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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 4/28/2026 = 5)

leibekohne
1 day ago
Well said,its simply policy promoting war on white people.This is done by tiny JZOGBots, who own media, those scum who gave so called power to useless stinky ugly fat aboerectus who parricides on white men who build Australia. We see that it will never work and only creates contention with patriotic nationalistic young Australians. As for Anzac one can make gymnastics about. The truth is we fought wrong enemies Germans Japanese Italians in WW1 WW2 our heroes “fought” for white Australia they thought only later the same JZOG turn it to multi-cultural melting pot, to destroy white race, just opposite what they were fighting for. Thus our existence is replaced and children no future for our children. This is truth about weakness and perversion of ANZAC its legitimacy has to be challenge again in high court as abos can not be allowed to subvert sabotage subjugate whites men ancestral holiday. Australia is whites men land always was and always will be. Abos have they theirs own name let it be so; “Kangaroo Island” or “Great Sandy Island.” . That’s why scum is burning Australian flag for which they should be severely punished, and they are not part of. That’s what they had and have with abo flag and jzog can do nothing about it. Challenge it in court as its opportunity to separate from abos and rest of non-whites and stop paying taxes for them once and for all. https://www.studycountry.com/wiki/what-did-the-aboriginals-call-australia-before
4
0

Watchman4u
Supporter
1 day ago
it’s the jews
3
0

charliebrownau
1 day ago
Gday Why would it stop the entire system is Anti White as more and more boomers die off the mask is revealed more and more No longer is the majority White Working Class thus the system no longer needs to pander to them Africans , Indians, Abos, Gays, Chinese and Jews are the new ‘Modern Australians’ legacy White Australians are just in the road of the Multi polar World Order utopia Even the false civnat claim that we are all equal and we don’t see race and we refuse to use racial identity ‘politics’ is slipping as Abos, Indians, Jews all have a racial group preference its just whitey that’s been brainwashed with race blind Universal Individualism No such thing exists as apolitical/unpolitical subjects/groups/activities everything is political anything that ‘isnt’ just means people don’t understand whats going on and you lot refuse to pull your head out of the sand and get off the fence It needs to be worse, more anti white and more Anti White Australians on a more widespread scale for the majority to change/adapt / forced to wake up Still not bad enough for massive change Accelerate towards victory —————————————- ” Truth Fears NO INVESTIGATION ” ” Facts don’t care about your feelings ” ” Access to White is not an Universal ((( RIGHT ))) ” ” My Wallet My Choice ” ” Real Freedom hasn’t been attempted yet ” _________ Regards Charliebrownau * Email – charliebrownau@protonmail.com * Videos – https://poast.tv/c/charliebrownau/videos * Telegram – https://t.me/s/Charliebrownau
2
0

Lokislad
Supporter+
1 day ago
Lost me when he started to manufacture Abo Lore BULLSHIT! It is a scam – period NO DREAMING BS AT ALL!

fastnail
11 hours ago
jews
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

Joel Davis: Hello, welcome to the stream. Another show this evening, The Joel and Blair Show. It is the 6th of the 6th! Ominous! 6th of June, 2025. Big show for you tonight. A lot to discuss. A lot’s going on. We’re going to be talking about the N-word. We’re going to be talking about all kinds of things on the show this evening. The question is where to begin.

 

Also, we’re streaming live on Comfies on Comfy Friends X channel. So we lost quite a few viewers when we got banned from X. So it’s nice to be back on X. Nice to have another platform back open to the show. So hello to all the viewers on X. Strap in. Should be a good show this evening.

 

Yeah, it’s pretty fucking cold down here in Melbourne. I got the heater going. I’m pretty cosy. But how you feeling, Blair? You like the cold weather? I actually don’t mind the cold weather. It’s kind of spiritually centreing. But I know you love it because the summer, it just irritates you.

 

Blair Cottrell: Oh, I’m always irritated by something, but I’m less irritated in the cold. I’m not really sure why. I seem, I don’t know, my neurons fire better in the cold. I think we’re more genetically adapted to the cold, our kin, members of our race. I don’t know, I just seem to be happier when the weather’s a little cooler. I mean, what do you want? You want to lay in bed sweating all night, getting eaten by mosquitoes? It’s not for me, man! I don’t know why people like going to these third world countries for holidays like Thailand and all that shit! Like:

 

“Oh, my God, everything’s so cheap!”

 

Yeah, it’s cheap because it’s a shit hole! And no one actually wants to live there. They make all their money through tourism. It’s too hot there! I don’t really. I’m not interested in that kind of weather. I like to be far away from the equator.

 

But Joel told me, I wasn’t going to wear the beanie because I thought it’s a bit of its a bizarre kind of a beanie. I don’t have any other beanies. This has kind of been handed down to me. I’ve had it for a long time. But Joel said it looked “ornamental”. So I don’t know if that’s good or bad, but you’re gonna have to endure the beanie, guys. Look, sorry if it looks stupid. I’m not taking it off. My head’s cold.

 

02 Trump vs Musk Feud

top

 

Joel Davis: Hold frame! Don’t concede frame like that, don’t concede frame like that.

 

But, yeah, no, I got the beanie on to, because I just want to be cosy, feel cosy. But yeah, so let’s get into it.

 

I mean, there’s a lot to break down. Today, all the news breaking, waking up this morning, Australian time, and all the news breaking of Elon Musk and Donald Trump falling out. That’s kind of interesting. Like, I wasn’t expecting to cover that on the show tonight. Kind of you could see that brewing for a while, but I wasn’t expecting it to blow up like that. I think maybe we will kind of analyse that, but maybe later in the show.

 

03 Clip of NSN Rally in Melbourne – Ban Niggers Not Machetes

top

 

But first there was a kind of provocative rally. I don’t know who did it. These guys, they all dress in black and so on. I don’t really know who they are, but it was kind of interesting. They had an interesting little banner drop, kind of banner action the other day. They put out a video. So maybe we could play the video and then. Yeah, then we could analyse it.

 

[Start of clip]

 

9 news: Bouquets of flowers marking another victim of Victoria’s machete crisis. Police say up to 10 young men of African appearance are, still on the run. A teenage boy has escaped. Injuries unleashed.

All seven people allegedly involved in that violent machete brawl at Melbourne’s Northland Shopping Centre have now been arrested. That’s good news. So Andrew McCormack is in Melbourne, Maca. It comes as the state’s landmark machete ban comes into effect today.

Anita Allan (Vic State Premier): These knives are dangerous weapons. They have no place on our streets anywhere! And that is why I will introduce as many laws to get these dangerous knives off the streets.

NSN members: Chanting (with “Ban Niggers Not Machetes” banner), White man! Fight back! White man! Fight back! White man! Fight back!

7 News: Police are investigating after a mob of masked militants gathered at Northland Shopping Centre in the early hours of this morning.

[End of clip]

 

Blair Cottrell: Funny how we didn’t have much of a problem with knife crime in Australia until the government filled the country full of Africans. [chuckling] But it’s the knives that are the problem, not the people wielding them! Not the people with sub 70 IQs that don’t really understand how to deal with conflicts or get what they want through any other method than by using a knife. That’s not the problem! It’s the knives themselves! Can you believe these people? I don’t know. Joel, what do you think?

 

[05:37]

 

04 Tactical Use of the N-Word, Pros and Cons

top

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, well, I mean this it was interesting to watch the reaction to this, because by the standards of NSN rallies, this one was pretty tame. But just because there was a tactical N-word on the banner, it got a massive response online. Just from my clicking around on TikTok and Instagram and Twitter and so on. It accumulated more views. Like the short phone clip video of the action. It accumulated more views than Australia has people. I counted at least 30 million views. Not to mention it was broadcast on the news. And not to mention whoever else uploaded it or reacted to it, I didn’t see.

 

So this went very viral! Like this got a lot of attention online. And it got a lot of attention in not in, not with, not necessarily the most politically engaged audiences, because it was posted by mainstream media accounts or other just kind of random news accounts and so on.

 

So initially it was posted on Twitter. It was posted by people connected to the so-called dissident Right. And you know, a lot of people liked it, obviously.

 

But also it drew a lot of criticism from people who said:

 

“Oh this just associates our worldview with incivility and with vulgarity. And this is just going to turn people off. And normal people they’re willing to have an adult conversation about immigration and crime and even like race and crime, but not when you go dropping the N-word.”

 

But then I started reading the comment sections on Instagram and TikTok and so on, and the comment sections were dominated by seemingly normal people, loving it! And saying, “there’s nothing wrong here”. They were very supportive. They were saying:

 

“How come White people can’t stand up for ourselves? That’s a double standard, blah, blah blah.”

 

Basically siding with the demonstration. There wasn’t too much discussion of “are these people feds?” There wasn’t all this discussion of “is the N-word offensive?”. Now obviously Leftists and non-Whites in particular, non-Whites didn’t like the rally and reacted negatively towards it. But the rally’s not for them. It wasn’t designed to appeal to them. The people that it was designed to appeal to, seemingly liked it.

 

And I think what we need to kind of come to terms with is the fact that this so-called “normie” out there that, is willing to have a grown up conversation about race, but gets turned off if you ever mention Hitler or use a racial slur or something. This person doesn’t actually exist! It’s a totally contrived concept drummed up by over politicised conservatives.

 

Blair Cottrell: Really though? I think they exist in the form of the Boomer. Not all the time, but some older generation people, they close down as soon as you mention Hitler, as soon as you start to become vulgar with terminology that you’re using regarding race. I know Boomers that will shut off instantly with that kind of stuff. So they do exist, I think.

 

Joel Davis: I think the people that shut off with that kind of stuff, they’re also not willing to, they’re shutting off in general, like they’re shutting off towards, … I don’t think people that are really open to a pro-White, like a kind of racist, racialist perspective. I don’t think that there’s a lot of people like that that are also super offended by the N-word or something. I think if you’re offended by the N-word, it’s because you’re actually offended by racism in general, no matter how clean it’s presented to you.

 

And in fact, if you do, what you saw here was, if the banner said “ban blacks not machetes” or “ban Africans not machetes” or something like that, it would have got some traction, but nowhere near as much. It would have been nowhere near as provocative to I think mass audiences. And it wouldn’t have driven a conversation, because what it did is it created this dichotomy in people’s minds of:

 

“How come the system, how come the mainstream media is more concerned about naughty words then they’re concerned about knife crime? They’re concerned about people getting slashed up with machetes, that they’re concerned about you know, incompatible, you know, races being brought into our country en masse.”

 

I’ll just bring Blair back on. Dropped off there as, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Sorry to interrupt. I have this like this hectic new mouse that I bought and it’s got all these buttons on the side and apparently one of those buttons closes the tab that I’ve currently accessed.

 

So I have to be careful not to, or maybe I can programme it so that doesn’t happen. I’ll figure it out. Sorry, please continue.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, so what I was saying was is that the use of the N-word, not only did it, basically get more attention as a result, but it also created this dichotomy between how come the system and the mainstream media is more concerned with mean words or offensive speech, than they are with you know, savage violence. And also the ridiculousness of government policy that no one can tell it like it is like machetes don’t produce violent crime you know, violent criminals produce violent crime! And there’s obviously a massive difference, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Africans statistically produce more violent crime as well. Like that is just a statistic fact!

 

05 Why the Fuck Are There Africans in Australia!

top

 

Joel Davis: And why the fuck are there Africans in Australia! Like indeed. The argument for immigration is usually these people come in, they contribute to our society, they work hard, they become doctors, they become, … Africans are not coming in and contributing to our society. They’re bringing with them incredible amounts of crime. These people are coming from war torn backwards countries. They’re savage races. They’re not compatible with Western civilisation.

 

You know, obviously we push back against the arguments made for you know, the benefits of, the so-called benefits, of like Asian immigration or something, but at least they have some kind of argument if you’re looking just through the prism of economics and you don’t think about certain things.

 

But with the African migrants it’s basically impossible to really see what the benefit, supposedly is, of these people coming into our country.

 

[12:15]

 

 

06 Whites Created the Problems in the Rest of the World Through Our Expansionism and Colonialism?

top

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s not on the basis of them being any benefit to our country that they’re brought into the country though. It’s on the basis of I think two things. Human equality, the idea that everyone can be equal if they just experience the same kind of social, opportunities, situation.

 

And also the fact that Africa or African people only live in extreme poverty and experience war conflicts as a result of White colonialism!

 

And so they’re not brought into the country on the basis of its beneficial to us or being beneficial to us, it’s equality, and White people must pay for what they’ve done! So how do we get around that? How do you get around those arguments in the conversation with the standard person when someone brings that up, what’s a nice effective, quick way to respond to that, to shut them down, do you think?

 

Joel Davis: Oh, I think it’s quite simple. Like, number one we are first and foremost responsible to our own people and to ourselves before we have to like, worry about the problems of the rest of the world. Like, it’s not our responsibility to say, …

 

Blair Cottrell: But we created the problems in the rest of the world through our expansionism and colonialism. It’s all our fault!

 

And so now we have the, …

 

Joel Davis: That’s just bullshit!

 

In sub-Saharan Africa they hadn’t even invented the wheel yet when the White man showed up. These people were living in a totally savage, weren’t they?

 

Blair Cottrell: Weren’t the Egyptians black? [chuckling] That’s what some of them think. I’ve seen that online the, …

 

Joel Davis: The pharaoh Akhenaten. Based upon the DNA evidence, do you know which population is most genetically similar to Akhenaten, Blair, in the world today?

 

Blair Cottrell: I’ve heard. But remind me, it’s like redheads, isn’t it? Like Germans and redheads.

 

Joel Davis: Well, specifically the Scottish. The Scottish people are the most genetically similar, followed by the Irish.

 

Blair Cottrell: Wow! So there you go.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, we waz. We waz [kangz].

 

07 How Irish Are You? Joel and Blair’s Ancestry

top

 

Blair Cottrell: How Irish are you? I think I’m a quarter Irish.

 

Joel Davis: Not that much. I got Ulster Scott in me, but they were from what’s called Northern Irish, but they’re not Irish, they’re Scottish. I’m more Scottish than anything other than English. Like a 50, 50 Scottish English blend. I used to think that there was more Irish in my ancestry because members of my family couldn’t distinguish correctly between northern and southern Irish. And then when I looked into it myself, I verified that.

 

But you can tell by the way I look as well. I think I got more of that look. I don’t have a very Irish look.

 

Blair Cottrell: I also thought I also thought I had more Irish in me than I do, since members of my family couldn’t distinguish between crime and peaceful resolution to conflict! [chuckling] But no, like, we go, okay. The Cottrells do all right. Mostly farmers and butchers is the history of my family. So honest people, hard working, honest people. I’m proud to come from lineage like that.

 

Joel Davis: Were you able to trace yourself back to any convicts?

 

Blair Cottrell: No. I haven’t really looked into it though, to be honest. I haven’t looked into it. My grandmother on my father’s side says that her line goes back to German and she had some evidence of that. I can’t remember what it was. But the name Cottrell often pronounced Cotrel, is from an old Frankish tribe, I think, and first appeared in England during the Norman conquests sometime during the 11th century or after that. So there’s all sorts of European stock from various different places there. English, possibly French, possibly German. We’re just not really sure.

 

08 DNA Labs Selling Your Data to Interested Parties

top

 

So, yeah, it’s all a bit grey. I don’t really go for that DNA testing type stuff. Because I have a friend who knows someone who actually got charged with an offence, a crime, as a result of someone in his family giving their DNA to one of those DNA testing websites, indicating that the testing websites, the people you send the DNA to, they sell your DNA to interested parties, state police, you know, someone growing something in a lab, perhaps. You don’t know what’s happening with your DNA when you hand it into those agencies.

 

So I haven’t done that for that reason. It might be a bit paranoid. Maybe it’s harmless. It’s up to you can do whatever you want, but I don’t really want to spit in a cup and send it through to DNA testing. What about you? Have you done any lineage?

 

09 History of the Name Davis

top

 

Joel Davis: No, I haven’t done the DNA testing, really, going off, tracing lineage. But my grandparents were pretty good at tracing lineage. So we know most of it back most generations. Yeah, people in the comments are saying Davis is Welsh, A, Welsh name. That’s true.

 

But the thing is that when the convention to develop last names came in Britain, which only happened after the Norman Conquest, so that was 1066, and it was brought in through phases in Britain up until about the 13th century, before everyone had a formal last name there or thereabouts.

 

A lot of people who became Davises was just simply because they were the son of David. You know, there was some guy called David who was their dad or their granddad or something. So that actually happened in Scotland and in England as well as in Wales. It wasn’t only in Wales where that happened, which is why, if you look at the commonality of the surname Davis, it’s more common in Britain. Oh, sorry, in England than it is in Wales. And it’s actually even more common in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and America than it is in Britain. And it’s especially common in America.

 

So obviously the Davises, we had a propensity to move when the time came to start settling the new World. So I think it’s like the seventh most common last name in America among American Whites.

 

[18:37]

 

Blair Cottrell: When I went to England, I showed you, I went to one of the oldest cathedrals in England in Winchester, which was the original capital of England before London. I don’t know if it was the official capital, but it was the centre of trade before London became the official capital. And in this cathedral there was like an old book with all of these servicemen, men who had died in service of the Crown. I think it was mostly from the First World War, but when you turned to the page D, DA, there was like 25 or 30 Davises. I noticed more Davises died for England than almost any other surname I could find in the book actually.

 

So, yeah, very popular surname from England.

 

10 Davises in the US Had Slaves Resulting in Niggers Having the Name!

top

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, it’s a very common name. And yeah, famous Davises include Jefferson Davis, who was the president of the Confederacy of the Confederate States of America.

 

So yeah, we owned a lot of slaves unfortunately in the South. And that has resulted in a lot of niggers. It’s unfortunate for this reason, because we owned a lot of slaves and that has resulted in a lot of niggers in America taking on the Davis name. Why the fuck did we allow blacks to take on the last names of their slave owners? I mean that was. It’s gross! You like watch like the NFL and it’s like “Javante Davis” or some shit! And it’s like, for fuck’s sake! Why do they have our names?

 

Blair Cottrell: But the relationship between families and their slaves I think often was, you know there was relative friendship happening there.

 

And I think both the family and the slaves started really appreciating each other and maybe even the family just became a little too kind to the slaves and that’s how they ended up with the surnames. Or maybe they just kind of adopted those surnames. The slaves, when they were told to write down their name whenever they were becoming, you know, free or legitimate citizens because they couldn’t think of another name to adopt. There’s probably a multitude of reasons.

 

But I know that being a slave in old America didn’t always mean that you were mistreated in any significant way. I mean, sometimes it probably did, but it was sometimes it was just a better alternative to living in the African Wilderness. Right?

 

11 Whites, Jews, Blacks and the Slave Trade

top

 

Joel Davis: One must also remember that we didn’t go around we as in White and I guess a lot of jews were involved in the slave trade, obviously. But we weren’t going around like capturing random wild niggers in the bush of Africa or something. They enslaved their own people and then sold them to us. Right? So, like, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, they didn’t sell them directly to us. They sold them to the jewish merchants who owned the slave ships, who then sold them to us.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, exactly! So it’s their shame. Like, if we enslaved our own people and then sold them to niggers that would be our shame. It wouldn’t be their shame.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, but we would have the intelligence to take responsibility for it. [chuckling] There’s the difference. Right?

 

12 Instagram and the Very Positive Response to the Ban Niggers Not Machetes Action

top

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. But let me show you guys this.

 

So, I was on, scrolling around. I have a burner Instagram account, which I don’t really use Instagram, I just have a burner account for when people send me shit!

 

Blair Cottrell: Really? You should use Instagram more. You strike me as a real Instagram kind of guy. Not really!

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, well, maybe I should because I’m banned from everything else, maybe I should give Instagram a go. So there’s this account.

 

Blair Cottrell: Apparently, before you continue. Instagram is popping off at the moment, I’ve heard like all the memes. Like, there’s a lot more free speech allowed on there than there was before. I think Zuckerberg’s worried about being cut out of the social media capital because I’ve heard reports that it’s actually pretty based. But I don’t know how the true that is in practice. I’ll have to jump on and use it a bit more myself and find out.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, well, I heard that a lot of nationalist accounts who were doing well on Instagram from Europe and from America, were all recently banned in a big ban wave. And they’ve nipped that slightly in the bud recently, but, …

 

Blair Cottrell: I haven’t heard about that, so maybe I’m wrong.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, we should definitely probably try and make hay while the sun shines on Instagram while we’re banned from X.

 

So this is like just some random Instagram that’s got like less than 2,000 followers. Quick World. Never heard of this before. They just post random news clips, right? And then I was scrolling through and the news clips, they get like 2,000, 3,000 views, if that they posted the clip of the Ban Niggers Not Machetes banner [by NSN] action. 1.9 million views!

 

And then the comments, I was scrolling through every single comment. You know how they show like the top comments that get a lot of likes at the top.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Joel Davis: Every single comment was positive! Look at some of these:

 

“A White man so-called hateful rally is 1 million percent more peaceful than a BLM rally. Hahaha!”

 

“So for years we get black riots with participants burning the nation’s flag, screaming black pride, and often committing acts of violence targeting Whites. But this is a disturbing display of pure hate hatred?”

 

This is how normal people are reacting. Right. I got more here, let me pull more up.

 

“I mean, they’re not wrong. No, they’re 100% correct this time. You conveniently left out the fact that they were protesting because four African teenagers threatened a 15 year old boy with a machete. Maybe give all the people the facts before making a biassed post!”

 

You know, it just goes on and on, these kinds of comments. It was incredible to see because I thought, okay, this rally is pretty controversial. I’m sure it, some people will love it, but it will it’s pretty provocative. I was surprised at how supportive a lot of these reactions were, scrolling through social media.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, me too.

 

Joel Davis: At the beginning you were telling me this is just going to upset normies and no one’s going to like this kind of thing. Maybe you don’t understand normies? Maybe normies are actually more based than you first realised?

 

[24:46]

 

 

13 Discussion on the Effective Use of the N-Word and Media Response

top

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s not just that, but I think people don’t always understand the purpose behind it. I mean, correct me if I’m wrong because it wasn’t my idea, but it’s sort of a tactical thing when you drop the N-word like that in a public way. Because it’s an effort, I suppose, to force government officials to react to what you’re doing and thereby demonstrate that they’re more offended, or taking the N-word more seriously than they are violent knife crime. It’s like it’s worse to hold up a banner with that word written on it apparently, than it is to assault someone with a machete in a public shopping centre in broad daylight in front of families and so forth.

 

It’s like that banner has essentially caused more outrage in the political and media class than the knife crime itself. Which is one of the reasons that you use that phrase. Right? You put that phrase on the banner to demonstrate for the public. Because the public don’t like that they don’t like it when there’s an obvious problem that isn’t being addressed for ideological reasons. And that’s what gets people on side. That’s Why I think the public is on your side, regardless of the slur. Because there’s obviously ideological problems. There’s a double standard being employed here.

 

Joel Davis: And that’s why it was a tactical use. Because if there’s a lot of situations where it’s a bit much maybe to drop the N-word, right? But sometimes it’s not a bit much. Sometimes it’s manifestly appropriate. And this is a situation where it is because when you’re talking about blacks running around with machetes, slicing people up in shopping malls, that’s nigger behaviour! What could be more nigger behaviour than that? That’s the exact reason why we have a slur like that for these people. So you know, it makes sense to drop a word like that.

 

And then you see a reaction where Leftists, non-Whites, who have contempt for White people, the system, all these people show so much concern about the use of a word on a banner at 3 o’ clock in the morning when no one got hurt, no one attacked anyone. It was just a video of guys holding a banner at the front of a shopping centre at 3 AM. This apparently is the most horrible thing ever! It’s so horrible! It puts everything in perspective for a lot of people. Like, hey, wait a second. And now you’ve got a sympathetic audience, a sympathetic receptacle for your N-word. Now your N-word can have a lot of potency and power because it really radicalises the conversation, enforces a conversation that otherwise wouldn’t be happening.

 

I mean, look at this. This is Daily Mail, Australia’s TikTok, right? I took this screenshot yesterday. I’m sure it has more views now. You see here I was scrolling through some of the TikToks get a lot of views. Like one here’s got half a million views. This one, 300 something thousand, 50,000.

 

 

Look at the one of the rally, though:

 

“Sickening scenes in Melbourne as White supremacists descend on Shopping Centre.”

 

7.1 million views! Right? I looked on the metrics on The Noticer. It was the biggest post the notice has made you know, this month, most traction and they’re putting out news every day. Comfy Friend posted, a clip of it. It was like one of the most viral things he’s posted. You know, it got incredible amounts of traction. I don’t think he’s got anything more viral than that all year. Why is it so interesting to people? If it’s bad activism obviously it’s good activism.

 

So that’s the thing. It’s like, apparently it’s the rule:

 

“Oh, you can’t use language like that!”

 

But, maybe it’s about trying to find the appropriate way to use language like that. Like controversy is a weapon. And now we’ve forced all of these the politicians to not only talk about the issue but also, very explicitly racialise the issue and show how, the anti-racist ideology is preventing anyone from stating the obvious and trying to come up with the only obvious solution, which is it doesn’t matter whether you ban machetes. If you’ve got a bunch of Sudanese refugees living in your city, they’re going to be engaging in violent crimes. You know, home invasions are happening every other day.

 

14 Sudanese in Pakenham Attacking White High School Kids at Party

top

 

The same night that this happened, by the way, there were a bunch of Sudanese in Pakenham, which is in southeastern Melbourne. They jumped the back fence into some some high school kids party and started bashing, filming themselves by the way, bashing all the White kids, saying:

 

“Oh, Sudanese things, just Sudanese things!”

 

And they’re like beating them up and taking their shoes, taking their phone, taking their wallet and they’re posting it online like:

 

“Haha, how funny is this? We’re just bashing White kids and taking all their shit!”

 

[29:34]

 

Blair Cottrell: What area was this in Pakenham?

 

Joel Davis: Packenham.

