanese in World War II. After the Japanese were defeated, they went back to fighting each other. The Communists won. Mao Zedong took over China, established Communist China. And the Nationalists were essentially chased off the mainland onto the island of Taiwan in 1949 or whatever.

 

And at first, the Americans backed the Nationalists against the Communists. This is the beginning of the Cold War, as you might expect. There was even, like General MacArthur, I believe, proposed that the United States should nuke China to try and like, nip Communism in the bud, which probably would have been the right move in retrospect. It was chosen against. There was obviously the Korean War with the Chinese kind of helped North Koreans fight against South Koreans, which were backed by the United States and us and other Western powers.

 

And so there’s a lot of tension there. And there was a view that the Nationalists could maybe somehow get a foothold back in the mainland and take the mainland back from the Communists. And the Americans backed the Chinese government in absentia that basically had formed in Taiwan, that still had ambitions to go and take Beijing back and take China back.

 

But of course, that never materialised. And this was a kind of quasi fascistic, nationalist authoritarian regime that was running Taiwan, but backed by the United States.

 

Fast forward to the 70s when it became clear that the Nationalists were never going to take China back, and the Communist Party had kind of consolidated power. Then President Nixon and his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, they normalised relations with China and they agreed, because basically they wanted to, during the Cold War, they wanted to basically drive a rift deeper between China and Russia or China and the Soviet Union. They noticed that the Soviet Union and China, even though they were both communist states, they didn’t see eye to eye on a lot of issues. Mao in particular, was very upset after Stalin died. Khrushchev took over the Soviet Union, put out the secret speech basically condemning Stalinism as excessively totalitarian and brutal and so on. He saw this as a betrayal of Communism and of the revolution. Mao, that is, and kind of viewed the Soviets as moderates, as kind of moderates who were infected with bourgeois sensibilities or whatever. And there was territorial disputes between the Chinese and the Soviet Union.

 

[25:31]

 

And so even though they were both communist states that were aligned in many ways, they didn’t see eye to eye. And the Americans saw this as an opportunity to go in there, make a deal with China, make an economic deal with China to normalise relations somewhat, get China hooked on trade with the United States, and therefore neutralise them to isolate the Soviet Union strategically. Obviously this was an effective strategy. The Cold War was over with less than two decades later, the Soviet Union collapsed.

 

But the United States never went back to re-isolating China or didn’t perpetuate the Cold War. Even though the communists were still in power in China. The Americans declared the Cold War was over, Communism was defeated, liberalism had won.

 

And then they adopted a policy of liberal internationalism, a policy that basically, if we just integrate the countries of the world into enough international institutions that are quote, unquote, “liberal” and integrate everyone’s economies with one another through the globalisation of international trade, and we had globalised culture and everyone gets kind of draughted into this Pax Americana-Judeo, global slop of the post Cold War, you know, Pax Americana, international order. The elites of every country in the world will develop so many business relationships and diplomatic relationships and so on with the elites of all the other countries in the world, mediated by America and the West. But they’re all basically just copy and paste liberal democracy into their societies, engage in liberal, democratic reforms. Everyone will become a liberal democracy, and they’ll all sit together at the UN and shake hands and we won’t have any major World Wars anymore. And everyone’s economies will become so interdependent with one another that they won’t want to go to war because their economies aren’t sufficiently isolated that they could take each other on.

 

Instead, they’re so dependent upon trade with other countries that they work out their problems diplomatically and we all sing Kumbaya and everyone’s like a liberal forever. And there’s no more wars and there’s no more evil dictators. And this is the bullshit vision that was put forward.

 

And so even though China was still a communist authoritarian state, the idea was:

 

“Well, if we just let China, we just pretend that the Chinese are cool and allow them to participate in all international liberalism and globalism, then eventually the Chinese elite will adopt liberal ideas and engage in liberal reforms and China will liberalise over time, and we won’t have to fight China and force them to kind of succumb to liberalism. They’ll do it organically.”

 

This was the theory. And it seemed to be kind of working for a time because the Chinese leadership did get progressively more liberal. Every new leader that came in was less and less authoritarian, less and less radical in terms of their Marxist beliefs, more and more open to economic liberalism, opening up Chinese markets. They didn’t, you know, create Democratic, liberal, democratic reforms, but they were more liberal on economics and they were more open on diplomacy. They weren’t very aggressive in asserting their interests on the world stage.

 

And so the Chinese were not viewed as a major threat. And the idea was that if we just make the Chinese and American economies so integrated and dependent upon one another that China relies upon selling cheap crap to the United States and America relies upon buying all these key items from China, this will create a kind of natural friendship and alliance that prevent the two states from going to war.

 

Then along comes the rise of President Xi in the early 2010s, early to mid 2010s. And Xi is a nationalist, Xi is an authoritarian and he had more aggressive views for China’s potential. For Xi the Chinese are the centre of the world. The Chinese traditionally and there’s some truth to this. For a lot of human history, China was the biggest and wealthiest empire on the planet. You know, the Chinese empires existed for literally like five millennia or something in various forms. They’re an ancient people, an ancient civilisation, and there’s 1.4 billion of them.

 

Imagine if all of Europe was integrated into one big like super state. That’s basically what China is in terms of its size and its complexity. And the view was:

 

“Well we’ve become so rich now through all of this economic development that we’ve done that we can invest that money in developing a modern military outfit that can compete with the United States and we can assert ourselves and the United States is falling. The United States has declining internal legitimacy, all these internal problems. We can rise and challenge the American led liberal international order with an assert a different way. And we can assert Chinese interests and try to dominate the Asian region and become the most powerful country in the world and kind of replace the United States as the top dog.”

 

And key to that is taking Taiwan.

 

So why is Taiwan key to it? Well, number one, it’s kind of like a disgrace to China that Taiwan, which they consider to be part of China, is being run by a now liberal democracy.

 

So after the Cold War ended, Taiwan shifted from being a one party authoritarian nationalist state to being a liberal democracy.

 

And so the Kuomintang, the old nationalists that used to run China and that pushed into Taiwan and were running Taiwan under Chiang Kai-shek* and so on, they now had to win an election of the Taiwanese people to hold on to government.

 

[* Chiang Kai-shek-Chinese politician, military leader, and President of Taiwan from 1950 to 1975 (1887–1975) Chiang Kai-shek was a Chinese politician, revolutionary, and general who led the Republic of China from 1928 until his death in 1975. His government was based in mainland China until it was defeated in the Chinese Civil War by the Chinese Communist Party in 1949, after which he continued to lead the Republic of China on the island of Taiwan. Chiang served as leader of the Nationalist Kuomintang party and the commander-in-chief of the National Revolutionary Army from 1926 until his death, during which he was known as Generalissimo. Wikipedia.]

 

[31:58]

 

And by the time you get to the 2000s, they start losing and you get the rise of the Democratic People’s Party or whatever it is, which is basically the Taiwanese libtards. Taiwanese Leftists who advocate for bringing in immigrants into Taiwan, who advocate for gay marriage, who advocate for basically trying to join the West and adopt Western so-called Western, basically like American libtard values.

 

And also each generation that is born in Taiwan, if you look at the polling, they consider themselves Taiwanese more and more and Chinese less and less.

 

So when they started doing polling on this back in the 1990s, the vast majority of the people of Taiwan when they asked them what’s your ethnicity? They said “I’m Chinese”. Now the vast majority of Taiwanese people in particularly young people say “we’re Taiwanese, I’m not Chinese”. And a minority identifies as Chinese.

 

So the Taiwanese have begun to see themselves as a distinct people. They identify with liberal, democratic, so-called western values. And yeah, they keep getting voted back in these Taiwanese libtards. And the Kuomintang who’s like, I guess the Taiwanese Right-wing conservative like Boomer Party, they say:

 

“Let’s not upset China. Like yes, like one day there is only one China and yes, one day we’ll reunify.”

 

But they tried to kind of maintain this perpetual status quo instead the Taiwanese libtards that are in power basically kind of pushing the envelope and getting more, not outright stating like full on Taiwanese independence, but basically almost saying that. And this is a big deal.

 

Like pretty much no country in the world recognises Taiwan as an independent state. Like technically on paper. America doesn’t, Australia doesn’t. Almost no one does because the Chinese have, in order to normalise relations with them, they insist that you have to, you can’t accept Taiwan is a legitimate state. They don’t have a seat at the UN. There are so they’re in a very interesting weird position.

 

And the leaders before Xi, when he took power were kind of conciliatory towards Taiwan. Like:

 

“Yes, as long as Taiwan accepts that there’s only one China and they don’t assert their independence, we’re chill with that. And one day we hope that we can peacefully reunify into like one political system.”

 

But they weren’t really pressing the issue. In the 1990s I believe there was a dispute under the Clinton administration era there was a dispute between China and Taiwan over like I think it was when the Taiwanese held their first Democratic election. I think that the Chinese didn’t appreciate that they preferred the Kuomintang to be in power because I guess they correctly assessed that the Kuomintang was going to be more pro-Beijing than what would come out of democracy, which is a more Westernised, anti-Chinese version of Taiwan. And anyway, strongly opposed the whole election procedure, I think it was in like 1996 or something.

 

And the way that Clinton responded as President of the United States was just to send some carrier strike groups through the Taiwanese straight and say:

 

“What are you going to do?”

 

Basically. At that time, China was so militarily weak compared to the United States that they just had to cuck out and just kind of watch the United States flex on them like that. The elections went ahead and Taiwan became a democracy.

 

Cycle forward to today and China’s way more powerful than it was back then they have invested a lot obviously in building up their navy, their air force, rocket tech, etc. They’re not at the level of the United States, but they’ve closed the gap in a very big way.

 

And after Covid, I remember 2022, I think I remember like Nancy Pelosi, she went to go and visit Taiwan and this caused a big stir because she was like Speaker of the House, so she was like third in line for the American leadership at the time, below the Vice President. And she flew to Taiwan to do a visit and she was the highest Ranking, I think US official to visit Taiwan in like 25 years since the events I just described, I think basically. And the Chinese freaked out and started doing all these military drills and shooting rockets over Taiwan and flying fighter jets all over Taiwan and practicing like invading Taiwan and stuff, doing like live drills with their navy and this kind of thing. Obviously with the intent of, basically freaking the Taiwanese out, saying “don’t take any steps towards independence, like you’re ours, bitch” kind of thing.

 

And Xi, in his public statements on Taiwan or official statements on Taiwan when he first came to power, there were a lot more tame. There was an assertion that Taiwan would be reunified with China.

 

But as time went on into the late 2010s and the 2020s, Xi statements have become more forceful, saying basically that option that we’d like to do it peacefully, but there’s other options on the table. If Taiwan makes a move towards independence, will invade, basically.

 

And anyway, this is a big deal because a war, an invasion of Taiwan isn’t just an invasion of Taiwan. The United States is basically committed to protecting Taiwan. And the reason why they’re committed to protecting Taiwan isn’t just to fuck with China or because they care about Taiwanese democracy, or something. It’s strategic.

 

Basically, if you look at the geography of East Asia, where Taiwan is very key strategic real estate. Because basically all the shipping lanes that connect Japan and South Korea through Southeast Asia, to the Middle East and to Europe all go past Taiwan. If China controls Taiwan, they’re able essentially to more effectively navally blockade Japan and Korea.

 

[38:31]

 

Now, that’s significant because Japan and Korea are highly dependent upon imports by sea. Korea only has a land border with one country, North Korea, which then is connected to Russia and China. So they need access to the sea to have access to the rest of the world, basically outside of Chinese control or North Korean control, which are probably even worse from their perspective.

 

Japan has no land borders with anyone. They have to trade by sea. And Japan doesn’t have natural resources in any substantial number. Japan is utterly dependent upon importing natural resources, even importing food. I believe. They don’t actually have enough agriculture to sustain their population. There’s like 120 million people on that island. They can’t feed them unless they can get ships in and out.

 

Basically, they’re highly dependent upon international trade. So if the Chinese were to navally blockade Japan or Korea, it could bring either of these states to their knees very quickly. They could cause famines. They could completely collapse their economies.

 

So if the United States doesn’t guarantee their security, basically they would be forced to cuck to China. They would be forced to sign a whole bunch of agreements subordinating themselves to China. And that would enable China to become a hegemon over East Asia. They’d have other political and military control over East Asia.

 

And that has massive ramifications, because that would mean Australia’s position becomes precarious. All the other countries in Southeast Asia becomes precarious. A lot of them, the Philippines, Vietnam, a lot of these states would be like a cascade effect. America would lose its ability to have bases. Right now, I think the Americans have like 50,000 personnel or something stationed in South Korea. They’ve still got bases there from the Korean War that they maintain. They’ve got obviously an alliance with Japan. Japan’s the most powerful country in East Asia that America is aligned with. If they lose Korea and Japan, their whole strategic position relative to China collapses.

 

And then all these other states, like I said, would then lose confidence in the United States to defend them. They would also then cuck to China. Maybe even Australia would cuck to China at that point, because there would be this cascade effect. China would become a regional hegemon. China would grow in global prestige. China would then be able to start projecting power beyond East Asia into the rest of the world. It would be a massive shift in global power dynamics.

 

So Taiwan is one little island of like 25 million people, right? It seems insignificant, but it’s not. Because from the Japanese and the Korean perspective, if America is not willing to defend Taiwan, they’re going to lose confidence that they’ll defend them and so on, right? The dominoes go from there.

 

So the United States has to project power in the region. It has to say:

 

“No, these are our regional partners. We will fight to defend them.”

 

Because that’s what holds together the network of alliances that keeps China kind of like locked in, where all the, these island countries and Southeast Asian countries that encircle China, whether it be the Philippines, Vietnam, you know, Indonesia even, and so on, Australia, this whole chain of countries, them all being aligned with the United States, locks China out, basically. They can’t build military bases on their territories. They can’t flex over them diplomatically, politically, and so on and force them to do whatever they want because they’re the big dog. Well, the United States and the Americas can do that they can flex on Canada, they can flex on Mexico, they can flex on all the countries around them because they’re just so much more dominant and powerful. Who’s going to come and defend Mexico against the United States? Who’s going to come and defend Canada against the United States? No one.

 

So America is able to throw its weight around. That’s how China would be able to kind of behave under these kinds of circumstances.

 

Basically, yeah, there’s a whole other series of technical advantages to Taiwan. China doesn’t have, like a deep drop into the Pacific Ocean. So there’s kind of like a, … The Pacific Ocean is very deep, right, like most big oceans are.

 

But as you get closer to China, the undersea kind of ground level, whatever you call that, it raises quite significantly. So when China drop a submarine off the coast of China, it can be detected, because of the [low] depth, by sensors.

 

However, if you drop a submarine off Taiwan, you get this radical kind of cliff drop basically on the eastern side of Taiwan straight into the Pacific Ocean. So in theory, Chinese nuclear subs could, if they control Taiwan, could be dropped off the east coast of Taiwan into the Pacific Ocean and be undetectable to the United States. Meaning the Chinese could sail nuclear subs all the way to the other side of the Pacific without the United States detecting them, because they could sail them at like maximum depth the whole way. That’s pretty serious because they got nuclear subs that would provide first strike capabilities or counter strike capabilities, or whatever, in the event of a nuclear exchange.

 

So there’s a lot of key, like strategic dynamics at play over who controls Taiwan.

 

Also, from the United States perspective, if China was to move on Taiwan, they would be upsetting the regional balance of power, like I said. It would give the Americans an excuse to go to war with China. Because now they’re saying:

 

“We’re just defending Taiwan, we’re defending our allies, right?”

 

And because China would anticipate that, they would probably actually attack Japan, Korea, other states at the same time they attack Taiwan, potentially under certain kind of like war game scenarios, it’s projected.

 

[45:50]

 

So the United States, the argument goes, maybe it’s in their interest to fight China now because if you leave it 100 years or 50 years China could keep developing, developing, developing, developing, and become so militarily powerful that they’re harder to beat 50 years down the track than they are now.

 

So the idea is you kind of bitch slap them now, put them back in their place, because a war with China over Taiwan is far preferable to a war with China somewhere closer to the United States, or a war with China after they’ve already got Japan and Korea and these other states on their side and consolidated power and have grown stronger. And now maybe they’re getting involved in South American politics or they’re getting involved in European politics or Middle Eastern politics or something, and you’re fighting China in another part of the world.

 

The advantage for the Americans of fighting them over Taiwan is that it’s right in China. Basically, it’s right off the coast of China. America can send all their navy, air force, whatever, and just blow up as much in China as they possibly can.

 

And at the same time, they can navally blockade China in Southeast Asia. China is also utterly dependent on international shipping that goes through Southeast Asia to connect it to the Middle East and to Europe. China doesn’t have enough natural resources, resources to sustain itself. It doesn’t even have enough food to sustain itself. It needs to import a lot of stuff. Also, its economy is entirely built around exports.

 

So the US strategy, they don’t necessarily even have to defend the island of Taiwan successfully. They can just blow up a bunch of shit in China, try and blow up as much of China’s military hardware as possible, and then set up a blockade in Southeast Asia that stops China from basically being connected to the rest of the world through shipping, and then wait and watch as China internally kind of destabilises. And win the war that way. That would probably be their strategy.

 

So, however, if you allow China to kind of develop and all these Southeast Asian countries to become allies of China because you didn’t fight them over Taiwan, setting up that naval blockade becomes way more difficult because maybe all those states are now Chinese allies and they’re going to be enemies of the United States. They’re going to allow the Chinese to build naval installations. They’re not going to allow the Americans to bring their navy into their region or whatever.

 

So, yeah, international politics is a confidence game. If all these states have confidence in American power, they’ll back it. If they’ll cuck to China. That’s how it works. So Taiwan is just like this first domino in this chain effect of strategic ramifications.

 

Now, this is significant because ultimately the ball is in China’s court. The United States can’t force China to invade Taiwan. Maybe they could try and convince the Taiwanese to do something suicidal, like declare independence or something and really provoke it, but they can’t ultimately decide what China does. China decides what China does.

 

Now, Xi Jinping, in his kind of aggressive foreign policy, has only really been kind of pushing Taiwan away, making Taiwan fear invasion seem inevitable, getting the Americans to basically see invasion as potentially on the horizon, prepare for a war with China. Trump’s foreign policy is a large aspect of it is really geared towards containing China, like the tariff policies and so on. There’s people in the Trump administration, like Elbridge Colby, I think his name is, and others who are national security advisors who are just like China hawks, who just say that basically everything should be focused on containing China. Fuck Russia, fuck the Middle East, we should just make peace deals and forget about it and just take all of our military hardware, concentrate it in East Asia and get ready to fight China or try and deter China from going to war with us. So that School of thought is developing in the United States because of Xi’s actions.

 

And basically, the longer that the current trajectory of things, or Xi’s basically kind of led trajectory of things continues, the closer and closer World War III gets, basically. So that’s like the strategic context.

 

Meanwhile, Xi had spent years concentrating power, purging rival factions, stuffing the party full of his allies.

 

But then in the last year, you’re seeing a kind of a bit of like a backflip. A lot of his allies getting purged, his public appearances like I said earlier, being curtailed. The tone in the media, he’s getting criticised. Not openly directly criticised but getting indirectly criticised by a lot of people and then other rivals, other old heads basically in the Chinese Communist Party not directly criticising his Taiwan policy but advocating for a far more restrained Taiwan policy in their public statements, including this Zhang Yuga guy who is the 2IC [Second in Charge] over military affairs. Basically the guy running the Chinese military who’s presiding over a lot of these purges that happening to these Xi’s top guys, who basically is the highest Ranking dude in the Chinese military structure.

 

So it’s interesting because what it seems like is that however internal dynamics have been seized its hard to tell from the outside. It seems like there’s been a move against Xi. Not necessarily that he’s going to get replaced as leader although there’s some speculation that he could be literally about to be replaced. That would be very uncharacteristic. Usually they don’t. Someone’s elected to do a five year term that would mean Xi’s term doesn’t end till 2027 that it would continue. But he’s being sidelined. There was an announcement a few days ago that a so-called joint decision making body was being created at the top of the CCP and Xi Jinping, you know, has really kind of pushed for a long time. He is the leader. His interpretation of policy is the prevailing interpretation and China will be strong if basically it subordinates itself to him and his leadership. And that’s the way a lot of the top officials in the Communist Party were talking for years. Now the tone has shifted. Now they’re talking about power sharing and committees of decision makers and how everyone in the party needs to be included like the party leadership in decision making. We need to create more committees and have more what they call Democratic Centralism which basically means there’s one central decision making body but within that body you have democracy. So the Chinese people don’t have democracy but the party leadership collaboratively make decisions.

 

[51:56]

 

So they’re trying to cuck Xi, strip him of his kind of authoritarian power and kind of subordinate him to the other elements within the party. There is a rise in prominence of the so-called party elders who represent this more liberal view that I was describing earlier.

 

And the backdrop of this is also that the Chinese economy is slowing. So my view, Ron Unz put this view forward with some compelling evidence. I remember a few years ago, and I think it makes sense, is that Covid was probably a bioweapon created by an element of the United States government. I don’t know which element, whether it was a rogue element or it was directly under Trump himself ordered it to be done or what, we don’t know, I don’t know exactly. But some element within the US Government unleashed that bioweapon on China.

 

And I think it also had a secondary purpose of facilitating all these economic policy or financial policy actions where basically in the United States the economy was hurtling towards really difficult times. Covid happens they just then flood the market with all of this money to prop it up by basically bailing out all the major companies, all the major banks, basically massive wealth transfer, just giving trillions and trillions of dollars to the American financial elite. That’s basically what they did during Covid.

 

And no one was in the streets protesting it like they were after the global financial crisis because everyone was arguing about vaccine mandates and vaccines and lockdowns and blah, blah, blah, Covid shit! Because everyone was arguing about Covid bullshit, no one was arguing about:

 

“What the fuck! The richest people in the world just stole $15 trillion off us. What are we going to do about it?”

 

Well, no one did anything.

 

And I think that was basically like the psyop. Like they, it was like a sleight of hand. Like we can’t just do another 2008 style bank bailout. So fabricate this bullshit crisis that gets all the goys into this false paradigm, and we’ll have them argue within that space for a year and a half and then once we’ve transferred $15 trillion to the financial elite, we’ll just close the paradigm and then we’ll just pretend like everything’s gone back to normal. Which is what happened! That’s literally what happened!

 

There was no permanent vaccine passports or what. Remember everyone was saying:

 

“If you don’t get the vaccine, you’re going to get put in a camp and vaccines are going to kill everyone!”

 

And all this kind of stuff.

 

And obviously the vaccines were fucked up! I’m very glad I didn’t get one. And who knows what the long term effects of those things are going to be. It’s kind of scary to think about. But I think a lot of the catastrophe, the kind of catastrophism that many people had, has been shown to be false because everyone hasn’t dropped dead. There’s some evidence that it’s had an impact on fertility. I saw a study recently that about a third. It’s got like a 33% drop basically in the fertility of women who got the vax versus the ones who didn’t. Something like that, which is significant.

 

But I don’t know. I didn’t read the study closely enough to know if it was controlled for the fact that a lot of the women who didn’t get the vax are also quite conservative. So wouldn’t they be more like as a demographic, be more likely to have more children? Because you know, when I think about the kind of women I know they didn’t get the vax. Usually they’re very Right-wing, very conservative, very traditional. A lot of Christians didn’t get the vaccine because they thought it had something to do with the mark of the Beast and the book of Revelation. People who are into conspiracy theories, people who are in the dissident Right who listen to Right-wing memes. We’re the kind of demographic that didn’t get the vax, the non-conformist types. Well, we’re also probably a demographic that are more likely to have kids at higher rates because we kind of reject the mainstream programming, eat healthier, have more traditional values and so on.

 

So I don’t know if that’s all it is. Just like the vax was predominantly taken by people that are libtards and normies and they just got a lower birth rate than Right-wingers, or if there’s something actually in the vax that’s causing the fertility issue. But whatever the case may be, the consequences don’t seem to have been as catastrophic as what people were saying.

 

So while they had you arguing about that, this is what they were doing.

 

[56:35]

 

But I also think part of why they released Covid specifically in Wuhan in China is in order to basically try and slow down the Chinese economy. Because prior to Covid, the Chinese economy was growing at breakneck speed. It was growing like two or three times as fast as the United States economy and had been for decades. So China’s flying and they’re building up their military power. Xi is in power. He is the strongest leader since Mao, most consolidated authoritarian leader since Mao. Militaristic, nationalistic, getting more and more aggressive on Taiwan, more and more assertive in the world.

 

Something needed to be done to slow this mother fucker down! Boom! Covid! Drop Covid in China. What happens to Asians when they think that there’s a disease happening? They freak the fuck out! I remember like it was all the Chinese that bought all the toilet paper and stuff when Covid broke out and you couldn’t get toilet paper for months, it was a nightmare because Asians are hyper anxious people and Asians would always wear masks whenever they get sick, even before Covid. That’s part of their culture because Asians are bug people who live in giant cities full of millions of people. Disease spreads very easily in Asian societies and so they’ve culturally adapted to be more threat avoidant and neurotic about diseases than White people because we don’t live in the same kind of environments on average.

 

So it’s also why conservatives and people who live in the countryside were less freaked out than inner city like libtard cosmopolitans because they’re more like Asians. They live in these kind of more clustered environments where they have contact with more humans per day and so they’re more neurotic and so on about these things.

 

But anyway, the point is that you drop a disease like that in China, it’s going to shut down the economy. And it did that very effectively. China’s economy still hasn’t recovered from Covid, like their official figures still look kind of decent, but if you really scratch beneath the surface and you look at the underlying numbers, the Chinese economy hasn’t recovered from Covid. It’s actually slowed down to about the pace of the United States economy in terms of its growth. And yeah, there’s a lot of structural problems with the Chinese economy. Like you can see they’re claiming publicly that the economy is growing at 5% and everything’s fine. But youth unemployment is high. And look at the underlying numbers.

 

Like if you look at prices, house prices, industrial goods prices and so on, these prices are stagnating or falling, which indicates a lack of demand. So it means people don’t have money, businesses don’t have money, people don’t have money to buy houses, to invest in expanding business operations, whatever.

 

So that shows that there’s some structural problems inside the economy. You know, in China, it’s hard to trust any statistics that come out of China because there’s all these incentives to lie because they, everything’s managed by central committees and those central committees are assessed based upon these metrics. So of course they’re going to lie about the metrics to make themselves look better. And everything in Chinese, you know, culture is about saving face and not appearing weak, not appearing incompetent or whatever.

 

So I think it’s quite clear the Chinese economy has slowed down. Covid was very effective in doing that. It slowed down international trade, which China’s dependent upon. It also just literally caused all these lockdowns all through China that went on for ages. That this like zero Covid policy that persisted for a long, very long time. Their lockdowns went on longer than any other country. They were still doing lockdowns I think in 2022, when everyone else was open and back to normal. So that really fucked them up. And there’s a lot of evidence that the Americans released it.

 

Like for example, the so-called Wuhan lab where this thing was built was literally funded by Bill Gates, right? He’s a fucking American! And Anthony Fauci was like working there. Like, what’s going on?

 

Also they had the World Military games in Wuhan at the same time that Covid was broke out or was released or whatever. We know that it was a genetically engineered disease. Okay, that’s kind of quite something like the World Military Games. So like US military people were there was like 600 guys or 800 guys from the US military in Wuhan at the time when it was released.

 

So the US had people there that could have released it. And you know, there’s a lot of links to people that have links to the ruling class in America. So you know, why would, if the Chinese created a bioweapon, why would they release it in their own country? Wouldn’t you release it in someone else’s country? Like who releases bioweapons in their own country? Like that’s insane!

 

Also there were suppressed reports at the same time that it was released in Wuhan that Covid spontaneously was also released in Iran and in Russia, but it was never reported on in Western media. They just only focused on the Chinese release. That’s kind of interesting. Like the other two, like major American geopolitical enemies or whatever.

 

So yeah, I think that there was something nefarious that went on there. I think it was intentional. It’s beyond a shadow of a doubt that Covid was biologically engineered. Like that’s just confirmed at this point.

 

So the question is, who released it? Would China release a bioweapon in their own country that ended up fucking up their own economy? Or would America do it? Not only did it fuck up the Chinese economy, it greatly benefited the American ruling class.

 

So think about it. Why would China do that?

 

[1:02:34]

 

But anyway, my point is that all of these dynamics are occurring. You could see why elements within Chinese Communist Party would move against Xi because the economy is stagnating. Xi is a hardliner. Xi wants to isolate the Chinese economy from the rest of the world. Doesn’t want American cultural influence, doesn’t want foreign financial interests coming into China, gaining a foothold in the Chinese economy. Doesn’t want Chinese elites developing too close relationships with people in the West, with Western elites, and becoming disloyal to China. Right. He’s a nationalist, and that’s why he has those views. It makes sense.

