Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 12, 2013 - Radio Free Nortwest - H.A. Covington

01:12:37

20131212_rfn

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Oh, then tell me, Sean O 'Farrell, tell me why you hurry so.
	Hush your vocal, hush and listen, and his cheeks were all aglow.
	I bear orders from the captain, get you ready quick and soon, for the pikes must be together by the rising of the moon.
	By the rising of the moon, by the rising of the moon.
	For the pikes must be together by the rising of the moon.
	Oh, then tell me, Sean O 'Farrell, where the gathering is to be.
	In the old spot by the river, rifle known to you and me.
	One more roar for signal, token whistle, up an arching tune.
	For your bike upon your shoulder by the rising of the moon.
	By the rising of the moon.
	By the rising of the moon.
	With your bike upon your shore By the rising of the moon Out from many a mud-walled cabin eyes Were watching through the night Many a man, it just was throbbing For the blessed warming light Wars passed along the valleys Like the man she's lonely crooned And a thousand blades were flashing At the rising of the moon At the rising of the moon At the rising of the moon And a thousand
	blades were flashing At the rising of the moon It's December the 12th, 2013.
	I'm Harold Covington, and this is Radio Free Northwest.
	Okay, first off, it's time to welcome yet another new migrant to the great state of Idaho, this one a California transplant.
	I won't give any details yet because he's still settling in, but this business of opening our show by welcoming newcomers is getting to be a bit of a habit now.
	Thank God.
	That is as it should be.
	I got an email this week from someone with a comment or a complaint, which I won't read out in detail, but the substance of it was that I have developed a habit of discussing things on this show and saying things on the air here that should not be said in public, and I'm letting real and potential enemies get too close.
	I should play my cards a lot closer to my chest, so forth and so on.
	Okay, let me answer this with some degree of care.
	This is not the first time I've gotten these comments, and the people who are making them have a point.
	It is entirely possible that I am letting the cat a bit too far out of the bag on some things here on this show.
	I've always been aware of this problem, and yes, there is an element of risk here.
	Let me explain once again why I discuss on here things that possibly shouldn't be discussed in public, in view of the unfriendly neighbors we have who are eavesdropping over the back fence.
	Now, after four years, this show is now one of the broadest possible forums in the entire white racial movement.
	Despite the slowdown in our weekly number of hits due to the website cleanse or internet purge or whatever it was that happened in August, the fact is that we have thousands of hits per week, and from what I can tell from the stat counter, almost all of them download or listen to Radio Free Northwest.
	Now, most right-wing and racial podcasts can measure their audiences in the hundreds, including some who have been on the air as long or longer than we have.
	The movement is a very tiny heap, but as ridiculous as this sounds, right now the Northwest Front is pretty much on top of it.
	Gives you an idea of how small the heap is.
	Allowing for a certain number of people who do just visit the website and read it and who don't download the podcast, the fact is that we do have thousands of listeners every week.
	And while, in turn, some of those listeners themselves are invalid in one way or another, FBI or SBLC spies, Jews, white people who are just totally useless and will never do anything at all, looky-loos.
	The fact is that when I want some kind of information spread or idea discussed in our tiny little subculture, the broadest possible audience I can reach is on this show, and I have to use it.
	As I've said before, the only real way that I can make sure that the white people out there who need to hear something do in fact hear it is to disregard the fact that there are people also listening who should not be hearing it.
	I suppose it gets down to the larger question of how we have all decided to cope with the fact that we are living in a 1984-style surveillance state.
	We are, by the way, and regardless of all the squeals on the internet and all the protests and all the howling by the liberal media, that's not going to change.
	The FBI and the NSA and other spooks are going to continue to monitor and archive all of our electronic communications, and I do mean all, including this one.
	No court is going to order them to stop, and if it did, the judge would be quietly and politely ignored.
	They've gotten hold of this power, they've gotten a taste of this power, and they're not going to give it up.
