Anne Twomey: Welcome back to the Constitutional Clarion!

 

The Commonwealth Government has made a regulation that classifies White Australia, or the White Australia Party, as a prohibited hate group. The party has now commenced a constitutional challenge in the High Court to the validity of that law, which will be heard in September. In the meantime, there will also be a hearing in the first week of June which of an application to suspend the effects of its prohibition until the Constitutional case is determined. In this video, I’ll try to explain some of the arguments that will be run in the Constitutional challenge.

 

But first, a bit of a recap on what the law does.

 

Now, for those of you who want more detail, see my previous video, which was called How the New Federal Hate Laws Work.

 

The power to prohibit hate groups was enacted in the Combating Anti-semitism, Hate and Extremism Criminal and Migration Laws Act in January 2026. It inserts a new part 5.3B in the Commonwealth Criminal Code. It authorises the Governor General, acting on the advice of the Australian Federal Police Minister, to make a regulation designating a group as a “prohibited hate group”. The Minister must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the group has engaged in conduct constituting a hate crime or been associated with a hate crime.

 

For example, by:

 

“Preparing, planning or assisting a hate crime, or advocating engaging in such conduct. The conduct of formal or informal members of the group can also be attributed to the group.”

 

So if rogue members of a group incite racial hatred or advocate violence based on race, that might well be sufficient.

 

Now, you might think that the term “hate crime” means that the group or its members actually have to have committed crimes! But that’s not so! The law says that:

 

“No crime needs to have been committed, no one needs to have been convicted by a court, and conduct can be a hate crime even though it happened in the past when it wasn’t a crime. It’s enough for the Minister to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the group has engaged in or been associated with the conduct constituting a hate crime.”

 

This means that it’s the Minister, rather than a court, who assesses that the group has engaged in such conduct. There’s no independent assessment of whether that conduct occurred, whether it satisfied the terms of any offence, whether it could be attributed to the group or whether any defences apply. In some cases, the Minister would have to also be satisfied that the conduct would:

 

“Cause a reasonable member of the targeted group to be intimidated, to fear harassment, or violence or to fear for their safety.”

 

These matters are quite impressionistic in nature and ordinarily they are determined by a court after hearing relevant evidence.

 

But under part 5.3B, it’s just up to the Minister to be satisfied without evidence, without a hearing and without procedural fairness.

 

Moreover, it seems that the conduct in many cases could have occurred at any time in the past, no matter how long ago, and certainly before that conduct became an offence.

 

Given the past rhetoric of members of political parties about racial, immigration and refugee matters, it would not be hard to satisfy this criteria in order to ban any political party! Making this a very dangerous weapon for a future authoritarian government to use.

 

There are, however, some further hoops to go through before a grip can be banned:

 

“The Minister must be satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that banning the group is reasonably necessary to protect the Australian community, or a part of it from social, economic, psychological and physical harm.”

 

But “psychological harm” could mean almost anything. And its stated in the act to:

 

“Include harm caused by the continued presence in Australia of the group that has engaged in or been associated with hate crimes.”

 

So it’s actually a self fulfilling condition!

 

More significantly, the Minister must have received advice from the Director General of Security, who’s the head of ASIO [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation], recommending the group be banned because it has:

 

“Engaged in activities that are likely to increase the risk of politically motivated violence or communal violence, or has either itself advocated for or engaged in such violence, or there’s a risk that it might do so in the future.”

 

So it covers activities that do not themselves constitute or cause harm, but simply if there’s a risk of harm.

 

While one might trust ASIO to make that assessment fairly now, one cannot guarantee it for the future. If, for example, an authoritarian leader placed a crony in the Office of Director General of Security. It’s therefore some protection from the abuse of the power, but not great protection.

 

The Attorney General must also sign off on any ban and the Leader of the Opposition must be briefed, and that’s it! Once this process is completed, a group can be designated a “prohibited hate group”.

 

Now, to be clear, this does not involve convicting anyone of a hate crime. It’s an administrative act to ban a group. But the consequences of that ban are serious! Continuing as a member of a prohibited hate group, if you know that it is prohibited and you haven’t taken reasonable steps to end your membership, that’s an offence with a penalty of up to 7 years in jail! Directing the activities of a prohibited hate group can land you in prison for 15 years. There are other offences of recruiting for a prohibited hate group, training it or being trained by it, funding it or providing support for it, all with penalties ranging up to 10 or 15 years in prison. It’s also an offence to display any of the prohibited hate group symbols.

 

Now this brings us to the Criminal Code Prohibited Hate Group White Australia Regulations 2026. They state that White Australia, also known as WA, WAP or the White Australia Party, is a prohibited hate group. The regulations commenced on 16 May 2026.

 

The White Australia Party, of whose members were drawn from the since disbanded National Socialist Network, is an incorporated association registered in Victoria on 20th December 2025. Its registered purpose is:

 

“To advance the cultural, historical and ethnic interests of Australians of European heritage and advocate for immigration and population policies that serve the national interest and engage in lawful political advocacy, education and community activities to support candidates and policies aligned with its objectives.”

 

It claims to have 1, 779 members. It sought to become a registered political party at the Commonwealth level, but it’s not submitted the details of the names of its members as required. Presumably this is because it would provide evidence to the Commonwealth of its membership and of course membership, unless you take reasonable steps to get rid of your membership as soon as you find out that it’s a prohibited hate group, is a criminal offence! One would imagine that the number of party members is dropping rather quickly as a consequence.

 

On the 18th of May the White Australia Party lodged its constitutional challenge in the High Court. It’s arguing that Part 5.3B of the Criminal Code is invalid on three grounds.

 

One, the absence of a Head of Legislative Power to enact the law. Two, breach of the implied freedom of political communication. And three, breach of the separation of powers by vesting punitive powers in the Executive. Due to time constraints on doing these videos, I’m only going to discuss the first two.

 

The Commonwealth Parliament must have a Head of Legislative Power in order to enact a law. The White Australia Party claims that its position is similar to that of the Communist Party when it was dissolved by legislation. That legislation was found by the High Court to be invalid due to the absence of a Head of Power. In the Communist party case in 1951, it was claimed that the law dissolving the Communist Party was supported by the Defence Power and by what we now call the implied Nationhood Power, which includes protection of the nation.

 

The High Court disagreed, finding that neither power supported the law. The White Australia Party asserts that the current law is not supported by the Defence Power or the Nationhood Power. It adds that the corporation’s power is also not applicable to it because the party is an “incorporated association” and not a corporation. It claims there is no Head of Power to enact part 5.3B.

 

Now, three issues arise here. First, while the Defence Power was held in the Communist Party case not to support the relevant law, more recently in the case of Thomas and Mowbray in 2007, the High Court took a much broader view of the scope of the Defence Power, particularly in relation to terrorism and the protection of the people of the nation from violence.

 

The reasoning in the majority judgements is so poor that it’s actually quite difficult to pinpoint the rationale.

 

But it seems that the majority rejected the view taken of the scope of the defence power in the Communist Party case and that the Defence Power in section 51.6 of the Constitution now extends to matters concerning national security and the risk of internal violence within Australia. Whether it would extend further to the prohibition of a political party and whether such a law would satisfy a proportionality test would be a matter for argument.

 

Second, the scope of the Nationhood Power has also been expanded by the High Court, with a majority in the PAPE case regarding it as a power to deal with national emergencies. There might be scope for the Commonwealth to argue that the prohibition of hate groups is necessary to protect the Commonwealth against internal threats and that it’s a matter peculiarly adapted to the government of the nation that cannot otherwise be carried out for its benefit. Which is critical part of the test for the Nationhood Power. Again, however, a proportionality test may apply.

 

Reliance on either of these powers would prove difficult because it would be hard to satisfy a proportionality test in relation to either Head of Power, given the breadth and vagueness of the application of Part 5.3B, as explained earlier.

 

Third, we have the External Affairs Power. This is the power expressly relied upon in Part 5.3B of the Criminal Code. It states in section 114A.1 that:

 

“One of the objectives of the Part is to give effect to Australia’s obligations under articles 20 and, 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, known as the ICCPR, and Articles 4A and 4B of the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, known as CERD.”

 

Articles 20 and, 26 require:

 

“The prohibition of incitement of racial hatred and the protection of people against racial discrimination.”

 

Part 5.3B, of course, goes much further than that! So they’re not terribly helpful.

 

The most relevant treaty provision, however, is Article 4B of CERD. It says that:

 

“State parties shall declare illegal and prohibit organisations which promote and incite racial hatred and shall recognise participation in such organisations as an offence punishable by law. Article 4A also requires parties to make an offence punishable by law the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof.”

 

A proportionality test also applies with respect to the implementation of treaties. The law must be:

 

“Reasonably capable of being considered appropriate and adapted to implementing the treaty obligations.”

 

In this case, Part 5.3B or at least most of it, would seem reasonably capable of being considered appropriate and adapted to implementing Article 4 of CERD.

 

So it’s likely that a Head of Power will be found to support it.

 

This is subject, however, to the key issue that arose in the Communist Party case. In that case, it was accepted that the Commonwealth Parliament could enact a law against subversion. But the Communist Party Dissolution Act did not itself prohibit subversion. It instead authorised the Governor General, acting on ministerial advice, to declare associations and individuals to be communists on the basis asserted in a recital in the preamble to the Act, that Communists engage in subversion. The connection between the law and the power was based on a decision of the Executive, the Governor General, on the advice of the Minister, not by a court!

 

Now, this led to the law being struck down as invalid. Part 5.3B of the Criminal Code sails perilously close to that same problem! It’s the Minister and the Governor General who determine that a body is a “hate group”, connecting the law to the power to enact it without there being any judicial determination that a hate crime has ever been committed.

 

But there are also differences. Part 5.3B, for example, applies generally, not just to a particular group. It doesn’t rely on recitals in a preamble. And there’s greater facility for administrative review of executive decisions than there was back at the time of the Communist Party case.

 

So it will be interesting to see what a court makes of those similarities and differences in the course of this challenge.

 

The next issue is the implied freedom of political communication. This is most likely where the Constitutional problems will arise. Would the designation of a group, including a political party, as a “prohibited hate group”, burden the implied freedom of political communication? Well, the answer to that must be, yes!

 

So we move on to the next part of the test. Does Part 5.3B have a legitimate purpose that is compatible with the Constitutional system of representative and responsible government? The High Court held in Farmer and the Minister for Home affairs in 2025 that:

 

“Prohibiting incitement of Discord in the Australian community was a legitimate purpose to the extent that this meant preventing harmful dissension or strife, including intimidation, vilification or victimisation on a large scale in the Australian community or within or amongst segments of the community. But it would not be sufficient if only the feelings or sensitivities of the Australian community, or a segment of the community would be hurt or adversely affected. Parliament cannot use its legislative power for the purpose of curbing political disagreement and debate inside Australia. The purpose must be directed at preventing material harm to the Australian community, or a segment of that community, rather than merely eroding social cohesion through disagreement and debate.”

 

The Objects clause in section 114A.1 of Part 5.3B, however, goes broader than that. It states that:

 

“The object is to protect the Australian community, or part of it, against social, economic, psychological and physical harm and from the promotion of violence by prohibiting organisations that engage in, prepare or plan to engage in or assist the engagement in, or advocate engaging in conduct constituting a hate crime and to give effect to those treaty obligations (that I mentioned).”

 

It will be a matter for argument in court about whether that actually is the purpose of Part 5.3B, and whether it’s a legitimate purpose, taking into account the qualifications given by the High Court in the Farmer case.

 

If the law has a legitimate purpose, the final question will be whether Part 5.3B is reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve the legitimate end, whatever that is, in a manner that is compatible with the Constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government.

 

Now this is where all those problems that I raised at the beginning of this video about the breadth and the vagueness and the discretion in these provisions will become important. One could imagine that a far more narrowly tailored law could achieve any legitimate end without imposing such an extreme burden on political communication.

 

In short, there is a good argument that it is disproportionate in its application.

 

The outcome, of course, will depend upon how it is argued before the court, which none of us can dictate or predict. It will also require putting aside any personal objection to the plaintiff in this case and its ideology, and instead place the focus squarely on the long term application and the validity of this law.

 

Thank you once again for watching or listening to the Constitutional Clarion and I look forward to your company again next time. Goodbye.

 

[19:30]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Youtube Comments

top

(Comments as of 5/25/2026 = 174)

@husaberg650
2 hours ago
But we can have Communist Parties.
13

@holobiont3197
3 hours ago
Not convinced they fully thought through the acronym WAP.
8

@richyglitched
4 hours ago
The primary function of discrimination for the group is enough to have it outright banned. Lumped with the Bikies
4

@benhall8172
6 hours ago
If WAP can be declared a hate group and then have every member jailed, so can any political party or group the Govt of the day doesn’t like when the language is so vague and broad anything can be construed as illegal: Three Felonies a Day
16

@farright118
6 hours ago
These laws are so undemocratic.
I’ll be shocked if these laws aren’t thrown out
27

@andhewonders
7 hours ago
I’m curious that if these groups form themselves into a religious body, will hate laws still apply?
8

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
Probably yes. Section 116 of the Constitution says the Commonwealth shall not make any law for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion – but that has been interpreted as subject to limits (eg if it is part of your religion to engage in human sacrifice, etc). You cannot use religion as an excuse for engaging in criminal conduct.
8

Hide replies

@malcolmfletcher7295
8 hours ago
I find it interesting that the Federal Government spontaneously decided that such a law was a good idea.
7

@hillstrong715
8 hours ago
The problem with this is that an administration change can take out any and every group that the government of the day finds objectionable. So any group that objects to any of the policies of the government of the day can be banned by simply defining the objection as hatred. Bad news for everyone in this nation, most particularly anyone who is a citizen.
11

@obliviouz
9 hours ago
Thank you for another informative video. Given the fact that the law almost expressly provides for punishment without (full) involvement of the Courts, I would be interested in the third issue referred to, the separation of powers point. That was a point taken and relevant to a recent determination in a visa/immigration detention/terrorism case if I remember correctly.
3

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
Yes, it’s a far more complex issue and would require quite a bit more work on my end. I just haven’t had the time for it so far. But maybe in the future.
1

Hide replies

@Lucid-AUS
9 hours ago
Very informative thank you

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
You’re welcome.

Hide replies

@caboose00f76
9 hours ago
Man these comments are wild. The creepers coming in from Pauline’s lot and the Trumpers. What a mess these people are.
5

@lukepaul7931
10 hours ago
I dont like them but i wish the government didnt block them. They are a pressure relief valve that has been blocked.
2

@__Max-oe6zm
10 hours ago
It’s an interesting situation for sure.
1

@steveliveshere
10 hours ago
Considering everything that’s going on in the world a White Australia Party is more concerning than a communist Party.
2

@mahcooharper9577
10 hours ago
I’m sure you could find someone who is genuinely distressed by the presence of ANY group in this country.
It’s a very poorly thought out piece of legislation, and as mentioned a terrifying weapon for an authoritarian to use.
Irrespective of who the group is who is currently proposed to be banned, I hope they can succeed in having the law overturned.
6

@JamesThomas-n3q
11 hours ago
Thanks Anne for the informative video. Always a helpful watch for those of us who want knowledge on the laws both current and upcoming.
11

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
Thanks. I very much appreciate it, as it does take quite a bit of effort to do these videos.

Hide replies

@therig.88
11 hours ago
If we don’t have freedom of political opinion.. do we really have freedom? Or free ideas in a democracy?
32

@richyglitched
4 hours ago
We don’t put up with criminal organisations like the Mafia or Bikies..

Hide replies

@not.rumple.stiltskin
11 hours ago (edited)
They really threw the toys out of the cot with this one.
sooo being unpleasant to someone is unlawful seems to be the goal.
also how is the reasonableness of a person measured?
17

@sylviaelse5086
11 hours ago
Is there anything to prevent the president of the group from being arrested and charged with directing the activities of a prohibited group while the group is litigating?
9

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
That was an issue raised the other day when they sought interlocutory relief (which will now be dealt with in the first week in June). As Justice Jagot mentioned, it is likely that any prosecution would be stayed until the constitutional issue was resolved.

Hide replies

@CaptainKremmen
11 hours ago
You say that it could be misused by a “future authoritarian government”. Surely simply creating such a law working totally outside the judicial system means we already have a current authoritarian government.
50

@Pastor-of-muppets1985
11 hours ago (edited)
How does it operate outside the judicial system? It’s currently being challenged in the HCA.
1

@mahcooharper9577
10 hours ago
​ @Pastor-of-muppets1985 if the HCA rules it is valid there is no further review, and no review is applicable to a Minister’s decision.

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago

@mahcooharper9577 – No, that’s not quite right. If the HCA rules it is valid, then that just means the law is valid. It may still be the case that the Minister did not have reasonable grounds to make a decision and that this may be challenged on an administrative law basis.
1

@yt.personal.identification
11 hours ago
Don’t attribute to malice, that which can easily be attributed to stupidity.
3

@hs-yr1zu
7 hours ago
@yt.personal.identification Doesn’t apply here. You don’t accidentally form a govt that delivers the 2nd worst record for secrecy and transparency of any govt since federation, and you don’t accidentally use a historic mandate to dismantle FOI laws as a first order priority. The authoritarian govt is well and truly here. If their contempt for democracy wasn’t clear enough, the latest budget should seal the deal, regardless of your view of the budget itself.
9

Hide replies

@mendaciousferret819
12 hours ago
Instead of focusing on how effective our security services have been we get this. They failed and are now blaming it on insufficient power.
19

@AGoodYear-q2v
12 hours ago
Very interesting clip by this lady. Protecting freedom of political expression is critical – such an important decision for the High Court coming up.
28

@constitutionalclarion1901
12 hours ago
Thanks.
8

Hide replies

@scottn2046
12 hours ago
I’m curious – how much freedom does a Federal Government have to sign a Treaty and then use the External Affairs Powers to claim a Head of Power that otherwise wouldn’t exist? Can it be used as a “Magic Head-Of-Power Tree” potentially initiating a treaty with co-operative countries with the intent of creating a Head Of Power that it doesn’t have, but would like??
6

@constitutionalclarion1901
12 hours ago
The High Court has said that it must be a ‘bona fide’ treaty (see Tasmanian Dam case). You can’t just go shopping for a treaty or bribe a small country to enter into a treaty to give you a head of power. But so far there has been no case where the validity of a law has been struck down because the treaty was not a bona fide one – probably because the Commonwealth has not been game to push its luck on this point.
5

@andrewjgrimm
11 hours ago
One of the past CC videos touched upon it. Sorry I can’t tell you which one.

Hide replies

@EAFSQ9
12 hours ago
I’m just here before the comments get locked due to the PHON types and White Australia Party members brigading this video
6

@therig.88
11 hours ago
You afraid of different opinions may the best man win in the land of ideas.
23

@Pastor-of-muppets1985
11 hours ago
So no opinion then? Just wanted to get a comment in?
16

@steveliveshere
10 hours ago
@Pastor-of-muppets1985 its not an opinion mate its fascim.

@mahcooharper9577
10 hours ago
If Trump was in charge here and was banning left wing activism groups I suspect you wouldn’t mind those groups objecting.
You need to step outside who it is and whether you personally support them and think about what this law actually means.
3

@homelander-enjoyer
12 hours ago
Better not let them have opinions in our brave little democracy!
34

@trunkage
11 hours ago
​ @homelander-enjoyer Unfortunately, their opinions is taking everyone else opinions away
Either way, someone is going to lose their opinion
1

@ricochet2977
10 hours ago
@trunkage
Who is taking your opinion away, didn’t you just state your opinion?
4

@constitutionalclarion1901
12 hours ago
Yes – shut down will happen soon, as I don’t have the time to keep monitoring the comments. I’m afraid I have other work I have to do.
9

Hide replies

@duncancargill6371
12 hours ago
As opposed to any and all forms of racism as I am I see this legislation as a draconian over reach open as it is too absurd levels of abuse. Also it is puzzling that the same government that enacts this legislation for, inpart, to protect social cohesion at the same time acts to destroy social cohesion with it’s immigration detention policy?
19

@CaptainKremmen
11 hours ago
It’s especially ludicrous to make arbitrary laws aimed against the White Australia Party, a tiny group of around 1500 members. The group is so small that it would be sensible to just ignore it, unless it commits any actual crimes. This kind of heavy-handed legislation is more likely to give them free publicity and possibly even support.
8

Hide replies

@SuperLloyd84
12 hours ago
Forcing people to give up their association seems like such a smart idea. I’m sure this won’t anger any radical elements and drive them underground, or give them a grievance they need to resolve.
24

@CheekyJebus
10 hours ago
giving people 15 years in prison for wrong-think strips them of having a peaceful route to seeking change in the country, that’s never a good idea.
4

Hide replies

@Margarinethebutterlover
12 hours ago
Great vid, thanks. Under these same circumstances, your own media may well be under attack.
6

@constitutionalclarion1901
11 hours ago
I try to weed out the comments that would breach existing laws, but it’s always possible I will miss some, or judge incorrectly which side of the law they fall. It is a real risk of running a channel like this – but I do try hard to ensure that the channel stays within the law.
5

@nationalistpolitics
9 hours ago
@constitutionalclarion1901 How could you possibly be held responsible for what other people post in the comments?

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
Unfortunately, there are a number of cases in which the person who owns/runs the channel (or facebook page or blog) has been held responsible for the comments, as they did not take action to delete a comment (where that comment breaches an anti-hatred law) in a reasonable time. I didn’t make the law – but I do have to obey it.

Hide replies

@mathewritchie
12 hours ago
Under the rules outlined all the major parties could be defined as hate groups.
21

@Robert-xs2mv
12 hours ago
Besides I don’t “ hate” anything, I just disagree
10

@phwbooth
12 hours ago
Excellent analysis, ma’am. Thanks.
11

@constitutionalclarion1901
12 hours ago
Much appreciated.
2

Hide replies

@phwbooth
12 hours ago
Hate is a sin, and has not in the past been a crime ( Matthew 5:43–44 ) Only when it resulted in action was such an action punishable, and then (in England) by the Ecclesiastical Courts.
2

@dodecahedron-r7d
12 hours ago
They have redefined biblical principles and turned things into thought crimes and crimes of perception
Instead of 1:1 cause and effect, they have decided now that something is s crime when it’s one step removed from reality, thus if someone is offended now they have been harmed. The next stage will be pre-crime or being born into the wrong lineage
My biggest objection is that all these laws that keep proliferating at a rate society cannot ascertain the long term effects of, are not being agreed to by those who are expected to be governed by these laws, or ANY laws for that matter
It is part time laws were wound back and we reassess the very notion of law and it’s so called right to govern others, especially when 99% of laws are never agreed to by those placed under them and are asserted by nothing more than the violence of the state or by implied rights
5

@hs-yr1zu
7 hours ago
@dodecahedron-r7d The joys of postmodernism. The only objective truth is that truth is an oppressive social construct, so reality is as defined by any given individual. Now it’s enshrined in law and the ideology of our ‘democratic’ government. We might be cooked.

@DizzyButler
10 hours ago
Not sure if a biblical reference was made in the video that gave this comment more context and I just zoned out during that bit, but the Bible doesn’t say hate is a sin in it’s entirety. Romans 12:9 “hate what is evil, cling to what is good.” This ‘hate what is evil’ has been used as justification for actual hate crime historically and currently.
1

Hide replies

@pmafi_eng
13 hours ago
Given Pauline Hanson’s past comments and actions against minority groups such as Muslims, Chinese etc.
Do you think it would possible for One Nation to be a banned group?
9

@LuckyLocust
12 hours ago
The laws are so vague and retroactive that likely any party could be banned. Just needs the minister to have the will to do so. Any party that said negrative things about the germans, italians or japanese during WW2 could be banned under these laws.
13

@mahcooharper9577
10 hours ago
Pretty much every political or activist group in the country has said something that could be considered hateful, on both the left and the right. This (aside from the legal issues) is the problem – it’s too vague and it’s antithetical to democracy.
2

Hide replies

@peregrineh1620
13 hours ago
Seems a bit fishy that it’s left to the minister to determine – and after what we know about the lack of info sharing…seems dodgy….ministers are not capable! This is not a good idea.
7

@tomo9224
13 hours ago
As much as I hate speech being silenced, this is probably one of those videos where the comments section should be shut down, Professor
2

@nationalistpolitics
9 hours ago
“This legislation silencing free speech is bad”
“We will disable the comments so that people cannot discuss it freely”
???
4

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
Unfortunately, the law requires me to do so – it’s not my choice. There have been several cases in which the person who runs a Facebook page, blog or channel has been held responsible under anti-hatred laws for failing to delete offending posts made by others.
1

@CheekyJebus
10 hours ago
nothing says democracy and education like not allowing open discussion.
3

@constitutionalclarion1901
12 hours ago
Yes, I’ll do so shortly.
2

Hide replies

@jackhanley293
13 hours ago
We already give ministers too much power. Is this an attack on free speach
15

@worker-wf2em
13 hours ago
The antidote to hate speech is not censorship, but more speech. This is a lesson mankind consistently fails to learn. As soon as you hand those in power the ability to determine what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable speech, there is only one outcome. I vehemently disagree with everything White Australia stands for, but it is foolish to cheer any system of power censoring it.
19

@somluck2813
13 hours ago
Singapore and Malaysia use laws made by British to quash opposition groups.
2

@MrTiddalik
13 hours ago
Never a dull moment
1

@lauchlanguddy1004
13 hours ago
I trust the courts. The law already allows an elected crony to make these decisions.

