[In this 47 minute audio interview Dr. David Duke gets straight to the point with Dr. Andrew Joyce, a British historian and regular writer for the Occidental Quarterly and the Occidental Observer. He discusses the role of organised jewry in pushing multiracialism, multiculturalism and its drive to exterminate the White race through such organizations as the EU. Also discussed is the Brexit result and Andrew’s opinion on UKIP and Nigel Farage — KATANA.]
Dr. Andrew Joyce
Click on the above link, or copy the link into your browser to listen to the audio.
Today Dr. Duke had as his guest the promising young scholar, Professor Andrew Joyce. Professor Joyce discussed the Brexit vote, quoting numerous major Jewish sources stating that Jews overwhelming voted to remain in the EU. One such source decried the possible loss of a “multicultural paradise” in which she barely saw a white face.
Dr. Joyce explained that white interests and Jewish interests are fundamentally different. He went into the history of both immigration and censorship in Britain, and stated that he has documented that Jews were the ones who were behind these policies, and nobody who checks his sources will be able to deny it. He also gave his impression of the UK Independence Party and its leader Nigel Farage.
This is fascinating show with a great new voice for our people. Please listen and share it with your friends.
David Duke: Ladies and gentlemen, friends and open minded people wherever you live in the United States of America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and, of course, my ancient homeland of Europe. This is David Duke and I’m also speaking to the whole world, because the problems that Europeans face is causing a huge problem. The enemy, the globalist enemy that controls this planet, the international finance, the global politics and the global media are truly an enemy of all humanity, of all peoples, of all independent peoples everywhere on the earth and the unique expressions of those people in their own homelands. That’s the true diversity of the earth that is worthwhile to preserve. Biologists talk about diversity all the time in terms of nature, the animal kingdom and the importance of the fact that we have different species and subspecies, races if you would, because that’s another name for subspecies and the truth is that the diversity of nature is only maintained through what you call a gene pool, or a group of people, or a group of organisms, living things, that share a common series of genes and traits that create that very diversity. And our diversity is being destroyed, obviously, all over the world.
I always come up with a little bit of thought like that to begin a show. I also want to mention the fact that I just came off the Don Black Show and he interviewed me today and we had a very good discussion about the attacks in Sacramento and we had a very good discussion about the Trump campaign and why the Trump campaign, or the Trump candidacy for president of the United States has been a very powerful encouraging event, not only in the United States, but all over the world. Because of the fact that he’s addressing issues that, what we call the jewish agenda is not confronting. That it’s addressing and bringing to the forefront the immigration issues and the realities of immigration to our own lands and the realities of foreign trade and the whole realities, in some ways, that have been encapsulated in Great Britain with the recent Brexit vote. A great victory for those people want to preserve Great Britain and really preserve Europe. My hash tag, my most recent hash tag on Twitter is “Smash the EU and save Europe”. Sounds almost like an oxymoron or misnomer. But that’s the reality, “Smash the EU” is not Europe, the EU today is an organization that’s destroying Europe and the European people.
I’ve got a very special guest today. Honored guest, I must say, because I’ve been reading his writings for quite a while. He does a lot of stories in the Occidental Quarterly. He’s a good friend of Dr. MacDonald as I am. He is also a professor, he’s Dr. Andrew Joyce. He’s a young man, very young man and he is totally dedicated to the preservation of our heritage, our freedom and he recognizes the international globalist power that’s dedicated to destroying our people. That sounds pretty radical to say that, just out, but that’s exactly what they are doing. He’s also done a lot of research recently in the Brexit case. Brexit, excuse me. Excited today, had a very exciting time on the Don Black Show. By the way, if you don’t listen to the Don Black Show I’d tune it in every day before mine. Anyway, I’m going to go right to him today, because I want to get his thoughts. He’s been doing a lot of research on Brexit.
First of all, welcome Dr. Joyce, welcome to the program.
Dr. Andrew Joyce:Thank you very much Dr. Duke, it’s a pleasure to be here. I’d like to thank you especially for that terrific introduction. I would also like to say, just a little introduction of my own. That I was sixteen years old, a young sixteen year old boy, when I first heard about you and your work. And over the last decade and a half, or more, I’ve been following my own journey of sorts, but always with you in the background putting out your very valuable content and contribution to our cause. So, that journey that really began when I was sixteen, now seems to be coming full circle in a lot of ways and it’s a real honor to be here and to be able to discuss with you today some very, very pressing and some very, very important topics. So, I just want to say that I’m excited too!
David: Thank you so much, that was very kind of you to say those things and, but, let’s go right into your research.
So, first of all, before we go into the powers behind the EU and the powers that control the EU and the effect of the EU organization on Great Britain and Europe. In terms of who’s behind it and who is opposed to the Brexit or the exit of the UK from the EU. Why don’t you give us your view of the EU and how it affects Great Britain and how it affects Europe and a little bit of analysis, from your point of view, from that first, and then we’ll talk about your exciting and very interesting, fascinating research into the powers and the forces behind the EU and behind the opposition to Brexit. So let’s start with that.