	Congress is never going to pass a law forbidding these agencies to do what they're doing.
	The dictator would never sign it if they did, and if that did happen, then these agencies would once again simply continue doing it on the sly with a quiet nudge.
	We have to accept that from now on, Until we find the courage within ourselves to do what has to be done and remove these evil men from power, constant surveillance through electronic interception and closed circuit TV is going to be a fact of life in democratic America.
	So, what do we do about it?
	Well, we can spend countless hours of every day diddling and fooling around with encryption systems that we think might fool them or baffle their technical expertise, and maybe they will.
	We can give up in paranoid terror and go cower in a closet somewhere convinced that there are microphones in the sugar bowl and the men in the black body armor are just outside the door, which I think is the psychological effect that a lot of this media hype is aiming for, either deliberately or as a byproduct.
	Or we can just accept that we live in the time of the triumph of evil.
	We can take reasonable, common-sense precautions, but don't bog ourselves down in paranoia, and we drive on.
	I remember the difference between security consciousness and paranoia.
	Security consciousness helps you accomplish your racial mission.
	Paranoia prevents you from accomplishing it.
	Security consciousness helps you function.
	paranoia prevents you from functioning.
	If you're being prevented from functioning because you're so terrified of the microphones in the sugar bowl, Which may be real bad-bye.
	And if you're so paralyzed with fear of the cameras on every corner, which most certainly are real in the cities, that you simply curl up into a little ball behind your computer and whipper, then they've taken you out of the game just as effectively as if you were sitting in a cell next to Edgar Steele.
	Getting back to the original subject of how I really shouldn't be talking about certain housekeeping and internal matters on this show, you're right, most likely I shouldn't be.
	But there are certain ideas and information that I need to convey to the widest possible racially aware audience, and certain thought processes I need to get started percolating throughout our wee little subculture.
	And for that, I need the widest possible audience, which means this show, FBI monitors and all.
	And don't worry, I'm not completely wearing my heart on my sleeve.
	There's a lot of secret stuff that I most certainly do not discuss on the show, but there are also times when I have to balance the risks and the advantages and make a judgment call.
	Okay, next up is a guy who was on here before, about 18 months ago, Comrade Erik from Sweden.
	You may remember his previous broadcast on Radio Free Northwest when he was actually visiting us here in the homeland.
	One of the things I've said in the past is that if some of our foreign comrades are willing to take the risk of making me an MP3 file and sending it to me, in which you say things and discuss subjects that are forbidden in your own countries by your stupid hate laws or Holocaust laws, I will be happy to put it on the air if you're willing to take the risk.
	So far we've had one Australian and one New Zealander take advantage of this offer of mine, and now a Swede.
	No Brits yet, and no Germans, rather to my surprise.
	You would think that they'd have a lot to say, but so far not.
	They're probably afraid that their local political police would record the program and voice print them, and I honestly can't say that that won't happen, since some of these regimes are so completely anal about catching white dissidents, the British especially.
	Maybe this is one reason I've had so few takers, I don't know.
	I don't know what to tell you guys, except that at some point in time...
	If there is to be any hope, some of us are going to have to learn to take carefully evaluated risks and expose ourselves to the hate of the people with power who wish us harm.
	Somebody's going to have to do it, guys.
	Anyway, some of you may find Eric's audio a bit hard to understand because of his accent and also because of the recording quality.
	Now, guys, all of you, not just foreigners.
	When you're making an MP3 file for Radio Free Northwest, a couple of pointers.
	First off, make an actual MP3 file per se, please.
	Some formats, like WMA or WAV, my WavePad can convert other weird formats I can't.
	Second piece of advice, acquire and teach yourself either WavePad, which is what I use, or Audacity, and get yourself a proper, high-quality microphone.
	The late Colonel House gave me a Samson PS01, which I still use to this day, but if I ever lose it, I'd buy another one in a heartbeat.