@somluck2813
13 hours ago
Given that act applies to historical statements made by the relevant party, the Australian Labor Party has from since Australia was established to at least the 1960s made racist statement, the ‘White Australia’ was part of its platform up to the 1970s, it would seem that questions can be raised in relation to the ALP.
17

@Imagineering100
13 hours ago
This will cause nothing but problems.
8

@dancarmody3789
13 hours ago
If the challenge is succesful and the law is found unconstitutional, it will affect all the other groups listed so far…. Hizb ut-Tahrir. What a crazy world we live in that white supremacists might end up helping Islamic extremists. One has to wonder if that they’ve even considered that outcome.
3

@Jordz97
13 hours ago
No one has even heard of Hizb ut-Tahrir, once White Australia gets in Hizb ut-Tahrir will be deported lmao.
17

@dancarmody3789
13 hours ago
@Jordz97 Lol, White Australia aren’t going to get in.
2

@JamesThomas-n3q
10 hours ago
@dancarmody3789 if that’s what the government thought then they wouldn’t have banned the WAP.
2

@TheKrispyfort
13 hours ago
Misogynists and xenophobes helping other misogynists and xenophobes.
3

Hide replies

@williamhay3029
13 hours ago (edited)
Wondering if their arguments will be a mix of the best cooker material, mixed with badly misquoted sections from your videos and involve red/ green constitution.
Also coincidentally this has come out on the afternoon that John Safran has a new show on free speech in Australia, focussing on free speech laws such as this and whether it’s healthy to have these. And of course he then discusse and meets with NSN and learns how to give a decent Nazi salute
3

@jimmy12347654
10 hours ago
Isn’t doing the NS salute a crime in a lot of states in Australia ?

Hide replies

@davidsullivan4449
13 hours ago
This was both awesome and very disturbing. I saw Rupert Lowe in the UK talking about similar trends in law whereby judgements that were usually made by juries are now being made purely by judges or a judge. I don’t really know the details but you know what I mean.
12

@TheKrispyfort
13 hours ago
You should read up on NSW legislation and laws around compulsory possession of proceedings of criminal activity.

Hide replies

@NelleBligh333
13 hours ago
It irks me as the granddaughter of a member of the Communist Party of Australia who only ceased to be a member when the party disbanded, to see this kind of legislation brought in to ban a political group when they tried to ban the CP twice and each time the ban was overturned by the High Court. You would think current members of Parliament would be aware of this history. Stop impinging on our right to political expression!
35

@PhilipGissing
10 hours ago
This former member of the Communist Party, who also was around when the party disbanded, couldn’t agree more!

Hide replies

@2paulstacey
13 hours ago
A Nazi party won’t get many votes but any votes for it would be damaging to Australia.
2

@TheKrispyfort
13 hours ago
Apparently, “Nazi” was initially a derogatory nickname for Hitler’s political party.
Kinda like calling the Liberal Party the “Libs”
6

@CheekyJebus
10 hours ago (edited)
If they won’t get any votes why do we have to go out of our way to frantically ban them? (let alone criminalize any association with up to 15 years in prison)
2

Hide replies

@stephenwellstriggers
13 hours ago
Too many numbskull’s in the comments who dont care about the tyranny inherrent in this law, as long as it stops “muh Nazis”. As President Kennedy said “thiose who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable”. The former leaders of the NSN and White Australia Party explicitly condemed terrorism and political violence to achieve their goals. What do you think all the young men who followed them are going to do if they think that strategy has failed? Ultimately the Government has shown it doesnt trust the Australian people to reject the White Australia Party at the ballot box.
46

@jimmy12347654
10 hours ago
It’s such a weak move that only pushes people underground, We have so little faith in our people and ideas that they need to swing the ban hammer so pathetic
2

Hide replies

@supernoveau
14 hours ago
Which party has the burden of proof?
2

@hevsa1507
14 hours ago
This is just a test as to whether we live in a completely corrupt system, or not.
None of this passes the pub test.
38

@JimmyCall
14 hours ago (edited)
I posted a comment on this subject in previous video, but deleted it due to mistakes/poor structure. The topic is some of the most complicated argument/dilemmas of Constitutional law.
1

@SH-3274
14 hours ago (edited)
Professor Twomey, I have a question about the “future authoritarian government” concerns you mentioned.
Suppose that a ruling party wanted to illegitimately classify a well-established political party (GRN, ALP, LIB, NAT, ONE, etc.) as a hate group. Assuming that their caucus and ministers were entirely on-board with this*, how many well-placed cronies would they require, and how difficult would it be to place them? By my guess they’d require five – the director of ASIO and four High Court judges – but my understanding of this is quite shaky. I certainly don’t understand how difficult it would be to place them.
*I say this because a leadership spill would undoubtedly make this difficult to pull off.
(Edited for clarity and typo correction)
3

@constitutionalclarion1901
11 hours ago
I agree that it would be difficult. In the past, one would have thought it unthinkable. But the unthinkable has been happening in a number of countries around the world in recent years. So it is no longer unthinkable. In my view, at least, it is something we should be alert to and defend against. In particular, we should not pass laws that could be abused in the future.
5

@SH-3274
8 hours ago
​ @constitutionalclarion1901 thanks for the insight. One follow up: with the laws as they currently exist, if the government wanted to seriously abuse them, what would the minimum required number of cronies be? Would the head of ASIO and four High Court judges be enough?

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
Another factor is that the regulation declaring a group to be a prohibited hate group can be disallowed by either House. So an authoritarian government would need majority support in the upper House to prevent disallowance.
2

Hide replies

@mrx6682
14 hours ago
They have a right to form a political party, thats just common sense.
27

@79gengen
13 hours ago
Sure, but they won’t even give their names…. Go figure
1

@lioncross1849
12 hours ago
@79gengen because if they do, they risk going to jail under these new laws. That is the issue at hand. That’s why we are having this high court case.
Shouldn’t that not be obvious to you mate?
11

Hide replies

@richardjohnston-bell476
14 hours ago (edited)
Free speech is the foundational right that all other rights are built upon and is worth protecting. I also believe that not only is ‘hate speech’ free speech, but that free speech cannot exist without it. Free speech is not just about the right to express an opinion or an idea, free from violence or government intervention, its the right to be able to listen to those ideas and opinions. As an adult, I find it insulting that the government thinks so little of my ability to reason, that they get to decide what information is too dangerous for my poor little brain to handle.
This is why I am voting for One Nation. They are the only party that is serious about free speech
17

@C0wCakes
14 hours ago
Australia isn’t the United States. There’s nothing in the constitution that guarantees free speech or makes it a foundational right. We have a very long history of common-law and case history. That includes that speech that is harmful to society and its people isn’t permitted, backed by the prior mentioned case law. That’s actually far better than a few lines in a constitution that are exceedingly diffult to change.
2

@supernoveau
13 hours ago
There’s a very big difference between speech that is advocating for physical violence, and speech that some identity group doesn’t want to hear because it’s contrary to their political interest.
4

@richardjohnston-bell476
12 hours ago
@C0wCakes why do people always confuse the concept of free speech and what it is in law. The US didnt invent free speech, they have just taken the concept and placed it in the constitution. If you base your argument defining free speech by what the laws say, then if we put the same rules as the US into our constitution, then your argument no longer exists, Would you then agree that ‘hate speech’ does not exist becasue the law says it doesnt?
3

@79gengen
13 hours ago
Sure, have free speech, but be prepared to face the consequences that go with it.
1

@FairyBreadforbreakfast
13 hours ago
@79gengen The only consequence that is reasonable is that someone disagrees with you. Any other state sanctioned punishment is not reasonable and means you don’t have free speech.
4

@richardjohnston-bell476
12 hours ago (edited)
@79gengen I assume you mean consequences that are within the law?

@79gengen
8 hours ago
​ @richardjohnston-bell476 I assume you mean free speech that is within the law.

Hide replies

@nicholassteel5529
14 hours ago

@learningmore8047
14 hours ago
This is a great video, well done. It gets me thinking about how this law and how the Indigenous peoples see their positions especially as they have taken the brunt of hatred since the arrival of the first fleet, throw that into the context of what the Uluru Statement from the Heart stated about their unceded sovereignty and mix that with Australia’s obligations under the ICCPR for example and then the intentions of Australia when it supported UNDRIP in 2009. You have really triggered ones mind with this video. Please keep up the great wotk especially with these videos.
3

@AustralianGrandmasForDemocracy
14 hours ago
Thanks Anne. I think this and related issues will be hotly debated for some time to come. Time for a Bill of Rights to balance it out I think!
9

@Pab_1967
14 hours ago
We have a Bill of Rights 1688, which the GovCo is breaching, it’s attached to our Commonwealth Constitution of Australia, Imperial law

@AustralianGrandmasForDemocracy
12 hours ago
@Pab_1967 According to Google that one only covers parliamentary privilege. The (4 I think) rights mentioned in the constitution are totally inadequate. There are a hodge-podge of rights mentioned in different acts of legislation in different states but I still think we need a fully fledged Federal Bill of Rights. Perhaps Anne can clarify?
2

@Pab_1967
12 hours ago
​ @AustralianGrandmasForDemocracy the Commonwealth Constitution of Australia was never about rules for the people, it was designed to keep Corporations and Parliament in line. Ours are given with the blessing of Almighty God, ten commandments.

Hide replies

@kipwatson
14 hours ago
They sound like a nasty, stupid party; and it sounds like a stupid, extremely dangerous law.
12

@JayGuitars1
15 hours ago
Why can’t we all just get along?
4

@dancarmody3789
14 hours ago
Some folks aren’t good at just minding their own business. The internet has made it worse.

@aussiegodx8629
14 hours ago
Bcus we tried that and it’s not working and never will
7

Hide replies

@Hansel_and_Grettle
15 hours ago (edited)
I think the best way to legitimise a far right movement is to ban them.
If you believe their ideas to be horrid and wrong (which I do), then you should be able to debate and beat them with ease.
Silencing them only incentivises them to move away from democratic means of pushing their agenda, which is far more dangerous and scary imho. So far Australia has mostly avoided large scale right wing terrorism, I’d like to keep things that way.
17

@seanlander9321
14 hours ago
Is it fair then to ban other groups who aren’t on the Right but which oppose Australia’s institutions, promote violence, hate, or prejudice? Because it really is a can of worms that’s being opened, and the prejudice of the Minister has too much sway in what should be the decision of a court.
7

@stephenwellstriggers
13 hours ago
From a former member of said party, I agree.
5

@uasj2
14 hours ago
This is it. The prof is not supporting this group but nevertheless we don’t want repressive laws to ban them, just well-crafted laws that target only extreme groups
4

@seanlander9321
14 hours ago
@uasj2 How then would a government that has funded a group that advocates hate or violence treat itself then?

@stephenwellstriggers
13 hours ago
​ @seanlander9321 you can make violence illegal, but if you make hatred illegal then everyone is a law breaker. Hate is a universal emotion and part of the human condition. You cant legislate it away.
4

@RSA_Liberty
14 hours ago
The system doesnt want open debate
4

@MrBlaygor
14 hours ago
In my opinion if the government really wanted to end extremism, they would have put in a clause ENCOURAGING any group targeted for designation to escape that designation by requiring them to participate in the electoral system.
3

Hide replies

@DeGuerre
15 hours ago
I hate that we have to think about “what this would be like in the hands of ȧ madman” because that’s not hypothetical any more.
16

@Teufeltusken
15 hours ago
This appears to be what happens when you make rushed laws. The intentions may be honourable, but by being sloppy you allow the targets of the legislation to make valid challenges.
4

@CheekyJebus
10 hours ago
Stripping free speech and your right to political expression is never “honourable”
1

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
Indeed. Much better to do it carefully and sensibly.
6

@SethWAE
13 hours ago
​ @constitutionalclarion1901 Like Donald Trump?

Hide replies

@MartyH99
15 hours ago
Will the Labor party object when these laws are used against themselves?
10

@MartyH99
15 hours ago
It will interesting to hear how the government proved ‘hate’?
1

@lauchlanguddy1004
12 hours ago
They dont have to. Its not a court. All comes down to one person, seems

Hide replies

@zalzalahbuttsaab
15 hours ago
thank you. informative and well-researched as usual!
3

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
You are most welcome.
2

Hide replies

@paulx3733
15 hours ago
Sometimes in this ” modern world” the best motives are easily undermined by those who try to hard to appease the people who are to easily offended…
Just cause your feelings are hurt, don’t make you right.
5

@hs9067
15 hours ago (edited)
I’m continually suprised by Labors attempt at overreach. Restrictive protest, speech laws etc Should we be worried are they trying to lay the foundations for Authoritarianism?
11

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
It was supported by the Coalition too.
9

@hs9067
14 hours ago (edited)
@constitutionalclarion1901 Thats worrying two mainstream partys and than One Nation who is outright oligarchical. Thank you for all the work you do!
2

@AustralianGrandmasForDemocracy
14 hours ago
@constitutionalclarion1901 that isn’t at all surprising!
1

@JayGuitars1
15 hours ago
And trying to eliminate legal firearm possession at the same time…gee you could draw a conclusion.
2

@constitutionalclarion1901
14 hours ago
The law did not seek to ‘eliminate’ legal firearm possession. It imposed some restrictions – eg on the number of firearms that could be owned.
4

Hide replies

@robertwalker7924
15 hours ago
the largest ” hate group ” in Australia is the Australian population towards Australias indigenous peoples…its all very one sided
8

@justheretowatchatrashfire
14 hours ago
Yep
1

@AustralianGrandmasForDemocracy
14 hours ago
It’s shameful that antisemitism gets far more attention than the disrespect and violence that our First Nations people are subject to.
5

Hide replies

@aarondemiri486
15 hours ago (edited)
Will be excited to read what the High Court decides in their judgement.
They will likely discuss Latham’s dissent in the communist party case. Fullagar and Dixon’s separate judgements still stand the test of time.
2

@lylegc01
15 hours ago
Thanks again for your vids
1

@Robert-xs2mv
15 hours ago
Hate in it self is never a crime.
To state otherwise is an injustice!
And when injustice becomes law, the law becomes irrelevant!
11

@RSA_Liberty
14 hours ago
Which human emotion are they going to regulate and ban next?
4

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago (edited)
No one has suggested that hate itself is a crime. It is the public expression of that hate in particular ways (eg inciting violence, intimidating, humiliating others, etc) that is the crime.
1

@Robert-xs2mv
15 hours ago
@constitutionalclarion1901 . So being condemned and accused to be a sinner is a hate crime inciting violence? And you clearly accentuated the relevant minister has the ability to declare whether an expression of hate indeed is inciting ? Sounds like an extremely fine line.
8

@worker-wf2em
10 hours ago

@constitutionalclarion1901 There are already laws against inciting violence in this country. All I see here is overreach from government equating words with violence. Terms like ‘humiliating’ is a ridiculously broad and objective feelings based standard that will be abused by those in power to target dissenters, and anyone the Israel lobby doesn’t like if we’re being honest.
3

Hide replies

@StephenSkinner-k4w
15 hours ago
Who decides if the minister actually did have “reasonable Grounds” to prohibit a “hate group”?
Why, the minister of course!
What could possibly go wrong?
6

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
It could be challenged in a court in an administrative law challenge.
1

Hide replies

@JOSEPHDANCE75
15 hours ago
Nothing to be ashamed about for being white. Same can be said for Black or Asian , what ever else is out their like us hybrids. For those that did bad in the pastis on them . Cannot blame so many today for the actions of some.
6

@tedknight2608
15 hours ago
Quick Question: If it is a criminal offence to direct the actions of a prohibited group, then isn’t someone committing a crime by directing the group’s legal challenge against the prohibition?
2

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
Possibly. It depends on whether the law is valid, for a start. I think there are also exceptions which allow funds to be provided to lawyers for such a legal challenge – but I haven’t delved into all those provisions.
2

@yubnuts
14 hours ago
This is similar to the question that arose in Deripaska (2026) where the sanctioned person (Deripaska) argued that the sanction laws were invalid because to engage legal representation to contest the listing would have itself been a breach of the sanction laws. The High Court saved the sanction laws by reading them down so that they would not extend to prohibiting a person from engaging legal advice for the purpose of contesting the listing.

Hide replies

@michellefranklin3182
15 hours ago
Thanks for this.
4

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
Much appreciated.
2

Hide replies

@DS91284
15 hours ago
Insecurities are so vague and should never be handled by double digits.
1

@Know_It_All
16 hours ago
Thanks
3

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
You’re welcome.

Hide replies

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Thomas Sewell: Alrighty, we’re live. Max volume, everything. Audio input, capture.

 

All right, testing, 1, 2, 3. Use my big boy voice. Volume’s low. What’s your problem? I actually found a setting. Everyone’s like, Tom, fix your settings. We’re going 150%. There we go. Alrighty. Alrighty. Testing, testing!

 

All right, obligatory, free Joel Davis! Free Brandon [Koschel]! Free Jim Roberts!

 

So I’m going to cover a few subjects today, as you expect, with a solo stream. I really enjoyed my most recent stream with James Mason. It was like a five hour don’t Fed post challenge hard. He Fed posted a couple times, but as you’d expect. But I reviewed it and it wouldn’t breach. It wouldn’t breach even the most ridiculous laws we have here in Australia.

 

Now, one thing that I need to correct from the stream is I think I said that the book Siege is in a grey area of the law. My lawyer has told me that it is potentially banned. So he was like, it’s kind of in a dark grey area of the law. It’s not 100% banned. There is a banned list of books in Australia and Siege isn’t on it. But I cannot encourage anyone to go and buy that book because they haven’t made the case yet.

 

But what he suggests is that they’re trying to make the case. So I’d be very careful with that book in Australia. That’s one thing I want to clarify. Yeah, I think Mason gave a pretty sound explanation of what his intention of the book is. And I’m surprised that there hasn’t been any negative press because I know the journalists will watch a stream like that and get their AI ready to write an article for them about how evil we all are. But, yeah, that hasn’t happened.

 

But I do want to give people caution here in Australia that, yeah, I’m not encouraging you on legal grounds. I’m not encouraging you to read the book.

 

And I think all I said in the stream was that I did read it back in 2019 after being bullied by Jacob Hersant into reading it. I originally didn’t read it because I thought it was what everyone says it is. And I was like:

 

“I’m not really interested in that. I know enough about X, Y and Z through reading army manuals when I was in the army, so I don’t feel the need to read something of that nature.”

 

And then Jacob was like:

 

“No, it’s. That’s not what it’s about at all! There’s like some contentious lines in it. But overall, that’s not what it says.”

 

And Mason clarified that on stream. And I do appreciate him doing that because I think siege culture and accelerationist culture is really misunderstood. You know, accelerationism as a concept is, and siege as a concept is really misunderstood. And you’ll notice when I said to Mason about how our strategy has been to do the maximal amount of work with the minimal amount of damage, you’ll notice he was nodding the most. Mason’s not advocating for anyone to be an idiot and go to jail. He’s actually advocating the opposite. He’s saying:

 

“Do as much as you can to the integrity of the system without ruining your life!”

 

And he is proof that he’s done 60 years in the struggle. 60 years of inspiring people to be like:

 

“Well, hang on a minute, this system is evil and corrupt and contributing to it and trying to seek entry into it in hopes to change it is not an effective strategy.”

 

And he’s always been an advocate of the opposite. To siege it, to besiege it, to starve it. And yeah there’s no point, you know, running at it, doing a hero run, you know, charging at the castle walls, you’re just going to get pinged by some dude with an arrow. You’ve got to just wait it out, you’ve got to siege it, not wait it out and do nothing. But there’s a lot of things you can do while besieging an enemy.

 

And so people have to think creatively about what that means. And not but again, all politics, all politics, when it is in its infancy, attracts radical people. And radical people are more prone to self destructive behaviour. And so you want to have people that are courageous, you want to have courageous men, you want to have courageous leaders. And courageous does not mean foolish!

 

And so you do have to balance the concepts of bravery and courage with patience. And there’s a lot of virtue, a lot of virtue in having the strength to put yourself against a system that’s destroying you without becoming a martyr, you know, without letting the system destroy you. Now if you step over that line and the system puts you in jail for life or you get assassinated, like George Lincoln Rockwell.

 

I mean, Matt Hale, for example, who was involved, my understanding, with the creativity movement, he wasn’t the founder, but he was like the young hotshot that was rising up. And I think he’s in jail for life. I think he gets out of jail in about 10 years time from now. And he’s been in jail for like 20 years. Guys like Matt Howell, for example, just got really unlucky. They got. He got really unlucky and he got caught up in something that he hadn’t. I’ve looked at the case, I’ve looked at the case, the facts of the case, and the guy hasn’t done anything wrong. They could just. He was just a serious threat to the system and something like that could happen to me. But God willing, I’m safe from that level of corruption!

 

[07:42]

 

And I think it might be good luck, it might just be good luck! It might be destiny. But you don’t, what is it? You don’t count your chickens until they come home to roost or something? It’s still early days. It’s very early days. I’m still a young man. I might be bald, but I’m young and fit.

 

So, yeah, it’s, I’m 33 years old this year as of this month. And yeah, there’s a lot of struggle to go.

 

Just open with that if you haven’t checked it out, don’t be intimidated by the fact that it’s five hours. It is broken down into separate conversations. There’s an hour and then there’s a break and then there was meant to be an another hour and a break. But it, the first hour, the first two hours is very consumable for most people.

 

And then obviously, if you’re really into this stuff and you go for long drives and, or you work a job where you can have a, your headphones in a lot of tradies and stuff. Tell me that they like the five hour streams. Don’t be intimidated by having these really long streams. They appreciate, they appreciate the dialogue.

 

So as long as not too often. I don’t think you should listen to streams every day and I don’t think you should listen to music every day. I have been doing a fair bit of community service. I got to do knitting, as you’re all aware, and I advise people not to, I listen to music sometimes the whole time, or a podcast or an audio book. Books are probably the best thing. Books are better than streams because books, streams and dialogue and conversations aren’t as sharp. There’s no way I can communicate with you as clearly and as sharply as, say, reading Mein Kampf on audiobook. It’s not possible because of all the jargon. Those are the clearest thoughts possible. And then they go through an editing process.

 

So where are we? So already in the chat. Already in the chat! They’re arguing about Christianity already. Instantly! It’s incredible! Christianity will come up in this stream. When we talk about Manosphere, we’re going to cover feminism in general. We’re going to talk about all this girl bossing that’s going on at the moment with the Evangelicals. And there’s some heinous stuff that I’ve seen on Twitter where these little soy boy freaks are marrying these goblina jewesses with like 100 body counts. And they’re just saying:

 

“But she’s saved by Christ!”

 

And so it will come up. The conversation will come up. When we’re talking about that. There is definitely part one of this stream. What I’m going to open with is I’ll just. People still saying the volume’s low. Let me just unmute myself. Hold on. Now we’re. I could put up 175. I’ll just go 200. I’ll go 200. Okay. People still complaining. 200%. 200% Audio input, capture, volume. And the mic is like an inch from my face, maybe two. Two inches. Audio input, capture. I’ll put this one at 150. Alrighty. How does that sound? Testing for the last time. Testing. Yeah, fair enough. It is pretty quiet. Yeah, there’s a lot of retards in the chat today. Classic. Everyone’s spurging out. Yeah, that does sound better.

 

All right, sweet. Everyone’s arguing over which strain of Christianity. It’s incredible! It’s incredible! It’s endless. It’s endless, isn’t it? It never ends. It never ends.

 

So to start with the Aboriginal question. So obviously we are still what I am, and I have friends and we are trying to get a political party on the table here in Australia. And so covering the Aboriginal question, and you could call it the woman question, is really important. And it has to be done in a way that’s legal because of these laws here in Australia. And it has to be done in a way that people can understand the values and the rhetoric without getting caught up in the emotional arguments. So one has to be cautious when they approach these two topics. So you might find my speech slightly more refined than normal.

 

Hitler won the female vote in Germany. He actually had more women vote for him than men. And that’s a really interesting phenomenon to consider that more women voted for Hitler than men.

 

And so it shows that women don’t have to necessarily like you in order to respect you and I think that’s an important dynamic. A lot of people have commented, including Mason, about how journalists have behaved, female journalists specifically have behaved when interviewing me. And I saw someone online describe it as “negative tingles”, that they’re not used to someone outside the court giving them negative tingles. Normally it’s boring. Normally their job is boring. And then to have someone that’s got an intense character and an intense personality, it hits the dopamine receptors differently. And I’ve seen grandmas on Facebook comment sections in replies to these interviews saying, “hail Australia”. And all the criticism and all the advice people try to give us over the years is all wrong. It’s all backwards. It’s actually all the other way around. The female question is the opposite of the current orthodoxy, the current belief system of how women should be treated and how politics affects women. It’s all wrong. It’s all an inversion of the truth!

 

The truth is that it comes down to respect! And they respect integrity, not niceties! They don’t respect niceties, they respect integrity. And they respect aggression as long as it’s a as long as it’s not a foolish, foaming at the mouth, barbaric aggression. They don’t have much respect for that, but they almost respect that more and get better tingles from that than Peter Dutton and Anthony Albanese. These characters provide no stimulation to the female political psyche. And so understanding how to win the woman vote, you’re not going to win it with outright misogyny. That’s obviously ridiculous! This idea of just be a prick and you’ll get voted in. That’s not what I’m articulating.

 

[16:04]

 

What I’m saying is that people should not continue to spread the lie and demoralisation within our broader scene, our broader movement and political parties in the West, that the way to win the woman vote is to pander to them. That’s really what this comes down to, is the pandering.

 

So that’s a subject on its own that I’ll cover. So that’s what you got to look forward to.

 

But first we’re going to talk about the Aboriginal question and specific. We’ve talked about both these questions a lot, but the reason why it’s come up again is I’ve had a lot of people in person and online message me saying:

 

“Why is our strategy to go to war with Aboriginals? Won’t we win more votes and won’t we do better in Parliament and won’t our message be more well received if we don’t go to war?”

 

These are their words, not mine, with Aboriginals. And my position is not that we’re going to war with Aboriginals.

 

And obviously the Camp Sovereignty situation has played a part in this dialogue because people think that the reason why there’s allegedly an incident on that hill was because of the Aboriginal question. And it’s completely it’s not irrelevant. It’s not irrelevant, but people are conflating and the media has done this. The media has purposefully misled people and made a significant portion of people that support us question their support on the basis of:

 

“Well, why would they attack innocent elderly Aboriginal women?”

 

And most people can see through it. But there is a portion of our supporters that are like:

 

“Oh, I don’t think that was a good move. You probably shouldn’t have attacked innocent elderly Aboriginal women.”

 

And it’s, well, one, that didn’t happen and two, the conflict., … And this is the position that interestingly, a lot of Aboriginals actually share, not all, but a lot, is that the issue is these White traitors.