 

The elements within China that support liberalisation, that want to have a better relationship with the United States, that don’t want to kind of rock the boat, have a war over, potential World War over Taiwan that could destabilise China irrevocably, potentially. They lose a war like that. Like, it could be over for the Communist Party in China who are right now, you know, elites that are doing well, that are rich, successful, whatever, have good positions in Chinese society. Do they want to go to war with America over Taiwan? Do they feel as passionate as Xi does about these nationalist policies? No! A lot of them don’t. And they make public statements that show that they don’t. So if Xi got sick, showed weakness or this weakness that he has at the moment because the economy isn’t doing so well and so on, maybe they’ve chosen this as the time to move because Xi had consolidated so much power, and that’s why we’re seeing this switch up within Chinese politics.

 

But a lot of this is speculative and kind of reading between the lines on a lot of things that people are saying in China. It will become clearer in the coming weeks and months. I think the next plenary session, the fourth plenary session in China is occurring on, like, August. That’s going to be key, seeing how that plays out, you know how Xi behaves, public statements made by other leading figures and so on, that’ll say a lot about whether Xi has been sidelined or at the very least, radically cucked in how much power he has over the Chinese Communist Party and how much other elements of the party are resurging in power and influence.

 

And based upon that, it’ll completely reset the clock on the World War III clock. Is World War III going to happen? Is a war between America and China going to happen this decade? If Xi manages to hold and reconsolidate power and this is all bullshit! Or he can turn it around? Potentially, yes. This could embolden him to go:

 

“Okay, well, I almost got defeated. Now’s the chance for the power and glory. Defeat the United States. The Chinese century beckons. I’m a great man of history!”

 

Invades Taiwan. Boom! World War III! Or Xi can’t come back from this. He’s been defeated. He’s been internally outpositioned. All these top guys are taken out. He’s basically been undermined, and it’s basically over for the Xi era. If that happens, there’s not going to be a war with Taiwan anytime soon.

 

And obviously, the big Trump tariffs that were dumped on China only exacerbated these problems, and they’ll probably go down as a strategic masterstroke, which future generations look back at this. The key is, as well, there was a recent negotiation between the Americans and the Chinese. I think it was in London or something, over a trade agreement between the United States and China, an agreement to bring down their mutual tariffs on one another and so on. What’s kind of interesting about that, Xi said nothing about it. Zero! Wasn’t involved, hasn’t made one public statement about it. It’s a pretty big fucking deal, you would think.

 

But not only has Xi not said anything about it, nobody in the Chinese government has really stated any substance at all about what was negotiated. But Trump walks away from that negotiation immediately. He is saying:

 

“I’ve secured an incredible deal and we’re going to open China up. And it’s an incredible deal with massive progress and my negotiating team, they’re the best in the world!”

 

Why was Trump so happy and why is China not saying anything? Very suspicious.

 

Some people are suspecting that it’s because basically the faction that Trump negotiated with, it’s not Xi’s faction, it’s the faction undermining Xi. And basically, until they can fully cuck go formally or get him to step down while saving face or something, they’re not going to announce the deal. So what’s in that deal? When that deal gets made public again, that’s going to be a key indication of where China is at. Because there’s no way that Xi, based upon his philosophy, his ideology, would be willing to make any concessions to the United States. You know, he’s a staunch nationalist. Whereas, yeah, other elements in the CCP absolutely would, in order to preserve economic stability, because the Chinese economy is not doing great! And their view is that the way that they gain the support of the Chinese people predominantly is through managing the economy well. They don’t have a democracy, they don’t get voted in, but they say:

 

“Qu hey, look, you don’t get to vote in your leaders. But look at the great job that we’re doing. You know, China’s constantly developing. Everyone’s getting richer, everyone’s getting more opportunities, everyone’s making more money. So don’t rock the boat. Just trust the plan!”

 

Right? And that obviously has worked for a certain period of time, but what happens when it stops working? I don’t think a lot of people in the higher ups in the CCP want to find out what happens, and I think a lot of them don’t want to go to war with the United States. I think they’re afraid, and understandably so, because they could get absolutely blasted! Like, even if they were to win, they would take a lot of damage, and it could basically set back the whole project forever. It could destabilise the Chinese Communist Party’s grip on power entirely.

 

I mean, what if the United States there’s certain dams in southern China that some analysts say if you bomb them, it could cause a flood that could kill hundreds of millions of people! If you do a naval blockade on China, it could cause a famine that could kill hundreds of millions of people! Like, the United States is over 7,000 nuclear weapons like the do you really want to have World War III against the power that’s that powerful? And when you’re that vulnerable? A lot of them probably might view Xi as a madman! And the Chinese are not risk takers. They’re not a nation of Hitlers. They’re not a nation of blitzkriegers. They’re not a nation of poker players. You know, they’re a mercantile race of Art of War, you know, Wu Wei, do nothing, win. That’s kind of like the Chinese, you know, philosophy and mentality is being conservative, being harmonious relations and all this gay shit! They don’t have the Faustian spirit.

 

[1:10:09]

 

So basically what I’m saying is that we’re probably at the on the brink here of total chudjack victory. If Xi loses his grip on power, World War 3 will not happen anytime soon. So that radically kind of changes the calculations. And that actually also, I think, explains why Israel might have decided to kick things off with Iran. The Israelis, they might have gained intelligence that China is weak. And they think:

 

“Well, if we try and escalate things with Iran now, the Americans might have more confidence that the Chinese won’t do shit over Taiwan. And so we can start forcing the issue on Iran.”

 

Basically that’s why they chose to move now, partly maybe because Trump is in power, but also partly because, yeah, maybe the China threat isn’t as imminent as as many previously thought, if Xi’s power is weakened.

 

So anyway, big dynamics, I think, like very complicated, lots of moving parts. But yeah, nothing ever happens. Nothing ever fucking happens! Yeah. Relying on China to move world history, I guess, was a mistake. I mean, think about the kind of people we’re dealing with here.

 

So anyway, I think that’s interesting and important to report because from an Australian nationalist perspective, World War III, if it was to happen, would completely change everything. So we kind of have to have our finger on the pulse of like how, like, are we at Defcon4 or like, where are we at on the, is World War III gonna happen rating scale? Because that’s a massive spanner in the works.

 

I’ll go through a few Superchats. I see Ultra Saxon said:

 

“I’d love to see you guys do a stream with Karl Radl from X. Every post of him is a gem and he’s super informative on National Socialism. Respect from England, lads.”

 

Yeah, Karl, I’ve seen his stuff. I would like to do. I think he’s more of like a Twitter guy. I don’t think he does video streams. I never seen him do a video stream before. Maybe I’m wrong, like, correct me if I’m wrong. But yeah, maybe like a Twitter space or something like it would be interesting too. I think I actually proposed that to him and then I got banned from Twitter. But make an alt account and have a conversation. If he was interested, I’d be down to discuss. Seems like his wheelhouse is World War II history and NS German history. That’s obviously quite interesting. Dan3 said:

 

“There are apparently experts saying that China has less than half their official population using salt consumption and other stats to estimate their population. Don’t know this is whether this is propaganda though.”

 

Oh, you’re saying that there’s some estimates that their population is much smaller than they say?

 

Yeah, I mean, I don’t know about that. I don’t think they’d be able to like lie about something that effectively. But you definitely can’t trust the stats you hear out of China. Megawatts 80 said:

 

“Everyone watching should send a few bucks. Hail victory!”

 

Well, I can’t disagree with that. Sector88 said:

 

“Any opinion on the Yanks reviewing the AUKUS agreement? I don’t believe we’ll be getting the Virginia subs until the late 2000s at best. No matter the a administration, unless they somehow double or triple sub production.”

 

Yeah, it, there does seem to be a great lag on that.

 

But I don’t see them ripping up the AUKUS agreement because at the end of the day it’s in the strategic interest of the Americans for us to have better subs. You know, the current subs that the Australian military has basically not going to last much longer. The old subs, they’re going to be decommissioned. We need to have new subs somehow and we don’t have a programme in place to build our own. The Americans aren’t going to want us to have no subs.

 

Also, we’re paying big money for their subs, so of course they’d like to sell them to us. And the nuclear capable subs are important just purely for the fact that, well, you don’t have to refuel. The nuclear reactor lasts like 30 years or whatever. So that’s an incredible capability where you can effectively just stay at the bottom of the ocean as long as you want. Incredible technology. So from a strategic standpoint it’s vital if we want to assist the Americans in engaging in like a naval blockade against China to have that kind of thing. There’s a reason why the Chinese freak out about AUKUS and they don’t want us having nuclear subs is because nuclear subs are effective as fuck! Like they’re incredible technology, and not that many countries have them. Ultra Saxon said:

 

“Joel, have you ever heard of the concept of a Canzak union? You see the idea amongst normie Libs, but I see it being a great long term geostrategic strategy for reuniting and re empowering the Anglo sphere.”

 

Yeah, I mean in principle I don’t necessarily think it would be so bad, but there’s a few things why I don’t think it’s realistic.

 

[1:15:44]

 

Number one, Canada is basically the strategic bitch of the United States. So being able to deal with Canada as an independent state is unlikely. Also Australia’s main allies, the United States and Britain’s main allies, the United States.

 

So this idea that we could all come together and form a union that was somehow not integrated with the United States is unlikely to be something that the United States would be too happy about. So it would only really happen if there was a massive sea change in the respective politics of our three countries. It’s unlikely that that sea change is going to be the same in all three.

 

So let’s say like nationalists, let’s say like we win in Australia. Is libtard Britain or libtard Canada going to want to make some kind of alliance with us? Probably not. And vice versa. So I don’t see it as super likely.

 

Also, there’s radically different. Like, there isn’t a lot of economic trade between the Anglo-sphere countries. Like Australia trades a lot with them. Like all three trade a lot with America. We don’t trade much with each other. Like the Canadian economy is very similar to Australia’s in the sense it has a lot of minerals and so on. We both need to trade with like manufacturing powers to like, get the most out of our economy. So like, economic integration doesn’t make as much sense as it does in say, Europe.

 

Also, we’re geographically quite isolated from one another in different regions of the world.

 

So I think, yeah, the argument is, oh, but we’ve got similar culture, similar forms of government, good relations, similar heritage. Yeah, okay, like, but why does that mean? Like, what would the union be? Just like a union where like, we’re already in a military alliance with one another, basically. Like Canada and Britain are both in NATO. Australia’s not in NATO, but we’re like a NATO partner or whatever. So like, what would it really do? Like freedom of movement? Again, like say, like we take power in Australia as nationalists. Do we want to have freedom of movement with Britain and Canada? No, because then they’re going to like flood Australia with nons. I’d rather just have an immigration policy that takes White people from those countries. So yeah I don’t really see what like the point of Canzuk Union is like from a strategic standpoint. So I don’t really see it happening.

 

But like, let’s say we took power in Australia, we would look to take over New Zealand. As well, that’s undoubtedly true. And then we would probably look to support nationalist forces in Britain as best we could. And then if we that was successful, then we’d form an alliance on those terms. Be very different than the Canzuk Union.

 

Then, like, let’s say, like our guys are running Australia and Britain and there was this idea of getting the empire back together and building an imperial federation that fuses the two countries. We could look into it down the track.

 

But yeah, it would be difficult probably because at that point, like the Australian identity, the British identity had diverged so much at that point. We’re on opposite sides of the planet, completely different strategic objectives. Like is Britain going to want to fight to the death to defend Australia’s geopolitical interests and vice versa? You know, maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. But that’s usually you get those kinds of alliances between countries that border each other. Dan3 also said. Oh no, I already read that.

 

Modern World Reject, he just hailed! Awesome! Hail you. Modern world reject said:

 

“How World War III affect nationalist politics in Australia?”

 

Well, if it was to happen, massively! Number one, the regime here would have to completely change its attitude on racism. You know, they would basically have to allow anti-Chinese racism in society because they would have to find a rationale basically to either mass incarcerate or mass deport almost, 2 million Chinese people that live in Australia. There’s about one Chinese person for every 10 White people in Australia. Like that’s how you gonna go to war with China and just allow them to walk around and be, hold high ranking positions in society and trust them like it’s not feasible. Also if you want to fight a war you need patriotism.

 

So you’re gonna have to wind back the woke shit, allow people to be kind of racist. If you’re going to want to try and convince young White Australian men to fight a World War, you can’t keep flooding their country with foreigners. You can’t keep pushing the current like ridiculously woke anti-White agenda down their throats. They won’t fight for you! They won’t sign up. So there would have to be a completely new deal made. Like the government would have to make a lot of concessions to us.

 

And I think after the war everything would be radically different. I think after a war like that, it would become defining in world history, in Australian history. The memory of World War II would fade and the whole paradigm of the post World War II international order would collapse. And it’d be a Great Reset basically. Not in the kind of Claus Schwabian sense, but it’d be like a full reset basically of ideologically, historically and so on.

 

[1:21:40]

 

And ultimately if Australia came out of it intact, I think it’d be good for nationalism. I think nationalism would grow in a post World War III Australia much more quickly and more forcefully than you know, in the current order. It’d be a great shake up, a great reality check.

 

Megawatt said:

 

“Touch on the SA political donation laws. Will this go national?”

 

I have to read up on it first. Not too aware of South Australia’s political donation laws. Rygo Weber said:

 

“Joel, will you or Blair be running as Senators in the next election? I think you would be quite effective. Thanks for the show.”

 

Yeah, we’re looking at doing something like that. Obviously we’ve got to launch the party. It’s a long time to the next federal election. You got to decide what we want to do with the state elections that happened before then. So exactly how it all fits together is a bit open ended because there’s a long way between now and then. There’s a lot to consider. Yeah, we’re gonna have a crack.

 

What else we got here. On Entropy Racist Aristocrats, he said, this is directed at Blair after last week:

 

“Blair, when Joel violates liberal norms, for example, equating the desire for a White man to marry an African with marrying a dog. Why the knee jerk reaction to sheepishly moderated. Who are you hoping to placate? Seems rather inexplicably explicably discordant.”

 

Okay, well that’s kind of funny. Says here:

 

“Joel, Cameron McGregor has a worthwhile fourth turning influence. Take positing America and Australia, by inference remains in the adolescent stage of development. He’s a coming war of reintegration of the state and national White Identity driven polarisation, catalyzing White unification and ending pluralism and disintegration. He sees Whites awakening to race, the jewish question and distrust of modern capitalism as preconditions for state transition to adulthood. You two could have a fruitful chat.”

 

Well, I don’t know who that is, but sounds good. So if he’s out there, he wants to get in touch. By all means, yeah.

 

I will say another couple things, another couple things that have been on my mind this week that are interesting to observe. So whilst you’re seeing these big kind of moves in China, behind the scenes shifting of power in America, you’re also seeing an interesting dynamic emerge where I remember when Musk and Trump had a falling out, they then kind of patched things up and I said I don’t see this lasting. Well, I think I was correct about that. Musk has been very vocal over the past week in his opposition to the so-called Big Beautiful Bill. And there’s reports that he’s going to fund Thomas Massie, who is the Israel critical Republican, the only Republican that’s not taking money from AIPAC or whatever. He’s going to fund his primary campaign because Trump is backing his opponent because Trump hates Massey because Massey’s basically not going along with the Zionist agenda.

 

So that’s interesting to see that Musk is going to step in and take Massey’s side and drive this kind of wedge between using the Israel issue to drive a wedge within the Republican Party.

 

Because as I said, Musk’s position is awkward in American politics because he’s completely abandoned the Left. The Left hate him! The Left maybe hate him more than Trump because he’s said and done maybe things that are more radical than what even Trump has done. Well, just objectively are like he’s throwing Romans and kind of statements that he’s made. But also he didn’t successfully win over Republicans. Musk is awkward, he’s a nerd. He’s not even American. And he’s kind of like a [word unclear] to Trump’s movement. Trump has organic charisma. He’s a real American. He’s beloved by the people and he’s the president.

 

So the average, you know, red blooded, Right-wing American sides with Trump against Musk. And also Trump doesn’t see himself as beholden to Musk. He sees Musk is below him in the hierarchy. Doesn’t matter how many hundreds of millions Musk kind of threw at him. Musk wasn’t able to get what he wanted out of Trump. He wasn’t able to get what he wanted out of MAGA, if you will.

 

And so now Musk is in political no man’s land. He’s the richest man in America on paper. He is entirely dependent his business models basically on American government subsidies. So he needs political power on his side. But he’s alienated both major sides of politics. So what do you do in a situation like that? Well, if you’re the world’s, world’s richest man on paper, you’re probably going to try and fund a third faction into existence. And that’s what you see his early moves.

 

So I could see Musk making bigger moves going ahead and it could be a real kind of I don’t like Musk in the sense that he, any kind of like pro-White stuff that he said to try and like win us over, he kind of like showed his true colours on the H1B Indian saga where he sided with stuffing America full of Indian H1B Visa types as opposed to preserving the White majority.

 

So that shows where he stands slike he’s not truly loyal to us or our concerns.

 

But nevertheless, when you see inter elite competition, it’s a good thing. It means that there’s dynamism in politics. It means it opens up opportunities for dissidents because you’re probably going to get more free speech, more open exchange of ideas, more dynamism in politics if you have two rival factions on the Right competing for the approval of the Right-wing masses. And what Musk showed through that whole H1B Visa saga is that he does care about maintaining a positive public image and that he has political ambitions.

 

[1:28:31]

 

So it could be a real challenger to like the Peter Thiel Donald Trump network. J.D. Vance, you know, is the heir apparent to Trump as president. If Musk can find a candidate that’s capable of taking on Vance, Vance is going to have a real challenger with hundreds of millions behind him. And I said before, if Tucker Carlson wanted to run for president against J.D. Vance, for example. I think Elon Musk would give him hundreds of millions of dollars and I think he’d beat J.D. Vance.

 

So that’s a situation to monitor as well. Big dynamics in America and China, like deep politics, elite politics that could really define what direction the wind is going to flow, going to blow over the next few years and kind of define the next decade or generation in international politics.

 

So that’s something that I noticed as well, something to keep an eye on. But an issue that I wanted to discuss as well, to kind of end the show, I guess, is I’ve got a Superchat coming. I’ll read a couple of these and then I’ll discuss this. Rabbi Shlomo Noisberg said:

 

“A hundred dollars. What do you need $90 for? I’m not going to give you an $80 Superchat to a racist, anti-semite. That $70 is mine. All right, fine, I’ll give you $60. But this is not a gift, it’s a loan and I want interest.”

 

Well, you’re not getting interest. I don’t even know who the hell you are. Dad3 said:

 

“Do you think the English will have a great man like Hitler and Napoleon in a few decades after the Civil War? Maybe three original Germanic great powers are supposed to have one after a disaster!”

 

I want to know what kind of question that is.

 

Yeah, I think that’s all the Superchats, but yeah, like one thing I want to discuss is the issue of settler colonialism. There’s been a lot of discussion precipitated, I think, by anti-Israel discourse. There’s been a lot of discussion on the Right. The dissonant Right. About the issue of settler colonialism. And there’s basically two major schools of thought. One is we should oppose ourselves to the idea of settler colonialism and talk about jewish supremacy and talk about how Israel is this horrible evil colonial power who’s stealing away land from the Palestinians. And this will help us educate White people on the jews and show that the jews are the bad guys, not Whites, and that Whites don’t want to hurt anyone. And we just want to have our own countries too. And yeah, and we can kind of focus all of the ire that’s directed against imperialism and colonialism and so on against jews and that this would be in our interest.

 

And sometimes these people say if you don’t agree with this, you must be jewish or Joel is a secret Zionist because he doesn’t agree with us.

 

The other position, my position, is that we should oppose Israel on the basis that Israel is a parasitical and subversive force of zionism, let’s say in general, because it’s not just the state of Israel, it’s also the jewish diasporas that live in our countries. They’re a subversive and parasitical force on our countries, White countries, Australia, America and particular Britain, so on. They’ve completely taken over the Right-wing. They have incredible power over the media and they use their power and influence to siphon off resources and support for Israel even though Australia and America and Britain have no strategic interest whatsoever in Israel. Like actually. They’ve captured politicians in America through incredibly nefarious means, like where they’re running paedophile networks and shit like that! They have [word unclear] like British monarchs and you know, elites from across society. Who knows how deep that goes. This is why we should oppose Israel. They’ve dragged us into wars we had no business fighting for no strategic benefit to ourselves. They taken over the Right-wing and redirect the Right-wing towards, in our countries towards their interests as opposed to representing the interests of our actual nation and people. This is what we should be criticising them for what they’re doing to us!

 

Like in Australia recently, you know, we’ve been going, doing a lot of activism and discussing a lot about the involvement of the organised jewish community and probably the Mossad in leveraging false flag, so-called anti-semitic attacks to push through an agenda to attack our free speech, to make it illegal for us to criticise jews in Israel and other racial groups as well.

 

That’s why we should be criticising jews. We should be explaining to the people of White Australians, White Americans and so on what jews are doing to them and why jews are their enemy. I think going on about like bleeding hearts about the poor Palestinians and this kind of shit is the wrong trajectory because it plays into the same moral framework that is used to describe how the poor Aboriginals and the horrors of colonialism, White colonialism or you know, the poor African slaves in America or etc. Etc, etc. It’s the same morality and framing that is used as a stick to beat the White man. And it’s generally appeals to Leftists who are anti-White, who hate the British Empire, who hate the White Australia Policy, who hate the racist founding of America, blah blah, blah blah, who hate us and everything that we stand for.

 

So to me that’s insane! The argument they make is:

 

“Well if you try and if you try and defend settler colonialism, if you say oh well, Australia was built on settler colonialism, then you’re just being the bad guy.”

Apparently you’re being the bad guy. You’re playing into the narrative of the enemy. Apparently this is what these people say. And no one’s going to support your White nationalist movement. What you have to do is say:

 

“You know what, I agree with the Left, Aboriginals were treated horribly and we don’t deserve to have this country because we’re horrible colonial occupiers!”

 

[1:35:31]

 

And somehow acknowledging all of that is going to help us to advance White nationalism. Like it doesn’t make any sense to me. It’s very simple. This country was built on settler colonialism. This country was built on our people coming here, conquering it, taking it off the people who were previously here, asserting our dominance over it, securing it for our people, fighting for it, defending it, building it up into what it is.

 

And that’s how shit works, that’s how nature works. We live in a dog-eat-dog world. Everything anyone has in this world was taken off someone else at some point. There’s a finite amount of resources on this planet. There’s not enough to go around. Some people win, some people lose. I want to win, I don’t want to lose. And when you assert your interest in this world, someone loses out. There’s never a way to be a totally nice guy and for everyone to get everything that they want. It just doesn’t work like that. That’s not how God made Earth, the universe. If you don’t like that, take it up with God. But that’s how it is, that’s reality.

 

And this idea that we need to be like 20th century liberals, we can’t assert the morality of any of our ancestors before 20th century, post World War II liberalism. We can’t say the British Empire was glorious! We can’t say the colonisation of Australia was glorious! That we can’t assert the interests of White people and White Australians just because we are White and because no one’s going to look after us but ourselves. It’s ridiculous!

 

That’s a message that makes complete sense. I believe in it. And I don’t think White people are going to be able to do what is necessary to take back control of our countries unless they’re willing to accept a message like that. I don’t think this so-called normie demographic that exists out there that is willing to be White nationalists only so long as White nationalists chungus pilled and respect everyone and don’t want to assert their superiority of everyone and want to like eke out space for everyone’s human rights and treat everyone amazingly and love everybody. I don’t think these people really exist. I think people who need to be placated to like that actually are against us and won’t embrace our politics no matter how chungus, no matter how moral fagged we make it.

 

And I also believe that the average person is capable of understanding that we live in a world of struggle. That life is struggle. That you got to fight for it, you got to fight for your existence on this planet. And that either we’re going to fight for our collective existence as a people or it’s going to be taken from us and that those are the two options on the table. We need a reality check! We need to come come to reality on this question. We can’t live in this illusion that if we just frame things with the Right moral arguments and make the right amount of concessions that we can somehow negotiate a perfectly nice and non-violent and non-controversial way for us to continue existing on this planet and to continue having our own countries. It’s the mentality of a fucking cuck. It’s the mentality of a loser.

 

We have strength as a race. Incredible collective strength! If we come together and assert our interests together. If we’re willing to come together and fight for our existence, we can secure it. That’s what it comes down to.

 

And I’m not going to forsake the incredible actions of my ancestors. I’m going to venerate them. What they did to create this country. Stealing countries of other peoples is something that few peoples are actually capable of I don’t consider it to be an immoral thing, I think you either fight for it or you don’t deserve it. If we lost World War II to the Japanese, if we ultimately one day lose this country to other races, other forces, ultimately we’d have no one to blame but ourselves for not fighting with enough valiance, for not mustering enough strength and power to hold on to what is ours. We have to take responsibility to secure our own future. No one else on this planet owes us anything and we don’t owe them anything. That’s reality.

 

And I want to live in reality. I don’t want to live in this fucked gay ideological delusion that some people in this movement want to live in. And I don’t want to pretend to believe things I don’t believe.

 

A lot of people say:

 

“Hey, look man I don’t really believe this shit either, but it’s going to help us make jews look bad or it’s going to help us win over moderates to our position if we just pretend to believe in it.”

 

I don’t believe in pretending to believe in shit! Pretending to believe in shit is inauthentic. It’s not how we’re going to convince people to stand side by side with us and fight for an objective, is pretending to believe things we don’t believe.

 

The way that we’re going to get men to stand behind us and fight to believe in our cause, believe in our movement, is to actually believe what we believe and say it proudly and openly! To have faith in our ideas, that our ideas are inherently have so much truth and potency and value that they will succeed. That’s how we’re going to win!

 

And yeah I’ve had this argument before with people. They say:

 

“Oh, I’m a universal nationalist. I believe in nationalism for all people.”

 

Well, that’s a nice thing for you to say. So are you going to go and fight for Algerian nationalism? Are you going to go and fight the Sri Lankan nationalism? No, you don’t actually give a fuck about Azerbaijani nationalism or Venezuelan nationalism. You say you believe in everyone’s right being equal to having a nation, but you’re not willing to fight for everyone’s nation. You’re willing to fight for your nation and maybe some brother nations that you have.

 

[1:42:01]

 

So maybe if you’re an Australian, you’d be willing to fight for Britain because that’s the land of your ancestors. You’re willing to fight for Ireland or whatever. If the Americans had a civil war, you’d be willing to go and fight for the White team because they’re our ethnic cousins or something like that. Okay, that makes sense.

 

But if you aren’t really willing to fight and die for it, you don’t actually believe in it, to any significant or deep level that it’s of consequence.

 

So why can’t you just say you’re an Australian nationalist and just say you want to fight for a White Australia? Anyone who has a problem with that, you want to crush them. You want to crush them and destroy them because it’s us or them! That’s what we believe in. Why isn’t that good enough? Good enough for me.

 

Maybe it’s not good enough for you’re a liar. Like, you’re just a liar. You don’t actually really believe what you’re saying. You’re trying to come up with a strategy, like a marketing, like a moral marketing strategy where you pretend to have this morality that’s nice to everyone so that people will allow you to have your own country or something. It doesn’t mean that we should have like zero allies or zero respect for other people. But let’s be real here. Why can’t you’re asserting your own interests in your own and the future of your own people?

 

Like and for example, in Australia, we have a military alliance with Japan. The Japanese are a completely different people. I think the Japanese are an incredible nation, incredible cultural achievements, whatever. I wouldn’t fight for Japan unless it was in Australia. I’d fight for Australia if we were like allied in a war together and it made sense, it was in our interest to fight together against a mutual enemy. But I wouldn’t fight for Japan. I don’t think it would be a good thing if Japan was like, wiped off the face of the planet necessarily. I think they’re interesting, cool people. But I wouldn’t be willing to die to save Japan. So I can respect Japan. Maybe we could have an alliance with Japan if it’s in our interest. But I’m not a Japanese nationalist.

 

I don’t ultimately believe in some metaphysical right that the Japanese have to exist. Ultimately, it’s the responsibility of the Japanese to secure their own existence, and it’s the responsibility of White Australians to secure our own existence. And it’s the responsibility of Palestinians to secure their own existence and the responsibility of whatever group of people it is to secure their own existence on this planet. That’s how it works. That’s the iron Law of Nature. So Modern World reject said:

 

“We cannot negotiate for our existence. We must secure it through struggle.”

 

And he hailed and yeah, that’s basically the essence of my view. Someone said here:

 

“Joel didn’t get the Rabbi Noseberg meme.”

 

No, I did get the meme. I just didn’t think it was that funny. So I did like a kind of deadpan delivery.

 

Now, what else have we got here? I think that’s basically a good show for the evening. So give me some feedback. Did you still enjoy the show, even though it was just me riding solo? Don’t usually do this. I usually have the foil of having someone to talk to. It feels a bit weird just sitting here speaking into, like a laptop. Like, not talking to another human being. Feels a bit inorganic. But I’ve been doing this a long time, so I could still kind of sell it, I think. Jack Brady, given some respect:

 

“Excellent monologue.”

 

Well, I appreciate that. Friend of the show. Obviously been on the show before. High praise.