	It's expensive, but it's worth every penny.
	Some of you appear to be using condenser mics on your laptops and weird little proprietary audio programs on whatever PC it is you got, some of which WavePad recognizes and some of which it doesn't.
	If the recording format is not completely incompatible, I can use WavePad to edit and enhance a lot of your MP3 files.
	And I've done that to Eric's file, and done the best I can to make it understandable, not to mention pumping up the volume about 600%, because when it arrived, it was so soft I could barely understand it.
	Anyway, with my limited skills, this was the best I could do.
	This is Eric from Sweden.
	Hi, comrades.
	This is Eric from Sweden.
	I recently spoke to Harold, saying to him that I really would like to take him up on his offer on being on the radio show, using some of your still-existing freedom in the Pacific Northwest.
	He said, "Okay, let's do it.
	Just hand over the recording and I can use it." So here I am.
	I am just another guy who had it with the shit of multicolored people and the diminishing possibilities of my race.
	The white race.
	Please bear with me a couple of minutes and I will give you my rationale for the party and the existence of the Northwest Republic.
	In Europe, as you know, we have a long tradition of political organizing and political campaigning.
	The organizations in Europe promoting racial values and cultural identity with a focus on a European context has always had work within a small scope of operation, and that space has become smaller and smaller, for each time an organization with a focus on white nationalists has advanced.
	Mind you now, I am saying white nationalists because some countries in Europe, most notably Germany and Austria, has a total ban on national socialist organizations.
	Showing the swastika in Germany or Austria will render you severe punishment from the government.
	In my own home country of Sweden, the public display of symbols portraying racial pride and heritage is forbidden.
	Of course, this goes for the swastika and all the different symbols that can be associated with the NS government in Germany during the years 1933 to 1945.
	But during the last years, the Jews and the Marxists have been shouting louder and louder for the inclusion of specific Norse symbols into the band, for instance, the hammer of Thor.
	The argument is that these specific symbols are exclusive for the Nordic cultural context, and therefore by definition are excluding minorities that cannot connect to their meaning.
	One of these groups that cannot connect to the Norse mythology are the Negroes, so therefore, according to the Jews and the Marxists, all Norse history should be thrown away on the garbage heap.
	Please note here that I'm using two words that are forbidden to use publicly in Sweden.
	Or at least one word: Negroes.
	The word Negro may get me sentenced for hate speech in Sweden.
	The word Jews can be used publicly.
	And to some extent the Marxists are no great lovers of Jews, which shows in their unconditional support for the Palestinians in the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
	But that usage is conditioned exclusively for Marxists in the state TV and the newspapers.
	Should I talk about Jews promoting something that they perceive as bad for them as an ethnic group in Swedish society?
	I am walking a very fine line regarding hate speech.
	A newspaper can reprint an interview with a political frontman or an academic, like Professor MacDonald or Mr. Covington, without being charged with hate crime.
	But the moment you yourself are saying something with the intent of spreading that message, and the message consists of what mischief the Jews are up to, then you are a free game for any state prosecutor.
	That's how wonderful free speech is in Sweden.
	So this small impasse using the word "negros" definitely should give me a fine after the court found me guilty for hate speech.
	And of course, the Jews were then screaming that the Nazis were back.
	And depending on the films and the court, I would also be charged with hate speech against the Jews.
	Why can't the authorities chase real criminals, I ask?
	But of course, you old people listening to this show knows the answer to that.
	So, okay, what if, against all the odds, a white nationalist party would come into power?
	And then I mean a real white nationalist party, not one infiltrated by SOG, but a real party.
	What then?
	Harold mentioned Golden Dawn in Greece a couple of weeks ago, and I agree in his comments.
	We should wish them the best of luck fighting against Tsar, against the Muslim inflation and the other mud flow from the Third World.
	But there is actually another example from the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium, and this is interesting.
	Flam's block, as it was called back then, gained nearly 25% in a parliamentary election.
