In this very informative audio interview (139 mins — Parts I & II) Henrik Palmgren talks with Dr. Andrew Joyce. We learn of Andrew’s gradual awakening to the Jewish Problem/Question while still at school. Since then he has been led to conclude that organized jewry is behind a genocidal plan to effectively destroy White countries through the importation of non-Whites, among other strategies. He concludes that we all have a duty to fight for White survival by spreading awareness of what is going on to as many people as possible — KATANA.
(NOTE: This link will take you to PART 1 ONLY.
You need to be a Red Ice MEMBER to listen to Part 2. BTW, I would encourage readers to become subscribers to Red Ice!)
Red Ice Radio
Dr Andrew Joyce
The History of Jewish Influence
Andrew Joyce PhD is a scholar, speaker and writer with academic expertise in immigration, ethnic and religious conflict, and philosophy. Andrew sits on the Editorial Advisory Board of The Occidental Quarterly and is a regular contributor to The Occidental Observer. He also serves the British Renaissance Policy Institute in an advisory capacity and will be producing and editing a new journal for BRPI. He is in the final stages of preparing for publication Talmud and Taboo: Essays on The Jewish Question.
Dr. Joyce joins us for another critical look inside the history and events that continually lead us back to the immense Jewish question. To begin, Andrew highlights his academic journey and how he arrived at tackling the vast obstacles embedded within our propagandized Western history to get to the truth of Jewish influence. We discuss their role during the Middle Ages as middleman merchants in close alliance with the elite powers that be, when the practice of usury transformed the means by which Europe was expanded and consolidated. Andrew explains some misconceptions about Jewish emancipations during the medieval period, many of which were influenced by the weakening of monarchal power and the rise of parliamentary democracy in host nations. Then, we consider how the Jewish proclivity of exploiting weaknesses within the flawed democratic system, their fierce ethnocentricity, and deep fear of being racially and genetically disseminated has compelled them to intensely strategize against gentiles. Andrew talks about the cycle of greed within the monarchy system that led to numerous Jewish expulsions and the clever maneuvers that repeatedly brought them and their money back into the untouchable ruling elite fold. We also look at the current calamity of governmental errors driving Europeans to extinction and how Jews have contributed in shaping the demographic suicide of the West.
In the members’ half, we address the concern that there tends to be an unhealthy obsession with the JQ and how we can study our own weaknesses in terms of damaged ethnic cohesion in balancing this weighty issue. Dr. Joyce stresses that we must find rational ways to communicate to the average citizen how our deprived sense of historical peoplehood coupled with the barrage of guilt inducing MSM and academic programming is leading us to the slaughter. We talk about the great power of face to face persuasion and leading by example, along with using humorous memes and trolling in encouraging our folk to adopt a sense of nationalistic pride.
Then, Andrew illuminates how Jews have used a backdoor trial and error approach to slowly infiltrate special interest groups aiming to clamp down on freedoms to criticize detractors, and we look at what a massive cultural shift might look like if Whites can employ that same diligence in reversing the pathologically blind response to their destruction. Further, we discuss the immense responsibility that lies in safeguarding the inheritance of our future generations, which ultimately requires a strong ethnic brotherhood standing in radical resistance to the invading cultures that have no place within our own. At the end, we get into the idea that everything happening now with the push for multiculturalism in the West is just history repeating itself, and if we are to reverse this creeping genocide we must bring more awareness, raise the stakes, and adapt an attitude of total success.
Henrik: Welcome back ladies and gentlemen. We’re talking with Dr Andrew Joyce about his work on jewish history, jewish influence and, of course, of why we should take an interest in the subject, if we care about our own survival, our genetic survival, and the survival of our culture, our civilization. We’ve tried to really just kind of give an overview picture of some of the history of the relationship here between the jews in Europe and, of course, our relationship to that and how this is playing out in the modern age. I hope we can speak some more about this later, about what is happening right now and how we are being, you know, uniquely targeted in this way.
But one of the thing I wanted to ask you about, Andrew, before we kind of proceed, if you will. And I don’t mean to take things off topic here, but, do you think that there is a, how do I put it, a kind of paranoia to a certain extent that seems to comfort some that are highly focused on this issue alone. I mean, you seem very well balanced, you have an ability to be objective, rational, scientific when you look at this subject.
And I know there is that is a concern here too, as people are usually not even willing to look at the subject, so I hate to criticize those who do look at the subject, but if I would have any critique, it would be that I feel that some people, it’s almost like they see an omnipotence, almost a metaphysical nature to the power and the influence that Jews hold as a group, and with that there seems to be almost kind of a paranoia over the issue. I’m not sure if you agree with that, or not, but do you think that, you know, that approach, or attitude to the subject is something that serves us good at the end, or not? I would propose that people adopt a more of an attitude that you hold, which is more objective, more cold, it’s not so emotional, if you will. I don’t know if you have any comments on that Andrew?
Andrew: The first thing that I would say Henrik, is that I agree with you that there seems to be, if you want to call it, an obsessive quality to a lot of what has been produced by our people in relation to the jews. Not just recently only the last fifty years, you know, under the kind of conspiracy theory umbrella, or metaphysical sense, but really going going back centuries.
As I mentioned before, when I when I first got into the subject and I was reviewing large amounts of literature, I encountered large amounts of literature that was shoddy, that was full of hyperbolic argument, right the way through to, you know, extreme fantasy along the lines of saying, you know, jews were demonic. That they were almost supernatural beings. That they had this kind of omnipotent power and, you know. All these different ways of interpreting what was happening. As you go back further in time, you go into Europe, it held different mentalities and existed in a different concept of the world that we don’t have. It was more religious, people then lived closer to death., you know, they didn’t live so long, so the entire perception of the world of life, and of the life beyond was different and much more immediate. And it tended to shape how people viewed their day to day interactions. Now over time some of the older superstitions and traditions and more fanciful ways of seeing the world have slowly dissipated. But, I agree with you that there is an esoteric element to the Jewish Question, only to the extent that esoteric may mean, “hidden knowledge”.