 

But, yeah, everyone’s seemed to enjoy the stream, so I’m glad you watched. I’m glad you listened. And yeah, got some things coming up. There was an interview by this guy called Hermes from the United States. He does like these street interviews that have been going viral lately. He’s obviously like a nationalist from America. Seems like a solid dude. I haven’t really spoken to him much before, but he interviewed Tom earlier this week, which you can find, I think, on Rumble. And we’re doing a collaboration soon. I’ll put out on my social media on Telegram, when we’re gonna go live. I think soon. I think maybe like Sunday, Australian time, Saturday night American time was the plan. But, yeah, I’ll put it out when it’s all, like, ready to go with links and stuff.

 

And I’m also going to do a collaboration with Ferryman from Canada next week. I think there’s a new Codex India documentary that’s going to be released. And they wanted us to do a kind of Watch Party promotion. The previous one was pretty funny. It was kind of like this David Attenborough narrating, like Pajeets in the Wild. I’m sure a lot of you have seen it. So anyhow, I don’t know what to expect. [chuckling] I haven’t seen it yet, but should be funny.

 

And yeah, there’s a few other things happening. So keep an eye on social media, keep in touch and we’ll fill you in on when we’re doing more content when we’re doing more activism, etc. And if you’re in Australia, join the fucking movement! ! WhiteAustralia.org, WhiteAus.org. If you don’t want to come and be a member of the NSN, marching around on the street, doing street activism, you can join and just come to the community events. You can come and train with us. Kickboxing, weightlifting, barbecues, seminars, we’re putting on more events. Come get involved in the community. At least get networked with fellow White nationalists.

 

And if you don’t even have time for that, at the very least, sign up as a supporter. Put your name down so we can get registered as a political party. We’re getting closer and closer to hitting the target. We haven’t even done an official launch yet. We will get more than enough signatures. Be a member of the party. We need members. So at least sign up as a member or even better, come and join the community. Come and get involved in a more direct capacity. A lot of events are going to be organised through the rest of the year.

 

[1:49:04]

 

The only way that we can turn around the political situation in this country is if White nationalists in Australia come together, join the Organisation, join the party and build a movement that can actually change things. We have the foundation of a movement that has the potential to really make an impact, which we haven’t had in this country for a long time. We’ve created that foundation.

 

The only way that that foundation can go into something actually tangible, making like, real, meaningful change is if everyone gets behind us and backs us. Even if it’s just as simple as just signing up as a member of our political party, which really is not asking for very much at all!

 

So WhiteAustralia.org. Sign up! Join up! You know, don’t you want to see us enter politics in Australia? Wouldn’t that bring you joy? Wouldn’t that be fucking awesome? Like, oh, you don’t want like me and Blair and Tom and shit running for office. You want to fucking vote for, who you voting for? Craig Kelly? You want to vote for Ralph Babet? You want to vote for Pauline Hanson? This shit sucks, man! Help us give awesome candidates! Our policies are going to be amazing! We’re going to break the fucking news cycle. We’re going to have the most interesting political party probably in the whole world. Fucking why have you not signed up yet? Sign up, help us win!

 

But yeah, anyway, so that’s the end of the stream. I hope you enjoyed it. And White power, blood and honour! Hail victory! See you all next time.

 

[1:51:06]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 7/11/2025 = 35)

J0hnC0nn0r
6 days ago
There is no question, they all need to leave
9 likes

Report
J0hnC0nn0r
6 days ago
You know why they removed the death penalty. Because if they used it in this case then it would be injected into the public consciousness as a solution and then the sheep might get ideas about applying it to other criminals.
7 likes

Report
JoshRecessionberg
Supporter
6 days ago
Society is falling apart with Jewish ‘democracy’
6 likes

Report
‹ Hide 1 reply
J0hnC0nn0r
5 days ago
Lets state the obvious
0 likes

Report
Lynchmob11
5 days ago
Awesome show. You should do a weekly solo show where you break down geopolitical events, since the other show is mainly centered upon Aussie politics.
5 likes

Report
SueNewson
5 days ago
you done a great job!
5 likes

Report
natogroyper
5 days ago
Great show, these type of shows that you do where you break down geopolitics from a Australian nationalist perspective are brilliant and its important. It’s something that we need more of. You really come into your own doing this type of content mate
5 likes

Report
leibekohne
6 days ago
Usury free world economy will solved lots of problems including wives staying at home. Also the wars will disappear no financing jew banks. In modern world China has never necessary ability to fight a long war. They could do nothing against small Japan. If that should happens the will end of humanity. Those problems, can be overcome by changing the communist China into Monarchy as used to be.
4 likes

Report
StevenGurr
3 days ago
Kill all pedo fags
3 likes

Report
katana17
6 days ago
[Joel Davis – Nothing is Happening, But It Will – Jun 26, 2025 – Transcript] https://katana17.com/2025/06/28/joel-davis-nothing-is-happening-but-it-will-jun-26-2025-transcript/ [In this livestream episode Aussie nationalist activists Joel Davis and Blair Cottrell discuss ZOG vs Iran, Mark Latham vs Minns, the caravan hoax, Trump jews and Epstein, Israel with 200 nukes, JFK assassination, boomers being selfish, Holohoax Card wearing out, WWIII with China vs ZOG, jews not being flashy, Joel dreams of an Aston Martin, miscegenation, Human rights, NSN childcare policy, and current events, etc. – KATANA] [TRANSCRIPT – Words: 21,471 – Duration: 125 mins]
2 likes

Delete
J0hnC0nn0r
6 days ago
I dont agree with your idea to pay the mothers to stay at home instead of childcare, as that doesnt address the root cause of why the wahmen are working in the first place. Usually to pay for the usury loan and every other fucking rip off corporate swine and their small hat masters are perpetrating on the White race. Anything that undermines the ponzi scheme, aka forcing a collapse is the only option.
2 likes

Report
‹ Hide 1 reply
JoshRecessionberg
Supporter
5 days ago
You are a fool. Who is going to support a party advocating for an economic collapse? It is more like an economic transition that will have to be done smoothly and professionally in order to reinvigorate White Australia. Implementing policies in phases is the best approach. Talking about collapse is for low IQ blackpilled degenerates.
0 likes

Report
‹ Hide 1 reply
J0hnC0nn0r
5 days ago
Sure thing fuck wit. Lets move jew money for daycare to middle class welfare, banksters dont care they still get their usury bucks, inflate property prices based on the extra income and keep the ponzi scheme going. Just to stick to your ad hominem attacks and idiocy, you clearly are a stupid zoomer cunt rash because this shit was done under Howard and led to much of this fucking mess. The fact you still think this is a viable “policy” when the same Whites sucking off the govt tit will turn on NSN etc when the welfare tap is turned off (transitioned as you put it like a tranny) truly shows how stupid and short sighted you are.
1 like

Report
‹ Hide 1 reply
1Antonius
3 days ago
People are too degenerate to play moderate with them. They’ll still betray you, it’s in their nature.
0 likes
Report
leibekohne
6 days ago
therefore NSN you must stop drinking even beer drink Kombucha instead. Never slacken be vigilant You must be hard, strong without any remorse and it will require blood, because you waited to long, because you let yourselves your parents to be fooled whilst the internal enemy never stopped only intensified after WW2 He mesmerized us and made us imbecilic morons murdered us lied to us stole from us killed us used us exploited us destroyed us to merely 6% of world population and going down faster and faster to total distinction of Aryan goyim white race wake up shiksa cunts and fight; teach abusive fanatical communist police a hard lesson, give it back.
2 likes

Report
MPCV
Supporter
6 days ago
o/ HH
2 likes

Report
JFurM
Verified
4 days ago
To your point Joel, on the study that covered the 33% drop in fertility of women who go the jab vs those that didn’t… as a woman who previous to Covid, had no fertility issues, I stared having lots of issues with my cycle as well as miscarriages as soon as the vax came out. My husband and I did not get it but most all of our family members did. This is an experience that many other women (not vaccinated) I have spoken with share in common. Potentially due to vaccine shedding and or what they’ve been putting in our water (I.e. Dr Ardis’ work shows this). Either way, agree with what you said about the massive wealth transfer that was going on during covid, and it eerily all began in nov of 2019. Very few people were talking about what was going on with all the major corporations and financial elites at the time. They definitely took advantage though to hurt us health wise, in our economy and as a society. Hopefully enough are awake now to not get fooled again! Great show!
2 likes

Report
Bigboy6669
5 days ago
bump
1 like

Report
palacepony
Supporter
6 days ago
Wuhan Institute entered a partnership with Peter Daszak/ Ecohealth Alliance. Special Cancer virus programs, ‘defense’ programs, theres beeb decades of work on G.O.F virus manipulation. See pizzapicklespur on X, also Charles Rixey (prometheusshrugged.org.) See Major Murphy’s release of the D.E.F.U.S.E document. Rixey will take you there. Research into Covid amyloidogenic properties continues @ mccairndojo.com. Support the doc; https://rumble.com/v6uyxpb-lab-updates-synthesizing-amyloidogenic-fibrin.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp
0 likes

Report
‹ Hide 1 reply
palacepony
Supporter
6 days ago
https://t.wtyl.live/videos/browse?s=1
0 likes

Report
palacepony
Supporter
5 days ago
succinct overview; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OHBkkZeqms
0 likes

Report
TripleGas
Verified
5 days ago
need to kick out and block nons from entry before implementing anything like paying for mothers to stay home or it’s just another incentive for them to come and breed.
0 likes

Report
Kroninn
Supporter
5 days ago
Taiwan has around 2 million private gun owners. I dont think it would be too easy for China to invade them. Especially with the Philipines and others helping them.
0 likes

Report
› Show 1 reply
palacepony
Supporter
4 days ago
Colac constitutional restoration conference in Colac upcoming late July; https://rumble.com/v6vqyl7-2-seminars-26th-27th-july-augusto-zimmermann-darren-dixon-and-tim-dwyer.html
0 likes

Report
SSlieutenant
4 days ago
Trump is not American either. His mother is from Scotland. And his father could be a German jew if you look at Fred Trump’s physiognomy. Trump is also a New Yorker.
0 likes

Report
‹ Hide 1 reply
SSlieutenant
4 days ago
Trump is not founding stock American like us that have been here since the 1600s.
0 likes

Report
SSlieutenant
4 days ago
Israel sucks at colonization. Look at a settler colonial nation that was White, and had no outside funding. America, Australia, Canada. Jews have all the money on the world and still can’t make a nation larger than new jersey.
0 likes

Report
‹ Hide 1 reply
SSlieutenant
4 days ago
Jews are the laziest parasite bastards ever known. They should have listened to Hitler when he said they can live comfortably on Madagascar, but they resisted, now their final fate will be worse.
0 likes

Report
amacc14
Supporter
4 days ago
Democracy is fake and stupid. Listen to us, we’re sitting around, brainstorming how to get VOTES. Pathetic.
0 likes

Report
localsussybaka
4 days ago
The political analysis gets more compelling each day.
0 likes

Report
MattOosty
3 days ago
A stream/space with Karl would be amazing
0 likes

Report
PhooeyPhoxide
21 hours ago
Joel overrates the CCP. They can’t even take Taiwan. No way China is even going to put a dent in the New World Order.
0 likes

Report
BrossefStalin
5 days ago
Blair is so fragile. Always talking about how tired he is or how he feels weird. He had to get up early and it took him over the edge? Man up
-2 likes

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

James Costello: Now for the up and coming star of the pro-White cause, specializing in political philosophy, he’s made waves on YouTube, Substack, Twitter and Cozy TV. The YouTube channel The Joel and Blair Show has been a big success until it was recently nuked by “jewTube”, whatever that means!

 

Known for his insightful, thought provoking, no nonsense takes, an identitarian commentator and activist with a focus on White advocacy and political strategy, he’s a leading voice in the Australian White nationalist movement. Here to discuss the distinction between activist and electoralist politics and why this distinction is so important for White Identity Politics, please welcome, all the way from Australia, the amazing Joel Davis!

 

[applause]

 

Joel Davis: Just want to say thanks for inviting me out. It’s great to be here. Obviously, I’m an Australian, but this is my ancestral homeland, so the struggle here means a lot to me. It means more than anywhere else in the world except Australia, frankly, for obvious reasons.

 

So it’s great to be here, it’s great to meet all of you. I’ve met some of you before, but it’s just great to have a whole bunch of “racist” Anglos in a room together.

 

[applause]

 

But yeah, today it’s going to be preaching to the choir. You pretty much already kind of get it, otherwise you wouldn’t be here.

 

But nevertheless, all the speeches have basically been saying stuff we already believe, so mine will as well. It’s just a good excuse, I guess, to get everyone in a room. But there’s, I don’t know, maybe some ideas here that might be useful to people.

 

So basically, what I’m just going to discuss is a basic collection of few ideas around political strategy that have evolved for me in my time, the last past few years. Engaging a lot with White nationalist leaders from around the world, kind of analyzing problems in different countries, discussing ideas with leaders. So hopefully you get something out of this.

 

The basic idea is that I think there’s two core modes that you could really break mass politics down into. You could say there’s “activism” and “electoralism”. And activism is fundamentally about changing what’s popular, whereas electoralism is about leveraging what’s popular, I would say. And by popularity, I mean it’s not just opinion polls. We had a recent opinion poll, I think from Germany that said something like 70% to 80% of Germans are against mass immigration.

 

But if you look at the parties these people vote for, I mean, this is including people who vote for Leftist parties, who vote for centrist parties. If you’re against mass immigration, why aren’t you at least voting for the Alternative für Deutschland [AfD], the only party that’s actually against it in Germany?

 

So it’s like, yes, people will tick boxes on opinion polls that they’re against something, but they aren’t actually, politically, conscious of even a very basic step of voting for the correct party to align with your belief. Or perhaps they care about mass immigration, but they care more about, I don’t know, getting their taxes down or I don’t even know what goes through people’s heads.

 

The masses are frankly, whilst often sympathetic to our talking points, politically retarded! [audience stirs] So popularity is really, … You don’t have to clap that, it’s horrifying! [laughter] But popularity you should really conceive of it more in terms of a kind of psycho-social pressure system.

 

[04:16]

 

So if you are operating in professional politics, that pressure system is upon you. It isn’t just what opinion polls say. In Australia, they do opinion polls all the time about, does Australia need more people? And 70%, 80% say:

 

“No, we don’t need more people!”

 

But all the major parties keep bringing in more people. Why? Because there is a pressure system. The mass media, all the interest groups behind the mass media, the lobby groups, they represent, the word “racist” and so on, that creates a condition whereby you can get away with going against public opinion. And it’s very difficult to stand with positive public opinion.

 

Like if you stand against mass immigration, you’re an “extremist”, even though three quarters of the country agree with you according to every opinion poll.

 

So activism is not just about changing how opinion polls occur, but changing how that pressure system functions, I would say.

 

And an organisation like Patriotic Alternative, obviously there’s aspirations to engage in electoral politics. I’m not saying engaging in electoral politics is bad. But fundamentally what you guys are doing, from what I can see, is you’re an activist organisation that has aspirations to change hearts and minds, to change the way people talk about these issues, the way people think about these issues, not just win an election.

 

There was a recent book that was written by an Italian guy, Guido Taietti. I didn’t read the book because it hasn’t been translated into English, it’s only in Italian. There was a few reviews and a podcast that was done. There was a review in the Unz Review, I think, and in Counter-Currents, and there was a podcast that was done by someone with him where they were speaking English that Counter-Currents put out. And had some interesting ideas, a lot of ideas that I share.

 

A guy from CasaPound, if you guys have heard of that organisation. And he identified, … There’s kind of two main fundamental relationships in contemporary political communication. And this kind of corresponds to my activist-electoralist distinction. One is you’ve got the kind of activist-sympathizer relationship and then you’ve got the kind of political professional voter relationship.

 

Now, voters are a low attention span, low information, low agency market, essentially that’s easily manipulated by the kind of institutionalised forces of professional politics, obviously through the media. But there’s this kind of subterranean architecture, obviously, of NGOs, think tanks, foundations and so on, that feed into the media, that condition their talking points and align them with policy agendas and so on, that you can’t really mobilise voters against this very successfully because it’s too complex, basically, just as I mentioned before about these German opinion polls.

 

[07:00]

 

And even when you can mobilise voters against it, when you have a, quote, unquote, “populist movement” we’ve seen this with Trumpism in the United States. It’s so ideologically vapid because it becomes this kind of personalised attachment:

 

“I just like Trump because I’ve got these vague sentiments basically that he’s standing up for Americans!”

 

But then that kind of ideological vapidity can be just filled in by these conservative establishments, fake opposition groups, to corral the agenda into safe avenues, and so on. And it doesn’t really materialise in any kind of meaningful change.

 

And so working within this professional politician-voter relationship is just very difficult unless you have billions of dollars. We just simply don’t have those resources.

 

The activist-sympathizer relationship, however, is something that we can get a lot more traction with. And in the activist-sympathizer relationship, it’s not about trying to win elections. It’s about trying to change the terms under which the political discourse within which elections are even conducted are set. So we can look at models for this.

 

Like, for example, feminism. There’s no feminist party that’s running any of our countries that won 51% of the vote and formed a government.

 

But obviously feminism has won! It’s pretty much dominating the institutions of every major Western country, all the major political parties. That’s an activist movement. It didn’t try to go out and win elections and form a feminist political movement that would contest for local council districts or something. It formed an organised activist pressure movement that was able to kind of plug itself into the political establishment and change the discourse around women’s rights or whatever. And we’ve seen the results. And the same model you can see with environmentalism, with gay rights, et cetera.

 

And I think this is the kind of model that we should look to more when thinking about who we are and what we’re doing as White advocates.

 

So I think as well, another idea that I think is quite useful for kind of understanding what we’re doing here and how to kind of stay the course is what I call “having a one dimensional framing”, or a “one dimensional politics”, which in a nutshell is reducing politics to a “pro-White, anti-White polarity”. Trying to analyze every issue through the lens of race. A kind of race reductionism. Marxists talk about class reductionism. Everything is really about proletariat versus bourgeoisie or whatever. We should not obviously not be like Marxists, but we should do the same thing, but with race, I believe, break every issue down.

 

[09:47]

 

So the gentleman earlier was speaking about climate change and about how climate change is basically just a way to transfer resources from White countries to non-White countries, frankly. That’s what the policies actually are. Whatever your position is on climate change, we should talk about it like that rather than simply talking about climate change is fake and you got all these boomer conservatives railing against it, but no one kind of points out the elephant in the room, which is that it’s very clearly an anti-White agenda!

 

[applause]

 

And this is clear. I think also this polarity, we need to map it on to the Left-Right distinction. A lot of people, myself included, would describe themselves at one point or another as a Third Positionist. We got to transcend the Left-Right distinction and so on.

 

I think this kind of thinking, what I call “ideological hipsterism”, which I’ve been as guilty of as anyone in the past, is a waste of energy and a waste of time! And it just confuses people. We know voters are that stupid, the masses are that stupid that the majority of Germans are against mass immigration, yet, as I said, they can’t even select the right party to vote for!

 

Going on about Third Positionism and bickering about what’s real “fascism” or something. It might be intellectually edifying, but it’s not actually going to get anywhere! We need to have an approach that cuts through the bullshit – in an intellectually defensible way, nevertheless – that can map onto the real polarisation that people feel every day, which is a Left-Right polarisation. Particularly, I think, in the United States and the Anglo-sphere because we have these two party systems. I’ve noticed this in Australia especially since Covid this kind of social mapping of Leftists and Right-wingers that didn’t really exist ten years ago, where social groups are getting split apart because people that are more conservative, whatever that means, can’t handle being around Leftists anymore and vice versa.

 

And this is a good thing, because it’s clear that the Left’s number one priority is the anti-White agenda. There’s literally no concern that they have that they won’t immediately toss or compromise if it conflicts with their anti-White goals. You saw this with Covid in the United States:

 

“Covid’s this big problem! We’ve got a lockdown! Everyone don’t go in public, but, you know, Black Lives Matter want to do marches now because George Floyd had a drug overdose. So now, fuck that! Everyone in the streets! The real public health crisis is racism!”

 

We see this on so many issues:

 

“Environmentalism is really bad! Global warming, we’ve got too many emissions. Let’s just import another million Pakistanis that are going to burn as much coal as possible when they get here because their carbon footprint doesn’t matter because if you think it does, you’re a racist!”

 

Feminism:

 

“There’s a rape culture! Let’s import a bunch of Pakistani rape gangs!”

 

And you guys get the message. So that polarity already exists.

 

[12:46]

 

And another hot take that I want to give you is that the Left are the real racists! But not in the way that Dinesh D’Souza describes it, in the sense that the Left hate White people, obviously, right, they are actually racist. Where conservatives they’re not racist. That’s the problem! I wish the Right were the real racists! That’s our job is to make that happen!

 

[applause]

 

And that’s key because we’re not really going to be able to convert Leftists. Leftists are already aware of race. They’re fully aware of race and they’ve chosen the other side. Whereas conservatives are sleepwalking through reality! Literally, they are colour-blind. And they can’t perceive reality as a result of it because there’s these mental blocks put in the heads of so many people through the way that people have been conditioned by our culture.

 

Our job is to open their eyes to race. Once you see it, you see it everywhere then all of a sudden the political landscape makes sense. And if someone is already identifying on the Right, unless it’s because they have an Asian girlfriend or wife or something or whatever, that’s really holding them back from embracing racial identitarianism.

 

If it’s a normal White person who sees themselves as Right-wing and they’re sick of the tranny nonsense and all the immigrants and so on, once they see it, they can’t un-see it. And then they’re on our side. And that’s the activist-sympathizer relationship. Our job is developing a larger and larger cadre of sympathizers that will then permeate social institutions.

 

And that’s how you get real change, because that’s what the Left did. The Left didn’t win opinion polls. They didn’t get one data:

 

“51% of the population now thinks that transgenderism is real and not a mental illness. Now we can do the trans agenda!”

 

No! They knew that their ideas were unpopular but they built a cadre of sympathizers with a focused and direct ideology. And look where that’s got them.

 

So I think that needs to be the central focus of what we’re doing, and I think it already is for the people in this room, largely from what I can tell. But I think it’s an important thing to maintain in our minds and to talk about clearly to defend what we’re doing here.

 

So the other component of this is I think our message to the broadly self identified Right is that we are the only real, true foundational opposition to the Leftist paradigm and Leftists in general, Leftist power. And they make it clear Leftists do our job for us. They identify us as their main enemy. And they make it very clear what they stand for.

 

And so someone’s already agreeing that:

 

“Well man! These Lefties and their agenda it’s horrible what they’re doing!”

 

It’s not that much of a leap to say:

 

“Okay, well, we are the only real opposition so what do you want? Do you want total victory over them!”

 

Well, that’s only going to occur if we are elevated. Teaching the Right-wing to stop canceling people for being too Right-wing basically is a large portion of our job.

 

[15:46]

 

And you can already see this process starting to gradually occur, I think across the Anglo-sphere in conservative media world, where there’s more and more acquiescence to a lot of racial talking points and shifting tides in the discourse because of the work that’s been done since 2015, the emergence of the Alt-Right to today.

 

I think we need to humanise a lot of these people in the conservative movement. Some people get this kind of mentality that everybody in the entire conservative movement is some kind of agent that’s getting paid off by these networks of intelligence agencies. And, or, Mossad has a video of them, like raping a three year old! And they’ll never come around at any talking point or never make any adjustments to their position. And whilst we should hate them and we should call them out as fake opposition, I think this is a strategic misstep. Our pressure actually does tell, there’s a lot of people in the conservative movement who actually their minds can be changed and they can become more radical over time.

 

We should have, I think, faith in our capacity to transform the culture, not support the conservative Party, obviously. We’re in the kind of realm of activism here. More about changing attitudes, changing the Overton Window, so to speak, where it lands in the kind of Right-wing cultural space. I think that’s an area where we’re going to win regardless. Even if we do a bad job, we have so much momentum there it’s already happening, as Tony mentioned “our idea, its time has come”, and it’s somewhat inevitable.

 

But I think so much of our work is about accelerating that kind of transformation of the Right, the racializing of the Right.

 

Now, another few points to make is that focus and prioritisation, not mere agreement, really has to be the aim of the activists.

 

As I said, we can do opinion polls on the key issues that we care about and the people are with us, but they’re not focused! They don’t put it as the number one priority in their politics. They aren’t kind of convicted like the people in this room are around these issues.

 

And so, so much of what we’re doing is not just like winning them over to agreeing with us, but it is about radicalising them! About making them more angry! Making them more focused, making them more racist!

 

That’s really like the essence of what the activist is doing. Because what’s happening to our people, what’s happening to our race is really a “crisis of the will”.

 

[18:15]

 

The majority of our race is demoralised. It’s not as if it’s an intellectual thing and everyone has been ideologically convinced in this abstract way. They’ve heard all the arguments from Ben Shapiro, and they’re not interested in our movement. No, it’s based in these kind of more primal emotional states of fear, of, as I said, demoralisation, self hatred and so on. These mental blocks that are placed in this kind of pre rational state. And so much of what we’re doing is about energizing the will in our people to stand up!

 

And that’s why it’s so important to have, even if you guys might get demoralised sometimes when you do a demonstration and there’s 50 of you and there’s 200 Antifa – I’m not saying that’s happened, but I don’t know all the details. But I’ve been in experiences like that where I’ve gone to protest, like, a Drag Queen Story Hour and there’s ten of us and, like, 200 communists! And it feels like shit! It’s horrible. It’s horrifying! And it creates this impression that they have the people behind them and we’re these crazy lunatics!

 

Whereas the average person would agree with us that’s walking past on the street. But they’re walking past on the street doing nothing! They don’t give a fuck! That’s the problem.

 

And so much of what we’re doing is about turning on that “will”. And when people see a real opposition movement putting their bodies in the street, taking the blows from the enemy, vocalizing and modeling our belief system, that’s powerful! And it might take a while to fully transform things in the unconscious of a lot of people’s thought processes, but it really does make a difference.

 

The majority of people are not free thinkers. They’re not first movers, they’re not creative, they’re not strong willed. Most people are conformists. They need to see other people modeling a way of thinking, modeling a way of behaving before they’ll even conceive of it as a possibility for themselves. And so don’t ever be demoralised.

 

Whenever you guys do demonstrations and it feels like maybe it was a bad one or you’re outnumbered or it didn’t quite have the effect that it had on the day, because if you’re just relentless and consistent and keep showing up and keep showing the people that there’s a real opposition to what’s happening to our people, it will take an effect! And in ways that you might not actually realise, it might take many years.

 

I know in my personal life, I’ve been annoying everyone that I know, all the normies, my whole family or whatever, about racial issues for years, and it was irritating to most of them for many years. And now there’s media articles written about me about how I’m a neo-Nazi, and they all think it’s great and they’re so proud of what I’m doing.

 

[applause]

 

It’s cool! It’s nice to see on a personal level. But more importantly, it shows that because they’ve had me in their life being like this hardcore, ideological racist, year after year, after year, after year, after year, it becomes normal to them to think like that.

 

[21:06]

 

And then when they encounter some act of diversity enrichment that is irritating, they perceive it differently as a result. So, yeah, that’s so important.

 

Also, another thing that I also think I’ve also done wrong in the past is putting too much focus., … And this goes to the ideological hipsterism point again, on other issues. A lot of the movement focused, I think too much on Covid, or I got too fixated on the war in Ukraine for a while. And these issues are important, but at the end of the day it’s overcomplicating things in a way. We just end up in these internal disputes within people that are already racist about what other add-ons we want to put on to our racism.

 

And this really dilutes in many ways the power of the message. Because our job isn’t to work out all the problems of the government and come up with a complete policy stack about what our foreign policy and tax policy and all of these things need to be. Our job is to represent the pro-White viewpoint!

 

And the activists, the advantage of the activists, going back to the feminist movement as an example, they didn’t have to come to the government. They didn’t see themselves necessarily coming to the State with a full set of:

 

“This is how the government should run and we should be in charge of the government!”

 

They just go:

 

“This is the feminist core issues. This is what we believe, this is what our complaints are!”

 

And they hammer those points!

 

And I think in many ways our movement would be well served by adopting some of those tactics in our messaging because all the other issues are represented except the racial issue. That’s the one issue that always gets jettisoned by conservatives and they want to focus on anything else that they possibly can, because that’s the one issue that you get targeted for the most, obviously.

 

And so my stance more recently has been to really just try to avoid talking about almost anything else but White advocacy, whenever I do anything.

 

Basically just be like a 100% spurg about it, twenty four seven! And just not even allow myself to think outside that box. Almost to constrain myself to maximize the amount of output that I have on this one issue. Because it’s the glaring obvious central issue at the core of everything that’s more important than anything else, frankly, in the entire political process right now, and in society, is securing a future for our people!

 

So something to consider. Not that no one should ever talk about anything else or what have you, but I think it’s something to consider.

 

[24:00]

 

And also simplicity is key to a winning message. Piling on too much excess can kind of drown out the position. I remember there was a lot of discussion at one point, I would say like 2018, 2019 in the broad online scene debating:

 

“Should we be Nazbols? Should we be racist liberals? Do White people want to be free market or do White people want to have socialism?”