[Image] The Sun made the claim that the Queen backed Brexit. The official position was that the Queen was neutral on such issues. No doubt many of The Sun readers where swayed by such headlines.
Give me your basic impression for our listeners not only in Europe, but all over the world, because we have an awful lot around the world, on the EU itself and why the EU has become an institution, or how it’s become an institution that is not only dedicated to denying the rights of individual countries and it’s hurting our economics and hurting our well-being in so many ways, but it’s also, now seems to be an act of force that’s ultimately trying to destroy the European people. Could you give us an analysis, please?
Andrew: Well, I’ll try to give you a brief overview of my perception of the EU in any case. And I think each and every person, depending on who they are, where they live and what their particular interests are, will have a different take on the EU. My own is basically, it’s a tool, it’s a tool of super-national government, that is heavily, heavily supported by jews. And I see it predominantly as a tool for the implementation of a mass plan, a mass policy of multiculturalism, mass migration, with the end goal of breeding the European people, the indigenous native, rightfully inhabiting citizens of Europe, to breed them completely and utterly out of existence!
[Image] The real EU?
I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that, that is the case. And I think that when you examine the responses of the jewish community across Europe and in fact across the globe to this Brexit, which is just very recently happened, you will see that they are mortified, horrified and terrified that this tool that they put so much effort into and boosted so much through their propaganda and their lies, is crumbling into nothing before, right before those very same eyes.
David: Interesting! So, give us some aspects of the EU structure and some of the things that they’re doing that is so destructive to the European people and European heritage. Could you give us some examples of that for our listeners?
Andrew: Well, to be perfectly honest, I’m not very well versed and I’m not a professor of Political Science and I haven’t exactly devoted much time to the intricacies and the infrastructure of the European Union itself. But as just one example of how the EU is being used to abuse the citizens. The EU gives about five hundred million euros each year to the occupied Palestinian territories. Now this is money that under international law the Israeli government would have been compelled to give the Palestinian Authority, under the laws of occupation. But, because of the influence of the jews in the European Union, all of the money that is supporting Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories is coming out of European pockets.
And that’s just the financial harm that’s being wrought by jewish influence in the EU. On the other hand, of course, you’ve got the mass migration that is seemingly endless. Germany, of course, one of the most cucked countries in Europe, continues to be at the forefront of demanding that the European Union as a whole, permits the mass influx of people from the Middle East.
David: Well, exactly! You know, I was looking at the Brexit reactions and it was really quite amazing! I was reading the mainstream globalist jewish dominated globalist media and they had article after article about how that the European Union was great, because it was allowing a freedom, a free flow of Europeans across countries. Of course, the ironic thing is that it’s not really, that’s not really the critical factor. We don’t see much wrong with the free flow of Europeans, it’s precisely the opposite of that. It’s allowing the free flow of non Europeans into Europe and then once they’re there, to continue to basically change the demographics, the fundamental demographic structure of these countries. What are your thoughts on that?
Andrew: Well, exactly. I think that one of the main functions of the EU as a tool, is that, you know, if you’re working to introduce mass immigrant populations into individual nations, that’s a lot of effort you have to put into each individual nation to manipulate it’s laws. You need to, you know, work it’s lobbies, you need to apply the right influence in the right areas. When you have supra-national government, or transnational government, offered by a tool like the EU, then you only need to focus it in one specific area, especially when it’s a relatively, well incredibly undemocratic type of government like the EU has. But you only need to focus your efforts on one point. Once you can sway the EU, or implement those laws right at the pinnacle, then it encapsulates every country, every nation within that conglomerate.
So the EU has provided jews with the benefits of a single focus and also speed! One of the things that I’ve noticed when I’ve been reading some of the jewish responses to Brexit, is there’s a real mourning over the fact that the speed with which things were progressing is now coming slowly to a halt and they are perfectly clear and rightfully so, that Brexit is a vote against multiculturalism. This isn’t necessarily a vote against some of the financial operations and financial dealings within the EU. This is a vote against what exactly as you said, you know, the movement of people. People are waking up to the fact that this is a tool for multiculturalism and a tool for the extermination of the European people!
David: That’s a hard word, “extermination”. Explain, even though that’s a very tough word to use, it sounds extreme maybe to some our listeners, why this is not something, this is not some sort of hyperbole. That literally what’s happening in the world is that the Europeans are being, as you said, they’re being replaced. This is an ethnic cleansing really going on and in a democracy that’s the way it works, right? If you are in a majority, you can make the laws and the rules and we have our governments more and more creating systems that are not good for the well being of our people, the heritage of our people, the reproduction of our people, the continuation of our heritage and values in our own countries.