Andrew: Or the occult might mean hidden knowledge. And knowledge is hidden from the public, but not in a supernatural manner. I believe that every aspect of the Jewish Problem is explainable, measurable, quantifiable and studiable in terms of human nature and the variety of human nature, the nature of human interaction, the nature of ethnic conflict and genetics. And then how we are born as human beings and the traits that we have developed over historical time and through evolutionary processes and even through our own individual sociological histories. How we are raised by our parents, the values that we hold, the life priorities that we possess.
But yes, there are definitely people who, I would say, have a kind of obsessive, paranoid, hobbyist kind of approach to the subject, where they see, you know, jews under their bed, or something like that. Everything that goes wrong, you know, it would be this knee jerk reaction to say, “Oh it’s the Jews!”
And, you know, to offer a different picture to that, as we got into earlier, and as I explained, even with one of the bigger catastrophes that we face right now, in terms of this demographic displacement, I hesitate in saying, you know, “It’s all the jews”, you know, they’re brainwashing all of us and that is the only reason. No. I think we can reach to the fact that we are in a post-industrial society, that there are economic transitions that we view what is ours, differently. That our sense of community and ethnic cohesion has been damaged by a multitude of factors.
And that some of, a lot of the weaknesses that we have had as a people over historical time, have been native to us, and we have provided more than ample opportunities for those weaknesses to be exploited by a people that there is, you know, more self interested than us on average, more cohesive than us, and seem to work much better as a team, than we do. I don’t see jews as demonic, or as supernatural beings and, you know, one of the offshoots of that is that I don’t see jewish influence, or jewish power, control on our society as insurmountable, or unbeatable.
Andrew: I think that it’s really is simply a matter of studying what our weaknesses are and to develop strategies that are calm and sane and well thought out, and really long term. And if we do that and if we can build upon such simple foundations, then I think that we will find that and in the next century, or two, things will look much, much different than there have in the past.
But, it will take constant effort and dedication, because that’s what jews apply to, on their side in fence. They apply a constant effort and dedication to what they’re doing. You know, they aren’t just lazily floating into these positions of influence that they occupy. When you look at the, you know, the issue of ethnic networking, whether it’s getting seats on the Supreme Court, or, whether it’s occupying key financial positions in the world of business. It’s just, it’s hard work. It’s not fair work. They’re not playing the game fairly, but they’re working very, very hard at gaming the system.
Henrik: Yep. That’s true.
Andrew: And there’s nothing supernatural about that. We can we can look at, … I do all the time in each of my articles for the Occidental Observer, cite the sources and the facts, you know, this is how they’re doing it. Just to wrap that up, you asked me if I think, whether a paranoid, or an esoteric view of the Jewish Question is helpful to our movement. No it isn’t. It’s extremely counter-productive, because, you know, all the organized jewish community, or the Anti-Defamation League need to do, is to point to one quack coming out with something, … I read a statement like, you know, “The jews trying to blow up the moon”, or something, and that’s it, you know. That will resonate so deeply in the mind of a neutral individual that it will taint forever any sane, or rational attempt to get them to come to terms with this most important question.
Henrik: Yeah, and again, as I said, I hate to critic criticize those who are willing to look at this area, but I guess my main overview point would be, that there can be an unhealthy obsession, I think with the subject. I’ve seen many good people, utterly lose themselves and, you know, their own quality of life, … I mean, I understand this is for real, this is a battle, this is not a joke. We have to we have to fight, we have to work to get ourselves out of this, but I think to be a healthy human being, to be able to address these subjects in a rational way, I think it’s important that we remain a level of mental health here and stay sane [chuckling], to be able to be efficient fighters, if you will, in this. And I think disconnecting from the subject, or breaking out from you getting a bit of a pause, now and then, is something that would be beneficial to some people.
It’s a friendly critique, if anything, you know. But one of the things I want to get into here is basically, any kind of, it dovetails with what we just spoke about and that is, that there is a frustration, I think that comes with this topic for obvious reasons, because there are exaggerations on the opposite side of this, that are so outrageous. That those who study any of this to at any length, seem almost incapable of communicating to these absurd claims, if you will, to quote, “normal” people, who don’t look at any of this, you know, they, … Most people are just recipients of the normal propaganda out of the mainstream media and education, and all the rest.
But then, on on our side, if you will. We who look into this, deeper into history and science and these kinds of issues, see, for example, their claims of, you know, shrunken heads and electrified floors, you know, during the Second World War, or are making soap right out of the fat of the people, or that somehow, the German women during the Second World War wanted to make pillows out of the hair of jewish women, or that they made lampshades one of their skin. [laughing] Anyone who rationally looks looks at this, will quickly realize how absurd many of these claims are.
Another example, of course, that was spoken about in the break, is the pseudo-science that exists behind many jewish academics, from Spinoza, I know you’ve written a great length about him. We have Stephen Jay Gould, we have, we also spoke a bit about Donald Yates, who wrote, “When Scotland was Jewish”. And it’s almost this aspect of going too far. It’s another level of pseudo-history, pseudo-science. But, when we try to communicate this, still to this day, it seems like, we are the kooks for pointing these, you know, obvious things out to people.
So, my point is, to make a long winded point somewhat short, is there is a disconnection in the communication between those who study the subject and those who are not well versed in this at all. And I think both sides look at this as like, the other side it seems are utterly kooks and there’s no interface between them. What do you suggest in terms of being able to explain this to people rationally and to be able to bring up some of these exaggerations without being sounding outlandish, or even the aspect that we dare to question, you know, World War Two history. It’s a huge subject I know, but what would you say to all of this?
Andrew: One of the first important points that I think needs to be made when we’re talking about how to communicate truth to someone about any of these topics, is the fact that the nature of communication has itself changed significantly in the last ten, or fifteen years and the nature also of our education in all of our nations has changed significantly, as well. And what do I mean by that? Well, I interact with a lot of young people and, you know, I am always keen to engage new people that I meet in conversation, both about current events and also when I touch a little bit about, you know, various historical subjects. It’s a passion of mine.
One of the things I’ve discovered is that, first of all, history is dying. The teaching of history, certainly is dying, and the great popular understanding of history is also dying. This isn’t surprising in a society which is beings sort of slowly led to slaughter. One of the best ways to encourage a people to go silently into that good night, is to deprive it of it’s sense of historical people-hood, and so you slowly withdraw significant aspects of the teaching of it’s history, particularly the nationalistic elements.