	Now, keep in mind that this was in a regional parliament.
	It was not the National Assembly.
	But anyway, what happened?
	Did it gain any influence?
	Of course, Zogg forbade the party to exist on the ground that it was racist.
	So much for democracy.
	When the people voted, and voted for their best racial interest, Zogg intervened and forbade them to exist.
	So what happened?
	Was there a revolution in the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium?
	Did the white man take to the street defending his constitutional right to elect a government of his own choosing?
	The answer is no, no, no, no, no.
	However, we managed to defeat Sog on the devil's own playground.
	The devil seemed to change the rules to his own liking.
	Okay, that was what I wanted to say here.
	If there are any Dutch comrades out there who want a say regarding this.
	Contact the party, and I am sure Harold will let you in on the radio show.
	And to all the comrades out there who simply are sitting idle, waiting for something that will finally make you move here for some serious business, I think it is high time for you to make your scouting trip if you haven't.
	Now some more new racial music for you.
	This is our own Kentucky balladeer, Lawrence and his boys.
	A little piece of my heart.
	Going out to y 'all.
	This is Lawrence of Kentucky.
	And I got a lot of work to do on these songs.
	A lot of help I could use.
	Anybody out there wants to do them, I'm fine with it.
	But this is my heart.
	This is what I hear.
	This is what I see.
	What I feel.
	And people, when I look around, I see how many of us, though we see the truth, though we know the truth, So many of us believe a lie.
	And I'm not talking about waking people up.
	I'm talking about us waking up.
	I'm talking about those of us who know, have to, get moved, get out there and show these people.
	I mean, there's so much going on.
	Take a look at South Africa.
	I know you hear it a lot, but take a look at South Africa.
	Millions of white people dying.
	That's what's headed for America.
	There's some mud coming.
	There's some mud going on.
	Just take a look around.
	Share it.
	We have a plan.
	Heed the warning.
	This song, like I said, I'm really not a musician.
	I'm just compelled, compelled in every way I can to get this out there.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	It is rising, it's coming, but if we don't move, our people will never love.
	Amen.
	My fathers, they came here to start anew With their blood, a nation once mighty grew
	But now the tide is rising and it's coming fast If we don't move, our people will never last We've sounded a warning times before No one will listen this time Will you
	ignore me?
	Amen.
	Because the tide is rising, it's coming fast If we don't know, our people will never last Millions of people around the world Are watching the way for us to make a move All
	too blue Thank you.
	Because the tide is rising and it's coming back If we don't care, our people will never land We've sound the one times before Don't listen this time
	Don't listen this time
	Don't listen this time
	Don't listen this time The tide is rising and it's coming back If we don't care, our people will never land Don't listen this
	time Don't listen this time Don't listen this time Don't listen this time All right.
	Like I said, it's a work in progress.
	Thank you, guys.
	Thank you, Harold.
	And everybody else that's working in the forums.
	especially to everybody who has the nerve to tell somebody.
	The End Good evening, comrades.
	Tonight I've decided to review a book called Revolutionary Change by Chalmers Johnson.
	And this is a fairly, it's a theoretical book.
	The concept of revolution and the comparison and various ideas about revolution.
	Now, first of all, in order to undergo revolution, a society has to be unstable.
	Instability is not the only cause, but it does stress throughout this book that typically a society is in a state of equilibrium, and when it changes to a state of disequilibrium, then it's unstable.
	The idea of a nonviolent revolution is somewhat contradictory, and in that sense it's more of a propaganda strategy, but nonviolent revolution has happened.
	For example, the fall of the Soviet Union might have been termed a nonviolent revolution.
	Now, in a social system, you have expectations of others, and violence in the broadest sense is anything that prevents the orientation of others, and it's not always physical.
	Now, revolt differs from crime or lunacy when revolution is accepted by the general public.
	The idea of revolt also can differ from revolution in the sense that a revolt to restore a just king is not exactly revolution.