So, extermination might be a hard word, but this is not lining up people against the wall, it’s not in some sort of “Holocaust” scenario that the jewish media always talks about the Second World War. You know, we were talking about though, basically the destruction of the unique expression of humanity, aren’t we?
Andrew: We are. We are talking about destruction of a unique aspect of humanity. But the keyword here is “scale”. Now many of the, …
David: Excuse me, could you say that word again? I didn’t understand the word you, …
David: Oh, “scale”! That’s the difference between the British, …
Andrew:That is the different between talking about, you know, a little bit of diversity, a little bit of vibrancy, you know, eating at an ethnic restaurant in your city. There’s a difference between that and there is a difference between wholesale population displacement. When you look at the heartland of the Brexit vote in the north of England. We’re talking about, you know, seventy percent of some of those towns voted Brexit, or more. And the reason why they’re voting is, because the neighboring town might already have gone. It might already be seventy percent ethnic minority, you know. And I use that word “minority” with a heavy sense of irony, of course. Because it’s the natives who continue to be called a majority that are now in the true minority.
And it’s the scale of things. It’s the fact that the numbers are so huge and then when you look at the disparities between birth rates. We only need to fast forward and project about fifty years, a hundred at the obsolute maximum, and we can see that the indigenous native peoples with their beautiful culture and their ancient ways of life and their entire genetic heritage will be completely disappeared! And that to me would be a horrific crime against humanity and perhaps the greatest crime against humanity in the history of our species!
David: Now that’s, that’s harsh and it’s a harsh reality. It’s almost like a nightmare, rather than talking about reality, but it’s truly what you’re saying. I mean, it’s considered, you know, the greatest human rights crime is considered the idea of wiping out a whole people, a whole heritage. I mean, that’s the cornerstone of the whole “Holocaust” [Holohoax], what Mr Finkelstein calls the “Shoah Business”, you know. And yet that’s basically what is going on here. We’re having the destruction of a whole unique people from the planet and they’re acting like this is not going to impact culture and the traditional freedoms of Europe and the values, when obviously they will.
Andrew: Yeah. I would like to highlight the fact that this process this, this tool, which is bringing about this horrific destruction of our people, is very much praised endlessly by jews. And I don’t have a few quotes here, just from very recent articles on Brexit by jewish journalists. And maybe we could go through some of those, …
David: Yes, what’s the jewish establishment view on Brexit and what’s the evidence you’ve dug up in your research over the last few days?
Andrew: Yeah. Well, the establishment view, the executive vice president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Richard Verber, recently gave a statement immediately after the Brexit vote was announced. And he said:
“It will become evident that British jews voted overwhelmingly to remain”.
So, there you have it from the Board of Deputies of British Jews, so, you know, the jewish community as a whole is divergent in it’s interests and they see them from the British public, the majority of the British public as a whole. But in terms of responses, I want to read this quote to you first.
[Image] Richard Verber speaks before his election as senior vice president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, May 17, 2015.
This is from Laura Moser at the Forward, right? And she’s an American born jew. She found out that her grandfather was born in Germany, she managed to get German citizenship, which therefore gave her citizenship of the EU. Apparently,she was planning to move to London. She had all these plans of this life in London she was going to have. And she spent a year living in London and she writes in this article, in the Forward, and the article is called titled, “Why I’ll never live in England again after Brexit”. Now I’m sure all of our English listeners are crying right now that Laura Moser won’t be coming to live with them.
[Image] “In the spring of 2007, Laura Moser’s new husband Arun Chaudhary signed up to be the videographer with then-senator Obama’s presidential campaign. Moser says she became a “campaign widow.” She was alone at home with a crying baby while Obama gave romantic tips to her hubby, who has written a new book: First Cameraman: Documenting the Obama Presidency in Real Time.”
But one of the quotes, one of things that she discusses is the fact that, you know, she went to a gym and everyone at the gym was kind of wearing, it was a ladies’ gym, and all these Middle Eastern ladies were there wearing their hijab. And she would eat at a Jamaican restaurant and, you know, she would walk down the street and they would hardly be a White face to be seen. And she now writes, this is what she writes:
“Is that idyllic, multicultural place I remember really gone forever? Vanquished by that silly terrible vote?”
This is what is so, first of all, this multicultural hellhole that most Whites acknowledge is now in place in London, she views it as idyllic. This is wonderful to her as a jew and she mourns that it’s gone forever. Vanquished by what she calls a “silly terrible vote”. Now if you’re English, British and listening to this and you exercise your democratic right. And you participated in the ancient and venerable democratic tradition. I want you to consider that this jewish journalist has just described, your honourable act as a, “silly terrible vote”.