 

And it’s like, I don’t really give a fuck! I just want to win! We can figure that out later. A lot of these things actually are quite counterproductive, I would say probably more on the socialist side.

 

But if we can win, I don’t give a shit about the economic policy. I don’t give a shit about the foreign policy. I just care about White people winning!

 

[applause]

 

So, yeah, so that’s basically the main stuff that I wanted to say here. But I hope that provoked some thoughts. And again, thank you for having me. It’s been fantastic!

 

And hail victory!

 

[loud applause]

 

[25:08]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

(Comments as of 10/28/2023 = 52)

renunciate
8 days ago
Bless this Aussie for making such a long journey to speak at PA.
Reply
31

DOLO
8 days ago
Good speech.
Reply
28

Welsh Nationalist
8 days ago
Top speech
Reply
23

Lampshade Denier
8 days ago
Joel is an incredible speaker!
Reply
18
0
Hide replies

@eddiesdreaming
5 days ago
isnt he just
incredible was the first word i used to.
Reply
2

Avid Fan
8 days ago
Engrossing analysis.
Reply
18

The Belting Balaclava
8 days ago
Joel’s approach to strategy is top notch.
Reply
14

renunciate
8 days ago
The masses vote for the group that can win. It’s driven by fear that if the use their vote on a party that has no chance, then the “horrible” party will win.
Reply
14
0

@TwentyFourHours
8 days ago
Joel has an incredibly incisive approach and he’s done some excellent work.
Reply
13
0

@Stan1
8 days ago
Wow, that was a storming speech, and some very poignant takes.
I totally agree about the simplicity message, and driving the whole narrative around the main concerns we face – preserving a future for our people.
Reply
12

MasterOfStf
7 days ago
Good speech, Joel Davis is awesome. Follow him on social media for hot takes.
Reply
10
0

@PureNomad
8 days ago
I really like Joel (so wish I’d have gone to this conference tbh). Yes he has a slightly subdued delivery style, but the message still came through strong.
I totally agree a key battle with most people isn’t getting them to agree with nationalist issues (most know we’ve been flooded with too many ppl that don’t accept our values/way of life), but the fact people are naturally conformists, and have been brainwashed to believe they shouldn’t openly think that way.
Hail Victory Joel
Reply
7
0

@larkascending
8 days ago(edited)
I don’t like his use of the term racist. Like he said, people are dumb and they may just see soundbites, select quotes, etc. to judge PA and Joel Davis. I don’t think the term is useful. It is too amorphous, ideologically motivated and with too many cultural connotations to really describe anything of value. It conflates anything to do with race relations, racial hatred, biology/(divergent) human evolution/human taxonomy in often nonsensical & contradictory ways. When someone uses the term racist I just think they are too ideologically motivated to have a good-faith, factual & honest conversation about race.
Reply
9
2
Hide replies

@PureNomad
8 days ago
Tad harsh. I think you are reading slightly more into it, than was intended. For me he used it as an ice breaker. Don’t forget Australians are still very masculine, compared to our far too feminised Europeans.
Reply
2
3
Hide replies

The Belting Balaclava
8 days ago
Being intentional with the language you use in a formal political setting has nothing to do with masculinity.
Reply
5
0
Hide replies

Wight Kang
7 days ago(edited)
It is a strategy of not allowing enemy language to control us. We’re not going to go on the defensive when called racist since racist just means White person who does not cuck.
The answer to “are you racist?” should be “yes” and then you move on to pro-White advocacy. Saying “no” means they follow it up with an endless series of qualifiers which always end up with you supporting diversity and anti-White agendas.
Reply
0
2
Hide replies

@larkascending
7 days ago
I would never say “no” I am not a racist. I would articulate that the term does not have a consistent, clear, or useful definition. By saying “yes” I am a racist, I argue you are playing into their framing and “allowing enemy language to control us” and define us. Your opponent and audience will know where to put you and ignore you, because you have just placed yourself as the enemy. We should be influencing people, not just antagonising them or playing into enemy stereotypes.
Terms like anti-Semite, transphobe, xenophobe, etc. are all like that, they are nonsense words which are designed to frame the debate in the enemy’s favour. They frame any and all criticism of topics like migration as solely motivated by irrational fear or hatred. They should not be part of our vocabulary, at least unironically.
Less
Reply
3

The Belting Balaclava
7 days ago
The best response to “are you a racist” is to 1) Not engage, as it only further legitimizes them (this is something leftist postmodernists understand fairly well) or 2) Ask them to define the term “racist”. If they answer “it means you hate other races” then I would answer “no” as I truthfully do not hate other races. If they say “it means you don’t believe that all races are equal” then I would answer “yes” and further explain with IQ statistics, crime, or whatever else is relevant to your given context. Make them respond to you. Make them justify their beliefs. Remember, the truth is on our side, there is no need to play the comical villain.
Reply
2

Avid Fan
7 days ago
Yes, I think it was said tongue in cheek but also agree with not liking the word “racist” as it is an anti-white slur word. We’ve got to introduce our lexicon slowly to ‘normies’ – “racist”, “anti-white racism/ist”, then “anti-white”.
Reply
2
0

@larkascending
7 days ago
I understand there is a cultural difference but I think you’re conflating the crass, sort-of douchey bravado of Australians with masculinity. I don’t think being respectful and using more thoughtful, intentional language is inherently feminine, he is public speaking after all. Australia has many of the same problems as other countries with immigration, transgenderism, etc., so if it is indeed “still very masculine”, it’s not helping.
Reply
4
0
Hide replies

@GLiTCH
7 days ago
Your comment was ‘I don’t like his use of the term racist.’ Not that it was tactically mistaken, but that your feelings disagreed with it. You are kowtowing to the enemy’s use of word magic. If someone is a well spoken and presented person and describes themselves as ‘racist’ it breaks with the connotation of racists as dirty lowlife scum that has been created.
Reply
2
0
Hide replies

Avid Fan
7 days ago
Yes, ‘demystifying’ the word?
Reply
0
0

@larkascending
7 days ago(edited)
What even is a racist? It does not have a consistent, clear, useful definition. The dictionary definitions are all over the place and incoherent. How people use it is not consistent with the definitions either. My comment did articulate that it was tactically mistaken, as most people are dumb and will just take soundbites or clips out of context. I don’t think the use of the word was well thought out.
Reply
0

Evo
7 days ago
Are you not racist?
Being truthful is better than trying to play pretend with floury language to not offend the “normie”.
Reply
5
3
Hide replies

@larkascending
7 days ago(edited)
What is a racist? I like to be clear and coherent. The term doesn’t describe anything consistent or coherent. It’s just a term of abuse used by our enemies or anti-intellectuals.
Reply
3

Native Albion
7 days ago
I can see both sides of the argument. But if someone asks me in real life if I’m racist, I simply say yes to cut through the BS. Then I explain the history of the word racist and its anti-white meaning. I dont think you do yourself any favours by being defensive, you have to hold the ground and then be offensive, in the right way.
Reply
8
0
Hide replies

@Aus1788
7 days ago
Exactly! You just tell them that the suffix “ist’ in race is to show concern like; Pianist, Scientist. That you do have a priority of ingroup preference for your people, like one would for their own family and children.
Reply
2
0
Hide replies

@Aus1788
7 days ago
Family is your first priority, then neighborhood/community, then state, then nation, then the west. If everyone does their best to create a strong family for themselves then the rest will follow suit real fast! It’s a domino effect.
Reply
1
0

@larkascending
7 days ago
My argument is not to say “no”. My argument is the term, and others like it, isn’t coherent, accurate or useful. I don’t give any power or meaning to words that are solely designed to frame the debate in an anti-intellectual, immoral direction. The dictionaries can’t even agree on a definition for racist and people use the term in such wildly divergent ways.
Reply
1

The Belting Balaclava
7 days ago
I think the best strategy is to ask them to define it (which puts them on the defensive). Then answer truthfully. Most people who would explicitly ask you if you’re a racist are doing so in bad faith. Of course, when among friends, we call each other racist as a term of endearment. Context is everything.
Reply
3
0

@eddiesdreaming
5 days ago
but most people arent as intelligent as your good self, when talking to yhe masses usr words they think they understand and give those words new meaning new attachments , trust Joel on this .
Reply
1
0

@eddiesdreaming
5 days ago
the other tactic is to ask them to define the word , then when they have finished stumbling over their words and logic you can pick them apart.
Reply
0
0

@eddiesdreaming
5 days ago
just as enoch did in an interview when the interviewer usrd the word
Reply
0
1

Show 2 replies
\~^~/
2 days ago
Precisely. It’s a self sabotaging terminology if voluntarily used on yourself. It’s been designed as a shaming and silencing tool that doesn’t even require any logic.
Reply
0
0
very cool
7 days ago

Great speech and ideas. God bless.
Reply
4
0

Dawn Browning
7 days ago
He’s a good egg
Reply
4
0

Lampshade Denier
7 days ago
There once was a chad from down under,
Whose allegiance was never for wonder.
His speech was uplifting,
So the audience was gifting,
Applause that rolled out like thunder.
Reply
5
1

Avalon
7 days ago
Useful perspective
Reply
3
0

@LnD
7 days ago
Great as always, Joel.
Reply
3
0

@SmithJones
7 days ago
‘Once you see it you can’t un-see it’ This is 100% true. If it wasn’t i’d still be a Libertarian.
Reply
2
0

@TheAussieANZAC
5 days ago
Nice Stuff
Reply
1
0

@noreplacement
7 days ago
Yes, stop fretting about fine detail.
Reply
1
0
Western Critique
7 days ago

@Esau
good one
Reply
1
0

@popovacianen
7 days ago
i just cant get over the fact that hes in with fuentes and groyper fags
Reply
3
4
Hide replies

@jacobverbrugh
7 days ago
What are you doing for the movement?
Reply
7
0
Hide replies

@popovacianen
7 days ago
talking shit to retards on internet
Reply
0
1

@Aus1788
7 days ago
There’s a good pool of people we can syphon from in that group! They’re young and have a lot of growing to do, so don’t be disheartened. There’s potential and if anyone can initiate that, its us
Reply
9
0

@jacobverbrugh
7 days ago
Okay so you’re a bit of a groyper fag yourself?
Reply
0
0
Hide replies

@popovacianen
7 days ago
nah im not gay dude i dont defend brown pedofiles work with kikes or feds like fuentes and those fags lol
Reply
0
0

@eddiesdreaming
5 days ago
incredible speech it hard to say much more than that because Joel nailed it.
i wish we had him here permanently.
tbh though it feels like a large number of our people are already defeated , they will need to see many leaders and not just one at thr head of an organisation.
Reply

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

See Also

top

 

 

Joel Davis – On Activist Politics and White Advocacy – PA Conference Speech – Oct 7, 2023 – Transcript

Mark Collett – The Eternal Struggle – PA Conference Speech 2023 – Oct 7, 2023 – Transcript

Laura Towler – This is Not a Game – PA Conference Speech – Oct 7, 2023 – Transcript

 

Joel Davis – Mark Collett vs Greg Johnson – The Ukraine Debate – Oct 17, 2022 – Transcript

The Joel & Blair Show – Brown Nation, Gay Rapist Dudeweed Democracy, Trans-terrorism!? – Mar 30, 2023 – Transcript

Mark Collett – Patriotic Weekly Review – with Joel Davis – Apr 27, 2023 – Transcript

The Joel & Blair Show – Thought-Terminating Racism and Immigration Lies – Aug 17, 2023 – Transcript

Australian Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies on the ‘White Australia Policy’ – 1955 – Transcript

 

 

 

 

Mark Collett — It’s Okay To Be White — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — Christmas Adverts – Multicultural Propaganda — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — What We Must Do To Win — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — Assad Didn’t Do It – Faked Syrian Gas Attack — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — The Plot to Flood Europe with 200 Million Africans — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — The jewish Question Explained in Four Minutes — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett at The Scandza Forum, Copenhagen – Oct 12, 2019 — Transcript

Patriotic Weekly Review – with Blair Cottrell – Dec 4, 2019 — TRANSCRIPT

Dangerfield – Talking Tough with Mark Collett – Mar 28, 2020 — Transcript

 

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

PDF Download

top

Total words in transcript = 4,195

• Total words in post = 6,259
• Total images = xx
• Total A4 pages = xxx

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

 

Version History

top

Version 5:

Version 4:

Version 3:

Version 2:

Version 1: Sat, Oct 28, 2023 — Published post. Includes Odysee comments (52).

Keith Woods: All right. Welcome, everyone. I’m back. I have a big guest today. A lot of you were really looking forward to this, and a lot of you have requested this before. It’s Ron Unz, the editor publisher of the Unz Review, one of my favourite websites. I often plug it at the end of streams here. You’ll notice when I’m recommending links for people to check out. And yeah, great, great aggregator of stuff that’s kind of broadly in the sort of dissident Right scene, or not even just dissident Right.

 

I mean, they publish people like Michael Hudson and so on. And his own series, American Pravda, is something I would recommend to everyone as well. I’ve been listening to the audio versions of that today where Ron goes over sort of revisionist history, takes on the 20th century as it relates to World War II and the JFK assassination, 9/11, and so on. And yeah, I’m excited to have one. It’s great to have you here, Ron.

 

Ron Unz: Hey, great to be here.

 

Keith Woods: Thank you. So what’s your own background? You don’t seem like the typical kind of person to end up in the position you’re in. It seems like you have a more sort of establishment conservatism background. You’ve been involved in Republican Party politics. So yeah, just like, what’s the general background there of how you made your way to kind of this side of things?

 

Ron Unz: Well, I mean, my original background was actually in theoretical physics.

 

In other words, I originally thought I studied theoretical physics in college, and I thought I’d probably be doing an academic career. And then basically around the mid 1980s, I ended up taking a detour where I took a summer job working on Wall Street. One thing led to another, and I ended up actually spending about the next ten years or 15 years of my life writing financial services software for Wall Street firms. And after about a year or so, I love to set up my own small company. And that really was sort of my main activity for a long period of time like that.

 

Now, I’d always been very interested in public policy and politics, and so after I moved back to California in the early mid 1990s, I ended up becoming involved in some of political campaigns out here. I just was very unhappy about what was going on in the state, and I actually ended up I didn’t expect to win, but I actually ended up challenging Governor Pete Wilson for renomination in his own Republican primary and then got involved in various other issues initiative campaigns, for example. I ran a series of successful initiative campaigns to shift California and the rest of the United States away from teaching immigrant children in their native language, so-called bilingual education towards making sure that they were taught English from the first day of school.

 

In other words, it seemed to me it really made no sense for children when they start school, not to be taught the English language and that ended up really being quite successful.

 

And in fact, bilingual education has largely disappeared around the United States because of those efforts. And I got involved in various other political activities as well. And then probably it was then probably about the mid to late 1990s when I became again actively involved in public policy, again more on the issue of international foreign policy.

 

In other words, I was very concerned about some of the actions we were taking, especially after the 9/11 attacks when we shifted towards the attack on Iraq, the Iraq, War, which I viewed as being probably a disaster.

 

And so I ended up actually providing some financial support to a magazine, the American Conservative, that was set up to oppose the policies of George W Bush with regard to Iraq and a lot of other things like that.

 

And so I ended up serving as a publisher of The American Conservative for about, I guess it was probably about seven or eight years. And then just about a decade ago, I ended up leaving to set up my own website, the Unz Review, which I thought would be a useful venue for my own writings.

 

In other words, at that point, at first I really was thinking more in terms of eventually doing a lot more writing of my own and having a website that I could basically use to publish my material on.

 

And then as it was, I got tied up with some software issues for a few years.

 

And so the website really primarily was providing a location for other writers, alternative media from the Left and the right to really have their articles published. Because in some ways one interesting thing I noticed gradually was that sometimes people, both who considered themselves very much on the Left or on the Right sometimes actually agreed with each other about many things that they might disagree with the more mainstream of the political spectrum on.

 

So it was the sort of thing where I felt by providing an Avenue for both people from the Left-Right libertarian camps to sort of cross-fertilize each other and trade ideas, it would show that sometimes they might agree with each other on things that they didn’t even realize. So that really had been probably the main thing I’ve been involved in over the last ten years.

 

And then about six or seven years ago, I ended up getting much more actively involved in going back to writing of my own. And just as you mentioned, the American Pravda series, which deals with a lot of controversial issues from the last 100 years of American society, is certainly the place where I’ve published most of my articles, basically during the 1990s. Most of my writings probably dealt with issues of race and ethnicity and social policy, affirmative action, bilingual education, multiculturalism, immigration. While probably in the last six or seven years, the focus probably has been more on foreign policy history and again, sort of looking at the history of the 20th century.

 

Now, one other thing I should mention is that from about the mid 1990s onward, I actually was involved in a major project to digitize the collected archives of many of America’s leading public policy magazines or opinion magazines of the last 100 years The Nation, The New Republic, National Review, Harpers, and also a lot of magazines that disappeared that had been once very influential but then had gone out of business. And by going through and digitizing all those old publications, I really came across a lot of facts and interesting aspects of American society from the 1920s, 1930s, 1950s that really I’d been very unaware of just by standard college history courses or things like that.

 

So, in other words, it provided a great deal of background information that was new to me and new to other people. And that’s actually one reason I started questioning a lot of the history that I learnt in college. Because when you actually come across articles published in America’s leading magazines from the 1910s and 1920s and you see the picture they portray of American society is so different than what you’d always imagined it was at the time, it really just opens your mind to other possibilities.

 

So, I mean, that’s a fairly long introduction, but that’s basically where I came from on these sorts of issues.

 

[0:07:50]

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, you mentioned immigration. You haven’t always had sort of an anti-immigration stance. That’s one thing I noticed looking back at your articles. When did that kind of change happen? You kind of evolved your stance on immigration in around the early 2010s, is that right?

 

Ron Unz: Right. I’ve always had mixed feelings about immigration, but generally very opposed to many of the anti-immigration activists around.

 

In other words, basically, it seems to me, immigration has both positives and negatives. And probably the biggest negative that’s become apparent to me in the last, 20 years looking at American society has been the impact of large scale immigration on economic issues.

 

In other words, one reason, for example, for the severe economic decline of much of American society has been, I think, the very large scale immigration we’ve seen over the last 30 or 40 years. A lot of the critics of immigrants say that immigrants are lazy, they’re on welfare or something like that, or they commit a lot of crime, and I don’t think there’s really any evidence for that at all in American society. Now, it may be different in other countries, but not in America.

 

The problem, though, is that when you bring in a large number of eager workers who are willing to work for low wages, you obviously, by the law of supply and demand, drive down the wages for everybody competing against them in American society. And that, I think, is probably one of the strongest arguments you can make against existing American immigration policy.

 

And the flip side of that is the exact reason why America’s business groups business interests have been so strongly pro-immigrant because they see that large scale immigration helps to keep down the wages of the workers. And so things that are beneficial for, obviously, employers or for business groups can be very harmful sometimes for the economic interests of the workers who they’re employing by driving down their wages.

 

And one of the interesting things about it is if the issue were handled, I think, the right way, it would be much easier for America to solve that problem than many of these, for example, anti-immigrant groups have focused on. And the reason for that is that the groups most competing with new immigrants in American society are existing immigrants, recent immigrants.

 

So for example, if the issue were cast in economic terms like that, I think a very substantial fraction of America’s immigrant or recent immigrant population would be certainly very supportive of the notion of taking steps to reduce the flow of future immigrants.

 

And in fact, one of the issues that I raised that probably was my own contribution to debate, which really had, I think, pretty substantial impact, is the issue of one of the best it’s the minimum wage.

 

In other words, the whole notion of raising the minimum wage to a much higher level by itself, I think would tremendously reduce some of the immigration problems because most of the immigrants who come here are obviously willing to work for relatively low wages. If you raise the wage, the minimum wage, to something much higher, 12 or $15 an hour, it would act as a formidable deterrent towards immigrants basically coming here since they wouldn’t be able to take those jobs very easily. And it would also act as a formidable deterrent towards business groups hiring workers at a lower wage since the wage would not be that much lower. And what I ended up doing about that was basically about seven or eight years ago, I ended up shifting the debate in American society on the minimum wage and successfully causing a revival of the minimum wage as a major issue in American society.

 

So for example, in California right now, the minimum wage is $15 an hour where as of a decade ago it was, I believe, about $8 an hour. So we’ve roughly doubled the minimum wage in California. And the same thing, for example, has happened in various other parts of the country as well, though it’s not happened on the national level. And if more effort were put into raising the minimum wage, I think that would be a very effective means of severely greatly reducing the problems that immigration has been causing in American society and decreased a lot of the incentive for immigration down the road.

 

[0:12:23]

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, your articles on immigration are interesting. To look back at them, you were making arguments that were seemed to be very unpopular at the time, that some tropes about Hispanics committing disproportionate amount of crime actually wasn’t accurate, Hispanic immigration.

 

And you also pushed back, which I thought was interesting, against the narrative about the 1965 Immigration Act, right. That’s pretty popular in Right-wing circles in the US. Like, it kind of all went wrong after the 65 Immigration Act. Like that’s what opened the borders. That’s what changed this immigration policy from exclusive to Europeans to open it to everyone. You had a very different take. You said the 1965 Immigration Act actually restricted immigration because it did something about the ease with which South Americans could immigrate to the US.

 

Ron Unz: Sure, it’s really a very simple issue. America traditionally had an open immigration policy for basically most of our history.

 

And then in 1924, an immigration act was passed severely restricting immigration from Europe.

 

In other words, we cut off most of our immigration from Europe, and at the same time it eliminated immigration almost entirely from Asia or from Africa.

 

So in other words, Eastern Hemisphere immigration was largely reduced in the 1920s partly because of concern over these economic issues or political issues.

 

In other words, there was a movement to restrict foreign immigration to the United States, but it excluded the entire Western Hemisphere.

 

So in other words, we kept our open borders policy towards Latin American and Caribbean immigration.

 

In other words, anybody from Mexico or the rest of Latin America who wanted to immigrate to the United States would have to pay something like, I think it was $14 or $18, wait a couple of days, and they could immigrate here. So in a sense, we kept what amounted to an open borders immigration policy towards Latin America. The reason we didn’t have much immigration from Latin America for the 40 years that followed was that Latin America was tremendously underpopulated.

 

In other words, the population density was lower. So there just weren’t that many people who would come here. Some came, but not that many. And then it turns out, in about the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s Mexico and Latin America, the rest of Latin America underwent a tremendous population boom, a population explosion.

 

For example, the population of Mexico, I think had quadrupled in a period of about 50 years, even excluding the large number of Mexicans who moved to the United States. So it turns out the 1965 Immigration Act was widely perceived as increasing immigration to the United States because it reopened the possibility of large scale immigration from Europe and from other parts around the world.

 

In other words, we undid the 1924 Immigration Act, and Europeans suddenly could move to the United States, where for about 40 years, very strict quotas had been placed against most of the European countries.

 

But at the same time, the 1965 Immigration Act also imposed quotas for the first time on Mexico and the rest of Latin America.

 

So in other words, prior to the 1965 Immigration Act, there was no limit on Latin American immigration. And given the fact that Latin America was right around then beginning to experience a tremendous population explosion. If not for the passage of the 1965 Immigration Act, you could imagine millions upon millions of Latin Americans moving to the United States as immigrants every year.

 

And so while it’s true that about 60 million Latin American, sorry, 60 million Americans are either immigrants or the descendants of immigrants from those parts of the world after 1965, if not for the passage of the 1965 Act, the numbers probably would have been much higher. It could have been 100 million or 150,000,000 or something like that, simply because changing immigration law in the United States is obviously a very difficult thing to do politically.

 

And in fact, as you know, I mean, for decades now we’ve been arguing about it, and simply because with business groups very interested in having immigration at very high levels, they can almost always block any members in Congress to reduce immigration.

 

And in fact, for the last, 20 years, business groups have been making an effort to even further open our borders, to have an amnesty and increase immigration even to much higher levels than before. So it sounds, I mean, it’s very counterintuitive. And certainly many individuals focused on immigration issues are under, are unaware of the facts. But the truth is, the 1965 Immigration Act, by sharply restricting immigration from Latin America for the first time, probably prevented much more immigration than it supported.

 

In other words, we had many more immigrants from Europe and we had many more immigrants from Asia than we would have without the 1965 Immigration Act. But if it hadn’t passed, probably Latin American immigration would have been far larger than it ended up being.

 

And since the majority of our immigrants have come from Latin America, it sounds counterintuitive, but the 1965 Immigration Act probably played a role in reducing net immigration to the United States rather than increasing it. And that’s something, again, that most people aren’t aware of its the sort of thing a lot of anti-immigration websites have written on the subject over the years. And when I’ve brought it to their attention and they’ve checked into it, they’ve found out that what I was saying was correct.

 

And so they’ve stopped writing new articles denouncing the 1965 Immigration Act. But they obviously can’t take down the hundreds of articles they’ve previously written on that subject.

 

And so it’s one of these things, it amounts to sort of a mistake that got into circulation about 30 or 35 years ago that probably will never be corrected. But it’s the sort of thing with all those thousands of articles there misfortune the 1965 Immigration Act. It’s hard to say what will happen, but I mean, basically anybody can go and just check the details.

 

In fact, you can even read Kevin MacDonald’s book on The Culture of Critique where he actually discusses the 1965 Act and the fact that it actually, for the first time, restricted immigration from Latin America. So it’s simply a factual matter. And there are a lot of stats floating around the Internet, and that’s simply one of them.

 

Keith Woods: Well, I don’t mind this narrative because it vindicates the Irish, right? We always get blamed for the 65 Immigration Act. Wasn’t it Ted Kennedy?

 

[0:19:26]

 

Ron Unz: Yeah, he actually played a very minor role.

 

In other words, basically he was a very junior Senator at the time. And it’s true. Certainly the Irish groups and jewish groups and Italian groups were all in favour of the 1965 Act because their immigration had been cut off to the United States.

 

And so it was suddenly opened up again after 40 years. But the number of European immigrants the point is, Europe was no longer suffering a population explosion at the time, and Europe had also become quite prosperous by 1965 or 1970. So there wasn’t the pressure to move to the United States that there probably would have been 30 or 40 years earlier.

 

Keith Woods: And you mentioned this a little bit earlier when you’re talking about the arguments around immigration and the fact that you think newer rivals in the US. Could be won over to Nancy immigration position. That’s another narrative that was very popular a few years ago, this narrative about immigration that if it’s not stopped in the US the Republicans will never win another election. And eventually they’ll realize this and they’ll become sort of an implicitly White anti-migration party. Didn’t quite play out that way.

 

But it is interesting looking at some of the polls from the last couple of years where it seems like among what’s classified as Hispanics, however they divide that up, that it’s like 50-50 Democrat-Republican, and some of them even lean Republican. So a lot of the things people took for granted about demographics and the political process there seem to be being challenged.

 

I’m just curious how you see that playing out. Like, do you think the Republican Party can become a party that’s viable in this new multiracial America? And then what does that do for the debate around immigration? It almost seems like it’s taken something of a backseat since Trump. Like there was a little bit of disappointment about Trump, and now I don’t know, I get this feeling among people on the Right in the US that they almost feel like that’s lost to an extent in terms of managing the demographics, like on the state level. But yeah, I don’t know what your feelings are about that.

 

Ron Unz: Well, I certainly think I’m not too surprised that there’s been a substantial shift of Hispanics and Asians towards the Republican Party.

 

In other words, they’re right now getting the Republicans are still getting less than half, but it’s probably 40, 45, sometimes closer to 50% from Hispanic and Asian groups. I don’t think it’s so much that the Republicans have attracted them, but many of the policies of the Democrats have been so disastrous that they’ve pushed many of those groups away.

 

For example, I think probably the biggest issue has been the crime issue.

 

In other words, there’s been a gigantic rise in urban crime in many parts of the country. And you’ve probably seen some of the videos where especially attacks by blacks on Asians, many times elderly Asians have been attacked and killed just walking on the street.

 

And so that, I think, has caused a tremendous shift of Asians towards the Republican Party simply because when you have a situation where there was a massive increase in crime in the United States, urban crime a year or two ago, and the response of many prominent Democrats was to say, we have to defund the police.

 

I mean, that’s utter insanity. And that, I think, is probably the reason many ordinary Hispanics and Asians started giving another look towards the Republican Party.

 

Also, for example, a lot of what I guess you could call the sort of wokeness or the transgenderism, those are not things that are particularly appealing to ordinary Hispanics or Asians or Whites, for that matter blacks. In other words, a lot of people who are more ordinary working class people have been pushed out of the Democratic Party because of some of its extreme positions it’s taken.

 

And so, again, it’s not a question of, like all the Republicans, the Republicans gaining necessarily 60% or 70% of these groups, but there’s definitely been a shift in that direction. It’s interesting that the shift started probably about four or five years ago.

 

In fact, if anything, when Donald Trump was elected, he ended up actually doing much better among Hispanic voters than anybody expected.

 

In other words, the media portrayed Trump as being a fanatic hater of Hispanics, that he attacked Hispanics, that he said all these nasty things about them, and surprisingly enough, he actually got a much larger share of the Hispanic vote than most people expected because he ran on working class concerns.