So, the first thing that I would say, you’re painting with broad strokes here, would be that the average member of the public doesn’t have a good understanding of any of their history, let alone any aspect of jewish history. What passes for history today, is much closer to tabloid journalism. And when you turn on the TV, whether it’s the History Channel, or some other kind of historical documentary that they put on a mainstream TV channel. It’s full of sound bytes and catch phrases and punch lines, designed to convey a very simplistic and very targeted message about what happened what happened, why it happened and what you’re supposed to think about what happened.
The sense of history, as something which is malleable, debatable, that’s subject to an intellectual tug of war, and in particular, something that should provoke investigation rather than result in some kind of self-satisfied, “I know what happened”. That sense of history, as far as I can see, it is almost, it exists in corners of the Internet, in some intellectual movements, this kind of questioning attitude. Red Ice Radio itself is an example of one of the last enclaves in our culture, in our society, where free debate and the spirit of investigation persists. But, Henrik as I said, history as we understand it, is a dying art in our society.
Andrew: So, what I have come to expect when engaging any member of the public in discussion about any particular sort of subject, and in particular, I suppose World War Two and the alleged atrocities which occurred during it, and I mention those specifically, because that is one of the most common things that appears on TV is, you know, this is what happened during World War Two. This is who said, this is what happened during World War Two. And this is how you should feel about it. You should feel horrified that this happened in Europe. You should feel some sense of guilt, because your country was either complicit in it, or stood by and watched it happen. And, you know, normally that’s followed up with an advertisement for Christian Aid to Africa during the ad break, [laughter] or something that, you know, some woman coming on TV and explaining why refugees are welcome!
So it all feeds into a pattern. But, the average person on the street, really doesn’t know a great deal about World War Two at all. And most will admit that, as well. But, more crucial than than what they know, or do not know, is the sense that they are, they don’t possess a lot of facts, but somehow an instinct gets woven in there, through their cultural and educational experience. This instinct I talked about earlier, where, you know, that something bad happened and, you know, that to adopt an antagonistic position to this bad thing that happened, it will make you a bad person! So, although they are poor on facts, they are rich in indignation!
Andrew: Should you decide to press on that point, and I’ve discovered that when you present some facts in conversation, I’ve discovered, almost immediate enlightenment! Whenever you come out with, you know, just bare facts with the idea, you know;
“Oh, well, you know, the number of jewish casualties in World War Two, during World War Two was nowhere near as high as was what you think it is.” or, “You know, the number of Germans who died and the number of Europeans across the Continent, far dwarf the number of jewish dead.”
Whereas, when is a Steven Spielberg’s Dream Works going to make a film about their suffering, you know? When can we expect a movie on Dresden:
“Oh! You’ve never heard of Dresden? Why haven’t you heard of Dresden?”
Andrew: And slowly, slowly, the scales begin to fall from their eyes, so to speak., but that is a very direct form of communication. And again we come back to this idea, as I said, about how communication has changed.
It used to be, that we lived in a much more literate culture and this might seem strange in an era that I’m saying this, when we have the internet and we have Twitter and Facebook, and it seems like people are constantly reading., but that really depends on your definition of, “reading”. When, you know, when someone fifty, or sixty years ago went to a library, or picked up a newspaper, they read. And when they read, they read something that was quite long. And they read with a sense that this was something they needed to really get a good grasp on, understand and remember.
Whereas, what is reading today involve? Well, it might involve having a quick look at a one sentence status update on Twitter. It might be consist most of reading, perhaps a two thousand word op-ed in The Huffington Post, but the nature of reading has changed. That’s why I argue that we live in a much less literate society.
And communication, the emphasis of communication are shifted much more to the personal and the interpersonal, in the sense that, you know, one of my friends is a professor in business. And one of the things he teaches his students about is this how marketers in industry are shifting all of their attention away from, kind of billboards and different things, into getting people to talk to each other, or buy products., because they have discovered that that’s how we communicate best and that’s the best way to sell an idea is to spread socially through conversation., because we’re communicating less and less with ideas on paper. I say that with some sense of despondency, being a writer predominately, myself. Perhaps that’s one of the reasons why am I taking to the airwaves as well, you know, it’s a natural evolution.
Andrew: And perhaps I’m moving with the times. But, yes, communication has changed, but how to do we communicate an alternative narrative to World War Two, you know. However, it’s getting out there, the popular narrative of World War Two and the the alleged atrocities that took place during it is predominate and it is dominated and shaped by jewish organizations, on all levels of our culture. Not only in terms of history books that are put out there. Some of which, I recently read a book on the so-called czars pogroms in which, you know, long discredited tales about babies having their had smashed against walls and thrown on fires, being burnt alive. Women having their breasts hacked off. It’s really, really pornographic brutal imagery. These stories have long since been discredited, but you still find jewish historians repeating them.
Andrew: How do we compete with this kind of brutal, emotive, audacious propaganda?
It can be an uphill struggle to combat an article like that you need to rely on a lot of facts, and you also require, …
Henrik: Let me ask you Andrew, because, I mean, you read my mind there, because I want to mention, you know, that despite everything you’ve mentioned, there is a narrative driven here, there’s a consensus that forms itself. By the mass message of the mass media, right? To do something here is driving the influence and I like the word you used, “instinct” right. It’s creating an instinct in people, they can’t really pinpoint it, or maybe justified intellectually it was explained why they feel a certain way. They just kind of know on an instinctual level.
What I’m wondering is if this change that’s taking place in the ideas of history and how we learn things. If that’s something that we can actually use in our favor, right. Is there something we can do strategically to exploit that at this time? , because obviously the one to one communication is, as you say, probably the best and the most ideal, but it’s also the one that takes the longest to do right. We need to still mass communicate, but we need to do it in such a way that it appeals to people. A very difficult, maybe, I don’t know how much you’ve been thinking about these things. I know your work is primarily in history and so forth and on media strategies, but what’s your thought on it?
Andrew: Is it is something that I’ve given considerable thought to. And actually for several years now. I’ve thought that one of the things that we need to be doing more of is, almost copying the Christians church, in that we act as missionaries and we seek to go out and interact with people, and really evangelize for our cause and for the truth.