 

And so if these White traitors didn’t behave the way they did, there wouldn’t be as much conflict between the Whites and the Aboriginals. And you’ll find there’s a lot of, probably a higher percentage of Aboriginal DNA Aboriginals that aren’t supportive of multiculturalism. And there is, the Left call it like an Uncle Tom syndrome, obviously. But my position has always been towards all races that it’s about respect. And it’s a zero sum game a lot of the time regarding resources and living space. That’s zero sum.

 

And so there’s going to have to be compromise or there’s going to be if there’s not some sort of what I’ve always said about the question of re-migration is people bring up the Aboriginals, whenever you talk about re-migration they say:

 

“Oh, but what about the Aboriginals? They were here before you!”

 

So because of that, they’re in their own select category. And what I’ve been trying to explain to people online is that Aboriginals have a choice. And this is the sound bite and this is what you should be saying to if I know a lot of people have an Aboriginal friend, or a part Aboriginal friend, this is what you say to them:

 

“Our position is that you either have part sovereignty over the whole or over full sovereignty over the part. But you can’t have both.”

 

I’ll explain that again. The Aboriginal people can either have part sovereignty over all, or full sovereignty over part. They can’t have both! That’s not a compromise. That’s White genocide. So White people, Anglo, Celtic people predominantly have come to this continent because the continent wasn’t a country, or a nation, it was a continent. It’s a land mass. It’s an island, a big island.

 

But we’ve come to this place. There’s a whole bunch of warring Aboriginal tribes. Some are in cahoots and some aren’t in cahoots. Some have been here 10,000 years. Some have potentially been here 40,000 years. The numbers keep changing. But either way, we came here and we built something separate to them. We tried to include them. There’s a lot of interesting history from the first and Second Fleet and from Arthur and Bligh, Philip. There’s some interesting history where they’ve tried to integrate the Aboriginals and it’s almost always backfired horribly on both the Whites and on the Aboriginals.

 

And so when you look at and Auspill’s done a very good job at covering this, when there has been massacres of Aboriginals, so-called these genocides or massacres, it’s always come down to establishing the Anglo Saxon law on the land. It’s come down to:

 

“Hey, we want this land, we want this territory. We’re bigger and stronger than you. We’re not going to come after you, we’re not going to attack you. But we want this much space. And, it’s living space for Whites. Europe has to breathe out. We’re overcrowded in the streets of London. We’ve got this problem with criminals or petty criminality, people stealing Spoons and stuff. We’re running out of space. We found this place. We’re in a geopolitical issue with all these other people. We can’t explain this to you. We just need what we, what we need. And we’re prepared to fight for it! And your options are to fight us or to just keep moving deeper and deeper into the bush and away from this spot. It’s ours now. You’re not having it back.”

 

[22:11]

 

And obviously anyone in their right mind would be pissed off by that. If some alien force came, you know, from space and did that to us right now and we had really little ability to fight back because they were so technologically advanced, we would rightfully be pissed off, wouldn’t we? But we would have to retreat into the bush, we would have to White flight. We would have to be like, this is too much. We have to consolidate what we’re doing.

 

And so this is beyond Good and Evil. This is a, this is Nietzschean in this concept. The Left try to put a moral framework on that and say:

 

“That’s wrong, that’s evil. And therefore we have to surrender Australia to everyone! We have to be cucks, we have to bend over and we have to let anyone come here and rape us because of this founding moment!”

 

Because White people equals bad as their moral framework. That is their entire moral framework. White people equals bad. And they’ve got this original sin concept:

 

“We’re bad people! We’re horrible people! We’re horrible, bad people!”

 

Now, obviously straight White men don’t think this way. The only people that think this way are people with slave morality, which is homosexuals, freaks, a lot of women unfortunately think this way:

 

“Oh, no, we’re horrible! What we’ve done is so horrible!”

 

You know, this kind of bleeding heart. Not all women, but it is a naturally, it is a feminine energy to put your empathy for others. Well, it’s not even a, it’s a distortion of feminine energy really.

 

But look, it appeals, it appeals to weak willed people. Masculine men don’t think like this. Testosterone doesn’t allow your brain to even go there. We’ve got a completely different philosophical structure, a completely different reality because we’ve got a solar morality. It really comes down to these simple principles. It’s not about good and evil, it’s about solar morality. It’s about, we are a life form, we must exist, we must continue to exist. We don’t have to be pricks about it, we don’t have to be cunts about it. But we’re not going to back down, we’re not going to surrender, we’re not going to roll over and die. And so how do we make this work?

 

And so obviously, while we’re in a nice friendly talking phase about it, I don’t have an issue with Aboriginal sovereignty. It’s not my issue. I don’t. Good on them, Good for them. That’s my position on the Aboriginals. Good for them! If they can have it, good on them.

 

But it’s got nothing to do with me. I’m not paying for it, I’m not engaged in it, I’m not involved in it. It’s not in my face, it’s not in my place, it’s not in my space. It’s in their space. Now that is the problem! That is the problem is that multiculturalism is forcing all these radically different people to live together. And we’re not meant to live that is going to be the death of us. It’s going to be the death of our culture.

 

Now these people, they have a flag, they have a tribe, they have an identity. They’re trying to rebuild their culture. Good on them. My opinion, and I think the opinion of most Aboriginals and most White people is that they should do it on their own! I think they’ve had enough help. We’ve done enough to help them, more than enough to help them. It’s not our responsibility to help them any further.

 

What part of the land are they going to get? Well, that is the most serious conversation. But the philosophy behind that conversation I think is congruent. I think we can, I think all Australians can get on board with the idea that we have a two-state solution, at a minimum. To me, that’s the minimum. If they want to go to war with us, that’s a different conversation.

 

But I think you’ll find that there could be conversations where they have their own government, they have their own schools, they have their own institutions. Are they going to be as good as ours? No, they’re not. Is that going to cause the bleeding hearts to be like:

 

“See we’re still continuing to oppress them by keeping them separate!”

 

And there’ll be an anti-apartheid argument, but apartheid is the most beneficial thing for both parties. Because they will never have dignity, they will never have sovereignty and they will never have dignity while we play this passive aggressive game where they’re trying to rule over us and we’re trying to say we’re all friends, Kumbaya. That is never, while both of us are actually suffering. So I’ve said in the past things like if they want to, if they want to fight, they might get deported too. They’ll get deported back to India. They walked here 40,000 years ago. They might get told to walk back.

 

And I’ve said things like those are very strong comments and obviously a lot of Aboriginal people want to fight me because of those comments.

 

But that is my position. I’m not backing down on that. I’m never going to change my mind on that is my position. It’s a two-state solution or it’s that because we cannot continue. And when we take power in this country, and we are going to take power in this country, we are going to solve this question and we are going to say:

 

“Let’s sit down, let’s draw up the map and here is a fundamental treaty of you will not let China put bases on your land, you will not let any foreigners put bases on your land, blah, blah, blah!”

 

Like there will be a treaty that will say:

 

“You are a vassal of our realm. This is Australdom, this is our realm, you’re a vassal, you’ve got a territory, you self govern it.”

 

Whether we trade or buy or sell or communicate with each other, whether there’s tourist visas, all this is downstream. We can work something out where they can come visit us and we can go visit them.

 

[28:08]

 

The bleeding hearts can go live with the Aboriginals. But you will not put Chinese bases on it. Like this is fortress Australia. We’re not going to tolerate it and you guys can police yourselves. You can have your own laws, you can have your own courts, you can have your own koori justice and your own jails and your own prisons, and all the complaints that they have all solved overnight. All solved overnight. We have nothing to do with it. We have nothing to do with it. We have no part of it! You want to go spear each other, that’s your culture. That we’re not going to intervene. And that is the absolute best outcome for everyone involved! That it’s the best compromise for us. Certainly it’s the best compromise. Is it perfect? Is it ideal? Can we purity spiral and get a better result? Sure, absolutely!

 

Is that feasible? Of course, anything is feasible if you put your mind to it. Is that how the Australian public feel? No, the Australian public don’t feel that there could be something more than that. There might be people that want to do more than that and go further, certainly. And that ethnic tension arises from living together. But I think once you find, once you take that step in that direction, I think you will find that tension will disappear.

 

So when people say to me:

 

“Tom you know why are we doing this? Anti Aboriginal rhetoric and da, da and we should try to win the Aboriginals over and we should., …”

 

The way they’re talking is they’re treating Aboriginals the same way. They’re like:

 

“We should try to win women over. We should try to win!”

 

It’s kind of similar to attitude. It’s like that’s not how it works. You don’t win Aboriginals over by pandering to them. You don’t win women over by pandering to them. I know they’re two very different biological forms. You know, obviously one is male and female. One is just female. You know, when we’re talking about women, we’re talking about White women, obviously. And I’m not making any further comparisons in that regard.

 

But if you understand, what I’m saying is the politics of the White man, the politics of the White Patriarchy, is not about pandering! Our politics is about laying down the law, explaining what we’re going to do and why we’re going to do it and how we’re going to do it. And then saying:

 

“This is the best outcome for everyone. What we’re doing right now is not working and we’re not making any further compromises on that’s the line in the sand.”

 

We’re actually only going to go further than that, we’re not going to come any less than that.

 

There is never, in my opinion, there’s never going to be a time where I or the vast majority of White people in Australia are going to accept are our slow ethnic replacement. It might appear that way right now, but it’s only because we’re not politically organised. This is not how the average Australian feels. This is not how the average White person around the world feels. The average White person around the world wants re-migration. They want to remain, at a minimum, 90%. That’s like the beginning. That’s not even, like controversial anymore, that the 90% or the 95% rule. That is the super majority of the population. I just like deport all of them except the good ones. That’s the super majority. And then you’ve probably still got the majority saying:

 

“No, no, it shouldn’t be 90, it should be 99%.”

 

So, yeah, anyway, I’ll pause there. I won’t cover that subject much more. Oh, my God! There’s a sorry, there’s a spastic in the chat. How do I do ban this person for life? I don’t want to mute. I keep making this mistake. If I mute, then I can’t ban. Isn’t that right? Okay, that just deleted it. Oh, yeah. Also muting on Rumble because Odysee is different. Muting on Rumble is banning. Cool. Glad we got that sorted.

 

I’ll go through the comments section. If there’s any comments on the Aboriginal question. Geez, everyone’s just arguing about Christianity. We’re not even talking about Christianity. We’re just talking about Aboriginals at this stage.

 

So, yeah, in short, as I said before, tell your friends that say this nonsense to you about how we should work together:

 

“We all got to work together. We all got to work together.”

 

They can have full sovereignty over themselves, but not us. Or they can have this fake sovereignty over everyone. Do they actually want full sovereignty? If they do, it can only be over themselves. That means apartheid. Ultimately, that means apartheid. What that looks like is a man can’t serve the Australian flag and the Aboriginal flag. You can’t go to a at the high school, at the courts, all these institutions. It’s got an Australian flag and it’s got an Aboriginal flag. That is not sustainable. It’s one or the other. It can’t be both.

 

And this idea of:

 

“Oh, we got to show solidarity and they’re not a threat to us and all this.”

 

It’s not sustainable. It’s not sustainable. It’s nice. Tingle feels. It feels really nice:

 

“Oh, look, I’m being empathetic. Oh, I’m a good person.”

 

You can have this virtue signaling, but we’re two very different peoples. We need to have sovereignty over ourselves. They need to have sovereignty over themselves. We need to be focused on Australia and White people and civilisation, the Western civilisation that we’re a part of, and they need to be focused on creating their own harmony, the dream time, their version of reality, fixing their problems, punishing their problems. They have a completely different version of reality to us. That is just how different ethnic groups and different races are built. They have different versions of reality. Things we see as a problem that they see it like a major problem, they see as a minor problem, and vice versa. Their biggest issue is White people are locking them up and putting them in jail. Like, they can’t even comprehend that our problem is that they’re committing heinous crimes. They can’t even comprehend that’s a problem. They see the problem as:

 

“Why are you locking us up?”

 

[35:04]

 

It’s the same with the blacks in America. How can these two groups of people live together when they have completely different versions of reality? So they should police themselves. Simple as! Part sovereignty over all or full sovereignty over part.

 

So you can’t have both. Simple. As I’ll move on. Hopefully the comment section is not talking about Christianity, someone says:

 

“Do I make my own toothpaste?”

 

Very funny. Yeah. And this applies not just to Australia, this applies to obviously, Canada and New Zealand as well. I think the Treaty of Waitangi is a mistake in New Zealand. I don’t know too much about the treaties in Canada. I know Alex Ferryman does. Yeah, it’s a mistake. It’s a mistake. Any treaty that exists needs to be a treaty of:

 

“Here’s your space. Here’s our space. You live there, we live here. You’re citizens of your country. We’re citizens of our country. We’re two separate nations. We’re not the same nation.”

 

They even call themselves the first nation so that by definition, they’re not part of our nation. They’re saying this. They’re saying this, not me. They are saying it. What else?

 

Let’s get into the nuts and bolts. The woman question. I need a need a breather. If we’re going to get into the woman question. I need a breather. Yeah. Someone says:

 

“Easiest solution is allow those same bleeding hearts to transfer their own funds to Aboriginals, not government or social funds. The Left can put their money where their mouth is.”

 

Yeah, absolutely! Well, I believe that all the bleeding hearts should go live with the Aboriginals. They should have Aboriginal citizenship. They want to be so bad. They hate White people so much. They hate being White!:

 

“White people are horrible, horrible people! And having White children is perpetuating White supremacy and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!”

 

Good bye. Bye. See you later. Awesome! You know, we’ll strip all of these people of Australian citizenship when we come to power and there will be people that will say:

 

“Oh, my God, you can’t do that!”

 

Yes, we can and we will. They’re all going to get stripped of their Australian citizenship. These White people that work, that bow down and worship Aboriginals as their god. They can go live with their god. They can go live with their god. Simple. You know, you want to do the Welcome to Country acknowledgment of country, all this. Absolutely perfect! Perfect. Absolutely! Bye. Bye. Yeah, we don’t want those people living in our society. It doesn’t matter that they’re of the same blood as us. That doesn’t matter because they’re not of the same honour as us. They hate us! There are some sort of mutation of our bloodline that is antithetical to our existence. If Aboriginals didn’t exist, they would find some other group to nut hug. Hypothetically, because there’s no Aboriginals in England. Like you don’t see people advocating for the pre-Belgic-Celtic invasion of Bronze Age England. That doesn’t exist. You know, what kind of strain of Leftism would that be? You know, it’s obviously absurd because you’ve got a thousand years of homogeneity of many different layers of Celtic peoples then breeding in with many different layers of Germanic and Nordic peoples.

 

So it’s the English people, the British people are a relatively homogenised people. And so you don’t see that argument because those tribes can homogenise quite. I mean, obviously it still caused things like, I mean, I don’t want to get too much into the intricacies of English history, but you can see the precursor of things like civil war in previous ethnic distinctions.

 

So, for example, Croatia and Serbia are ethnically very similar, but they’re not ethnically the same. They are two different ethnicities and therefore they also have two different versions of their interpretation of Christianity. You’ve got Orthodoxy and you’ve got Catholicism. So ethnic differences play out also religiously and also politically. You’ll see this a lot through human history. You see it in the American Civil War. There was an ethnic difference in the American Civil War as well. Probably not as predominant, but I won’t go into it. Americans know that for themselves.

 

Now someone says:

 

“Tom’s right. They have a different reality. Go to any Northern Territory prison and you’ll see the system isn’t working.”

 

It’s not working by our standards. Absolutely! Our version, our reality of working and their version of working are two completely different things.

 

And I’ll finish it with this. I had a Dreamtime experience with Aboriginals. I’m sure I’ve told this story on stream years ago, so those that have been around a while will remember this story. But I had a friend in the army, a guy called Christopher Knight. He was a Special Forces guy. He’s a translator, he’s a linguist. And I don’t know what he’s doing now with his life, but I’m sure he’s doing well. And he was adopted. He got adopted in a cultural sense, or a linguistic sense by an Aboriginal. An Aboriginal tribe in Darwin in Northern Territory. And this guy was a, like one of those, what is called politician-linguist or something. This guy spoke like 50 languages. It was incredible! I’ve never seen anything like it. I mean, we would go out drinking in Mitchell street or whatever it’s called in the CBD of Darwin. It’s like one street and there’s like four bars on it. And any backpacker, he could speak their language. Any backpacker. It was really incredible!

 

[41:09]

 

Anyway on his weekends, he was going out and living with Aboriginals out in the middle of nowhere. And there were like some, there were full bloods and it’s very rare to find full bloods, but in Northern Territory it’s more common. There’s no way you can find full bloods outside of Northern Territory or Northern New, Southern Queensland or Northern WA. And he started hanging out with these, basically semi-nude Aboriginals in the bushland near Casuarina Beach on the weekends. And he knocks on my door. I don’t know, it was like one in the morning, one random. It was like a Tuesday, or a Thursday. And he says:

 

“Hey Tom or hey Sewell.”

 

Everyone calls you by your last name in the army:

 

“Hey Sewelly, I’m getting deployed tomorrow. They need a linguist. He was a two commando guy, but for some reason he was in our battalion. And he says, I’m getting deployed tomorrow. I’m getting on a plane and I have to say goodbye to some people and I had to run some errands. Can you drive me?”

 

Because I was one of the only LID, which lid means new guy or live in digger. I was one of the only LID that had a car. And I was friendly with him, and everyone thought he was a weirdo and I did as well. Weird means different things to me than it does to other people. When someone says weird, they mean like not radioactive, but they mean, you know, semi-ostracized. They mean:

 

“Oh, we don’t associate with that guy because he’s a weirdo!”

 

Whereas when someone’s weird, I am fascinated by human psychology. And so I was always very friendly with him because I wanted to know what made him tick. He had such a different version of reality to everyone else that I just really wanted to understand. I mean this guy was probably in his early 30s and I think I was 19 or 20 at the time.

 

So I was like:

 

“Unk, how do you view the world? What’s going on, Unk?”

 

Basically I was the same relationship I have with Zoomers and is like that relationship when I was The Age that a lot of Zoomers are that asked me for advice And I’m now. I’m now 90.

 

But anyway, he says, he’s like:

 

“Sewelly, you’re the only one with a car. You know, can you drive me around? I gotta say goodbye to some people.”

 

And so he drives me out in the middle of nowhere, and then we go walking for like 40 minutes down this beach. And I’m like:

 

“What are we doing?”

 

And we find these Aboriginals just on this beach in the middle of nowhere. And they’re all sitting cross legged and around a little campfire. And he introduces me to them and he’s speaking their language, like full Aboriginal! Like whatever sect of Aboriginal they are. And he’s speaking their language. And he introduces me and he says a bunch of Aboriginal words.

 

And then he says my name. And then he says:

 

“5 RAR, 5th Battalion.”

 

And I was like:

 

“What did you say to them?”

 

And he said:

 

“You’re a young warrior from my tribe, from the 5th Battalion tribe. And that you’re a good warrior. You’re a good, young, strong warrior and that you’re helping me today.”

 

And I was like:

 

“Oh.”

 

And then they all, like, acknowledged me. They’re all sitting different. So it was men. I was sitting with the men, obviously, and the women were sitting at a different campfire with the women, and it was segregated.

 

And so I was with the men and Knighty was explaining to them how I was a good warrior, a good young warrior of the 55 RAR tribe. And we’re sitting there and they’re just talking and talking, and I went into a trance. I was tired, but I didn’t know what was, … It was like someone had drugged me. I was in a trance and I was just staring at the ocean, because we’re on the beach. And I was staring at the ocean and the sky was purple.

 

And I was like:

 

“Is there something in this fireplace? Like, what? Like, am I on?”

 

I’ve never at this stage, I’d never tried any drug ever!

 

And I was like:

 

“Is this what acid feels like?”

 

That’s what I was thinking in my head.

 

And I was like:

 

“What is going on?”

 

And they’re making that noise that they make. They’re talking and yeah. And then the sun’s coming up and I’m like, what is going on? And I look at the time and it’s like 6:30. And it was just surreal! It was a surreal experience. And then he’s like:

 

“All right, we’re gonna go.”

 

He gave them bananas and double A batteries. And he taught them how to like Jerry rig a phone to be able to give co-ordinates so that he could communicate where they were in the bush using GPS. And it was just fascinating! It was just absolutely fascinating! That was my first positive experience with Aboriginals. And I had had only about 500 negative experiences with Aboriginals prior to that moment. And every negative experience I’d had with Aboriginals was them being drunk, or not even drunk, but them just behaving the way they behave, and then being violent and aggressive towards me for just existing, for just walking down the street or just going to the shops at two o’ clock in the afternoon. Or them harassing like pregnant ladies trying to get in their car, demanding money off them. Like just every experience I had was so negative.

 

[46:02]

 

And then this was the first time I was like:

 

“I think I’m starting to understand these people. They live in a dream time.”

 

Like the proper full bloods. They live in a different reality to us. They don’t like time. The way we view time and the way they view time is completely different! And I somehow empathed in that moment into their little hive mind with Knightie, who was like my guide. His name was Christopher Knight, like a knight of Christ! And he was a very spiritually attuned man. And that was an experience I’ll never forget. I think I was almost, 20 years old. I was only 19!

 

But yeah, very interesting stuff. Very, very interesting stuff.

 

The stream looks frozen on my end. What is going on? No, no, it’s not frozen. Excellent! Yeah. What can I say? What can I say? I’ve seen the best of it and I’ve seen the worst of it. And the best of it is we should just leave these people alone. Like the problem is enlightenment. In a lot of ways, [chuckling] enlightenment has benefits, certainly. I’m not anti-enlightenment. You know, that’s a big part of how we’ve come to be. And it was a big part of our life cycle as a civilisation. It’s the second last phase of civilisation is enlightenment. The Greeks went through this around, I don’t know, 400 B.C. And yeah, I’m not against, you can’t be against it because it’s nature, it’s time itself.

 

But one of the dumbest parts of enlightenment is “equality”. That’s the dumbest part of enlightenment. The, the, that is the false enlightenment. The false enlightenment is that we’re all blank slates and that we’re all equal. That you know:

 

“All men are created equal before God and blah blah, blah!”

 

That is the most. How the hell. I don’t even know if they sincerely believe that. I can’t even fathom that they were that stupid that the people that colonised Australia, … Because when I read Clark, I’ve got it right here actually, this one here.

 

So this guy’s a communist. He’s a piece of shit, Leftist communist! And he wrote A History of Australia. I have, I’ve only read this one. I haven’t read the other volumes. I think this one ends around 1830. And he wrote this in I think 1961 or 62. And he’s a full blown communist and was investigated by ASIO for being, for coordinating with. Here’s the big boy here. Here’s the main man. Here’s the main man. Mr. Cook. Captain Cook. Anglo Saxon. Anglo Saxon. But yeah, Melbourne University. He’s a commie at Melbourne University.

 

Anyway, I read it. It’s quite interesting, quite subversive. But he, oh, he really emphasises the how enlightened Captain Cook and you know, Arthur Bligh and all these guys were and how they, but what’s interesting is he can’t hide the fact that despite their Enlightenment, despite the fact that they. Excuse me. They arrived in Australia and they tried to treat the Aboriginals as equals.

 

And so they’re like:

 

“Hey, let’s trade.”

 

And then there was nothing to trade. So they were like:

 

“Hey, let’s, …”

 

It was like a clash of values because they had these Enlightenment values and they didn’t know how to implement them on the Aboriginals. They didn’t know.

 

And so there was a whole bunch of different treat ways the Aboriginals were treated by European colonists. And I think it was the Portuguese and the Spanish in the Americas, but a little bit even in the Asia Pacific region, the Portuguese were in Asia Pacific as well. And they were basically like:

 

“You’re going to convert to Catholicism by the sword!”

 

And what Clark says is that they didn’t have those Enlightenment values. So you’ve got like Protestant Anglos trying to communicate with Aboriginals and like uplift them into humanity and uplift them into civility.

 

And then you’ve got the Portuguese with almost like pre-Enlightenment Catholic values that were just like “convert or die”. And that’s quite interesting. You know, it’s possible to talk about history without talking about Christianity. But yeah, that’s quite interesting. I won’t expand on that too much. You can gather from that what you want.

 

Yeah, where was I going with that? Yeah, he has all these little anecdotes or all these little stories about these first encounters and how, yeah, the enlightened English were just bewildered and were just like:

 

“We’ve never encountered this anywhere in the world!”

 

And he’s actually honest about the criticisms that they had. I think he might over embellish their enlightenment principles. I think they were probably a lot more racist than what he’s articulating because he’s a communist.

 

But yeah, I think I titled this Aboriginal communism, didn’t I? Before we get into the woman question, ultimately, if we don’t segregate from Aboriginals, we’re going to get destroyed by Aboriginal communism the way that what’s going on in South Africa, they’re dealing with African communism. And when you end apartheid and you mix or you attempt to get the races to all live together in equality and one is so different to the other, it’s a race to the bottom! And that’s ultimately what communism is, it’s a race to the bottom.

 

And it’s not just anti-enlightenment because there’s a lot of things that are anti-enlightenment, but it is anti-life! It’s ultimately anti-life because our version of life is an upward force, not a, so it’s hard to cover this without getting into the Greeks. You got to get into the Greeks because they figured all this out! And I don’t mean like the Greeks is in the souvlaki shop. I mean like the ancient Greeks, the philosophy.

 

The Greeks realised that when they went through their enlightenment that there’s not just being, there’s becoming. And that the ultimate being is becoming. And we use the word “progress” now and that word is obviously really dirty and that’s why I don’t use it. It’s a very dirty word. To say something is “progressive”, you’re saying it’s Leftist.

 

[53:19]

 

And so the Leftists have actually somehow inverted “becoming” into “progression”. And so when they say it’s progressive, it’s actually regressive! It’s regressive of the total life force. Leftism is the downward path. It’s not Left versus Right, it’s up versus down! And this is something that you really need to understand. Communism, Aboriginal communism, jewish communism, any form of communism, any form of Leftist progression is a progression downwards! It’s progressing the life form downwards. And this applies to even politics of today.