 

Blair Cottrell: Probably the White kids are like significantly outnumbered in Pakenham, I could imagine. Pakenham is a suburb in southeastern Melbourne, like inland suburb that is just notorious for being inundated with immigrants. A lot of immigrants, a lot of black immigrants, Indians. It’s just somewhere that most Australians don’t want to go anymore.

 

15 Machete Fight at Northland Shopping Centre

top

 

Joel Davis: Mm. But like in Melbourne you, home invasions are through the roof! Every single crime metric is through the roof! And every other day there’s some new story of blacks having a machete fight or running through someone’s house. And this machete fight, we talked about it last week at Northland Shopping Centre. The only reason that it was brought to a heel was because of a random White pedestrian, White shoppers.

 

Blair Cottrell: A random White guy. And isn’t that symbolic of the real solution to this entire problem, is that’s that standalone working class White male. The White male is the only real effective solution to this problem. The White male that is no longer afraid to just stand up and provide that physical, immediate solution. Without that guy willing to do that, then there isn’t any sort of effective solution. There’s just bureaucracy and excuses. So I found that really symbolic.

 

16 Magistrates in Victoria Are Being Trained in Diversity and Inclusion to Go Easy on Immigrants

top

 

Joel Davis: That’s the thing as well sthe only reason that we can’t solve this problem is because White guys don’t want to get thrown in jail. Because if we were to do something serious about this problem, the system would come down hard on us.

 

Meanwhile, the story was out in the Noticer earlier this year. It has come out in other mainstream outlets. It has come out that the magistrates in Melbourne or in Victoria are being trained by diversity and inclusion, whatever types, to make sure that they lower the sentencing against refugees immigrants and so on, to prevent them from getting deported when they commit violent crimes.

 

Blair Cottrell: So these magistrates would be smarter to realise, …

 

Joel Davis: These blacks are doing, like, home invasions, putting machetes to the throats of innocent families at 2 o’ clock in the morning, taking their car keys and taking their TV and their laptops, whatever. And the magistrates are being trained not to deport them, not to give them a jail sentence longer than one year, which would trigger them getting deported.

 

So then basically, they all know that even if they get caught, it’s a small holiday in prison at worst. So they’ve got no disincentive not to keep behaving like this. They know that they can just take the piss. Whereas if we rose up against them and put them in their place, they’d throw the book at us! Like, forget about it.

 

Not only are the police, and I don’t necessarily blame the police for this because it’s you know, their hands are tied. But the system! Not only is the system not enforcing the law correctly in order to deal with the problem, bringing them in the first place, which there’s no reason to bring them in, that makes any sense.

 

Secondly, not enforcing the law properly so that they basically feel emboldened to behave like this. Third, the they will actively destroy the lives and punish harshly anyone in the community who tries to put a stop to it ourselves.

 

And so they’ve created the problem, at all three levels.

 

Blair Cottrell: You think if you’re a magistrate, you’d be smart enough to realise that you’re being taken for a ride when you’re being put through a diversity and inclusion brainwashing process. You know, magistrates aren’t stupid people. You know, they’ve been in law quite a while. They’ve well I can only assume they’re not stupid people, but maybe they’re just so keen on keeping their position, keeping their their job as a magistrate that they’ll do whatever they have to do.

 

That’s the problem as well, isn’t it? It’s money, money, cowardice and the comfort of a minister’s chair or something like that.

 

17 The Problem of Anti-Racism Being Championed by Whites

top

 

But you were saying earlier, you were remarking on being surprised by how much support you were mustering up from regular people in response to a banner which would in times hitherto have just been considered vulgar and perhaps would actually just cause public uproar. And so isn’t that interesting though how The Times are changing and I think people are just angry. They’re angry enough to not even care about that word. They’re angry enough to support whoever is standing up against this, regardless of what kind of language they’re using, because people just want to see results. And that’s notable because the primary force or the sort of people who champion anti-racism are White people. White people are the reason anti-racism exists! Without naive, obsequious White people who are obsessed with feeling good about themselves, we wouldn’t have anti-racism.

 

But now we’re seeing this phenomena where many White people are sick of that. Many White people are turning their backs on anti-racism because they’re just interested in seeing results. If they have to be racist in order to see those results, so be it. They don’t care. And that’s exciting man. I’m excited to see where that future leads.

 

[35:11]

 

 

18 Upcoming Communist Anti-Nazi Rally at Northland Shopping Centre

top

 

Joel Davis: Yeah it’s going to be interesting too because tomorrow, there’s some follow up stories about this shopping centre in Preston, in North Melbourne called Northland. Number one there’s going to be a communist organised rally tomorrow at the shops. An anti-Nazi rally because we held up a banner that said nigger on it. I wasn’t there, of course I wasn’t there! But, you know, members of the Org, members of the NSN allegedly were there.

 

And so they’re going to have an anti-Nazi rally. That’s going to be interesting. I wonder if that’s going to make the news. What kind of freaks are going to show up to that? I saw they said “trans folk and refugees welcome”. So I don’t know why the trannies are getting lumped in that.

 

[Image: The anti-Nazi Rally that took place on Sat, Jun 7, 2025 at Northland shopping centre Preston, Melbourne.]

 

Blair Cottrell: They’ll be destroyed. They’ll be destroyed! They’ll be de-legitimized by their own optics. So let them do it.

 

19 Meat Cleavers Being Carried as a Weapon

top

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. Well, I hope we get some footage because it sounds like an absolute freak show!

 

And then also yesterday we had a story where someone was arrested at Northlands because they were wielding a meat cleaver as a weapon.

 

So the machete ban doesn’t seem to be going too well. They’re just moving on to meat cleavers now. So I wonder if they’re going to ban meat cleavers? I don’t know what the butchers are going to do. Say goodbye to your Scotch fillets because they won’t be able to chop them up anymore. Going to have to just buy the whole cow, basically, and just kind of gnaw it, because meat cleavers are probably going to be made illegal next.

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s at the discretion of police when they bring in a ban like this. Like, if police see you carrying a meat cleaver on public transport obviously they’re going to take that from you. But if you’re using a meat cleaver as a butcher, I think you’re going to be okay. I know that you’re making a joke. Maybe I’m just being autistic. But yeah.

 

20 Machetes Useful When Going on Bushwalks

top

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, well, I am making a joke, but that was already the case about machetes. But apparently they’ve got to ban them, so you can’t buy a machete at Bunnings [similar to Home Depot]. Say you want to go on a bushwalk a machete is very useful if you’re going off the beaten track to, basically slice your way through vegetation and so on. Because I don’t know if you guys have ever been on a bushwalk at home, or a forest walk or whatever you Americans call it.

 

Blair Cottrell: Walk through the woods.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. When you get off the path, and you’re kind of having to kind of crawl your way through shrubs and so on it becomes exhausting. Your arms get all sliced up. Having a machete just to hack through it makes your life so much easier.

 

So now we can no longer hack through vegetation without a special licence. I wonder how you get your machete licence? I don’t even know even how it works.

 

Blair Cottrell: You can’t even walk through a lot of bushland in Australia at all anymore. There’s this weird situation going on where certain lands and public parks. I don’t know what they’re called. They’re like National Parks. I think they’re called, which means they’re like public property, but they’re being closed off due to some Aboriginal heritage or Land Rights Act.

 

And apparently there’s dozens of National Parks all across the country that the government’s closed access to. And some of them are major tourist attractions. So people come to this country to walk through certain regions and see various landscapes and they can’t do it because of Aboriginal rights or something like that. But that’s a different subject to explore entirely. I saw this in a video recently. But I think there might be something deeper going on there. Perhaps the government is selling that land to private enterprise for some specific purpose. I don’t know. But I’ve got to look into it. If anyone knows anything about that, send me some details because I’m interested.

 

21 Calling Whites ‘Cum Skins’ as a Slur

top

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, I see that there’s some seething! I don’t know if they’re a nigger, or a pajeet, but something like that, in the comments. I see the moderators have taken them out, but he called us “come skins”. I find that to be an interesting insult. Apparently this is an anti-White insult. Because of course we call them shit skins. I’d much rather be the come skin than the shit skin because you are refuse! But we’re the seed of life, you know. We’re the seed of life. So of all the kind of bodily fluids to identify with, …

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s virtually impossible to be offended by a racial slur if you’re White. [chuckling] Because it’s like being White is, it’s great to be White! It’s not a problem. Point it out in any way that you think is derogatory. And it’s just funny to us. [chuckling] You can’t get offended by racial slurs unless you don’t like yourself. Because someone’s pointing out your race to you and you’re trying to deny and cope with your own racial identity that you don’t like. And so you’re offended because someone’s pointing out a reality that you’re trying not to acknowledge, Right? So all you got to do is like yourself and suddenly racism is funny.

 

22 Blacks Are ‘Offended’ by ‘Nigger’ Because It Gives Them Power

top

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, well, that’s a thing with blacks too. Like if blacks, blacks already kind of 50% owned the word nigger because they turned it into like cool. You know, they got it in like rap music and they’re like, “what’s up my nigger?” And so on. And all it is like Latin for black etymologically. Like it’s nothing to even be offended by if they would just chill with everyone calling them niggers too, and like:

 

“Oh, yeah, I’m a, you’re a White guy, or whatever.”

 

It would have no potency, would have zero potency. It’s only got potency because they’re offended by it. Now they also pretend to be offended by it because it gives them power. They get to be a victim and it authorises them to commit acts of violence and aggression towards Whites.

 

And so they’ve charged it for their own hate, for the purposes of their own hatred. That’s very important to remember. The only reason why blacks get offended by the word is because they hate White people. And they want to be able to develop some kind of excuse by creating this kind of fake moral conundrum. They want to be able to create a way, a pretext, to express their racial hatred.

 

[41:04]

 

23 Average Aussies Males Don’t Like People Claiming to Be ‘Offended’

top

 

Blair Cottrell: They still want to be accepted by us as well. It’s like they don’t like us, but they also want to be treated as equals at the same time. So I don’t know what’s going on there. It’s kind of something to do with an inferiority complex, I think. But I don’t know. All I know, though, is if you’re offended by something, if you’re getting worked up about something, Australians, they’re going to keep doing whatever it is that offends you. They’re going to keep developing that line, they’re going to keep poking the bear and they’re gonna take the piss any way they can.

 

So this is not the kind of place where in social situations, being offended doesn’t really hold any weight down here in Australia. The government tries hard to make it a thing and the media’s on board, obviously.

 

But I think one of the reasons the standard working class Australian tends to still have pretty based perspectives is because it’s when you’re offended down here, it doesn’t mean anything. In a typical social situation, people just laugh at you. That’s a good thing!

 

24 They’re Trying to Make Being an Aussie ‘Bloke’ Illegal

top

 

Joel Davis: That’s how it works in a normal Australian friend group. Like, if you get offended by something, everyone will keep bullying you until you realise that you’re getting bullied because you’re offended.

 

Like if you just bantered back, then you wouldn’t be targeted. Yeah, it’s just until you realise that you’re making yourself a “victim” and then that produces a social space free of “soft cuntism”, basically, as Jacob Hersant calls it. That’s normal Australian, you know, particularly male relations.

 

And yeah, obviously they’re trying to make being a bloke illegal. Australia used to be all about being a bloke. It used to be about, drive a V8, get on the piss, do doies [donuts], send it, have a farm, you know, say what you want, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Maybe an occasional race riot on the beach!

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. And they’re trying to make being Australian illegal. That’s what they’re trying to do. Because a bunch of faggot communists and seething ingrates in charge.

 

25 a Conspiracy to Make Aussies into a Mongrel Slave Race

top

 

Blair Cottrell: You can’t bully Aussies, can you? You can’t turn Australians into slaves, into a slave class. That’s why they’re trying to get rid of us. They want to replace us with a more manageable population they can bully, push around, force them to live in little McMansions and cubicles, force them to work 16 hours a day. You can’t do that to Aussies! They’re not going to play that game. And that’s what it all comes down to I think it’s about replacing us with a slave race, with a mongrel slave race. And that conspiracy, I think, is the most outstanding one! It’s the one that’s at the centre of all other conspiracies.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. But also a lot of the people who want to convert us into a slave race are themselves already members of it. They’re trying to drag us down to their level. That’s the other thing.

 

Blair Cottrell: Misery loves company, bro! Misery loves company!

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. That’s all these freaks that are going to show up to the shops tomorrow to do their anti-Nazi protest. They’re basically the dregs of society that want to drag everyone down to their level.

 

26 the Miserable Mentality of Leftist Freaks

top

 

Blair Cottrell: Can you imagine the sort of things people like that talk about in private? Can you imagine the threshold of conversations like you wouldn’t be able to say anything that you’re actually thinking. All you’d be able to do is like, give shit to Nazis and talk about what a good person you are for standing up for minorities. You know, talk about the Arab style scarf that you just got given by Socialist Alternative rally on the weekend. What a boring shit life! [chuckling] It’s like, I can’t even visualise it, man! I don’t. Sorry for doing it to you. If you’re thinking about it.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, no, they. It’s basically just a misery convention where they all get together and talk about how victimised they are and how all the different mental illnesses they have and you know, no one’s allowed to make any jokes that offend anyone. They just morally police each other all the time. It seems horrible.

 

When I was younger, I did associate with people who are ideologically Leftist in certain situations. And I never lasted long because I just offended them because I can’t help myself, I’m me! I’m an edge lord, you know, naturally. So it never worked out. But which is good. I mean, that’s obviously just natural. I don’t belong with them.

 

27 Blair’s Encounter as a Teenager at a Marxist Convention with Fat Lesbians

top

 

Blair Cottrell: So I found, I found them first as well. Like I’ve told the story a couple of times. Went to a Marxist convention when I was 18 because they were some of the first posters I saw. The posters they used to spread around Melbourne had a slogan on them saying “ideas to challenge the system”. You know, I was an edgy teenager. So, yeah:

 

“I don’t like the system. Let’s go meet these people and see what they’re talking about. No, man, not my clan at all!”

 

Wasn’t a single other working class person there. It was just all of these very overweight lesbian looking women glaring at me as though I was the enemy. And I’m like:

 

“Hey, I’m just here because we don’t like the system, right? Or hang on, these people kind of are the system. These are the exact, this is our problem right here. I’m thinking.”

 

So, [chuckling] yeah, it’s like a fake resistance. I determined it was kind of like a fake resistance that exists to possibly catch people like me and steer them in the wrong direction to essentially neutralise someone who could potentially join a revolutionary, a real revolutionary force.

 

[46:36]

 

28 Ted Kaczynski Summed up Leftism Pretty Well

top

 

Joel Davis: I think Ted Kaczynski summed up Leftism pretty well. His assessment is that:

 

“Leftists are people who are upset with the system or not embodying its own values purely enough. So they’re not revolutionaries. They don’t oppose the values of the system. They support the system so much that they’re upset with the system for not being more systemy than it actually is!”

 

So like that’s what they’re all saying. They’re like:

 

“Oh, look at the White privilege of these men standing in balaclavas at 3 AM! How come they weren’t arrested?”

 

They, probably weren’t arrested because it’s impossible to tell who the fuck they are because they’re covering up their identity because the anti-White system would arrest them and try to throw them in prison otherwise!

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, but what the Leftists want is for like 30 likely suspects to be rounded up at random and, executed out in the Woods for social justice! Maybe they’d be happy with that, but probably that still complain that it didn’t happen fast enough. [chuckling] I don’t know, man!

 

I mean, that’s what’s, that’s how crazy things can get though. Like, history proves that.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, but that’s what they are.

 

I mean, these Leftists, they’re totally, entirely dependent upon the system as individuals. They they’re on all kinds of like, medications. A lot of them are on disability benefits or Centerlink. You know, these people are not independent people that don’t need like a large bureaucracy to prop up their lives. You know, they need to go and see like mental health professionals and they need all this support! Right. I think they advocate for, is making everyone feel included and supported and having more government programmes to take care of everyone. They call themselves “anarchists”. It’s the most un-Anarchistic position you could possibly have! They can’t have enough government. They want to turn everything into a democracy. They want everything in society to be this big bureaucratic voting committee procedure where, that’s their ideal. They don’t want to be left alone.

 

29 Marcus Follin Said That ‘Dysgenics is the Only Reason Leftism Still Exists’.

top

 

Blair Cottrell: I’d have more empathy for them if they weren’t so self contradictory, if they weren’t literally representing the opposite of what they claim to represent. It’s wild that people can come to that manner of existence.

 

But look, in summary, Marcus Follin [aka the Golden One] said that:

 

“Dysgenics is the only reason Leftism still exists.”

 

It’s just dysgenic. It’s bad genetics, bad blood, too much drugs, too much of that victim psychology that comes along with just being genetically deficient. And like, you can’t really get past that summary. I don’t think that’s a good summary. Wraps it all up.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah! Fair enough. Is there anything else to say about this particular subject? I mean everyone knows, everyone who’s an Australian at the very least knows about the problems with African crime. There’s not much point going over it again. I mean, it’s important to reiterate it to the public.

 

But you know, we all know about it and we cover it on the show all the time.

 

But yeah, it was interesting to see. I think the, it’s more the reaction to the banner and how it was received by different groups of people that I found more interesting to be honest than anything else.

 

30 A Non-White Reaction to the Ban Niggers Not Machetes Video

top

 

Blair Cottrell: I wanted to remark on a reaction video I saw that, a woman filmed. The woman was not White.

 

Joel Davis: Do you have it? I can play it.

 

Blair Cottrell: No, I don’t. I saw it in some chat on Telegram and I’m in so many different chats that people add me to, I can’t remember which one it was. But I remember some of what she said. She was clearly very upset, wasn’t White by anyone’s standards. I don’t know what she was though. She kind of looked maybe slightly African and, I don’t even know. But she was quite wide eyed in the video here and there, like kind of crazy eyed! But there was something she said I found interesting. She demanded that:

 

“Other people need to call this out!”

 

Sure, she said the police should arrest these guys and investigate and blah blah, blah. But she said:

 

“Other people must call this out!”

 

And I thought, isn’t that peculiar? Whenever someone who’s not White feels discriminated against, targeted by racism, they appeal to other White people to come to their aid. It’s like they feel like they can’t even help themselves. They require the White champions of anti-racism to storm in and save the day! And it brings me back to what I was saying before. What happens when those anti-racists no longer exist within the White community? What happens when White people actually start to become ethnically conscious and realise they’re just losing out as a result of this equality worldview? That anti-racism is actually just against their collective ethnic interests. It works against them in every way! You know what happens then? It’s like when all these non-White people are complaining about racism, it basically just dies out, doesn’t it? The whole thing dies out.

 

I mean what do you think? Why do you, why do you think they do that? Why do you think they appeal to White people whenever they experience discrimination? Why can’t they deal with it themselves? Why can’t they come up with some resolution as a result of their own thinking?

 

[52:09]

 

31 Why Non-Whites Call On Whites When They Experience ‘Discrimination’

top

 

Joel Davis: Well, because they know that they’re in our country. And, if White people en masse basically saw our position as legitimate and joined with us in our cause their position in our country becomes precarious. So they need, …

 

Blair Cottrell: It just occurred to me, maybe she was. I’m kind of just thinking while I’m listening and thinking back to the video as well. Maybe she was afraid? Maybe it wasn’t just anger in her eyes that I saw, but fear as well. Maybe she thought that the fact that banner drop happened, it might be a sign that White people aren’t as anti-racist as they were before and therefore her presence in our country isn’t as secure as she once previously believed? Maybe it’s kind of like a fear reaction, a self preservation thing. Like:

 

“Come on guys, we need to call this out. We can’t let this become the norm or I won’t be able to live here anymore. Fuck!”

 

Maybe it’s something like that.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, no, it’s basically that she’s obviously showing her anxiety. You told a story about when you’re in jail and I thought that was pertinent. Where you were talking about how there was like some non-White guy. This is years ago, when you’re in prison, like before you became so ideological.

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s a good story.

 

32 Blair’s Prison Story About a Nepalese Taking Advantage of His Kindness

top

 

Joel Davis: I mean, you should tell the story. It’s your story.

 

Blair Cottrell: I’m like 22, I think. And, I’m almost done serving my prison sentence in Port Phillip Prison. And this new guy comes in. He’s Nepalese, from Nepal. Tiny little guy. Like he had a man’s face with stubble, but on the body of like an 8 year old boy by our standards. I couldn’t believe how small he was. And he looked like he hadn’t eaten a good meal in weeks.

 

And a little while later I was cooking some eggs. Used to cook eggs on a sandwich press, like on a toasted sandwich maker because we didn’t have anything else to cook on. So you just fire that up, cook your eggs on that. And I was cooking like 10 eggs. I used to buy a maximum amount of eggs you’re allowed to buy as a prisoner, which was three dozen a week. And he walked by and I signalled to him and I gave him some eggs just because he looked so skinny! It was almost irritating me. I’m like:

 

“Get some food into your mate. You look like you need a good meal!”

 

Problem is though he didn’t see it as a random act of kindness. I didn’t realise it at the time, but he saw it as a weakness! He looked at me a certain way and then every day after that he just asked me for more eggs and other stuff too! More than once actually.

 

After that I noticed him looking into my cell as he walked past, seeing what else I had, seeing what he could get out of me. And then a group of Arabs, I saw this happen. They pulled him into a cell, tied him to a toilet and kicked the shit out of him. Probably for no reason. That happens in jail sometimes.

 

And I remember this because I was sitting down while this was happening, a few cells down, I could hear it happening. And he was shouting my name! He was shouting. He couldn’t say my name properly because English was his second language. He was saying “Blaira”. Screaming at the top of his lungs, “Blaira, Blaira”. And they were laughing at him. I could hear them laughing at him, saying:

 

“He’s not going to help you.”

 

And I thought to myself:

 

“What does he expect? Does he expect me to charge in there and take on a pack of wild Arabs like it’s a fucking Bollywood movie?”

 

Like, I realised that just by doing one nice thing for this guy, he just expected me to fall all over myself after that, to come to his aid to protect him and to provide him with whatever else he could get out of me.

 

And I realised, this is a great lesson here. I realised that some people, particularly people of the brown distinction, they don’t see kindness as kindness, they see it as naive weakness! And they just try to leverage more out of you perpetually. And isn’t that a good lesson? Or wouldn’t that be a good lesson for our politicians to learn? Because what are the people coming to this country doing? They’re not grateful for being allowed to come into the country in the first place. They’re not seeing it as an amazing opportunity like the Greeks and the Italians did. They’re not working their asses off to do the best they can for their families. Not all of them, not by a long shot. They’re thinking:

 

“Ha! What a bunch of idiots! What else can I get out of these morons? Oh, I can get housing, I can get welfare, I can get special rights because I’m not White and I’m oppressed! I come from war torn country. Wow, these people are really fucking stupid! What else can I get out of them?”

 

And it just never ends, right? So when you’re kind, when someone’s nice to you, when you’re a White person, right, you think to yourself, great, and you make the most out of the opportunity. You’re thankful for it, but you move on. You don’t keep asking for more. You don’t see kindness as weakness. You just understand that it’s a random act of kindness. Because White people are like that. They’re randomly kind because they just empathise with someone in that situation. In the moment. But it doesn’t mean that you can take advantage.

 

And I don’t know, I thought that was a good story to demonstrate that a lot of people out there who aren’t like us, you shouldn’t show kindness to them. You shouldn’t be so nice to them because they just take advantage of it. They actually just see you as stupid or weak for being nice. Maybe I could have told that story better.

 

[57:30]

 

 

Joel Davis: No, you told the story very well. The word kindness, it’s got the, like, etymologically, it means treating someone as your kin, as your kinsman or kinswoman. It means treating someone like family. Well, these people aren’t your fucking family! Stop treating them like that. They’re taking the piss. I mean, it’s pretty obvious. But that’s how non-Whites think. I was thinking about this today as well, when I was thinking about why it is that, I guess I don’t know where Blair went. I guess we’ll be back soon.

 

33 Elon Musk Admired by Merchant Minded Indian and Asians

top

 

When I was thinking about how come it seems like Asians and Indians, like really respect Elon Musk, whereas White people I find even if, you know, Elon Musk has done things over the last couple years that some of the things that he’s done, people like us have liked. Some of the things that he’s done, we haven’t liked. Right. But he’s been a mixed bag the last couple of years.

 

You know, he’s throwing Romans. He partially restored our guys to Twitter, at least for a period of time. You know, he played to the pro-White thing a little bit. But he doesn’t really seem to be respected overall by people in our group, because everyone can kind of smell, White people can smell that he’s got an agenda, that he’s disingenuous in some way. That because he’s a billionaire! He’s one of the richest men in the world. We don’t trust this guy.

 

Blair Cottrell: No one gets that, … [chuckling]

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, exactly! Everyone knows that he’s obviously got an angle that is that there’s a disingenuous angle. Everyone can smell it. Every normal White person could smell it. Left-wing or Right-wing, everyone can smell it!

 

Whereas Asians and Indians, they all think that he’s, like, amazing! Because they’re merchant races. So to them:

 

“Wow, look at how rich and successful he is. And look at all of his companies!”

 

In Australia, when you see a Tesla, you will almost never see a White person driving it. I know in America a lot of Leftists before Elon switched teams, a lot of Leftist Whites were driving Teslas as a status symbol. And that happened a little bit here. But predominantly, if you see a Tesla, it’s a fucking Indian or an Asian driving it in Australia.

 

Blair Cottrell: I have noticed that.

 

Joel Davis: Because they get sucked in by it because he’s like this rock star merchant. But we’re not a mercantile race. It doesn’t jive with us in the same way. These people think differently. It’s the same.

 

34 Indians and Asians Obsessed with Ways to Make and Spend Money

top

 

I’ve said this before whenever I’ve worked with Indians and Asians, and then it’s been like the lunch break or something and was we’re talking just about you know, making conversation, making small talk. What I have found is that all they want to talk about is ways to make money and ways to spend money:

 

“Oh, I’ve got a good deal here. Oh, what do you think about crypto? Which crypto-currencies do you think are good? Oh, have you got a good bet on the cricket? Blah, blah!”