Evangelism as a word, really is, I think extremely appropriate and very apt for what we are doing, because we are seeking not necessarily to save someone’s soul, but we are seeking to save them from themselves, almost. The existing narrative and all of those instincts that they currently possess, if left to their own devices without our intervention, are very, very harmful and damaging to the rest of us, also., but really, you know, let’s not beat around the bush here, it’s a suicidal instinct and it’s, it’s own path to damnation! And if people are going to respond best to, kind of, face to face persuasion and seeing their friends and their family members, you know, adopting a different worldview, and not being evil Nazis that want to use electrified floors on people and everything else, [laughter] then, you know, it then, that is a way forward.
It has to be all encompassing. It always saddens me sometimes when I when I see images online of a so-called far right protest and the people there are holding beer cans and just in their overall presentation, everything about them is is is, you know, there’s not much there that I can sympathize with, or admire. Other than the fact that they know, that the current narrative is designed to, the destruction of their people, basically. But, beyond that some of these people are rather unfortunate personalities. It’s a confusing one for me in some respects. Just like you said about those whose kind of succumb to a kind of paranoia. We want to give them all a friendly critique and we hesitate to completely push them away, even if what they’re doing is harmful.
When I see, you know, for want of a better word, some thugs on the street, you know, half drunk accosting members of the public and presenting really what should be a very decent and very productive message, in a quite vulgar way, to I myself feeling very frustrated, because, …
Henrik: And the media loves to focus on those personages too, of course, It’s like, right for the picking for, you know, the papers and the mass media.
Andrew: Absolutely! And it’s frustrating, because I look often and I see so many good people in our movement, and I feel overall a desire to push us up, to raise us up as a people, and we we should be in a sense, elitist and always looking for self improvement within ourselves personally, and within ourselves as a movement and ultimately as a people. And it’s frustrates me somehow, sometimes that people who don’t live up to that ideal, or, and live it out, because, you know, for every, … There just seems to be too many people out there, who are, you know, chanting that they are Aryan superman and yet lives of debauchery and drunkenness and low achievement.
Perhaps that’s a little bit elitist of me, but again, as I said, at the outset of this interview, I’m unsentimental about the problem that we face. And I may be more hardline than most, and less egalitarian and welcoming everyone into the fold, as others, but, you know, these are hard times. As for me personally, I think that adopting a hard perspective is sometimes needed.
Andrew: And when it comes to communicating our message, on a one to one basis, that to me is the antithesis of what we should be aiming for. It needs to be presented in a very acceptable, if I can put it like that way to the members of the general public. It’s difficult enough, the obstacles we face are difficult enough, without shooting ourselves in the foot.
Henrik: So, I’m a believer that, you know, there’s many different tactics that does work, that there’s many different approaches, different things will appeal to different people, different people come to the truth, and they come to a deeper, you know, interest in history from many different walks of life and whatnot. So, I am in favor of a broad kind of, you know, approach and not trimming it down too much, maybe.
On the other hand, I do understand what you’re saying, that there needs to be a conscious effort of what you’re doing. But, look at things of like how trolling and the of just running exaggerations of some of the claims have done, to kind of well, really destabilize the mainstream to certain extent, right? What I’m talking about is making fun, making jokes of all of this. Making it very light hearted, everything from the Daily Stormer, or to the Twitter trolls out there. There has been a certain level of success with that, I would say. Especially to young people who are, maybe just tired about the seriousness around it. I’m not saying that this appeals to academics that are, you know, fifty and over, but, my point there is that, who knew that something like this would like work on young people?
And they would be like, you know, attracted to, you know, Alt Right ideas and they kind of love just the light heartedness of it. That somehow, it’s a tremendously serious time for us as a people and what we’re facing, and yet, it seems that the light heartedness around it is what has attracted many people to it, if you think I’m saying?
Andrew: Yes, and I agree. At the outset of my review of David Cesarani’s book “The Final Solution” [“Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews, 1933–49”], I actually wrote a few paragraphs on the attitude of the younger generation, the millennial generation, if you want to give them that label, to situation that we’re in. More specifically the “Holocaust” and, you know, I wrote that, here, you know, here was a situation where we had decades of incredibly serious studious scholarly “Holocaust” revisionism, which resulted in people being imprisoned and lawsuits against people like David Irving.
And everything was very serious and involved lots of legalities and everything and then up pops the millennial generation with writers, with names like, “Grandpa Lampshade”! [laughter] And, you know, and with images of, like a little frog, you know, that accompanies Donald Trump, in putting Jews in striped pajamas behind wire fences! [laughter] Its taken to really ridiculous levels, and one of the things that does, to come back this idea of an instinct is, it’s so jarring to the system, to someone in the mainstream that it almost breaks that instinct.
Andrew: In a very different way to presenting them with some nice factual information, or playing on their curiosity. What it actually does is it plays on their sense of shock and their sense of humor. So it pulls on something very, very different and certainly no less effective to a younger millennial generation. As I said, that doesn’t want to read a great deal, and increasingly this method of communication of the meme works. This image with a funny caption designed to get a few giggles and, you know, it could be something just ridiculous, or just so outlandish that even the most earnest and, you know, self righteous, social justice warrior, might even crack a smile with them. And get them thinking about how ridiculous some aspects of the narrative that they have been taught really are.
So I, you know, I actually have a lot of time for people like Andrew Anglin. I agree with you that there are so many different strategies that we should take. One of the analogies I used earlier was that, Jewish influence and this whole Jewish question is an anvil that has worn out thousands of hammers and maybe it’s time we stopped trying to just use the one hammer, …
Andrew: … It’s time to adopt many different many different tactics and rule nothing out.
Henrik: No, unexpected, think outside of the box, do different things, right? You have to try whatever works here. Isn’t that what they did to penetrate into European society? They tried many different avenues, in many different paths, even getting to a position where they, for example, could exploit our sense of morality and altruism, right? That they took a long time to wear us down, if I’m correct.
Andrew: Of course! jews do not arrive at their positions through coming up with one solution and then just, you know, it was so smart and so intelligent a solution on how to penetrate our society, that it just worked first time, every time, and that was it.
No, actually it’s that whole, you know, “one percent inspiration ninety nine percent perspiration“, in which jews have succeeded so well, because they don’t give up. It’s the principle of trial and error. One of the great examples, of course, is the introduction of hate speech laws and the restriction of free speech in Britain. That whole process started in 1946.