David: Yeah, that’s interesting. And, of course, it’s the same jewish establishment that supports the state of Israel, which is a state entirely based on the preservation of specifically the jewish people, jewish culture, jewish faith, jewish tradition, jewish interests. And that specifically is a country that has been created by very recent and vicious and ongoing ethnic cleansing. And that Israel continues to be a state that becomes more jewish with every census. And not only is it becoming more jewish, but it’s also reducing the population of the Palestinian occupied territory, the occupied territories, because they’re making life so untenable for them and which is also part of their plan. So the hypocrisy of all this is amazing. I know you’re a scholar on jewish data, you’ve studied a lot about that. The hypocrisy of the jewish power structure is amazing, isn’t it?
Andrew:It’s astonishing. It’s astonishing, and the fact that she uses this word, “idyllic” to describe multicultural Britain is nothing less than appalling. Did the young girls, the thousands and thousands, perhaps up to a million young girls raped and abused by Pakistanis in Rotherham, … Did they find multicultural Britain to be idyllic? Did the young teenager, Chris Donald, who was set upon, stabbed and burned alive by Pakistanis in Scotland, find multicultural Britain to be idyllic? I don’t think so! I don’t think so at all!
But it cuts to the heart of the jewish question, or the jewish problem, whichever you want to call it, and that is, that our interests and the interests of jews are fundamentally divergent! It’s not even a case of two dogs constantly attacking each other. What we’re looking at is oil and water. They just don’t mix! They only mix whenever there’s extreme agitation applied and enough distraction so that the elements don’t become combustible. But in the end, the strategies break down and we’re left with these very, very, very divergent paths to the future. And, you know, Britain is at a crossroads right now. It can pursue the right path, which it’s already taken one step on by rejecting multiculturalism.
Really, you know, it was a close run thing and generationally this may be the last roll the dice that Britain has. But it can keep that momentum going and push against this, or it can lapse back into the jewish, “idyll” which is, you know, a multicultural hell for you, if you happen to be White.
David: Yeah. It’s just amazing to think about that, this hypocrisy. Another question now, I want to go more into the Brexit and I know you have a lot more to talk to us about the jewish international response and the banking institutions and the political institutions around the world to Brexit and their role in the anti-Brexit movement and their role in promoting the EU in these multinational and globalist institutions. But we’ve got to take a break first and then we’ll be right back with Dr. Andrew Joyce, joining us. An expert on the British aspect of historical events and he’s a tremendous authority on a lot of the jewish issues which we are probably going to get into, in this next half hour. Back in a minute.
[Image] Peter Sutherland, a particularly despicable enemy of Whites, urging on the flooding of Europe with non-Whites.
Okay folks, this is David Duke and I have a great guest, Dr. Andrew Joyce, and we’re talking about Brexit and he’s talking about the reaction to Brexit by this international jewish establishment. That’s the only way to put it, because they have a broad based establishment. They literally dominate the media in most of the European nations of the world, from Australia to the European nations individually and, of course, they have a lot of influence politically, not only in the United States. They don’t have as much, but United States is just overwhelming when you talk about jewish influence there. So, Dr. Joyce, you’re there? Correct?
Andrew: Yes, I’m still here.
David: Great! We’re having a very interesting discussion here. Let’s go into some of the other aspects of the Brexit and the response to the Brexit. You know, a lot of people are sometimes, and again you’re pretty good authority on the jewish Question, I also want to speak to you about Farage and UKIP and that we will take that up in a minute. But let’s begin also by, … Often I run into a lot of people, and we all do, in the movement, when we start talking about the overwhelming role of the jewish establishment and the jewish dominated media and the jewish dominated and influenced political establishment, in the role in opening the gates and allowing the immigration. And also their role in basically causing our own people to hate themselves, or actually to be self hating and to welcome their own, as you said, extermination, their destruction. People often will come back and say:
“Well this doesn’t make any sense, because why would they do it when a lot of people coming in are people that side with the Palestinians, or side with many of the other Muslim nations of the world.”
So, I like to get your answer to that. What is your simple answer to that, other than just simply saying that the facts on the ground show they’re doing it. Is that your basic response and what is your thoughts on that?
Andrew: Yeah, well, you know, I’m an historian. So, I rely predominately on facts and, you know, and as far as I’m concerned the facts pretty clearly point to the fact that jews have been at the forefront of, just taking the British context alone, being at the forefront of manipulating what you might call the race relations, or the immigration sphere of political activity. It’s fairly obvious.
I don’t want to rehash some old ground right now. I’ve kind of explained this at length in my writings at the Occidental Observer. I’ve went into it in fairly minute detail. But to summarize, you know, going back to the immediate post-war periods, we’re talking say, 1947 to the early 1950s, jews work very hard in Britain, I think they also did across most of Western Europe, to introduce laws outlawing anti-semitism. But, they failed and then I would say from 1955 until the mid 1960s a number of different strategies were pursued.
And these were based around promoting mass immigration from the Indian subcontinent, from Africa also, Jamaica, the West Indies into European countries. And Britain really bore the brunt of that for a long, long time. We had their arrival of the Empire Windrush in the 1950s* and then after that the immigrant problem seemed to explode exponentially. Until now, of course, London, the English and British capital, is completely and utterly, a foreign capital, in my opinion. And I think that most White English people would agree with me there.