 

It’s all just like, ways of how to exchange m, you know, mercantile information with one another about ways in which we can make money or spend money more efficiently. That’s their entire fixation. When I talk with White people, yeah, those subjects come up occasionally, but generally speaking, it gets into something with a bit more depth in terms of like philosophy on family or life history or our perspective, our values, whatever, right? Music, art, something like that. But I’ve never been able to have much of a conversation about any of these subjects with an Indian or an Asian because they’re soulless!

 

Blair Cottrell: With the merchant brain it doesn’t really matter how you’ve achieved the success, how you own the companies, how you have the capital. What matters is that you’ve got it! You know what I mean? There’s no, like there’s less of a moral compass. It’s just about success for the sake of success, and that’s it. That’s good enough for the merchant. That’s the way they think.

 

35 More on the Nepalese Guy in Prison

top

 

And in regards to the story about the Nepalese guy, by the way, like, if you might be saying:

 

“Oh, that poor guy, he got beat up by people for no reason. Why didn’t you help him, Blair?”

 

Uh you got to understand, this guy’s in jail. I actually heard about this guy’s story. He was an immigrant on a working visa. He was doing an apprenticeship as a chef under an Australian citizen, and he stabbed the head chef! He stabbed an Australian citizen. So he’s in jail for that. Then he was going to be deported when he finished his sentence. So like there’s a reason he’s in jail, being tied to a toilet and having the shit kicked out of him by a group of Arabs. That’s because God wills it! That’s fate. [chuckling] That’s what happens if you come to this country, you’re not from this country, and you stab a citizen in this country. So like, don’t think that I’m in some position where I’m a noble protector of people who are being beaten up. And you should never think the same about yourself either. You see some guy getting stomped on the street, you have to understand that sometimes he’s put himself in that position and it’s happening for a reason.

 

So if you don’t know someone that’s happening to, or it’s not really your business, you stay out of it! That’s kind of the position I would take generally.

 

[1:02:37]

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, but if it’s a White guy and there’s a pack of nons, particularly if you’re out with the boys, …

 

Blair Cottrell: You read the situation, …

 

Joel Davis: You gotta back your boy. I mean, that’s happened. I’ve been out with the boys quite a few times, and there’s been a White guy getting picked on by a pack of non-Whites. And, the non-Whites picked on the wrong White, like, at the wrong time, because a pack of Nazis just happened to be there and sort it out.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, [chuckling] it can happen. Yeah. No, like I said. Anyway, it’s quite obvious when someone is being targeted unfairly, is being stood over, is being bullied, that kind of thing.

 

36 NSN Promo Clip

top

 

Joel Davis: I’m getting a message from NSN HQ Beaming into my headset. Apparently a new hype edit just dropped. Haven’t even seen this edit. I’m gonna play it.

 

Blair Cottrell: Let’s watch it. Let’s watch and get a raw reaction to it.

 

Joel Davis: Let’s hit it!

 

 

Blair Cottrell: Who makes those, bro? That’s fucking cool! If I was 19, 18, I would join straight away! I mean, put yourself in the position of a young guy growing up in the current conditions, societal conditions. You’re going to join that every time! Whoever sees that and who has any balls left at all is going to join. That’s good stuff. It’s good content.

 

37 On Why You Should Join the Org

top

 

Joel Davis: Imagine, imagine not joining us!

 

Like if you’re an Aussie, you’re a young White dude, even like a middle aged White dude. Join the fucking Org! Like, come on, like be a man, join the clan! You know, fucking hell, like what else are you going to do? What else are you doing? We’re all gonna die! You know, someone close to me died recently. It’s the first time a close member of my family has died so so far in my life and makes you reflect upon, just how quick and short life is and how you got to make it count because who knows, you get hit by a bus tomorrow, who knows?

 

But even if you have a full innings, it’s not that fucking long, you know, it blows, it goes quick and you gotta make it count! You gotta make sure that the time that you do have, you invest it in something worthwhile. And there’s been too many lives wasted amongst our people over recent decades. Too much nihilism, too much individualism in our people are just blowing through their lives on entertainment and trivial matters and you know, trying to make money and just shit that ultimately doesn’t really matter. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t be trying to make money and have a successful career but you know, what really matters, what really matters obviously is your family and your nation legacy that you’re leaving behind, the people that you love and that you care about your people and that’s all that really fucking matters. Everything else is secondary.

 

So you know, join the fucking tribe that’s going to put up a resistance to the genocide of our people for fuck sake. Like whatever else that you’re doing is significantly less important.

 

And it’s fucking fine, like we have a fucking great time! So yeah, join the Org, White Australia.org. You can join as a supporter. But if you want to join as a member, get on Telegram, message White Ausbot. That’s WHITE AUSBOT at White Ausbot on Telegram and get vetted and join the Org.

 

Blair Cottrell: I realised we just had an ad break, a really cool ad break. Like most streams you would get some gay product like you know, “men’s beard straighteners” or something like that! [chuckling] But in this one you get, we interrupt this stream to bring you exclusive new hype edit, Join the Nazi gang! [chuckling]

 

38 Succulent Chinese Meal – Democracy Manifest Guy

top

 

Joel Davis: Oh, yeah! By the way, did you see that thing that Tom posted on Telegram just before we went live here? He got a screenshot from everyone surely knows the:

 

“This is democracy manifest!”

 

You know, that guy, the very famous, he was eating a succulent Chinese meal in King’s Cross [Sydney’s old red light area]. I think this was back in the 90s. And he was arrested and it’s a viral clip. Maybe I should pull it up. Surely everyone’s seen that it’s such a famous meme! Such a famous meme. You know it Blair, surely?

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. Like the guy getting carried out of the restaurant?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Do you know the story behind that? The story behind that I, as I heard it is this guy was just travelling around Melbourne eating like really fancy restaurants. I mean, just walking out. So he was getting free dinners every night.

 

Joel Davis: It wasn’t him though.

 

Blair Cottrell: It wasn’t him?

 

Joel Davis: No, no, no! So it was in Sydney. It was in King’s Cross in Sydney. And it was a case of mistaken identity.

 

There was a guy that was doing “dine and dashes” as they call them, and they got the wrong guy or they thought he was doing credit card fraud or something like that. And they come in, they arrest the wrong guy, and he has that hilarious reaction. And now it’s you know, it’s a goated meme. It’s funny how like 50% of Australian memes are some guy getting arrested or engaging with police in some way because we’re a convict colony. It’s like, …

 

[1:09:05]

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s funny how they have the wrong guy. They have the wrong guy, but he still just gives them so much grief! And it’s a complete smart ass, just by Aussie instinct.

 

I mean, I thought he was the guilty one from the way he reacted, but he’s not. He’s just Australian. [chuckling] And that’s his reaction to authority trying to tell him what to do.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, no, it’s awesome! It’s goated. It’s legendary. But Tom posted a screenshot from the Wikipedia article. Unfortunately, rest in peace. I believe he passed away. He was 82, but he passed away, I think a couple years ago. But it says here:

 

“In 2023, true crime author Mark Dappin published a biography of Carlson, (so his last name was Carlson) titled ‘Carnage A Succulent Chinese Meal, Mr. Rent a Kill, and the Australian Manson Murders’ that explores his connections to other criminals. The book revealed that Carlson was an admirer of Adolf Hitler and Nazism. And then on at least one occasion he threw a party at his home to celebrate Hitler’s birthday!”

 

Jack Carlson was his name.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. Wow, I didn’t know any of that. That’s really interesting.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, so, pretty funny!

 

So the “Succulent Chinese Meal-Democracy Manifest Guy” was our guy! [chuckling]

 

Blair Cottrell: You can tell by the way he speaks that he’s a well read individual. You know, he’s quite articulate.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, no, absolutely! I think he was like a Shakespearean actor. He would act in Shakespearean productions and stuff.

 

39 Blair Giving a Lift to a Stranger

top

 

Blair Cottrell: So, yeah, it’s so interesting the lives people live and you wouldn’t know it. Like you walk pass people on the street.

 

For example, I was getting my car serviced recently and there was an old guy at the mechanic who was also leaving his car there and he had no way to get home, and he lived on the other side of town. So I said:

 

“I’ll take you home, mate, jump in.”

 

I was picking my car up actually, so it was when I was leaving, took him home and we were talking in the car for about 10 minutes. The guy did like 15 years in the Australian Navy, had been to like eight different countries and just had this incredible story, this life story that you wouldn’t have expected. Like he just seemed like some random old homeless guy [chuckling] from the way he was dressed.

 

But yeah, everyone’s got a really interesting set of experiences and if you just ask them the questions, you realise that there’s a lot of little individual worlds going on out there. So much knowledge, a wealth of knowledge. And if you just take an interest and god, I can’t give that advice enough to Zoomers! Zoomers don’t ask enough questions, man!

 

I mean, I love you guys, I love how fast paced you are, how quickly your minds tick over. But you have to ask more questions, right? There’s so much to learn from out there, so much knowledge to absorb.

 

40 More on the Musk-Trump Fallout

top

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, absolutely! Yeah, let’s talk about the Trump and Elon fallout because it’s quite interesting. Apparently they have a meeting scheduled tomorrow to try and patch things up. So but it was quite interesting.

 

Blair Cottrell: Do you reckon it’s some kind of a stunt with an agenda behind it? Does it seem contrived to you?

 

Joel Davis: No, I don’t think so. I think it’s a genuine falling out because Musk donated more, he was the biggest donor to Trump’s campaign. Not only did he donate heaps, but he also bought X and reformatted the whole site to make it more amenable to Trump’s election campaign, which it’s hard to quantify exactly what impact that had on the election, but it was only positive, whatever the impact was.

 

And obviously he got very close to Trump. He was on the campaign trail in the administration. Early days it seemed like every time Trump was doing a press conference Musk was there with him with his like kids and shit and you know, they seem like best buds all of a sudden. But then in recent months they seem to have drifted and Musk isn’t really getting what he wants. I saw he wasn’t happy with the tariffs. That obviously negatively affects his business interests. He was vocal about that. He’s, not happy with. Trump openly rejects the concept of global warming and backs coal and oil, and these traditional industries, even nuclear energy, but has a lot of contempt for so-called green energy programmes and rebates and subsidies and all that kind of stuff.

 

And so now they’re trying to get rid of those which would really negatively affect Tesla because the electronic vehicle rebates make them competitive in the marketplace in the United States. And the tariff regime is not good either way whether they make Teslas in America or outside America. Either they’re exporting out of America and paying a tariff or they’re bringing it into America and paying a tariff. It’s not good from his perspective.

 

And then also from the perspective of SpaceX I saw Trump say that Elon Musk proposed someone to be head of NASA and Trump knocked back because the guy was a Democrat or something is what he said. I don’t know much about it, but obviously Elon was trying to install his guy in NASA because he’s the number one contractor to the US government when it comes to basically rockets and you know, space faring technologies, etc.

 

Blair Cottrell: Maybe Trump was worried that Elon was going to figure out that NASA is all bullshit! Just a way for the American government to divert funds into unknown endeavours. Or maybe I’m wrong. Maybe they are launching a lot of space satillites.

 

[1:14:42]

 

Joel Davis: I don’t think they give that much of a shit about space exploration. But I think NASA is mostly about building rocket tech and other technologies, imaging technologies, etcetera, in order to, create intercontinental weapons systems.

 

And obviously Trump is now pushing forward with trying to build, the Golden Dome to try and build new weapons tech that will potentially be able to neutralise the intercontinental ballistic missiles of their adversaries and neutralise their capacity to obliterate them with nuclear weapons through trying to intercept them mid flight and so on.

 

41 Musk and Big AI Contracts and Peter Thiel the Homosexual Billionaire

top

 

There’s also big AI contracts that were given out to Palantir, which is Peter Thiel’s company. Peter Thiel and Elon Musk are old associates that go back a long way. Peter Thiel actually fucked Elon Musk over, back when Elon Musk was CEO of PayPal. Thiel did a hostile takeover and kind of took over PayPal from Elon Musk back in the early 2000s when he was on his wedding honeymoon, and fucked him over. So they’re old enemies of sorts.

 

And Peter Thiel is the homosexual billionaire who was also basically responsible for J.D. Vance’s political career. He basically funded him all the way up into the Vice Presidency, first into the Senate and then into the Vice Presidency. Very key power player in American politics.

 

And so it seems like he won out over Elon on the AI contract because obviously Elon Musk has been developing Grok under X in order to develop AI capacity. So Musk has lost out on quite a few counts. And he’s obviously upset about that for perhaps obvious reasons. But it’s like as I said on I said on Telegram, it really goes to show that even if you’re like the number one campaign donor to Trump, it doesn’t buy you that much.

 

42 Trump’s Relationship with the Jews, and the Epstein Case

top

 

And so it really, like, begs the question when it comes to Trump’s relationship with the jews, it seems like it’s more than just campaign financing. It’s almost like the jews have a deeper hold over him than just that, a deeper connection with him than just that. And the campaign financing is secondary. It’s just that he’s their guy, so they give him money to help him get elected.

 

But, you know, it indicates that he’s not just doing the bidding of Israel because they threw a few hundred million at him in his political campaign. But there’s something deeper.

 

And of course, Elon Musk came out today and he’s throwing shit at Trump, accusing him of being in the Epstein files, and that’s why they haven’t been released. And was sharing videos of Trump, you know, chumming up with Epstein back in the day and dancing with him at a party and talking to him about all these girls that he was gonna bang at this party. Or whatever. And strongly implying that Trump was somehow involved in the whole Epstein Island thing. And I don’t know if that’s true or not, but there definitely is nefarious connections there of some sort between him and Epstein because they were associates.

 

But also there’s pictures of [chuckling] Elon Musk with what’s her name? Ghislaine Maxwell as well. So it’s not like Elon Musk has no connection to these people. So anyway, shit is being thrown in either direction. It’s pretty interesting to see a fallout like this.

 

43 On Trump’s Charisma

top

 

And I think that if they don’t patch it up, I think Musk comes off worse than Trump. Like, Musk, you know, came up with the big guns, trying to de-legitimize Trump. But the thing is, Trump supporters are so fucking loyal. Like, Trump has been screwing them over for like a decade, giving them basically nothing that he promised almost for a decade, and they are as loyal as fuck! Because the thing is that Trump has rizz. Trump is the most memeable human being on earth alive today. Like, he’s got incredible charisma, he’s funny, he’s likeable! Elon Musk, however, is not likeable.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, I just wanted to add in addition to him being charismatic, the guy, I don’t know whether this is deliberate or not, but slotting himself into little, like, TV show cameos, classic American film, like when he appears in Home Alone inside that hotel and speaks to Macaulay Culkin, stuff like that really embedded him into American culture! It really made him a folk hero of the people of America. All of that is great PR. It’s almost like a long term strategy to becoming president later in life. It’s like it’s all worked to his advantage.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. But like, you can’t deny that there’s just so many incredible moments from Trump. Like, there’s no end to it. Like when he almost got shot. It was awesome!

 

Blair Cottrell: He’s cool!

 

[1:19:33]

 

 

Joel Davis: When he got arrested, the mug shot he did was just goated. The time when he came out of the plane and Ruth Bader Ginsburg had just died and he was like:

 

“I did not know that! You’re telling me for the first time!”

 

Like, I could go on for like an hour talking about meme-able moments from Trump. Like, it just never ends. Americans love him because they identify with him. He’s kind of like, “that’s my president!” It’s almost like he’s like an avatar of patriotism in America, for better or worse. Right?

 

44 Trump’s Leverage over Musk

top

 

Elon Musk isn’t even really American, doesn’t even have an American accent. He wasn’t born in America. He doesn’t have that kind of loyalty from the people. And he’s kind of like awkward nerd, and so doesn’t have that kind of loyalty. But also, Elon Musk doesn’t have the leverage. Elon Musk companies, SpaceX, Tesla, they’re dependent upon government subsidies and contracts which Trump can control. And Trump came out and said:

 

“You know what, maybe one way that we could cut all the wasteful government spending that Elon has a problem with is to cut all of the subsidies and government contracts that Elon Musk has. Maybe that would be like the first thing to do. I don’t know why Biden didn’t do that.”

 

And so he’s basically threatening to just take an axe to his fortune. And Trump has the leverage to do that if he wanted to.

 

SpaceX is, they’re saying, has lost like half of its value in one day because of Elon’s antics today. And you know, there’s an argument I saw Steve Bannon come out and say that the Trump administration should just like, seize SpaceX as a national security asset off Musk entirely. And which it could if it wanted to. It has the ability to do that. I’m not saying that it’s going to do that. Trump is notoriously kind of moderate. He doesn’t punish his political enemies anywhere near hard enough. And he’s had that tendency for a long time. I wouldn’t expect it to change here. Probably wouldn’t go after Musk too hard. But he’s holding up the cards.

 

Whereas, like, what cards does Musk really have? Like, if Musk threatened to go and say:

 

“Oh, I’m going to go sell rockets to the Chinese instead of you!”

 

They’re just going to take SpaceX off him. If Trump doesn’t want to subsidise his Teslas, eat shit! What is he going to do about it?

 

45 Musk as a Capitalist, a Merchant and a Con Man

top

 

He can’t go to the Democrats and try and like, support the Democrats. They all hate him now. Like, he’s completely burned that bridge because over the last year or two, Musk has said more radical things than Trump has ever said about White genocide and issues facing White People. And I didn’t support Musk because he’s also gone against us on key issues. Like, I remember over Christmas and New Year he went against us on the whole H1B Visa thing. Apparently White people don’t work hard enough when they need to mass import Indians into America to prop up the tech industry. Which just goes to show how Musk is a fraud, doesn’t really believe in anything seemingly. And he just kind of cares about his bottom line, ultimately. For all the ideological bravado and idealism that he presents when he goes on the Joe Rogan podcast or something, it seems like he’s at the end of the day, he’s a fucking capitalist, he’s a merchant and he’s a con man. He kind of acts like he’s like a libertarian who’s against excess government spending and all this kind of stuff, yet he’s like the biggest net beneficiary of government handouts in America.

 

So I think people have a lot less patience for him than for Trump, and Trump has the leverage. So if Musk doesn’t cuck to Trump and doubles down, I could see this being like a death spiral for Elon Musk potentially, which I’d love to see because number one, it’d be funny. And number two, a punished Elon Musk. He could end up doing interesting stuff that destabilises politics in a way that opens up opportunities perhaps for us. You know, it’s its kind of like a wild card. Like the world’s richest man also pissed off at the government with like no political allies. What does he do next? Probably something interesting.

 

So hopefully they don’t patch it up tomorrow and we just like see this feud like exacerbate because it would be it’d be interesting at the very least, but it could potentially result in more free speech on X rather than less, or something where he goes off the reservation. I don’t know, tries to win, win us back somehow by playing to us more.

 

46 Blair Thinks Musk Will Patch Things up with Trump

top

 

Blair Cottrell: Maybe finally my like mid takes that aren’t even that extreme, me and those takes will be allowed back on X. Like out of everyone that got censored, you got to admit, censoring me was one of the most unfair moves.

 

I mean, I try to play by the rules, I try to be the nice guy, but as I’ve said previously in politics, like being the nice guy doesn’t really get you anywhere. Sometimes you got to be the bad guy.

 

But I think they’ll patch it up, man! I think they’ll come to some sort of agreement, because especially in. By what you’ve just described it’s in Musk’s interests to really try to get somewhere with this. Right. It’s not really wise for him to be in Trump’s bad books. But it also goes to show that a lot of the time, political donors don’t have as much power as a lot of people think they do they probably have a lot more power in Australia, [chuckling] but in America, maybe not so much. A lot of the time the people they’re backing can turn on them for various reasons because politics is a bit unpredictable like that.

 

Joel Davis: Well, it goes to show that maybe it’s like the Mossad getting you on video banging underage people or, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Right.

 

Joel Davis: Capturing your children and marrying your children into their bloodlines and things like that are probably more significant than just who writes the checks, like, on some level.

 

Blair Cottrell: And they figured that out eventually, didn’t they? Like, foreign intelligence agencies would have figured out that eventually that money on its own just isn’t enough. They need more leverage over these personalities in countries of interest. But whenever there’s a big split or disagreement between two powerful characters in a country of interest, then it’s a good opportunity for subversives to sort of jump onto the scene as well. And it may, in some cases be the result of the work of subversives. So there’s that to take into consideration for Trump and Musk.

 

[1:25:43]

 

47 Trump’s ‘Big Dog’ Style of Treating Opponents

top

Joel Davis: I hope that their egos get the better of them. Because one thing you notice about Trump is when he has leverage over someone, he flexes on them. Like, I remember when he was kind of staunching in the first administration, he was staunching Kim Jong Un, and he was calling him Little Rocket Man, and he was like:

 

“You’ve got little rockets, I’ve got big rockets. You know don’t fuck with me. Like, if you want to test them out, we’ll send out big rockets and blow up your little rockets!”

 

And then Kim Jong Un ended up inviting him to North Korea, and Trump is standing in the demilitarised zone in Korea, and he was doing the little bunny ears behind Kim Jong Un for all the cameras, just kind of ridiculing him.

 

Or like, when he had Zelensky in the White House, you know, he Was big dogging him in front of the cameras. Trump big dogs world leaders, all the time. He kind of stands over them and he shakes their hand all aggressive and like, pulls them in. He’s got this kind of like natural kind of like dominance aura that he uses to, obviously his advantage. He is successful in politics and business for a reason. He knows how to put himself about. And he’s a great shit talker. He’s always shit talking all of his fucking rivals.

 

Elon’s gone pretty scorched earth here! Elon’s going on Twitter and is accusing him of being a fucking paedophile! He’s going hard! Like, it’s not just like saying you disagree over this or that government policy. Like, he’s going full scorched earth, saying he wants to fund a new political party that can take on the Republicans. And like he retweeted Ian Miles Chong saying:

 

“Trump should be impeached for being on Epstein’s island and J.D. Vance should become president.”

 

And all this kind of shit! So he’s going pretty hard.

 

48 Trump’s Appeal to Conspiratorial Paranoia

top

 

Blair Cottrell: Some of these relationships in politics, even amongst the world’s most powerful people are so fragile. What I was going to say is Trump is relentless. He knows how to appeal to the conspiratorial paranoia. Maybe it’s not paranoia, maybe it’s on point, but just the conspiratorial nature of a lot of his supporters. Like when he mentioned Elon’s black eye and before he was going on some show, he offered him some makeup to cover it up. And Elon didn’t want the makeup, which he thought was interesting. We all know what he’s insinuating there. There’s some weird theory about all of these celebrities that are in some sort of club and at one point they’ve all had black eyes, which may be part of some sort of ritual or initiation process. I don’t know. But maybe Trump doesn’t know either.

 

But the fact that he knows how to appeal to that strong nature of a lot of the people that support him, that’s interesting that he’ll, …

 

49 Trump is a High Level Freemason and is Supported by the Deep State

top

 

Joel Davis: Trump is a high level Freemason. He knows the score. Yeah, he knows what’s happening. He’s in charge for a reason. People were saying:

 

“Oh, Joel! (idiots online) Oh, Joel! If the Deep State has been against Trump for years, if he really went to Epstein’s island, they would have released it!”

 

The Deep State are totally fine with Trump being the fucking President of the United States. You think he’d be able to just waltz into the presidency if the Deep State had an issue? Like, if you’re in my Telegram chat, how are you still operating on this Qtard, like surface level understanding, like, Trump is fucking part of the Deep State! He’s chosen by the Deep State, you fucking idiots!

 

Blair Cottrell: Like, well, why did they attack him, Joel? Why did they go so crazy attacking him during his first presidency then? How do you explain that? You know what it is? This is my take.

 

Joel Davis: Okay.

 

50 Blair’s View of Trump and the Deep State

top

 

Blair Cottrell: Sometimes when you, as a subversive, when you’re into psych warfare, when you’re trying to create a fifth column, sleeper agents, you’re funding them, you’re setting them up. Sometimes when you breed a mad attack dog which has a lot of little weird attack dog puppies, those attack dogs can kind of run loose and it’s hard to get control of them. That’s what I think happened in America with that whole situation. I think there’s wild attack dogs that were just on the loose [chuckling] and it’s been hard to clean up the mess that they’ve made. That’s what I think that whole nonsense was.

 

Joel Davis: Think about it. They didn’t want Trump to win in 2020. They’re dropping Covid pandemics, which had other purposes other than that, obviously. They’re dropping BLM riots, they’re burning down the cities of America. They’re completely rigging the election. They’re launching crazy psyops. Right? This time they just stood down and let him win.

 

So obviously he was allowed to win! Obviously, they wanted him to win this time because things have changed. There’s a shift in strategy and there’s a recognition that he’s the guy for, …

 

51 Why Trump was Put Back In

top

 

Blair Cottrell: It might be that they realised that it was inevitable that he would win, that., …

 

Joel Davis: No! It wasn’t inevitable! They could easily have just rigged it again. They actually undermined Biden too, and took him out before the election was even going to happen.

 

Blair Cottrell: I disagree. I disagree. I think they need to maintain, at least ostensibly, some semblance of legitimacy. They can’t just keep rigging every election, obviously. Right?

 

[1:31:02]

 

Joel Davis: They didn’t though. I’m not saying this election was rigged, but what I’m saying is that they stood down, they didn’t obstruct him from winning this time because Israel got attacked. Biden wasn’t doing enough to protect Israel and the Democrats weren’t. Because the rise of China, issues with Russia. The American foreign policy was not working under the old paradigm. And there was a recognition that they needed to switch to a more realist framework that Trump was providing. Trump was going to provide the leadership that was going to bring people., … No one was signing up to the military anymore. We’re veering towards a potential World War III scenario, but no one wants to join the military. Need to wind the woke back, need to get Americans, you know, back behind their government, back behind their president, back into the military. Trump was just gloating today in a press conference with the German Chancellor Merz. They’re saying:

 

“Oh, it’s the 80th anniversary of D-Day.”

 

Or whatever. And he’s like:

 

“That wasn’t a good day for you, was it?”

 

And then Merz was like:

 

“No, well, no, it was a great day for us because you saved us from the Nazi dictatorship!”

 

And Trump’s like:

 

“Oh, yeah, of course!”