 

So if you want to talk about party politics, if you want to call it that if you want to talk about Parliamentarianism, what the Labor Party here in. I know this is people like, I’m tuning out. I don’t want to hear this. But normies want to hear this. Normies, you do need to. If you’re listening to this, you’re probably not a normie. And you do need to know how to apply the logic that I’m articulating here in the stream to things other than ancient Greece and ancient Rome and like all this stuff, you need to be able to apply it to be able to explain it to, … You need to be able to speak in tongues and that doesn’t mean like that crazy Evangelical crap. That means you need to be able to speak the tongue of the people.

 

And so what the Labor Party here in Australia has done is they’ll get lost on this because they haven’t read a book on economics, but it’s this Keynesian economics where it’s window breaking. So they believe that if you keep breaking windows, the GDP will go up because the glazier is going to make more money. And, it’s all that in conjunction with Fabian socialism. So Fabian socialism is what:

 

“We want the windows to be broken because we want more money wasted on fixing windows instead of building the power system.”

 

And so Fabian socialists or Fabian Communists, Fabian Marxists. They’re ultimately Marxists. They want to create this workers revolution through accelerating the decline of society by wasting as much money as possible.

 

And so that’s why the NDIS is the way it is. That’s why the NDIS is bigger than the defense budget. That’s why we spend more money on parasites and retards than we do on protecting the nation from foreign invasion. It’s why we spend so much money on basically compounding problems. Not fixing problems, but compounding problems! And the problem itself is often the expenditure, the wastage, the fact that we’re taxing the noble, the good, the healthy, and we’re giving to the evil and the weak and the disgusting and the decrepit.

 

And this is Kali Yuga stuff. This is end of time stuff. This is what Hitler talks about in Mein Kampf. Why you have to read Mein Kampf. It’s not negotiable. It’s not negotiable! If there’s only one book you should read, it’s Mein Kampf, because he explains all of this. He explains exactly what’s happening, exactly why it’s happening and exactly what you need to do to stop it from continuing to destroy your society.

 

So that’s why they’re window breaking. That’s why the Labor Party and all the Greenies and all these freaks, they’re all on board with destroying society through taking money from good people and giving it to broken people. And what that does is that what you feed grows. And they know that! They know that! They know it and they’ve already projected how that industry is going to expand. And it is beyond political parties. I mean it’s the Uni-Party doing it. It’s not just the Labor Party. But it obviously gets worse under one and then the other does Labor Party light. They do Fabian socialism light. That’s what the Liberal Party is. It’s homosexuality light. Fabian socialism light. Retard economics light. You know it’s diet retardation!

 

Anyway. Aboriginal communism. Yeah. Where are we? Yeah. I don’t normally do Superchats mid conversation but Delvian said:

 

“Isn’t the abo love a second order consequence of White men becoming feminised and White women hating their own men?”

 

There’s definitely an element to that. I think there’s a lot of different components to the so-called “Aboriginal love”. There’s the false enlightenment, there’s self hatred. Yes. There’s virtue signaling. So society is structured wrong, which is what we’re going to get into with the feminine society and the woman question. Society is structured with an inversion of natural law. The moral framework of society is an inversion of what our society was built on.

 

So that is often described as late stage decline or degeneration where you forget what your purpose was to such an extent where it’s upside down. There’s obviously nefarious influence. There’s particular (((interest groups))) that are a particular ethno-religious orientation and they compound and accelerate and destabilise. Certainly. They’re obviously a major player in that process but it does happen on its own. And you know there’s a lot of, I won’t go into all the proverbs and quotes on the subject but this festering can only exist if you’re already going in that direction. What we need is a complete re-evaluation of values. And you know we have gone through two or three generations of a nihilist phase and we are re interpreting and revaluing our values. We are so far ahead morally of where we were 50 years ago. And people will aay:

 

“No! That’s not true. No! People were so conservative back in the day.”

 

And it’s like they were running off inertia. They hadn’t actually evaluated their values. They were just running off inertia. We’re actually so much further ahead by going through the decline, seeing the nihilism, seeing the hedonism.

 

[1:00:19]

 

 

And I have so much faith and hope in the young generation. Young White people across the world, obviously, a lot of them are infected with the social disease. A lot of them are infected. But the ones that aren’t infected with the social disease have immunity. They have immunity! They have built up. They don’t need to be injected with anything. They have natural immunity! Young White people across the Western world are growing up immune to this social disease. And the disease of our time is not the plague. It’s not the Spanish Flu. It’s not? What is it? You know, all the ones that people, tuberculosis. It’s not these things that are killing people anymore, you know.

 

And Edward Dutton covers this a lot. I’ve talked about this on streams for years and years, and I’m so glad someone actually wrote a book about it. I’ve only read the blurb. I haven’t actually read the whole book, but I might actually get around to reading it at some point. But Dutton covers this and he explains that just the mutational load has the selection process now is, are you a retard or are you not? And if you’re not a retard, you’re most likely immune to the retardation that’s destroying our society.

 

So, yeah. All right, we’ll do it. We’ll go into the woman question. Check the comments first. Someone says:

 

“Ban women!”

 

No, we don’t need to ban them. Reese White says:

 

“Thomas. So are you a fan of Adam Green?”

 

I don’t really know anything about Adam Green. I’ve seen him on Twitter. He’s the anti-Christian guy, isn’t he? He’s kind of built like a platform. I haven’t seen him at all! I’ve never spoken to him. I don’t really know anything about him. I only know of him. Yeah, I can’t comment on that question. I’ve seen a lot of people attack him saying he’s jewish, and I’ve seen him say that Christianity is jewish.

 

So it’s like everyone’s saying:

 

“You’re a jew! No, you’re a jew! No, you’re a jew!”

 

And it’s like I’m not getting into it. It’s not in my sphere. I think I’ve seen him do chats with HT [Handsome Truth]. Yeah, we will cover a little bit of Christianity here. But yeah, you all know I’m not Christian. But we will cover it and we’ll cover it in a respectful way. I think that any criticism people have of Christianity should be done respectfully. I know that’s hard to do. It is very hard to do. But this is a, yeah, I try to be as secular as possible and yeah, let’s start with that. Let’s actually start with Christianity.

 

Let’s start with. If we’re going to talk about the woman question, let’s talk about Christianity.

 

So the Hebrew mythology or the Hebrew founding story is Adam and Eve. It’s a bit different to other founding stories, but you’ll find there’s so much similarities when you’re talking about the origins of man from. And I don’t use mythology. I don’t say mythology in a bad way. I don’t say it in a, I don’t mean it in a negative way. I’m not putting a pejorative on it. You know, all founding myth is myth. It’s mythos. We don’t know for sure, but we can respect myth. I respect myth. Yeah, and geez, we’re already into it.

 

But we all know the story Genesis. So we have this perfect garden of peace and harmony and the founding story of Christianity and therefore the founding message, the founding message of Christianity is that women are inherently attracted to evil. And breaching the peace and harmony of the garden that’s created by the father.

 

So it’s kind of like women inherently have to “shit test” a situation, a society, a these aren’t my words. This is not even my personal interpretation. I didn’t come up with this is what the Bible says.

 

And anyone that has a different version of Genesis is a moron and hasn’t read it. So many Christians haven’t read the Bible. Probably one of my main issues with Christians is that they haven’t read the Bible. I don’t think you should be allowed to call yourself a Christian if you haven’t read the Bible.

 

And likewise, I don’t think people should call themselves a National Socialist if they haven’t read Mein Kampf. I don’t think you should say that. I think you should say I’m interested in National Socialism, but I don’t think you should identify with it. You should hear the words from the man. He says it all. He outlines 95% of it in one book. And it’s a lot easier to read than the Bible. The Bible is a very hard book to read. It’s very tedious at parts. It, sure, it has beautiful parts, like all religious books have beautiful parts, but it is a very hard read. It’s a very long book. It’s like a million words. It takes a long time. Unless you race through it, if you race through it, you’re going to miss things. But Genesis is very clear. Like the first books, Genesis and Exodus, these things are very clear. Very, very clear. There’s no, not much nuance to it.

 

Now there’s obviously different mythological interpretations. What is the snake and what is the apple and what is God’s command and all this. But if you’re going to found a religion off this principle, it’s going to bleed through the whole text, isn’t it?

 

So whatever you’re reading later on in the Bible has to always come back to Genesis and a belief system that men and women were created unequally, that man was created from breathing life into dust or into matter. Women were created from the rib of man, so from the side. So it’s a peer, but it’s not an equal peer. There’s some sort of difference there. And so, I mean, obviously.

 

[1:07:14]

 

But I was talking to Jacob recently and he’s been deep diving Plato. Absolutely deep diving Plato. I’ve read the Republic, but I haven’t read much else from Plato. And he was negging Aristotle, which I was surprised at because I actually prefer, at this stage, I prefer Aristotle to Plato, not to get too much into philosophy, but I’ve only read the Republic. So and I didn’t really rate it, to be honest. I thought it was an interesting dialogue, but I didn’t rate it as much as it gets glazed. But he’s been reading all the other stuff. Full deep diving into everything, every single thing the guy’s written. And what he said to me was, and this is very recently, he said to me that the Greeks believed that, or Plato believed, and this became quite a common belief system, that if that souls were created, this is before Christianity, they believe that souls were created fresh and that they were all men, that if you lived a bad life, if you were a bit, you know, weak or immoral, that you would be reincarnated in your next life as a woman. And this became a pretty well established belief system. And it’s interesting that that is in some way similar to Christianity, that they arrived at a position where they were ripe for proselytisation from Christian apostles.

 

So let’s start there. Obviously, European Paganism is many things, just as Christianity is many things. There’s so much schism within Paganism. And when you’re talking generally about Paganism, you’re talking about general principles which we know from Greek, Roman, Zoroastrian, Indus Valley, and obviously Germanic and Celtic Paganism. And people will cherry pick what they want.

 

There are female church leaders at the moment. I mean, that’s just absurd to me that the whole book is a document saying that women can’t accurately interpret God. They can’t accurately communicate or interpret or follow instruction from God. And therefore they shouldn’t be in charge of the Church. They can’t be in charge of society, they can’t be in charge of the Church. They just don’t possess the correct component to do that. And the whole religion is founded on that principle.

 

And then you have such a degradation of the Church that you now have women pastors and preachers and priests, priestesses or whatever you’d call them. I mean, it’s absurd! It’s not my church, I’m not a Christian. But the hypocrisy is despicable! It is truly despicable! So fascinating!

 

Now, Paganism has varying degrees of male and female relationships. Some interpretations of Paganism are a bit more equitable, others a lot less equitable.

 

So when we go back to the ancients and when we look at thousands of years of civilisation, there is not really any society that has treated men and women as the same, nor has there been a society that has treated women the way women are being treated right now! And it’s not a surprise that our birth rates are really low. Any society that behaves the way we’re behaving dies. Any civilisation that behaves the way we’re behaving dies. Any nation that behaves the way we’re behaving dies! And therefore it is a footnote in somebody else’s history.

 

So we have to reevaluate our values and we have to completely change the way we behave or we’re going to die!

 

And so the woman question is the same question as White genocide. It’s the same question as White replacement. You cannot separate the two. You can’t say:

 

“Let’s stick to just White nationalism and let’s not talk about how evil feminism is. Let’s talk about White replacement. But we’ve got to keep women on side. We can’t say things that might hurt the feelings of women.”

 

And as I said at the start of the stream, this is a really dumb, weak, coward strategy that’s going to cause us to die as a race! Women don’t respect pandering. They find it disgusting! Feminists are pure evil! And they will because of there’s some force, you know, Christians could say they’re possessed. And I do put a lot of weight in possession. I know not everyone does because not everyone believes they have a soul. And not everyone believes in metaphysics or in like a spirit realm. And so people that are very rational will say:

 

“This person’s unwell, or this person’s mentally ill.”

 

All means the same thing. Whereas the more religious or spiritual way of looking at it is this person is spiritually ill, this person’s potentially possessed. And this isn’t very electable, but I have witnessed what I could only describe as exorcisms. I have seen the way some people have behaved, and there is no rational or logical explanation other than this person is possessed. This person has a demon, a demon in them! They’re not at rest. They’re not in harmony. They’re not. There’s something that is currently occupying them and it’s potentially just a phase, but if it keeps occurring, it’s like there’s something that rears its head, something unbecoming.

 

And that’s a difficult conversation to have with people that don’t believe in demons. They don’t believe that it could be possible. They’re so far into post Enlightenment rationalism that just:

 

“It’s so irrational, the idea that there are forces beyond our control that could perhaps be bad forces!”

 

You know, we can acknowledge that there is a good force and inherently good force on earth, but then we want to pretend that there’s not an inherently bad force on earth?

 

[1:13:57]

 

So instead of arguing about whether Christianity is cucked or not, instead a better conversation is, what can we learn from Christianity? Where is Christianity right? And where is modern Christianity wrong? Or where is Christianity philosophically wrong? That’s a much more important discussion and it’s a more respectful discussion as well. Because what you’ll find is I can have these conversations. I had a conversation recently, probably 20, 30 minutes, with some Christian guys in America, and we could have a respectful conversation about what’s happening through that lens, through that lens of that there is an evil that is possessing. There is a snake in the garden, and it’s corrupting women. And then women are corrupting men. And that women, sorry, men, are aware of the snake. Snake, but most men are not aware of how this snake has perverted women.

 

And so the TLDR [Too Long-Didn’t Read] is we need to normalise Patriarchy. I’m a big, big proponent of Patriarchy. I think that Patriarchy is the only way to save the White race. We cannot save the White race through feminism. We cannot save the White race through equality. We can only save the White race through a proper Patriarchy. A proper Patriarchy! And whether you’re Christian, pagan, agnostic, enlightened, not enlightened, Catholic, orthodox, doesn’t matter! We cannot solve male, female. It does not matter! We cannot solve this problem without Patriarchy.

 

Now, it’s very easy for me to acknowledge Patriarchy because, one, I had a really good father. I have a really good father. My father’s still alive. I have a really good father. A really good father! And he has his flaws. Absolutely! And that’s product of environment and breeding and everything else. Right. We all have our flaws. I have my flaws. Product of environment and breeding and circumstance. But we’re on a mission! My bloodline has definitely been through the wars, and we’re on our way back up. All right. There’s a few more generations of work to do to really get us back on track. But I’m part of a Patriarchy. I have a lot of respect for my family name, my line, my lineage, my ancestry. This is really important to me.

 

And, it’s easy for me to accept and acknowledge this harsh reality. It’s not even a harsh reality. This reality because of what I come from. Women that have good fathers can accept this as well. Most women that can’t accept Patriarchy, they don’t have any respect for their fathers. And they don’t have respect for their fathers because their fathers don’t deserve respect.

 

Respect is not something that you’re entitled to. It is only earned. And I know that’s a platitude, and some people might think that’s a meaningless platitude, but that is absolutely core! Respect is earned! You’re not entitled to anyone’s respect. This is, I think, a false enlightenment principle that, like you should just respect the retard being moved around in the wheelchair. Like, what? What planet are these people on? Like, why that makes you a good person? How does that make me a good person? You know what quality of life is the drooling retard, God? And why are we wasting all our tax dollars paying for the drooling retard? This is solved very easily by Patriarchy. It’s not just solved by having a department in government that deals with the problem. It’s solved by Patriarchy.

 

And so one of the first principles of Patriarchy is that every man is king and priest and judge of his own house! I’ll say it again, for those that aren’t listening. The first principle of Patriarchy is that every man is king, is priest, is judge of his own house! And general. That was a component as well. There’s a martial component to it. And so every son, every boy wants to respect his father for the man that he is. And I can’t empath into how girls think, because I’m not a girl, but I would assume it’s similar. Not the same, but I assume it’s similar. I obviously have daughters. And you know what I was sad about when I was growing up? Not sad, but one thing I was surprised at was I asked my dad why he never joined the army. Because I know his dad was in the navy or in the Defense Force. I know his granddad was in the army.

 

And I remember asking my dad:

 

“Why weren’t you in the army?”

 

And he was just like:

 

“Oh, look.”

 

Because they had the draught for the Vietnam War, and he was of that age, and he just never got called up. So he was like:

 

“Oh, I got lucky!”

 

That was his answer. I think he said something:

 

“I got lucky. You know, you put your birthday in. You had to register. You put your birthday in.”

 

And he said something about “balls with birthdays” on them. Like, it was like the lotto. Like, they’d pull a ball out. And if it was like, March 18th, which is my dad’s birthday, then you’re going, you’re signing up.

 

And I thought that was absurd! But it’s one way to do it. I mean, it’s fucking clown world! But anyway, that was his position, was like:

 

“Oh, he got lucky. He avoided it.”

 

And I always thought to myself, wouldn’t it be cool? I always thought, wouldn’t it be cool to walk into my dad’s office and he’s got all his, like, armour and his rifle? And I just had this idea of like. And it’s probably ancient. It’s probably something like an altar, like an altar to Mars, like an altar to masculinity, an altar to the Patriarchy. And then to be able to see my grandfathers and you know there are families that still, they keep all their family medals, the war medals and stuff.

 

[1:20:20]

 

But I mean let’s put that on steroids. It’s not just having like the medals, it’s like walk in and be able to see like generations and generations of uniforms and rifles and, or even before going all the way back to a family sword. That just, that idea is just so cool! And I think every like 10 year old boy thinks like that.

 

And if you don’t, you’re probably a faggot, or maybe you had the idea but in a different way. But if that doesn’t seem cool to you, yeah, fuck you basically! I don’t know. Yeah, you’re not in my gang, that’s for sure. You’re not in my tribe.

 

So back to the woman question. So [chuckling] respect, respect. You can respect that. And I didn’t respect my dad as much as I would have if we had something like that. If my dad had something like I kind of lost a little bit of respect for my dad when I was like 10 years old. When I was like:

 

“Why wasn’t my dad. His answer was he ‘got lucky’.”

 

I was like:

 

“Huh, I don’t know if that’s luck.”

 

You know what I mean? It’s like why would that be lucky? Obviously it’s a dumb war and blah, blah, blah and geopolitics is so broken and everything now.

 

But I think part of us is whether you go and fight in a war or not, I think men should be war-like. And I think the “retard budget” should be directed entirely into well first of all we shouldn’t be taxed as much as we are. So there shouldn’t even be a retard budget.

 

But obviously I like when we take power. I’m deleting the retard budget and putting all of it or most of it or some of it into building like the Stormtrooper halo suit Department. I’ve said this before.

 

To get back onto, someone just says:

 

“Fuck employment!”

 

[chuckling] Modern world does a Superchat:

 

“Thoughts on the employee question.”

 

I actually haven’t watched the podcast that young Michael Nelson did on the subject of employment but I can imagine what he was saying. My position has always been that you need to be productive, you need to be productive, you need to find a way of being productive. You don’t want to just sit around doing nothing! But you need to have times of sitting around doing nothing in order to think of productive things to do.

 

And when you’re in employment, like I have had nothing but issues with like Gen-X’s and Boomers that have employed me over the years where they want you to work 50, 60 hour weeks, they want you just in employment, they want you just head down and just hammer drill in the concrete and just ernnn! Or if you’re doing some other job that’s slightly more technical or less manual labour, it’s the same thing. It’s just head down and you’ve just got no time, no time to be a better man. You’re just stuck in a trap! You’re stuck in like a debt trap. And I don’t think there’s ever been a time in human history where anyone except slaves have worked six days a week or even five days a week. I just think that that’s slavery and they’re boxing us in. We’re getting boxed in and boxed in and boxed in! It’s so obvious what’s happening and it’s so obvious why Zoomers especially and Gen Alpha will be even more so, why people are checking out of this employee, … We’re just getting boxed in.

 

Like we’ve gone from nice blocks of land. There’s plenty of things to do, there’s plenty of animals to tend to. And then you work a couple days a week, you know, old mate needs help with something, you go help him, this guy and people were these warrior farmer builders first, and they were doctors and doctors and dentists and lawyers and tradesmen or skilled labourers second. And it was the pleb class. It’s always historically been the pleb class that became entirely microscopically focused on a singular trade. So like I do pottery, that’s all I do they live in a tiny little house in the city in Rome and they’re the Potter. And all they do is pottery and they just make pots and nothing else. And they do it six days a week, 12 hours a day. And they make pots and they sell the pots and they make pots and they sell the pots. That is what slaves do. That’s what slaves do. That’s slavery!

 

And so, but the whole economics is geared against us because of what they’ve done, because of interest, because of debt slavery. It’s because of debt slavery we can’t build intergenerational wealth where we can have big families on large plots of land where we can learn a whole bunch of skills and manage our farms and feed ourselves and look after ourselves in tight knit communities.

 

The whole economics is now geared that everyone’s a little bug, a little cog in the system. They do their little bug roll and they get their little bug ration and this is broken. This is not sustainable. It’s not going to last. How many generations is this going to go on for? Judging by how much Zoomers want to check out, I’d suggest that Alphas or Betas or what like two or three generations from now, if this problem hasn’t solved itself, I would assume things are gonna be very different.

 

[1:26:10]

 

 

And obviously tying this into politics we’re gonna completely change the zoning laws. Part of the problem with this is people living on 200 square metre little blocks, apartments, townhouses. Part of this is just so dysgenic. We need to not be slave bug people. We need space, we need land, we need multitudes of tasks. Specialisation is key. Don’t get me wrong. We built higher civilisation because individuals did hyper specialise into things. But making pots is not a hyper specialisation. You know what I mean? Like historically people did their specialisation part time. They’d worked a couple days a week doing, and it was usually what was called journeymen. They were usually journeymen like if they were a dentist, or a doctor or whatever and obviously there was no such thing as a lawyer. The whole system worked differently, like tradition, ancient culture and the higher becoming. We have better technology now, but it’s made us, I think we can do both. I think we can continue to improve technology without living like bugs. And I don’t think that interest slavery helped us increase our technology. The increasing technology is part of the life cycle. It’s part of the life cycle of civilisation. And it’s not going to continue progressing in this direction forever for two reasons. One, the law of diminishing returns. And two, we are destroying our stock. So we can’t. We’re going to be in a system decline. The car, the calibre of men that built the society. We can’t even maintain it. We can’t even maintain it.

 

And there’s an elite. They call it elite overproduction. But it’s not. It’s the false elite overproduction. We’ve built a false elite and that’s why these rodents that are all 100, 105 IQ, they got Master’s degrees. They’re absolute midwits! They’re not idiots, but they’re absolute midwits! They are the ones running this into the ground. We have allowed midwits to take over society!

 

And I’m not going to talk about what my IQ is because I don’t think it’s super important, but I think it’s clear that it’s at least one or two standard deviations above average. And we’re having midwits go through university, male and female, and then they’re taking elite positions, but there’s not enough elite positions, so they have to create positions for these other fake elites.

 

And that’s like psychology, for example. You’ve got so many idiots going through university and studying psychology. And so we’ve created a whole industry of government rebates here in Australia and in America you’ve got all this drug prescription and all this mental illness and all this compounding issues of the parasitism of psychology. Psychology, psychoanalysis, psychotherapists, all of this is a parasite economy. They’re all parasites. They’re all parasites! It’s one giant parasite economy! And the purpose of it is to continue to make the problem worse so that they can have employment. And so they will never, ever be able to solve the problem because a purpose of a system is what it does.

 

So that’s just one element of university that’s caused this over education. We’ve got this over education where if you don’t go to university, you’re a moron. And it’s like we have more engineers and architects than we’ve ever had and our society is uglier and more broken! So it shows you that exclusion is the rule to greatness. You need to be exclusive in order to create hyper specialisation. You can’t just send everyone to university or the vast majority of people to university, and then think:

 

“Oh my God, society is getting so much better!”

 

It’s like, no, we’re running off the inertia of intelligent, hyper selective people. And the show’s about to come to a halt. We have printed so much money! They’re literally printing like $8 trillion, not a trillion, 8 billion dollars a day in the US to keep their bullshit fake economy going. And it’s just leading to the Weimar conditions. And we’re going to pay for all of this. We’re going to pay for all of this.

 

And that’s why you need to be prepared. You need to be prepared. And I’ve gone off topic from Patriarchy, but it all ties together. You can’t cover the subject without covering it all. Obviously. I’ll take a pause and I’ll come back.

 

Someone asked me about the employment question. Yeah. You gotta have skills. Look, you gotta have skills. Home of the brave, says:

 

“Tom, you’re the embodiment of the spiritual healing of the entire European race. Hey, we approach phase one of total re-migration of nons in the West. Segregation. Stay safe!”

 

Nah, I can’t do that on the stream. It’s a good question. I appreciate the question. Maybe I can leave that to the end. I can’t do that at this stage. I have to cover the woman question. Celine says:

 

“As a younger White woman, I’ve had to come to terms with Jesus being brown when I’ve always pictured him as a tall White man. Jesus being brown makes me deny it. Christianity is more of a woman thing.”

 

I don’t necessarily agree with. I don’t know what Jesus looked like. But I’ll tell you a really funny story. I’m not sure if I told this story on stream. Obviously all the Christian identitarians are raging at you now because they’re all saying Jesus was blonde hair, blue eyed, Aryan. I saw a really funny post yesterday or last night where some guy was saying that Jesus was Italian. He was like:

 

“He was born in Judea of the Roman province of Syria. He was therefore Roman. He was therefore Italian. Jesus was Italian!”

 

I just thought it was funny. Obviously he’s not being serious, but I wonder what the implications of everyone saying Jesus was Italian would be. And whether that’s like a bit of an icebreaker. Because it’s like people say Jesus is a jew. Well, the Bible says Jesus is a jew. And then Christian Identitarian said Jesus was like a Nordic Aryan. And then it’d be funny if we just say like:

 

“We meet at halfway and say Jesus was Sicilian or something!”

 

That’ll [chuckling] cause drama, won’t it, that one! But that just would be funny. We’re like, Jesus was White passing. That’s like the compromise. Now I know you people don’t believe in compromise. They want it one way or the other. Maybe that’ll keep the peace for like five minutes. If we just say Jesus was Italian. It’s a theory. What’s the funny story? So someone in the conversation tell me if I’ve said this before on stream. I can’t remember. Some [chuckling] guy replied, “smartest women woman”. Look, I think I’ve only told this story in person. It’s story time. I might have said it once on stream.