Andrew: In the aftermath of the bombing of the King David Hotel and then a couple of years later with the “Sergeant’s Affair” where Irgun terrorists hanged a couple of British sergeants in a Europe eucalyptus grove in Palestine, and booby trapped their bodies so that they blew up when their comrades came to retrieve them!
And just this, there was a wave of revulsion against jews in Britain and people were painting slogans on walls saying, “Hitler was right!” and there were attacks on jewish stores and everything.
So all of the jewish communists in the Labor Party floated this legislation that would outlaw anti-semitism. That was the original goal, let’s outlaw anti-semitism, let’s nip it in the bud. But it didn’t work. You know, this idea that jews are omnipotent and always get their way, is just, it’s ridiculous! It didn’t work. They tried again two years later, it didn’t work again. It was defeated at the next Labour party conference. Then it was floated in Parliament, nine times in nine years, during the 1950s. And was defeated, every single time!
Andrew: It was only in the 1960s did the jews attempted changing tack, and this time they decided on a different approach. It would come through the front door and the back door. So the front door was, jewish politicians and the members of parliament would continue to introduce legislation that would ultimately have the desired goal, but with one crucial difference. Instead, broadening it’s application, so it was no longer outlawing anti-semitism, it was a law outlawing group libel.
So, you know, you’re not allowed to disparage groups. So jews get protection from that. Well there weren’t many other groups there, and so the black population that had originated in Britain the 1950s, start to multiply and then the Indian and Pakistani communities also.
But they started, it was in 1965, Frank Soskice the Home Office minister, who was the son of Russian Jewish revolutionary migrants into Britain, he floated this Race Relations legislation. And it got passed and inside this legislation, it was like pork barreling, inside this legislation was the provision for creating a Race Relations Board. And it was supposed to be an independent board that would forever, kind of, set the guidelines for how race would be discussed in Britain. And all these think tanks would be attached to it, and it would be independent and everything else.
But it wasn’t remotely independent! It was staffed by jews, predominately, by jews. We know this, because we can look at the internal evidence and it was jewish dominated. One of the think tanks that it produced and referred to, was the Political and Economic Planning Institute which was dominated by jewish lawyers and which itself spawned yet another think tank, the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants, NCCI.
Now the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants was supposed to represent the interests of Afro-Caribbeans in Britain and also the new Pakistani and Indian population. It was supposed to give them a voice., but just like the NAACP [National Association for the Advancement of Colored People — an American organisation set up by jews for US blacks] this organization that was intended to be the spokesman and voice to all these colored immigrants. It wasn’t led by colored immigrants. None of it’s research was produced by colored immigrants. No, it was led and it was directed by a man called Anthony Lester who just so happened to be jewish, and it’s main offshoot the Runnymead Trust was another Lester brainchild and it was co-run with Jim Rose who was also, you guessed it, jewish!
Andrew: So it was a backdoor, trial and error kind of approach. But, you know, I could go on and on, but they kept at this until eventually, in 1985, they finally got what they wanted through pure luck.
There was a miner’s strike in 1985 in Wales. There was a lot of public disorder and Parliament was very, very keen to pass a Public Order Act, giving the police in the area, powers to basically to deal with this. Now the Home Office minister at the time was a jew, called Leon Brittan, and one of his close associates was another jew, named Malcolm Rifkind.
Well, what did Brittan and Rifkind do? Well, they snuck in a little tiny clause into that Public Order Act, that banned and made illegal racial harassment. And it is really, in 1985, that was the culmination of, you know, forty, forty four, or more, forty five or forty six years of jewish trial and error in trying to clamp down on the ability of the British people to form a critique, based around race. So it was a long time in the making and it with a huge number of nuanced approaches taken in order to achieve that goal.
And that’s what we need to understand. It’s not some magic trick that they’re pulling here. It’s taken over time and we need to be much more astute in terms of how this operates and on how we form our counter strategies.
Henrik: Yeah. Yeah, well put. Well, I mean we need to fight! We need to run for office! Rise to positions of influence, whether that’s business, or politics. I think what’s happening right now is that, most of us are giving up, we’re surrendering, we’re handing over territory, White flight, we’re, you know, bowing out! It’s incredible! Well, look at what’s happening in London with Sidiq Khan and even his co-operation, of course, with the jews, in London. He could never have pulled it off, I think, without them. And yeah. Here we stand now, a major, major capital of a European city [country], you know, handed over to Muslims with the co-operation of jews. Incredible isn’t?
Andrew: Yeah, I was thinking about about this Sidiq Khan case, this just last night.
But, again, one of the things that I thought about was, yeah, we can look into all the jewish support for Khan. He certainly has it. Jonathan Freedland, the Jewish editor of The Guardian newspaper, has been singing Sidiq Khan’s praises for a long time.
And the aftermath of Kahn’s election, he called Kahn something like an international phenomenon and everyone wants a piece of Kahn! No one wants a piece of Kahn! [chuckles] Most of the world don’t even know who it is., but it is, just this is jewish, … It should come as no surprise that Freedland was also singing the praises of the ultra diverse London Olympic Ceremony a few years back, you know, he’s a cheerleader for anything that the signals the demographic demise of the British people in their own country!
Andrew: But, let’s not forget that there are all these immediate factors contributing to Kahn’s success. But, Kahn would never even enjoyed the success of London if it wasn’t for the multicultural hellhole that it is today. And it is, the multicultural hellhole, that it is today, because of decades of immigration and steady tweaking of policy and lots of behind the scenes shuffling that came about, because this is modern parliamentary democratic system that we have, leaks like a sieve and has so many black holes in it, that it can be manipulated and played like a puppet by any puppet master that wants to play the game. So, there are long term, … Kahn could not happen overnight, if I can put it in a nutshell.
Andrew: This has been a long time in the making. And those among us who have sense will have the foresight to see that, you know, already today, bit by bit, the bricks are being laid and the path is being laid for many, many more Kahns to come. And our effort should be on trying to figure out where those strategies are, how they are being slowly put together and do our best to stop them.
Henrik: What does this mean for us to think in the future, and will this lead to more people coming over to our side and realizing slowly, but surely:
“Yes, we are being displaced. Yes there’s no room for consideration, for us in the picture and anything that basically means everyone else is good and if there’s too many of us in any position, or in any board, or any influence whatsoever then this is going to be continually fought and we’re going to be pushed out!”