 

But Trump was saying you know, that the Germans need to do what he’s done to replenish their military, that no one wants to fight for Germany right now because they don’t have any spirit. He’s like:

 

“What we have done, we’re recruiting like crazy right now because we’ve brought the spirit back.”

 

And that’s obviously, the spirit comes, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Oh, the spirit comes back to the Germans?

 

Joel Davis: There’s a recognition in the American Deep State that you need to have Trump running it to get the goys back on the team! White men are not playing for the team anymore. And they can’t run a global empire without the White guys running the companies running the military and so on. Rank and file. White men are the foundation of American power. And if you alienate them, America is no longer able to run the world. That’s why he was allowed to win!

 

Blair Cottrell: Right. But there’s people that play all sides, obviously, and if they predict or are able to understand that somebody’s rise is inevitable and can no longer be sort of, the floodgates have to come down and something needs to be allowed to happen, then it’s going to happen on their terms. Still, it’s a mistake to believe that there are sort of world players controlling literally everything in politics. Like, politics is a bit of a chaotic place and, …

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, but this is national power plays in American politics. Like you could see before Israel was attacked on, was it October 7, 2023, Trump was behind Biden in the polls and was basically consistently behind Biden in all the polls for three years. Then as soon as, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Do you remember the polls before the 2016 Trump election? Was it 2015 or 2016? 2016, wasn’t it? The polls had Hillary at like 90% one week before the election.

 

52 The Role of October 7 and Trump

top

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, because they miscalculated. But the thing is, the polls were accurate this time. And the polls were accurate this time. And what it showed was that basically after October 7th, then all of a sudden the media, the jewish media, start attacking Biden. Rather than covering Biden’s arse for being fucking, basically off with the fairies and senile, they stopped covering his arse and they started exposing him to scrutiny, because Biden wasn’t playing ball for Netanyahu in Israel. It was very clear to see. And then Trump started getting boosted.

 

They had Trump by the balls. They had him in court over so many different court cases, it was looking like they were going to throw him in prison. So he couldn’t even, I mean he could still run from prison technically, but he’s probably not going to win the presidency from a prison cell. They had Trump by the balls, and then all of a sudden Supreme Court decision bails him out! This is after October 7th and then boom! Like Trump comes back and you know, Elon Musk buys Twitter, gets behind him, all the big jew donors get behind him, hundreds of millions get dropped behind him and then it looks like Trump is inevitable and then everyone goes:

 

“Oh, yeah, Trump was always going to win!”

 

But no, I was following this for years. It looked like there’s no, Trump might have been the Republican nominee, it looked like Trump was going to be thrown in prison.

 

So they had Trump fucked and then they let him off. They let him win!

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. Well, I trust your judgement because I know that you follow American politics a lot more closely than I do. The awkward situation now though, it seems for America, but for the world, or especially probably starting with America as a balancing act that needs to be struck with American culture where some sort of re-nationalised spirit, as you put it, needs to be helped to resurface without the country becoming ethnically nationalist at the same time. Which I think is its easy to do that in America, isn’t it? Because America is so multi-ethnic, whereas it’s not so easy to do in other countries. And that’s the balancing act that I suppose the Trump administration is going to try to strike for various reasons. Obviously they need to recruit more soldiers, police, etc. So interesting to see how that pans out.

 

[1:35:58]

 

53 Taking the Boot off the Neck of Whites

top

 

Joel Davis: They’re obviously taking the boot off the neck of Whites and they’re throwing bones to Whites at the moment. The political elements that are more conservative, the obstructions have been taken out of their ways obviously, like Leftists are still against them for ideological reasons. But the dirty tricks that were being played before stop being played. They got out of the way. The key power players.

 

And then you start seeing Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, these guys were funding Biden and funding the election security efforts and so on in 2020 and all that kind of thing, censoring Trump off all their platforms and so on. They’re all at the inauguration, they’re all shaking hands with Trump this time. There was a total sea change in the attitude of these elites. And there’s a reason for that. It doesn’t just happen because “the people” decided that they wanted him to be president. The people didn’t really change their perspective at all! It was the elites that changed their perspective, from my stance. But yeah, anyway, it’ll be interesting to see what happens.

 

54 Joel Will Be on with Thomas777 Re Philosophical Anti-Semitism, etc.

top

 

I see people saying:

 

“For real though, Joel is rocking the Thomas777 look!”

 

Well, actually I was just talking to Thomas earlier. I think Monday night Australian time, Monday morning American time. We’re going to do a, another collab. We’re going to talk about philosophical anti-semitism. We’re going to talk about Martin Heidegger. We’re going to get into the weeds of political philosophy and you know, NS philosophy and its precursors and so on. So it should be interesting stream for those who are looking for something a little bit intellectual. But our way inclined. Thomas is always an enjoyable collaborator. I’ve done a lot of podcasts with him over the years. He’s a good friend. So I’ll put up a link for that when the time comes. But yeah, like I said, Monday night, I think Monday morning America time.

 

People are saying that you were trying to speak but you’re muted.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, I just realised that before. But that’s okay. I was just saying that it’s curious. Oh, it’s not really curious. It doesn’t even, it doesn’t need to be said. It’s fine. That’s why I didn’t even pick up on it.

 

Joel Davis: Oh, okay. I was looking at at something else. I wasn’t looking at the screen. Is there another, any other subjects for us to cover?

 

Blair Cottrell: No, I don’t think so. I’ve had a busy week so I only got a couple of days to actually spend or maybe a day and a half where I actually had time enough to post to my social media this week. But I’m going to look at spending a bit more time making some more clip content and putting some more stuff out there. So I’m looking forward to that.

 

But I think we, what do we do? We did the NSN banner drop at Northland Shopping Centre. We did the speculation around that, or not speculation, just discussion around the response. Then we did Elon versus Trump. What else has happened the last week? Is there anything else?

 

55 Thomas Sewell on the Ex-UFC Fighter Jake Shields Show

top

 

Joel Davis: I don’t think of any like huge stories. I see Anthony Scalise saying:

 

“Joel, any information on the Jake Shields collab?”

 

Yeah, Tom recorded a podcast with Jake Shields on the Jake Shields Show this week. I don’t know exactly when that is going to be released but I think soon. So obviously it’s already been recorded. So that’s an interesting one.

 

Obviously I’ve been on Jake’s podcast before. He’s a friend. And yeah it’s great, it’s great that he’s has platform Ed not only me, but Tom as well. That he’s platforming Australian nationalists. You know, ex-UFC fighter. No, he’s not a Nazi. He’s not as radical as us, but he’s at least open to like hearing our perspective and platforming our perspective. And you know he’s always very critical of jewish power and he’s sympathetic towards pro-White politics. So you know, it’s nice to have a platform like that to break the siege. Obviously we’re under censorship, pretty heavy censorship. Tom and I and you, some of the most censored people in the world. Like we’re censored from fucking everything!

 

56 Still Banned from X Jew to Oz Government Pressure

top

 

Blair Cottrell: So yeah, that’s what I was going to say. It’s like, I hope that Tom took the opportunity to try to put the message out there. And, I don’t know, maybe Jake can help put pressure on the right people to get us back on X. Because it sucks not being on X! It sucks not being part of the conversation around the world. You know, Telegram these days, Telegram was pretty big during Covid I remember a lot of people came to Telegram to get their news during the Covid era, the lockdowns and all that shit! But these days, everyone’s kind of moved on from Telegram. There’s still the kind of little small loyalist following that I have on there, but it’s just not the reach is nowhere near what it would be if we could get on X as well.

 

And as I just mentioned earlier, it’s a really unfair ban, I think. I mean, you look at the kind of stuff that’s posted on X, and especially the content I was putting out there, it wasn’t even that bad. It’s obviously like part of some contrived effort or pressure.

 

Joel Davis: The Australian government requested that we be banned.

 

Blair Cottrell: We don’t have any evidence of that, but it looks that way. It’s kind of obvious that that’s what happened because we all got taken down at the same time. All our appeals got ignored! We haven’t even had a single. I haven’t had a single reply. Have you had a reply from X staff?

 

Joel Davis: No! Usually when you get banned, they send you an email saying you’ve been banned. I didn’t even get that.

 

Blair Cottrell: Correct! I didn’t get that either. And I haven’t had a single, I’ve appealed a few times, haven’t had a single reply. They’re just like, fuck you! It’s like, what do I actually even do to get banned? Bullshit!

 

We were in the gym, Joel and I, just having a conversation, and some young guys overheard our conversation and they approached us and said:

 

“Hey, do you guys have social media? Where can we find you guys?”

 

And we had to tell them:

 

“Well, we’re kind of banned off everything. We have Rumble.”

 

They didn’t even know what Rumble was. And they said:

 

“Are you on X?”

 

And we said:

 

“No, we’re banned off X.”

 

And they laughed and said:

 

“How did you get banned off X?”

 

And I realised that to the standard person, X just seems to be a place where you can say whatever you want. So they’re like:

 

“Wow, what the hell did you post to get banned off X?”

 

They assume that you’ve posted something really bad, like gore or hectic shit that no one would want to see! But it wasn’t that. It was just because we are dissidents in Australia. It’s because the Australian government requested to X that we were banned. And it’s like, it made me realise how kind of like forced into the corner we are down here in Australia.

 

57 The Censorship is Preventing Them from Being a Sought After Voice in Oz

top

 

And what’s most frustrating I reckon. I don’t know if this is like big noting myself, but I could say the same for Joel, I think. If it wasn’t for all the censorship, I’m quite confident that I would still be one of the most sought after voices for just general commentary in this country. Because the following I had before I was banned was massive! I used to get the same reach as Channel 9, 7 and 10 put together on Facebook, at least, when I was allowed to use Facebook back in the day. And I would have only grown from there. I get banned and then Avi Yemeni kind of takes my place and all the former audience I used to have just watch him because there’s no one else to watch anymore.

 

That’s the problem with censorship. Like, you get kind of like taken off the table or off the stage, screen, whatever, and some like bullshit jewish Israel shill takes your place and just talks some shit and sort of spells the audience and misleads them, takes their money for all sorts of nefarious purposes:

 

“Guys, I’m in the back of a police car. You need to donate to my legal fund right now!”

 

You know, it’s like the results of the censorship have been dreadful! And it works, doesn’t it? Censorship? It really does.

 

[1:43:51]

 

 

58 Avi Yemeni Scamming His Supporters

top

 

Joel Davis: How is he getting thrown? How’s he getting arrested? They don’t even take his phone off him. Like, get fucking! That’s obviously, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. You know what they did? I know this too. Like, I heard about this. I wouldn’t say this if it wasn’t true too. That video, I think it was a few years ago where Avi Yemeni claimed he had been arrested unfairly because he was just trying to report on something. It might have been a lockdown rally or something. He was in the back of a police car instantly demanding money for a legal fund because the police had arrested him. They literally just drove him down the street and just dropped him up the next suburb. They didn’t even really arrest him, they just took him down the road. And everyone who donated just got fleeced! Just got fucking scammed! And that’s so sad, man, that people are trying to do the right thing. They’re believing in something, they want to support someone who they believe is representing them. And that’s what happens. You just get some jewish Israel shill taking your money and laughing at you. That’s what Avi does. He takes people’s money and he laughs at them. So it’s a shame, but that’s the kind of that censorship has facilitated.

 

59 Despite Censorship Our Recognition in the Public is Growing

top

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. Well, I mean, even despite the censorship, we still go insanely viral all the time. Like, I was talking to some family members of mine, I won’t say who, younger guys the other day, and one of them was like:

 

“Oh, Joel. All the kids at school were like, watching this video and then they were showing it to me and it was you talking about Hitler! And I was like, ‘that’s my cousin!’.”

 

And then my other cousin goes:

 

“Oh, yeah, that’s like I saw this other video of you talking about Hitler on TikTok the other day. It had like millions of likes.”

 

I was like:

 

“Okay, I don’t even know what video that is.”

 

But, I mean, that’s pretty funny. Like I hear people say that all the time. They saw me on Instagram, they saw me on TikTok. I don’t even have accounts on these platforms. It’s just other people reposting it.

 

So obviously, even despite the censorship that we have, by being organically interesting we’re still known out there. Every time I go out in Sydney or Melbourne, if I go out to the city for a drink or something, at least one person comes up to me and recognises me and says:

 

“Oh, hey, it’s great to meet you. Keep doing what you’re doing, if not more.”

 

We’ve become infamous in Australia, or maybe famous, you could say, even in Australia, despite everything, despite how we’ve been treated.

 

Blair Cottrell: So I know that you like to look at the glass half full, which is what you’re doing now, but I realised you are right, now that I think about it. When I said censorship works, it works at first! It works to sort of not nullify, but significantly reduce your reach, but only for a year or two. And then gradually, if you’re consistent and if you try to find every way around the censorship possible. Yeah, you do you become more infamous. You become even more sought after, I think.

 

And the longer and more aggressively you’re censored, the more consistent you are in response to that, the more infamous you can potentially become. So it’s kind of like that real cliche saying that tyranny actually just feeds tyrants and censorship is a form of modern tyranny, which in the long run actually just feeds more people into our audience basket.

 

[1:47:25]

 

Joel Davis: Well, I don’t think so. I think if we had no censorship we’d have a much bigger viewership.

 

Blair Cottrell: Obviously it’d just grow faster. It just grow more organically. Right? But think of it like this. Think of it like a weed. I’m not saying that we’re like a weed, but that’s how the government views us. And they’re spraying us with poison. That’s what censorship is. And it, like, prevents us from growing, but it doesn’t kill us. We actually just start adapting to the poison and then they have to spray us with a lot more poison to get the same effect that they got previously. Then that poison doesn’t work. So they’ve got to go for some higher grade shit!

 

But all that’s actually happening is we’re adapting. We’re being forced to adapt the organism that we are to the circumstances imposed on us. That’s what censorship kind of forces you to do. I suppose.

 

60 Surviving the Censorship Because What We Have to Say is So Interesting

top

 

Joel Davis: Yeah.

 

But I mean, the only reason that we’re able to get around, like, pretty much no one would be able to survive this level of censorship. The only reason that we can is because we’re just that interesting.

 

Blair Cottrell: And also very autistic. So we don’t really feel emotionally crushed by it. You know, it’s kind of like:

 

“Oh we got censored again. Okay.”

 

It’s like, [chuckling] you don’t really get disheartened by it, right?

 

61 Censorship Does Make It Hard to Recruit People Because They Don’t Know How to Join

top

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, well, I think it’s more that we’re so motivated by our cause that we’re not going to stop.

 

But yeah, the main effect of censorship is actually this. Actually we managed to get out there and still be known and get talking points out there, get attention. But what’s difficult is recruiting people to our organisation because people will see a clip, people will see a news broadcast, they’ll see us, they’ll be aware that we exist. But they won’t really know:

 

“Okay, how do I go and like, join these guys or find out more?”

 

And if they go to look online to try and find out more, it’s hard to actually find the details. So that’s the main difficulty.

 

62 the System is Afraid of Us Recruiting Thousands of Men

top

 

It’s that it’s actually preventing us from recruiting effectively and that’s obviously why they do it, because what they’re really afraid of, it’s not just us being popular, people watching our videos. What they’re really afraid of is us building a movement of thousands and thousands of men. That’s what they’re petrified of!

 

And so that’s what their efforts are all about. Whether it be the way, how heavily we’re policed to try and intimidate people out of getting involved in the movement whether it be the way they go after people try and like take away their livelihoods. Censorship, all of it centres around trying to create obstacles for us to recruit people where the, …

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s truek.

 

Joel Davis: Making as difficult as possible to get a bunch of nationalists in the same room or the same place together.

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s part of the government’s counter extremist efforts, which are, I’ve said previously, are just repurposed counterinsurgency.

 

The point is to prevent you from appealing to the public and then especially from recruiting from the public, or for recruiting from the public.

 

So what happens is if you’re a dissident, one that can potentially threaten the current regime, you get classed as an “extremist” and then you’re susceptible or targeted by counter extremist measures which include censorship, harassment ostracism from society, losing bank account, blah, blah, blah, the list goes on and on.

 

But as I’ve said, that’s not actually legal to do that in a democracy.

 

So eventually names, identities of people who are responsible for actually directing certain government agencies or setting up and being involved in government agencies that are doing that to Australian citizens, that are classifying them as extremists, basically stripping all their rights away and then just harassing and bullying them, preventing them from participating in society on a normal level. Eventually those people will be brought to justice.

 

63 Communists and Other Anti-Racist Activists Have Embedded Themselves Within Our Key Institutions

top

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, exactly! And that’s the thing, that’s what Australians don’t realise. There are communists and other anti-racist activists that have embedded themselves within our key institutions, not just at the academic level but at the policing level. And they’re engaging in political policing under the auspices of so-called “Counter Terrorism” measures. We’re not terrorists by any definition of that term. And even the head of ASIO has agreed with this multiple times under Senate scrutiny that we’re not terrorists and we can’t be classified as terrorists, we don’t engage in terroristic activity.

 

But then they go:

 

“But oh, you’re extremist!”

 

What is an extremist? I saw an old interview, actually, of you and Tom from way back in the day, Blair, on a Current Affair, talking about African crime actually, I think it was from like 2019 or something. And they accused you of being an extremist. And what Tom said was that:

 

“An extremist is just someone who takes an idea to its logical conclusion.”

 

And that’s literally all it is. It’s just taking an idea that seriously that you 100% believe in it, rather than being like these politicians who claim to have a whole set of different ideals but don’t take them to their logical conclusion, either because they don’t have the ideals, or because if you actually took them to their logical conclusion there’ll be very bad ideals. Like when it comes to, …

 

Blair Cottrell: But it depends on what the logical conclusion is, though.

 

[1:52:40]

 

64 Because We Have Ideals They Call That “Extremism”

top

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. But if you take Leftism to its logical conclusion, it would result in basically exterminating White people, like in a very aggressive way.

 

And if you took our ideas to their logical conclusion, it would basically restore Australia to being a great country, across every metric and make your life, if you’re a normal White person, so much better than it is right now. But that’s what we’re guilty of we’re just guilty of actually having ideals and they call that “extremism”.

 

So basically what they’re trying to do is they’re trying to make it illegal essentially for you to have Right-wing ideals, for you to take the ideals of nationalism to the logical conclusion. Now they don’t have Left-wing extremism. Even though there’s Left-wingers that are engaging in political violence on a frequent basis, who harbour genocidal hatred. They’re allowed to take their ideas to their logical conclusion. So it’s a complete double standard! It’s a totally arbitrary standard applied ideologically just to be persecute the ideological enemies of the regime, of the current ruling class. An ideology which the majority of Australians don’t subscribe to and are actually offended by. But nevertheless because they control the levers of power and because of mass apathy and a mixture of apathy and demoralisation and disorganisation, they’re able to get away with it for now.

 

65 the System Calling Us “Extremists” to Justify Their Own Lawfare and Extremism Against Us

top

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. It’s why they come up with certain arbitrary terms in order to justify the sort of action that they take against dissidents such as extremists. Because lawfully extremist doesn’t mean the same as terrorists, does it? They know we’re not terrorists! They know I’m not a terrorist. They know you’re not a terrorist, as you said. The head of ASIO has publicly stated that these guys aren’t terrorists due to Senate inquiries or whatever the hell is going on there.

 

But they still need to try to justify the sort of measures that they take in order to prevent us from appealing or recruiting from the public. Appealing to or recruiting from the public, which, as I said is the whole point of counterinsurgency. So any sort of language, any sort of phraseology they can come up with to justify extreme censorship ostracism, bullying, bully tactics lawfare, all the sorts of stuff that we’ve experienced.

 

66 Blair Barred from a Tafe Course Because Minorities Might Be “Unsafe”

top

 

Like, I can’t even go to a school. I think I went to a TAFE to try to do a Cert 4. You know what happened? The course leader, after about four weeks, told me that:

 

“I had to withdraw from the course because my identity had been discovered and minority students in the classroom may be exposed to an unsafe learning environment.”

 

It’s [chuckling] like just because my name’s Blair Cottrell! That’s why I’m not allowed to go to a TAFE in Australia right now, in democracy. And they know that I’m not going to hurt anyone. They know that I don’t have a history of that kind of thing in politics. But that’s not what’s important. What’s important is how they can come up with the sort of language and phraseology to justify pushing me out of society! To make sure that I never appeal to anyone! Because my ideas are dangerous for the current system. The way the system is currently set up.

 

But yeah, it’s a system that needs to change.

 

67 Superchats

top

 

Joel Davis: Well, while you fix that microphone [Blair bumped it], I think we’ll get into the Superchats. You can send a Superchat on Rumble. I don’t think you can send them on Odysee anymore. You can send them only on Rumble or on EntropyStream dot Live slash Joel Davis.

 

Anyway, we’ve got a few here already. One from Calmius saying:

 

“Blair, what’s the story of your beanie?”

 

Blair Cottrell: It was given to me by someone I knew quite a while ago. I don’t know if it was handmade. I can’t remember. But it’s so absurd that I tend not to wear it in public. This is something that I put on, … Can you guys hear me? Okay? I had to plug my microphone back In. I knocked it off the stand. Can you hear it?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Same as before. I don’t know if it’s been picked up. Yeah.

 

But yeah, there’s not a great story behind it. It’s just an orange beanie with. What do you call this? Do you call that a pom. A pom pom? [chuckling] I don’t know what that is.

 

Yeah. But I just, I’ve stopped caring so much about how I look and so I don’t really care. I’m just wearing it because it was cold tonight. I don’t know what you want me to say. It’s just a beanie, bro.

 

Joel Davis: It’s all that deep.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Joel Davis: Rygo Weber said:

 

“Once again, great show guys. What do you think about the Trump and Elon spat?”

 

Well, we already got into that. So you don’t really need to answer it again. If you watch the show, we discussed it for like 20 minutes. Comfy Friend said:

 

“Great show!”

 

And shout out to Comfy Friend broadcasting the show on his X. Much appreciated. Zero seven to all the Comfy Friend viewers this evening. Of course the show’s on Rumble. It’s on Odysee and back on X for now.

 

So thanks for that man. I appreciate it. He does a good job shilling our shit collectively on X with all of us banned.

 

So you can follow Comfy Friend on X to still get your dose of NSN. Joel Davis, Blair Cottrell, Tom Sewell content. Jacob Hersant content as well:

 

“You will never have children!”

 

Spiteful mutant supporter said:

 

“Capitalism has made it this way. Old fashioned fascism will take it away.”

 

68 Superchat – Left Wing and Right Wing Views on Capitalism

top

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, I always get a little bit awkward when someone just blames everything on capitalism. It seems like an oversimplification to me. What do you think, Joel?

 

[1:58:50]

 

Joel Davis: I mean, yeah, but it’s definitely a dynamic. I mean but there’s a distinction between I think like a Left-wing and a Right-wing criticism of capitalism. So generally Left-wing criticisms of capitalism have to do with exploitation. This idea that, oh there’s all these fat cats that are making all this money at the expense of everyone. And basically the implication is that if we could just somehow like divide up the benefits more equitably that it would be okay.

 

Obviously there’s other Left-wing critiques, like you know, the idea that commodification is culturally destructive or environmentally destructive, but that they would share with like Right-wing critiques of capitalism.

 

But, a more Right-wing critique of capitalism would be double pronged. One that capitalism as a structure elevates the wrong kind of people into political leadership. So under like a feudal society where you had like an aristocracy, the selection pressures on leaders were different and we had basically warriors, men who fought with honour who passed down their titles intergenerationally and raised their children through good breeding but also through good rearing to become, to develop a kind of honour based, you know, moral code and to rule with an honour based, you know, warrior code. And therefore that created a more virtuous society.

 

Where under capitalism you have all these merchants that simply gain political power because they made a lot of money. And the attributes that make you successful in business don’t necessarily make you an honourable man and therefore you don’t have an honourable government. That’s like a Right-wing critique of capitalism.

 

Or another Right-wing critique of capitalism would be that the process of commercialisation is destructive to folkways, to culture. That when everything becomes commodified and you have this kind of global marketplace that it breaks down the local traditions and forms of identity and globalises and abstracts everything out into this like universal, into like universal individual units. And we basically lose all connection with who we really are. And as a result our moral and cultural fabric like disintegrates. I think I agree with these criticisms. And that doesn’t mean that we should, become communists, obviously! There’s a false dichotomy between capitalist and communist.

 

The alternative is not necessarily to abolish money or abolish property or something. That’s not the issue. The issue with capitalism is in that some people are rich and some people are poor. The issue are these other things. It’s about how do you create a political system that basically ensures that virtuous honourable men maintain leadership and rule and hold other elements to account that everything doesn’t get relativised in terms of “what’s good for business”. And secondarily, how do you preserve the culture of your people from being liquidated into this global marketplace? How do you stop commodification and preserve some kind of sacredness and tradition?

 

And obviously National Socialism, political ideology tries to do this,

 

69 Francis Yockey’s Description of Socialism Versus Capitalism in His Book Imperium

top

 

Blair Cottrell: Mandatory military service. You can start with that. And no one holds office without having done their military service and have achieved a certain rank perhaps. I reckon that’s a good start.

 

But I like Francis Yockey’s description of socialism versus capitalism in his book Imperium, where he basically insinuates that capitalism represents one aspect of human nature and so it’s impossible to actually eliminate it because it represents the selfish motivation which is half the reason anyone ever does anything. If you make it so people can’t actually advance their own interests, then you kill the incentive to actually do anything. Because no one wants to do anything if it’s purely just in the interests of the community and not themselves. Because as humans we have to see some sort of benefit, individual benefit in things that we do.

 

He summarises that capitalism means basically every man for himself, whereas the opposing view, socialism, the opposing economic system of socialism, is the other form of human nature, which is to do things for the advancement of the community in spite of oneself sometimes, which again can be half the reason we’re doing things at the same time. So I like that summary because it’s more personable. It sort of gets more into the nature of people and the compulsion, the motivation that goes beyond just economics and financial considerations of why people do things.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. Like we talk about the problems with individualism but at the same time also value liberty. Like anyone, I think like most people, most Anglo Saxons. I don’t like excessive bureaucracy and over regulation of everything. I like for normal people to be largely left alone to their own devices, to choose their own destinies up to a level. Obviously you need to put hard limits on that. But where possible, it’s good to basically bias towards freedom and have to justify it away rather than the reverse.