	Now, there are different types of revolution.
	There are changes in government all the way from a total change of values and change of the system.
	It talks in this book a lot about the fact that a society will elect its values, and this happens in all societies.
	And this is really because of socialization, so it does not depend on the sameness of the members, because in any society, people will be different.
	A lot of sociologists will say that when you have imperfect socialization, you may have people that don't quite fit into the society.
	You may have a misfit, for example, or somebody who faced trauma in childhood and then learned certain coping strategies.
	That they will use as a reformer.
	So there are different theories on how people become revolutionaries.
	Now, it talks about various ideas of society, and it says that some people will believe in reciprocity alone.
	But there are always conflicts in any society, and usually in a stable society, people will have recourse, for example, in the legal system.
	And there are also varying political groups.
	And there are various ways that societies diffuse tension and also face change.
	Societies can have evolutionary change or purposeful change that can come about without revolution.
	But a society that may have a revolution is one that has faced many changes and still must face more changes.
	A revolutionary can come along with an ideology that can explain why people are having a difficult time, and it can offer solutions.
	And eventually, these ideas, if they gain sympathy with the general public, then they can have a better chance of success.
	Now, there are three accelerators of revolution.
	There's a military weakness.
	There's the confidence of the revolutionaries, such as you saw in 1916 in Ireland, and then you have the strategies that are taken up by the revolutionaries.
	Another thing, another issue, is always the loyalty of the armed forces, and typically the armed forces are socialized, loyal to the system, and that's to help prevent revolutions.
	Now, the book goes into various times when armed forces have staged coups or when they've had their own internal problems, and it mentions the mutiny of the Potomkin, for example.
	Now, it talks about societies and disequilibrium of societies when individuals are under increased stress.
	A revolution, when it changes the value system, It also has to create a new equilibrium, so sometimes revolutionaries who cannot adjust to a new equilibrium may end up leaving the movement.
	Sometimes elites can adjust to social change, and this may put off or prevent revolution, and other times they do not.
	Now it also starts talking about these ideas of asymmetrical warfare and it talks about gorillas who have to be prepared for a long struggle and how they rely on intelligence and mobility.
	And then also the perils of using a smaller target to affect a larger target and how this can disorient the public and it also may cause the public to turn against the revolutionaries as well as affecting the morale-volutionaries.
	So even though it generates publicity, it's generally a bad idea.
	And it can split movements, as it did with the IRA, and you have the official and the provisional IRA.
	This book has an overview of various theories, how exactly revolutions occur, and it tends to favor the contingency theory.
	Now, this is a book that you may like if you like theoretical treatises, because that's really what this is.
	And so it's a good general overview, even though it is a dry read.
	So I hope you enjoy my review.
	So thank you for listening.
	I know that a lot of you wonder sometimes whether...
	The Northwest Front is making any impact at all out there.
	I know we seem to go on week after week and nothing visible happens.
	We're totally blacked out by the media, and so sound like you're seeing us on the 6 o 'clock news every day.
	Well, the answer is yes, we are.
	It is very, very slow, but it's happening.
	Now, what I'm going to do now, I'm going to read you a letter that I received via snail mail yesterday from a man in California called Dan.
	I won't give any more information about him for obvious reasons, but this is what he wrote.
	you Greetings, Comrade HAC.
	I was introduced to the Northwest Front about six months ago, purely by accident.
	Since then, I religiously download your weekly broadcast and have read The Brigade, A Distant Thunder, and A Mighty Fortress, all of which I could hardly put down.
	These books struck a chord deep inside of me, and I recommend and promote them to anyone who will give me the time.
	I was compelled to write you for a couple of reasons.
	First, I want to thank you and everyone in the movement for all you do for our people.
	Second, I believe wholeheartedly in everything the Northwest Front stands for, and very much want to become a part of it.
	I am 41 years old, and I am disabled.