 

In other words, he ran saying, I intend to improve the economic position of ordinary working class Americans. Most Hispanics are working class, and so they were attracted by that argument, even if they were repelled by some of his other arguments. And then once he came into office, the fact that in some ways the economy was doing better under him caused again, many of those people to shift in his direction.

 

[0:24:30]

 

So the funny thing about it is, even though Donald Trump was portrayed as a tremendous villain by the media, somebody who hated Hispanics, who was anti-Hispanic, racist, he actually came close to getting the highest Hispanic percentage of any Republican president in modern times, almost equaling what Ronald Reagan had done 30 or 40 years ago.

 

So it’s the sort of thing, the Republican Party, if it’s simply concentrated on issues having to do with these economic facts or some of these social issues like the extreme policies in the public school. Sometimes I think it just naturally and a law and order policy I think would probably do much better among Hispanics and Asians and Whites and to some extent blacks than it would be if it simply tried some of these other things.

 

I mean, the whole thing about it, a lot of the Republican elites tend to believe that support for higher levels of immigration is the way to win Hispanic votes, and that’s not at all the case.

 

In other words, Hispanics are mostly motivated by bread and butter issues, by meat and potato issues, and larger scale immigration, in other words, is not something necessarily that improves the economic posture of ordinary Hispanic workers since they would be competing against these new immigrants.

 

And so for that reason, I think, for example, there certainly could be some political strategies the Republicans could follow that would be much more advantageous in that way. But I don’t really see any sign of the Republicans actually adopting it, partly because the Republicans are so much the captive of the same business interests that support large scale immigration that the Democratic Party is as well.

 

So, I mean, from my point of view, I think many of the attacks against immigration over the last, 20 or 30 or 40 years have been severely misguided. But I do think strong arguments can be made towards reducing immigration on entirely different grounds, and I think probably those lines of attack would be much more successful than what the Republican Party or what Conservatives have tried to achieve over the years.

 

Keith Woods: Another thing I’ve noticed recently, especially since I went back looking at Twitter, and I don’t know if this is due to Elon Musk’s, Twitter being more relaxed on this stuff and not having shadow banning, but it does seem like there’s something of a sea change in terms of people are really discussing the issue of black crime now. And it’s not just a few kooks out there like Jared Taylor or Colin Flaherty. It’s quite mainstream Conservatives that are discussing this issue. And you go on Twitter and there’s constantly these viral videos showing what it was like in public schools for White children and so on. Yet Scott Adams and his recent outbursts, which got a lot of support, actually. Yeah.

 

I’m just curious about that it’s kind of something people have been speculating on lately. Why do these mainstream Conservatives that have ignored this for so long seem to be embracing it now? Or is it just an organic thing that the viral effect of this stuff being out there, and after all the years of censorship, that eventually it just reached a boiling point. But yeah, I don’t know if you have a take on that or what, …

 

[0:28:00]

 

Ron Unz: Well, I mean, all of those things are factors, but another factor is black crime in the United States has become much, much worse than it was a few years ago.

 

In other words, in the aftermath of the George Floyd incident in Minneapolis that really forced a lot of the police to be adopting a much more defensive posture.

 

And again, there have been all these cases of, for example, police being prosecuted on grounds of, for example, sometimes even just shooting back at a black criminal and things like that. And so when you have so many police being very worried that they could become the next sacrificial lamb on something like that, if somebody takes a video of them, I think the police basically have pulled back in a lot of these cities.

 

And at the same time, the media narrative has been so extreme the last couple of years, the notion of, for example, police murdering large numbers of backs, killing blacks for no reason at all, that I think has in turn, enraged much of the black population.

 

And so there’s been a tremendous rise, I think, in the degree of black violence in many of these urban centres. Again, I mean, some of the things, for example, that have happened in San Francisco and other parts of the country, New York City as well. Elderly Asians simply walking on the street and suddenly being attacked and beaten or sometimes even killed by blacks in a random fashion. That was not something that was occurring five or six years ago. And things like that get on YouTube, they get on Twitter, and they go viral in just the way you’re saying.

 

So when you look, for example, at the rate of black homicides, it’s much, much higher than it was a few years ago.

 

Keith Woods: Do the policies of Trump have anything to do with that? He had the First Step Act, and he had a few Acts that kind of relaxed restrictions in terms of letting violent criminals out of prison early and so on. Did that play a factor?

 

Ron Unz: Oh, I think it certainly did.

 

In other words, Trump on that issue, in a sense, followed very much the liberal agenda, which was strange because.

 

I mean, the media portrayed him as an ultra Right-wing fascist or something like that. But I mean, he basically supported the media line of basically letting a lot of criminals out of prison.

 

So, for example, there’s been a tide of that.

 

For example, back about 20, 30 years ago, when crime was very high, there was a massive wave in California and other states to put people in prison for much longer periods of time. There was the three strikes movement, and in California, the percentage of the population incarcerated rose dramatically.

 

So in other words, many more people were put in prison, which might have gone too far in that direction. But on the other hand, with so many people in prison, obviously crime went down.

 

And so then for about 15 years, 15 or 20 years, with a decline in crime rates, partly because of those very high levels of incarceration, then there began a movement saying that we should really let more people out of prison, we should reduce sentencing, we. Should eliminate three strikes. And that ended up developing momentum of its own.

 

So now, for example, the number of people incarcerated in prison in California is much lower than it was ten or 15 years ago, and sentencing is much laxer. Unfortunately, one result of that is that crime rates are much, much higher than they had been, especially violent crime rates, which is what people are most concerned about.

 

There was also an effort, for example, on the part of various liberal or left liberal donors, George Soros being the best example, to fund District Attorneys who would be much less harsh on criminals than before. And that actually happened. The District Attorney, for example, in San Francisco was recalled from office because crime rates had spiked under his laxer policies. And there’s an effort actually to recall the District Attorney in Los Angeles for the same sort of reason.

 

So in other words, it’s been a mixture of a number of different factors. There was a sense that America was incarcerating too many individuals unfairly, and in many cases, those individuals were black. There were too many black men in prison.

 

And so that shifted towards an effort towards letting them out of prison, which resulted in tremendous increase in crime rates, especially in combination with the police being very nervous about being filmed and being sentenced if a criminal ended up dying or was an innocent person was shot in any of their actions.

 

So it’s a mixture of basically the police being much more cautious than they were in the past, District Attorneys sometimes refusing to press charges with the severity they had in the past, and many prisoners being let out of prison. And the result of that has just been much, much higher crime rates before.

 

Also, for example, in some cases in California, for example, I think shoplifting less than I think was like a couple was changed to misdemeanors.

 

So, for example, cases there were video cases where people would, for example, walk into a grocery store or walk into a drugstore and just fill a shopping bag with items that they then would sell on Ebay or sell on the Internet. And when someone like that basically is not prosecuted for the crimes, and when ordinary shoplifters are not prosecuted, it obviously gives people an incentive then to escalating to more serious crimes.

 

And here, for example, in Palo Alto, there have been many cases over the last few years of gangs of ten or 15 or 20 people coming here from Oakland or coming here from another city, rushing in a group into a high end department store and just stealing everything. Stealing, for example, Apple, looting an Apple store, looting other stores, sometimes breaking into, …

 

Keith Woods: Jewelry stores.

 

Ron Unz: Exactly. And when things like that get on the Internet and there’s a sense developing that crimes like that are not being punished, it obviously causes many other people to start considering doing something similar.

 

So I mean, crime is certainly a serious problem in the United States, and probably within a few years there’ll be such a reaction against it. We may go back to what we had 20 years ago with much stiffer sentencing, but at least for now, I mean, one reason there’s more concern about crime is that crime is much more severe than it was.

 

[0:34:45]

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, the popular issues for the Right are always crime and immigration. Right. I mean, you can see it with the guy in El Salvador, like, massive support for his policies. But yeah, it’s incredible. You get someone like Trump in office and he took extremely liberal positions on that issue. But I’m sure it’ll be more of a focus as maybe immigration becomes a bit more contentious and the country becomes more multiracial. I’m sure the crime issue will come more to the forefront.

 

But by the way, for the people watching, we’re also live on Cozy TV. We actually have more viewers on Cozy than YouTube tonight, which is interesting. The sort of old tech side is winning. There’s 500 watching there live. And you can send Super Chats if you have a question for Ron Unz on Power Chat. The link is there.

 

Now, actually, the reason I asked you on originally was because this thing about the origins of Covid right. The US government started putting this out that now they believe that it came from a Chinese laboratory.

 

And I thought it was interesting because immediately the reaction of the sort of old media types was like, oh, the conspiracy theorists have been proven correct again, and this kind of vindicates us. And we’re always right in the end, and the mainstream has to give in and not approach it with a great deal of skepticism. The government lies about everything, but not this kind of thing. And so, yeah, I went back to your articles on this because you’re one of the few people that has been pushing an alternative theory. There’s kind of been two theories, right. The sort of mainstream accepted theory was it came out of a wet market. It was like a natural mutation.

 

And then a lot of people speculated that it came from the laboratory in Wuhan. There are arguments for that. Supposedly someone that worked on the WHO investigation said that China pressured them heavily not to investigate the lab.

 

But then that’s something they would do either way, right, if they don’t want that narrative circulating. But you’ve promoted an alternative theory that you think elements of the US government or the US Deep State are responsible and that this was a means of sort of economic warfare against China. But instead of me summarizing it, maybe you can explain it to the audience.

 

[0:37:13]

 

Ron Unz: Sure. Well.

 

I mean, the whole thing about is when the virus first appeared in Wuhan, right towards the basically, it was first discovered probably right at the end of 2019.

 

So, in other words, the world started hearing about it in January, early January 2021, obviously, nobody had any idea what was going on.

 

In other words, a mysterious virus suddenly appeared in the city of Wuhan, and it seemed contagious it was spreading. And people also weren’t even sure how dangerous it was, what the death rate would be. And there were obviously a lot of concerns. And fairly quickly, within about a month or two, a standard narrative was formed, the sort of official narrative on the part of the American science establishment that the virus was natural.

 

In other words, it had mutated in probably a bat or some other form of animal, and it spread to the humans in Wuhan and then was going out from there.

 

So, in other words, the natural virus theory ended up being the dominant establishmentarian narrative for about a year, a year and a half in the West. And it was supported by a couple of paper, early papers that came out in nature health and in science magazine, where a number of very respectable scientists said that the virus was obviously natural.

 

Now, at the same time, there was a counter-narrative, fairly widespread in the alternative media and also anti-China groups that got started very early on. And that narrative was that the virus had come from a laboratory.

 

Keith Woods: I remember, sorry to interrupt. I remember Steve Bannon was pushing this very, …

 

Ron Unz: Exactly, and it got started very early.

 

In other words, basically, I ended up hearing it seeing on the internet in January, probably early to mid January, before almost anybody in the world was even focused on Wuhan.

 

In other words, before the virus had spread to any other country. And the story that they were putting out was that the virus had come from the Wuhan Institute of virology. Now, it just so happened the city of Wuhan, most Americans, most Westerners had probably never heard of Wuhan. I don’t think I’d ever heard of Wuhan until the viral outbreak.

 

Wuhan is a large city. It has a population of 11 million, but it’s an interior city, so it’s not the sort of city that most Westerners. It’s not like Beijing or Shanghai. And Wuhan is the site of China’s most advanced viral research facility, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was set up, I think, about eight or nine years ago.

 

So it makes perfect sense. We suddenly have this mysterious virus appearing in a city in China, and by an amazing coincidence, that same city has China’s most advanced viral laboratory. So it didn’t take too much to put two to two plus two together. And to see that why many people started arguing that the virus had probably leaked out of the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

 

In other words, the argument was some people claimed it might have even been developed deliberately as a Chinese bioweapon. Others said, oh, the Chinese were just running experiments on viruses in that facility, and it suddenly leaked out.

 

So in other words, the two arguments that ended up being widespread for really the last three years are, first of all, the natural virus argument, which is basically that the virus is entirely natural. It simply came from some animal species and happened to appear in the city of Wuhan at that time.

 

The other narrative, which was supported by many members of the Donald Trump administration trump sometimes implied it. Mike Pompeo implied at some of the people of his administration is that it leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the lab leak hypothesis. And then once it leaked, it then spread around parts of the city of Wuhan and eventually spread around the rest of the world.

 

So, in other words, it was a Chinese virus that devastated the United States eventually when it got here, that devastated Europe that’s probably killed 20 million people around the world.

 

And so, again, those are perfectly plausible theories.

 

But one thing that made me very suspicious early on, as early as January, before almost anybody was paying attention to that virus in the city of Wuhan, when it was just getting a little bit of coverage, there was already a tremendous propaganda campaign in the alternative media, especially the anti-China alternative media, portraying the virus as having come from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

 

In other words, it happened very early on. Radio Free Asia, which is one of America’s propaganda outlets, was talking about the virus having leaked from the Institute, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as early as January 6, before anybody else in the world was even paying attention to this disease, before a single person had died in the city of Wuhan. And that basically made me suspicious about why would there have been such a massive propaganda campaign targeting China and targeting the virus before almost anybody in the world was even paying attention to some obscure disease in the city of Wuhan, which most people had never heard of at all.

 

So early on, I started thinking that there are obviously two possibilities. The virus might be natural, or the virus might have leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology the way some people were suggesting. But there was obviously a third possibility as well. At that point, the virus appeared in the city of Wuhan when America was at an extreme international confrontation with China over issues of trade, over issues of national security.

 

In other words, China and America were in a confrontation at that point in time. What then happened a few weeks later, …

 

[0:43:01]

 

Keith Woods: That was the time the Hong Kong protests were going on.

 

Ron Unz: Exactly.

 

Keith Woods: This is part of Covid as well.

 

Ron Unz: Exactly. Hong Kong protests. And there’s a lot of suspicion that America, …

 

Keith Woods: Well I mean, they were definitely like, funded by the National Endowment.

 

Ron Unz: Exactly!

 

In other words, basically there were a lot of suspicions that the CIA or some of the American intelligence organizations were putting together the Hong Kong protests to basically cause trouble for China to disrupt China’s control over Hong Kong.

 

And again, I mean, that’s the sort of thing countries do all the time. But it seems to me that at that point in time, first of all, you’ve got to understand, I mean, China already had a larger, real economy than the United States. As far back as 2014, the Chinese economy was growing much more rapidly than the American economy, and it was larger in real terms and had been larger for a number of years. China was building up it’s military, and by all measures, all American national security experts agreed that China was America’s most formidable international rival down the road. And in the immediate terms, in other words, there was a feeling that Russia was weak, Russia was declining. America, anyway, had two to three times Russia’s population, a vastly larger economy than Russia.

 

So China was considered the future threat for the United States. And that’s actually why, for example, when Donald Trump became into office, one of his first actions was to take economic action against China.

 

In other words, saying, we have to reduce China’s economic strength. We have to cut our trade ties with China. We have to block, for example, China’s technological development. And America ended up kidnapping the chief financial officer of Huawei, restricting exports to Huawei, China’s most important technological company.

 

So, in other words, America was taking all these actions targeting China.

 

And so it just made me suspicious at the time that this mysterious viral epidemic breaks out in China at the point when America is most hostile to China.

 

And then a few other things came out, probably by about the end of January, I’d come across some other facts which I hadn’t been aware of at the time. First of all, the virus appeared in Wuhan probably towards the beginning of probably early November, possibly late October, but more likely early November.

 

Now, it turns out that was exactly when Wuhan was holding the international military game, the world military games, at that point in time. And there were 300 American military officers participating in those games in the city of Wuhan.

 

So just looking at it logically, if 300 Chinese military officers visited the city of Chicago in the United States, and immediately after they left, a mysterious viral epidemic suddenly broke out in the city of Chicago, it would certainly make people quite suspicious of what was going on.

 

I also found out that it turns out in the years 2018, there had been I probably should step back a little bit. This is stuff that basically I ended up working out five months, six months later, but really all ended up falling into place.

 

There’s a man, for example, named Robert Kadlec who for decades has been America’s leading biowarfare advocate. As far back as the 1990s, he was writing articles saying that biowarfare was the wave of the future. Biowarfare was the best means of severely damaging an international adversary and doing it in a plausibly deniable means, in other words, so that nobody could prove what was going on, a virus would appear in another country. And he pointed specifically at the use of viruses to damage the food supply and the economy of a geopolitical rival.

 

Now, it turns out Robert Kadlec was brought into the Trump administration in 2017. In 2018, China was suddenly hit by a mysterious viral epidemic that severely damaged it’s poultry industry.

 

Then in early 2019, right at the beginning of 2019, China was hit by another mysterious viral epidemic that wiped out 40% of China’s pig herds, the largest in the world and China’s primary meat source.

 

So, in other words, we have America basically elevating a top biowar for advocate to the Trump administration.

 

And then in the following two years.

 

[0:47:50]

 

Keith Woods: What position did you say he had?

 

Ron Unz: In the Trump administration? Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, which, strangely enough, that’s Fauci’s area, in other words, basically, he ended up being, he was basically put in as America’s chief biowarfare expert or something like that. He actually served a similar role in the George W Bush administration about 10 or 15 years earlier, but he was brought in in 2017 in the Trump administration.

 

And then in 2018 and, 20019, China’s food supply was suddenly hit by these mysterious viral epidemics, with some claims that the swine flu was being spread by small drones.

 

In other words, there were rumours in China, there were stories going around that drones were spreading the disease throughout the entire country.

 

And then in late 2019, suddenly the Covid virus appeared in the city of Wuhan.

 

Now the city of Wuhan, even though most Americans have not heard of it, it’s one of China’s leading transit hubs. It’s a city of 11 million, and it’s the place where many of the rail lines converge.

 

China has Lunar New Year holidays, which are the equivalent of Christmas, New Year’s, and several other holidays all rolled into one. During Lunar New Year 450,000,000 Chinese typically travel. In other words, they basically travel to their ancestral villages. They travel back home again if they’ve been working in cities. So it’s by far the biggest holiday for China. Now, the virus appeared in the city of Wuhan.

 

Keith Woods: That’s in February, right?

 

Ron Unz: Exactly, that’s basically January, February, late January, early February. The virus appeared in the city of Wuhan and then started growing exponentially. So since it was a new virus that nobody heard of I mean, the Chinese only discovered it’s existence on the last day of December in 2019, and the Chinese didn’t even realize that it was contagious until early January 2019.

 

Once it then began spreading in the city of Wuhan, the Chinese finally, then in mid to late January, ended up instituting a severe lockdown and managed to stamp it out. But if they waited just a couple of weeks, the virus then would have spread throughout the entire city of Wuhan. And Wuhan, being a transit hub it would have spread out throughout the entire country of China with probably tens or hundreds of millions of Chinese being infected. The result of that.

 

Keith Woods: I’m just sharing an image on screen there for the audience, just to illustrate what you said about the Wuhan as a transportation hub. You can see in the green is Wuhan, and it’s right in the middle of all of these lines that connect these major cities like Shanghai and Guangzhou and so on.

 

Ron Unz: Exactly. Now, the whole thing about the virus, at first, nobody really knew how dangerous it was, and most of the evidence that come out later, obviously, it’s very much more dangerous to elderly people than younger people.

 

In other words, I think if you’re over 60, you have 100 times greater chance of dying than if you’re under 40. But overall, for the average American population, the death rate is something between 0.5 and 1%.

 

So in other words, we’re talking of a sort of bioweapon potentially that would not wipe out a population, but still it ended up killing about a million Americans.

 

So the result of that, if it had spread out throughout China, China would have to if tens of millions or hundreds of millions of Chinese have been infected, China then would have had to take tremendous economic measures, locking down the entire country to prevent millions upon millions of Chinese deaths. In a sense, China would have had to do, under those circumstances, very much what America end up doing once it’s spread back here. And so we would have seen tremendous disruption to Chinese society, disruption to the economy, as happened all around the world.

 

And so the point about it is probably the best way of looking at this type of virus, of these characteristics, is that it would have the characteristics of a very effective anti-economy bioweapon.

 

In other words, something that isn’t an anti-personnel weapon. It’s not intended to kill 30% or 50% or 70% of the population, but because it would be fatal to enough people, it would cause tremendous disruption in a society if it became widespread in that society.

 

So anyway, I’m jumping at it myself on some of that. But what I then ended up, as the pieces started coming together, one thing I discovered about a year later, which really was quite surprising, was, as I said, Robert Kadlec was America’s leading biowarfare advocate. And it turns out from January to August, 2019, he ran something called the Crimson Contagion Exercise, which was a federal state planning session, a series of exercises on how America would prevent leakage of a dangerous respiratory virus if such a virus were to appear in China.

 

So we’re talking about from January to August, 2019, America, under it’s chief biowarfare advocate, ran this massive planning exercises exercise to prepare itself for the appearance of a potentially dangerous Covid like virus in China. And such a virus then appeared in the city of Wuhan, just a couple of months later, which seems an awfully remarkable coincidence, if it were a coincidence.

 

Another factor which, …

 

Keith Woods: Can I just ask. I’m just imagining, like, someone that’s skeptical, listen to what they’d be then pushing back. Why did the US seem so kind of unprepared for the whole thing? It took a few months to even react, right?

 

[0:54:01]

 

Ron Unz: Exactly. America’s reaction was unbelievably incompetent.

 

I mean, the whole thing about it is not only that, but we botched the production of the CDC testing kit.

 

In other words, we did almost everything wrong. You can imagine the scenario I’m talking about, this sort of biowarfare scenario. The key factor to keep in mind is there’s absolutely no evidence that Donald Trump himself was at all aware of or involved of what was going on.

 

In fact, there’s tremendous evidence that he was absolutely not aware of what had happened. When the Covid virus started leaking back to the United States, and infecting people here, Trump basically said, oh, it wasn’t a problem, it would go away itself, people should ignore it, it wasn’t dangerous, that sort of thing.

 

So there’s absolutely no chance that he under my scenario, that he would have been aware of what had happened.

 

My argument is that it probably was an action taken by lower level officials in the Trump administration, probably a small hand.

 

Keith Woods: Wouldn’t they have foreseen that America won’t be prepared for this, and this will potentially do as much damage to the US?

 

Ron Unz: You see, part of it is that America dominates the world of propaganda.

 

In other words, America really dominates the world of media and propaganda. And one problem is you sometimes tend to believe your own propaganda.

 

Remember when the SARS epidemic, the original Coronavirus epidemic, suddenly appeared in China in 2002 and, 20003. It never spread much outside of China. It had a very high fatality rate, I think it was 20% or 30%.

 

So it was a very dangerous virus, but very few people outside of China were ever infected or died. It never spread to the United States, I don’t think. I think maybe one person died in the entire country. When the MERS epidemic, another Coronavirus suddenly appeared in the Middle East. I think it was 2007, 2008, something like that. It never much spread outside the Middle East, and not a single American ever died of MERS. So we had these two previous waves of Coronavirus infection, both of them natural.

 

In other words, they found the animal reservoir, neither of which had done any damage to the United States, it turns out. The National Health Organization, in late 2019, did a study on which countries in the world were best prepared to cope with any epidemic that might appear. Any dangerous epidemic. America was ranked number one. Britain was ranked number two.

 

In other words, all the West European countries were considered to have the best healthcare systems at coping with any epidemic of any sort that might appear. China was down around 50 or 60.

 

So in other words, anybody naively looking at all these international comparisons would have thought, well, SARS never got to the United States, MERS never got to the United States. The previous Coronavirus epidemics from the Middle East and from China had never done any damage to the United States. All the international bodies agree that America is best prepared at coping for any respiratory or other epidemic that might happen.

 

And so they might have believed that by organizing these exercises, eight months worth of planning for potentially dangerous Chinese virus that might appear that plus these other steps would basically safeguard America from any significant blowback. So it’s possible a few Americans would be infected, a few Americans would die, but by contrast, China potentially would be devastated.

 

In other words, hundreds of millions of Chinese might have been infected if the Chinese hadn’t reacted as quickly as they did.

 

And so the problem was the reality ended up being very different.

 

In other words, partly because of Trump’s basically unwillingness to confront the virus once it started leaking back into the United States, America basically just reacted very, very poorly.

 

And in fact, we had no idea how to cope with it.

 

In other words, our testing kits didn’t work. We refused to use the German testing kit that they’d already produced. And so for that reason, we had no idea what we do. And we ended up implementing lockdowns, then off and on for about a year or two, and then a controversial vaccination drive after that.

 

So the problem is, the scenario I’m talking about is not a scenario where America’s national security establishment as an organized body spent months or years planning and biowarfare attack against China.

 

The scenario I’m talking about is a small group of individuals, probably one or two of them near the top of the Trump administration, deciding to take this step without Trump being aware of it, without getting his authorization and simply deploying the resources, the lower level resources of the American national security establishment in this action, but without Trump or the top officials knowing what had happened.

 

[0:59:15]

 

And so, because Trump didn’t realize the virus was dangerous, he basically prevented any effective reaction once the virus unexpectedly leaked here and started infecting people. And there are a lot of other factors involved as well.

 

One early thing that made me extremely suspicious about the virus being more than it seemed was the fact that the second country in the world hit the hardest with Covid early on was Iran.

 

In other words, Iran became the second epicenter of the Covid world-wide outbreak, even though it has one of the lowest Chinese populations in the world.

 

In other words, only a few thousand Chinese people live in Iran, while the other countries that were fairly early, like, for example, northern Italy, has 300,000 Chinese living and working there, many of whom had returned from the Lunar New Year holidays and been infected and carried the infection there. Spain was another very country early infected. 150,000 Chinese live and work in Spain. So we had countries that basically had hundreds of thousands of Chinese, as you would expect, getting early infections with Covid because they got it from travels back to China.

 

And then you had the holy city of Qom, the centre of Iran’s political and religious establishment, becoming the epicenter of Iran’s Covid outbreak sooner than anyone, any other country in the world. And the infections hitting China’s political and religious elite. For example, 10% of Iran’s entire Parliament became infected by Covid before a single political figure anywhere else in the world had become infected. And that all happened.

 

In other words, if you trace back the pattern of infections in Iran, the first Iranians probably became infected just two or three weeks after America had assassinated Iran’s top military commander, general Kostam Suleimani.

 

So in other words, we have a situation where America assassinates Iran’s top military commander, and just a few weeks later, the Iranian political elites are infected with this mysterious virus, even though Iran has much less of a connection to China than most of these other countries that have not yet been infected. Not only that, but at the time all this was happening, I really was very surprised that nobody in the world noticed what was happening in Iran.

 

I mean, the fact that the Iranian infections had happened right after Iran’s top military commander had been assassinated and I couldn’t imagine why the Iranians hadn’t noticed what I noticed just by reading the newspapers. And then I found out a year later, not only did the Iranians accuse America of having launched a biowarfare attack against Iran and China, it was in all the Iranian newspapers. The Iranian political leaders accused them. They even filed a formal complaint with the United Nations accusing America of having launched a Covid biowarfare attack against Iran. But none of it was ever reported in the American media.

 

[1:02:21]

 

So in other words, it never got into the New York Times, it never got into the Washington Post, it never got into the Wall Street Journal.

 

So Americans were simply not aware of the fact that the Iranians were accusing America of having launched a biowarfare attack.

 

So we have a situation where basically the two countries in the world at that point in time that America was most hostile towards were China and Iran. And those were the two countries hit with this mysterious viral epidemic that had characteristics later argued obviously came from laboratory. And that’s actually something I should say from the beginning. I’m not somebody who is a trained virologist. I’m not a microbiologist. So I’ve generally stayed away from the science aspects of the issue, even though my background is in physics. Physics is not microbiology.

 

So the point about it is I can’t say whether the virus itself is natural or artificial. But there’s been a tremendous amount of evidence that’s come. Out over the last year or two. That the virus. That the characteristics of the virus, the genetic characteristics of the virus, the [word unclear] and cleavage sites. Other aspects of the virus are exactly the sort of thing you would expect to be produced in a laboratory and are very different than would defined in any of the other Coronaviruses that would be found in nature.

 

So, in other words, the individuals who are advocating the lab leak hypothesis are really making two separate points. They’re pointing to a tremendous amount of evidence that the virus was produced in a laboratory, the virus was a product of bioengineering, the virus did not come from nature.

 

And then they’re making the case that, well, if it came from a laboratory, well, there’s the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the city of Wuhan. That’s obviously a place that must have come from the problem is that there’s very, very little evidence that the virus either was created in the Wuhan Institute of Virology or that there was any lab leak in that Institute.

 

For example, just to give an example, early on, there were all these claims made of, for example, people having gotten sick in the laboratory or the virus having spread earlier, but there’s really very little evidence for any of that.

 

And in fact, there have been some quite a lot of detailed examinations of the timing involved. And the timing really shows that virtually nobody in China was aware of any virus spreading until right towards the end of December, in other words, long after the virus had appeared in the city of Wuhan.