 

But having said that, like liberalism as an ideological framework has been obviously disastrous for our people. So it needs to be attacked at its root. And people have to come before our individual freedom ultimately.

 

Blair Cottrell: Right. I was about to say that. I think politically we need to be more socialist than we are capitalists because the more socialist you are, the more you’re considering the effect on the broader community and the future generations rather than just how you are benefiting now in the moment or how you’re affected by anything happening in the moment.

 

And obviously if you’re dealing with the future of a country, you need to be more socialist in your considerations. And that’s all socialism actually means at the end of the day is considering how anything may affect the greater ethnic community. The problem with communism though is it doesn’t really consider socialism from an ethnic perspective. It doesn’t consider the group as, …

 

Joel Davis: Universal humanity.

 

Blair Cottrell: Correct. It’s universal and it’s also class based which is just like a different form of looking at humanity on a universal basis.

 

[2:05:42]

 

70 Marx and the Destruction of Classes

top

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. The reason why Marx identifies the proletariat as the revolutionary subject of history is not because he wants them to stay the proletariat, but because the proletariat, the working class, is being exploited by capitalism. He sees it as the vehicle to the destruction of classes.

 

So the ideal of Marxism is to abolish class and to end in a kind of, in like a universal humanity where we’re all on the same level. Like it’s about destroying the category of bourgeoisie, entirely. It doesn’t have this like perennial mindset that there’ll always be workers versus capitalists that will go on forever. Like obviously the idealist from the Marxist standpoint is to overthrow it.

 

But, whereas I think our view from the Right because we’re realists is more that like what you were saying before, that the forces that are imbued within capitalism they’re part of human nature and that they’ll always have some kind of representation within society. And it’s about trying to get the balance right. You’re never going to be able to ultimately decide on one or the other extreme. That’s kind of irrational utopianism.

 

But instead you kind of have to just take human nature for what it is and try and balance these forces as best you can. That’s a more Right-wing perspective.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, that’s right. That’s definitely the attitude that’s the position I would take right now based on my understanding.

 

71 Superchat: is Techno Trance and EDM the Most Aryan Music Around?

top

 

Joel Davis: Mhm. All right. Superchat Aussie Artist 88 said:

 

“Blair bro, is techno trance and EDM the most Aryan music around? It’s the natural evolution of the Germanic spirit. Fast paced and yet spiritual. What’s your opinion?”

 

Blair Cottrell: I’ve never thought of it that way, but maybe that’s a really interesting perspective. I can tell you no other genre of music makes me feel what I feel when I listen to really good trance and electronic dance music. Like that stuff just invigorates me in a way that’s difficult to explain through words. So it’s very possible. I do feel like it hits me on another level. One that’s hard to express. What do you think, Joel? You’re into your music a little bit, right?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, I think, I mean the most Aryan music, I mean you’ve got classical music, you’ve got like heavy metal, all the different sub genres of metal. You’ve got electronic music. You know, they’re all different like phases in technology. Like Wagner couldn’t have started a metal band because electric guitars didn’t exist yet, you know. And then I don’t know, Slayer, I mean obviously there was like synthesisers and stuff, but they didn’t have like the apparatus that you use to make electronic music wasn’t fully developed yet and it’s produces different genres. So it’s like when Aryans are dealing with electronic instruments, they make a certain kind of music. When they’re dealing with electric instruments, they make another kind of music. When they’re dealing with pre-electric instruments, they make another kind of music. You know, that’s how I see it. I don’t think it makes sense to like try and argue, one is more airing than the other. It’s like all of them are expressions of our spirit. All of them are expressions of our racial nature.

 

Blair Cottrell: I think someone just really appreciates like trance music. I can say this. A thought occurred to me as I was listening to Joel just then that I think a lot of trance music, if you listen or pay attention to the structure of how the track develops, it’s basically, and I’m not trying to be vulgar with this is a very objective analysis. It’s how sex would sound to the soul. It’s almost like the process of sex put into audio form, if you understand what I mean. Like, I don’t know how to explain it exactly, but there’s like that build up or the process.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, kind of orgasmic quality.

 

Blair Cottrell: Right. Reaching that climax point and then the climax point hits and it hits really hard. And that is the sort of pinnacle of the track. Just like that is the pinnacle of the experience that you have through sex. I think maybe that’s why it makes us feel a certain way that other music can’t really.

 

Joel Davis: But yeah, there’s an ecstatic, there’s an ecstatic quality to it. That’s what’s appealing about it. I think that ecstatic quality is can also be found in psychedelic forms of guitar based music as well.

 

But yeah, it definitely comes through. And the lines get blurred sometimes between electronic instruments and those kinds of genres as well, particularly in recent decades. Like the kind of like music that’s categorised as goth in that spectrum, for example, often blurs the lines between those categories.

 

But yeah, I enjoy all, basically all of those genres of music. I’m glad that they all exist. They all represent different emotions. Like metal is like more epic! It’s kind of like music of like war and aggression and intensity and horror and all those kinds of spectrum of emotions. And you’ve got like gothic and alternative rock genres that have kind of romantic quality to them but they also have psychedelic quality. And then electronic music is like m can often be more ecstatic! Yeah.

 

[2:11:05]

 

72 Music Can “Spell” Us in the Same Way as a Good Speech

top

 

Blair Cottrell: Isn’t it true that music can spell us in the same way that a good speech can? It’s a similar type of magic or has a similar type of effects on people. And I realised that young.

 

And one of my secrets when I was learning about public speaking was I used to study certain songs that would make me feel a certain way. And I thought:

 

“Wow, maybe I can create a speech or practise roughly the way I can deliver a speech, or a method through which I can deliver a speech where I can incorporate the same melody, or a similar melody to what I’m hearing in this song and put that melody into the words I’m speaking.”

 

So I think, there’s something to be said about that and there’s probably some sort of underground science where you can get into that and study it. I didn’t really get into anything underground but I just made the connection as a result of my own, you know, learning when I was a bit younger.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, well music is the language of the soul. You know, it has like the ability to say things that words can’t. Or maybe words can say it but they can’t really convey it in the same way that that music can because it’s more, viscerally emotive.

 

This is why I think like Schopenhauer’s view on music is utterly retarded! Because for Schopenhauer music was supposed to be like a method by which we could disconnect, from like the life force and disconnect from like the drives and will embedded in the body and achieve some kind of like mystical, you know, disinterested union with the absolute or whatever. And I find generally what’s great about music is precisely the opposite. That music is the life force made manifest in its most potent form. I guess on that side I would side with Nietzsche against Schopenhauer*.

 

[*Nietzsche criticised Schopenhauer’s pessimistic view of life and suffering, advocating instead for an artistic and affirmative approach to existence. He believed that embracing suffering could lead to personal growth and strength, contrasting with Schopenhauer’s call for resignation and detachment from desires.]

 

73 Sargon of Akkad Having an Event in Australia

top

 

But yeah, anyway, Skinhead Friend said:

 

“Have you seen Tom Roussell, also known as Survive the Jive and Sargoy of Akkad are speaking in Australia later this year. Sargoy is getting more based lately and Survive the Jive has always been solid.”

 

Yeah, I did see that. There is an event. I think they’re almost sold out. They only had 100 tickets for sale and they were selling them for like a thousand bucks each or something. So meant to be like an exclusive event.

 

Blair Cottrell: Isn’t it Sargon of Akkad. Why is he Sargoy of Akkad?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, well, that’s obviously a joke. Yeah, people used to call him Sargoy of Mossad well back in the day. Sargoy of Mossad. It’s pretty funny.

 

Blair Cottrell: Why is he called that though? Is it speculated, has he been accused?

 

Joel Davis: Well, back in the day, lately he has been better. But back in the day he was a big defender of classical liberalism. He always get into debates with people from the so-called Alt-Right. There was one really famous debate that he had with Richard Spencer back in the day, like 2018 era, something like that. Maybe 2017. I can’t remember the exact year, but it was back in that era. And, yeah, he was kind on the other side of the fence.

 

Whereas lately he’s kind of come more around. Not all the way, but he’s come a lot closer to like defending ethno-nationalism. Like he’ll defend ethno-nationalism like 90% now.

 

So yeah, I don’t think that he’s like an agent of the jews or something. I think he’s just a temperamental conservative. He’s a bit cucked because he’s just a temperamental conservative. But some of the people that he platforms on his Lotus Eater podcast platform that he runs, some of them aren’t bad, some of them kind of suck. Some of them are pretty good. Young, kind of like blonde Aryan English guys who are obviously our guys. A few of them, I won’t name names but you know, had some good interactions with some of them on Twitter over the years before I was banned.

 

So yeah, I don’t have anything against him. He seems like a nice guy. I think he I think his heart’s in the right place, but he’s just a little bit cucked, obviously, for my liking, but he’s all right.

 

As for Survive the Jive, he does good stuff. I’ve always enjoyed his YouTube channel. Have you ever seen his YouTube videos? He talks a lot about you know, Anglo and Germanic and Nordic history and ancient Paganism, things like that.

 

Blair Cottrell: A little bit. Yeah. A little bit. I was gonna say that. Seems like the boys have been successful on the bullying front with a Sargoy of Akkad. [chuckling] You know, with all the names and the pressure. It’s funny to see stuff like that build on some content creators and influencers who are obviously very in love. Not in love they’re very attached to their online Persona, whatever it is that they’ve created for themselves. They’ve managed to dodge the censorship and try to be reasonable or whatever, but through just chipping away through effective bully measures, the boys just managed to shove them in the right direction, gradually!

 

Joel Davis: I saw people complaining that they got banned from my Telegram chat. Look, I got a lot of moderators. It probably wasn’t me, but I’ll tell you this. If you send a Superchat with your Telegram app, I’ll unban it. That’s the deal. It’s a guarantee you can buy your way back in!

 

Blair Cottrell: Joel!

 

Joel Davis: There you go.

 

Blair Cottrell: I’m surprised. I didn’t think Joel would be so easily sway with money.

 

[2:16:20]

 

Joel Davis: But if you post garbage, you might get banned again. So watch yourself. It doesn’t guarantee you a permanent residency, but you can buy a second chance. At The Joel and Blair Show, we believe in second chances.

 

Soul Vinda said:

 

“Amazing aesthetics on that NSN edit. This is the spirit that will win over the motivated youth.”

 

Yeah, it was a sick edit. I think it might have been Gus who made it. I don’t know who made it, but I’m feeling it was Gus. Yeah, but it was a sick edit. Did you like it? Were you just blowing smoke up its arse because it was on the show? Be honest. Do you think it sucks?

 

Blair Cottrell: Oh, no man! Did you see me dancing to it? That was shit was hype! Loved it. If it was Gus that made it, salute, bro! Excellent work! Some of these young guys are great on the edits. Yeah. I wouldn’t even know how they do it, to be honest. I used to think I was pretty good at editing and I can edit, like, videos, basic edits, but I wouldn’t even know how to produce shit like that these days. So it’s good stuff. It’s impressive.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: I don’t do that you should know me better than that. I don’t blow smoke up people’s asses. If you’re hearing me say something nice, it’s genuine, man! I don’t throw around false compliments. I always just try to find something about people I can appreciate. So that’s why sometimes I can come across as probably too nice. But no, yeah, I really did like the video.

 

74 Getting Around Censorship with Uploading Clips, Edits

top

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, no, I think Anderson puts out cool, cool edits. And yeah, that’s what you need.

 

By the way, those of you who are on TikTok, Instagram, whatever, Twitter, re-upload the edits and go find the old ones as well and spam them out there. Obviously we want you uploading clips from the show as well and other things, but get those hyper edits out there. Get, get some eyes on them! Put them particularly on places like TikTok and Instagram, where they’re gonna have more chance of going viral.

 

We’re just talking about censorship before. The main reason that we can get around censorship is part of it is through being provocative and interesting. But another massive component of it is you guys. You guys that are re-uploading content, clipping content, things like that, to make sure that even though we’re banned, the content lives on.

 

So I appreciate it. It’s one way that you can help the movement. Very easy way to help the movement is simply that.

 

Crafty Boom said:

 

“Lead the way, men. Let’s go!”

 

And Testy Testerson said:

 

“Buy a few beers on me.”

 

I see also on Entropy, Deer in the Headlights said:

 

“Carry on, gentlemen, you’re doing great work!”

 

And Shovelhead Amy said:

 

“Thanks for what you’re doing. From an avid listener here in Antario, Canada. People are paying attention.”

 

I should have said Ontario, sorry.

 

75 On Canadians and Australians

top

 

Blair Cottrell: What is with Canadians? Why do we vibe so hard with Canadians? What’s going on there? I think we’ve covered this on last couple of shows. I just keep seeing Canadians pop up all the time. And my heart goes out to Canada. They seem to be going through similar struggles and we seem to have, I don’t know, some sort of similarity between us Aussies and Canadians. They appreciate us and I appreciate them. So thanks, Canada. Thanks for watching.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, but she said:

 

“From a true toque lover. Those are great toques.”

 

I wonder what a fucking “toque” is?:

 

“The consistency and level headedness that you men display is what people are Sorely craving. And I find it amusing that you call them beanies. It’s a toque. Toque is what we call them.”

 

Yeah, well we’re not fucking Canadians, so we call them beanies.

 

Blair Cottrell: You know what I thought? Toke, man! You know what I thought toke, meant? I thought it was a take, but it was like a take from someone that was like high on something.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, you give a bong head. Like “give us a toke”, that kind of thing. Yeah, no, we love Canadians. Canadians are kind of like nice versions of us. I think. They’re like, if Australians were nice.

 

Blair Cottrell: But the fact Canadians like us shows that perhaps they feel, I don’t know, there’s some deep appreciation for our nature and humour. So maybe they’re not as nice as they ostensibly seem or have a reputation for being. Maybe they have this like contained, …

 

Joel Davis: Unless they’re French-Canadians, they’re from the same stock. So I think they just kind of, they kind of understand us. They can, they have a similar national story. They come from the same root populations and so because of that ethnic connection, I think they can kind of understand where Australians are coming from, generally.

 

Blair Cottrell: Would you agree they’re very sensible people. Canadians always seem to be well spoken, I mean it’s not always going to be the case. It’s going to be outliers. But all the Canadians that I know of, they’re well spoken, presentable, sensible, intelligent people. They’re always easy to respect.

 

76 Canadians and Scandinavians Are Too “Nice”. It’s Time to Get Savage

top

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, well, I mean, you’ve kind of blown smoke up their arse a little bit now. They’re all right, they’re okay. They’re ookayy! Or whatever the fuck they say. I wish Canadians said “cunt” more! That’s my main critique of Canadians. I think there’s not enough vulgarity, not enough aggression. They’re too nice! It offends me as an Australian a little bit.

 

You know you see them, they got ice hockey going on, an aggressive national sport. If you look at their history, they’ve been great, they’ve got an incredible military history. They’re savages in their military history. Great, great victories in battle over the decades. So they’re obviously like, tough.

 

So I feel like they’re almost too nice. They’re kind of, almost like they let themselves be taken advantage of its like the great shame. Like it’s similar with Scandinavians, Scandinavians are so nice. And it’s a beautiful thing because that makes for a great society because if they’re living in a society full of their own kin, that pleasant nature, is fantastic!

 

But then under the current situation, it’s like, time to get mean! It’s time to get savage!

 

[2:22:57]

 

 

Blair Cottrell: You know, we must glorify hostility to outsiders. Hostility to outsiders must become a noble virtue, one expected of all of our kin.

 

Joel Davis: Mhm. Yes, it’s time to get mean Canadians! But Australia, I mean our issue is not so much that we’re too nice, it’s more that we’re too apathetic. We don’t care enough. That’s our problem, I think.

 

77 Superchat – Tips for Educating the Ladies on Our Politics?

top

 

Blair Cottrell: Too cynical as well. Most Aussies think:

 

“It’s all going to go to shit anyway. And yeah nothing ever changes, so why bother?”

 

There’s a bit of cynicism there. But Aaron, 32, just sent through 10 bucks and he asked an interesting question. Joel, he asks:

 

“Any tips for educating the ladies on our politics? HH!”

 

I’m of the opinion you can’t really or shouldn’t bother too much. How should I phrase this? I found there’s no real use ranting about politics or trying to educate any woman on your political views. I mean, you can talk to a woman about politics if she really wants to talk about that. But generally speaking, it’s better to just lead by example. It’s better to take care of yourself, demonstrate that you can take care of yourself, be in good health, be smart, be able to provide something of value to the woman that she can see value in. I don’t know, it’s like I’ve never really seen much point in talking to women about politics, put it that way. It’s like not something that I’ve done a great deal because I see that they’re just not that interested. They’re usually interested in talking about other things.

 

And I talk about, think about politics all the time. It’s like I’m always inside my own head about it. And I network with and deal with people for political purposes all the time as well. It’s probably my primary interest still in life. And so at the end of the day, I don’t want to go home and sit with my girlfriend and talk about politics as well. I want to remove myself from that world. And I see women as being kind of outside of the world of politics. Almost like a period of relief from politics. That’s how I feel about it. What do you reckon?

 

Joel Davis: Personally, I never stop talking about the subjects that matter to me. So women are subjected to those same subjects. And usually if a woman likes me, then they want to hear about it anyway because they just kind of like hearing you mansplain. But it’s a distinction, I guess, between talking to women who don’t already like, want to have sex with you or are having sex with you, and talking like general women in the community. Because if a woman is into you, then she’ll just kind of go along like she’s probably go along with having a discussion about whatever you want to talk about because obviously you’ve got a close relationship. So I don’t think you really need advice on that. Just like, just talk about what you think.

 

But when it comes to general women, like out in the community, I think women respond better to putting things in the language of care. So talk about you know, talk about kind of like the Righteous reasons why certain people you care about are getting fucking over. Whether it be your family’s future, whether it be victims of immigrant crime, whatever, White people collectively, whatever. And talk about how you care about these groups and how that’s what motivates you and so on. I think that can bring you come across a lot more sympathetically and I think put it to them. If they challenge you, say:

 

“What about what this person has suffered? Or what about this group of people? Don’t they deserve this? Don’t they deserve that?”

 

Usually this kind of framing is more persuasive, I think, to the feminine psyche. Because the feminine psyche processes, you know, social realities more through that prism than maybe how you would talk about it with men. So I don’t know. That’s based my basic take. I mean, it’s kind of obvious, right? But it’s true.

 

Blair Cottrell: A woman just needs to be ethnically aware. Ethnically aware is kind of like bare minimum. If a woman is not ethnically aware, at least, it’s like I can’t even be bothered. I can’t be bothered even having a conversation with her about anything. Because women should have good instincts. It’s of the female nature to be in tune with one’s instinct rather than be intellectualising everything and being sort of consciously processing what they’re observing through their senses. Women are very instinctual creatures. And if a woman can’t even be in touch with their own ethnic identity. If she can’t even acknowledge it or feel connected to that, then it’s like too far gone, man! [chuckling] I just can’t deal with that.

 

Joel Davis: So I think women are also receptive to when, if you talk about like the issues with race mixing and like the desire to have children that, maintain your ancestry and that have certain traits that you have or that your family has, …

 

[2:28:21]

 

Blair Cottrell: Even the anti-racist ones, even the woman women who masquerade as anti-racists, as soon as you bring up the inheritance of certain ethnic traits that they possess, like they’re always very interested in children looking like them. Usually they’re interested in passing on their blue eyes or their blond hair. They want to do that! Which just goes to show their instinct always trumps whatever they say they believe, which is what I was trying to get at before. The words women speak is never as powerful or as effective or influential over their actions as their instinct.

 

78 Superchat – My Lefty Girlfriend Told Me That She Hates Jews

top

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, no, I mean that’s definitely the case.

 

Anyway, Rigo Weber said:

 

“I just told my girlfriend that I’m currently looking into the true history of Hitler and the jews. And to my surprise, she told me that she hates jews. I found this surprising. And she’s always been a real Lefty.”

 

Well it’s not that surprising that Lefties are developing anti-semitic attitudes. I mean, generally Lefties they hate Israel. If they hate capitalism, they probably have noticed that a lot of these capitalists are jewish. There’s something jewish about capitalism, about international finance, etc.

 

So yeah, there’s certain demographics of people where it’s easier to talk to them about jews than it is to talk to them about race. And there’s other demographics where it’s easier to talk to them about race than about jews. And usually people that are more conservative, it’s easier to get to talk to them about race than it is about jews. And it’s easier inverse of people that are more of a Left-wing bias.

 

So yeah, that doesn’t surprise me. But yeah, I mean, if it’s your girlfriend, she’s gonna, even if she doesn’t agree with you, she’s gonna be open with you and like, she’s gonna trust you enough to say things that she wouldn’t say in polite company. Or she’ll like, hear you out, obviously, so you can be a lot more frank. You shouldn’t be afraid of being able to talk about how you really feel with your own girlfriend. That’s kind of fucked up!

 

79 Blair and Joel’s Interactions with Women

top

 

Blair Cottrell: I’ve never known a girl who’s like, strongly disagreed with me on anything. I’ve never been in an interaction with a female where we’ve argued about something like some social ideal, political idea, philosophy, nothing! I think when women like you, they tend to be more accepting of whatever it is you’re saying. They mimic your ideas. It’s always been really difficult for me to actually argue with a woman. I don’t even want to! Maybe that’s why. I don’t know.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, I mean, I don’t know. I think usually I’ve always dated women who have similar political proclivities. Like, may not be like full Nazis or whatever, but they’ve always been pretty, like, Right-wing and so haven’t been offended by my views on things and then being exposed to me. Anyone who’s exposed to me on a long enough timeline basically becomes a Nazi.

 

So, yeah, whether I’m having sex or not.

 

Blair Cottrell: Have you ever just asked people basic questions and watch them become frustrated by actually thinking about the answer to your question and realising how stupid it sounds?

 

Like, for example, you might be talking to some girl and she’s trying to tell you about how climate change is going to destroy the world or something. And you’ll ask her a simple question like:

 

“Okay, where did you get that information?”

 

And she’d be like:

 

“Oh, well, I was in university and this, like Professor told me.”

 

Or as part of some course or something like that. Okay:

 

“Well, where did that information come from, though? Where did they get it from?”

 

And they don’t actually, a lot of the time, like, as you just develop that line of questioning they get frustrated because they realise that it’s actually unreasonable to believe what they believe based on the sources that have, like, pass down that information to them because they can’t actually verify the sources. And by just asking them to explore those sources for a moment, they become visibly frustrated. Have you experienced that?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. Like, so usually what has happened when I’ve been in social situations where there’s like, Leftist women, is they just kind of like start crying and then go to the bathroom or something. Or just basically act like as if I just did this horrible thing to them and then try and like act like a victim and then hope that someone like cucks out and sympathises with them because they’re not equipped to actually engage me in debate or critical discussion. That’s pretty much what happens every single time. So I think I have intimidating aura when it comes to debating. People don’t really like debating me.

 

Blair Cottrell: Oh yeah! [chuckling]

 

Joel Davis: I don’t get people who are like political to debate me at this point. Like no one wants to debate me, so.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, everyone has their strengths and yours is arguing a point. And you know any person in touch with some semblance of common sense knows that there are some armies not to engage, there are some battles not to fight.

 

And one of the battles not to fight in my opinion is entering into open debate with Joel Davis! [chuckling] Yeah, everyone’s good at something.

 

Joel Davis: Anyway, we’ve been going for two and a half hours.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, yeah.

 

80 Update on Tom Sewell’s Court Case – Prosecution Will Drop Case If Doesn’t Claim Legal Fees

top

 

Joel Davis: I hope everyone enjoyed the show. Like I said, Monday night our time late Monday night I’ll do a one off stream with Thomas777. By the way, update. Tom Sewell he had caught this week on Thursday another pre-trial conference, and it got basically adjourned for another week. Because basically what happened is that the prosecution offered to drop the charges against Tom if he wouldn’t pursue them for legal costs. So they were like we wouldn’t want to pay your lawyer fees for all us dicking you around for the last four months but we’re willing to drop the charge. Meaning like obviously he didn’t do it. And, he was like:

 

“No, you’re going to pay my legal fees, or you can’t like drop the charge, make me pay lawyer fees and then not front up for it.”

 

And so now the prosecution needs another week apparently to figure out whether it wants to pay his legal fees or not so what a joke, the legal process can be! But hopefully that resolves itself soon and we’ll have Tom on the show again soon.

 

81 Jacob Hersant Has Court Re Appealing His Roman Salute Sentence

top

 

Also Jacob Hersant has court this week. I can’t remember which day. Do you remember the dates?

 

[2:35:41]

 

Blair Cottrell: What dates?

 

Joel Davis: Hersant has court next week.

 

Blair Cottrell: I thought you were going to say has “caught something”. Not has like “court”, legal.

 

Joel Davis: No, no, no, no! He was sentenced to one month in prison for the Roman salute but then appealed it to the county court. The county court is going to conduct the trial this coming week.

 

Blair Cottrell: I don’t know.

 

Joel Davis: I think it might come on the 10th, but we’ll update you.

 

Blair Cottrell: I don’t know, you’ll have to ask him.

 

Joel Davis: I’m going to go down there, at least one of the days, it’s like a three day trial, so I’m probably not going to sit through all three days of the trial. But I’m going to go down there and suss out what’s going on and give Jacob some support. And, we’ll cover it and we’ll report to you what’s happening. So that should be interesting if he wins or not. Obviously it’s a constitutional case as well. So that makes it doubly interesting. It’s challenging the Constitutionality of the act itself.

 

So that’s all happening this week. So there’s going to be some interesting kind of legal wranglings through next week for Tom and Jacob. And we’ll, yeah, probably cover that next week on the show. Plus whatever else is going down. There’s always something interesting. It never stops.

 

Thank God! We continuously make news because there really isn’t that much news in Australian politics.