*[Actually the first load of Jamaican blacks (492 officially, plus some stow-aways) that came on the Empire Windrush, docked at Tilbury, London on June 22, 1948.]
[Image] The Empire Windrush with its Caribbean passengers who paid 28 pound 10 shillings each for the journey.
Here’s some history of the ship:
The SS Empire Windrush: The Jewish Origins of Multicultural Britain, July 12, 2015 by Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.
“First though, I might point out one of history’s bizarre ironies — the vessel that would signal the end of racial homogeneity in Britain started life as a Nazi cruise liner. The ship began its career in 1930 as the MV Monte Rosa. Until the outbreak of war it was used as part of the German Kraft durch Freude (‘Strength through Joy’) program. ‘Strength through Joy’ enabled more than 25 million Germans of all classes to enjoy subsidized travel and numerous other leisure pursuits, thereby enhancing the sense of community and racial togetherness. Racial solidarity, rather than class position, was emphasized by drawing lots for the allocation of cabins on vessels like the Monte Rosa, rather than providing superior accommodation only for those who could afford a certain rate. Until the outbreak of war, the vessel was employed in conveying NSDAP members on South American cruises. In 1939 the ship was allocated for military purposes, acting as a troopship for the invasion of Norway in 1940. In 1944, the Monte Rosa served in the Baltic Sea, rescuing Germans trapped in Latvia, East Prussia and Danzig by the advance of the Red Army.
Finally, in May 1945, her German career ended when she was captured by advancing British forces at Kiel and taken as a prize of war. The British renamed her Empire Windrush on 21 January 1947, and also employed her as a troop carrier. Sailing from Southampton, the ship took British troops to destinations as varied as Suez, Aden, Colombo, Singapore and Hong Kong. Crucially, the ship was not operated directly by the British Government, but by the New Zealand Shipping Company.
It is with this little fact that we begin tumbling down the proverbial rabbit hole. I quickly discovered that the New Zealand Shipping Company, like other crucial players in the story of the Windrush, was Jewish owned and operated. The company was for the most part controlled by the Isaacs family, particularly the direct descendants of Henry and George Isaacs.”
[Image] Black “invaders” welcomed by RAF officials from the Colonial Office after the ex-troopship HMT ‘Empire Windrush’ landed them at Tilbury.
But in terms of managing and massaging public opinion between the 1950s and today, almost every piece of legislation was either drawn up, implemented, devised, or sneaked into the statute books by jews! And I have to come back to this. If you disagree with me, if you’re sitting on the fence about any of these issues, go and try to prove me wrong! Dig into the history books, follow up my footnotes in my articles, interact with the material. You will find, to your surprise perhaps, that all of the arguments that people you might dismiss as cranks, or racists, or lunatics happened to be true. If you would just have an open enough mind to delve into that material and give us a chance.
David: So yeah. So the facts on the ground are just irrefutable. You can look at the influence of media. Often people, and this is very important I think, a very important issue that I want to get your take on and I think your insights are very well taken, I think, and important for people. Because you’re a guy who’s really a person, an academic who’s really studied this deeply and it’s important to understand where this is coming from. For instance, people often tell me:
“Well there’s something wrong with European people. European people are just sick and they have this altruistic,”…
What do they call it? Some sort of an, …
Andrew: Pathological altruism.
David: Yeah, pathological altruism. But the truth is, and if we look at it up until the twentieth century, including Great Britain and including most of Europe and most of the Western world, they were actually moving toward more of a racial awareness and scientific racial consciousness. I mean ever since the time of Darwin for that matter.
[Image] Deluded Whites, wearing “So Sorry” shirts, asking forgiveness for slavery!
And this was growing until the takeover of the mass media and the takeover of the key academic positions [by jews]. So, this is another point that people don’t seem to get and understand. I mean the people, and we talk about the people in Sweden today, that they are self hating and also so many of the British people that basically are welcoming their own destruction. And they say there’s something wrong with them. Well, the truth is that they’ve been really conditioned from the time they were been very young with these, with these lies. Not only in terms of the facts that they’re allowed to see, but also in terms of an incredible emotional commitment. An emotional or a psychological commitment to these ideas, almost like a religious belief. And what are your thoughts on that?
Andrew: First of all, we will rewind back a little bit and discuss this point about how Europe, certainly at the start of the twentieth century was moving towards a more race realistic perception of life and of humanity and how the world works. That was definitely true. I would still say that there were some exceptions. There were some bum notes that perhaps indicated that something could go wrong in the wrong context. The wrong context eventually being multiculturalism. Whites tend, always tended to have, some Whites tended to have a tendency towards things like, well, we might look at the abolition movement.
Now, being against the enslavement of one’s fellow man, you know, there’s nothing really wrong with that. I get the moral fervor behind it. But it was based on a set of irrational principles and irrational anticipations of black behavior in particular, if you want to put it like that.