 

Furthermore, an Australian biologist named Danielle Anderson was actually working at the Wuhan Institute of Technology during the period in question. She was very friendly with the people. It’s a research Institute. It’s not a biowarfare lab or anything like that. And she specifically says she’s seen absolutely no sign that a virus of that type was being worked on in the laboratory, was being developed there. There were no indications of any lab leak having occurred, and she’s very skeptical of anything like that having happened.

 

Some Western journalists then interviewed a lot of the people at the laboratory, and there’s simply no indication that any of them were aware of anything going on, any sort of lab leak or anything like that.

 

Furthermore, when you look at the pattern of infections in the city of Wuhan, the pattern of infections is on the other side of the city from the Wuhan Institute of Technology.

 

So, in other words, if the virus had leaked out of the laboratory, you would expect at least some of the early infections to be in the vicinity of the laboratory. But instead, it’s about ten or 12 miles away on the other side of the river, centreed on the wet market that people were often talking about.

 

In other words, that’s clearly where the virus first appeared.

 

[1:06:22]

 

So we’re talking about a situation where there’s really quite a lot of scientific evidence and a lot of people who have great deal of expertise on the structure of viruses, on DNA issues say that the virus very clearly came from a laboratory, was bioengineered.

 

In fact, someone like, for example, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, who was the chairman of the Lancet’s Covid Commission, he really became very suspicious that the people he’d put on the commission who were investigating the origins of the virus were simply covering up the fact that the virus was artificial rather than natural.

 

In fact, many of the early statements that have come out, you have all these experienced biologists saying what they looked at. The structure, the structure of the virus clearly came from a laboratory.

 

In other words, it’s not the sort of thing you would expect to come from nature. So essentially, there are three possibilities. There’s the natural scenario, the lab leak, accidental lab leak scenario, and the third scenario, which I think is by far the most likely, which is the deliberate biowarfare scenario.

 

Most advocates of the lab leak scenario spend their time and effort arguing that the virus was bioengineered in a laboratory, that it has characteristics, genetic characteristics of that sort, and they have very little evidence to supporting anything like a lab leak having happened at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

 

Most of the supporters of the natural virus theory focus on the fact that there’s very little evidence of a lab leak. And when you look at, for example, the spread of early infections, it’s on the other side of the city. There’s simply no evidence for any lab leak having occurred. And they tend to soft pedal the characteristics of the virus itself, which arguably seem quite likely to have been produced in a laboratory.

 

So we’re talking about a situation where if you look at the third scenario, which I think has the advantages of the other two, but none of the disadvantages, we’re talking about a situation where America is in a major confrontation with China and Iran, the two countries America is most hostile towards.

 

America has the oldest and largest biowarfare programme in the world. We’ve probably spent about $100 billion over the last 60 or 70 years on biowarfare, and suddenly a mysterious virus breaks out in China and Iran, hitting those countries right after America spent eight months in the Crimson Contagion Exercise, preparing itself for the possible appearance of a dangerous respiratory virus in China.

 

And so all of that, I think, is really quite strong evidence. But there’s one piece of evidence that really constitutes something closer to a smoking gun.

 

As I said, Donald Trump almost certainly had nothing to do with this.

 

And by the way, I should say that under normal circumstances, the notion of America or any major country launching a biowarfare attack against a leading international adversary without the leader of that country, without the President of the United States being aware of it, is utterly ridiculous. But the Trump administration was not a normal administration.

 

In other words, there were all these other things going on that were entirely kept away from Donald Trump.

 

In fact, some of the stories came out afterwards. Some of Donald Trump’s top aides would hide his own Executive Orders from his desk.

 

Keith Woods: I remember there was something published in the New York Times where it was like the headline was something like, I’m a member of the Deep State, and I’m sabotaging Trump’s administration plan to be a senior member.

 

Ron Unz: They just ignored him totally. Again, what I’m talking about in this case is a small group of individuals deciding that America has to strike a major blow against China, it’s greatest long term adversary, severely damaging the Chinese economy, maybe even causing the overthrow of the regime, and also probably striking Iran at the same time. And obviously, they really felt, well, Trump is not the sort of person to bring it into the loop on something like this.

 

So the fact that Trump was totally unaware of this meant that when the virus started leaking into the United States in the way that nobody really expected at the time, our reactions, trump basically told people to ignore it, pay no attention to it, forget about it. It would go away by itself. And so we ended up having a huge epidemic. By April, tens of thousands of Americans were becoming infected, and many of them were dying. It was spreading around the country. It was a gigantic disaster.

 

So for very obvious reasons, our intelligence agencies decided to try to explain to the public that they were not the ones responsible for this horrible disaster that potentially could kill hundreds of thousands of Americans. And four separate intelligence sources went to ABC News and told them that the Defense Intelligence Agency, one of our leading intelligence agencies, had produced an intelligence report describing this potentially cataclysmic disease outbreak taking place in the city of Wuhan, had distributed to our top officials, had sent it to the White House and ignore it.

 

[1:11:46]

 

So in other words, the intelligence agencies were trying through the leak, through the leak to ABC News, to explaining that they had warned the government of what was going on. They had warned of this terrible epidemic taking place in the city of Wuhan and the danger of it spreading. And the government, the White House had just ignored the problem.

 

So it wasn’t the fault of the intelligence agencies. And basically, it’s exactly the sort of thing you would expect them to do they basically had a secret intelligence report.

 

Now, the truth is, probably many, many of these reports are constantly being produced, warning of all sorts of things going around the world.

 

And so it’s not too surprising that Trump paid no attention to it. But the key thing is, the date of the report was November. It was early November when the report was produced.

 

So, in other words, in early November, the Defense Intelligence Agency had produced a secret report describing a potentially cataclysmic disease outbreak taking place in the city of Wuhan before there was an outbreak in the city of Wuhan.

 

In other words, according to most of the current timelines, probably in early November, there might have been ten or 15 people who’d just gotten infected in the city of Wuhan and were starting to feel a little sick. In a city of 11 million, there’s no way the Defense Intelligence Agency or any outside source could have been aware of what was happening at that time.

 

So that, in effect, was a smoking gun of foreign knowledge of the events. Now, as you can imagine, the Pentagon immediately denied the existence of the report, even though four separate intelligence sources had confirmed the fact that the report existed when they leaked it to ABC News. And it had been reported by the top people at ABC, the Pentagon, when they realized they were talking about November, that the report had been produced in November, they claimed the report had never existed.

 

But then a week later, Israeli TV reported the fact that naturally the report existed. The report had been sent to Israel, the report had been sent to all of our NATO allies, the report certainly existed, and the report had been produced in the second week of November.

 

So we’re talking about a situation where the Defense Intelligence Agency had produced a secret report distributed to our NATO allies, to Israel, and to our top government officials about a potentially cataclysmic disease outbreak taking place in the city of Wuhan before any significant number of people have been infected. And that is exactly the sort of thing that I think demonstrates foreknowledge, again confirmed, …

 

[1:14:27]

 

Keith Woods: Just for the people watching what should people search just to find that specific report, because an interest in the report?

 

Ron Unz: No copy of the report was ever actually leaked.

 

In other words, we don’t have a copy of the report, but it was reported by four sources to ABC News and then separately confirmed by Israel that it was sent to Israel and our NATO allies. And they describe the report and that sort of thing. It’s in my articles, and in fact, there’s sort of a summary that provides links to the ABC News story and the Israeli TV news story that explain the nature of the report.

 

So we’re talking about a situation where if you have foreknowledge of something like that, it’s very, very difficult to explain that unless at least some people in the American government were aware of the disease outbreak before anybody in China.

 

In other words, there’s absolutely no evidence that anybody in China and the Chinese government was aware of the virus invisibly spreading in the city of Wuhan until right towards the end of December, six or seven weeks after the American Defense Intelligence Agency had produced a report talking about this potentially cataclysmic disease outbreak taking place in the city of Wuhan.

 

So when you’re talking about something like that, again, that is basically the hard information we have. We have these news stories. ABC News, the New York Times reported the Crimson Contagion Exercise that went on for eight months right prior to the appearance of the virus.

 

The scenario, I think that’s most plausible to explain that evidence is, again, a small group of officials, probably one or two of whom might have been near the top of the Trump administration, decided to deal a severe blow to our Chinese and Iranian adversaries using an anti-economy bioweapon of the sort releasing in Wuhan and then separately releasing in the whole city of Qom, infecting them and damaging them.

 

And then they probably then notified individuals in the Defense Intelligence Agency saying that they had some intelligence report about some disease epidemic in the city of Wuhan.

 

In other words, it’s not at all clear whether anybody who produced the report in the Defense Intelligence Agency would have been aware of what I believe was an American biowarfare attack against China. It’s simply that they would have then been leaked intelligence probably by some of the conspirators.

 

Keith Woods: Wouldn’t you expect China to be aware of this, China’s own intelligence agencies and so on? And would you have expected them to go public with this?

 

Ron Unz: That’s the whole thing.

 

In other words, the Chinese, early in 2020, in February and March 2020, started making some accusations towards the United States.

 

In other words, they basically claimed the virus had been brought to China, probably by American participants in the Wuhan war exercises.

 

Keith Woods: They haven’t been disclaimed?

 

Ron Unz: Again, they’ve never specifically accused America of a biowarfare attack.

 

In other words, they’ve claimed America probably brought the virus to China, without specifying the circumstances. And I think probably part of it is there’s no proof.

 

In other words, it’s not that the Chinese or anybody else has proof. America dominates the world media. And so if the Chinese made accusations, people would say, well, where’s your proof? And they wouldn’t really have any proof.

 

In other words, what I’ve explained right here is, I think, a lot of strong evidence in favour of this scenario, but it’s not hard proof.

 

In other words, there’s absolutely no hard proof. It’s not like we have a confession by any of the participants of the world military games or anything like that. And the other thing to remember is the Iranians did specifically accuse America of a biowarfare attack. Their media reported, the top leaders reported it. Nothing happened.

 

In other words, the world media, which is under the control of the West, totally ignored the Iranian accusations and it did them no good at all.

 

Keith Woods: Arguably the US, just after killing Soleimani. You’d imagine Iran would maybe accuse the US of being involved regardless, right?

 

Ron Unz: Well, that’s actually one reason they did it, is because the timing. In other words, the fact that the disease outbreak hit the Iranian political elites like three weeks after we’d assassinated their top military commander. I mean that sort of coincidence is just so amazingly strong. I mean, you know, the whole thing is the fact that the virus allegedly jumped 4,000 or 5,000 miles from the city of Wuhan in China, all the way to the holy city of Qom in Iran, which has almost no Chinese population, was just a very implausible thing.

 

And so the Iranians naturally put two and two together and accused America, but again, they didn’t have any proof.

 

Another thing I should mention is back, …

 

[1:19:28]

 

Keith Woods: You think there would have been a separate leak done by the US in Iran?

 

Ron Unz: Yeah.

 

In other words, there’s no way. It’s very unlikely it would have suddenly jumped thousands of miles to a city with almost no Chinese population. It’s possible, …

 

Keith Woods: I guess maybe one objection is you said like previous SARS viruses, like they didn’t leave China so the people conspiring this would have thought, well, this will do damage to China, but we won’t really have to worry about it. But if they were looking at the Covid virus specifically, what seems to make it unique is how contagious it is and how easily it spreads.

 

And even in January 2020, there were people saying like, restrictions lockdowns, that would all be pointless because the way this virus functions, there’s basically nothing we can do except let it spread. It’s too contagious to do anything about.

 

So the theoretical people planning this, would that not have factored in that, well, this is so contagious that it would be impossible to confine it to China and Iran and the whole West is going to have to deal with it.

 

Ron Unz: It obviously ended up being a total disaster. What you’re saying is exactly what happened. But remember the scenario.

 

Keith Woods: So you think they probably didn’t take exactly how the virus would, …

 

Ron Unz: Well, the whole thing about it is the scenario I’m talking about is typically when a government like the United States might consider an action like this, it probably would go through 20 levels of planning stages.

 

In other words, we’re talking about a huge number of different individuals being brought into setting up the procedures for something like that, going through all these different possibilities.

 

The scenario I’m talking about was basically a rogue operation run by probably a small group of conspirators in the Trump administration. Since it was a rogue operation that was kept away from Trump himself and kept away from most of other top officials, they couldn’t have basically had all these planning sessions. It was probably just a small group of people who really ran the thing more in a seat of the pants operation.

 

In other words, basically they assumed that some of these defensive measures like the Crimson Contagion Exercise, the fact that the SARS virus hadn’t spread, the fact that the DIA secret report would warn of the epidemic taking place in Wuhan. They probably believe that the combination of those factors and America’s outstanding public health system ranked internationally as the best in the world at coping with any epidemic.

 

Keith Woods: When you say elements of the Trump administrator, are you mentioning something like a John Bolton type figure that’s working with elements of the CIA?

 

Ron Unz: Probably the two most likely suspects.

 

And again, there’s no way of telling who would have been involved under my scenario, but the two most likely suspects, I think, would probably be Mike Pompeo, the Secretary of State who’d previously been head of the CIA, or John Bolton, the National Security adviser. They were both ferociously anti-China. They were the leaders.

 

Keith Woods: Pompeo was very bullish, very against China, I think. Wasn’t he head of the CIA when the Hong Kong protest. There’s a suggestion that he may have been heavily involved there.

 

Ron Unz: Exactly. And for example, and John Bolton, by some accounts, John Bolton, we basically ended up kidnapping the CFO of Huawei, the daughter of the founder, when she was changing planes in a Canadian airport, and we ended up holding her for about a year, a year and a half.

 

I mean, it really almost caused a complete rupture with China. Allegedly, John Bolton ordered that, the seizure of a top Chinese business leader without informing Donald Trump.

 

In fact, the story came out about six months ago. Donald Trump afterwards said, but you arrested somebody who’s like the equivalent of my daughter in China. Why did you do that? And Bolton basically had done it without Trump’s permission.

 

So when things like that happen, when America basically arrests one of China’s top executives and potentially imprisons her for 20 years in the United States and it’s done by John Bolton, without informing Donald Trump of what he’s doing.

 

I mean, that’s exactly the scenario I’m talking about, where you had Pompeo and Bolton, either of them being senior enough to have organized something like this with a small group of conspirators around them.

 

In other words, their aides, their assistants. But I think probably someone like that could have arranged something like this. And the whole thing about it is, from their point of view, Trump, they probably regarded as being they probably didn’t want to take the risk of raising this sort of possibility with someone like Trump and just basically deal a severe blow to China and Iran without Trump knowing about it.

 

And then, obviously, once it ended up being a gigantic disaster and a million Americans died as a consequence, with two years worth of lockdowns, with all the controversies over vaccines under that scenario, obviously the people involved would be very concerned about anybody being becoming aware of what happened.

 

[1:24:48]

 

Keith Woods: All right, just one other question, because I just imagined the other thing that the audience would maybe be skeptical of is how useful Covid would even be as means of economic warfare. I’m sure people will say, well, it only really killed people that were very elderly or had underlying conditions. And even if the Chinese didn’t deal with it with severe lockdowns or whatever, they could probably more or less get on with business as usual. That is kind of the, I think, sort of dominant consensus on Covid. Now, it’s maybe worse than the common cold, but not as serious as was originally taught when it entered the West?

 

Ron Unz: Right. Well, you’ve got to remember, right now we’re talking about the Omicron version of Covid which is much milder than the original Wuhan version. Also, at the time the virus first appeared, nobody would be sure about the fatality rate.

 

In other words, remember, the original SARS that appeared in China had, I think, something like a 15% fatality rate. And early on in the first few weeks, there were all these rumours going around that the virus was extremely deadly.

 

So, in other words, if you’re the Chinese government, and if you have a massive spread of this virus throughout your country and you don’t know anything about the fatality rate, you don’t know that it would generally be targeting only the elderly. You couldn’t take any risks.

 

So, in other words, if the virus had spread throughout the entire country, probably 10 or 15 million Chinese would have died.

 

In other words, the original version of the virus probably had a 0.5% to 1% fatality rate. China has 1.4 billion people.

 

So if you multiply it out, I mean, we’re talking about many, many millions or even tens of millions of deaths in the country, plus a complete collapse of the Chinese healthcare system because it wouldn’t only be the people who would be dying, but the people who would be very sick for a period of a few weeks.

 

And also, the thing about China is China is a country that is much more respectful of its elderly.

 

So, in other words, a disease that would kill a large fraction of their people in their 70s or 80s might be treated even as a greater risk than something in the West, where there isn’t as much respect for elderly, including, for example, the party leaders in China.

 

So the whole thing about it is I’m not saying, for example, that the virus involved necessarily would have wiped out China’s entire population, but it probably was sufficiently contagious and sufficiently deadly that a country like China would have had to take very strong lockdown measures to control it. And if hundreds of millions of Chinese had been infected, it would have had a devastating impact on Chinese society.

 

The interesting thing about it is there was actually a 40 year veteran of American biowarfare who ended up writing a number of pieces on the Internet. And I ended up checking into his background, and it looks like he probably is exactly what he claimed to be. And he really was arguing it was basically in January when I came across some of his statements. He argued that the ideal sort of anti-economy bioweapon is something with a low fatality rate, but a very high rate of contagion.

 

In other words, something that was very infectious but had low fatality rates would tremendously disrupt a society.

 

In other words, if you had something, for example, that would simply kill 10% of the population, it probably would do less damage to a society than something that would infect 80%, 70 or 80% of the population. Even if only made the people sick and only killed a small fraction of them, it would tremendously disrupt a society.

 

So the point about is if the original Covid virus had spread around China, killed many, many millions or even tens of millions of Chinese and devastated the country, you could easily imagine the result would be a collapse of order in China.

 

In other words, people would blame the government for having failed in its mission to protect them. I mean, just like for example, look at all the incredible anger there’s been in the West over the fact that the governments have fallen down on the job with regard to the lockdowns, with regard to all these other policies.

 

So the point about it is, again, it wasn’t designed to be 100% effective at destroying China, but it was probably felt by the people involved that it would have a good chance of dealing a severe body blow to China, damaging the Chinese economy, damaging Chinese society and destroying much of the political legitimacy of the ruling Communist Party, which it probably would have if they hadn’t reacted as effectively as they did.

 

Because remember, even in the last six months, or a year, there’s been a lot of growing resentment in China towards the endless lockdowns to control the virus. And that’s despite the fact that the West and the rest of the world had suffered much more severely over the last couple of years than China did.

 

So in other words, there was some loss of legitimacy in the Chinese government even under the circumstances where 20 million people have died around the world with almost nobody dying in China until very recently.

 

So the whole point about bioweapons, as Robert Kadlec had written back in the 1990s, they’re a plausibly deniable means of severely damaging an international adversary.

 

In other words, there’s no proof America had attacked China or Iran or any of these other countries with bioweapons.

 

And so there’s nothing really the Chinese or the Iranians could say internationally that the global media which America controls would take seriously.

 

Well, one other point I should make is about six or eight months ago, the Russian general in charge of biological warfare held a press conference focused on the biolabs, whatever the 20 or 30 biolabs that Russia claims to have found in Ukraine. Biological warfare labs that he claimed were preparing biological attacks on Russia. And he actually specifically accused America of having released Covid as a biowarfare attack against the rest of the world, especially China and Iran.

 

And again, it got almost no attention in the American media. So probably very few Americans are aware of the fact that the Russian government has now officially accused America of having released Covid as a biowarfare.

 

So we’re talking about the Iranian government, the Russian government, and to some extent the Chinese government have all pointed the finger of blame at the United States. But since none of it is ever reported in a serious way in the American media or the Western media, probably very few Westerners are even aware of it.

 

[1:31:53]

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, it’s a very interesting theory. I mean, like you said, there’ll probably never be a smoking gun. We’ll probably never know for sure. But I think out of the three plausible theories that you laid out, I think that probably is the most plausible in terms of fitting with the facts and explaining things.

 

Ron Unz: It’s partly, I’d say it’s the process of elimination.

 

In other words, there seems to be a great deal of evidence that the Covid virus was bioengineered in a laboratory.

 

So the natural theory goes out the window.

 

And also they’ve never found an animal reservoir.

 

If it came from a laboratory. The two possibilities are the Wuhan lab that leaked out or the sort of biowarfare scenario I’m talking about. And the problem is there’s just no evidence of a Wuhan lab leak. And there seems to be a lot of other evidence that elements of the American national security establishment were aware of the viral epidemic before it happened.

 

So I think the combination of those two things is strong enough that it’s the sort of thing if the American media or even the alternative media began reporting the story, in other words, if it got almost any coverage at all, it could be facts would be shaken loose. But virtually all the coverage, probably 99% of all the discussion has either been natural virus or lab leak. And nobody is focused on any of this other evidence, even though it comes from mainstream media sources.

 

Keith Woods: Now, another thing you’ve been writing about recently, which I shared to my Telegram because obviously this has been hot topic of discussion the last few months is the topic of excess deaths. And I don’t know if I can even see that says the V [vaccine] word on YouTube. The terms are so ridiculous but related to medical treatments broadly for Covid.

 

But you’re one of the few people I’ve seen in the kind of brother Alt media sphere that kind of actually took a hard look at this and broke it down by demographics, by vaccination status, by country, by obesity and health status. And yeah, they’re very interested in the articles. People complain to me a lot that I don’t talk enough about the topic of side effects and excess deaths.

 

But honestly, it’s like the only pushback I’ve really seen from the stuff you’ve presented is kind of a lot of anecdotal evidence. There’s a lot of articles of people dying from heart attacks, young people. The problem with that is it seems like if you had Covid, you’re seven times more likely to get myocarditis from the vaccine. Obviously, those numbers could be wrong, but still, in a time when a lot of people have had Covid, which does affect the heart, you would expect there’d be more myocarditis.

 

I mean, that’s the only thing I noticed from having Covid myself that was different from any regular flu, is I was getting like, very sharp heart pains, which was a pretty weird experience. But yeah, we know it affects the heart.

 

But anyway, the basis of your article is you broke it down and showed that although there are a lot of excess deaths in the US, the UK, some other countries, if you break it down by the working age population, a lot of countries actually have a mortality deficit. They have less than what would be the expected number of deaths.

 

And there’s a few interesting things to come out of your article. I’ll pull it up in a second while you’re talking. I should have had already. But yeah, there’s a few interesting things to come out of me.

 

One thing is that there’s no real correlation that can be established between the vaccine rollout and the excess deaths. Like, a lot of countries that’s pointed to they had excess deaths prior to the vaccine rollout, and then they have mortality deficit after.

 

Countries that have low vaccine rollout, like Bulgaria, I think it only has like, 34% uptake of vaccines. They have much higher excess deaths than some countries that have very higher vaccine rollout. There’s countries with almost 100% that have mortality deficits.

 

So the long and the short of it is there isn’t any direct correlation you can establish based on the numbers between vaccine status and deaths, even if there’s a lot of stories of a lot of people dying right now that’s being shared around.

 

And the other thing was the obesity element that you analyzed. So trying to find an explanation, you broke it down by obesity and well, maybe I’ll let you explain that aspect of it.

 

[1:36:30]

 

Ron Unz: Sure. What I focused on is the single most important factor that gives you a high risk of dying from Covid is your age.

 

In other words, elderly people have a vastly greater chance of dying of Covid than younger people. I think it’s probably if you’re over 60, you have 100 times higher chance of dying than if you’re under 40.

 

So the point is, when you’re looking at individual countries and seeing, for example, what the pattern is with vaccinations or with Covid deaths, excess deaths, it’s probably better to focus on the working age population. People who are I think the figure is generally from about 16 to about 60, 16 to about 64 in that age range. So that you’re sort of getting out of the fact that some countries have much higher elderly populations than other countries.

 

And then when I simply looked at those countries, I saw America had probably the highest rate of excess deaths of any country in the working age population. And strangely enough, the other countries with very high excess deaths were not the ones you’d sort of imagine.

 

In other words, basically, Canada, which had very different has a very different political system than the United States had very high excess deaths as well. Britain had high excess deaths. A few other countries did as well. While in the other countries, like Sweden or Denmark or the Netherlands had relatively low excess deaths. And the pattern seemed to be, more than anything else, it was due to obesity.

 

In other words, if you look at the charts of national obesity, those countries that have the highest rate of national obesity seem to have the highest rate of working age excess deaths. Which isn’t that surprising, because we know that Covid is much more dangerous to people who have weight problems, people who are obese than people who are thin or average weight.

 

So, in other words, it seemed to me that rather than looking at any patterns of vaccinations, or even the particular type of vaccination, the obesity factor was by far the most important element in determining the death rate, the excess death rate for working age populations. And when we’re talking about working age populations, excess deaths, we don’t have to worry about the fact of whether we’re talking about what they died, whether they died with Covid or whether they died from Covid. We’re simply talking about the total number of deaths in that country relative to deaths under normal circumstances for the few years before.

 

And so it seems to me that a lot of these concerns about vaccinations, I think, to be honest, are sort of misguided, or possibly due to the fact that in the United States we’ve had such a high rate of excess deaths. And the government the fact that the government and media in the United States has sacrificed the trust of so many Americans.

 

In other words, it’s been so dishonest about so many things for so many years that there’s naturally a sizable fraction of the American population that immediately becomes suspicious about anything the government or the authority or the media say on anything.

 

And so it seems to me that probably the obesity factor, just by looking at about 15 or 20 or 30 different countries, was the biggest factor in how much negative impact Covid had, how many people Covid killed outside of the elderly range.

 

Keith Woods: Now, one thing is, how is the expected deaths being calculated? Because for the countries that have a mortality deficit, this is something I’ve heard before for some of these projections is the expected deaths is based on the number of annual deaths from the past five years. Obviously, the past two, three years includes Covid itself. So maybe that expected number of deaths is higher than it should be, and then you get mortality deficit, but maybe you still have some excess deaths in there. Is that accounted for or how is, …

 

[1:40:36]

 

Ron Unz: There are lots of different ways of doing it.

 

So, in other words, every individual person can use the benchmark for excess deaths that they want. The one I was using was the simplest one possible.

 

In other words, in all of these countries, I just took the average deaths for the five previous years prior to the Covid epidemic, average prior to the Covid and comparing it now, that’s certainly not perfect.

 

In other words, for example, in some of these countries, there had been a steadily rising death rate over those five years.

 

And so it might be better to use, for example, a linear interpolation method or something like that. But the simplest possible method you can use is simply to average the deaths over the previous five years and compare it to the deaths for the last three years of the Covid epidemic. And that’s basically what I use in most of those countries.

 

Keith Woods: So, for example, I’m just sharing an image from the article you wrote.

 

So this is the US for 2022, ages 15 to 64, and orange is to say that there’s excess mortality.

 

So you can see it actually declines a little bit as the year goes on in 2022, which yeah, I don’t know what you make of that specifically, but I’ll pull up another one you included, which is the rate for France, where there’s actually a mortality deficit, like we said.

 

Ron Unz: Exactly.

 

Keith Woods: Yes, you can see that the blue is a mortality deficit.

 

So there’s actually less deaths than you would expect based on the five years prior to Covid.

 

Ron Unz: Right. And I mean, to some extent, we’re talking about, remember working age people where the death rate is normally very low with the lockdowns most of these countries had, the result was that, for example, regular illnesses like the ordinary flu was stamped out because of the lockdowns.

 

And also you had, for example, a decline generally in traffic accidents because fewer people were driving, factors like that. So it depends country by country. And I’m certainly not saying the differences are necessarily as enormous as those two tables there.

 

But when you’re looking at 30 or 40 different countries, each of them over three or four years, and the pattern seems very clear, that the ones with excess mortality in the working age population are the ones that have the highest obesity rates in the world charts that points towards obesity as being a very large factor. And it’s sort of interesting.

 

One thing I hadn’t realized is that for some reason, the countries in the Anglo sphere the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain tend to have much higher obesity rates than most of the other Western countries. I don’t know exactly why. Maybe it’s Western advertising, American advertising or something like that. But for example, you have much lower levels of obesity in the continent or in the Scandinavian countries than you do, for example, in Australia or Canada or Britain, and that seems to be the closest, the most important factor with excess deaths with Covid.

 

Keith Woods: Another thing I could think of in terms of trying to sort of steelman the other position of people we listen to this is could you say, okay, so we see some countries have a mortality deficit, but if we had two, three years of Covid couldn’t you say, like, Covid wiped out the low hanging fruit? In a sense, like it killed a lot of people.

 

And so then there are people that maybe would have died in 2022 or 23, but now they’re already dead. So then, basically, if you have a couple of years where there’s a lot of excess deaths and people with underlying conditions and overweight people are dying, then you’d expect that a couple of years after that, you’ll have a lot less excess deaths because, like I said, the kind of low hanging fruit is gone. So is that something you’re factored in? Because then maybe you could still have excess deaths against what you’d actually expect if you factor that in.

 

But if you compare it to the five years prior to Covid, it looked like a mortality deficit.

 

Ron Unz: Right. But what’s interesting is many of those countries had deficit mortality from the beginning of the Covid epidemic.

 

In other words, the deficit mortality began in 2020 and it continued in 2021 and, 20022.

 

So, in other words, there was no increase in deaths during the period of those years, despite the fact that, for example, many of them had very heavy vaccination drives.