 

[1:33:41]

 

So the last time I was in prison last year I was in solitary confinement and I wanted a Bible. Actually, this Bible right here, this one right here. King James. I wanted a King James Bible because I got my other prison Bible. This is the prison Bible I got the first time into prison. It’s the NIV*. Look at that. [chuckling] Presented to Thomas Sewell, Melbourne Assessment Prison. That was in 2021.

 

[* The New International Version (NIV) is a completely original translation of the Bible developed by more than one hundred scholars working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.]

 

Anyway. This is now:

 

“Bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man. Adam and his wife were both naked and they felt no shame.”

 

Genesis 3:16:

 

“To the woman, he said, ‘I will make your pains in childbearing very severe. With painful labour you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you’.”

 

“Then the Lord said to Cain, where is your brother Abel? I don’t know. He replied, am I my brother’s keeper? The Lord said, ‘What have you done? Listen, your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground. Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for. You will be a restless wanderer of the earth.”

 

Yes, well, they got the mark on him. And I really wonder when circumcision started and when the restless wanderers of the earth started getting the anti-semitisms on him. Anyway, that’s just a theory. I won’t go too deep into that or piss people off.

 

But anyway, I got that version and I read it in full.

 

And I was like:

 

“Wow, okay!”

 

I probably should have read this the first time, but I wasn’t ready because you kind of you read the Bible when you’re a kid and you just like, you don’t read it properly, you don’t read it in full. And when you’re in solid confinement, you get a lot of time to read the Bible. And I read the NIV and I was like:

 

“Whoa, okay, this is definitely eye opening.”

 

And everyone’s trying to convert me. And I’m like:

 

“No, I can’t. Like, I just read it. I just read the whole thing. Are you kidding me?”

 

And they were like:

 

“You read the wrong translation.”

 

So then this time I went to prison. I went and got a King James. It didn’t make any difference for me. But I do think the King James is a better Bible. But story time.

 

So how did I get the King James Bible? So when I got to prison this time I got sent to Barwon, which is a much nicer prison. It’s older, but it is better. And because I was in Port Phillip before that. And they wouldn’t give me a Bible, they took my Bible off me. I got another NIV. I got a wait, is that King. No. So that’s a King James. No, they took it off me, sorry. I got that one later I got another NIV and when I got transferred from Melbourne Assessment the second time to the prison, the Barwon prison, they took my NIV off me and I had to fill out a form to get another Bible.

 

And I was like:

 

“Why? Why would you take the Bible off me? I don’t understand. Just let me keep the book.”

 

And they’re like:

 

“Oh, it’s not your property. It’s the property of the MAP.”

 

And I’m like:

 

“So you’re going to send the Bible back to the MAP, back to the other prison?”

 

It’s just crazy! But they’re just there to fuck with you. That’s their existence. And they won’t even let a non-Christian man keep his Christian book. And so then I had to fill out a form to get a Bible. And to get a Bible you had to have a meeting with a priest.

 

So if you want a Quran, you could have a meeting with an imam. If you want to. Whatever it is what it is. I don’t know what the Buddhists have. But like there was these boxes you could tick. I ticked the Christian box and I picked the Anglican one because I’m an Anglo Saxon and I’m not a Catholic, I’m not orthodox, and my grandmother was Anglican. None of the men in my family went to church really, but the women did. And they were Anglicans and so, Church of England. So I picked the Anglican box and it took two weeks.

 

And then this guy, I get pulled out of my cell and I get put in like a visitor room and I’m put in there with a priest. And I’ll just check the comments. Have I told this story on stream? Because I won’t go into too much detail if I have. Oh Jesus, so many comments. Have I told this story before? I’ll just tell the story!

 

And so he was like. I asked him:

 

“Why are you Christian?”

 

And he told me a story. The priest, he said that when he was a teenager he was really angry and him and his mates went out to this golf course and they had a BB gun and they shot a bunch of magpies or something. A bird, I can’t remember what type of bird I think was a magpie. Magpies. And he just felt horrible! He just felt horrible about it afterwards. He had a lot of regret and guilt about killing these magpies.

 

[1:40:02]

 

And then, he was raised in a Christian household, in a Christian environment, but he just wouldn’t go to church. And after like leaving the Church for a year or two and kind of hanging out with the wrong kids and you know, doing bad stuff, like shooting magpies with BB guns, as like most 14 year old boys probably would if they had a BB gun, he started noticing the kids walking home from church. They just looked happier. They just looked happier. And he was like:

 

“I wanted that happiness. I wasn’t happy and I wanted that happiness. And so I started going back to church and I asked my priest, when I was 14, I said I want to be happy like the other kids, they’re all happy. Why am I happy? And the priest said to me, you have to surrender yourself to God. You have to be God’s slave. You have to submit yourself. And once you submit yourself, then you’ll be happy. Then you’ll finally find peace. Because you’re fighting God and that’s why you’re unhappy. And you just have to stop fighting. You have to give up! And when you give up and you let go, then you’ll finally be happy.”

 

And he says:

 

“Why do you ask?”

 

And I was like:

 

“So I asked because I’m not Christian, but I ticked the Anglican box because it was the closest thing that I could do. But what I really want is a Bible. So I’ve got something to read in here because they’re torturing me and I’d like a Bible.”

 

And he was just like:

 

“Oh, okay, okay, yeah, but why do you want to know why I’m a Christian?”

 

I was like:

 

“Oh, I’m just fascinated. I want to know your story. Like you’re a priest. Like you’re obviously highly motivated to be a Catholic, Anglican priest. You know, I just, I want to learn more about your journey and like how that, how do you become an Anglican priest?”

 

And then we talk a lot more about this subject. And he’s very, he’s very apprehensive. He’s very like on the back foot the whole time, very defensive. And yeah, just the way he explained it to me, I said to him:

 

“You know, do you still have this same attitude? Like, do you still feel this way about God? Is that your relationship with God?”

 

And he said to me, he said:

 

“I wake up every morning, and the first thing I do every morning is I pray to God and I say, God, I am your slave. Let your will be done through me! I am your vessel. I am your slave on this earth!”

 

And I was like:

 

“You do that every morning?”

 

And he’s like:

 

“Yep, that’s what I do.”

 

And I was like:

 

“Wow! That is fascinating!”

 

And he’s like:

 

“It is, isn’t it? And I know that might sound really intense, but it works. It works for me! And I’m so much happier. Life is so much easier this way. It’s just so much easier! Like, I don’t feel what I used to feel. And, look, I still have challenges, and I’m a grandfather now, and da, da, da, da. But life is just so much easier this way!”

 

Okay, [chuckling] what the fuck! Okay. Anyway, an hour goes by, we shake hands, and he goes:

 

“Nice to meet you, Tom. Blah, blah, blah.”

 

And then the second time I meet him, so I ticked the box again. I want to have another conversation. He says to me right at the end, he goes:

 

“Do you want to meet me again? Do you want to talk to me again?”

 

I said:

 

“Absolutely! I really enjoyed this conversation.”

 

“Are you sure?”

 

I said:

 

“Yeah, I really enjoyed this conversation. I really enjoyed it. I would like to meet you again.”

 

And he said:

 

“Okay, well, what about next week?”

 

And I was like:

 

“Maybe not next week. I need a bit more time to digest this conversation. But maybe give me two weeks.”

 

He said:

 

“Okay, two weeks, Same time, same day.”

 

I’m like:

 

“Excellent!”

 

So this is my only human contact. I’m in a concrete box for two weeks straight. And then I meet up with him again. He walks in and he’s nervous. He’s so nervous! And he says:

 

“Tom, I have to be honest with you. I Googled your name. I thought I recognised you, but I Googled your name, and it was really hard for me to come in today.”

 

And I was like:

 

“Oh! Why is that?”

 

And he said:

 

“Because, … There’s a lot of people in this prison, and they’ve really beautiful people that have done really horrible things. And I’ve never felt like this before where I felt selfish that I didn’t want to come in. But I prayed to God this morning, and I said God, I don’t want to talk to this man. I don’t like this man. I think this man is evil, and I don’t want to speak to him. What should I do? And what God told me was that’s why you have to go speak to him. Because he’s evil. Because he’s evil, you have to go speak to him. That’s why!”

 

I was like:

 

“Oh, okay, all right.”

 

And then I said to him:

 

“You ever spoken to a paedophile?”

 

I said:

 

“Have you ever felt that way about a paedophile?”

 

And he was like:

 

“No, no. There are some really beautiful people in this prison. Some really beautiful people in this prison.”

 

“Never felt that way about a paedophile? Okay, interesting! Well, luckily, you are God’s slave, and that God forced you to come in here today to speak to me!”

 

And [chuckling] he said:

 

“I want to show you something. I want to show you my God! I want to show you my God!”

 

And I was like:

 

“Okay, you want to show me your God?”

 

“Are you ready? Are you ready for my god?”

 

It’s this weird, passive aggressive, feminine. He’s got tears in his eyes. And he’s like:

 

“Before I do, can I ask you a question? Why did you want to speak with me?”

 

[1:46:16]

 

And I said to him:

 

“Because I told you the truth last time. My grandmother was an Anglican. I’m an Anglo Saxon. I ticked the Anglo box, not the Catholic box. Simple as.”

 

And he was like:

 

“But me specifically, did you know I was the Anglican priest. Me, personally?”

 

And I was like, I think his name was [changed]. And I was like:

 

“Leslie, I don’t know who you are. I just know that you’re an Anglican priest.”

 

He goes:

 

“You don’t know about my past?”

 

I was like:

 

“No, I don’t know. What is your past?”

 

And he said:

 

“Well, I want to tell you a story, Tom. You know, I had to take a stand against, … I mean, there’s a lot of evil men in the world., …”

 

And he’s talking like a lesbian. He speaks like a lesbian, right? He’s like:

 

“There’s a lot of, …”

 

Like a feminist. He’s like:

 

“There’s a lot of evil men in the world. And Donald Trump comes to mind, and Adolf Hitler comes to mind. And when I was younger, there was a man that came to power in Australia that reminds me of Donald Trump, and his name was John Howard. And when John Howard came to power, he had an immigration minister called Peter Dutton, who you might know, because he was running for prime minister recently. And they imprisoned people in concentration camps on, …”

 

I think it was like, Manus Island or something, one of these islands off the coast of Australia:

 

“And there were these people, these desperate, honest, loving, caring, they were God’s children, and they wanted to come to Australia, and they begged for our help and our safety. And they were refugees, …”

 

And he’s literally crying! He’s literally crying!:

 

“And we locked them and their children in concentration camps on these islands and treated them so horribly! And I had to make a stand, so I went and visited them!”

 

So he goes to the concentration camp and he’s like. [chuckling] He says:

 

“And I like painting. And I met this man, and he was a refugee, …”

 

And I think he was Iranian or Iraqi or something like that. I think Iraqi. And he goes:

 

“And I met this Iraqi man, and his name was Fadim, …”

 

Or some shit! And he goes:

 

“I said to him, you are so beautiful! You are such a beautiful man. Can I paint you? I want to paint you. Will you let me paint you?”

 

And then he said:

 

“Yes, I’ll let you paint me. And then I painted him.”

 

And it’s hot. It’s so weird! He’s holding a, he’s got like a, he’s got the, … Imagine this is the painting of the guy, but he’s got it like this, and he’s holding it on the table, and he’s holding it upside down. And he’s holding upside down on the table, and he’s like:

 

“I want to show you this. And the reason why I want to show you this is because when I was painting him, I looked into his eyes and he was crying. He had tears in his eyes as I was painting him. And I was painting him. And the whole time I was thinking about Jesus on the donkey going into Bethlehem as a refugee, needing safety. And I thought, this man is from that region. This man is from the same region, very similar region, near the Euphrates. And he’s a refugee as well., …”

 

You can predict the whole conversation, can’t you? Like, I’m drawing it out, but I’m drawing it out for effect. This was the tone this guy was taking with me.

 

“And I still remember. And I thought to myself, this is what Jesus would look like, and this is how Jesus would feel if he was here right now with us, seeing what John Howard, behaving in a fascist man manner, putting these innocent people in concentration camps! This is how Jesus would be looking at me. So I painted him. So I painted my God! This is my God, Thomas! This is my God!”

 

And then he shows me a painting of a brown man crying. And he’s like:

 

“This is my God! How do you feel?”

 

A picture of a brown man crying. And I was like:

 

“Fascinating! Fascinating! That’s your God?”

 

He’s like:

 

“I want you to have this. I want you to put this up in your cell.”

 

And I was like:

 

“No, no, I don’t want it. It’s your painting.”

 

He’s like:

 

“No, this is a copy of it. This isn’t the one I painted. This is a copy. I want you to have it. I want you to put this in your cell and I want you to look at my God! And I think that will really help you and I think that’s why I was sent here today to give you this painting.”

 

And I was like:

 

“It’s a decent painting. You’ve done a good job painting it, for sure. This is not my God! This is your God. This is not my God! I can’t put this in my cell. It’s just not my God! Not my God! There are many gods. This one’s not mine. This is your one!”

 

And [chuckling] that was the end of the conversation! And yeah, fuck, I’ve just had too much life experience at this stage! [chuckling]

 

[1:52:11]

 

And when I got out of jail, I’m gonna Google this church that this guy’s from. And it’s like gay flags and trans rights and refugees are welcome and all this shit!

 

And it’s like [chuckling] women pastors! These people, they’re sick! They make me sick! People in the chat saying, Jesus’ Italian. Man. A lot of, lot of Superchats to go through. Jeez. How much more do you want me to go, in a detail about that one? Oh, I don’t know what it is. It’s not dopamine, but it’s some sort of chemical. There’s some chemical in the brain. It’s just surreal! It’s like a surreal chemical. It’s not dopamine. It’s the surrealism of it. It’s the surrealism. Hyper, hyper, what do they call it? Hyper realism. How are these people real? They share this planet with us. What planet are they on?:

 

“I felt really bad for the magpies. That’s why I had to go back to the Church!”

 

Well, yeah, obviously you shouldn’t just like indiscriminately kill animals!

 

But what he was doing at 14 was what all 14 year old boys do, is they’re testing themselves. They’re seeing, can I do it? Can I do it? Can I put meat on the table? Can I put meat on the table?

 

And I said to him:

 

“Are you a vegetarian now?”

 

When he talked about the magpies, I said:

 

“Are you a vegetarian?”

 

He’s like:

 

“No, no, I’m not, but I make sure I thank God every time I have meat. And I thank God for what’s happened to the animal and pray for the animal.”

 

And I’m like:

 

“Yeah, that’s fair enough. That’s good. I respect that.”

 

I have a lot of respect for that. I think that’s important when you take life and you’re consuming that life. Trans. The transmutation of it. Transubstantiation. Yeah. Like you’re putting meat on the table and you shouldn’t indiscriminately kill, but you’re doing what all teenage boys do when they’re going through puberty is they’re seeing not just if they can do it, but they go over the top. You know what I mean? They go a little, you go a little bit over the top and then you dial it back in. You’re like:

 

“All right, that was unnecessary.”

 

But he’s gone, he’s dialled it back in so much that his God is a brown man crying. That he has to live with White people!:

 

“He has to come live with the White people! He has to! We have to let them in! We have to!”

 

This is what his God wants. So look, obviously if you’re a Christian and you’re watching this, you would be disgusted by that story, that this is the calibre of priests. This is not Patriarchy. This is not the original church. This is not anything like the Greeks or the Romans or the Hebrews or even the jews. This is like the jews don’t even behave this way. This is like sub-Aryan and sub, even sub-Hebrew behaviour. And like ancient Hebrew, if we’re going to call it that. But this is like a completely poisoned chalice and these people are church leaders.

 

And so, yeah, it’s been completely infiltrated by communists. This is the downward path. They’re cherry picking document a book that has a lot in it.

 

As I said, the Bible’s a million things! There’s a million words in it. There’s a lot going on in that book. You can cherry pick whatever you want to articulate something, but what you can’t lie about is the general progression of themes and the general moral structure that the Bible is putting forward.

 

Now, is there, in my opinion, contradictions of the moral structure? I think there are some things that, and I’ve discussed them, I won’t go into them today. But you’ve all heard me say what I think is contradictory in there, within the moral, within the framing of a lot of things. And in short, I don’t like the story of Jacob and Esau. I don’t like that story.

 

Well, I mean, I don’t like the character! I don’t like the individual. And I don’t like the moral of that story. I think it is either miswritten or it’s not correct, it’s not right, it’s not fair, or there’s missing data, something’s missing from it. In my opinion. Like that would be the only way I could describe it as a moral story. Anyway. But the Bible’s full of that, of this kind of fight of morality. And you can see the schism of morality. You can see the schism of an ethnicity or the schism of a people are schisming, which is I guess one of the main themes of the whole text.

 

But if we just come back a little bit and we don’t talk about the Bible and Christianity, we just talk about the theme of Patriarchy, which is beyond just Christianity. I think that’s one thing the pagans and Christians can both agree on, is that we need Patriarchy.

 

And I think the Christian view is that women are inherently prone to an evil influence, just as men are, but that it infects the women first. And you can kind of see that with how giving women the right to vote and the late Enlightenment values of total, absolute human equality led to the suffragettes and led to women voting and led to first wave, second wave, third wave feminism that has come out of that structure. And we can see the damage that that has done to society. Anyone that can’t is obviously an idiot! But we can see the damage that it’s done. And yet women are also capable of fixing the situation. That’s also interesting.

 

As I said before, when I started women, more women voted for Adolf Hitler than men!

 

[1:58:41]

 

 

So that is a very redeeming quality when you realise that. Well, hang on a minute. Why? How could that possibly be? How could that possibly be? And what that might give a little bit of Credence to is this idea that when there is a strong leader, when there is a return of masculinity and a return of Patriarchy, women are actually more inclined to notice it than men. Women are more intuitive to the cure than men are. They’re more sensitive to the disease, but they’re more sensitive to the cure as well.

 

So I had a thought that ran through my head yesterday or the day before, which was, if we don’t contain women or restrain women, who will? Who’s going to? Because what we can see by the decline of the last hundred years of civilisation is we have removed the barriers, all barriers, every barrier possible, and said:

 

“No. Men and women are exactly the same!”

 

And we have done this to the detriment of women. We have not improved their life, and more importantly, we have not improved civilisation, and we have not improved the fucking mission. And the mission isn’t to make women happy. I want to make that very clear. That’s not the mission. It’s not to make men happy either. You know what this guy’s talking about? It’s like he accepted God because he wanted to be happy. That’s what Nietzsche talks about. That’s crazy! Well, it’s not crazy, but it’s like, that’s not why you should accept God. That’s selfish! That’s not the mission. Morale is not your happiness. It’s your willingness to fight. You have to fight for a mission. You have to fight for a purpose, for meaning.

 

And I believe you have to fight for life itself. Life is an upward struggle. And my religion, my personal religion is what my interpretation of Hitler’s religion is, which is that it’s about struggle into victory. And that these things aren’t necessarily steady states or acts of being, but they’re acts of becoming. Struggle is an act of becoming into victory, which is also an act of becoming.

 

So it’s never ending. It never ends. It’s like beyond time because God has to be above time. God can’t be subject to time because then he’s not God. So God is above time. So therefore, struggle and victory have to be conceived as being principles above time. That it’s like infinite struggle for infinite victory. It’s just like a yeah, it’s like you got a hail victory and you got a hail struggle. You got a hell struggle to hail victory! You know, which is a bit. Yeah, a bit different to:

 

“I just wanted to be happy! I just saw all these people around me and they were happy. And I just wanted to be happy. I just wanted to be a good person because I was a bad person!”

 

You know what? Yeah. [chuckling] Very different sense of moral structure and moral framework. So yes, Patriarchy, restraint, it’s about building a world that is driving towards this goal. And the relationship between men and women in that world is one built off respect, not pandering.

 

And so the issue with our society at the moment at a just socio-economic level with 50, 60% divorce rate, with the family courts tearing families apart like all the societal diseases we’ve got, is about, what they all come down to regarding the bad relationships between men and women and is that women have on average more respect for the government and more respect for the system, for the justice system or for the police than they do for their own husband and their own father. That’s the issue!

 

So a system needs to be built by husbands and fathers that form a collective, that form an organisation that are all on the same page with how they’re managing their family. It’s up to them how they manage their family. But they’re all roughly on the same page as to how they manage their family. A nation is a collection of families. It’s not a bunch of gay men masturbating into each other’s assholes and adopting kids. That’s not a nation. That’s just craziness! A nation is a bunch of families. You know, the family is the building block. This is not a meaningless platitude. It is the truth! You cannot have a nation without families. Because a nation is an extension of the family.

 

And so therefore the leader of a nation has to be the extension of the leader of a family. And the leader of the family is the father or the grandfather or the great grandfather, if he’s still alive. Like that is the leader of the family.

 

And that’s how society has always worked. And it’s a sacred, ancient, basically unwritten rule. I mean, we don’t even need to write this down. This is a reality.

 

And anyone that disagrees with that reality is our enemy. Because they disagree with it, because they care more about something else than making our society, our civilisation, our blood, our spirit, our life force, move upwards. They care about something else. They care about some sort of momentary happiness or some sort of:

 

“I want to feel good. I want to get along with everyone.”

 

Like this is their God, this is their God!

 

And so those people shouldn’t be given the same rights as the Patriarchs, as the people that acknowledge that:

 

“Hang on a minute. We’ve tried that. What it leads to is like millions of Indians and Arabs and Africans coming into our country and just like raping and pillaging and destroying it economically, socially, and sometimes unfortunately, physically.”

 

And these consequences are obvious. And we’re going to structure society in a way that this doesn’t happen going forward. So yeah, it’s non-negotiable. I’ll go through the comments and wrap up the stream.

 

[2:05:06]

 

Where are we? Where are we? Celine’s got another question. Just something about I don’t like Christians. Cool. Three story Rory:

 

“G’day, Thomas. What do you think about starting a petition for Joel Davis similar to one for Brandon Koschel? Chances of their release are low, but this activism can rally support and drive attention.”

 

A petition? I don’t understand what a petition is. Yeah, I’m not in the petition business because it doesn’t work. It doesn’t do anything. There’s a petition to deport me to New Zealand with a hundred thousand signatures, and yet here I am in Melbourne, Australia.

 

So look, the way we get Joel out of prison is either he’s released because the Supreme Court has a sense of the law and will enforce the law and the law says that he should be released from prison. And the Supreme Court follow through with that because the magistrates certainly don’t uphold the law. They’re activists. They’re political activists that do what the politicians tell them to do. That’s the only way to get him out of prison. Or we wait for the infinity amount of time he’s got to be in prison.

 

But yeah, sorry, a petition is not going to do anything. It’ll help raise awareness and that’s really the purpose of petitions. But no, I’m not in that business:

 

“Thank you for your sacrifices and bravery. God bless!”

 

Yep, thank you. A lot of comments. A lot of comments. Fanny Schrute says:

 

“Jesus was Italian.”

 

I think that’s the way to go. Someone gives me $100 for the cause:

 

“No need for acknowledgment.”

 

Thanks, mate. Celine’s got another one. Something about KGV, Shakespearean old English language. Stone Mountain:

 

“What are your thoughts on infidelity in women versus infidelity in men? And are our highly successful Chad man with multiple baby mothers a greater good or bad for society?”

 

Oh, that actually brings me to what I was meant to talk about the manosphere and stuff and we just end up talking about Christianity. Yes. That actually brings me to the second half of the stream, and we’ve been going for like two and a half hours. It’s crazy! This is madness, guys!

 

Yes, yes. Look, let me get a glass of milk. Let me get a glass of milk. And I have all these thoughts that I’m gonna put down. Because there’s just been so much chatter about the manosphere and looks maxing and Louis Thoreau’s recent thing. And I made a little post. Obviously most of you have probably already read my post, just explaining, the TLDR [Too Long-Didn’t Read]. These people that are trying to embarrass the manosphere, which is quite easy, clearly. These people are not morally triumphant. These people are equally as bad, if not worse than the manosphere. And don’t get blindsided by this and fall into some trap where you’re going to take moral, what’s it called? Not legalisms, like lectures. Don’t take moral lectures from these freaks! These people are easily as bad, if not worse than the manosphere people. The manosphere people, a lot of them are not good people. I want to make it clear this next segment is not in defense of the manosphere. I’m not saying that. I’ll explain how you should accurately interpret why this phenomenon exists and how it needs to transmute into something much better. I’ll be back. I’ll just close this little thingy. Two minutes.

 

[2:11:12]

 

 

All right, I’m back. I’m not sure who, because there’s a couple wives here, but someone made these little steak mushroom pies. Homemade everything from scratch. And there was a little pot on the stove with like a mushroom sauce in it on top of that. And I just absolutely demolished these absolutely incredible, like 10 out of 10, homemade steak and mushroom pie! And I was dipping the mushroom pie in the mushroom sauce and the steak was like, just perfect! And I got myself a glass of Jersey milk. Raw, organic, biodynamic Jersey milk from my mate’s farm. His family’s got a hobby farm. They’ve got 12 Jersey cows. Incredible! Incredible! I feel like food like that is near medicinal. It’s that good for you. I feel alive!

 

People say we don’t have a culture. And it’s like, whatever these people have as a culture, I don’t care! [chuckling] Like, whatever they think culture is, I don’t care! Like, I’m actually happy with meat pies and footy. I think we got to make it better. We could do better footy and we could do better meat pies. But I am genuinely like a meat pie and footy nationalist. All my kids are going to play footy. All of them. All of them! I don’t care! What I hate about sportsball is what I hate about consumers. It’s the consumption of the fake cult that’s the problem. It’s the cult around football that are the issue. It’s not football. Playing the sport is great. I mean, depends on the football. I think AFL is probably one of the best sports in the world. But I’m biased. I’m Victorian. I didn’t play enough footy growing up. I think that’s why I’m short. [chuckling] People say:

 

“No, it’s the other way around.”