	I am unable to work a job that requires manual labor anymore.
	I spent many years working on drilling rigs in the oil fields of California and have wrecked my back.
	I am currently awaiting a hearing to decide if I will receive SSDI.
	You often speak of self-reliance and personal tenacity required in a man who wishes to be a part of this movement.
	What is your thoughts on a man like me?
	And is there room for anyone with a solid heart, a desire to save his people, who is of sound mind but broken body amongst the ranks?
	Well, just as an aside there, of course there is, Dan.
	It's not your fault that you grew up in a society that made you work like a dog to earn a living, and then you got hurt, and it tried to throw you away like a piece of garbage.
	Believe me, there is a lot of that going around.
	I've heard this story from a lot of white men, so it's not as if you're alone in any way.
	I recently came to the Northwest, to Portland, Oregon, to be precise, to visit my dying father, and have made the decision to move myself and my two teenage children up there by this summer.
	I would very much like to become an active member and have enclosed a small amount of money for the cause.
	I wish I could send more, but I'm a single father and barely have money to cover my rent and our basic needs.
	That's another thing I've noticed.
	This is just me doing an aside again.
	I get small donations from guys like this who really, really can't afford it.
	I get prisoners sending me their commissary money.
	I get high school kids sending me their allowance.
	And as much as we need the big bucks, I prize donations like that a lot more than I do the casual couple hundred dollars from somebody who can really afford more.
	Anyway, back to Dan's letter.
	Nevertheless, I'm not searching for pity or charity or any type of handout.
	I just want to raise my children around like-minded people, free from the violence of the nigger and Mexican gangbangers that we're surrounded by here in California.
	And I want to make a difference in the plight of our people.
	While I don't have a lot of money to contribute, I do have time, and I'm computer literate, fairly well spoken, good at public speaking, and a quick-witted debater with a brain full of facts and statistics that cannot be logically refuted by anyone.
	After all, the facts are the facts.
	Name-calling and empty bluster from dim-witted toads and fancy-talking full of themselves, Jew lawyer types, will never silence me with words, like racist bigot or hater, etc.
	Name-calling stopped being an effective speech deterrent back on the grade school playground, and besides, the issue is still there, waiting for them to address after they've done snorting and frothing at the mouth about how evil I am.
	When I found the Northwest Front, I felt something that I hadn't felt in a very long time.
	Hope.
	I can see a brighter world for my future generations, and will accept nothing less than a homeland for white Aryan people, free from all the mud-colored leeches that plague the United States today, and to secure the existence of our people and the future for white children.
	And this is some personal stuff about a friend of his that's in prison, which I probably should not read out on the air at this time.
	In closing, I would like to thank you and everyone else who is dedicated to the cause once again, and commend you on the Northwest novels.
	I'm looking forward to reading Freedom's Sons when I can afford to buy an inexpensive copy.
	You truly are a visionary, and the world could use many more like you.
	This is my real name and address, which he then gives me.
	Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.
	Take care.
	P.S. I believe that every loyal, honorable, and decent white man deserves a woman like Rooney Wingfield at his side.
	Hail the 14 words.
	Well, Dan, flattery will get you everywhere.
	I've got a copy of Freedom Suns on its way to you.
	Now, Dan may end up here.
	He may not.
	I'm not going to lie to you.
	Sometimes we get letters like that full of enthusiasm, and they just never seem to pan out, so forth and so on.
	But, I don't know, I got a good feeling about this one.
	I think we may see Dan up here amongst us fairly soon.
	I just figured I'd read that out for all you folks out there who wonder if it's all worth it, and if what we are doing is having any effect.
	Yes, it is.
	Way, way too slow, but yeah, the mountain is starting to move.
	Okay, it's scratchy 75-year-old recording time again.
	This is part of my Movement History series on this show, wherein I intend to demonstrate to you guys that we do, in fact, have a long and honorable past, and that, believe it or not, long ago, most Americans actually agreed with us.