What does it mean for us, do you think?
Andrew: Well, here is one of our problems Henrik, in terms of, you know, people coming to our side and as things change, as they get worse, will they come over to our side? Here’s one of the problems. The world, the personal individual world of the average citizen has shrunk over time, you know, we all hear this phrase as the world is a smaller place, because of travel and ever thing else. I believe the personal world of the individual has shrunk in the last century. Although we might be able to go places that our ancestors were never able to see and everything else, as I explained earlier, our sense of what is ours has shrunk down to the minute level, and what we perceive as ours and value as ours and what we have the opportunity of feeling is threatened has retracted to an astonishing degree.
And I think that for too many people of in our culture in our society today, they won’t be prompted to feel threatened enough, until it’s on their doorstep, until their home is being invaded, you know, until their car is being stolen, until their daughter is being attacked, or their son is being murdered.
And even then, as we’ve seen with so many attacks in Germany, sometimes the parents, or the relatives involved, have this sick pathological response! Where somehow they see themselves as being to blame! It is a very, very difficult and disheartening situation and there are a number of sick and countering productive and maladaptive instincts that we need to figure out how to overcome. Unfortunately, I’m not one of those that believe, you know, as the situation gets worse it’s somewhat automatically going to get better, because people will be forced to wake up. I think that is, unfortunately, is a bit of wishful thinking.
I think the solutions are going to become, have to become ever more radical, unfortunately, to shift societal thinking. I think that, you know, within any given population of any species not even of humans are there a variety of traits and I think that these will be selected for in our population. I think that those that remain blind until the end, will go the way that every other species, member of a species that has failed to adapt as well, and that is into oblivion. And I think that those who have somewhere in them the potential and the necessary traits to find that instinct within themselves of survival and kin survival and national, and ethnic survival. If they can find out within themselves, then they will group together with us and that will be the core of what we have to fight with going into the future.
But it’s, I don’t claim, I don’t possess the hubris to profess to be able to predict what’s going to happen. As I said, before I think we are on a very, very dynamic situation. Things are going to be constantly changing. I’m prepared to be surprised, and I think everyone else should should be too.
If history tells us anything, it’s that sometimes massive cultural shifts can can can just take off from nowhere like the lighting of a fuse. And, you know, the French Revolution, and it didn’t happen overnight and there was some planning and everything, in place before it all, but once it started, it was very difficult to put that genie back in the bottle. And, I say that, you know, don’t underestimate the momentum of history and the momentum of human action. And also group thinks in crisis, you know, I think there’s still something to be said for the fact that humans are herd creatures and I think that all we need is a kind of tipping point, a percentage of the population and so many others will follow, unthinkingly if necessary.
Henrik: Yeah, exactly! I mean, you’re right when you say that this is kind of a, well in a roundabout way, you’re saying this is a eugenic aspect here that’s occurring. Only those that are strong enough and intelligent enough are going to make it out through this alive, to a certain extent. And then, OK, certainly it’s, you know, happening to other people too, but much less so, I mean this is largely this is a phenomenon that’s only occurring in Western nations where Europeans dwell.
And it’s also in a strange way, it’s got, almost like our own diaspora, right? I mean we’re being pushed out of certain areas. It’s of course, reminiscent of what happened in Spain when the Muslims were pouring in there and, jeez, who knows what direction this is going to go in the future and what kind of hardships and battles and bloodshed, that’s going to come out of this! Of trying to both regain territory, but also, you know, gain back power and influence again over the lands that are ours, that are our homelands! Andrew?
Andrew: Yes. I don’t, I do not envy the experience that our children and grandchildren will have, Henrik. I have two children and a third on the way, …
Andrew: Yeah! I have, you know, I fear for them. It’s something that preoccupies me and at times disturbs me. In many ways how lucky we are to be in the position we are in. It may be that we are in the more fortunate position than that, that will be experienced by our children and grandchildren.
I gave a speech, actually, to a group back in October and at the end of the speech, I got quite emotional and, you know, I was almost trembling when I said it, but I urged everyone present to give everything they had, not for any kind of sense of glory, or ego, or, because of the here and now, but so that their children and grandchildren are spared a horrific future! And so that they never ever, ever have to go through even what we are experiencing right now, where they are alienated within their own culture, where the tools of their culture have been completely stolen from them and in which, that they are so thoroughly oppressed and denied the most basic right of self assertion and pride in their history. It is such an undignified and horrendous matter and I just urged everyone that was there, to give it everything that they have got, for their future. I mean, I’m not a religious person and I said to more than a few people that I know:
“You know, I do I believe in one afterlife and that is the afterlife that I will experience through my children. They will carry on my genes. Through them I will live on.”
And in that sense, they are everything to me. And the ideas that I will pass on a world to them, that I can see faintly over the horizon, as you said, looks like there will be bloodshed and strife and war and hunger. That’s not a legacy that I want to pass on to them. Our parents, … I know Henrik, the generation came before us did not do a good job of safeguarding the inheritance that was to be passed on to us. Nor did their parents. And, you know, it’s left us to try and pick up the pieces for that and adopt a rightful sense of responsibility, because we are responsible to the future generations.
Henrik: Absolutely! Yeah, well said! Well said. You know, I mean it’s incredible! I think of it all the time. I have woken up many times literally in cold sweats, having nightmares about this, of displacement, of the fact that we are being slowly and in some cases violently attacked and genocided. We are being pushed out, we don’t have any country of our own anymore. Every White country in the world is being flooded in the same way and it’s a horrible prospect, it’s a horrible thought. Especially when you see the way that this is turning out, right? I mean this connection, if you will, between the view and the image that we were, to certain extent, promised, or what they’re promoting to us, how wonderful this was going to be and what it meant, right?
And now we’re seeing the reality of it. Which is rape rates skyrocketing, violent crime, we’re seeing terrorism, you know, bombs going off, gangs, it’s just everything that’s antithetical to the high trust society that we’ve been accustomed to, for such a long time. And I think that in itself is catching us off guard, right? It’s so shocking, it’s so foreign, and it’s so bizarre that we quite don’t know how to deal with it, almost. Not at this stage, not yet.