I did a lot of studying, … There was a case called the Morant Bay Rebellion in Jamaica, in the mid 19th century [11 October 1865] and this particularly, this colony that was run by Whites. It was a benevolent leadership. So, the blacks weren’t harshly treated. They were being educated and it was a congenial life. Well, a mulatto official that had been permitted to enter into the local legislative assembly, decided that he would foment and then stir up a rebellion.
And a rebellion occurred and the Whites were completely and utterly slaughtered. I mean in the most horrific way. Men had their eyes gouged out, women were horrifically abused. And it was terrible and it sent shock waves right the way across to Britain.
David: And this was long after the abolition of slavery, correct?
Andrew: Exactly! Yeah, yeah. Most Brits reacted with horror and indignation that the colonial establishment had been treated this way by the black population. But there was an element within Britain at that time and they tended to be upper middle class, liberal Whig in their politics and most of them, I would say, in fact, probably all of them had never encountered, face to face, an African person, or a person of African descent. But they produced all of these tracts lauding the humanity of the black people and basically condemned their fellow Whites who’ve been massacred in the most horrific way. And this, …
[Image] Paul Bogle’s Morant Bay Uprising (Morant Bay, St. Thomas, Jamaica)
David: We’re talking about men, women and children, right?
Andrew: Exactly. Men, women and [children]. We’re talking about wholesale extermination here. A horrific incident that you just never hear about. It was on the scale of the extermination of Whites in Haiti.
[Image] The Haitian Massacre of 1804
After the enslaved Africans defeated the French in 1804 and established Haiti as the first Black country in the Western hemisphere, a mass killing occurred. The Haitian Massacre was an organized ethnic cleansing that was carried out against the remaining white population of French Creoles by the order of Jean-Jacques Dessalines, the first ruler of the independent nation. Throughout the entire territory of Haiti, from early February 1804 until April 22, 1804, 3,000 to 5,000 people of all ages and gender were put to death. NOTE: In the years leading up to this 1804 massacre, around 25,000 Whites had already been killed.
David: Really? What was the actual figures there? Do you remember those?
Andrew: I can’t remember the numbers, but certainly in terms of barbarity it was equal to it.
David: Are we talking about thousands?
Andrew: Yeah, yeah. We’re talking about, definitely over one thousand. Definitely one thousand.* The whole bay area, basically every White person in that bay area had been exterminated. There was only a royal militia that was dispatched, eventually got the situation under control, and the rebels were executed. And so on and so forth. But I can’t remember his name, [a Baptist preacher, Paul Bogle] but the mulatto official who basically lead that rebellion, has been lionized by, of course, African Studies professors and most people, certainly jews as well, who are on the left. So, there were always elements there of a kind of pathological, irrational sympathy for the “other”.
[* In my brief search for the numbers of Whites killed I can’t find anything that talks even of hundreds being killed. Perhaps Andrew could provide some references for this? I don’t have access to his Occidental Quarterly article of 2013. — KATANA]
[Image] Paul Bogle, leader of the Morant Bay rebellion.
Charles Dickens had a famous quote where he was infuriated by what he called, “platform sympathy with the black”, you know, where someone gets up on a platform and basically professes his love for the African race, despite having never encountered a Negro in person. So, I think that there were forebodings there. I think that the real test of, whether that altruistic spirit was in any way damaging to us, or potentially damaging, only really could be tested in a multicultural environment. And I do believe that there are, there is some truth to the theory that we are more pathological, more, …
David: I think it’s the nature of altruism in general, in terms of our people, because we had to be a very altruistic society to basically evolve in the ice ages and protect each other, helping each other and having a kind of a social welfare network. And it was easy for that to be later, in the twentieth century, for that to be converted into like a racial multiculturalism rather than a societal. Would you agree with that?
Andrew:Absolutely! One hundred percent, I agree. And of course, you know, we can have that weakness, but it took external parties bringing in a multicultural society and then, you know, relentlessly through, I would argue, you know, jewish intellectualism really picking on that weakness, again, and again, and again, and, you know, really provoking and embellishing the guilt complex. And really making that weakness fester to the point where it’s an open sore.
And today when you look at antifa [anti-facists] protests and leftist rallies, these people are the Frankenstein creation of jewish intellectualism and right there, they’re zombies. And really they’re incredibly emotional to the point of being childlike. Their level of sensitivity, even right now with this Brexit vote, they want to throw their toys out of the stroller and they want to go again. They want another vote. You know, they want to take their toys and go home, you know, they aren’t winning the game so they don’t want to play anymore. This is a real childishness to these people and their way of thinking.
David: You know, my study of the movements that you’re talking about though, there is a big difference in some ways of those movements then, and now. Those movements often, you know, had a lot of, you know, love expressed toward the other races and this kind of thing. But now it’s very different. I mean the last, really about the last, probably about a hundred years, but more in the last fifty to seventy five years and then beyond.