 

No, no, no! Just give me a minute, give me a minute. My dad’s English though, so I played a lot of soccer. I played high level soccer which I know a lot of I know in Europe you call that football, but yeah, we call it soccer in Australia. And footy is either rugby or AFL, depending on which state you’re in. I talked about this with Mason, I think. But anyway, this milk is so good! Are we back? Is the stream back up and running? Stone Mountain says:

 

“What are your thoughts on infidelity in women and infidelity men? And are highly successful Chad man with multiple baby mothers a greater good or bad for society?”

 

That’s what we’re going to get on. And I’ve got like, there’s like 200 and something comments underneath that. So that’s how far behind I am, guys. I don’t apologise.

 

[2:15:04]

 

So Louis Theroux is the same exact individual as that Anglican priest I was telling you a story about just then. He’s a passive-aggressive lesbian. Louis Theroux, he wasn’t raised by a man, he was raised by a single mom. Now there’s a lot of people that were raised by single moms that turn out as men. I’m not attacking men that have had to go through that unfortunate situation. I’ve got a lot of friends. Almost all my mates in the army interestingly were products of single moms. They didn’t have dads. Almost all of my friends in the army. Which is really interesting and that actually ties in with the Roman understanding of creating a full-time army, was that it was a brotherhood cult of men that didn’t have proper, they weren’t in a proper gens, so they didn’t have a cult of a family. They weren’t in a proper family Patriarchy, so they had to join an institution of Patriarchy. I think you got to do both.

 

Most men I know that turn out, every man I know that’s turned out well, that has been born of a single mom, has had really good male role models. They’ve joined the army or they’ve gotten into MMA or they’ve gone into footy or whatever it is. And they’ve got this like brotherhood. They’ve got this Patriarchy. They’ve got men, they’ve got unc [“uncle”], they’ve got uncs. They might not have dad, but they’ve got uncs. And you got to have uncs. Even if you’ve got a dad, you gotta have uncs. I actually didn’t have any uncs. Well, I had some soccer coaches and stuff, but it’s not quite the same.

 

And then when I joined the army, obviously I was telling you about some uncs. But I didn’t have uncs until I joined the army, basically. You got to have uncs. It’s a big part of young guys developing. Got to have uncs! And the system hates uncs! The system hates uncs! They absolutely hate uncs! This gynocracy, this feminised Kali Yuga, disgusting freak stuff. They hate uncs because they want you to have lesbian, passive-aggressive lesbians explaining to you how life is. And they’re trying to reprogram you from your dad. And if you don’t have a dad, then you’re double fucked!

 

And so that’s why they went after the manosphere, because the manosphere is basically a bunch of guys trying to be uncs. It’s a bunch of guys trying to make money off being an unc. And most of them are not good people. Some of them are the middle somewhere. They’re a bit Beyond Good and Evil. But most of them are pimps, unfortunately. And they feed off the worst energy of the Kali Yuga.

 

But in doing so, they expose it! So it’s a double edged sword. They attract the energy that they put out and vice versa. They go after these OnlyFans hoes and they, you know what I mean? They associate in those circles. Even if it’s from a juxtaposition, it doesn’t matter, you’re associating with it, so you’re going to attract that energy.

 

But Louis Theroux is a passive-aggressive lesbian. And the system is really intimidated by the return of Patriarchy. And what the manosphere represents is these little warlords. It represents these little Patriarchs building their little Patriarchies. And they’re an influencer. And young teenage boys and even older guys in their 20s are looking up to these people. They’re looking up to Andrew Tate, and they’re looking up to, I’ve never heard of who HS Tiki Toki is. I mean, it’s just ridiculous! [chuckling] But that’s obviously absurd!

 

But the same kind of demographic that are looking up to these guys are also looking up to us. I have young guys in their late teens almost every day come up to me and try and take a photo with me almost every day. Some days, five, six young guys will come up to me and they’ll say:

 

“You’re a legend, blah, blah, blah.”

 

Quuk And they tell me a story about what’s happening at their school, and they’ll say:

 

“Like they do a Welcome to Country every Monday morning, and everyone just kind of like, mumbles and they don’t boo, but we haven’t built up to that yet. But then when the Aussie anthem comes out, we all stamp our feet and chant it loud. And all the woke teachers are seething! You can see all the fat bitches seething! And we just smash out the national anthem! Every Monday morning we make a point of it!”

 

They didn’t say that. I said:

 

“You make a point of it?”

 

They say:

 

“Yeah, exactly!”

 

I’m like:

 

“Yeah, good!”

 

But these young guys, they’re looking for unc. Where’s unc? Because dad’s a pushover. Or maybe dad is not a pushover, but you still need uncs. And Louis Theroux is a very insecure dude. He’s really messed up because he didn’t have the opportunities that he should have. But he grew up in a world where you could still, if you’d got your foot in the door you could establish yourself, and if you were good at your job, you would be promoted. And that’s the world that he grew up in. He’s like an older millennial. Actually, he’s probably a Gen-Xer. He’s probably like a young Gen-Xer. He’s somewhere around the Millennial. You know what I mean? Like a Gen-Xer Millennial. And he did a little bit of work for, who’s that other lesbian? Michael Moore. He did a little bit of work for Michael Moore. And it’s that Left-wing agitating expose journalism. Now I’ve watched a few Michael Moore documentaries and I think he does a good job.

 

[2:21:05]

 

Same thing as I’ve watched a lot of Louis Theroux documentaries and he does a good job. Louis Theroux is almost more annoying than in some ways because his whole shtick is trying to get the person to be pissed off! Which again, that’s kind of how my brother behaved. And it was weird! No matter how much my dad told my brother like:

 

“Michael, you can’t talk to people like this. You’re gonna get punched in the head.”

 

And no matter how many times my brother got punched in the head, he still kept behaving this way.

 

Now I don’t think Louis Theroux has ever been punched in the head, but he behaves in a way and he talks to people in a manner where he relies on the passive-aggressive and gynocratic system to enforce his moral structure on society. Now he’s got a lot of idiots and midwits convinced because of the way they’ve done very clever editing. Like they’ll ask a question, whether it’s a silly question, or a good question. And then he kind of feeds off this pause moment the person’s pause paused and reflected on the question and they’re like:

 

“Ha! Gotcha!”

 

And then all the midwits that like Louis Theroux that are watching and they’re like:

 

“Gotcha!”

 

Now, I haven’t even watched this manosphere doco, I’ve just watched the shorts, but I’ve watched a lot of Louis Theroux doccos. So I know exactly his tricks, I know exactly what he does. And it’s a shtick, it’s a grift! And the grift is:

 

“I’m going to try to piss this person off. I’m going to try to make this person seem unreasonable.”

 

And he found a group of people that it was quite clear they couldn’t articulate their value systems. And in a lot of cases their value systems were inherently, not just broken, but misaligned and not very White and Aryan.

 

I’ve done lots of streams on monogamy and polygamy and I’ve talked about how polygamy is a weapon of war. Polygamy is a weapon of war! It’s a weapon. Polygamy is a demographic weapon. It’s a form of jihad. Polygamy is a form of jihad. And there are Christian groups that do polygamy as well the Mormons. And polygamy is not sustainable. It creates, … You want to talk about lack of social cohesion. What it creates is a society where it creates an incel society that check out! There’s a lot of layers to this. When you have polygamy, especially in a capitalist society, you’re now hyper selecting for genes that are capitalist pieces of shit!

 

So I’m not a communist, but I’m definitely not a capitalist. I’m the Third Position. All right? People that think the purpose in life is to make lots of money, and there’s nothing wrong with being good at making money. It’s good to be good at your trade, it’s good to make money, but it’s not, … The love of money is the root of evil! And that’s a fact! Your purpose in life isn’t to make lots of money. If it happens for you and you’ve got a utilitarian or industrial drive to do better, then there’s Aryan qualities in that, as long as you are fairly and honestly and you’re a community minded person, there’s nothing wrong with being rich.

 

I’m not anti-rich. And I want to make that very clear. I’ve never ever been anti-rich. I’ve never seen a rich person and been like:

 

“Why is he rich?”

 

Like the way Marxists feel like they’ve got a jealousy component to it. I’m not jealous of rich people, I just don’t like pieces of shit, and there’s a lot of people unfortunately that are rich because of really immoral means. And there is obviously huge wealth inequality. And it’s very unlikely, except in the cases of religious structures that you could have polygamy in this society that wouldn’t be entirely associated with wealth. It is not going to come down to good genes, it’s going to come down to wealth. And in our broken society, wealth is correlated with being immoral. Wealth is correlated with having bad genes. People with bad genes are doing really well in the society and good honest people are being punished because we’re controlled by these dishonest bad people that have created a structure and a framework to keep them in power and to keep them wealthy and to keep their competition down.

 

And the weakness of our fairness and our altruism is we’ve allowed this to happen. That’s our major weakness. And that’s because we’re living in the collapse of our aristocracy. We used to have an aristocracy, we don’t have an aristocracy. We need an aristocracy! We can’t survive without statesmen. We can’t survive without massive! Well, not massive! Massive is probably not the right word but concrete intergenerational power structures. Democracy is the last. Well, this is late stage democracy. And democracy in of itself is towards the end. And we’re in the end of the end. We’re in the worst form of democracy where everyone gets a vote. That’s not actually how democracy was intended to be.

 

So yeah, I’m not a fan of polygamy. I think that whatever goal you’re trying to achieve with polygamy can be achieved without it over more generations. And polygamy is a thinning of the male population, and we have to be very careful to not thin out the male population. There are a lot of dorks and there are a lot of losers, sure!

 

[2:27:01]

 

 

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

 

 

[3:41:59]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 3/28/2026 = 34)

DJTriumph
Supporter
18 hours ago
the James Mason podcast was great
11
0

‹ Hide 3 replies
FLmetalhead
12 hours ago
Where is it?
2
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
Hazelmango
Supporter
10 hours ago
https://ftjmedia.com/live/0/DaveGahary/ls/2444
3
0

Jaymeo1
12 hours ago
Link ?
1
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
Hazelmango
Supporter
10 hours ago
https://ftjmedia.com/live/0/DaveGahary/ls/2444
2
0

eclipseNF
11 hours ago
Where is it?
1
0

baileyspunts
13 hours ago
Man i love when Sewell streams. White pill every time
11
0

LachlanMD
21 hours ago
L foids
6
1

‹ Hide 1 reply
RoseRock444
Supporter
19 hours ago
Nah. W foids
4
3

Jomaha22
20 hours ago
Every time I see that text “manosphere” I cringe. Where did this analogy came from? Ayn Rand male equivalent?
5
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
imSofaKingRayZest
12 hours ago
im guessing its the “every single time” crowd
2
0

christophawilkins
16 hours ago
hail
4
0

imSofaKingRayZest
12 hours ago
great to see another talk mate
3
0

squatmech
18 hours ago
There never anything wrong with the volume wtf is wrong with these people it’s like if you get kicked out of hundred bars but with low volume…
1
0

eclipseNF
14 hours ago
What’s the 5 hour stream where is it?
1
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
Hazelmango
Supporter
10 hours ago
https://ftjmedia.com/live/0/DaveGahary/ls/2444
2
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
eclipseNF
9 hours ago
Thanks a lot

imSofaKingRayZest
12 hours ago
whats gonna get too us 1st, terminator or mad max?
1
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
CrazyRecluse
Supporter
1 hour ago
Mad Max. These fuel shortages are serious & AI cannot become conscious – it is built from outside-in, life evolves and self-builds from inside-out.

imSofaKingRayZest
12 hours ago
ive never heard of any abbos trying to claiming other abbo land that was taken in their tribal warfare, but the land whites took on the other hand will always be theirs??? and dna shows the have only been here for about 5000 years, coming from india and they were not the 1st people in australia, the originals were eaten by them.
1
0

TRUTH1488
11 hours ago
Where can I find that james mason podcast
1
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
Hazelmango
Supporter
10 hours ago
https://ftjmedia.com/live/0/DaveGahary/ls/2444
1
0

Tax_Cow
VerifiedSupporter
5 hours ago
Our boomer parents have been hooked on the TV since childhood and they’ve been soaking up jewish propaganda for so long that they aren’t capable of independent thought. Despite whatever their friends and family say, what the TV says is the bottom line. Unwitting agents of our destruction, professing to be enlightened because they watch the talking heads on TV every night.
1
0

CrazyRecluse
Supporter
1 hour ago
Tom, im glad you still give Abos a chunk of land as their own country. African americans & native americans are similar. Thats the best way. I like wat you are doing but im softer on nons. I feel that at this point we may have to give all nons a chunk of western nations, as their own nation. Set cameras up and make documentaries on how they make a clean 1st world society to a 3rd world shithole. Juxtapose it with our first world living. This way we will document in 4D why we will never live with them again. We would play multiple weekly reality TV shows akin ‘Running Man’ & ‘Hunger Games’. This would change our culture. Then we will make museums to store these films and all the injustices we suffered with/from them. Especially the lil caps. Then maybe in the future we might decide to conquer them & retake the land, and put them where we want, maybe isntreal? Or put these brown masses in africa, or somewhere low on resources, since they cant mine them anyway. Tom, I also think 90%+ whyte is a good target. Because the good ones that help us have a reason to. But once we have control we can create policies to reduce their breeding over time: a white centred society; they will admire us or leave; we will be re-morale-ized; etc. If they dont want to accept it, they can always leave. Caramel island is an alternate choice for them too.
1
0

birdhouse456
15 hours ago
The problem with “where is the aboriginal land” is that their concept of it completely different to ours. We look at different metrics. They can’t just pick up and move their culture because it’s linked to place. If they don’t want to give that up they will be motivated to go to war regardless. Or, they’ll just be squeezed out and fade away, because once they are away from their territory the culture doesn’t function. Now we have a hybrid that succeeds at neither way. Maybe there can be agreement with some tribes but others will disappear completely. it’s similar to the clans of the Scottish Highlands. The culture survives, but it’s not what it was.

BossLurker
9 hours ago
Parasites and retards

BossLurker
9 hours ago
The whole “in the past they weren’t truly conservative they were only going off inertia” is actually an extremely good point

‹ Hide 1 reply
BossLurker
8 hours ago
Around 59:27

leibekohne
5 hours ago
Tom you have some criticism from USA NS bit-chute or odysee. The abos solution is good. I will give them a bare-bush land without any infrastructure, also they have to create own if needed financial system with own currency. This is about purity and recuperation of race thus Australia + has to be 100% white otherwise there will be no progress.Those idiots want to convert abos and save theirs lives but had no problem with murdering 35.000 white Boers woman and children. Cake destroyed Egypt Greek Roman empires by usury and by miscegenation. 1000 year of Romans were destroyed by 100 years of Christianity=Judaism 2.0= children blood drinking sacrificing cannibalism. Germany were destroyed in WW2 by another stupid and manipulated white men who should know better. White international unity.

CrazyRecluse
Supporter
56 minutes ago
Tom, I emotionally agree to boot out all leftists, or white antiwhites. But something for you to consider: Richard Spencer says that whites can build because we have all levels of people Elites, managerial class & working class. Dr Ed Dutton “white race functions like a bee hive”. So we might need to select the better ones and put in breeding policies to get them to their 15% balance. Because nearly all managerial class are leftists.

eclipseNF
14 hours ago
More and more blackpilled every single day
2
3

‹ Hide 1 reply
imSofaKingRayZest
12 hours ago
life is struggle mate, learn to laugh in the face of these demons and keep the sprits of our ancestors lovingly in your heart. heil victory
7
0

trvkvlt
2 hours ago
Thomas Sewell is my rabbi
0
1

drshreddie
6 hours ago
you need a better background, the baby blue with the books isnt working. How about a more masculine color with a NSDAP banner? I know this seems trivial but perception is a big deal and your message is important.
0
4

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Jacob Hersant: There needs to be no compromise on the Hate Crime Bill the Labor Party is trying to pass! Right now they’re trying to get support from the Liberals so that they can pass it. And there are people that are already celebrating as if somehow we have won. We have not won! The Labor Party has only made a small concession. Getting rid of one aspect of the Bill while keeping the vast majority of it. And that vast majority is some of the most damaging stuff there is. It’s going to completely destroy the way that policing and the justice system works in this country.

 

They’ve gotten rid of one little aspect to try and coax the Liberal Party into passing the vast majority of the hate crime stuff. Everybody hates these laws and yet they’re trying to do this little trick where the vast majority of it will pass anyway! The Labor Party are splitting the Bill so that the Greens will pass the gun aspects of it and they’re taking away just a little bit of it, of the hate crimes aspect of it so that the Liberal Party will pass it.

 

Now Advance have brought out a post saying:

 

“Breaking: Albanese has dropped his hate crime censorship laws. Massive win for Aussies. PM dumps Hate Speech laws.”

 

And as you can see there, it has 192,000 views. And Advance made another post here:

 

“Thanks to the thousands of Advance supporters who contacted their local MPs over Labor’s hate crime censorship laws. This win is yours! A Labor member of the committee said many of the last minute submissions appeared to be the result of lobbying by One Nation and conservative group Advance.”

 

So this is not true. The Hate Crime Bill has not been destroyed! It is still, 90% of it is still there. And the Labor Party is making a gambit so to try and coax the Liberal Party into supporting it and passing the vast majority of it. If we allow them to do this, we deserve to have our freedoms taken away! If we are going to be fooled like this, we deserve to live as slaves in this country.

 

And here you have idiots like Monica Smit:

 

“We won again. The government showed its hand and we learn that we are ready for whatever they throw at us.”

 

We have not won! That is what needs to get through people’s heads. We have not won! The Bill is going to be voted on Tuesday, and the Liberal Party hasn’t made it clear whether or not they’re going to vote for it or they’re going to vote against it.

 

So the Liberal Party needs to be pressured into not supporting these laws because they are draconian. And as unfortunate that the Greens and the Labor Party are going to pass through the gun laws. I get that people are upset about that, but we need to lament the guns later and focus on what is actually in the air. The Right-wing aren’t gonna have any influence over the Greens voting through these gun things, so it’s over.

 

But we do have influence over the Liberal Party and we need to pressure them to not pass the hate crimes aspect of this. The Hate Crime Bills is the most dangerous because it’s going to hold 15 year jail sentences over the heads of radical political activists that did nothing more than engage in political communication.

 

So it’s going to ban organisations and it’s going to expand. It’s not going to only be the National Socialist Network. Give it time and they’ll start banning other organisations that are inconvenient to the government’s agenda. This Bill alone is going to take away all of our political freedoms!

 

And not only that, these laws are bad enough, but they’re only going to expand as you see them constantly expand over the decades. They get one thing through and then give it five years, they’ll expand it, they’ll amend it. It’s going to make politics impossible for anyone on the outside of mainstream politics, whether that be on the Left or on the Right. It’s going to make politics impossible! Because the chilling effect this is going to have is going to make everyone so scared to do anything in this country. And then you’re going to be stuck with idiots. And like the people who run Advance who celebrate too early and may end up being the key people that make this Bill get passed because they celebrated too early! The Liberal Party backflipped on its decision and passed these hate crime laws. If that happens, it’s gonna be people like Monica Smit and Advance and all of these idiots that are to blame!

 

The main message we have to get out there is there is to be no compromise on these hate crime laws! The whole Bill needs to be shredded! We’re not going to be placated by them getting rid of one little aspect.
The whole thing needs to be gotten rid of and the people who thought that they could get away with these laws need to be humiliated!

 

Do not celebrate as if we’ve already won and don’t get distracted with all of these side issues. I see people posting about who the US Ambassador is going to be and other things. The whole future of politics, Right-wing politics, is at stake right now! And people are talking about the US ambassador. They’re talking about things that can be talked about any other day. We have two days to oppose this. The vote is going to be on Tuesday. You need to be spending all of your free time influencing these people.

 

So you need to be influencing, going and telling everybody that they should not be fooled by the fact that they’ve gotten rid of only one aspect of the hate crimes bill. You need to tell them that the vast majority of it is still going through and the Liberals might vote for it. And that the Liberal Party is going to be severely punished in the next election if they go through and destroy our criminal justice system and destroy policing in this country.

 

Because policing is going to go away from policing actual criminals. It already is like this where you have political policing, which is out of control, but that is going to expand beyond anything that we have previously seen. We’re going to have two tier justice in this country like we have never seen. We have to get across the message that the whole thing needs to be opposed! We cannot just be fighting it piecemeal, one little aspect or another aspect.

 

We need to take this seriously. We have two days. You need to be spending all of your free time trying to influence the Liberal Party, particularly because it’s the Liberal Party that will work with the Labor Party to bring forth these hate crime laws that are going to destroy any freedom we had left in this country. Any politics outside of the mainstream is going to be destroyed by this bill! You know, so lock in and make sure that everyone knows that our position as the Australian people is no compromise! Shred the entire bill!

 

[6:46]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 1/19/2026 = 3)

leibekohne
1 hour ago
“Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jews), is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God.” ~ Talmud: Bammidber raba c 21 & Jalkut 772 Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity. The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists. Noel Ignatiev, Harvard Magazine, Sep-Oct 2002 We intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed, not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed. https://birthofanewearthblog.com/the-jewish-agenda-to-destroy-the-white-race/
2
0

charliebrownau
3 hours ago
Gday We wont have Free Speech till the people have removed state mandated – Hate Speech 3 bills 2026 – Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024 – Surveillance Legislation Amendment Bill 2001 – 18c of Racial Discrimination Act 1995 – Racial Discrimination Act 1975 – Sex Discrimination act – State Mandated Equality of Opportunity – Remove State Mandated Affirm Action – Remove State Mandated Duluth Model (Men automatically guilty) – Remove State Mandated Multiculturalism – Remove State Mandated Diversity – Remove State Mandated Feminism No Fault Divorce Alimony Child Support Divorce Separation I would advocate to remove GST/VAT Welfare Income Tax I would advocate to remove funding/support for G20, Nato, UN, WEF, IMF Central Banks Overseas nations ‘aid’ funding PNG, NZ, China, Middle east funding Lower min wage back to $10 per hour Remove mandated paid ‘leave’ for holiday/sick days/pregnant Since at least 1936 the current ‘Government’ is actually a legal fiction which is registered with the American system The “Australian Government” is a registered corporation as is the ‘parties’ We need to go back to sourvien governance system in Australia They ALL need to be DISQUALIFIED under Section 44 of our Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1900 UK. They are ALL sitting in treason as political parties and preferential voting is in direct contravention of our Constitution. Our Constitution came with a letters patent, meaning our constitution is indissoluble, it can’t be changed, altered or backdated unless the people are consulted via a referendum but it has been intentionally usurped since Federation that ALL past and present politician have/are sitting in treason. _________ Regards Charliebrownau * Email – charliebrownau@protonmail.com * Videos – https://www.matildatv.com/@charliebrownau * Videos – https://poast.tv/c/charliebrownau/videos * Telegram – https://t.me/s/Charliebrownau
1
0

fastnail
6 minutes ago
Remove all jews from Australia.
0
0

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yes, Sunday morning. Yeah.

 

Greg Johnson: Okay.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So the first point that he makes is:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[07:17]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[13:19]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[20:10]

 

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

 

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

 

I started thinking, you know:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[26:52]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[33:24]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, of course.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[39:51]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Which historically is what nationalism generally means.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Okay, so what’s your critique of that?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: It’s imperialism. Right?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[47:24]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[53:49]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:00:10]

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:07:22]

 

Greg Johnson: What’s stopping us?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And that means that, …

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

But the point is that, …

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:15:07]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: They pose no threat!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:21:40]

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Will Germany and France fight it out?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

[1:27:09]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

That’s what politics is about.

 

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

 

[1:33:57]

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Absolutely! Absolutely!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

That’s fantastic!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:40:47]

 

 

Greg Johnson: Absolutely, yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:46:16]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Well, I would agree with that.

 

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

 

“We need to step over this.”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:53:28]

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yeah.

 

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

 

So that’s not a reasonable:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And right now our race is being genocided! Right?

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, yes and no.

 

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

 

[1:59:26]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Absolutely.

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: I absolutely agree with that.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And there’s no way of doing that!

 

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

 

[2:06:39]

 

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

 

[2:50:10]

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

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

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

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

18
0
Hide replies

@v0lum3
6 months ago
Hitler dindu nuffin

2
1
Show reply

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

Hide replies

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

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

Continue Thread

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

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

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

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

16
2
Hide replies

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

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

4
1

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

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

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

9
1
Hide replies

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

4
0
Earthling Carl
6 months ago
Easy Joel W.

10
3

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

9
2

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

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

10
3
Hide replies

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

7
0
Hide replies
ThinRedLine
6 months ago
it does

5
0

@Arilando
6 months ago
Of course you can.

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

2
0

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

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

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

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

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

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

6
2
Hide replies

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

2
1
ThinRedLine
6 months ago
Hail Joel

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

5
3

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

2
0

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

5
3
Hide replies

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

Hide replies

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

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

Hide replies

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

2
0

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

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

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

4
3

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

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

1
2

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

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

6
0

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

2
3

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Hermes: All right, guys, we are here with Steve Laws. Thank you for joining me.

 

Steve Laws: No worries mate.

 

Hermes: If people don’t know who you are, just tell a little bit about yourself, introduce yourself a little bit.

 

Steve Laws: So effectively, I’ll probably be called a “re-migration activist” these days. I’ve stood in elections, I’ve campaigned for re-migration, I used to highlight illegal immigration and so forth.

 

So ultimately just an anti-immigration activist to simplify. But we just want them all to gone!

 

Hermes: Okay, how did you kind of start doing this? Because I know you’ve been in the, I guess doing this for a long time. What were the steps leading up to that? What made you kind of jump into this and do what you do today?

 

Steve Laws: So I didn’t really intend on getting involved in any of this at all! Back going back about six years ago now, it was the illegal immigration and the dinghies were flooding over and no one was really knowing anything about it. It wasn’t covered on the media. So I’d go down the docks, I’d start filming it, I’d upload the footage online and it sort of just grew from there.

 

And then obviously the more research you do, you realise illegal immigration is far worse. You start campaigning down that route, you lead everyone to understand the problems and the demographic changes we’re facing and then everything sort of snowballs to the point where we’re at now.

 

Hermes: Okay. So was it a single moment or was it, was there a main moment that you could kind of pinpoint that kind of flipped the switch in your brain?

 

Steve Laws: No, it was actually really petty.