Andrew: No. As you say, it is far from the image that we were fed and this view of the future that we were led to believe, we would all go walking hand in hand into it., but it was always based on a conceit, it was always based on this idea that we could somehow make the world in our image and if we, ourselves, deny our ethnic heritage and the society that we create will be a society without ethnicity, or race. It is so conceited and it is so illogical, because, you know, I said this before, I’ve said it in speeches.
It does not matter, I’ve addressed audiences some of which included neutral people there, if you’re sitting on the fence, if you’re not sure about what nationalism is, or what it means to you. If you just don’t think it’s quite for you, or you don’t feel a part of your race, or ethnicity. It doesn’t matter. It really doesn’t matter! It doesn’t matter, if you hate your own race, it doesn’t matter if you think all White people deserve this, that, or the other. That all of the colored people who have come in, will view you as some kind other, it does not matter! You wear the uniform of your race, in your skin, …
Andrew: ... And you wear it every single day. And no matter what you think of yourself, or your fellow Whites, the guy on the other side of the fence is going to see you as just another White!
Andrew: It’s what in his head and his perception, and to him you’re just another kaffer, just another unbeliever, just another infidel, you’re just another honky, you’re just not a cracker! Whatever it might be, drop the conceit! You’re nothing special! Your little moral system, it will take you right to the grave. You know, you need to drop the act, stop with the self conceit and join your gang! I mean, when you look at prisons, they are a microcosm of what the future is going to look like.
Andrew: About how people group together when resources get scarce and when the level of danger in a society increases. And you will find so many White men who didn’t have any kind of racial conception of themselves before.z they might be going in for shoplifting, or whatever. They might have been shoplifting with a black fellow criminal. But once they passed the prison gates, the black guy must go and join the black gang and the White guy will be forced to go and join the White gang, because, other than the prison uniform that they wear, they wear another set of uniforms, and that is skin color and everything that, that entails. It’s about, … It says so much, about where you came from and who’s going to look out for you and who can protect you. And when it comes down to it, that’s your ethnic brothers.
Henrik: Yeah, absolutely! Well, I mean, we’re kind of approaching the end here, I mean we could talk probably for several more hours. Very interesting discussion and so many important things. But, one of the things I want to just get to here, at the end, is kind of, this idea that everything that is happening now, has been done to us, right? I want to try to get that point across. There’s been Putnam and others have done studies on multiculturalism, I believe it’s Putnam. That shows, … What I’m saying is, I think that there has been a knowledge already, within our elites, the establishment, that this is the kind of society that would be created. I think those at least were, who have been smart, who have been pushing it, have been to a certain extent aware of the fact that, it would create chaos and disorder to a certain extent,
But, what would you say about why this has been done to us? What is the objective here? Is it to genocide us, is it to displace us, is it revenge? Because, obviously there is no secret that many who have been promoting the multicultural society have been jewish. They’ve been pushing diversity, they have been, you know, all the way from an academic sense of trying to deconstruct race and, you know, affiliation on that level and biology, have been jewish. From Gould to Diamond that I mentioned earlier, “The Mismeasure of Man” and these kinds of works, have all aided in this overall view that we have today that has formulated, I think, the picture that we find ourselves in, of a multicultural hellhole. But, what would you say to that question of why this has been done to us?
Andrew: I think there has been a confluence of factors and there have been countless and subtle changes and direction as history has progressed., but I think, going back to the late nineteenth century, early twentieth century, when you look at lots of Jewish writings like Israel Zangwill’s, “The Melting Pot” and some of the earliest jewish advocates for multiculturalism.
I tend to agree very strongly with Kevin MacDonald’s argument that Jews became very aware of the fact that they would enjoy more anonymity and more safety and more power and more agency in a multicultural society, because the host population with the less likely to focus on them if they are no longer the sole minority, or the most major minority within the population. So, there was definitely a kind of idea that if a homogeneously White society was diluted and it’s percentage of population decreased, somewhat, then it would result in greater jewish security and would facilitate the achievement of jewish interests much more easily and without as much trouble. And I think that idea of jewish security was the primary motivation for some time, or at least the dominant motivation for some time.
But, I think that things changed during World War Two. I think that in a lot of respects World War Two changed the world and it changed the character of jewish European relations, if I can put it in those terms. Right after the war, or actually, just before the end of the war, you had the publication, I can’t remember the name of the author, but title the book was, “Germany Must Perish”.
Henrik: Kaufman wrote something, …
Andrew: Yes, I think it was Kaufman. And it was this argument for the genocide — there were other arguments as well, just not quite as the notorious as Kaufman’s — for sterilization., but really it’s an argument for the genocide of the German people. And I say, I think some seeds really were planted at that time, in terms of realizing that, you know, it raised the stakes of the game. There were other Jews at the time, I referenced in my review of David Cesarini’s book, “Final Solution” that after the war there were attempts by jewish terrorist groups to poison German [water] reservoirs with the aim of just killing tens, hundreds of thousands of people.
A hunger for incredibly wide ranging and brutal revenge was sparked during World War Two. I think before that the game was played much more subtly, but I think the pace all of everything in this European-jewish tussle, it endured a catalyst effect. And I think that ever since then what we have been seeing is not so much a search for jewish security, as, I think a very, very conscious awareness of the fact that the multicultural policies have taken a life of their own and really had a snowball effect, that really, is resulting in displacement and, if you want to give it the word “genocide”, I don’t see reason why we shouldn’t apply that to what is happening right now.
Andrew: Our birthrates are plummeting, the culture is anti-natalist, you know, there’s demographic displacement on a mass scale, London is no longer a British city. This is a creeping death, there is no, “ifs“, “ands”, or “buts” about it. And for me personally, I see multiculturalism practiced on this industrial scale as nothing less than part of a planned scheme for wholesale dispossession and, yes, genocide!
I view every advocate of multiculturalism as party to this treason to our people. And I think that radical measures are all that remain in order to roll back the tide, because the situation has just gone through so terribly out of control. And, what legislative action can be taken right now? Even this Brexit debate that’s going on in Britain, or the rise of Donald Trump — I haven’t heard one policy proposed that would reverse any of the damage that’s been done. And even if things were to remain static, the level of disparity in birth rates would still see us eclipsed in our own lands within fifty years. It’s a disaster!