 

Blair Cottrell: You imagine how boring, …

 

Joel Davis: Imagine if we had to log in and talk about how:

 

“Oh, Gerard Rennick was talking shit about Pauline Hanson on Twitter this week. Oh, wow!”

 

Blair Cottrell: How boring would Australian politics be if there was no NSN [National Socialist Network]? There’s been nothing happening! You just have your Sky News shills. I don’t even want to imagine it. I’m thankful for the current political situation, for you guys doing what you do. It makes things very interesting. Keeps pushing boundaries, which I’ve always been sympathetic to that kind of activity. Yeah.

 

Thanks for joining us guys. It’s been a cosy night. It’s been a good stream. We’ve gone for a little longer than we usually do, and I guess we’ll see you guys next week, right?

 

Is there anything else, Joel, before we finish up?

 

82 On the Physical Characteristics of Some Nationalists

top

 

Joel Davis: No. I see people are arguing in the chat. Megawatts says:

 

“I’m 190 centimetres built built beast. But I don’t seem like it from the face.”

 

But then Skinhead Friend said:

 

“I’m only three metres tall. So it’s like the opposite of an Anglo king you see, on the battlefield, Joel is taller IRL than in lore.”

 

Anyway, it’s kind of humourous, it’s ambiguous.

 

Blair Cottrell: Joel’s this weird blend between nerd and Chad, I don’t know, he’s like multifaceted, personality. But you get some of those. I’ve always noticed that whenever you get, any sort of character in politics which becomes prominent for whatever reason, they sometimes a blend of several different stereotypes. They never kind of, they’re never one dimensional and there’s something to be said for that.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, I feel like most, it’s interesting too. Like most nationalists, prominent nationalists are usually pretty tall. Like Keith Woods is like six-five. You’re like six-four. I know Ferryman from Canada is like six-four. Hersant and myself are pretty tall. We’re over six, well over six foot. Tom Sewell’s the only prominent [chuckling] I could think of actually he’s under six foot, but he makes up for it because he could probably bash all of us! So that’s the thing, like you know.

 

Blair Cottrell: Everyone thinks Tom’s short.

 

Joel Davis: But it’s just like all these mates are too tall! It’s just kind of not fair really. He’s like normal size.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s one of the things. But he also has like it’s the way he’s built because he’s so compact and like square built, strong shoulders, strong legs and shit! I think because he has the long torso, like if Tom and I sit next to each other, he literally looks taller than me because he’s got like a long torso and he sits upright, he’s got good posture. Whereas I slouch and all my height is in my legs. If I sit down I look shorter than him. So it’s a weird sort of aesthetic thing where, …

 

Joel Davis: He’s not such a good squat because he’s got those squatter’s legs.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, he’s got like the most perfect squat I’ve ever seen! So I don’t know, everyone’s got their strengths.

 

But yeah, I suppose we’ll see you guys next week. We’ll wrap it up there. I need to go to the bathroom.

 

Joel Davis: White power! Blood and honour! Hail Hitler! It’s all happening.

 

Blair Cottrell: See you guys.

 

 

[2:40:27]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 6/15/2025 = 43)

johnnyboy2324
Supporter
3 days ago
the succulent meal guy, recently did an interview and admitted that he was robbing safes. he just got out of prison
0 likes

Report
ArchipelagoWoes
Supporter+
4 days ago
I know a couple Davis’s here in Pennsylvania. Good people
0 likes

Report
MrAnglo
Supporter
5 days ago
Never Compromise and Cuck. That is your Tactic. End of Discussion.
0 likes

Report
katana17
5 days ago
[Joel Davis – Tactical N-Word – Jun 6, 2025 – Transcript] https://katana17.com/2025/06/08/joel-davis-tactical-n-word-jun-6-2025-transcript/ [In this livestream episode Aussie nationalist activists Joel Davis and Blair Cottrell discuss the tactical use of the N-word as used by NSN members in Melbourne with their Ban Niggers Not Machetes banner drop in front of a major shopping centre where Sudanese had engaged in a machete fight. See Table of Contents for points discussed. – KATANA]
01 Clip of Trump Using the N-Word
02 Trump vs Musk Feud
03 Clip of NSN Rally in Melbourne – Ban Niggers Not Machetes
04 Tactical Use of the N-Word, Pros and Cons
05 Why the Fuck Are There Africans in Australia!
06 Whites created the problems in the rest of the world through our expansionism and colonialism?
07 How Irish are you? Joel and Blair’s ancestry
08 DNA labs selling your data to interested parties
09 History of the name Davis
10 Davises in the US had slaves resulting in niggers having the name!
11 Whites, jews, blacks and the slave trade
12 Instagram and the very positive response to the Ban Niggers Not Machetes action
13 Discussion on the Effective Use of the N-Word and Media Response
14 Sudanese in Pakenham Attacking White High School Kids at Party
15 Machete Fight at Northland Shopping Centre
16 Magistrates in Victoria Are Being Trained in Diversity and Inclusion to Go Easy on Immigrants
17 The Problem of Anti-Racism Being Championed by Whites
(Cont’d)
[TRANSCRIPT – Words: 27,900 – Duration: 160 mins]
0 likes

FJB6666
5 days ago
Joel looks like a Sikh pajeet with that black beeny on.
0 likes

Report
cowolf
6 days ago
Speaking about the tactics. (I don’t know if you guys even read the comments here, never seen any response.) Sorry but I think you have to get rid of Hitler connotation (images, symbols, at least modify Roman salute), and this is from the supporter of the White cause, an European here. I haven’t seen any honest analysis of what Hitler actually did wrong. I mean, you have literally unlimited amount of material condemning Hitler and making him the greatest villain of all time (which he wasn’t, probably Stalin was) but it all comes from the Hitler’s enemies, it all comes from the WWII winners. What I want to hear is a reflection on Hitler’s mistakes from the Hitler’s supporters. And that is pretty obvious that you can’t go anywhere if you don’t know what went wrong in the first place and don’t want to repeat the mistakes. I watched the whole 12 hours of ‘Europa The Last Battle’ and while it is quite interesting there’s not a single word on what went wrong and why. For most of the countries of anti-German coalition of WWII Hitler will never be acceptable. You may not care that much but that’d be already the first problem: Whites need to learn how to make allies and how to support each other. So first of all, Hitler was not pro-White, he was only pro-German. That’s why he cannot be a unifying figure for all Whites. Every country Hitler attacked was at the time 100% White and nearly 100% Christian. Basically Germany didn’t kill a single non-white during the whole war, it was all White genocide. And tell me how can you blame everything on Jews then make ally with Soviet Union and bomb, burn and loot Poland? The biggest mistake Hitler did was to attack Poland, then it all went downhill. I am happy to hear any constructive opinions.
1 like

Report
‹ Hide 2 replies
CreateAnArmyToSaveWhites
6 days ago
I don’t know if it helps but WW2 was mostly about weakening Europe to then strengthen and later weaken the United States (ending segregation, making racism illegal, mass immigration, etc). Hitler could have kept his country on par with the United States without engaging in any war and could have kept his country purely white (if you consider the brown eye’d people white) but he didn’t. He decided to put it in harm’s way by attacking the entire White world FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON. Hitler’s people weren’t on the verge of becoming minorities like they are now.. (THANKS TO HITLER) You’d have to be foolish as hell to think Hitler cared about White people or Germany. You’d also have to be pretty dim to think Hitler didn’t massively assist the Jews with his rhetoric and acts against them. Israel was created not long after WW2. Any criticism of Jews or nonwhites in general is the most perceived evil thing anyone can do now thanks to Hitler. Whereas before, it was nothing but common sense to criticize and to attack one’s enemy. I also don’t think Stalin is as evil as Hitler because Stalin didn’t make White people evil by being racist and losing a war. Good luck in life fellow white.
1 like

Report
johnnyboy2324
Supporter
3 days ago
optics cuck. stop being a pussy.
0 likes

Report
‹ Hide 1 reply
cowolf
3 days ago
I asked specifically for ‘constructive opinions’ so get lost and stop being a low IQ retard.
0 likes

Report
BeornBeorning
6 days ago
Blair was talking about my brown college room mate. White people are stupid suckers handing out freebies to him.
0 likes

Report
predatorstomperrr
6 days ago
I’m an American white man and all my friends watch you while we watch ufc. Love you Joel! Don’t ever stop we cna win
0 likes

Report
007lyse
6 days ago
The parks r inaccessible BC we r all destined to 15 mins Eutopean cities where you will own nothing & be happy. If you leave more than you r allowed you will pay for it.
0 likes

Report
007lyse
6 days ago
When I worked with Redskins the conclusion I came to was they are embarrassed of their past. I saw more racism in nons all my life. Whites are hated BC they ARE superior.
1 like

Report
007lyse
6 days ago
Who owns Ayers Rock?
0 likes

Report
007lyse
6 days ago
Who misses military style education system? It’s the I’m ok ur ok bs ruining & satanizing society.
1 like

Report
007lyse
6 days ago
Just bought a cemetery plot where my great grandparents/grandparents/mother/sister are buried. All Catholics are buried there but BC the cemetery was turned over to township with woke employees it’s now a free for all like the ppl buried there have been excommunicated or something. My ancestors were the ones who had to hike in 10miles of bush with bags of flour on their backs to create farmland, roads & not mudhuts. Do you guys not know the PCR tests of last 4 yrs was taking everyone’s DNA to assess mRNA jabs while causing brain damage.
0 likes

Report
007lyse
6 days ago
The guys I follow are bent on dead weight lifting. I have a bunch of dead weights as friends. Lol Do you want them to lift BC I think it’s not being able to lift it’s about endurance. I was blessed to have the company of big strong guys on a 20km hike to have them barfing their under duress guts out all stressed/burnt out having the priest yelling “Just put one foot in front of the other” trying to avoid airlift out. I was 65 yo & could have redid the hike. Heard yrs later how it took a bunch of younger kids 3 days & 2 camping nites to do it. Lol. And boomers get constant lashings. I guess some yuppy boomers deserve it.
1 like

Report
Sinceresniper
6 days ago
Cottrell’s are also Jewish without being disrespectful to Blair.
0 likes

Report
Sinceresniper
6 days ago
The Normans fought a bigger battle in Durres Albania in 1081 against the Eastern Roman empire so Norman’s decendants are there also.
0 likes

Report
Nekropiate
6 days ago
Total support from the states!
0 likes

Report
Nekropiate
6 days ago
Total support from the states! WPWW o/ Hail Victory!
0 likes

Report
newgerman
6 days ago
ban nz not machetes…says it all in four words AAAAA+++++++
0 likes

Report
basedrespillzeus22
6 days ago
Great stream lads
0 likes

Report
GhostDogMan
Supporter++
1 week ago
lol. You guys are in Winter!! I just remember you are our Polar opposite brethren!
3 likes

Report
A655321
1 week ago
Blair, you don’t live in a traditional democracy anymore do you… Like my country you in a “Liberal democracy,” which exists to constrain the majority, turning the state into a referee for protected classes and global norms, rather than an instrument of national will. The government could care less if we are all replaced.
4 likes

Report
palacepony
Supporter
1 week ago
Pakenham was a beautiful area back in the Australian days. Ironically, it was a place the youth of old Melbourne would run to for sporting fun on the weekends.
1 like

Report
palacepony
Supporter
1 week ago
I wanna hear from the banner offended as their spleen is ruptured by a multiculturally enriched machete thrust.
1 like

Report
akdjfhgpjksdnkjnsdfg
1 week ago
I want to hear the NSN policies on the Covid jew-juice. Materialistic Jew-Pharma is going to ethnically cleanse us all, and a lot of people are angry and activated by the government policies. There is no pushback/accountability.
-1 likes

Report
mrwordsworth
1 week ago
it’s pronounced took
0 likes

Report
1488Brother
1 week ago
Yo four ads is crazy before I can get to a tactical N word.
0 likes

Report
Motion937
1 week ago
It isn’t a damn machete crisis. It is a niggerdom crisis. I need my machetes for clearing brush. I don’t need the negroes/Muslims. They provide no value to anyone.
21 likes

Report
Kroninn
Supporter
1 week ago
Exactly, Blair. Heat is for browns.
3 likes

Report
‹ Hide 1 reply
evon626
VerifiedSupporter++
1 week ago
TIL “caught” and “court” are homophones in Australian English. W North American English for clarity.
0 likes

Report
palacepony
Supporter
1 week ago
Trump/Elon distraction from real issue? – Mass surveillance/ PALANTIR Trump bill measures; https://youtu.be/Fg1JZDIconk?si=BGA8h
-1 likes

Report
› Show 1 reply
ProvingNihil
1 week ago
Yeah my Nationalist account on IG was banned, hell also I was private.
1 like

Report
evon626
VerifiedSupporter++
1 week ago
TIL about KIN-dness.
-1 likes

Report
BlueNorth88
1 week ago
About censorship also, it can give content creators a kind of glamour. Look how Tommy and others milk it to death when it happens. Also the guys that follow to any smaller platform and remain loyal are true followers.
1 like

Report
EarthlingCarl
1 week ago
Blacks in London, Detroit and now Melbourne, all with the same result. Almost like race is the problem and Magic Soil is a myth.
11 likes

Report
› Show 1 reply
EarthlingCarl
1 week ago
Why has Blair got a tea cosy on his head? lol
4 likes

Report
› Show 1 reply
Otoya_Yamaguchi_G00k
1 week ago
Australia was invented and built by Europeans for Europeans only. https://odysee.com/@joeldavis:0/the-white-australia-policy-%28feat.:6
9 likes

Report
katana17
1 week ago
[Joel Davis – Symbolic Victory – May 30, 2025 – Transcript] https://katana17.com/2025/06/02/joel-davis-symbolic-victory-may-30-2025-transcript/ [In this livestream episode Aussie nationalist activists Joel Davis and Blair Cottrell discuss the following: 1. The show is resuming after a break, with the hosts discussing recent events.
2. Joel Davis mentions no longer having “onerous bail conditions”.
3. They discuss weightlifting and an upcoming competition.
4. Joel aims for a 220kg deadlift: “That’s my ideal. If I can hit 220 at nationals, I’ll be ecstatic!”
5. They discuss the challenges of heavy lifting and potential injuries.
6. They talk about a recent court appearance in Adelaide.
7. Joel describes interactions with journalists: “And these journalists, they’re all women. Sometimes in Melbourne, you get these really, like, soy, Lefty, ugly journalists.”
8. They discuss how charges against them are being dropped.
9. Joel criticises the police: “The South Australia Police are a bunch of scumbags!”
10. They discuss African gang violence in Australia.
11. Joel says: “Basically the only thing holding together our society right now is White guys who train because police don’t actually do anything at this point.”
12. They discuss the concept of “Anarcho Tyranny”.
13. Joel talks about attending an event at New South Wales Parliament.
14. They discuss the concept of Universal vs. Particular in philosophy and politics.
15. Joel says: “Until we can go back and say what the Nazi, like the kind of so-called “Nazi” coded what they asserted, that a particular nation can just be itself and assert itself on its own terms.”
16. They discuss the importance of asserting White Identity.
17. Joel criticises the Right-wing for constantly “cucking” to the morality of their enemies. (Cont’d)
1 like

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

See Also

top

 

 

 

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

Joel Davis: Welcome to the show tonight. [14th of November, 2024] Neither Tom nor Blair are here yet. Blair said he was going to be late. I don’t know exactly what’s happening with Tom. I think he’ll be on in a second.

 

But as you can see here I’ve got the “Your Body My Choice” T-shirt on in solidarity with Nick Fuentes’s total beatdown of the BPD jewish feminist that came to his house. Apparently the pepper spray that he sprayed in this crazy bitch’s face was kind of weak.

 

So, that’s what she said. So maybe he needs to get a better brand of pepper spray. Maybe he could ask Victoria Police for some advice?

 

But, you know, nevertheless, it was pretty funny. So anyway, I thought I’d wear the gimmick shirt. But hey, anyway, how you guys going this evening? Welcome to the show. Like I said the boys will be on shortly. I think Tom will be on any second now, and then Blair will be on a bit later. And there’s a few things I wanted to get into, probably when at least have one of them to join me.

 

So let me see, someone said here in the chat, by the way:

 

“Why do Nazis need to necessarily control women?”

 

It’s about abortion.

 

I mean, thing about the abortion thing is, abortion’s disgusting, but at the same time, I don’t think it should be the priority like in our politics, like in particular in America. I mean, quite frankly, you know, abortion is disproportionately performed by blacks, and it kind of culls the black population in a certain way.

 

Now, it’s pretty distasteful in a purely White, ethno-state, virtuous society, I don’t think we should really be having abortion. But is it really the priority? Like, should we be going after abortion first before we fix immigration, before we re-establish White rule? I don’t think so. I think it’s a very low priority.

 

But it’s funny! It was funny in the aftermath of the American election to see all these fat communist women, libtard women, proclaiming that they were not going to have sex with any man for the entirety of the Trump administration. Like as if the dudes were just lining up to slam these land whales! I found it quite humorous. It’s just a bit of a joke.

 

Anyway, it’s a bit of fun.

 

So here’s a story that I want to talk about actually, because it’s actually got an interesting context. I spoke to the editor over at The Noticer about this. So this is a story that was published today:

 

“Students punished for calling ‘trans’ teacher ‘sir’ at a high school taken over by radical gender ideology.”

 

Now this is from Richmond High School in, it’s in Greater Sydney. If you know Sydney, you know Richmond. It’s not the Richmond in Melbourne, it’s the Richmond in Sydney. But apparently one of the teachers there has turned out, has become a so-called “transformer”, if you will, is wearing a, … It’s a dude in a dress, right? It’s a dude in a dress. Some freak in a dress.

 

Anyway, so he’s obviously been demanding that the students all refer to him by the correct pronouns. And you know, as you can imagine there’s a lot of young boys there that aren’t going to vibe with that. So they’re refusing to go along with that. And they’re getting pulled before the principal’s office and so on and threatened with expulsion from this high school just because they won’t call the teacher Ms instead of Mrs. Sorry, Ms instead of Mr or Sir. I’ll read some of the article here, actually:

 

“Photos provided to Noticer News by students at Richmond High School northwest of Sydney show far-Left transgender propaganda posters produced by LGBT Youth advocacy group Minus 18 placed around the school. The teenagers said that pins promoting so-called transgenderism have also been handed out to teachers to wear and they’ve been threatened with suspension for complaining about the posters despite 80% of the student body being opposed to pro-LGBT material being put on display at their school. One of the large posters says: ‘All genders, identities, expressions, pronouns welcome here’ while another titled ‘Your identity is awesome’ provides unscientific radical Leftist definitions of so-called ‘LGBTQIAs identities.’”

 

You know, as you can see here in this image. A quote from one of the students.

 

“It seems as if the entire school has changed within the last year and the community is very unhappy about this,’ a student told Noticer News, adding that many of his peers and teachers were upset about having ‘views forced on [them] that they don’t agree with’.”

 

So apparently, by the way, according to the editor at Noticer News, the students at the school were advised by one of their teachers, I guess, who they trust, to reach out to Noticer News and provide these quotes. So obviously we’ve got some White nationalists, perhaps of some description that are embedded within the school there. So that’s pretty cool! A bit of a culture war brewing:

 

“The student says that changes began when a male teacher quote came out as trans and administrators began to threaten students for using the wrong pronouns. And now it felt like the whole school had been quote, ‘taken over’. To quote the student in September, ‘I greeted the teacher who I knew before he started to claim to be a woman with ‘Good day, sir’, which seems like a normal thing to say straight after, you know, he gets pulled out of class and reprimanded, etc.”

 

But threatened, not just with threatened to be expelled from the entire high school because he won’t go along with his nonsense! And yeah, just as you can see, predictable shit like the school just trying to force this nonsense down their throat.

 

Anyway, this is a Noticer News exclusive, so I thought bring attention to it. It is quite interesting, like a little bit of culture war playing out at an Australian high school.

 

[07:50]

 

Also a couple hours ago I replied to Senator Malcolm Roberts on Twitter. You know, I do make a habit of kind of trying to be part of the conversation with a lot of these politicians, particularly the ones that are the so-called, you know, Right-wing, our guys. Not really, but you know, the so-called our guys.

 

And anyway, I just left some, … Let me read out my response actually, because it is kind of interesting because he reacted to me and agreed with what I said. So people say:

 

“Ah this vote harder ism is the problem, you know, National Socialism or nothing!”

 

And obviously I agree with that principle. Obviously I agree with that principle.

 

But when it comes to injecting ourselves into the political conversation, sometimes you have to engage with it with a certain amount of good faith. And so we don’t have anyone running in the next election. As I’ve said we would. Our ambition is to have people running the election after the federal, not the next federal election, which will be, I think they’re saying, between March and May next year, the Australian election. It’s too soon for us to do it properly. We could do it, but we wouldn’t be able to do it properly.

 

Whereas if we wait till the next cycle, I think we can do it properly. But until we have our guys running in the election, well, what are we supposed to do? Just sit it out or try and engage with it in some way? Try and move the origin window, try and have an impact.

 

And so the two kind of parties that are to the right of the Liberal Party, which obviously I think are going to win the election, but obviously we’re not satisfied with. We’re not satisfied with the Liberal Party that are cuckservatives in every way shape and form, barely indistinguishable from the Left, frankly. But the two options therefore really at the national level is One Nation and the Libertarians. And they’ve both got problems, the Libertarians, well, their problem is that they’re libertarians so they’re not nationalists. They do have a lot of good policies on many issues though. They’re pretty solid on free speech and gun rights and so on. But to be fair, so are One Nation. They don’t seem to do the Zionist thing. I haven’t really heard the Libertarian Party say much about that either way. They just seem to avoid the subject.

 

I saw John Ruddick, the elected representative in New South Wales, get interviewed by a nationalist, which I mentioned on the show a couple weeks ago, I think, and he basically stated that he supports in Australia First, you know, foreign policy where we don’t meddle in the affairs of faraway countries. Explicitly called out, I think the Iraq war as something that he was opposed to. So that was a pretty good sign.

 

However, when it came, when it comes to One Nation we see Pauline Hanson, you know, bending over backwards to prostrate herself before the Zionist lobby and prove how pro-Israel she is. And, it’s pretty disgusting! But we’re not America. So it’s a bit less of an issue here than in America, where America, it’s very decisive because ultimately that’s where the decisions get made around that kind of thing and we just kind of get dragged along with the Americans.

 

So that’s a win for the Libertarian Party.

 

But then on immigration, traditionally you would think One Nation would have a better immigration policy and that’s the most important policy. So you would think you would lean more towards one nation. But John Ruddick said in that interview also that the Libertarians would support a five year immigration moratorium, meaning five years, complete shut borders, no one coming in for five years. I’m sure there might be some exceptions to that I don’t know, marriage visas or something like that, but basically shut the borders. And that’s more radical than the One Nation proposal, which is Net Zero, meaning we only let in the amount of people that we let out, which is about. Or that leave. It’s not about let out. Obviously you’re free to leave. So it’s about 70,000, I think, a year leave Australia and move to another country.

 

And so that way, like there would be basically one in, one out policy, which obviously is a lot better than the one that we currently have, but it’s still not exactly good enough because some of those ones out are going to be White and some of those ones in are going to be brown. So that’s not ideal. Right. If it was one in, one out, but they had to be White, then that’s a great policy. But they didn’t have any stipulations like they have to come from a Western country or anything like that.

 

So if they change the policy to something like that, obviously I’d be more supportive.

 

[12:44]

 

But, you know, neither of them are talking about sending the people back that are already here. You know, you’ve got, I think, 2.4 million people living in Australia on temporary visas, meaning they aren’t permanent residents, they aren’t citizens, they’re on some kind of classification of temporary visa. And a massive portion of that, I think about a million almost, are on student visas, which is just ridiculous! Particularly considering that we’re in a housing crisis. The university system is basically a giant rort.

 

Like a lot of these international students, they aren’t really students, they just sign up to some educational institution in order to get the visa, then don’t really study and they’re just like some Indian that comes in and then goes and starts driving Uber, eats and then tries to use that as a way to stay in the country.

 

Also, there’s hundreds of thousands of people in Australia estimated to be overstaying their visa, so they’re technically illegal immigrants. So they all need to be round up and deported.

 

Then you’ve got a million people here on student visas. Frankly, they should all just be cancelled and all sent back and not renewed and they shouldn’t be extended to anyone else. If you did that immediately, you’re sending, you know, one point something million, mostly brown people back out of Australia. The housing crisis would reset, wages would start growing, rents would start coming down. It would be a massive relief economically to the average Australian’s quality of life. But also the demographics of the country would improve. A lot of brown faces would be saying:

 

“See you later.”

 

So that’s something that I would support, but no one’s talking about it.

 

Obviously the Liberal Party must be getting funded in some way by lobby groups. We know for a fact that they’re getting funded by the property lobby that benefits from this policy. We know that they’re getting funded by the financial lobby which benefits from basically increasing property prices because everyone has to go and get a mortgage that’s even bigger to be able to buy a house. So that benefits the financial services industry. And then also big business corporate lobbyists also like immigration because it drives down the cost of wages.

 

So they’re all funding the Liberal Party campaign which is why they’ll try and act like they’re strong on immigration. But if you look at what they’ve actually concretely promised, I think it’s something like a 25% reduction on the already ridiculous record breaking immigration levels under Labor, which are more than double what they were under the previous Liberal government.

 

So what the Liberals are basically promising is not even to go back to the immigration levels under them before Covid when the last Liberal government was in charge and we had like a normal, like the pre-Covid because obviously during Covid the borders were shut and so that did reduce immigration.

 

But it wasn’t because, immigration wasn’t reduced because of as a policy, it was just a temporary thing because of Covid.

 

So they’re not even promising to go back to that. They’re saying we’ll go down 25% so they’re still going to be way above where they were before, and that’s what they’re promising. Will they actually deliver that? I don’t actually have faith in the Liberal Party to deliver that. Like the Labor government promised to reduce it even more than that and did the opposite.

 

So how can you trust either of these scumbags? You know, you just can’t!