These people, what they’ve done is, the media has absolutely, if you would agree with me, I guess, but they’ve absolutely incited not only, you know, some sort of intellectual idea of this fairness to all people, which I actually agree with. But at the same time they incited a truly hatred for the European people themselves with a very one sided and a very hypocritical position. And Europeans have certainly enslaved others, they’ve conquered others, they’ve dominated others, but every race has! But they have really taught a unique sense of hatred toward the, you know, toward the European people.
Now that though, I don’t think is natural and even in the early movements when they were more European based, in terms of multiculturalism, or the idea of, you know, common bonds of humanity. They certainly weren’t instilled with this horrific anti-White hate! You think that’s a legitimate distinguishing element here, that the media now has produced this massive emotional hatred against our own people and that’s been purposeful?
Andrew:Absolutely Dr. Duke! And I would also add that it’s not just the media, but academia, jewish academia is playing a very, very large role in this.
When you look at the many many volumes of history covering the slave trade, there are a surprisingly large number of jewish authors who have been very much attracted to that field of expertise in that field of history writing. And many of these jewish authors, in fact, probably almost all of them, have taken a very anti-White perspective.
And they bring a lot more to these monographs than just the detailing of the facts, and even some of those facts are disputable. But, the interpretation that they lay on the slave trade is that Whites are evil. And out of this grows this guilt, this, what you said, as you described as incitement. Of course, absolutely this is what it is. And, you know, it is in academia and then it filters through to the media and also in our entertainment industry in particular.
In an article I wrote for the Occidental Quarterly on that Morant Bay Rebellion. I actually finished it with a reference to the Spielberg film, “Amistad”, I think that’s the title of the movie.
Andrew: And I just described, there was an academic journal article was written on the White response to this movie. I think it was by a black academic. He wrote, this is this black academic, wrote that he witnessed this White couple coming out from watching that movie clutching each other, in tears. It’s abuse! You know, that, what we’re describing here, this incitement is mental and psychological abuse!
Some people, it breaks to the point where they’re in tears and they’re shaking. Others are incited to such levels of self-hatred that they will march down, and as we saw in Sacramento, try and beat with baseball bats and stab with knives anyone who wants to stand up for the White race.
David: You know, one of the things I read as a young man was an Encyclopedia Britannica article, I think in the fifty’s, now sixty’s actually, early sixty’s and it was an old edition from the fifty’s. But it was an article by Marcus, Jacob Marcus, one of the leading jewish historians, and he wrote the article for Britannica and in the article about the jews, his own people, he talks about the jewish domination of the slave trade, literally since the Roman times.
And so, it’s really ironic. So they, you know, that they don’t like and can say that slavery as an institution is evil, but they say that White people are uniquely evil, because we practiced slavery, though all others did. The ironic thing is, of course, is that this tiny percentage of the European and the world population, they weren’t Europeans actually, but a tiny percentage of the population of the Western world were jews and yet they dominated this very, you know, this very, by their own admission, to be an evil institution! It’s so amazingly hypocritical!
Andrew: Yeah. One of the little curios of history is that, that Morant Bay Rebellion, where a lot of the Whites ended up exterminated, there were a couple of jewish brothers in that time, who used their newspaper, which went on to become the Jamaica Gleaner,* which is still in existence today, which is still run by jews, they used the newspaper to print articles inciting against the Whites by this mulatto official.
Those two jewish brothers completely escaped any kind of harm and, in fact, the Gleaner company, that jewish media company, went on to thrive in Jamaica and the jews were completely untroubled and to this day jews remain quite powerful in Jamaica.
How they managed to escape any attention for their own slave owning past and their own privilege, if you want to use that word, is a magic trick. Perhaps you need to be jewish to understand exactly how that works, but I just wanted to add that little curio of history there.
*[The Gleaner Company Ltd is a newspaper publishing enterprise in Jamaica. Established in 1834 by Joshua and Jacob De Cordova, the company’s primary product is The Gleaner, a morning broadsheet published six days each week.]
[Image] First edition of The Gleaner, Sep 13, 1834.
David: Yeah, that’s very good and very powerful. You know, because basically the idea that slavery is an evil institution, White people practice it, they don’t mention about the fact it’s been practiced by every people in history the world for thousands of years. And then, here they are where they [the jews] were the world champions of slavery and, but they’ve made, they’ve taken the institution being evil and then the Whites practice it and therefore Whites have this unique evil and yet jews were the biggest practitioners of this systems in the history of the world, in terms of the modern world, for sure. And yet, there’s no attribution of jews as terribly evil people. I mean the hypocrisy is amazing!
Andrew: It is.