 

Another example, which I focused on later in a later article, was that probably the country in the world that had the highest elderly population, the highest percentage of elderly population was actually Japan.

 

In other words, Japan had a much larger elderly population relative to its overall size than any other country in the world. I think 50% larger percentage or twice as large as any as the next most country in the world. So you’d expect a very high rate of Covid deaths in Japan for that reason. Also, Japan then had one of the world’s most extreme vaccination drives.

 

In other words, there was probably more vaccine in Japan than almost any other country around the world. And the result was Japan basically had relatively low mortality rates compared to most other countries.

 

So, in other words, when a country with a high elderly population that follows a very heavy vaccine schedule with boosting and vaccine still has relatively low deaths, to me, that’s evidence that the vaccinations aren’t nearly as dangerous as some people say.

 

[1:46:16]

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, I encourage everyone watching again to go and check out the archives. If you just search Ron on American Pravda, you’ll find the archive there. And I think that the Covid ones are all included in that because I’m sure a lot of the audience will be very triggered by that take, but I’d invite them to try and go through your article and disprove it because I tried to sort of steelman that position. But they’re the two objections that I could think of but you’ve dealt with them. And I really think what you presented in terms of cross analyzing the data is pretty solid.

 

But I guess that gets us to another question, actually, which again relates to another one of your articles, which I really liked, which is I think it’s called Alex Jones Cass Sunstein and Cognitive Infiltration. It’s something like that. I shared on my Telegram a while back. But it relates to the phenomenon of conspiracy theories, and obviously neither of us are blanket against conspiracy theories.

 

I mean, if people look at the American Bravo series, right, you have alternative texts on 9/11 and JFK, and your Covid theory and a host of other things. But you did analyze this phenomenon, which is interesting, the idea of cognitive infiltration. That there was this advisor to Barack Obama, Cass Sunstein, that wrote a paper where he talked about flooding the discourse of conspiracy theories to kind of introduce bad or ridiculous theories to kind of discredit anti-government narratives. It was actually Michael Collins Piper that talked about this a lot. You cited one of his books.

 

You thought an example of this was like the Sandy Hook thing, the narrative of crisis actors, which is a narrative that’s kind of persisted. I’ve seen that for other events like that since.

 

But maybe an obvious example people could think of is like some of the ridiculous theories that went around about 9/11. Like, that there was no planes, that there were holograms or missiles or something. But yeah, just a lot of very bad, very weird conspiracies related to 9/11.

 

I’m just curious because you’re obviously pushing this theory about the origins of Covid but at the same time, there’s been a lot of, I think, very bad, very weird conspiracies that have popped up on the Right since the origin of Covid And it seems like it kind of shifted the Right into a much more sort of conspiratorial frame. Like suddenly this old sort of Birch Society narrative about the UN controlling the world or Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates implementing global communism. This was like the very popular new frame among the Right. I’m kind of surprised in how mainstream it’s gone in terms of establishment. Conservatives talk about that kind of thing now, but you’re obviously pushing a theory about the origins of Covid.

 

But then you have theories out there. Covid doesn’t exist. There was these weird, like 5G theories I remember back in 2020, actually, I remember those few months. It was a weird time in terms of all the I almost forget about some of them, but like the 5G theory that there was nanobots going to be activated by 5G towers, all this kind of stuff.

 

So, yeah, I’m just curious. Do you think that was a case of what you described with the cognitive infiltration and flooding the zone with bad narratives. Do you think we’re seeing a lot of that on the Right?

 

[1:49:48]

 

Ron Unz: I think that’s very possible.

 

In other words, if you’re trying to basically hide something that is as serious as the scenario I’m talking about, one way of doing it is obviously just as you’re saying, to sort of flood the zone with a proliferation of every possible conspiracy theory so as to distract people, have them wandering off in different directions.

 

I mean, the strange thing about it is, in nearly all ways, my Covid scenario is actually a very mainstream establishment sort of scenario.

 

In other words, almost everything I’m saying about Covid is pretty much what you’d find in the New York times or most of these other publications, with the one exception being that it was an American biowarfare attack.

 

Now, the fact that America spent probably $100 billion on its biowarfare infrastructure over the last 60 or 70 years, the fact that we have the world’s largest biowarfare program, the fact that it’s the oldest biowarfare program, the fact that, again, it’s been giving out money through the Eco Health Alliance and all these other groups monitoring bio facilities around the world. I mean, all that is stuff you can just read in the New York times.

 

And the one element that is never discussed in the mainstream media is the possibility that elements of the American government might have used that biowarfare infrastructure.

 

And the truth is, when a mysterious, dangerous virus suddenly appears in the two countries that America is most hostile towards.

 

I mean, it’s not all that irrational to start wondering whether it might have been an American biowarfare attack. And when you start looking at the facts, I mean, one reason I’ve often said people are so reluctant even to raise this possible issue is because once they do, the pattern is so clear, the evidence is so strong.

 

I mean, the fact that basically the top Iranian leadership was infected with Covid in the holy city of Qom just a few weeks after we’d assassinated their top military commander.

 

I mean, that’s an awfully remarkable coincidence! And when all of these factors are brought into play, I think probably people would fairly quickly decide it’s at least as plausible as the other scenarios that they’ve been discussing.

 

So the problem is, once you sort of open the door, I think you’ll have a lot of people starting to ask themselves whether a million Americans died and we had years worth of lockdowns because of the blowback from a botched American biowarfare attack. And when you’re talking about, for example, Americans.

 

I mean, the suffering Americans underwent, I mean, probably the Covid epidemic, including everything about it, all the lockdowns, the deaths, the controversy over the vaccines, everything like that this is the worst disaster to hit the United States since the Great Depression. I mean, huge numbers of deaths huge amount of inconvenience. Our entire economy was disrupted.

 

And the fact that there’s a very real possibility it was because of a botched American biowarfare attack is probably almost too horrifying for most Americans to even contemplate. But we really have to ask ourselves, why did we get ourselves into the situation?

 

In other words, America’s biowarfare facilities had already gotten back in the 19, I think it was around 1968 or 1969, there was a famous case of a nerve gas facility in Utah that leaked and it killed 5000 sheep. If the wind had blown in a different direction, the nerve gas would have probably devastated Salt Lake City, Utah, and probably killed tens of thousands of Americans. For that reason, Richard Nixon, president Richard Nixon a year or two later, ended up announcing that we were terminating, we were abandoning our biowarfare facilities, and we signed on to international conventions to ban biowarfare. So in theory, biowarfare has been banned all these years, but it’s been brought in through the back door under the grounds of biodefense.

 

In other words, there’s really no difference between biodefense and biowarfare.

 

In other words, the argument is you produce all these dangerous viruses so that you can better defend against them. And the problem is whether it’s a lab leak or whether it’s something else. I mean, we’ve now had probably 20 million people around the world die from the impact of Covid. And if Covid had been more dangerous, if it had mutated in a more dangerous rather than a less dangerous direction, we could have had many, many tens of millions of deaths around the world.

 

So I just think it’s just unconscionable that neither the media, neither the mainstream media, nor even almost any of the alternative media until very recently has been willing to look at the facts regarding the Covid outbreak and the evidence that I’ve been writing about now for three years.

 

One thing I should say is, in the last few months I’ve been very impressed with the work that’s been done by the Daily Skeptic, which is a British alternative newspaper, alternative media outlet focused on Covid. They’ve really had a series, the editor has had a series of very good articles going through a lot of these issues, connecting up the dots, and I’d certainly recommend them very much.

 

But, I mean, the point is, aside from The Daily Skeptic and aside from the work that I’ve done, a very small number of people here or there, almost all of the alternative media has been very unwilling to look at the reality of what probably happened.

 

And now that, for example, the Covid epidemic is winding down now, I think to some extent, probably the controversy over the health measures taken to control it are subsiding. I think it’s much more important that people go back and ask how this disaster happened, especially with some of the hearings that the Republicans are now having in the House about the efforts that were made on the part of Fauci and others to basically start developing some of these dangerous viruses and do some of the bioengineering that could have led to the creation of Covid.

 

[1:56:04]

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, just on the topic more broadly of China and the US. We can get to the Superchats after this topic, but I guess this relates to the whole cognitive infiltration thing. You do observe this dynamic with the old media is very anti-China and the CCP, and they’ll often have a narrative like the mainstream media or the US Government is actually like pro-China, like we’re the anti-China ones. And you just get some utterly bizarre narratives, like the balloon thing recently that Biden is passing secrets to the Chinese, and he’s also letting them fly a massive spy balloon over the US. And all this kind of thing.

 

But, yeah, it does work. I mean, you get these conservative Right-wing types that are very skeptical of the mainstream media, very skeptical of the government.

 

But then their take on the sort of neocon push for war with China, it’s like the government isn’t saber rattling enough with China. They’re too soft on the CCP.

 

I’m just curious where you see that going, because you see Tucker Carlson now, he’s been a figure that’s been, you know, very good in terms of pushing a lot of populist talking points and pushing back on. He’s one of the few people to push back on the US involvement in war in Ukraine, and he platforms a lot of anti-war voices, but he’s getting very aggressive in his rhetoric on China. And this whole narrative has shifted to, like, we need to withdraw from Ukraine so that we can fight China over Taiwan, this kind of thing. He has these people like Eldridge Colby on that are very hawkish on China.

 

I’m just curious how you see that playing out.

 

I mean, that’s a very big question to ask you, but in terms of, would the US be willing to go to war over Taiwan? And maybe more importantly, do you think the US is capable of reforming itself to be able to fight China, or is there just too much ideological hubris there? You’ve mentioned that to an extent already.

 

Ron Unz: Well, I mean, the whole thing about it is for the last 30 years, America has reigned as the sole superpower on the world after the collapse of the Soviet Union. And for 60 years or 70 years, we’ve done our best to try to make sure that we prevented China and Russia from moving together.

 

In other words, basically, that was Richard Nixon’s great success, and it was followed by the people who came afterwards.

 

In other words, the fact that we were able to become, in effect, a quasi ally of China was one of the reasons we won the Cold War against the Soviet Union.

 

The one thing no geopolitical strategist in all of modern American history has ever considered is that any group of American leaders would be stupid enough to push China and Russia together again. And that’s exactly what we’ve done over the last couple of years.

 

In other words, we basically are almost at the verge of war with Russia right now over Ukraine. I mean, basically we are. I mean, NATO is more or less at war with Russia on Russia’s own border, which is an extremely dangerous situation. At the same time, we’re saber rattling towards China.

 

So the inevitable result, basically, we’ve pulled back on our agreement. Since Richard Nixon opened the door to China, we’ve always agreed that Taiwan is part of China, the One China policy. That was the pillar of our diplomatic relationship with China, and we’re not pulling back from that.

 

So what we’ve done is do everything we can to alienate both China and Russia at the same time and drive them together, which is exactly what happened a few days ago, the meeting in Moscow between the leaders of the two countries. We’ve also pushed Iran into that same camp, and most recently, we’ve even pushed Saudi Arabia into that camp. Even Saudi Arabia.

 

Keith Woods: That was very interesting, a deal brokered by China with Iran.

 

[2:00:20]

 

Ron Unz: It’s an incredibly important development! I mean, basically it means we’ve lost our strength in the Middle East.

 

I mean, Iran and Saudi Arabia re-established diplomatic relations after decades of hostility through the good auspices of China and the Chinese diplomats in Beijing. I mean, Saudi Arabia has been our most important Arab ally since Franklin Roosevelt met with them, I think, in 1944 and 1945.

 

So, I mean, we’re talking about 70 years of an alliance that we’ve now thrown away. And Saudi Arabia and Russia are two of the leading oil exporters in the world.

 

I mean, the two of them together, largely together with Iran, largely control the oil market around the world.

 

Basically, we’ve destroyed ourselves diplomatically. I certainly would agree with all of these Republican critics of the disastrous job the Biden administration has done on these issues. But they say we should have attacked China more ferociously than we did, which is ridiculous.

 

I mean, the point is, China has the world’s largest industrial capability. Russia has the world’s largest storehouse of natural resources. If you combine them together, they’re stronger than the US. And NATO. And what we’ve done is push them together.

 

And the fact that we destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines, I mean, everybody knows we did it, and most people were sure we did it even before Seymour Hersh, one of America’s most renowned investigative journalists, came out with all the details of it. The point is, we committed an act of war against Germany, our most important continental ally in Europe. We devastated the European economies because of these energy issues.

 

I mean, there’s a perfectly reasonable chance. I mean, it was a very mild winter. Not for the fact there was a mild winter, it would have been a terrible economic situation with the prices of energy and we still might have problems, for example, this summer because of air conditioning requiring a lot of energy. And the next winter. We have inflicted tremendous damage, economic damage upon Germany and our other NATO allies. We destroyed their infrastructure, illegally.

 

And so I think that is the sort of factor that went into the Saudi calculation.

 

In other words, the Saudis thought to themselves if we would destroy the Nord Stream pipelines of Germany, perhaps we’re not the sort of ally they should be involved with and when you take Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, China and a few of the other countries who have alienated around the world we’re in a very weak situation compared to what we would have been a few years ago. And what we’ve done is just so utterly irrational driving all these countries together that if we were deliberately trying to sabotage America’s strategic position we couldn’t have probably done a better job of it.

 

And it’s unclear what will end up happening with the Ukraine, but I mean, for example, I’ve been following very closely general Colonel Douglas Macgregor, again, very highly regarded military analyst. And he’s convinced that the Ukrainians are suffering very severe losses, and that the Russians will end up winning the war probably in the next few months and gaining control of most of Ukraine or at least as much of it as they want.

 

Now, again, I’m not a military expert. There are people on the other side who claim that the Russians are the ones suffering losses.

 

But, I mean, the fact that we’re basically right now depleting our storehouses of ammunition and weapons, much of which is being lost in the Ukraine war. I mean, basically there have been all these stories in the mainstream media of the fact that the Ukrainians right now are using up in a month the sort of munitions that America typically produces in a year.

 

And so if at some point we got into war with either China or Russia or some other major power around the world we’ll be in a much weaker state than we otherwise would have been and it was so unnecessary.

 

In other words, I’m very impressed with someone like for example, with John Mearsheimer who you’ve probably seen his lecture about how we basically spent all these years provoking the war, provoking the Ukraine war with the Russians, doing everything we could to try to avert any early peace after the war broke out.

 

And we’re now in a position where we basically are committing an awful lot of our military resources and $120,000,000,000 of our financial support to a regime that I think has a very good chance of losing in the next few months. And then where will it be? The Russians ended up calling up their reserves. They’re basically mobilizing and they might end up coming out of this with a much stronger military force than they’ve had in decades. And we brought it on ourselves, and now we’re looking for another fight with China at the same time, which is just insane.

 

[2:05:27]

 

Keith Woods: And you do think the US would be willing to go as far as war with China over Taiwan?

 

Ron Unz: Well, I hope not.

 

I mean, the whole thing about is China does not want war with Taiwan. China has basically said from the beginning that they’re willing to wait decades to reunify with Taiwan.

 

And in fact, for example, Taiwan right now, there are two political parties in Taiwan. One of them is more anti-China, and the other one, which actually was the original Kuomintang that came from China, that had been traditionally the government of China. They’re much more friendly towards China, and I think they probably have a fairly good chance of winning the next election.

 

So China certainly doesn’t want to start a war with Taiwan. But if we persuaded the Taiwanese to move towards independence, it’s certainly possible that China might end up demanding a blockade over Taiwan.

 

In other words, China could use their long range of missiles to declare a naval blockade of Taiwan, and then that either America would try to break the blockade, which would mean war with China, or America would have to give in on something like that.

 

So it makes absolutely no sense that we’re in one conflict with Russia right now, and at the same time, we’re looking for a new conflict with China.

 

Basically, under the right circumstances, we could have perfectly amicable relations with both Russia and China.

 

In other words, it’s a give and take situation. They have to recognize our interests in certain areas, and we have to recognize theirs in other areas. Ukraine was a red line towards Russia, and by crossing that red line, by forcing the Ukrainians over it, we started a war. Taiwan is a red line for China, and I certainly hope we don’t start another war with China over Taiwan.

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, I mean, sometimes people have these very structuralist interpretations of geopolitics where everything is for some very sensible, objective international relations reasons.

 

But I really think you can’t make sense of the strategy as it relates to Russia, except just being downstream of the ideology of the people in the State Department and genuine hatred of Russia and what it represents and genuine commitment to global dominance, basically. Because, like you said, the way it’s played out really isn’t going to benefit them in the long run. But look, we’ve gone over 2 hours. I’ll get to the Superchats now.

 

Ron Unz: Sure.

 

Keith Woods: So let’s see. Imperious sent a Superchat. He said if America wanted to devastate China economically, it would simply remove it’s most favoured trade status and hasten the already ongoing exfiltration of manufacturing into the next 14 Latin and Asian countries with better labour costs.

 

Ron Unz: I’m skeptical. Really? It would be that important. The thing to realize is that most favoured nation status was certainly very important for China. 15 or 20 years ago when they were building up. But from what I’ve read, a large fraction of the Chinese economy is now entirely domestic.

 

In other words, they’re not nearly as dependent on exports to the United States as people think they are. And I would argue probably in many ways, America is more dependent on exports from China, low cost exports from China than the other way around.

 

In other words, if you go into Walmart or if you go into a lot of the stores, a huge fraction of our goods come from China. And if we ended up cutting off those goods, I think a large fraction of the American population would suffer even more than they are economically. And that’s certainly.

 

I mean, the economic scenario that he’s talking about was exactly what Donald Trump was focused on.

 

In other words, he was talking about decoupling America from China. But China already has a larger economy than the United States.

 

In fact, an interesting article by a top French policy analyst that I just was looking at a couple of days ago. If you look at, for example, on a real basis, purchase power parity basis, the productive sectors of the economy rather than service economy, which is much more nebulous, China’s economy is already three times larger in real productive terms than the American economy, already three times larger, and it’s larger overall in real terms in purchasing power parity.

 

So the point about it is we’ve passed the point where any of these actions America could take could really severely damage the Chinese economy. While, on the other hand, releasing a virus there could have caused devastating losses and could have really damaged the economy in a very much more effective way.

 

I mean, the truth is, trade issues don’t have the sort of impact of something that could have basically caused the collapse of the Chinese economy or the sort of lockdowns that could have inflicted on the Chinese economy would ultimately happen in the American economy.

 

And also, I’m not necessarily saying it was a sensible action to take, but I’m saying inflicting severe economic damage through a highly contagious, low lethality virus is exactly the sort of thing an experienced biowarfare expert would certainly consider. And the fact that America spent all those decades building up it’s biowar infrastructure means that some point somebody without even asking permission of Donald Trump might decide to use it.

 

Keith Woods: All right. Covid was a fear virus said: Those other Western countries didn’t push fear as a way to control their populations. They more or less used the well earned public trust to calm everyone. Couldn’t access debts just be explained by countries that push fear versus those that pushed calm. I have no idea what point you’re making there.

 

Ron Unz: I’m skeptical. I mean, we’re talking about basically a million Americans died over a couple of years more than previously died if things had gone on the same way. And the pattern of excess deaths seems very closely linked to the obesity of the country.

 

So I think those sorts of objective factors are probably much more likely than questions of fear or lockdowns or anything like that.

 

Keith Woods: Anonymous said Ron Unz versus Ron DeSantis. Who wins in one on one pickup basketball game winners crown king of Florida. May the best Ron win. All right, thank you, Anonymous. Some real high quality Superchats tonight.

 

Another anonymous said, does Ron Unz eat onions? You don’t have to answer that, Ron. Anonymous, why did left liberals in the USA and the EU fall in line to support lockdowns and other such measures which hurt their domestic economy if the attack was directed at China and Iran?

 

Ron Unz: Well, I think as far as I know, the whole thing is American lockdowns actually began right my own part of the country.

 

In other words, the first lockdown in the United States occurred in the San Francisco bay area and was organized by the public health officer of Santa Clara county.

 

In fact, she lives here in Palo Alto. America was suddenly faced with this spreading virus, and we didn’t have any kits, so we couldn’t even tell who was infected, but we knew it was invisibly spreading around the country. Nobody really knew what to do.

 

[2:13:08]

 

In other words, Donald Trump and most of the people in his administration just said, oh, don’t pay any attention to it. It’s not a danger. It’ll go away by itself.

 

And yet suddenly there were more and more cases of people being infected in the Bay area and other parts of the country. I think what probably happened is these public health officers saw that China successfully stamped out the virus through the use of lockdowns in the city of Wuhan in the province of Hubei, and decided, well, if China had used lockdowns to stamp out the virus, the best thing we could try is something similar to that.

 

So, for example, the first lockdowns in the United States began here in the five counties of the San Francisco bay area. A day or two later, it spread to Los Angeles. A day or two after that, it spread to the rest of California and then New York City, New York state and other parts around the country until probably about half or two thirds of the country was locking down. The original lockdowns were intended to last only two or three or four weeks. The problem is they weren’t strict lockdowns.

 

In other words, China basically implemented extremely strict lockdowns in a few cities. To begin with, they stamped out the virus, and within a month or two, the country was back to normal again in the United States, because the virus was very contagious and the lockdowns weren’t at all strict or extremely strong. What ended up happening is the virus continued to spread. And so since the government didn’t really know what to do, they continued the lockdowns then going for weeks and months and for basically a year, or a year and a half.

 

And so the lockdowns ended up really being very ineffective. But they were ineffective not because I think in theory they would have failed, but they just were ineffective given the nature of American society. And it was simply impossible to have the very strict lockdowns that the Chinese had followed.

 

So, again, whether the lockdowns were a good idea or not at the time, I can’t really say, because they ended up failing. Maybe if they’d been done differently, they would have been more successful. But as it is, we ended up getting about 70 or 80% of the population infected despite the lockdowns, and we had a million excess deaths. So it’s not clear whether the efforts really ended up achieving much.

 

Keith Woods: All right. Yeah, this is kind of your last chance to send a Superchat, so if you want to go to Power chat, send them in. Did We Fall sent this on YouTube. I don’t know if you can see that. He said Unz Review and American Pravda are both essential reading. Does Ron foresee any great upheavals in the coming years? A Soviet collapse type event for the West where the system loses credibility and dissenting views prevail?

 

Ron Unz: Well, unfortunately, I think something like that has definitely been happening in the West. I mean, when you look at the tremendous loss of credibility in the American government and the American media, I mean, you know, 40 or 50 years ago, most Americans believed whatever the media and the government told them.

 

One reason, for example, with something like the JFK assassination, that there wasn’t much more of a backlash against what happened is the government, the elites, the media said it was a lone gunman, a random nut, and most people believed it. Most people accepted what the government told them. Even at the time of the 9/11 attacks, I think there was still a strong reservoir of belief in the government and the media.

 

But now we’ve reached the point. I mean, take, for example, the Covid epidemic. You have probably 20% to 30% of the American public that believes the vaccines are deadly and that the government or our elites want to kill them.

 

I mean, that’s much worse than, I think, almost any other country around the world. And it’s because the ruling elites in the United States, the government, the media, the corporations, most of the power centres have just been so dishonest for so long about so many important issues, that I think they’re undergoing the same tremendous loss of trust that was found in the last stages of the Soviet Union before the Soviet collapse.

 

I think when you look at some of the things going on in American society, or even, for example, the events right now going on in France, the protests in France, I think we’re seeing the West really undergoing much of the same disintegration that the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc underwent, 30 or 40 years ago.

 

In other words, I don’t know whether we’re at 1985 or 1987 or 1989 or 1991, but I mean, the degree of hostility towards the American government, or look, for example, the fact that we had a protest over the Donald Trump’s election. The fact that Donald Trump was elected president. Donald Trump, in my opinion, was an extremely flawed candidate, and I think most people would probably agree with that. He was opposed by 99% of the American media. He was massively outspent.

 

The other side spent billions of dollars more than he spent in his 2016 campaign, and he ended up winning the presidency despite all those tremendous handicaps. The reason he won is that the ruling elites of the United States, as exemplified in Hillary Clinton, were so tremendously hated, so tremendously disliked, so tremendously distrusted by the American public that people were willing to vote for a reality star like Donald Trump, over basically keeping things the way they are.

 

And in the case of, for example, when he was running for reelection, the fact that all the elites have to get together and ban him from social media, they have to ban any reports from Hunter Biden’s laptop, all those other factors. If not for those tilts on the scale, I think Trump probably would have been reelected despite the fact that there was such a massive effort on the part of all the unified elites to get rid of him.

 

So, I mean, the point is, when you have something like that happening in American political campaign, it just shows the tremendous hostility there is deep within the American public towards so much of the American leadership class, the American establishment, the Deep State, whatever you want to call it. And I think that’s getting worse rather than better.

 

[2:19:46]

 

Keith Woods: All right, Imperious sent another Superchat. Very generous, Superchat. Thank you, Imperious. Always appreciate your contributions. He said:

 

“Should jews police their own regarding anti-White racism just as much as White people police their own regarding non-White racism? If so, how? Are words enough? Or should there be firings and fines and moderate jail time for incitement against Whites?

 

Ron Unz: Well, I mean, certainly one aspect of our website is that even though we cover a lot of controversial things, the fact that we have much more of an open discussion on jewish issues than most of the other alternative websites, I think, is one sort of important aspect of what we do now. The point about it is, I think the biggest problem we face on all these issues is the media.

 

So, for example, most people, their view of reality is constructed by the media. And if the media constructs a false view of reality, a distorted view of reality, the result is that people believe that they’re acting in a reasonable way when they’re actually not.

 

I mean, the perfect example is what I was saying in the aftermath of the George Floyd death.

 

I mean, there seems to be a lot of evidence that George Floyd died of a drug overdose and a lot of those other incidents of alleged blacks killed by the police in a wanton fashion.

 

I mean, the real stories are very different than what most people believe. But if the media portrays those incidents as being the random killings of innocent blacks by the police, it’s not at all surprising that you get a much higher rate of black crime, of black violence, of black attacks.

 

And so the media is the fault involved. In the same way, I think if more jews in the United States or the Western world became familiar with the true history of the last hundred years, rather than the media portrayed history, which portrays things in a very distorted way, their attitudes towards things would be very different.

 

In fact, a piece I’m just about to republish has to do with the famous case of Leo Frank, the ADL, which was the founding incident of the ADL.

 

In other words, we’re talking about an organization like the ADL. I would bet probably that the vast majority of people in the ADL, in its leadership, probably believe all of the propaganda that the ADL and similar organizations put out about the massive tide of anti-semitism, all of these horrible things that have been done to jews in the United States, around the world, some of which are true, but many of which are not true.

 

And so the point is, once we have a more realistic view of the history of the last 50 years or the last 100 years, I think by itself, that would cause many jewish individuals to take a much more reasonable approach to things than they do right now. Because they get their knowledge of the world from the same movies and TV shows that I think most other people do.

 

And it’s in many cases an extremely distorted view of the world, a view of the world that basically engenders a tremendous amount of hostility, most of which really should not exist.

 

And so that’s a very severe problem.

 

Now, the truth about it is that some of the criticism made against jews or organized jewish groups is correct. Some of it is not, but a great deal of it is correct. And once the facts are brought out, I think that’s the best way to have any chance at harmonious relationships between all these different groups in our society, including blacks and non blacks and jews and non-jews and other groups like that. So it’s a very difficult position. But I think the media and the false portrayal of reality by the media, by the academic community, is a large measure of the problem involved.

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, it’s funny. Some people in the chat, like, thought you were going to dodge that question or something. They’ve obviously never visited the Unz Review guys. You should just check out the American Pravda series. It doesn’t exactly shy away from these issues.

 

Okay. Anan said:

 

“Hi. What is your opinion on Bitcoin and CBDCs?”

 

That’s the Central Bank Digital Currency.

 

Ron Unz: To be honest, I’m very skeptical of Bitcoin. It’s not something I’ve really paid much attention to or investigated, but I just don’t see why it’s worth the money it is.

 

In other words, basically, it’s mostly used by people who want to buy it because they hope it’ll go up in value.

 

In other words, it doesn’t really have an economic use. It’s not that people use it in transactions.

 

And in fact, given, for example, the energy cost involved, it’s reached the point where I think Bitcoin is very ineffective. It’s too expensive to use in ordinary transactions.

 

So that’s why some of the other crypto-currencies, I think, are more being used in that. But I should say I’m not an all expert in crypto-currency, and I was amazed when Bitcoin first became as valuable as it was, and I couldn’t imagine why it was going up. And I was not at all surprised when it went back down again. And now I know it’s gone up again a little bit the last few days. So I really don’t have a strong opinion on it.

 

But probably to the extent I do have an opinion, it’s probably much more to the conventional wisdom of someone like Jeffrey Sachs or someone like Paul Krugman, or someone like basically most of the leading investors, basically traditional investors just don’t think Bitcoin really makes sense as an investment, and I’ve never been involved in it myself.

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, I agree with you.

 

I mean, I’m not exactly an expert on crypto, but everything Bitcoin can do, another coin can do better. If it’s digital cash, there’s things like nano that do instant transactions with no fees and barely any energy. If it’s privacy, it has no privacy. If it’s smart contracts, it doesn’t really have that.