 

So the Liberals basically are going to do nothing about immigration, more or less. We might as well just write it off entirely. They need to be pressured from the Right and obviously their policies are better. These are the kind of smaller Right-wing parties which between them will get if they campaign well, 15% of the vote between them I would predict if they campaign well.

 

So it’s a serious amount and the Liberals are probably going to win the election and there’s going to be a balance of power in the Senate that these smaller Right-wing parties might control. Very likely they could control.

 

So if they control that balance of power in the Senate then they’re going to have some leverage. So it is kind of relevant and important, like what their policies are, not just for, like the metapolitics of how they pressure the system, but also they have some leverage potentially and over the next government that they could exercise. Like the Greens exercise their leverage over the Labor government in a similar way to get a few concessions.

 

So, yeah, that means that if they want my endorsement and my endorsement obviously counts for something, then they’re going to have to try and win my endorsement. There’s a competition. And that’s how everyone needs to kind of play it. Like, in my opinion, as a movement, we say:

 

“Look, win us over. What we care about is immigration. Whoever’s going to go out there and fight hardest on immigration, you know, you’ll get our votes. And if no one fights on immigration, we’ll just sit out the election entirely. And if you both fight, we’ll try and pick the one that fights harder and gives us more.”

 

That’s a smart, transactional way of approaching this kind of thing. So that’s my approach.

 

I don’t actually anticipate that they’re going to give us very much at all! So I’m probably going to sit out the election entirely. But there’s a, you know, I’ll flirt with it, I’ll flirt with it. I’ll dance with the, with the, these politicians and we’ll see what they give us. If they just give us crumbs, they can go fuck themselves, if they want to give us something concrete, …

 

[18:12]

 

But anyway. So I responded to Malcolm Roberts and let me just pull it up so I can get up exactly what the conversation was. So he made a tweet which was:

 

“Albanese has let 393, 874 migrants arrive in Australia to September this year. This is the largest amount of arrivals for the first nine months of a year ever! This is why you can’t afford a house or find a rental!”

 

I mean, yeah, that’s true. I responded saying:

 

“You’re right to attack the government, but you should also be attacking the Liberals harder. They aren’t proposing anything close to the scale of immigration cuts necessary and they aren’t proposing the temporary Visa cancellations and deportations we badly need. Push harder, Malcolm!”

 

I really detest Pauline Hanson. Roberts does seem a bit better than her. I’m not saying I’m a Malcolm Roberts fan. You know, I’m not voting for it. I can’t vote for him anyway, I’m not from Queensland. But he does seem to be better, the better one in the party. Anyway, he responded saying:

 

“Agreed, Dutton has proposed a minor change to permanent visas per year. He has said nothing about temporary NOM which is adding to the 2.5 million TPV already in the country every year.”

 

TPV obviously is Temporary Visa holders. No, I’m obviously, I don’t know what that acronym means, but obviously has something to do with ones that are being proposed to issue in the future.

 

Anyway, it was a good response. So I said:

 

“Anti-immigration sentiment is the main reason why Aussies vote one nation. That’s just true. And you should be taking more votes of the Liberals than you currently are.”

 

Also true. I criticise them. You know, in the Queensland election they barely attacked the Liberals, they are attacking Labor and I understand that Labor is in government but frankly One Nation is competing with the Liberals for the Right-wing vote. They might get some votes off the Labor Party but they’re generally competing with the Liberals for voters.

 

So yeah, fine, attack Labor but you need to attack the Liberals just as hard, if not harder. And the fact that they don’t, it’s fundamentally suspect.

 

Which is why I speculated like are they a Liberal Party op? Do they exist as just like an extra wing of the Liberal Party to feed preferences into the Liberal Party? It’s entirely possible. Because obviously the way that preferential voting works in this country is that if you, because we have the temporary runoff system.

 

So if you have an electorate and say you’ve got like five candidates, well, the candidates that come first and second, if neither of them get 50% then the preferences from the candidates that get less votes filter into one or the other of the candidates depending on which one is preferenced higher or lower and then that ultimately produces the result. So One Nation feeds a lot of preferences into the Liberal Party, frankly.

 

And so they basically help the Liberals get elected. And Pauline Hanson came out and celebrated Liberals getting elected more or less, like in an indirect way immediately after the election.

 

But anyway, as I said here:

 

“And if you would make attacking their piss-weak policies on immigration and the student and family visa rorts your campaign focus, you would be taking more votes.”

 

So that’s just true.

 

So let’s see if he takes it to heart if they start going hard or if he starts going hard on student visas. And the family visa rort thing is also a thing like one jeet will get a visa whether they be a Refugee or some kind of working visa or whatever. And then they’ll drag in their parents not just the wife and kids, but their parents, their et cetera. And then all of a sudden, brothers, sisters, whatever. And all of a sudden we have this giant like family of jeets for like one guy. They say:

 

“Oh, we need to get more engineers into the country. Here’s one jeet that got a bullshit engineering degree from some bullshit like Indian university that probably can’t even do his job properly. This is going to help the economy so much and the country so much. We’ve got to get him in. So let’s get it. Bring him in!”

 

And then he brings his like retired Boomer Indian parents over who then just sit on Centrelink and collect benefits and collect Medicare and so on. And then brings in all these children who need to then go through our school system and so on. So then taxpayers just have to like dump hundreds of thousands of dollars a year onto this family of like parasites, which is probably more than the guy is even earning as a wage. And this is benefiting us how? This is contributing to our economy, how?

 

The whole thing is fucking ridiculous!

 

But yeah, so anyway, it was nice that he responded. I mean, Craig Kelly has responded to me before, but it was like an argument about race realism. But it’s good when the politicians respond. I do appreciate it. Even if they want to argue, at least have a conversation because yeah, frankly, a lot of the political, …

 

Like this week, two different journalists, one from Channel 7 and one from the ABC, contacted me to interview me and then pulled out when I agreed to it. And this has happened with many other journalists from others, whether it be newspapers or television channels or whatever, some even from overseas. So many times. I don’t think it’s the journalists themselves. I think what happens is that like maybe a journalist that’s like a low Ranking journalist goes:

 

“Well this is interesting look at what all these Nazis are doing.”

 

Then obviously not supportive. Like usually the journalists that contact me aren’t even White. They’ll go:

 

“Oh, this is interesting, an interesting story.”

 

And they probably want to write a hit piece like attacking me in some way. But I’ll agree to it, you know, I’ll give comment, why not? Let’s get some exposure.

 

[24:22]

 

And then they obviously put it before the editors and is like:

 

“Oh, here’s my idea, I’m going to go and interview Joel Davis or whatever.”

 

And they’re like:

 

“No, fuck!”

 

Like, they just like pull the pin. So that’s the strategy and it’s the strategy of a lot of people in Australian politics is to run away from having a discussion, or a disagreement or an argument, or a debate with me. Many run, few will front up.

 

That’s one good thing about Drew Pavlou. At least Drew Pavlou will have a debate. Like Drew Pavlou, he has this kind of weird ego complex where he won’t block anyone on Twitter and he’ll show up and like debate on the Elijah Schaffer show and everything and get embarrassed in front of hundreds of thousands of people. Not many other people in Australian politics will do that. So I like that about Drew. Like he’s so narcissistic that he ends up being useful.

 

But yeah, I highly doubt many other figures in Australian politics have the minerals to front up and debate me for two hours. I really do, because I’d smoke them! And they’re obviously intimidated. And that’s obviously one of the reasons why the journalists suppress any kind of interviews of me or whatever as well. Because they don’t want to have competent, … They do it to the other guys in the organisation as well. They don’t want us to have competent reply. They always want to frame it as just like a hit piece, take our comments, you know, out of context.

 

There’s been times where my comments have made the media when I’ve been in public at some event and then the media has interviewed me and they’ve played it on television or they’ve put it in a news article. But generally speaking, like whenever it’s planned and they have time to think about it, they always just, … It gets kiboshed. You know, the, like ZOG [Zionist Occupied Government] comes in is like:

 

“No, you can’t publish those quotes!”

 

So anyway, my point is its nice to be in the conversation as much as possible because it adds legitimacy and fundamentally my views are very reasonable. My views are more reasonable than pretty much all of the mainstream politicians. They just never get subjected to the right kinds of critical scrutiny.

 

Another issue in Australian politics that has been interesting. I’ll cycle through this as well before Tom gets here because he’ll be here soon.

 

Another issue in Australian politics recently which has been a positive development is, and we talked about this on the show last year a lot. There’s been a lot of discussion about it online recently because it’s been going through the Parliament. It’s the so-called Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, also known as the MAD Bill, which is a good name. And the bill, if you don’t know about it, basically what the Bill is, it enables a department within the Australian government called ACMA*, which is like the Department of Communications, basically to have authority over the regulatory practises of social media companies to basically impose their regulatory standards. So to be able to go to Twitter and Facebook and Instagram and so on, and say “this kind of discussion can’t be allowed on your platform”.

 

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

 

And then if you look at the criteria for what constitutes so-called misinformation and disinformation, it’s ridiculous! Like, a lot of the stipulations in there basically enable them to shut down any kind of critical discussion of various government policies, like health policies, environmental policies, economic policies.

 

But in addition to that, they also say “harm”. But then if you look at the definition of harm within the legislation, harm is defined by a whole series of, … Actually, I’ll pull up the exact legislation here and I’ll read it out for you guys, because basically, more or less, it could ban basically everything that I say on the Internet because you could classify it according to how vague this is so, yeah:

 

“Misinformation and disinformation both have a provision in this Bill which is that it is reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm. According to the definition of these terms. Harm means any of the following. (A) hatred against a group in Australian society on the basis of ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion or physical or mental disability.”

 

How do you define that? That could basically mean advocating for White nationalism equals hatred. Therefore all of our shit needs to be banned!

 

There’s other stipulations here, like:

 

“Harm to the health of Australians, harm to the Australian environment.”

 

So doing harm to the health of Australians, like during Covid would that mean if you criticise the vaccine, they could say:

 

“Oh, that’s bad public health misinformation!”

 

And just like, ban it:

 

“Economic or financial harm to Australians.”

 

Like, so what does that mean? Like, if you go out and say:

 

“Hey, the economy is a Ponzi scheme, like, we’re in a per capita recession, the whole economy is propped up by mass immigration and financial usury and so on.”

 

What is that undermining public faith in the economy? Is all that discussion supposed to be banned?:

 

“Harm to the integrity of Australian democratic processes or of Commonwealth, state, territory or local government institutions.”

 

What does that mean? Like, just any criticism of the government itself, like, as a legitimate entity.

 

So this definition is so expansive, as I said, it could literally ban our entire political viewpoint. But not just our political viewpoint. Like almost any critical viewpoint from any position along the political spectrum could be just banned under the arbitrary whims of a bureaucracy.

 

So obviously that’s completely ridiculous and intolerable! How can that be?

 

[30:33]

 

 

Anyway, the good news is it did pass the House of Representatives, which is controlled by Labor, unfortunately. But Labor doesn’t control the Senate. There’s 76 Senators. I think Labor only has like 24. You need 39 to pass a bill. Now the Greens have like six and they’re tipped to support it. So that bumps their numbers up. And then there’s a maybe I’m getting the number slightly wrong here.

 

But basically on the No side, you have the Liberals who have come out against it. One Nation, Ralph Babet, who posted the N word on Twitter this week, which was kind of funny, speaking of Australian Senators and their Twitter antics. And a few of these of the other Independents. So according to everyone who has committed to voting against it, I think there’s 36 Senators that have committed to voting against it, and 36 Senators that have committed to voting for it. That is under the assumption that all the Green Senators and Labor Senators are going to vote for it. And there’s like four undecided Senators.

 

The undecided Senators are Jacqui Lambie. What’s that vile woman’s name, who used to be in the Greens, Lidia Thorpe. But she’s made some statements against it. She’s kind of like a loose cannon. She could go against it. That Muslim woman who left the Labor Party and is now independent. Payman, I believe her name is. She wears the hijab and she had that, like, cringe speech in the Senate where she tried to use all that Zoomer speak. That was probably the most cringe thing that’s ever happened in the history of Australian Parliament. And Senator [David] Van, who was in the Liberal Party, but then there was some kind of scandal where apparently he sexually assaulted some other member, like some staffer or something. Van has made statements that maybe he would support the bill, which is a shame.

 

But the other three have made statements that they’re critical. So if two out of those three or two out of those four go against the bill, the bill’s killed. And, yeah, so it’s looking like the Bill is going to suffer. They keep, like, avoiding the vote. I saw a lot of articles come out yesterday saying the Bill could be killed, basically. So I saw Australians versus the Agenda. They had like a list of all the Senators contact details that I just mentioned on their social media. So go check out their Telegram or their Twitter and you can like email the Senators and like tell them to vote against it or whatever if you want to do some, like, civic activism.

 

It seems like the pressure campaign against it is actually working because Pocock, who used to be a Wallaby rugby player who got elected, and some other Senator, I can’t remember her name, from Tasmania, they both came out against it on free speech grounds, said they’ll vote against it, and said that, well they’ve got a lot of public outcry against the bill.

 

Also, there was a poll that was done. And the poll, basically it had a lot of people that didn’t know whether they supported it or not, but 52% of people were against the Bill and only like 17 supported it and then the rest are undecided. So it’s clearly like really unpopular.

 

So hopefully that Bill gets killed because if that gets passed, it could pose a big problem. We might be kind of dependent upon the social media companies themselves telling the Australian government to get fucked or the American government, you know, imposing their regulations and kind of big dogging the Australian government. Otherwise, and I don’t really want to be dependent on the whims on either of those whimsical. That’s the situation.

 

But anyway. Blair, how you doing?

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, I made it! Sorry I was late tonight, guys. I just had a late client and things didn’t work out the way I planned. I intended to get home sooner. What does your T-shirt say, Joel?

 

Joel Davis: It says, “Your body, my choice”.

 

Blair Cottrell: Is that in reference to the video I saw of Nick Fuentes?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, exactly!

 

Blair Cottrell: What’s the story with that? You might have been through it already, but who was that woman who went to his house?

 

Joel Davis: Maybe I could play the video. There’s like a video of it that was filmed from her phone so we could play it.

 

Blair Cottrell: I don’t know anything about the circumstances surrounding that incident. Did he know who she was? I don’t know.

 

Joel Davis: So basically what happened was on the night of the election, of the American election, Fuentes made a tweet when it was clear that Trump would win, saying, “Your body, my choice”. Because obviously, like the catchphrase of the pro-choice feminists around the abortion issue is, “My body, my choice”. So he was kind of, it’s like a play on words because obviously it has a kind of like rape implication, but it doesn’t mean that it’s kind of like, cheeky because it doesn’t actually mean that. It just basically means the democratic will of the people, the collective, like, morality of society is preventing you from killing your own child.

 

So you can look at it in different ways, but either way, it made the feminists freak out, which was funny. And the tweet went super viral. And Fuentes also had a rant on his show that became like, TikTok viral and got millions and millions of views and lots of responses and all these media articles got played.

 

[36:28]

 

And so the feminists, because there’s all these feminists in America that they’re like, fat, putrid, disgusting! That are coming out and saying:

 

“I’m not going to have sex with anyone for the entire Trump presidency because my rights have been taken off me and I’m punishing men!”

 

And then it’s just like:

 

“Yeah, like, no one wanted to fuck you anyway, bitch!”

 

[chuckling] Or like everyone’s, conservatives, and they’re like:

 

“Yeah, we don’t want you having casual sex with random dudes anyway. Like, why don’t you get married and have sex with your husband and actually be like an upstanding woman, rather than a whore!”

 

So, it’s kind of funny. It’s like the seed.

 

But anyway, he had a rant which was just kind of rubbing it into the feminists, going on about how like:

 

“A woman will never be president. You know, the glass ceiling is like paved over with bricks!”

 

Because obviously this is the second woman that Trump has [chuckling] now beaten in succession, I guess, like if you kind of skip over the Biden one. And so, yeah, anyway, so this, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Did he know this girl who’s coming to his door?

 

Joel Davis: The feminists got really upset at Fuentes and they doxed his home address and posted it all over Twitter. I saw his address all over Twitter. And they were like, …

 

Blair Cottrell: But who is this woman who went to his house?

 

Joel Davis: This is just some random jewish woman who’s like, she looks, you look at her face. She looks like a BPD*. Like a post menopausal fat BPD [Borderline Personality Disorder] woman in her early 50s or something. And she’s jewish.

 

[* Borderline personality disorder is a personality disorder characterized by a pervasive, long-term pattern of significant interpersonal relationship instability, a distorted sense of self, and intense emotional responses. People diagnosed with BPD frequently exhibit self-harming behaviours and engage in risky activities, primarily due to challenges regulating emotional states to a healthy, stable baseline. Wikipedia]

 

Blair Cottrell: Is she a journalist? What was her intention going there?

 

Joel Davis: She’s just like some feminist that just saw his dox and just, she’s just crazy! Went to harass him.

 

Blair Cottrell: Wow! And well, let’s see what happens.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah.

 

Woman: Hi. Oh my God! What are you doing?

 

Blair Cottrell: What’s he doing? Kicking her? What’s he doing? He took her phone. Okay.

 

Joel Davis: Basically he maced her in the face. I think he like kicked her and then grabbed her phone, told her to get the fuck out of his house and then like started like smashing the phone underneath his foot or something. [Blair barely able to control himself from bursting out laughing]

 

But then the police showed up and made him give the phone back.

 

Blair Cottrell: Has he been charged or interviewed in relation to it? Like, does that mean I don’t know what happens in America? Are you allowed to do that in America?

 

Joel Davis: I think. So I mean, I don’t know what the, … I guess we’ll see because she said she’s going to press charges, but she, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Did he pepper spray her at the start? Is that capsicum spray he used?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. But she said that the pepper spray was kind of weak. So I said earlier in the show that he maybe get on the phone to Vic Pol and get a recommendation for some high quality shit!

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, the stuff Victoria Police uses down here is definitely not weak. [chuckling] Yeah, yeah.

 

Joel Davis: But anyway. But thing is that she was apparently at the front of his house for ages, yelling, shit, being hysterical. So like, so he’s sitting in his house. His address has been posted all over social media and it’s America!

 

Blair Cottrell: So it’s like he wasn’t just sitting there with Mace waiting for someone to knock on his door. She’d already made herself known.

 

Joel Davis: His address has been posted all over the Internet and all these people are posting:

 

“I’m gonna go over to Nick Fuentes’s house and like fuck with him or whatever.”

 

So he’s probably already like on edge.

 

And then this is crazy, like fat jewish woman, like being hysterical in his front yard. And then she comes up to the house and starts like hitting the doorbell. So I guess, you know, mace out, like, move quickly.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, I suppose he felt threatened. Right? This woman’s at the front of his house. He doesn’t know who she is. She’s probably screaming out his name and all sorts of harassment, you know, comments that could be construed as harassment. Then she actually comes to the door.

 

So I don’t know. I think he’s within his rights to capsicum spray her.

 

Joel Davis: That in my opinion, he’s within his rights to do it.

 

I mean, at the end of the day, she’s on his property. So like. And she’s there to harass him. Like she’s there to fuck with him in some ways. So he can do what he likes.

 

Blair Cottrell: He would definitely be charged in Australia. You couldn’t do something like that in Australia. But no, America has all these what is it, the First Amendment rights, you have the right to defend yourself and your property or something?

 

Joel Davis: The Second Amendment says is the right to defend, to bear arms. It’s not the right to self defence. Self defence is protected through legislation. I don’t know what the specific laws are in Illinois because Fuentes lives in Chicago. I don’t know what the Illinois specific laws are.

 

So I can’t really comment on whether there’s a legal case or not. You know, also the fact that he is a political dissident of prominence and Illinois is a Blue state that probably has very like Left-wing judges that he could get in trouble on the basis of that, like their bias against him. Right? But she said she’s going to press charges.

 

But also in my opinion, her statements show a clear intent to harass him. She’s been hysterically posting all this on social media and was posting before she even like I think rang the doorbell. So.

 

[41:41]

 

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

[1:55:50]

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

(Comments as of 11/15/2024 = 364)

HyperChat min: 100
Thorne91
4 hours ago
Could a healthy, fascist Australia handle a Chinese invasion? How many malnourished chinks can a Joel, Tom or Blair take at one time is the question.

2
0
Hide replies
WhiteLightWhiteHeat
2 hours ago
Many

ChainReaction
8 hours ago
o/

2
0
C.A.S.S.
8 hours ago
More

1
0
Thorne91
4 hours ago
Regarding Nick and American law: some states are a “stand your ground” state. Texas, Florida, typically red states. In other states run by liberals, you have a “duty to retreat” before you engage a threat. This would apply to being mugged or beat up or any of that. Maybe it’s different since she’s at his house, but I’m pretty sure a judge in Illinois can fuck him up if they want. He needs to move to a deep red state. In Texas you could probably shoot a woman who refuses to leave your property. Especially if she’s hostile and you’ve given verbal warning. So…self defense is definitely state by state.

1
0

@Horatius
8 hours ago
thanks. always get great insight from these streams. top notch articulation

1
0
MagicManintheSky
8 hours ago
o/

1
0

@Horatius
8 hours ago
o/

1
0
C.A.S.S.
8 hours ago
Less

1
0

@Horatius
8 hours ago
everyone can contribute in some way. just going into libertarian and conservative online chats and trying to win them over to our side is something that can be done. I’ve had success and others have to. they have a hard time arguing against us nowadays

1
0

@NotBabyHitler88
8 hours ago
Trumps at war with the establishment…he loves jews

1
0
Thorne91
4 hours ago
Whites are israel, that’s why Jews want to destroy us all. And I can prove it here in comments. This non-white immigration has nothing to do with banks or economics or any of that shit, those are just excuses and methodologies.
In 745 BC Menasseh (a tribe of Israel, a WHITE ethnostate) was conquered by he Assyrians. YHWH punished them and kept Menasseh in bondage 7X for their sin (check Leviticus
26:18
)
The original punishment was 360 years. So multiply that by 7. You get 2520. So add 2520 years to 745 BC. You get – 1776. The tribe of Menasseh is the founding stock of America. Same thing with Britain. The tribe of Ephraim (another white ethnostate) was conquered by Assyrians in 721 BC. 7X 360, add to 721BC, you get 1801. This prophecy in Leviticus
26:18
accurately predicts he founding of America and Britain and ascribes these lands to the tribes of Menasseh and Ephraim. So basically…Jews are lying about being “chosen.” They are Edom. Genetic mutant baby-eating, blood-drinking, ritual-sacrificing monsters who completely take over everything any chance they get and they are LYING about who hey are. Edomites. And their #1 goal is to wipe out YHWH’s people who are European whites and our posterity. So…whether you believe in God, or the Bible, or not – Leviticus
26:18
should at least make you think twice about WHY it is so important to protect our people, who we really are, and who the Jews are.
I’ll continue below.
Less

0
3
Hide replies
Thorne91
4 hours ago
The OT is not Jewish, it’s white. Jesus was white. The Talmud is the true Jewish book and it’s the only one they care about. They just pretend to follow Torah but it’s a show. If Jews actually followed he Bible, they’d stop the usury and porn and all that disgusting degenerate shit. They dgaf about the Bible. They only follow Talmud.
So…hopefully these prophecies and this knowledge is helpful to someone. If you dig, all of the evidence points toward Israelites being white and Jews being Edom. And it only further solidifies the position of the national socialists. Christianity DOES have racial teeth, if you get past the Jewish schofield fake israel Zionist bullshit. And Leviticus
26:18
is just one of many points of evidence to back up what I’m saying here.

0
2
Thorne91
4 hours ago
o/

Thorne91
4 hours ago
*1775 my bad. I

Thorne91
3 hours ago
Wait no, it’s not 1775 it actually is 1776 because you count count the “zero” between BC and AD. It just goes directly from 1BC to 1AD. So yeah…Menasseh is accurately and specifically prophecies to come into their new land in exactly 1776. If this isn’t evidence Hebrews we’re white, idk what is. I loved this stream so much and I see so many NatSocs and Christians fighting…thank you Joel for not doing that. Neutered white Christians need to realize they’re Hebrews. That way, white Christians can maintain their faith in Christ, and ALSO have the exact same secular goals and beliefs as the national socialists. This knowledge gives teeth back to Christianity and then there’s no more reason for atheist NatSocs to reject believers in Christ. This is the answer. White Hebrews and proven in Leviticus
26:18
and all across the Bible.

Indo-European
1 hour ago
The age restriction legislation is a disaster. it will eventually mean the end of casual, anonymous browsing of all video and file servers. It would be better to ban children from using smart phones. As if they would ever do that

@BMC1488
1 hour ago
DONALD TRUMP WHITE POWER!

@BowHunter88
2 hours ago
You talk politics, yet you raise criminal act after criminal act this government commits on a daily basis. Organized lawfare to vompel governments to act lawful is a strategy it seems has never been attempted.

@Clyde
6 hours ago

tranny teacher in Canada

Dawn Browning
8 hours ago

@Horatius
Yup. They did a good job on Westernkind. Me included. Onwards…..

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
8 hours ago
Less

Dawn Browning
8 hours ago
JoelBlairLove Love to all you Beautifuls MWAH

@Horatius
8 hours ago
they don’t even know they are a people, or don’t want to believe they are. they see others as groups but don’t see whites as one. I come across this constantly when interacting with average Whites. they were convinced by propaganda that they are just random individuals or scared of their white identity because Jews say that’s racist

@Bamzal
8 hours ago
o/

@BlotOutTheMemoryOfJacob
8 hours ago
two bloody wankers

DOLO
8 hours ago
o/

Archipelago Woes
8 hours ago
o\

DOLO
8 hours ago
Where is Margo?

@Horatius
8 hours ago
yup. spot on Blair

Hess’ Channel
8 hours ago
remade version of The Day of the Jackal with Nigs

@WeWuzKrangz
8 hours ago
based Blair

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
8 hours ago
Your body, my choice is brilliant. Those who don’t think it through will jump to the conclusion that you are dictating what they can or cannot do reproductively, but in reality it is your choice as a man whether or not you would impregnate her in the first place.

@david_smith
8 hours ago
QLD LNP has a minister specifically excluding White Men, you should lobby/petition for a minister for White Men.