David: Let’s go to another subject before we go. I know you’ve got to go to a lecture, you told me you had a limited time, we have almost finished the show and I know you’ve got to go, and I know you’re short of time. But, I want you to give us your take on Mr Farage and he still kind of preaches multiculturalism, but the same time he preaches a limitation on immigration and against the EU. Do you think he’s doing that to gain power, or do you think that he’s kind of like a Trojan horse in the movement here? What’s your take on Mr Farage?
Andrew: Well, I would like to start by saying I respect his achievement and the step in the right direction that he has helped bring about and so on. I want to get that out of the way. The next thing I would say, is that to me, Farage appears like a bourgeoisie politician in every sense of the word. And that means that he will always, I think in the end, compromise. And I think that he will always err towards respectability in whatever that might mean for him. And I think that UKIP, enough has been written about UKIP to suggest that it is weak on the issue of support for Israel. I think that it will it can always be bought off. It’s just as subject to the Friends of Israel organization as the Conservative Party and the Labour Party.
I was most intrigued by a recent article in The Spectator by Nick Cohen, a jewish journalist. And he actually wrote about Farage, in a prospect he described as terrifying. And this is what he said. He said that the Brexit was a clear shot against multiculturalism. What happens now is very dangerous, because British expectations are heavy on Boris Johnson and on Nigel Farage to deliver on the subject of the movement of people. If Farage backs out, if they can’t deliver and as Johnson cannot deliver, Cohen says, that the British will perceive this as a stab in the back. And in that kind of atmosphere, Cohen says, that the atmosphere will be ripe for the rise of a, what he describes as, a far right movement that promises, and that the British people does feel and can deliver on that subject matter, …
David: Maybe Farage as a stepping stone?
Andrew: Farage is absolutely. It’s a good stepping stone. Would I be sad to see Farage fail and something much stronger much more ideologically pure rise in this place? No, of course not. I wouldn’t. I don’t think that this path that we are on right now will have it’s end point in Nigel Farage. I do not believe that. But, I believe that he is an important way post along the way. And I’m delighted to say, as I’m sure you are also, that we’ve at least reached this point. And now we shouldn’t look back, we should keep our eyes on horizon and see really how far we can take this.
There’s a quote here from Ari Paul a New York jew, in an article called, “Why Do You Need the European Union, Warts and All?” And he actually wrote in it that:
“Jews should be against any agenda that seeks to turn back the clock on multiculturalism.”
Well, I think as nationalists and Europeans, we should be against any agenda that seeks to drag us back onto that multicultural path. And I think that as much as Farage is not going to deliver explicitly on the subject of multiculturalism, we at least have a shot in the arm as far as raising people’s awareness. So, I find it difficult to condemn him wholesale.
David: Well, you’ve taken more time than, you said you needed to go to that lecture, so, listen, thank you for being with me and I would like to speak to you much longer. I love your knowledge and the way you express yourself is fantastic. You’ve done great work. Where can they find your work, in what publication on the Internet?
Andrew:If you can head to the Occidental Observer you will find, I think, upwards of fifty articles, at this point, with many more to come. And I’ve also just finished a manuscript under contract with Washington Summit publishers for a book. It’s a collection of what I regard as my best essays and some new content. It’s called, “Talmud and Taboo — Essays on the jewish Question”.
Dr. Duke, it’s been an absolute pleasure being here and having this discussion. As I said, at the start I’m a huge admirer of your work and your contribution. And I’m excited to see what the future holds for all of us.
David: Well look, I appreciate you taking time out of your day to do this and I know it’s hard in terms of your schedule as well, but you have so much important material to share with our listeners all over the world. I hope we can do this again next week, or so, if you can find a way to do this, even at least once a month, or once every couple weeks. I would love to have you come on the show again. I hope you can find a way to do that.
Andrew:It would be a pleasure. Thank you very much Dr. Duke.
David: OK. Thank you so much!
That was the very brilliant writer, a young professor. A Ph.D in history who shared with us some of the underlying aspects of Brexit and even more than that. Some of the issues that are confronting, … Yeah he’s just done amazing work. He’s one of the rising intellectuals. He is the future of a lot of the intellectual movement and the academic movement in terms of our cause. He understands the entire issue from top to bottom and we’re really honored to have him on the program and we will definitely interview him further and give him a lot more chance at the mike to talk about these issues and share his perspectives with all of you out there.
Again thank you all for listening to the program. It’s going to be a great show later this week. We also are going to have Dr. Kevin MacDonald come on the Friday show. It’s been a great show and folks, I appreciate your support. Let’s keep fighting, let’s keep working. We’re in a battle for our very survival for the future of our children. That’s what my life’s about I think that’s what Dr. Joyce’s life is about and I hope that’s what your life becomes about. If your children are to have a future we’ve got to stand up and work and even sacrifice now for this cause!
Love you all, back again tomorrow. Until then just keep thinking free.
Version 4: Feb 5, 2017 — Improved formatting.
Version 3: July 7, 2016 — Added PDF of post.
Version 2: July 4, 2016 — Added 20 images.
Version 1: July 2, 2016 — Created post.