 

So I was talking to my friend, he didn’t believe me that the illegals were coming over and getting loaded straight onto coaches. Me being petty just went straight down there to prove a point. I was like:

 

“There you go, this is happening!”

 

He was like:

 

“Oh my God, this is happening!”

 

Assume loads of other people didn’t, considering that was my friend who lived local. And then from there it just escalated.

 

So there wasn’t really a pinpoint in one single incident. It just snowballed over time.

 

Hermes: And this was six years ago?

 

Steve Laws: About six, seven years ago, yeah, give or take.

 

Hermes: Old are you today?

 

Steve Laws: I’m 34 now. I’m getting on a bit. [chuckling] Not like you guys!

 

Hermes: Thirty four. So what is kind of your main focus now? What do you think the biggest problem in Britain is today?

 

Steve Laws: So immigration is the biggest problem we face pretty much all over Europe and in terms of the Western world.

 

But ultimately the main priority we need is re-migration. Everyone in this country needs to get behind the idea of mass deportations. It doesn’t matter if they’re a foreign criminal, illegal immigrant, whether that was born here, they came over legally. It’s all already irrelevant! They’ve all got to go! We’re on the course to become a minority in our homeland. We’re not going to tolerate that. Everyone’s got to go until we can protect that!

 

Hermes: Some people think British people can be black. Do you think they can be?

 

Steve Laws: No, [laughter] not a chance, mate! This is embarrassing. [chuckling] No, they can’t!

 

Hermes: So what makes someone British?

 

Steve Laws: Well, it’s through ancestry and through blood. Blood and soil. That is what our people are. There’s no denying this. It’s simple fact. It’s Law of nature. To say an African is English is just embarrassing!

 

In fact, it’s ridiculous and it’s insulting, as an Englishman, for somebody to say that.

 

Hermes: In these past six years, it seems like the tides have shifted a lot. Like, even someone, a figure like Tommy Robinson, I know you guys have had your back and forth, has gotten a lot more popular. He obviously holds some controversial views. Obviously you don’t agree with everything, probably a lot of what he does, but how much have the tide shifted these past, I guess, six years?

 

Steve Laws: So I’d say even in just the last year, an awful lot. Since the Southport riots, an awful lot changed.

 

So the demographic situation, people were very aware of it. They realised that even people that have come over as children and grown up and they’re so-called “integrated immigrants” can go on and be a brutal murderer and stab three little girls, and so forth.

 

So ultimately we’ve gained a lot of ground. The likes of Tommy Robinson are what, they’re like a stepping stone. They do have their benefits, but they also lead an awful lot of people down the garden path. They promote zionism, they put Maoris on stage doing the haka. They’ll have immigrants and Indians and all sorts of people they bring over to these events. It’s all funded by [jews] and so forth. So Tommy, I’m not his biggest fan. But the fact that he can be seen as a mainstream political figure now shows how much ground we’ve gained. Because a year ago, his name was taboo. You couldn’t even mention it online, and so forth Now he’s the safe option because everyone else is to the right of him.

 

Hermes: How much of a difference do you see between the younger and older generation? Because I talk to young people, they kind of I understand what you’re like talking about and they don’t really agree with Tommy. But the older guys are like:

 

“Yeah, deport the illegals, but the Indians who are non-violent they could stay.”

 

Do you think there is more hope for the younger generation and can you switch older person’s mind about some of these topics?

 

[04:35]

 

Steve Laws: So there are the odd older generation that you can sort of work on and bring them over to our talking points. But a lot of these people are sort of very much cemented in their ways. If you’re over 40, 50 year old, you’re kind of secure in your politics and your ideology, you know what you stand for. And these people, as you’ve said, do stand for what we call “civic nationalism”, where they don’t like the illegals, they don’t like the foreign criminals. But if you come over legally and you’re an Indian, you’ve got a little corner shop, they love you, they’ll stand there, they dance around with you, and think it’s amazing! But it’s not, it’s ridiculous!

 

So, back to the point is ultimately, yes, there are the youth that are very much more radical. I’m very hopeful with the youth. Because from my experience, of course this isn’t the hundred percent of every single youngster in this country, because that would just be a lie. But the vast majority understand demographics. They understand that they have no future, they’re not getting a pension, they’d be lucky to own a house, they’re lucky to have any future at all!

 

So when they realise that’s all they’ve got and that’s their future, it makes these youngsters radical. They don’t care whether you was born here, they don’t care whether you’re a nice immigrant. They want you gone because it’s their future that’s at stake.

 

Hermes: What would you say to someone who says:

 

“They don’t see race.”

 

Steve Laws: They’re [blleped out] because race sees them! [chuckling]

 

Hermes: Well, I guess how could you convince someone? Because obviously the brainwashing is strong. It is real. Like all throughout the school system, you know:

 

“Oh, we’re just different colours. Everything about us is the same.”

 

How can you convince someone of that or at least lead them, give them a carrot to chase.

 

Steve Laws: See, from my experience, the most people that have that viewpoint are people that lived in sheltered lifestyle. So they’re not surrounded by the immigrants. They don’t live amongst the multiracialism, they don’t live amongst the violence, the thieving, the grooming gangs. They don’t live amongst any of that they don’t see it in their day to day lives. So to them it doesn’t exist. The only way these people will ever truly understand it is by living amongst them.

 

The rest of us have seen it, we’ve all seen it growing up. We all know what it looks like. But these people, they haven’t seen it. So there’s the argument that you can show them, even when you show them, they bury their head in the sand and they say:

 

“Oh, it’s just a one off example. It’s not all like that.”

 

So I kind of take the attitude that if you can’t see it today, you’re a write off. Most people today understand it to an extent. They may not be quite where I’m at, but a lot of people understand that immigration is a problem. The numbers that are coming over is huge! The people that are coming over hate us. Most normal people can see that.

 

So if they can’t see that at this point, I wouldn’t waste your time trying to work with them. I’d only work with the people that are on their journey. Because let’s be clear, there’s more of those than there are the others.

 

Hermes: What steps do we have to take to get ourselves out of this situation? Because I mean the Muslims, Indians, they’re breeding like rabbits, right? They have like eight kids each. And then if you look at the European birth rates, it’s like 1.5 per woman. So is it even possible to reverse that or is it too late?

 

Steve Laws: No, no, it’s never too late! It’s very much possible. We’ve just got to be done in stages.

 

So at the moment, the general public, in terms of what’s safe and okay to support, they support the deportation of all illegal immigrants regardless of when they come over, they support, they deport all of the foreign criminals. That’s what I would call stage one of re-migration.

 

So once all of that’s been carried out, that gives us a little bit of breathing room. It doesn’t make a huge difference in terms of demographic change because the legal immigrants are the problem. But it does create a sort of environment where people are okay with deportations. They go:

 

“Oh, it’s not too bad, this person’s gone home now. We don’t, we didn’t really notice any difference.”

 

Then they’ll start looking at legal immigration and go:

 

“There’s still the problem there. We’re going to have to get rid of these people.”

 

And it’s a case of doing it stage by stage. If you start going round and say, although I’m quite guilty of this because I tried to drag the window, but if you’re trying to sell it to someone who doesn’t understand immigration, that they’ve all got to go from day one, they’re not going to listen to you.

 

But if you break it down into barriers and you say:

 

“This person’s got to go, because look, there’s foreign criminals here, these people that are not even working, why are they in our country? They’re just taking all our resources.”

 

And you start going down these avenues, people understand what you’re talking about and they start supporting it. And it doesn’t sound so radical. But it’s just a case of getting that first stage over the line which is deporting all the illegal immigrants.

 

Even Left-wing Labour government we’ve got now are starting to deport illegal immigrants. So that ball’s rolling. Once that hurdle’s been jumped over, then it’s anyone’s business. I would never say it’s too late, nowhere near. We’re still 74 % of the population, we’ve got a long time yet.

 

[09:05]

 

Hermes: How did we get to this point? How did whatever the powers that be convince the general person that they should be guilty of being White? You know, you were colonisers, you owned slaves. How did we get to this point? And kind of, I guess what are the first steps someone can take to kind of get out of that mindset?

 

Steve Laws: So you could discuss this all day long, really, couldn’t you, on how it started and who’s behind it and so forth, but ultimately it’s propaganda. That’s the main priority towards this.

 

And then that dribbles through to the schools, into the unions, into the workplaces, into every sort of environment. And then they creates a culture because that narrative so set in stone, creates a culture that anyone steps outside of that is seen as a radical and seen as a racist and extremist. And it sort of group thinks that person to not speak like that because everyone will turn on them and go:

 

“You can’t say that, you can’t say that. How dare you say that!”

 

And then everyone else listens to that and thinks:

 

“I better not say that. I don’t want to be the outsider in the group.”

 

And it’s that sort of mentality that snowballed throughout an entire nation until we’ve reached a point, we’ve reached now where entire generations are turning back and saying:

 

“No, we reject all of this, whether there’s truth to any of it or not, it’s irrelevant!”

 

Everyone just rejects it outright and wants everything gone, reversed back to what it should have been like, where it should be just our people in our country, people putting our people first. And that’s kind of what’s going to happen.

 

But in terms of how you reverse it and how you change everyone’s mindset. If I had the answer mate, it would already be fixed! [chuckling]

 

Hermes: Yeah. What would you do with the people who have like mixed kids or like they’re partially British? What’s the threshold like, where do the people who are mixed with everything go?

 

Steve Laws: So this one gets me in trouble. So I have to be careful how I answer this. Ultimately, I don’t care whether you’re mixed race or not, because I don’t see you as fully English, whether that’s controversial or not, I don’t care! If you’ve got a Jamaican father or an African father, or a Chinese father, you’re Chinese. You may have an English mother, but you are not English. You’re something else.

 

If you have a German Shepherd and a Labrador, you breed the two together, you do no longer have a German Shepherd, or a Labrador. You have something different entirely. And my problem is with this, whilst, yes, it’s a small minority of the country at the moment, if this demographic climbs, increases and starts becoming 5, 10% of the population, there’s serious questions that need to be asked. So ultimately, yes, we have to nip this in the bud.

 

Personally, I would deport them if I had the power, but I wouldn’t go out the streets and campaign to get rid of everyone because it’s a non-start from day one. I always say, if we can get to a 95% White Britain, I’d be happy with that. I wouldn’t be dancing over the moon, but I wouldn’t have to go out on the streets and campaign against this.

 

Hermes: What are the biggest differences racially in between us? Is it skin colour?

 

Steve Laws: No, no! Skin colour is just a minute fraction. It’s behaviour, it’s IQ, it’s everything down to diet, down to bone structure. There’s a lot more of it. Of course, skin colour is different as well. And that’s the obvious factor.

 

And that’s why everyone goes:

 

“Oh my God, he’s black, he’s White. You hate him because he’s black!”

 

Technically, yes, but [chuckling] not because of the colour of their skin. It’s because of their behaviour and the way they act. And they shouldn’t be in our country. I wouldn’t care. Right. If you was an African and you was in Africa, you do you mate, I don’t care! That’s where you should be.

 

But when you’re in the UK and you’re sitting here and you’re doing all your tribal dances and you’re eating all your jafali rice and stuff, and then you’re telling us that we should forgive, be apologizing to you because of our past, and it’s like:

 

“No, we’re very proud of our past. We’d do it again!”

 

It’s like, why are you here? Do you understand what I’m saying? You can go down the IQ arguments and you can go down every other argument, but the reality is every race has their own continent for a reason. It should stay like that.

 

Hermes: What do you say to people who say this is like a natural process of evolution and eventually everyone’s just going to have to, I guess, merge together?

 

Steve Laws: It’s not natural because it’s forced. This isn’t something that’s happening naturally. It’s not like people are just randomly arriving in the UK because they went for a stroll. These people are being encouraged and brought to the UK on the promise of incentives and housing and so forth. This isn’t something that’s happening naturally. If it’s something that’s happening naturally, we could put barriers in place to stop it!

 

Hermes: Okay, what are some things you are working personally in the future? Tell us about it.

 

Steve Laws: So right now I’m working on a group called Remigration Now. It’s basically an activist pressure group campaigning on total re-migration. So we take the hard line of everyone’s got to go. And then people can sort of backstep it a little bit and they can sort of make a safe space for everyone to move the window along a little bit. There’s enough political parties in the movement at the moment. There’s so many, they all say the same thing. Not one of them is willing to deport everyone. Not one of them is willing to support total re-migration. Even the based nationalist parties are not even at that stage.

 

So I don’t see as there’s any time being worth putting into a political party at the moment, strictly because Reform have got the next election covered at 29, after then is the time you want to start thinking about a nationalist party.

 

But for the next three years, nationalists should be focusing on drumming re-migration into the mainstream.

 

Hermes: And what can the average British person do to help out? Like they understand what we’re talking about. They agree with us or with you, not us. What would you say to them?

 

Steve Laws: So ultimately, the main thing is talking to people in real life. So if you can win over one person in a conversation, say you’re at work and you’re talking amongst your workmates, win that person over to the conversation. Get involved in protests, get involved in activism. If there’s a politician that’s calling for deportations in your area, support that politician. You might not agree with everything they’re saying, and elsewhere, they may say a lot of nonsense, but if they’re calling for deportations, let’s put that person in a position where they can actually act on that.

 

So it’s just little, small sort of acts of activism that will encourage more people to get active.

 

Hermes: And if anyone wants to find your work, where can they find you?

 

Steve Laws: Just Twitter. Steve Laws. I don’t even know what my username is. Yeah, Steve Laws. You’ll find me. Yeah. Cheers, buddy.

 

Hermes: Thanks for the conversation. Steve Laws, everybody.

 

[15:23]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Youtube Comments

top

(Comments as of 9/21/2025 = 497)

@ZoomerHistorian
1 day ago
Patriot
266

19 replies

@wavell14
1 day ago
o/
8

@DanielMoralesSánchez-v7q
1 day ago
@wavell14 Buy in Predappio tricolore, comrade
3

@6XGuitarXheroX6
1 day ago
you’re not a historian
4

@billbill6576
1 day ago
@6XGuitarXheroX6 and you’re not a guitar hero
24

@6XGuitarXheroX6
1 day ago
@billbill6576 your mum thinks I am

@javieracero8408
1 day ago
The Great Zoomer Historian is here !
13

@Retetop
1 day ago

@6XGuitarXheroX6 He is.
7

@KyleTheDalek
1 day ago
So your ok with elites, billionaires and such all having banquet, funding wars, and more but immigration is the issue?
What about what Christians done to the world, the colonists, why defend that?
Why don’t you respond to your criticism?

@jsg9575
1 day ago
Arent you French?

@laurafulton7023
1 day ago

@ZoomerHistorian Your channel is AWESOME!!!
3

@CIements
1 day ago
@KyleTheDalek your “criticism” is whataboutism, you haven’t made an actual argument again immigration.
5

@Heimbach1966
17 hours ago
Kenny smith is a bad man. We warned you
2

@AbdulSoomro-kj5lt
15 hours ago
Ok Nazi

@Heimbach1966
14 hours ago
​ @AbdulSoomro-kj5lt
Cry Abdul. You know whats coming
5

@markbecker5951
12 hours ago
It’s called national socialist Abdull.
2

@AbdulSoomro-kj5lt
12 hours ago
@markbecker5951 so what?

@inthebeninging-m6h
11 hours ago
You think reimmigration or balkanisation is more likely outcome?

@Wjfiswjei183
6 hours ago
@6XGuitarXheroX6 You are?

@Wjfiswjei183
6 hours ago
@KyleTheDalek Immigration is what allows the elites to have as much power as they do, look at why billionaires prefer foreigners to their own people. We don’t deny the billionaires involvement, we merely wish to take their tools away and laugh at them crying in a corner. Colonists were good

@777SJ
1 day ago
Steve Laws is a true patriot.
92

4 replies

@randomhuman2595
1 day ago
He is terminally online
2

@AbdulSoomro-kj5lt
15 hours ago
No

@fokit2240
12 hours ago (edited)
​​ @randomhuman2595 true, but at least with a mission reaching millions of people. I mean, me and you are online pretty often online also or you wouldn’t be here. Without any influence at all. Lol.

@Wjfiswjei183
6 hours ago
@randomhuman2595 you are

@loubloom-r8o
1 day ago
I’m french, and i don’t feel in my country anymore.
We need total remigration.
Support from France, great video!
202

15 replies

@hyperborean8240
1 day ago (edited)
@VagianTuerous meaningless word
15

@thedegen40
1 day ago
I’m from france too bro !! En effet la remigration est la solution.
13

@loubloom-r8o
1 day ago
@VagianTuerous Call me whatever you want, but one thing is sure. I do love my country, and i want it back!
13

@Hooter360
1 day ago
The Austrian painter tried to warn France
11

@yyyashaa
1 day ago
@VagianTuerous cry you don’t even understand what the word means
3

@sickandtired1000
1 day ago (edited)
@VagianTuerous Why, thank you! I am!!
3

@Nick-fi1mc
1 day ago
​ @VagianTuerous loser
2

@WahrheitTreue
1 day ago
@VagianTuerous Have you noticed how utterly useless that word has become?
5

@KyleTheDalek
1 day ago
So your ok with elites, billionaires and such all having banquet, funding wars, and more but immigration is the issue?
What about what Christians done to the world, the colonists, why defend that?
1

@Baz_09
1 day ago
​ @loubloom-r8o What city are you in?

@WahrheitTreue
1 day ago
@KyleTheDalek Tell me, how is it leading a life void of any intelligence?
3

1 day ago
France is lost, it belongs to north Africans
1

@ColinDoweinRiddle
1 day ago
France for the French, England for the English, Germany for the Germans, America for the Americans!

@markbecker5951
12 hours ago
Unreal what’s happening in France. I once passed through Paris. I had to wait for a few hours at a bus station for my connection. I was literally (yes literally) the only White person there.

@loubloom-r8o
3 hours ago
@markbecker5951 I know brother, i know. And yet they still say the great replacement is a theory lol.

@AliceEngland-n8w
1 day ago
As a National socialist party we would give every White couple a house and every child born would give them 25% off the cost of their house. Until 4 children then they own the house. Many excellent examples of policies that promote the native population.
50

2 replies

@British_Dragon
20 hours ago
How can people support this movement?
1

@Imperial_Boltgun
15 hours ago
If you laid out only the policies of National Socialism without actually any mention of the name or where it originated most people would support it.
7

@laurafulton7023
2 days ago
Don’t let England become the world’s second post national state.
Post National Canada is unbearable
107

5 replies

@laurafulton7023
2 days ago
In Post National Canada there are
25 million Canadians
8 million houses
7 million apartments and
22 million foreigners
12

@Hooter360
1 day ago
Why do you Canadian keep voting for l liberal parties?
5

@MoMoIsInHell
1 day ago
Post national Canada? What are you talking about?

@Astrale_Duskus
1 day ago
Seems to be there now
2

@laurafulton7023
1 day ago

@Hooter360 Voting?
Do you believe in Santa too?
2

@laurafulton7023
2 days ago
I’m 47 and I agree
98

1 reply

@termikes174
2 days ago
I’m 48 and have these views
as well
15

@slowboywhiteboardv4
2 days ago
The juice money only flows one way, and voting won’t fix it.
62

@NORMIESAXON
2 days ago
Steve Laws is a great guy.
Truly dedicated to his people and doesn’t beat around the Bush or water down reality to accommodate those of weak of spirit.
89

3 replies

@HowieHoward-ti3dx
1 day ago
That’s what I like about him. Since he is Briitiss–shh he alos must have an unncc((iircuummcciissedd sau s–sage.

@wavell14
1 day ago
@HowieHoward-ti3dx jew
1

@HowieHoward-ti3dx
1 day ago
@wavell14 Nope I am not are you? I cannot stand those people.

@joeycampbell-h9i
1 day ago (edited)
Anyone who disagrees should have an Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi family move in next door to them. I’ll give it 2 months max. Roma Gypsy probably only takes half an hour.
23

@lindahunter1969
22 hours ago
Steve Laws is a coast guard hero
14

@LICENFIREFEAR
2 days ago
Deport deport
101

4 replies

@KyleTheDalek
1 day ago
So your ok with elites, billionaires and such all having banquet, funding wars, and more but immigration is the issue?
What about what Christians done to the world, the colonists, why defend that?

@MrGanz87
1 day ago
@KyleTheDalek 200 years ago?
2

@acenab92
1 day ago
​ @KyleTheDalek don’t waste ur time majority of these are literal bots nobody supports this bs
1

@RedX165
16 hours ago
@KyleTheDalek Who said that isn’t a problem?
Right now, we need to focus on us first before we’re a minority in our own countries.

@markjeffery7319
17 hours ago
I’m 64 and I fully support Steve and remigration, it was my generation who formed the National Front and the BNP, we marched with them, we’ve had to compete with immigrants for housing, health services, schools etc, I think it’s more of a class thing than an age thing, working class “boomers” are more right wing than much of the younger generation.
7

@Hustlin87
1 day ago
Support from Australia
38

@laurafulton7023
2 days ago
Remember not long ago back when Canadian cities were occupied by Canadians?
I miss those days
70

2 replies

@laurafulton7023
2 days ago
In Post National Canada there are
25 million Canadians
8 million houses
7 million apartments and
22 million foreigners
7

@PapaShubz
1 day ago
I hate living in Canada
6

@ShapesBBQ
1 day ago
Steve Laws is Fantastic
14

@gh__
2 days ago
W interview. We need total remigration
63

2 replies

@thoriumwulf3170
2 days ago
The Wbrits need to slowly enlist in the military and after a few decades attempt a military coup. I dont think the politicians will ever do anything meaningful
3

@Andre-vr1ul
2 days ago
​ @thoriumwulf3170 the gov knows that already. They unfortunately aren’t stupid. They have a system in place for that.
1

@laurafulton7023
2 days ago
I wish Canada was still for Canadians.
I wish Canadians were allowed to defend OUR country from this relentless invasion/occupation
106

7 replies

@laurafulton7023
2 days ago
In Post National Canada there are
25 million Canadians
8 million houses
7 million apartments and
22 million foreigners
16

@termikes174
2 days ago
Damn.
4

@LegendofLovecraft
2 days ago
Second Sons and the Dominion Society
6

@PasstheA1
1 day ago
This is a longshot but I truly believe that Americans and my Canadian brothers will need to work together hand in hand in the future to solve the very fucking real issues that are festering in both of our countries, the root of the issues are the same and all of us know which factions are responsible. the solutions though will im afraid require us to put whatever differences (if theres even really any between your average American patriot and a Canadian one) and work together. first it will look like support networks and basically using each other to replace the lines of support that our government used to provide.
hopefully Canada has its own version of Patriot Front that you all can join into and build community and skills, eventually both organizations and other ones like it such as the one forming in Australia will all need to lean on each other for support in ways more than just showing up in person. the landscape of the internet is a very real battlefield and we need to lead by example. show White people in all corners of the world theres a place to turn to that will have your back, somewhere that if you put in hard work you know you are helping those who look like you.
sorry for the rant but we need to start working for solutions rather than echoing our discontent with the status quo. the time for action is past.
3

@Astrale_Duskus
1 day ago
Went to Vancouver a few years ago – Asian and Indian galore, not sure what happened to the Canadians
2

@laurafulton7023
1 day ago

@PasstheA1 Sadly, there’s no decent groups in Post National Canada.
1

@laurafulton7023
21 hours ago

@Astrale_Duskus India and Iran are in Asia
1

@laurafulton7023
2 days ago
The first step needs to be taking care of those who orchestrated and enabled this across the entire Anglosphere
46

7 replies

@gillettrandy
2 days ago
Ding! We have a winner!
14

@laurafulton7023
2 days ago

@gillettrandy
First the traitors.
Then the invaders
17

@S-North
1 day ago
It’s not helpful to be thinking of your opponents rear echelon, when your opponents rank and file are all up in your face.
Address the problem directly in front, while simoultaniously attempting to out manoeuvre and catch that rear echelon.
6

@MoMoIsInHell
1 day ago
It’s not just the anglosphere. It’s everywhere! From Canada to Lithuania and Japan
5

@LiftOffLife
1 day ago
Its the jeux
6

@Skanderbeg-AL
1 day ago
Across all White countries not only the Anglosphere…
7

@ZYNQO0
13 hours ago

@laurafulton7023 exactly brother you got it 100% right

@chadlove3443
14 hours ago
Hmm I wonder who was behind the antiwhitism
7

@xander1947
2 days ago
I’m 42 and my view is remigration 100%!
48

1 reply

@diligencehumility6971
1 day ago
37 here, I wanted it all my life
7

@robertsmith7637
2 days ago
USA is being over run as well.
Just wanna throw that out there.
30

1 reply

@WesteuindidKaalai
1 day ago
Yes, but the USA was never fully “white.” Instead, “white” people in the USA should put their main focus on the West coast states, California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska as well as some northern western states like Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. Also Massachusetts is important to focus on. These are places with climates similar to Europe. Outside of them, “white” people should only focus on small county-sized regions in the metro areas of major diverse cities like Miami, New York, and Las Vegas. European climates in European latitudes can sustain a European descent population. Otherwise, with time the people will most likely lose their European features.
4

@naikjoy
1 day ago
I agree with him entirely
14

@sonnyb7612
2 days ago
Steve Laws is one of the few people in England that seems like an actual Englishman with balls that names the jew and stands for actual English people and the nation.
26

2 replies

@MrLukedanger
20 hours ago
There is a lot of us, but the laws and Jewish money is a compete shut down. Mark collett is a good man also
2

@darrenhems2291
19 hours ago
Whats your opinion on SimonT?
1

@Getafix33
1 day ago
we need people like steve laws who have a zero tolerance attitude to this. Like he said it creates a space where people who think it’s a bit too far to fall back into. great interview mate.
15

@andrea31425
1 day ago
Great mindset. New generations are way better than boomers
14

@user-vj5xg8yc5f
2 days ago (edited)
Steve is the single greatest patriot we have in the entirety of Britain, been following him for a few years now and his dedication and will to never budge for subversives and traitors is impressive. If you aren’t already go ahead and follow & support him and his work. Great man.
25

2 replies

@BoratFC
2 days ago
He’s not though. How you could put him over the likes of Mark Collett or Simon Tomlin is beyond a joke.