Henrik: Yeah. My God! It’s incredible that it’s happening and that we have so many of our own that are fighting people like us! Who are trying to bring awareness to this and trying to reverse it. Trying to, you know, save people, of trying to give our own people an opportunity that these people would would grant to any other people! They would fight for them to have their lands for them, not to be invaded the way we are. It’s just, it’s unbelievable! It is truly remarkable!
Andrew: There was a show that was, I didn’t see it, but I was sent a link to a story covering it, there was a show recently aired on the BBC. It surprised me, given the nature of the BBC. A show aired on the BBC, called, “The Last Whites of the East End”, …
Henrik: Yes! Lana brought it to my attention, yesterday. Very interesting.
Andrew: Yes, this documentary about the last White people in this district of London. And, you know, I haven’t seen and I want to watch it, because, …
Henrik: It’s extremely sad, very, very sad. It’s scary, very scary! Frightening watching it!
Andrew: But, even more interesting than the content of that show, probably was the reaction on Twitter and social media by social justice warriors, and leftists and jews afterwards. Who said, it was the most racist program that has ever been shown on TV! [laughter] this was actually what it was called. It was the most racist program that has ever been shown on TV!
Henrik: Why? Because it gives sympathy to Whites, or something?
Andrew: Yeah! They can’t even mention that Whites are being displaced. That is enough, it is racist! It reminded me of a case, not so long ago with Steven McGowan who is, I think he’s the director of the, “Ask the Truth Folk Alliance”. He’s in a religious organization in the United States. And for a long time Steven McGowan has been protesting Chinese interference in Tibet, and even the rights of Sri Lankans and all these oppressed peoples. No one even batted an eye at him saying this stuff., but one day he wrote a post on Facebook saying that he sympathized with the German people on the actions of Angola Merkel who had flooded the country with thousands of, tens of thousands of immigrants, of hundreds of thousands of immigrants! That would eventually displace the German people their in own homeland.
And my goodness, did the social media world erupt at this racist Stephen McGowan! For daring to draw attention to their plight. And Steven McGowan responses was very, very astute. He said:
“Look, no one said I was racist when I said this about Tibetans. No one said I was racist when I said the same thing about the Sri Lankans. Everybody is jumping on the bandwagon and calling me a racist, because I spoke up for the Germans!”
Henrik: Yeah. That’s right. Oh, man, Andrew! Yep, it’s a dire situation for sure, but we have to we have to fight. There’s nothing else about it. I’m still positive, in the sense that I think we’ll be able to turn this around. I mean, we have to! There’s no other way about it. I mean, I would fight even if I thought it was futile! I would open still do it, there’s just no other way about it.
But, you know, we have to keep our spirits up high, we have to kind of adapt that attitude of success to certain extent of, you know, kind of almost, you know, mentally placing ourselves in that state of like, being successful in what we do, and fighting this off, and holding our own ground to a certain extent. Otherwise, if we, you know, hang our head in shame, or if we, you know, get too depressed by this, I don’t think we’re going to win it. I think we have to change our attitudes towards it and adopt a different attitude.
But, anyway Andrew, we could go on for hours, as I said. I think this is a good place to start wrapping things up. There’s much more, of course, we can have talked about, both when it comes to Trump and what else. And if there is something else you want to squeeze in here right at the end, any closing thoughts, or anything like that, please please go ahead., but I just want to bring attention to the two web sites that we’ve been referencing today. The Occidental Observer dot net. Look out for articles by Dr Andrew Joyce. Also British Renaissance dot org. We’ll have the links up to this, and then further ahead., look out for later this year, look out for [the book], “Talmud and Taboo”. A collection of essays by Andrew Joyce as well.
But, I want to say, thank you so much for your time today, Andrew, for talking with us for sharing some of your work and opinions with us. It’s been very interesting. So please, you know, keep up the good work and you’re welcome back any time, by the way.
Andrew: Thank you very much Henrik. If I could make one final statement, would just be that, like you I’m optimistic about the future. I do think that we will win. I think that as difficult as the situation is right now, it will only make the glory all the sweeter when we achieve that final victory! And I believe that we will.
Another thing I want to say, just to wrap things up as well. Each and every one of us who is writing an article, or producing a podcast, or leading a radio show like yourself, or convening a conference, each one of those little things is the pulse of the heart of this movement. A movement that, although persecuted and down trodden and maybe pushed a little bit out of the mainstream, is still in existence and I believe getting stronger. And I think if we all keep doing this and keep working the way we, we will only go from strength to strength. And yes, our enemies are still there working away, doing what they’re doing, but so are we!
Henrick: Absolutely! Well put Andrew. We’ll close with that. Thank you so much again.
Andrew: OK thanks.
Henrick: That’s our show for today, folks. Thank you for listening. We have more coming, with Andrew Fraser, Julian Langness and also Evalion on 3fourteen, A video version of that, available for members. We also have a live show this Saturday, as I mentioned. Only on Red Ice Members dot com. This is going to begin our weekly wrap up show, so definitely stay tuned for that. More information soon on the Web sites. Thank you again, so much for listening. Always good to have you with us. Join us again on Friday and Saturday for more Red Ice.
Have a nice day, or evening wherever you are. Take care and we’ll see you soon.
END of Part 2/2
Click to download a PDF of this post (0.6 MB):
Version 9: Sep 18, 2016 — Formatting. Added PDF for download.
Version 8: Jun 11, 2016 — Fixed some typos. Changed uppercase “Jew…” to lowercase “jew…”.
Version 7: Jun 9, 2016 — Added 12 mins [60:00] to [72:00]. Total mins = 72. TRANSCRIPT COMPLETE.
Version 6: Jun 8, 2016 — Added 10 mins [50:00] to [60:00]. Total mins = 60.
Version 5: Jun 7, 2016 — Added 20 mins [30:00] to [50:00]. Total mins = 50.
Version 4: Jun 6, 2016 — Added 10 mins [20:00] to [30:00]. Total mins = 30.
Version 3: Jun 6, 2016 — Added 10 mins [10:00] to [20:00]. Total mins = 20.
Version 2: Jun 5, 2016 — Completed 10 minutes [00:00] to [10:00].
Version 1: Posted Jun 5, 2016 — Added rough draft of transcript.