	Back in the 1930s, millions of people listened every week on their radios to Father Charles Coughlin, who was one of the first radio preachers.
	As Roosevelt began to show his true colors, and Coughlin realized which way he was taking the country, his weekly radio sermons got less and less religious and more political.
	In 1934, he created a populist movement called the National Union for Social Justice.
	He wrote a platform calling for monetary reforms, the nationalization of major industries and railroads, full employment, and workers' rights.
	Then he made the mistake of following in Henry Ford's footsteps.
	And he started attacking the Jews and the international banks, especially their attempts to drag the United States into war against National Socialist Germany.
	And he had some kind things to say about Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.
	Can't have that now.
	Father Coughlin was silenced by the Vatican in 1940, and when the war broke out here in 1941, the Roosevelt regime banned the distribution of his newspaper, Social Justice, through the mail.
	So that pretty much finished Coughlin off.
	He died pretty much forgotten in 1979.
	But in his day, Coughlin was the goods.
	Now, I'm going to play part of one of his later radio programs now, and I understand this is going to sound a bit odd and stilted to modern ears, but in 1939, people had different tastes.
	They expected a little content in their content, so to speak, and Coughlin provided it.
	Like I said, he had millions of followers and listeners, like this podcast would if we could somehow find some way to break the blackout and let people know that we're here.
	Good afternoon, my friends.
	I ask your indulgence as once again I engage your attention upon the gruesome subject of war.
	Indeed, it is with great reluctance that I prolong this discussion.
	Nevertheless, oppressive circumstances makes it inevitable.
	During the course of this address...
	It will be my privilege to disclose information which seldom levels down to ordinary channels to the general public.
	It is my duty as your spokesman to present it to you in this emergency to the end that it will guide you in your decisions and stimulate you in your actions.
	We Americans have been victimized by some invisible forces which are determined to embroil us in war.
	Have these same forces employed their power, prestige, wealth and influence in behalf of peace and prosperity to the same extent?
	I am confident that our 12 million unemployed would be working at profitable wages.
	And that our 22 million dolesters would enjoy economic freedom.
	I do not remember in my lifetime when public officials and newspapers expended so much effort in propagandizing for war and thereby serving, either wittingly or unwittingly, the hidden hand of destruction.
	Nor do I recollect when so little publicity has been given for the removal of the causes of our domestic depression.
	Who wants war?
	The millions of little children attending our schools?
	The neglected youth of our nation who are searching in vain for profitable jobs?
	And despairing of establishing a home of their own?
	The fathers and mothers whose chief concern always has been life and never death?
	The exploited masses of labor victimized by prolific promises of politicians and deceived so frequently by unsound labor leaders?
	Who wants war?
	The patient agricultural class whose farms have been confiscated?
	And whose productive acres have been made barren by an insane program of destruction?
	Who wants war?
	The small businessmen, industrialists, and homeowners who are almost taxed out of existence as they bear the burdens of the last war?
	Oh, elsewhere let us seek an answer to our question.
	When more than 95% of our population abhors the very sound of that word, war.
	And this is democracy.
	When 95% of our fellow citizens have their minds tortured, their emotions aroused, their passions agitated.
	By no more than 5% of internationalistic warmongers and their publicity agents, whose main concern is not assisting America back to prosperity, but to achieve the destruction of the so-called totalitarian states, to perpetuate the peace treaty of Versailles, long since repudiated by the United States Senate.
	If we are a democratic people, shall we permit ourselves to be used like putty in the hands of those responsible for the half-truths, the warmongering which appear in our press?
	When the catchphrase's unjust aggressors was employed to stir up your righteous wrath against Germany and Italy, Were you conscious of having read the whole truth about unjust aggression?
	How many newspapers printed the story of Great Britain's seizure of Nigeria in 1886?
	Of Somaliland in 1887?
	Of British East Africa in 1888?