 

So, I mean, yeah, it’s purely the network effect, which how long can that last? I just don’t really buy that it’s going to be like an infinitely expanding network. The richest man in the world has already bought it and dumped it.

 

[2:26:22]

 

Ron Unz: Warren Buffett has been very critical of Bitcoin.

 

I mean, the truth about it is, if you remember about 15 years ago, there was a feeling that housing prices, the mortgage markets, were going up infinitely in the United States.

 

In other words, everybody was buying houses and speculating on houses because they felt housing prices could only go upwards. And the end result was the market collapse, and a lot of people lost everything they had.

 

And so it wouldn’t surprise me if the same thing happens with Bitcoin.

 

In fact, I think there was one claim that right now, the energy cost to produce a single Bitcoin is not that much lower than the lower end of what Bitcoin value was, at one point back maybe a few months ago or something like that, after one of those collapses took place.

 

So if at some point, obviously, the value of a single Bitcoin becomes lower than the energy mining costs of the Bitcoin that produced it, you could see a complete collapse in the Bitcoin market.

 

So, again, it’s not something I’d really rather stick to things where I at least have done some investigation.

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, I do think crypto is around. It’ll get a lot bigger and there will be huge growth there. But I just don’t think it’s Bitcoin. I think Ethereum will flip Bitcoin and other coins will take over and eventually it’ll collapse.

 

Okay, I think this is the last Superchat, Mike said:

 

“Is the suppression of all the Chinese protests in 2019 sufficient motivation for China to have released the virus? At the time, it just seemed to me like it was the golden excuse for them to shut everything down?”

 

I do remember some people having that narrative that was like CCP pretence to end all the riots and anti-government protests and implement full authoritarianism.

 

Ron Unz: I’m very skeptical of that. I mean, the whole thing about it is the only protests I’m aware of really were in Hong Kong, which is not even really part of China proper, and Hong Kong is a very small postage stamp.

 

So, in other words, if the Chinese wanted to deploy heavy forces, they certainly could have stamped out the protests very easily to whatever extent they wanted. There were no protests anywhere else in China, and the clamp down, basically the lockdowns then were relaxed a month or two later, as soon as they said that, they’d stamped out the virus.

 

It was only last year or so, when the extremely contagious Omicron version got it leaked into China, that they had to have a series of lockdowns, which they finally gave up on and ended up letting the virus spread. And ended up I mean, probably like a million extra Chinese died probably in the last six months because of the spread of Omicron. But it would have been much more serious if the original Wuhan virus had been spread instead.

 

So, I mean, overall, I’m very skeptical of those sorts of scenarios, and I think probably what happened in China was exactly what the government said was happening.

 

In other words, they found this mysterious virus, whose lethality they weren’t sure of at the time, that was spreading very rapidly and threatened to infect the entire country and potentially kill many, many millions of Chinese. But the Chinese stamped it out very quickly in the city of Wuhan, in the provinces, and then life in China went back to normal.

 

So the funny thing about it is, six months after that, life in China was almost entirely back to normal everywhere in the country, while it was the West and America and other parts of the world that were suffering from these very severe lockdowns.

 

So I really am very skeptical of those sorts of complicated explanations. I don’t think the governments in either China or the West did anything other than what they claimed to do. It’s just that the Western governments did a poor job of stamping out the virus early on when they might have been able to.

 

Keith Woods: All right, well, that’s all of the Superchats. Yeah, we’ve gone, two and a half hours, so I do appreciate all your time, Ron. And yeah, again, I recommend everyone check out the American Pravda series. It’s great. I’ve been listening to them today. I need to catch up on more of them. Apparently, it had a big role in red pilling Nicholas Fuentes, I’ve heard him mention that.

 

Ron Unz: That’s great. And what I should say is that the side of the website, if you go to our basic website, there are sections, for example, there’s the Covid section, there’s the Public Health Vaccination section, and that has some of my articles grouped in those sections.

 

So if you’re interested in the Covid issues, going to that section basically contains those articles summaries and also the video clip of the ABC News report regarding basically what might be called the smoking gun of the Secret DIA Report, describing an epidemic in China before it actually happened.

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, and just in general, Unz is a great website to visit, Anyone that’s worth reading, Andrew Joyce, Michael Jones, all the sort of big names this side of things, you’ll catch what they write republished there.

 

So, yeah, this was great. Thanks for joining me, Ron. Thanks for everyone that Superchatted and tuned in and take care of one.

 

Ron Unz: Hey, thanks for having me.

 

[2:31:52]

 

END

top

 

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

 

YouTube Comments

top

 

173 Comments

@johnnywesley7695
1 day ago (edited)
Unz is wrong about the 1965 Immigration Act. What the Act did is allow immigration through family-based sponsorship which in turn has turned into what we call “chain migration”. The 1924 Immigration Act severely restricted immigration. Then, the 1952 Immigration Act allowed for certain kinds of immigrants with a preference strictly from Europe. The 1965 Act got rid of non-European restrictions and allowed immigrants to come from everywhere, but it did put country quotas and a cap on green cards. As things improved in Europe, less Europeans moved to the US and more third world immigrants who had families already settled in America had them sponsor them for green cards. Once they received green cards, they would eventually become citizens and end up sponsoring other family members left behind — chain migration. Today, the top 10 countries where immigrants are coming from, zero European countries are even on the top 10 list. Mexico ranks number one, followed by China. The rest are Latin American countries, Central American countries, and rest Asian countries. So Unz claiming it reduced Latino immigration is entirely false. Just look up the data via Pew Research.
Read more
105

14 replies

@50centpb7
1 day ago
His take on this doesn’t seem to pass the smell test, just the intentions behind the 1965 immigration act were obviously not to reduce net migration. The complete opposite was true.
26

@wangChung-on4kx
22 hours ago
This entire thing is a larp use critical thinking
2

@nickmoser7785
21 hours ago (edited)
Also prior to the 1924 immigration act we had the Nationality Act of 1790 mostly limited access to U.S. citizenship to White Protestant immigrants from Western Europe—who had resided in the U.S. at least two years and their children under 21 years of age.
7

@wangChung-on4kx
21 hours ago
@nickmoser7785 God Bless I love you, without Christ, we are just Jews
1

@MichaelJohnson-ij5ei
21 hours ago
Am I wrong in thinking his woefully absurd take on this is purely determined by his chewish background? If everything was the same, except America was historically a chewish majority state, would he have the same take?
7

@wangChung-on4kx
21 hours ago
@MichaelJohnson-ij5ei Kanye I love you j-wish (Christian ) God bless

@nickmoser7785
20 hours ago
@wangChung-on4kx wrong Judaism split from Christianity not other way around. Christianity is the religion of the old and New Testament
4

@sergeytheweberian7064
15 hours ago (edited)
​ @MichaelJohnson-ij5ei Unz is tricky with this, sorta like Rothbard. In that he did call out The Lobby and tribe’s strong connection to Communism and censoring people to the right of neocons while also being a defacto civic nationalist. And i don’t think he is insincere about it. It’s just that people of his background have rather natural tendency to downplay ideas coming from ethnonationalist camp even when they come eventually to deconstruct the rest of leftist historical and political mythology.
Show less
3

@kw8831
15 hours ago

@Sergey theWeberian I completely agree with your take. I just discovered Roy Unz several weeks ago so this has been on my mind recently. If you just read an article or two of his, you’d get the impression that he is the rarest type of Jew, a full blown based ethno-nat! but after reading many more of his works I kept getting off put by little things, & occasionally something major. It made much more sense after I discovered his heritage…
Not that his Jewishness necessarily makes him wrong or our foe. Roy Unz is not on our side & that’s okay, we should not expect that of anyone but ourselves. With that said some of his articles are brilliant and while he isn’t on our side he certainly isn’t on our enemies either. That’s fair enough to me!
Show less
3

@magaelectrician657
11 hours ago
I don’t think he knew the audience he was talking to
2

@glaucon7337
7 hours ago
It’s not complicated. He is saying that without it the Hispanic immigration rates would have been higher, not that it would be non existent. He explained it very clearly.
1

@musphat3311
22 hours ago
His theories on the pandemic are genuinely intriguing and thought provoking
27
Keith Woods

1 reply
@p.pingtam7253

@p.pingtam7253
18 hours ago
What you thought it was the evil chinese, bruh?
, clever boy.
3

@pantsmonsterv6
1 day ago
Unz has done incredible work. Thank you!
51
Keith Woods

@LT-xb5su
1 day ago
Super excited to watch this. Two of my favorites
22
Keith Woods

@zonefreakman
1 day ago
I haven’t really read the Unz publication but I’ll give an open ear if Keith is willing to interview the owner of it. Starting off his immigration argument with saying that one of the biggest negatives of it is the economic problems that come with it is pretty milquetoast though. But I do like his perspective of having brought together people from the left and right on his website rather than being an echo chamber. I’m not sure if it will be effective long term but it’s something different.
Show less
9

1 reply
@cascadiapatriot7831

@cascadiapatriot7831
17 hours ago
It’s obviously in our faces everyday, on the streets, at work, in schools, at stores, in advertising, media, entertainment, and many other areas that the most serious problem with immigration is something other than economics.
5

@k.k8291
1 day ago
Very interesting interview. I’ve always been curious about Ron Unz given his fantastic website (its comment section is of the highest quality I’ve ever came across).
22
Keith Woods

1 reply
@bigolboomerbelly4348

@bigolboomerbelly4348
1 day ago
Totally rocking interview bros!! Im gonna start the new Ron fan club!
9

@joeshmoe4656
23 hours ago
Everyone should check out Douglas MacGregor. Excellent analysis of the situation in Ukraine. He does a lot of interviews with smaller channels Keith, you should try and get him on!
20

1 reply
@brotherjamesstrang

@brotherjamesstrang
21 hours ago
Didn’t know Unz was so soft spoke, very soothing.
8

@UndergroundFriendly
13 hours ago (edited)
29:52 while discussing the subject of increasing amounts of black violence, Keith emphasizes the word “relaxed” followed by a distinct pause.
5

1 reply
@Andrew-cc4vk

@Andrew-cc4vk
9 hours ago
I caught that too

@rorschach6809
22 hours ago
The Pravda series is amazing. Great man
4

@justinhoward218
1 day ago
Yes, fantastic work from Unz. Might need to be backed up on Bufferchute and Odysee l think lol
8

@simonaguilar3646
1 day ago
Love the website. Unz’s own articles not so much.
7

@goodmorningweimerica9741
13 hours ago
Excellent interview with Ron “in other words” Unz!
3

2 replies
@GaryHost-zb5jv

@GaryHost-zb5jv
9 hours ago
I’m glad someone else picked up on this. In other words, I watched some of his talks after seeing Keith would be bringing him on, and noticed he uses the phrase a lot.
3

@goodmorningweimerica9741
8 hours ago
@GaryHost-zb5jv yeah just seems like a tic or something. I notice a lot of intelligent people do something similar when speaking for long periods of time.

@thethinredline4714
1 day ago
I have been for someone from our sphere to interview Ron Unz and who better than Keith Woods
14
Keith Woods

@retter2critical
9 hours ago
This was Unz-Believable!
1

@jewelcitizen2567
1 day ago
Wow… massive scoop kudos to you!
7
Keith Woods

@harryrichards4899
6 hours ago
Unz cheesin at keith is so funny
1

@hansnielsen6280
1 day ago
Great stream, very interesting
1

@indigo6981
9 hours ago
Great interview
1

@MichaelJohnson-ij5ei
22 hours ago (edited)
He’s wrong about migrants not being on more welfare & not committing more crime.
Stats across the board, regardless of nation/continent of origin, show that migrants are more likely to be on welfare. Bearing in mind that there was a time (for most of American history), when America was developing into a superpower, that migrants & settlers received no welfare at all. Welfare + mass migration is just asking for an economic disaster for the common man.
Then in terms of crime, a lot of the migrants flooding into America are coming over the Southern border, & they absolutely do commit more crime. They may not have crime rates as bad as African Americans, but it’s still substantially higher than the White population. I think it’s typically double/triple the rate, & they’re far more likely to be involved in gang activity. Then you also need to factor in that plenty of jurisdictions are now counting Hispanics as Whites, so the true discrepancy is even worse in reality.
Regardless, it’s not even about economics or crime for me, they could all be model citizens waiting on us hand & foot & I still wouldn’t want them here. It’s about the social cost, it’s about self-determination. America as a European melting pot, despite some national frictions, worked because it was formed by people with racially & culturally/religiously similar backgrounds. It’s a lot easier for these people to be absorbed into the host race/culture after a generation or two. Whereas an Indian or Muslim will always consider his interests foreign to those of a White Christian background.
In some ways it is even worse when they’re more capable migrants, because then they have the ability to obtain power & naturally, as I just pointed out, their alien interests agitate against those of the host race. You see this all the time by any alien migrant with any sort of political or legislative power. They’re not thankful towards the host people, they’re only concerned about transforming the nation to reflect/protect their interests & identity, just like chews do. In fact, the way Unz talks about immigration, not even factoring in the social/dispossession cost, reflects his own chewish out-group background. In other words, if Unz was living in Israel as part of the host race, then I’m almost certain he would be factoring in this cost, & it would likely be his primary concern.
Show less
13

3 replies

@Leathal
18 hours ago
It’s clear that even the “good ones” see the native born population as essentially indistinguishable worker units that are no longer replacing themselves through reproduction and thus replacement through immigration is the only path that can be envisioned. It’s not their culture dying out. It’s not their standard of living decreasing. With one specific exception, nations have no purpose but to fill a prescribed role in the grander global machine
Show less
2

@UndergroundFriendly
11 hours ago (edited)
the other thing he missed with regard to immigration and crime is that you tend to see much higher rates among the American born children of immigrants than their parents. they’re most often the ones who become gang members, etc.
1

@crimson1453
5 hours ago
Thank you! This dude genuinely seems very misinformed.

@calengr1
1 day ago
2:17:10 trust level analogous to late USSR
3

@louduva9849
1 day ago
Fascinating guy. I like Ron.
16
Keith Woods

3 replies

@chrisandrews4927
18 hours ago
Glad you’re still around, Lou. Been making me laugh in the comment section for the better part of a decade.
6

@marylamb1407
15 hours ago
Unz is like Makow. “Just as Noam Chomsky strategizes to neutralize leftist anti-semitism by making it seem that Israel is a client state of the U.S. and “neo”-conservatives fund and theorize and promote only those ‘conservatisms’ which lead to bigger government, and military action abroad in favor of Israel.
Makow works the crowd that has its eyes on the NWO. He concedes to small J**ish crimes to direct what would otherwise be a beneficial anti-J**aism which could free us, to a fictional and illusory entity, the Illuminati.” Wintermute. You notice how Ron blames a lot on the CIA but never mentions the Mossad. One would think they are seperate organizations.
Read more
1

@MrTrenttness
8 hours ago

Thank you

@kirktuss4819
14 hours ago
Unz Review legitimizes the internet.
1

@calengr1
1 day ago (edited)
2:22: 01 ADL :self perception and sense of history; 2:14:15 skeptical re crypto

@thevanillamaster8103
1 day ago
Unz was one of the first people who redpilled me early on
1

@cwilliams6884
11 hours ago
proud monolinguist here, thanks ron

@yankeecornbread8464
9 hours ago
Presents a believable political explanation for why “1965” doesn’t do what we think it does, until one looks at before and after photos taken in metro areas. And not just there. Rural areas in the interior are now visibly different.

@thethinredline4714
1 day ago
I don’t agree with Ron on the 1965 immigration act
48

14 replies
@odyssey9707

@odyssey9707
23 hours ago
Its okay to disagree with someone, believe it or not.
8

@donjuanmckenzie4897
22 hours ago
He has a point though
4

@moma8518
20 hours ago
Can you explain why? He gave good reasoning and has evidence to back it up, can you refute the reasoning he gave?
2

@thethinredline4714
19 hours ago
@odyssey9707 sure

@thethinredline4714
19 hours ago
@moma8518 look at America before and after 1965
17

@bruno.6610
15 hours ago
@thethinredline4714

@Kevin-kb9nz
12 hours ago
To some extent its inevitable that a rich country will be flooded by a poor one when there is no or very little natrual barrier.
2

@mooseolini1447
12 hours ago
​ @moma8518 I may misunderstand the finer details of the 1965 act and Ron’s arguement, so what follows is my very basic and probably flawed understanding.
As far I understand it, America’s immigration policy prior to the 1965 act, stressed that only “free white men of good character”, could migrate to the US and become citizens.
After the act was passed, anyone could potentially gain citizenship.
Ron is arguing that immigration was higher prior to 1965 and lower afterwards, without regard to the race of those immigrating.
Prior to 1965 only Whites would immigrate, afterwards, any race could immigrate.
I don’t know whether or not what Ron says is true, that immigration rates were higher before the act but regardless, I know which type of immigrant I prefer.
Show less
4

@donjuanmckenzie4897
11 hours ago
​@Moose Olini His argument is that 1965 Act RESTRICTED Latin American immigration, and without it Latin American immigration would have been even higher than it has been
1

@mooseolini1447
11 hours ago
@donjuanmckenzie4897 “Latin American” is a deceptive term. Latin Americans can be White, black, Mestizo, Castizo, Indio, etc.
If “Latin American” immigration was higher prior to 1965 than after 1965 (doubtful, honestly), then it would’ve been White ones who were taken in, as immigration policy at the time restricted citizenship to other races.
My point is that regardless of immigration rates, American immigration policy was superior prior to 1965 because it only granted access to Whites.
Ron seems to dismiss the relevance of racial considerations in his argument.
Show less
4

@enjoful
9 hours ago

@DudeReturns-ty1bg
3 hours ago
Dude the critical drinker complains about ethnic diversity then reinforces it.
1

@johnnywesley7695
2 hours ago
@donjuanmckenzie4897 It didn’t restrict Latin American immigration. 1965 Act opened immigration to any country through family-based sponsorship. As a result Mexico now is the number 1 country where family-based immigrants are coming from. China is second and India is third.
Show less

@jmedlin81
22 hours ago
very ‘normie-tier’ COVID takes.. wild to hear people still speaking highly of the vaccine, and still speaking of COVID as if it’s a legitimate dangerous threat. I didn’t expect this chat to be so COVID dominated. As someone with several family members having had strokes and other lasting health issues just after the jab, I had to tune out.
Read more
18

6 replies
@p.pingtam7253

@p.pingtam7253
18 hours ago
I betcha Keith is jabberwocky’d.
5

@cantankerouspatriarch4981
15 hours ago
Ron’s take on covid is strangely bluepilled. His views
on pretty much everything else are decently accurate.
5

@ryanthompson3446
15 hours ago
Yep super disappointing, big yikes for me.
5

@conoraq
9 hours ago
This isn’t Infowars, dunno how you ended up here but you’re out of your depth

@milan6555
9 hours ago (edited)
I am neither here nor there on the covid topic, but I know people who died from covid, who didn’t take vaccines. And no, they were not seniors. Does that mean the vaccine was not harmful to anyone? No, definitely not. But this topic is more complex. People on both sides are just obsessed with their one sided version of it and it’s tiresome.
Read more
3

@magaelectrician657
1 day ago
Raising the minimum wage would reduce immigration??? He needs to flesh out this idea a bit more….this is bonkers
10

4 replies

@evanschulz7375
22 hours ago
Strict immigration policy and border enforcement/deportation would work better.
6

@peenweinerstein9968
16 hours ago
At least it’s a palatable proposal to a modern government… not sold on its effectiveness tho

@magaelectrician657
11 hours ago
@evanschulz7375 seriously I mean wtf.

@UndergroundFriendly
11 hours ago
yeah, and he didn’t even explain that claim in any level of detail that supported his argument.

@Kevin-kb9nz
13 hours ago
Please do a follow up with his views
on the holocaust.
2

@evolassunglasses4673
1 day ago
Very interesting. The only other person I have heard on the anti lab leak theory is Patrick Henningsen from 21st Century Wire (also presents UK Column on Fridays).
2

3 replies
@smashedpumpking

@smashedpumpking
1 day ago
Patrick’s great, excellent speaker. Really enjoyed his recent chat with James Delingpole
3

@evolassunglasses4673
1 day ago
@smashedpumpking yes, I saw that. I’d recommend that, it’s on James Delingpole’s Odysee channel.
2

@shayneswenson
23 hours ago
I love when he btfo’s Ukraine regime narrative enjoyers on Twitter spaces
1

@chrishsmith451
1 day ago
Interview steve sailer next
8

@thebrickton1947
1 day ago
Australia’s deindustrialisation, reduction in smoking, western diets and general affluence has contributed to the obesity epidemic, in my opinion, which is what I have seen, everyone was athletic in the 70-80s. Today, popular media promotes the obese clumsy father as an archetype, and the mass abide to the norm.
Read more
3

4 replies

@zonefreakman
1 day ago
Reduction in smoking and deindustrialization? I don’t understand how those things are supposed to contribute to obesity rates. True you have less appetite if you smoke, but there are plenty of obese smokers. It’s a non sequitur. The diets which you’ve mentioned too, is one of the biggest factors in the obesity epidemic, and a lifestyle of laziness. And I’m not sure how lack of industrialization contributes to obesity. Before industrialization most people were not obese, then some time after industrialization obesity rates skyrocketed with mass produced unhealthy food, and comfortable lifestyles.
Read more
2

@nolanhardy3320
23 hours ago
@zonefreakman what he is referring to is post-industrialization, which outsources the industrialization of a nation without removing the abundance that comes with it. This way it is different than pre-industrial state of a nation, because prior to industrialization men had to still toil in the fields. In post industrial societies, you have mostly desk jockeys and great reduction in laborious jobs.
Read more
1

@thebrickton1947
23 hours ago
@zonefreakman smoking surpresses appetite, before automation when aus was expanding and industrial, a large portion of the workforce did manual labour, it ‘road the sheeps back’, and realied upon agriculure and mining, and we had a domestic industry supplying goods to themselves. I have worked many of these roles, many of which are gone due to outsourcing to chinese slave labour
Read more

@thebrickton1947
23 hours ago
@zonefreakman otherwise, I agree with all your points

@gabbyk1391
1 day ago
“The largest problem I see with immigration has been economic.”
This guy doesn’t get it. Not worth conversing with him after he says something as shallow as that.
19

4 replies
@cascadiapatriot7831

@cascadiapatriot7831
17 hours ago
It’s in his genes.
5

@bruno.6610
15 hours ago
He’s jewish, c’mon be fair
1

@milan6555
9 hours ago (edited)
Any kind of argument against it, is appreciated.

@gabbyk1391
7 hours ago
@milan6555 I’m at the point now where I don’t even argue or discuss with people on YT anymore. It always leads to nothing. If someone like you ever asks to be told why something blatantly obvious is the way it is they’re trying to prove something. You can find arguments against it all day if you wanted. You’re on Keith Woods channel friend. He has entire videos about this very topic. So where did you come from and what are your motives?
Read more

@jmedlin81
22 hours ago
1:34:55 I worry when people take Pfizer, CDC, WHO etc at their word, regarding COVID causing the heart issues. It seems these heart issues are vaccine caused, and they’re being blamed on COVID.
12

1 reply
@make756perday

@make756perday
19 hours ago
“If you’re going through hell keep going.” -Winston Churchill
1

2 replies
@whatda7705

@whatda7705
1 day ago

1

@MikeSmith-go8wk
18 hours ago
Unz fails to recognise that a mix of socialism and nationalism fixes everything. Therefore Unz fails.
3

1 reply
@Dixey71

@Dixey71
13 hours ago
Well he is Jewish
1

@marylamb1407
14 hours ago
Honestly Keith this stream was a flop. Unz is as cutting edge as Chomsky. BTW both serve the same purpose, inking the waters of truth.
5

@calengr1
1 day ago
2:09:50 China 3x USA in real goods

@dr.johnbarron746
23 hours ago
interesting man
2

@matthewcarpenter3137
1 day ago
Wow big guest indeed.
1

@marccroft3328
19 hours ago
Not saying he’s all wrong, but be careful, Keith – since you have apparently attracted these types
5

Keith Woods
·
4 replies

@moma8518
19 hours ago
Types of what? Can you elaborate

@marccroft3328
18 hours ago
The 60% revealers & 100% diverters
3

@KeithWoods
18 hours ago
Huh
8

@bruno.6610
14 hours ago
@marccroft3328 What does Unz divert from?

@seapigbs4167
1 day ago
Why does Ron get so little heat?
7

9 replies
@satireofcircumstance6458

@satireofcircumstance6458
1 day ago
Don’t know. But it’s not like he and the contributers on his site pull their punches at all about the taboo subjects.
6

@persiandrum9871
1 day ago (edited)
It’s a fair question. Some surmise that if the ADL and other hall-monitors bring any attention to Uno (especially his excellent article on Holocaustianity) it would only add to their ever-mounting problems. Others think that perhaps Ron is placed there as a relief valve. Who knows? Either way his American Pravda series, while not always on the money, is very worthwhile reading.
Show less
9

@Leathal
1 day ago
He’s like Norm Finklestein on the left – neither are getting their doors knocked down for mainstream speaking engagements, but they’re both oddly allowed to freely speak on forbidden topics without repercussions. (Norm is strictly anti-Israel, he doesn’t discuss the ‘bunga and is mostly pro degeneracy but it’s certainly weird how he can casually drop hard r’s in interviews and such)
Show less
7

@evanschulz7375
22 hours ago
Do a nose check.
5

@cromartie1984
17 hours ago
and yet zemmour had lot of trials.

@marccroft3328
15 hours ago
Controlled opposition

@smittywarbenyagermangensen4860
21 hours ago
In other words, on the other hand
1

@beatsbyjiro8291
16 hours ago
so funny ron is talking about american crime and woods is talking about crime being linked to immigration which is a european view, our biggest crime element has been here since the 1700s
2

@ArilandoArilando
16 hours ago (edited)
55:00

@gorillabiskut
1 day ago
Where Steve sailer at doe?

@ThomasBoyd-pe3wc
1 day ago
Based.
2

@nathanhoskins
11 hours ago
My covid related comment got scrubbed FFS.
2

@ryanthompson3446
15 hours ago
Rons c0vid take is cringe.
9

@schoenengutentag
16 hours ago
Very interesting interview. But wow, the chat is just full of nonsense and “just so-” or “heard it from dude on bitchute”-opinions.
4

1 reply

@milan6555
9 hours ago (edited)
I hate to say it, but bever underestimate the grug element within the dissident sphere.
2

@sniper6668
4 hours ago
The Giga-Jew

@KissSlowlyLoveDeeply-pm2je
1 day ago
early life
8

@dancooper4733
20 hours ago
Unz is jewish. That doesnt matter anymore, eh?
4

6 replies
@australiafair5926

@australiafair5926
20 hours ago
If you refuse to engage with any Jewish research/literature you won’t be able to participate in any public conversation. Just don’t take on a Jew as a moral/political guru/leader.
9

@chrisandrews4927
18 hours ago
Honestly no, it doesn’t. Some people will give a nuanced answer involving making perfect the enemy of the good, optics, learning from your enemies, engagement with anyone outside of the “dissident right ghetto” is worthwhile, etc. I’ll give you the real answer- we already lost, our “fight” is over, so we might as well have interesting conversations with interesting people.
Show less
2

@evolassunglasses4673
16 hours ago
He platforms Kevin Mcdonald.
2

@odinsire3879
1 day ago
Based Jew
21

5 replies
@WakaWaka2468

@WakaWaka2468
1 day ago
Nah, the only truly based J was Bobby Fischer.
16

@johnnywesley7695
1 day ago
No. He’s wrong about the 1965 Immigration Act
9

@bruno.6610
14 hours ago
@WakaWaka2468 Otto Weininger

@odinsire3879
12 hours ago
Yeah, he is wrong about that. But overall he seems like a solid guy.
1

@alaskantundrawolf8831
1 day ago
One of the good ones, like Eric Zemmour and Doja Cat.
1

@ericmay4421
1 day ago
Unz is the best
1

2 replies
@Dixey71

@Dixey71
13 hours ago
Nah

@ericmay4421
12 hours ago
@Dixey71 Admittedly his voice can work your last good nerve.

@555Trout
22 hours ago
Weird dude. Fed sus.
1

1 reply
@Dixey71

@Dixey71
13 hours ago
He is Jewish
1

 

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

See Also

top

 

Mark Collett — It’s Okay To Be White — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — Christmas Adverts – Multicultural Propaganda — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — What We Must Do To Win — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — Assad Didn’t Do It – Faked Syrian Gas Attack — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — The Plot to Flood Europe with 200 Million Africans — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — The jewish Question Explained in Four Minutes — TRANSCRIPT

 

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

PDF Download

top

 

• Total words in post = 27,059
• Total words in transcript = xxx
• Total images = xx
• Total A4 pages = xxx

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

 

Version History

top

Version 5:

Version 4:

Version 3:

Version 2: Mon, Mar 27, 2023 – Updated YouTube Comments (173).

Version 1: Sun, Mar 26, 2023 — Published post. Includes YouTube comments (xx).