@Horatius
8 hours ago
if White men are United, there is nothing that cannot be accomplished. have to come together for our own interests and give up on individualism nonsense

DOLO
8 hours ago

@MagicManintheSky
You got another holocaust movie for me? Yes sir i do!

MagicManintheSky
8 hours ago

@DOLO
I hear you

DOLO
8 hours ago

@MagicManintheSky
I can’t wait to not watch another holocaust movie.

MagicManintheSky
8 hours ago
I see there’s a new Holohoax movie out to push the Israel wagon….

Matt Hammond
8 hours ago
That was whitepilling

Hess’ Channel
8 hours ago

@katana17
try this –
https://archive.org/details/history-of-the-white-australia-policy-to-1920

@david_smith
8 hours ago
Very much legally

@david_smith
8 hours ago
There are certainly things that can certainly be changed, with legal politics.

Dawn Browning
8 hours ago
JOEL! It’s bedtime

@Horatius
8 hours ago
but at the same time, the Jews and their lackeys sure seem to want to destroy the West and don’t care about the consequences. They want revenge at all costs it seems.

Dawn Browning
8 hours ago
We duck out, they gone. They have to be fully exposed & 111’d before we’re taken seriously.

@Horatius
8 hours ago
if not enough whites live in an area to prop it up, it will collapse into total shit. the government realized this years ago when it did happen, they had no white taxes to give to blacks and browns

@david_smith
8 hours ago
Orangutans

@david_smith
8 hours ago
Ok Joel is basically inline with my thoughts

@Sweet_Nerevar
8 hours ago
I hope Jews fumble live granades

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
8 hours ago
*An

@david_smith
8 hours ago

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
I think they fucked themselves

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
8 hours ago
And alternative to the Sampson option

@david_smith

ChainReaction
8 hours ago
More

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
8 hours ago

@david_smith
I think the Jews will force WWIII once the antisemitism in the west is at a tipping point.

MagicManintheSky
8 hours ago
No more brothers wars for the Jew.

Dawn Browning
8 hours ago

@katana17
Are you still transcribing?

Hide replies

@katana17
1 second ago(edited)
Of course!
https://katana17.com/

@Sweet_Nerevar
8 hours ago
gud thing we’ll have plenty of kids with hundreds of hours of tower defence under their belts to help with the dark future

@david_smith
8 hours ago
I doubt it, Joel normally steals my takes that I never told anyone, but I don’t think Trump can mobilize WW3

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
8 hours ago

@david_smith
lol

ChainReaction
8 hours ago
“Conservatives risk nothing at all and gain everything.” ~ Raging Dissident

Hess’ Channel
8 hours ago
Trump will not stop Ukraine SMO

@Horatius
8 hours ago
republicans always talk a big game but when the moment of truth happens, they cuck and back down. we’ll see. I’ll believe them when I see it

Dawn Browning
8 hours ago

@katana17

@david_smith
8 hours ago

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
My brown streamer is better than your brown streamer

Hess’ Channel
8 hours ago

@katana17
thats a Cebu upload – that’s China text scanning

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
8 hours ago
Less

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
8 hours ago
Less

@katana17
8 hours ago
https://archive.org/details/historyofwhiteau0000will/page/n5/mode/2up

@Sweet_Nerevar
8 hours ago
he literally one set above Voldemort

MagicManintheSky
8 hours ago
Jews own the Media. Jews control our minds.

The Crucible 01
8 hours ago

@david_smith
hasnt been decided yet, its either one of the mad max movies or trailer park boys.

@david_smith
8 hours ago

@TheCrucible01
Chopper?

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago

@DawnBrowning
come to

@JoeBorackOBiden
channel after joel is finished, we are watching a movie, (dw its chill there)

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago

@david_smith
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. He’ll be right.

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago
see subversive jew ^

ChainReaction
9 hours ago
when u decide who in power n u have blackmail on them, u effectively in power

DOLO
9 hours ago
If WN’s get control of just one country, it could have a domino effect throughout the world.

@Horatius
9 hours ago
I’ve heard people say that Jews don’t have true power, that they have heavy influence on those in power. there is a distinction. don’t know if true

MagicManintheSky
9 hours ago
Jews act like a hive mind

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
yes Joel Juice power is a certain extent an illusion

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago
Some of us are up in 6 hours at 4am, you know.

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
9 hours ago

@DawnBrowning
Yes, something forced can only last so long, everything returns to nature.

@david_smith
9 hours ago

@DawnBrowning
Poor guy tapped out to avoid being called racist for his honesty. Then got in shit anyway.

DOLO
9 hours ago
I think it’s the guy who threw the gangs in prison

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
It’ll return to the natural state…. eventually

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago
tom got arrested again..(seriously hope not)

DOLO
9 hours ago
You could be right. One of the south american countries uses that leverage to still work with america, under threat of an alliance with russia/china

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago

@david_smith
I do miss Woodley

@Horatius
9 hours ago

@david
wow. did not know that or remember him saying that at the time.

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
9 hours ago
The food problem is easily solved. Make it possible for a man to be a provider and a woman to be a homemaker again. Men want to be the provider and women want to be the homemaker, but they took that from us.

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago
wanker ^

ChainReaction
9 hours ago
it’s the numbers, i suppose

@Horatius

DOLO
9 hours ago
If you built up the navy and allied with Russia/China, you’d probably be okay.

@david_smith
9 hours ago

@Horatius
He supported the mRNA injection, that is proof he is not an intelligent honest person who understands science.

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago

@Horatius
to a degree

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
Indonesia

@Horatius
9 hours ago
wouldn’t Australia be easy to defend?

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago
please be aware of ChainReaction he is a liar defending grifters.

MagicManintheSky
9 hours ago
Jewmurica

DOLO
9 hours ago
Probably Britain lol

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago

@MarkCollett
yes, it lends its elf to a Sharia mentality

@david_smith
9 hours ago

@DawnBrowning
I liked it when he had Woodley to control his nonsense.

ChainReaction
9 hours ago

@MarkCollett
<– THAT

@Horatius
9 hours ago

@david
why do you say that? just curious. doesn’t he just read studies that he trusts are real and true?

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
yes…ban heavy

@Sweet_Nerevar
9 hours ago
they’re conditioned to be soft now, but if U leave a little one with only transformers to watch he will be violent lol and U will have to roll play as Megatron at least once a week lol

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago

@david_smith

@Horatius
I like Ed.

Mark Collett
9 hours ago
The problem with the “Your body, my choice” slogan, is I am sure plenty of Muslims groomers had that attitude toward white girls.

@Horatius
9 hours ago
pure individuals would die if they were kicked out of the group centuries ago. the dna knows this it seems.

@david_smith
9 hours ago

@Horatius
He cannot understand how to do science.

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
ppl who work in Coles supermarkets

Mark Collett
9 hours ago
Most people are actually not leftists

@Horatius
9 hours ago
Dutton thinks leftists are spiteful mutants who wouldn’t exist if not for technology that saves them from dying in the womb or as children

Mark Collett
9 hours ago
Most people are conformists

@david_smith
9 hours ago

@JoeBorackOBiden
Y?

MagicManintheSky
9 hours ago
Segregate schools again.

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
Blair must be hungry

C.A.S.S.
9 hours ago
Sex is further ingrained into DNA than anything else

@Sweet_Nerevar
9 hours ago
yeah thousands of yrs of successful hunts

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago

@MarkCollett
Ey up luv. Busy 24 hrs for you. Woodlander chat was Tip Top

@Horatius
9 hours ago
cool. Mark is one of the best out there. has been for years

@Sweet_Nerevar
9 hours ago
fat ho power grid

@Sweet_Nerevar
9 hours ago
hamster wheels…green energy,they’ll probably buy it

@david_smith
9 hours ago
That is IRL Mark, he watches the show

@Horatius
9 hours ago
Hey Mark o/ if that’s really you lol

@david_smith
9 hours ago
?

@david_smith
9 hours ago
Big brain strong, mild autist

DOLO
9 hours ago
jock

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago
You can be scrawny & brawny

@david_smith
9 hours ago
That is like the black super hacker

@Horatius
9 hours ago
part of the obesity issue is caused by a high percentage of people quitting smoking. just started stuffing their face instead

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
participation prizes

DOLO
9 hours ago
Jamie Oliver had a tv show and he made healthy school lunches, and all the women were bringing in crisps and chocolate and passing it through the fence. They had to end it because the parents complained so much..

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago

@MarkCollett
top of the morning to ya

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
Hey Mark

@david_smith
9 hours ago
The food is poison.

@Horatius
9 hours ago
50’s physical education in America was pretty based

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago

@JoeBorackOBiden
good, give those faggots no rest!

Mark Collett
9 hours ago
Hi guys!

@david_smith
9 hours ago
Obesity is almost entirely because of diet.

Homeschooledjedi
9 hours ago
0/chat

C.A.S.S.
9 hours ago

@TheCrucible01
Nah he fucked off

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
activity at schools

@david_smith
9 hours ago
There was a teacher at highschool who did that with young teenagers…

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago
he has prolly blocked you to

@JoeBorackOBiden
and is now talking crap about ya in his bed with the boys lmao

@david_smith
9 hours ago
Mandatory carnivore

@david_smith
9 hours ago
You have to reform who controls what the military is for.

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago

@JoeBorackOBiden
lmao nice

C.A.S.S.
9 hours ago
For

@ChainReaction
Less

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago

@joeldavis
sorry for shitting up the chat with this crap, but chain reaction needs to be called out and nnr, flood, logos, drilla etc need to be exposed for the pieces of shit that they are. they are lying grifters, doxing banning white natsocs to line their own pockets

C.A.S.S.
9 hours ago
Sorry to shit up your chat

@joeldavis

C.A.S.S.
9 hours ago
Less

C.A.S.S.
9 hours ago

@DawnBrowning
weak

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago
omg muting cass now.

scoobyburn
9 hours ago
this is an AU stream,,,,

MagicManintheSky
9 hours ago

@DawnBrowning
LOL

C.A.S.S.
9 hours ago

@ChainReaction
Couldn’t handle Crucible? had to mute him?

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
Kaz Ross

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago

@MagicManintheSky
Burke models himself on Albo so much that I get them mixed up.

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
check the Minister who wrote it – Rowling

@david_smith
9 hours ago
Lobby Qld government to have a minister for White Men. It would easily get enough signatures to make them respond to it.

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
it could lead to political idea censorships.

MagicManintheSky
9 hours ago
Burke is a super Shabbos Goy in bed with Mark Dreyfuss.

@Ral9010NatSoc
9 hours ago
You toxic faggots are infecting every chat on Odysee. Get a fucking life you bitch niggers.

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
it gives ACMA take down notices which doc media must adhere to

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago
MAD Bill will be selective

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago

@DOLO
now ask, has any of the faggots like Chain Reaction defending these scum provided any facts proving their innocence?

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago

@Hess
Cheers

@david_smith
9 hours ago
Also many in cities and suburbia

C.A.S.S.
9 hours ago

@ChainReaction
This

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago

@DawnBrowning
yes – Erikson’s YT chan

@david_smith
9 hours ago
Plenty of rural Aussies have missed all the anti-White shit

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago

@DOLO
flood doxing rango dingboth
Less

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago

@Hess
Is it still online?

ChainReaction
9 hours ago
Less

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago

@DOLO
drilla reporting the people calling his grift out h
Less

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago

@MagicManintheSky
yup

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
Neil did a good interview with Roberts years ago

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago
“loons with ill intentions” your projection is obvious

C.A.S.S.
9 hours ago
^

MagicManintheSky
9 hours ago
The Jews are anti-Nationalist in our countries but pro-Nationalist in Israel. Funny that.

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago

@ChainReaction
piece of shit

C.A.S.S.
9 hours ago
Less

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago

@david_smith
not gossip, they are lying grifters and need to be called out

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
Burke is juice heritage

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago

@DOLO
Graf, owner of poa.st who confirmed nnr would complain to him about other people, changed nnr’s handle because he was sick of the faggotry h
Less

C.A.S.S.
9 hours ago

@ChainReaction
Can’t handle criticism?

@david_smith
9 hours ago
Stop shitting up the chat with higschool girl gossip

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago

@david_smith
That was awesome, Dan vs Piers

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
ABC upset about SSM

ChainReaction
9 hours ago
yeah, just block disruptive loons with ill intentions

C.A.S.S.
9 hours ago
Less

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago

@DOLO
nnr publicly complaining to odysee on twitter h
Less

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago
I’m muting those who are discussing that which is not relevant. Love Love

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
Burke would n’t say that to Faruqi

DOLO
9 hours ago

@TheCrucible01
Write an article and prove all of your claims then. I’m not going to watch 3 hour streams to get an idea of what’s happening. If someone did that, i’d take a look.

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
he used to be the whip in Parliament

@david_smith
9 hours ago
Watch Dan Bilzarian Vs. Pierce Morgan. More so share it with people who are naive.

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago

@DOLO
nnr has doxed, banned complained to higher authorities etc and started the timeslot wars

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
you are right Blair…and social media, wiki and dumb internet sites caused that

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
CDC is all juice

DOLO
9 hours ago

@TheCrucible01
again, you can use the word grifter, but what do you even mean?

@Bamzal
9 hours ago
they’re poppin outta tunnels

@david_smith
9 hours ago
Absolutely genetic to a large degree, also the talmud.

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
Blair – research the Talmud

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago
lol

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago
fucken dbots

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago

@DOLO
i dont give a fuck about tuber, im calling out the grifters and their defenders, do i need to share the screenshots again?

C.A.S.S.
9 hours ago

@TheCrucible01
hahaha Dbots it is from now on

DOLO
9 hours ago

@TheCrucible01
You keeps using words like subversive, but do you really know what they mean? Why are you still defending someone that’s outed as brown?

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago
Blair? BLAIR?????

@david_smith
9 hours ago
Karl Marx

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago
lets call them Dbots

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
Larry Fink

C.A.S.S.
9 hours ago
But it is the jews

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago

@ChainReaction
yes, we have the proof including the word of social media owner poa.st, your a lying subversive faggot

scoobyburn
9 hours ago
biggest revenue from the web is porn & gambling

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago
It’s so dumb. My lads hacked my passwords dozens of times. These u-16yos will be voting next

ChainReaction
9 hours ago
i keep hearing things like that

@Hess
but has it rly been confirmed?

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago
lol

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago
umm I.D that is digital duhh

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
Tails was 0dayed years ago by Exodus

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago

@ChainReaction
wont have it for long if your already there.

C.A.S.S.
9 hours ago

@ChainReaction
widely available porn is no good for kids

ChainReaction
9 hours ago
TAILS OS <– last place we’ll have, get it while u can

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
ACMA

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
You will use your MyGov

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago

@ChainReaction
neither are you now fuck off jew!

ChainReaction
9 hours ago
nah, social media no good for kids n youths

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
Dischord is not good

@PureNomad
9 hours ago
Tom is still my best friend

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
data base got hacked long ago

C.A.S.S.
9 hours ago

@TheCrucible01
haha

scoobyburn
9 hours ago
government data bases get hacked

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago
they can play snake

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago
yeah nokia 3310s

C.A.S.S.
9 hours ago
Then should just make smart phones illegal for people under 16, just give them old style flippers

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago

@JoeBorackOBiden
and gave us all a hecking laugh

M88
9 hours ago
see could have been packing heat, how is he to know.

C.A.S.S.
9 hours ago
HE had every right to do that

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago
She has the helium physiognomy voice

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
Fuentes lives in a nice area…cops would back him up

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
Blair – get it together

@TASMANIANDEVIL
9 hours ago
Depends on the state

ChainReaction
9 hours ago
glass ceiling? it’s brick, bitch

@Bamzal
9 hours ago
its technically in direct reference to abortion rights and thats it, but you can run wild with the implications

C.A.S.S.
9 hours ago
It was a troll and hilarious

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
he got doxed first

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
Marla Rose

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago
^

C.A.S.S.
10 hours ago
BASED SHIRT

Hess’ Channel
10 hours ago
don’t let it happen again Blair..

@david_smith
10 hours ago
Trump will monitor the situation, only 2 weeks until free speech

Hess’ Channel
10 hours ago
twitter already 13+ age

Hess’ Channel
10 hours ago
odd how only Corperate submissions are published

The Crucible 01
10 hours ago

@ChainReaction
unblock me on poa.st, you want to talk shit dont do it so i cant respond

@david_smith
10 hours ago
BLAIR YOU ARE MUTED

Hess’ Channel
10 hours ago
Van is secretary of Ukraine Club…got busted wearing Galacia patch

Hess’ Channel
10 hours ago
Lidia Thorpe got him…Van

Dawn Browning
10 hours ago

@JoeBorackOBiden
I like the cleaner cut

The Crucible 01
10 hours ago

@ChainReaction
your a low life maggot claiming innocence and your far from it.

ChainReaction
10 hours ago
lol

C.A.S.S.
10 hours ago
I like the shirt

@joeldavis

The Crucible 01
10 hours ago
fucking cunt*

@TASMANIANDEVIL
9 hours ago
Castle doctrine?

@Bamzal
9 hours ago
i heard she pressed charges not sure tho

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago
nicky had a sperg out haha

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago

@ChainReaction
your a literal pos

@Bamzal
9 hours ago
trump managed to do one thing right, which is blocking both first female presidents

scoobyburn
9 hours ago
na, who put that bell button in,, shocking

ChainReaction
9 hours ago
Murdoch Murdoch had the funniest take on Fuentes

The Crucible 01
9 hours ago

@ChainReaction
fuck off faggot

Hess’ Channel
9 hours ago
Marla Rose

@RedemptionDenied
9 hours ago
shame fuentes is a mexican twink

@david_smith
10 hours ago
I think I’m going to live where there is only 3G service and not buy Skynet from Elon

PaperBeatsRock
10 hours ago

@ChainReaction
yeah, you really are an utter shit cunt

The Crucible 01
10 hours ago

@ChainReaction
keep projecting you fucking you are finished.

Dawn Browning
10 hours ago
Ban the Commie Fist? Ban the Middle Finger? Ban the o7 Salute?

The Crucible 01
10 hours ago

@ChainReaction
you are a subversive lying piece of shit midwit larping as a “smart person” you support flood, nnr, drilla, logos, that all the proof anyone needs

C.A.S.S.
10 hours ago

@Bamzal
Graf is Based, NNR is a faggot

Hess’ Channel
10 hours ago
that financial stuff is for scam baiting etc

C.A.S.S.
10 hours ago
Speech doesn’t physically harm anyone, this is jew faggy commie shit saying speech harms

ChainReaction
10 hours ago
prove any of these claims u unhinged, stalking loser hahaha, keep seething, fags… whoa
More

The Crucible 01
10 hours ago
GRAF OWNER OF POA.ST CHANGING NNR’S HANDLE BECAUSE HE WAS SICK OF THE COMPLAINTS NNR’S WOULD SEND TO POA.ST ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE
Less

@david_smith
10 hours ago
I doubt Joel gives a fuck about which brown people you prefer between HT and tuber

C.A.S.S.
10 hours ago

@ChainReaction
Less

Hitlers Ghost
10 hours ago

@TheCrucible01
I’m all good…I just come for the fellowship with like minded white people ….I’m not one to follow or idolize …I don’t toss my shekles at them either so no skin off my ass if some streamers are disingenuous grifters…keep things in proper perspective

The Crucible 01
10 hours ago

@ChainReaction
cant prove it hey faggot, hold up i got more!!!

The Crucible 01
10 hours ago
NNR COMPLAING TO ODYSEE ON TWITTER G
Less

The Crucible 01
10 hours ago
FLOOD DOXING RANGO DINGBOT G
Less

C.A.S.S.
10 hours ago

@david_smith
yea guilty

Hess’ Channel
10 hours ago
most of the media contacting you are just testing you

The Crucible 01
10 hours ago

@ChainReaction
ohhh really faggot

C.A.S.S.
10 hours ago
Drew PAvlou is an absolute faggot and he is not an Aussie

@david_smith
10 hours ago

@JoeBorackOBiden
You are doing timeslot war on Joel you cunt

Johnny Bags
10 hours ago
They wanna be able to write that you didnt respond to their request for comment, in their hit piece article

ChainReaction
10 hours ago
losers search streams in incognito mode just to seethe n talk shit they can’t prove… sad losers… seriously, sad

The Crucible 01
10 hours ago

@HitlersGhost
yes spy hunter and drilla have been doxing randbot, regardless what you think of rand, its wrong.

Hitlers Ghost
10 hours ago
proximity certainly does breed contempt

The Crucible 01
10 hours ago
lol ^

C.A.S.S.
10 hours ago

@ChainReaction
You lick NNRs nuts like a fag, funny you say other people have a hard on for you

@fleabittenrat
10 hours ago
any jeet you find, i’ll find a white that can do better

Dawn Browning
10 hours ago
Pressure valves. Don’t waste your $ being political ffs

Hitlers Ghost
10 hours ago

@TheCrucible01
Spy Hunter is on his dick too now I see

@david_smith
10 hours ago

@HitlersGhost
Move to a rural area

C.A.S.S.
10 hours ago
SAME SHIT IN AMERICA

@joeldavis

ChainReaction
10 hours ago
hilarious what that mentally ill faggot has a hard on for me, what a homo… actually searches to find me even though he blocked smh

Hitlers Ghost
10 hours ago
my city is now about 18% white …fucking depressing total beaner take over

@david_smith
10 hours ago
Roberts is a bit like David Icke, he really doesn’t get it, but is right occasionally.

The Crucible 01
10 hours ago
chain reaction supports nnr’s subversive grifting

The Crucible 01
10 hours ago

@HitlersGhost
100% so is chain reaction

Hess’ Channel
10 hours ago
Roberts is pretty good in Estimates

Hitlers Ghost
10 hours ago

@TheCrucible01
NNR is a faggit

@david_smith
10 hours ago
Qld has state controlled by LNP, we should lobby for a minister for White Men, as they have a minister for specifically excluding White men.

The Crucible 01
10 hours ago
g
More

The Crucible 01
10 hours ago
g
More

The Crucible 01
10 hours ago

@ChainReaction
supports the doxxing, banning and de-plattforming of white natsocs, he wants jews (Dbot) in the natsoc cause

Hitlers Ghost
10 hours ago
I fucking hate Whites who support immigration…our quality of life is degraded and big business benefits …crooked politicians too I would imagine as a diverse fractured population is easier to deceive and control

The Crucible 01
10 hours ago
subversive

The Crucible 01
10 hours ago
Watch out for

@ChainReaction
he is a lying subverisive piece of shit

The Crucible 01
10 hours ago

@ChainReaction
this you faggot – g
Less

@fleabittenrat
10 hours ago
take away the gibs and they’ll leave

Hess’ Channel
10 hours ago
all the Jeets cheat on exams

@david_smith
10 hours ago

@HitlersGhost
It is Aussie version of naturalization act

scoobyburn
10 hours ago
70% of new home builds are rented by international students

Hitlers Ghost
10 hours ago
yeah, get them out

@david_smith
10 hours ago
Also our universities are garbage, I would hate to think what they are like in worse places.

Hitlers Ghost
10 hours ago

@david_smith
Wet ass Pussy??

Dawn Browning
10 hours ago
Didn’t you listen to Woodlander?

@david_smith
10 hours ago
Retrospective WAP would be cool

@david_smith
10 hours ago
Pauline Hanson also went in ahijab thing to show solidiarity with muslims.

ChainReaction
10 hours ago
Less

Hess’ Channel
10 hours ago
Limbrick is Juice

Hess’ Channel
10 hours ago
abortion is not complicated…its become an industry which is used as Political policy…quiet easy to not get pregnant in 2024

@david_smith
10 hours ago

@ChainReaction
Yeah mainly a wedge issue, where the centrist is correct.

ChainReaction
10 hours ago

@david_smith
tis a complicated topic, our prob tends to be that now it pushed like a right of passage by loons

@david_smith
10 hours ago

@ChainReaction
I guess my opinion is that abortion should be available, it is just that people should be in a healthy state and not have any use for in in normal situations.

@fleabittenrat
10 hours ago
teacher owned by student

ChainReaction
10 hours ago

@david_smith
smh…

Hess’ Channel
10 hours ago
the + is animals…wtf

@david_smith
10 hours ago

@ChainReaction
Iknew someone who starved themselves to kill their baby to avoid getting an abortion. Even abos knew how to do abortions using drugs.

Hess’ Channel
10 hours ago
nuke it

ChainReaction
10 hours ago
if those whore had that kind of discipline, abortion wouldn’t be an issue…

Hess’ Channel
10 hours ago
forced sterilisation was court ordered in 28 states of US – way before Nazi heard of it

@david_smith
10 hours ago
Eugenic abortion is fine IMO, just not forced

@david_smith
10 hours ago
Capsicum spray is illegal as a self defense in Australia, but you can use habernero oil on your food.

@fleabittenrat
10 hours ago
it’s great for niglets

Hess’ Channel
10 hours ago
yeah, Zyklon it up brah

Bianca Fights The Zombies
10 hours ago
o/o/

ChainReaction
10 hours ago
Zyklon pepper spray

Hess’ Channel
10 hours ago
acid is better

ChainReaction
10 hours ago
lol, was looking for that t-shirt

DOLO
10 hours ago
excellent edit lol

@david_smith
10 hours ago
Oh naur muh peaceful invaders

@RockyTas
10 hours ago
WP

@david_smith
10 hours ago
Weaker than I think? How often do they win strongman competitions?

@NATIONAL-SAXONIST
10 hours ago
o/

DOLO
10 hours ago
Have you got a great title for me? Yes sir i do!

Hess’ Channel
10 hours ago
Achtung

@BlotOutTheMemoryOfJacob
11 hours ago
o/

ChainReaction
11 hours ago
great title o/

@katana17
12 hours ago

Joel Davis – One Nation – Ineptitude or Controlled Opposition? – Nov 4, 2024 – Transcript

0
0

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

See Also

top

 

 

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