@HowieHoward-ti3dx
1 day ago
@BoratFC Never heard of Simon Tomlin, but Mark is great. First time hearing Steve talk and about him and I like what he says.
2

@wastedaga1n
2 days ago
BREAKING silence! RAWR!
17

@andrewharry5472
2 days ago
Great job Hermes! Thanks for keeping at it. A man on a mission. Keep going until we manifest our intent. We are with you brother. Odin be with you and may Thought and Memory guide you!
20

@SithStudy
1 day ago
Breeding strategies are the key, Jews understand this, which is why they encourage others to crossbreed while they stick to their own kind. This is a way for them to incrementally eliminate groups they feel could threaten their power.
10

2 replies

@yhwach-e8c
1 day ago
Delusion

@TheActualCorrectOpinion
21 hours ago
@yhwach-e8c obsessed, over 100
comments
3

@dmalone12
2 days ago (edited)
You’d be hard pressed to go to any Walmart in America and not find people living out of their cars. This is not how one of the wealthiest countries in the world should be treating their citizens.
22

1 reply

@MarkJones-ji8fd
1 day ago
$35 trillion national debt is not wealth
2

@raysissum
2 days ago
Great interview.
18

@mattvdh
2 days ago
Great stuff brothers, keep up the good fight!
16

@Bryan-h3m
2 days ago
Why don’t fisherman just sink the boats?
31

4 replies

@laurafulton7023
2 days ago
The English loves playing darts.
Inflatable boats are….
6

@Purp00000
2 days ago
What fishermen? That trade is dying
3

@johncompton2775
1 day ago
Because everyone in the UK is a coward…
3

@acenab92
1 day ago
Because UK people are soft why do you think all they do is run to social media
2

@Bianca_M_2.0
1 day ago
Legal illegal it’s all the same. It’s all leading to the same destruction.
9

1 day ago
I’m a tall tough Australian over 120kg cobb and I’ll stick up for my Pommy cousins 100% mate.
9

@cequiteplait9097
1 day ago
Sooner or later, you might get discouraged, lose hope.
But in those moments, never forget: It’s never too late.
10

@saltygammon1
1 day ago
Remigration now
4

@HaydenBrewer-v4j
1 day ago
He’s awesome- unafraid in his positions
4

@laurafulton7023
2 days ago
Why are Canadians now suddenly vastly outnumbered in overcrowded Canadian cities?
Shouldn’t Canadian homes be owned and occupied by Canadians?
15

1 reply

@laurafulton7023
2 days ago
In Post National Canada there are
25 million Canadians
8 million houses
7 million apartments and
22 million foreigners
4

@dutchvoornik6401
2 days ago
Do you have your “Duke Nukem” costume ready for Halloween, Hermes?
24

2 replies

@ahmnypotent
2 days ago

1

@Astrale_Duskus
1 day ago (edited)
Hell Yeah! This would be an amazing Halloween video hahaha
“It’s time to kick ass and chew bubble gum… and I’m all outta gum!!!” (originally quoted from the movie They Live. If you haven’t seen it, mandatory watch very soon – so damn relevant for today’s mass indoctrination).
1

@heroinetm
1 day ago
Truth, God willl protect this brother.
5

@MOT2234
1 day ago (edited)
A Steve Laws Tommy Robinstein debate would show Tommy’s civic nationalist bile up for what it is, shame Tommy doesn’t want it.
6

@Soldier-yu2ml
1 hour ago
This is a great conversation. Patriots!!!

@ReggieBlinker-k9e
1 day ago
Probably 9-10 men I respect in the Right Wing sphere. Steve is one. Drastic problems require drastic solutions.
9

@organismseven3700
1 day ago
Steve Laws views
should be law!
4

@rakandy3878
2 days ago
Based dep0rtation is the moderated option, and a temporary one for that matter. They won’t like the alternative if they insist.
14

@Skanderbeg-AL
1 day ago
Good stuff Hermes, keep it up!
8

1 reply

@HowieHoward-ti3dx
1 day ago
You mean his DDIIcckk up? I wonder if it has a 44ooffrreuurreskkiinnn or not.

@AliceEngland-n8w
1 day ago
Steve Laws is a national hero for us English people!
3

@Joshua-fg9qo
1 day ago
As a white South African. With UK ancestry. I get worried that when I am finally able to immigrate to my ancestral homeland.
“All the immigrants being deported” does that include us? Trying to escape the barbarian hordes?
9

4 replies

@mkxreptile5280
1 day ago
With the current government yes, cause they hate ethinc europeans. If the modern reactionaries come into power you will certainly be welcomed.
2

@S-North
1 day ago
You’re a European who would be moving back to Europe.
There is no problem with that.
10

@billbill6576
1 day ago
Come to the USA, the government will welcome you

@davestevenson9080
17 hours ago
You are literally white and of our ancestry. blood is what matters, welcome home brother
3

@rw9854
14 hours ago
Good work both

@paspallum
2 days ago
New Zealand is currently begging for immigration and self destruction. So this guy is sick of England being the toilet of the world? Whats his advice for NZ?
8

3 replies

@laurafulton7023
2 days ago
You shouldn’t have allowed your only oil refinery to sold, disassembled and shipped off to China during Covid Lockdowns.
2

@WesteuindidKaalai
1 day ago
My advice is for the NZ to split into two countries at least, with the South Island being populated by Western European descent people. The Maoris should lose their indigenous status on the South Island because there were very few of them there to begin with, and because the distance from the equator and climate is like Western Europe and not like Taiwan. Maoris have ancestry from Taiwan, and they only reached New Zealand around 500 years before Europeans began settling. The Maoris have not been in New Zealand long enough to begin adapting to the new conditions in any significant way. But the North Island has land more similar to Taiwan than the South island. If the Maoris must remain in New Zealand, it would be better that they be on the North Island and not the South island. The South island should also send non-West European immigrants away. There are already so many massive diverse cities with similar climates in Europe and the Americas. New Zealand’s South island does not need to have any diverse cities of that sort, but if it does, it should limit it to one city. If you choose Christchurch to be the diverse city, then that means Dunedin, Invercargill, Graymouth, Nelson etc. should be free of the non-West European descent people. Also, South Island New Zealand should encourage Italian immigration because it has a very Italian climate at least in the north. Nelson probably should be renamed to Nouveau Cannes or something like that because it is similar to Cannes in southern France. Flip New Zealand over so that South is north and compared it with the map of France and you may see what I mean.
The question that remains is tourists. Should they be allowed to go everywhere randomly and potentially hide and over stay their visas? Due to how often tourism is abused and used for doing things like having children in a country to legitimize those children as natural born citizens, I think that the tourists should only be allowed to visit some places during the day, and at night they need to be in the section of the given town where tourists are allowed. If they want to go camping, they can do it in whichever metro area of the city that has been designated as the world city where all may visit. If they want their culture in New Zealand they can make an enclave in the designated metro area. If they want to compete for colonizing land with other groups, they can do it on designated lands in between designated enclaves, all of which would be in the metro areas of the designated world city. But these are just ideas. Not necessarily what must happen.
4

@WesteuindidKaalai
1 day ago

@laurafulton7023 Exactly. New Zealanders remind me of naive penguins like the Great Auks of Western Europe that went extinct due to over-hunting. If New Zealand had sense, it would not allow China in most of New Zealand, and it would develop nuclear weapons. But Nuclear power stations should still be avoided because they are easy targets for enemies with missiles intending to permanently make a country unliveable.
2

@johanjotun1647
2 days ago
Go Laws’ law.
8

@LordOfSweden
2 days ago
Great to see there is at least one honorful englishman left
19

3 replies

@markspeight5923
1 day ago
There’s millions waiting it’s coming
5

@LordOfSweden
1 day ago
@markspeight5923 I hope so. Keep fightning brothers!
3

@charlesegan9193
1 day ago
There are more of us than ever before. Nationalism is growing faster than our replacement. A year ago Nigel Farage laughed at the idea of mass deportations now Reform and the tories are competing by promising more and more deportations.

@diligencehumility6971
1 day ago
I agree 110%
2

@SunRise-ul7ko
1 day ago
Australia also has a problem.
7

@Dylan-xh9qh
1 day ago
We’ve got to the point where the most “extremist” position sounds like the most sensible.
4

@laurafulton7023
2 days ago
In my 90s Canadian high school of 800 students there were only 2 foreigners
34

3 replies

@ahmnypotent
2 days ago
sounds like heaven
8

@Zoro23-u7f7g
1 day ago
Free Palestine

@UnemployedG
1 day ago
@Zoro23-u7f7g Its Free to Invade, Go take it
1

@laurafulton7023
2 days ago
In Post National Canada there are
25 million Canadians
8 million houses
7 million apartments and
22 million foreigners
10

@KevCassidy-es2qp
1 day ago
We need more brave people like steve Laws to save our people and country.
2

@laurafulton7023
2 days ago
There’s barely a Canadian left in overcrowded Vancouver/Toronto/Montreal
33

1 reply

@Regnum-hispane
2 days ago
WP for Canada
5

@CHRISTISKINGOFORDE
1 day ago
Steve Laws for PM!
2

@raffles7556
1 day ago
Well said…support from Ireland
3

@WhiteEuropa-e8y1w
1 day ago (edited)
9:32 He said “jewish” in case u r wondering
10

1 reply

@tumslucks9781
17 hours ago

1

@JanuszUfamTobie
12 hours ago
True patriots

@John-8-43-44
1 day ago
Tommy R always was the safe option, that’s why he was pushed to the masses.
The pied piper, and the shekels pick the tune.
3

@edmundblackaddercoc8522
1 day ago
‘they’ are bringing it to our shores.
6

2 replies

@lylecrawford2794
1 day ago
Are you referring to the people who considered “something” as a broom with which Europe will be swept clean?
3

@tumslucks9781
17 hours ago

1

@michelgrottoli3432
1 day ago
your a good man hermes nice to see you on plaid army much respect sir
1

@trollsarebad1541
1 day ago (edited)
We aren’t 74% percent of the population that’s the thing. It’s always far worse than they admit.
5

@ragingbullaofessex
18 hours ago
The Austrian painter once said if we lose this war we did not want Europe will be lost within a hundred years. God bless Mr Laws.
3

@sickandtired1000
1 day ago
Great interview mate!
2

@diligencehumility6971
1 day ago
Same problem in Denmark
3

@daftwod
1 day ago
Ive won over at least 5 people through conversation.
Remigration now!
5

@BADDOD13
1 day ago
great interview m8s
2

@TheCraigy83
1 day ago
3:45 – 4:13 that really needed saying so much !
This guy knows what’s what.
2

@laurafulton7023
2 days ago

@Hermes
Please come to Vancouver British Columbia next to document the world’s first Post National State and zombie apocalypse on the downtown east side
13

@ChadRexlogan
1 day ago
Not a single thing was said that I disagree with.
5

@raakmore4443
1 day ago (edited)
Don’t forget the Blacks too. Make Amafrica America again
6

@laurafulton7023
2 days ago
Babies are NOT
12

3 replies

@HowieHoward-ti3dx
1 day ago
What?

@tumslucks9781
17 hours ago
@HowieHoward-ti3dx “Anchor babies’ i.e ethnic children born in Canada.

@HowieHoward-ti3dx
11 hours ago
@tumslucks9781 Oh ok. I think she means they are not canadians.

@Natives927
1 day ago
Awesome interview. A man with a plan and all about action. Love to see it

@ALDA99999
2 days ago
PATRIOT
14

@CHRISTISKINGOFORDE
1 day ago
Great content
2

@areyoutheregoditsmedave
1 day ago
Hermes is still better at asking questions than Elijah Schaffer
2

@jeremyschwartz3683
1 day ago
How will the youth be anti-immigration when most of them are immigrants.
1

@dieseinR
1 day ago
Impressive. Very based.
6

@idontknow9410
1 day ago
Badass
1

@JamesBrown-or8lx
15 hours ago
they have to go back!

@thatoneguychad420
1 day ago
Love it

@British_Dragon
20 hours ago
Tommy Robinstein
Steve Laws
1

1 reply

@jodygoar7071
1 day ago
Good stuff!

@NANA-u8w8w
1 day ago
Rule Britannia
2

@gillettrandy
2 days ago
Start making long bows.
6

1 reply

@laurafulton7023
2 days ago
Don’t forget the trebuchets and guillotines
1

@athulfgeirsson
10 hours ago
Hail Laws, simple as.

@dadam2609
1 day ago
He’s so handsome
3

2 replies

@TheActualCorrectOpinion
21 hours ago
Look up Cornileau Zelea Codreanu. A very handsome Saint.

@tumslucks9781
17 hours ago
@TheActualCorrectOpinion I just looked him up.
Handsome he ain’t!

@gullybull5568
18 hours ago
ISREALLY OWNS ENGLAND PUPPETS
2

1 reply

@tumslucks9781
17 hours ago

@Lamdam67
2 days ago (edited)
It would drive me crazy if we couldn’t even trash talk immigrants online, they put up with way too much in UK
7

1 reply

@Heimbach1966
17 hours ago
Believe me we can, just not on Facebook.
3

@rbb5072
1 day ago
GOOD VIDEO BRO
1

@ffehb
22 hours ago

@carlitox4721
16 hours ago
He doesn’t know the difference between British and English. British has always been a political identity used across the world

@LawrenceTimme
1 day ago
This was way more interesting than the street interviews
3

@rosita3528
2 days ago
What’s your opinion on Americans or Canadians who call themselves English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh just because they had a British ancestor 400 years ago?
2

1 reply

@Andre-vr1ul
2 days ago
I’m a Canadian in every sense of the word. I have English, Scottish and French heritage but mostly English (not uncommon for many true Canadians). I consider myself Canadian but am ethnically western European.
I assume many English also have deep Germanic and French roots too.
6

@raakmore4443
1 day ago
They want us to kill each other that’s why there doing this
2

2 replies

@cboytv6735
1 day ago
The fact none of these lot mention ‘them’ should make you wonder if they are just doing their part for them.
1

@MattyMMW
1 day ago
​ @cboytv6735 they do mention them but don’t want their videos removed on YT
1

@Jordi_Llopis_i_Torregrosa96
1 day ago (edited)
What about someone half British and half non-British white?
4

6 replies

@DavidJohnAr
1 day ago (edited)
I was going to ask the same question. Pure 95%+ DNA is quite rare. Usually Europeans have a bit of something else European. Like what if you’re half English half German? Dutch? Russian? Swedish? I mean those are very white/northern but what about even an Italian? Is that where we draw the line? I mean where do those people even go? Maybe it should be a general coalition on European countries. E.g. Russians are politically subversive so they dont count unless they change, obviously other races arent even part of the continent so they dont count, but some Dutch or Danish DNA is fine? IDK!
2

@Skanderbeg-AL
1 day ago
I was wondering the same thing…
I’m Albanian, if someone was half Albanian half other European i would be more than ok with him/her staying in Albania.
Personally i think there should be room for some intra European migration.
1

@S-North
1 day ago
Europe is European.
6

@johncompton2775
1 day ago
At 9:00 he says they are ‘74% of the population’ thus excluding
Europeans; these people also want EU citizens deported; they are not on your side….

@Rahul-ru7jv
1 day ago
hes a troll

@Dannygspoorlyhand-p4k
1 day ago
Born in Bradford to an English mother and a half Maltese father. My grandmother was a full blood Geordie who married a Maltese man. I consider myself a EURO supremacist and an English European. I want England cleansed of invaders and I’m full blown natsoc at this point. Where would I stand with Steve? Due to the Mediterranean in my blood, I often side more with European supremacy as opposed to WS. I think more issues regarding where we Italian english, Maltese English, Greek english, Spanish English etc fall in the over all movement.
1

@ExtremelyTastyBread
2 days ago
in 2018 I heard abou tommy robinson, and I legit thought he was this SUPER far right guy XD
3

1 reply

@Braytech_Official
1 day ago
Glowies be aware, bring back the fed scare.

@USDM_90
2 days ago
Underground interview

@gullybull5568
18 hours ago
CANADA : welfare joke.

@MataMoros-x2o
1 day ago
This started with windrush Jamaicans invitation to Britain. Jamaicans just stayed in Brixton and of course others trail behind black people.

@bcanuck
1 day ago
Large corporations are have purchased properties in all of our nations. The PM Carney worked for and still holds shares in the largest landlord in North America (Brookfield Asset Mgt.).
They will see everyone become renters. A new Serfdom. This mass migration will see their assets provide maximum returns. Your leaders are beholden to the same interests.

@bobnewby8229
1 day ago
based men make based societies

@ChiefJoseph-00
1 day ago
Where was this when colonization was occuring? It cries out in pain as it strikes you.
1

1 day ago
Can tell you two blokes can punch on when push comes to shove.
1

@cine9nine
5 hours ago
What about a person born in England, with English ancestry through one parent, and African ancestry through another parent?
Can they identify as English?
Some indigenous peoples, eg. Native Americans, will accept ethnically mixed people who identify as Native American if they have Native American ancestry.

@Smooth-f5l3e
2 days ago
What about a white British Muslim convert? Or a British Athiest?
3

2 replies

@ohioisastate8574
2 days ago
Part of the problem
8

@grlfcgombeenhunter2897
1 day ago
They can go
6

@PcGamerify
1 day ago
wow

@ContrarianKaren
1 day ago
Mass migration is a symptom of the global economic system which Steve never talks about

2 replies

@LiftOffLife
1 day ago
You mean the jeaux
3

@tumslucks9781
17 hours ago
@LiftOffLife

@dutchvoornik6401
2 days ago
In canine husbandry, the first cross of two purebreds yields intelligence.
2

@orwellwasrightabouttheleft7549
1 day ago
Why is the j word bleeped out?!
1

@dee74raz
18 hours ago
Forgets to ask deportations of ethnic Europeans living in North America, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand to Europe
1

2 replies

@ThatLastScouser
17 hours ago
They built those countries. You want to send all the infrastructure and technology back here too? Sounds good, let you all live back in the dark ages.
2

@AnimaChristisalvame
17 hours ago
The European built those countries/ civilisations. They didn’t exist before. The land masses had stoneage tribes, living in tiny numbers on them.
1

@Deepwokenhero_ezgromit3
21 hours ago
1:43 6-7???

@orwellwasrightabouttheleft7549
1 day ago
Did you film this in a canteen? Awful background noise. Apart from that, remigration now.
1

@carlzoey
2 days ago
What happend to your video yesterday it was up for less then an hour?
2

@xchainsaw_massacrex9367
2 days ago
WIthin the idea of remigration, would mix race people that are half English still be deported?
2

8 replies

@LegendofLovecraft
2 days ago
Yes
6

@yhwach-e8c
2 days ago
@LegendofLovecraft I wouldn’t go if I was mixed

@yhwach-e8c
2 days ago
@LegendofLovecraft Nice name though

@LegendofLovecraft
2 days ago
​@yhwach-e8c its not voluntary i dont think
1

@cboytv6735
1 day ago
@hyperborean8240 I’m sure you will have an easy time doing that pal
4

@hyperborean8240
1 day ago
@cboytv6735 im not English its up to them not me

@patrickmullen2938
1 day ago
@LegendofLovecraft I think an English father with a forgien lady should be ok that kid will be English

@xchainsaw_massacrex9367
1 day ago
@yhwach-e8c Deportation isn’t voluntary, you don’t get to make that decision. LOL.
1

@RadovanCvijetic
18 hours ago (edited)
Right immigration is not the problem, say Polish that assimilates, has similar culture etc, the biggest problem is very low birth rate among all European nations …for instance Italy is at 1.3 children per women, that’s an irreversible rate!

@joepaxton3154
18 hours ago
Why is the video of kai cunningham been taken down?

@gullybull5568
18 hours ago
ISREAL ISHAM out

@rubyred9415
1 day ago
Where can we see the last video that got taken down?

@Righteo
1 day ago
Who’s Steve Laws?

@KEGDOG
1 day ago (edited)
*migration crisis

@jermaineishmael7225
16 hours ago
These people need to get hobbies 34 and nothing better to do with their time………

@thevioletmasquerade
1 day ago
His political views
, no matter how hardline, are not the issue. It’s the sheer number of contradictions in his rhetoric that will forever anchor any potential meaningful change that he apparently seeks.
This is part of the problem these types of people have. They’re challenging issues that have been made deliberately complex and multi-faceted by design, using far too narrow of a lens.
1

1 reply

@Mark-ef2ly
13 hours ago
What contradictions ?

@HowieHoward-ti3dx
1 day ago
Hermes if you have a 44fforreeskk!!iinn, how do you feel sitting next to a Brit!!iisshh guy who could possibly have a ffo444rreeskk!!iinn too.

@imperishablestars33
2 days ago
What about if you got an irish mum
2

7 replies

@Andre-vr1ul
2 days ago
English and Irish are ethnic kin. They are family.
12

@ohioisastate8574
2 days ago
Lol what about it
4

@imperishablestars33
2 days ago
@ohioisastate8574 just wondering if i’ll be going back. my mums parents came from ireland, my grandfather was one of the irish men who fought in wwii. i’ll have to be split in half, my dads parents were scottish tehehe
1

@grlfcgombeenhunter2897
1 day ago
@imperishablestars33 silly comment
4

@S-North
1 day ago
Not a problem.
5

@MOT2234
1 day ago (edited)
Europeans generally aren’t an issue, we are all going through the same struggle, including our Irish brothers.
Albanians have to go though.
4

@ThatLastScouser
17 hours ago
What about it?
1

@TheAkuAku
1 day ago
Its over already. What are these pointless conversations?
1

3 replies

@cboytv6735
1 day ago
Steve laws is controlled opp anyway never even mentions the mortal enemy just quarrels with the sheep

@samking8947
1 day ago
@cboytv6735 he literally always does you just can’t openly say it on YouTube
2

@cboytv6735
22 hours ago
@samking8947 he hardly does and he still is doing what they want him to. And it’s laughable hearing him talk all big on what needs to be done , the second he tried to implement a single thing he would be dealt with by anyone.

@HowieHoward-ti3dx
1 day ago
Hermes is so cute. I wonder if his sauca–sage is ciirr(9ccummCiisseed or not and what his faa(9aartt)s are Buurppsss sme!!ll like.

@2000guineas
1 day ago
Rodeny from Only Fools and Horse nephew?

@cboytv6735
1 day ago
12:05 this bloke talking about diet and bone structure , my god. Very disheartening that this is the ‘dissident voice’.
2

2 replies

@Contentiouslytruthful
14 hours ago
Bone structure makes sense. Diet doesn’t

@cboytv6735
14 hours ago
@Contentiouslytruthful not in his case it certainly doesn’t.

@yesthen2704
18 hours ago
Hermes ur great but this guy ur interviewing , as a British person, he needs a shower

@Rob_3s3
1 day ago
i can sort of get behind remigration but this guy is taking it too far, i dont want to literally live in an ethno state

1 reply

@JamesLeigh-f6d
16 hours ago
We literally lived in an ethno state for centuries
2

@AzALk-x8e
1 day ago
2 white supremacist talking … is so sad where are we going…

7 replies

@yyyashaa
1 day ago
If you live in the uk and you’re disagreeing with this man you’re insane
7

@AzALk-x8e
1 day ago
@yyyashaa I lived in the UK… thats why i know this is hate speech …

@htwa
1 day ago
@AzALk-x8e you are brown
4

@AzALk-x8e
1 day ago
@htwa ? brown? meaning? in fact Im orange…

@AzALk-x8e
1 day ago
@htwa a bit HCL, scale…

@AzALk-x8e
1 day ago
@htwa you? maybe more rbg?

@AzALk-x8e
1 day ago
@htwa Im sefardi… so …

Show more replies

@robjams1
15 hours ago
He’s good, just a bit mental thinking mixed race kids can go ‘home’

@UnemployedG
1 day ago
Professional Racist
1

1 reply

@yyyashaa
1 day ago
That’s not racist
2

@Uduwerage
1 day ago
Again, Hermes is promoting ethnonationalism and those who promote the vilest forms of intolerance and racism.

3 replies

@S-North
1 day ago
It’s a survival thing.
6

@Uduwerage
1 day ago (edited)
⁠ @S-North , Survival of or for whom?

@MattyMMW
1 day ago
​ @Uduwerage The group that created western civilization
4

@civildiscourse7626
1 day ago
This guy is a nut job

@PeeedaPan
2 days ago
Budget dolph lungren and this gollum lookin mofo
2

3 replies

@LordOfSweden
2 days ago
You thought you were funny huh?
8

@JamesSmith-ds2hi
1 day ago
They haven’t got a brain cell between them

@LordOfSweden
1 day ago
@JamesSmith-ds2hi Cope
4

@cygnus108
2 days ago (edited)
This guys a complete moron. “Every race has its continent”. (12:56) Then explain Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, America.

@leewilson2261
2 days ago
Wow, I can’t agree with this far right narrative. Tommy Robinson has the right way forward, not this Nazi.

5 replies

@kimbow1968
1 day ago
YOUR VERY NAIVE IF YOU THINK T R IS THE SOLUTION
7

@grlfcgombeenhunter2897
1 day ago
@kimbow1968 see what he’s done
2

@willryan5508
1 day ago
Too normie for facts huh? Race is real and people are not equal
4

@grlfcgombeenhunter2897
1 day ago
@willryan5508
2

@ThatLastScouser
17 hours ago
Tommy Robinson is a clown who dances for Israel.
2

@dimakurguskin4141
2 days ago (edited)
do questionary about Ukraine or about jewish involvement in slavery
2

@flashforcash1843
2 days ago (edited)
Frankenstein and master splinter
Starring hermes as frankenstein and well the other speaks for him self looks like a human sized rat even acts like one
2

2 replies

@grlfcgombeenhunter2897
1 day ago
But ur here and commenting
4

@cboytv6735
1 day ago
Hermes doesn’t look like Frankenstein
4

@uoutub3
1 day ago
Great interview !
3

@rbb5072
1 day ago
GOOD VIDEO BRO
3

@dutchvoornik6401
8 hours ago
Do you have your “Duke Nukem” costume ready for Halloween, Hermes?
1

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

See Also

top

 

 

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