	Of Rhodesia in 1889?
	Of British Central Africa in 1893?
	Of Uganda in 1896?
	And of South Africa in 1898, seizures totaling more than 900,000 square miles, seizures which were instigated and conducted more ruthlessly than those accredited to Italy and Germany during the past two years.
	Who were responsible for this questionable silence over that period?
	Not the people resident in England.
	Not the people of the United States, but the scheming internationalists, descendants of the father of lies.
	Did they inform you that France, the other great democracy, captured Tunis in 1878, An-An and Tom Kim from China, and Laos from Siam in 1887?
	Did they refer to the subjugation of Madagascar in 1896?
	And to the unjust aggressions committed against Djibouti, Dahomey, and Morocco at a later date, aggressions which netted the French Empire more than 670,000 square miles?
	Certainly they did not, because they were more interested in regimenting the sentiment and the youth of America.
	To fight a war for the preservation of their goal control, of their status quo over the peoples of the earth.
	By reminding you of these lurid historical facts which besmirch the pages of modern history, I am in no way condoning the conduct of the modern dictators.
	But I am reminding you that the same policy of seizure and exploitation is dominant in the world today as it was yesterday.
	The same catchwords are being used to deceive the common people.
	The same propaganda is issued by those who dominate both governments and nations, the hidden hand of the internationalists.
	Who wants America to play even a remote part in the impending European clash which appears to be inevitable?
	Ask the leaders of the League for peace and democracy.
	Ask the munition makers.
	Ask the internationalists who shuttle gold back and forth across the Atlantic.
	Ask the Jews and Gentiles who refuse to oppose Communism as they do Nazism.
	Ask the well-known private banking houses which bought and paid for the Russo-Japanese War.
	The same banking houses which arranged for American credit to finance the World War.
	Always at a profit for themselves.
	Oh, possibly they could tell you.
	They who escaped the horrors of the trenches, the withering fire of the machine gun, and the discomforts of the concentration camp.
	But do not ask the members of the American Legion who are your neighbors.
	Do not inquire of the broken-hearted Gold Star Mothers whose names have been exploited.
	And do not expect an answer from the disillusioned victims who languish in our hospitals or their buddies whose bodies long since have rotted on foreign soil.
	This campaign to embroil America in a world war was carefully planned, weighed and timed.
	For this opportune moment, now that democracy seemingly has failed in America because it was irreverently wedded to international capitalism, the schemers plan to destroy our form of government, to substitute for it an absolute dictatorship by pleading with you ill-informed people to save democracy.
	Oh, but their single purpose is to perpetuate international capitalism.
	That is a serious statement.
	Nevertheless, I can substantiate it with the following facts, which cannot be gainsate.
	Therefore, permit me to answer the first question, who wants war?
	And the second question, why do they want war?
	By unveiling for you certain government plans which have been kept in secrecy, more or less, since 1922.
	Very good.
	Okay, I got an email.
	Hello, Mr. Covington.
	I was wondering if I could submit to you one of my tracks for your various music interludes on your weekly podcasts.
	The name of my music project, Man Name, is Folk Unit, and the name of the track is At the Heildom, Astara Rising.
	It is a short instrumental piece in the style of folkish ambiant.
	The meaning and the message of the track is described as this.
	In the mist, in the dawn of the new times, the new spring bursts forth in shining light.
	The folk unit arises from the ashes of decay and takes its place in the world of force and form.
	Rooted to the Odal land and listening to the voice of blood, we meet at the Hildam as Ostara greets us with her might and beckons us forward to a new destiny along the path the Black Son of Provence.
	I don't quite get that.
	Here, then, I submit my track for your consideration.
	Thank you for all your hard work and efforts for our folks.
	Signed, some guy named Danny.
	Oh, why not?
	This one is going to get me in trouble.
	What the hell?
	Here goes.
	Dear HAC, In your Northwest novels, The Hill of the Ravens and Freedom's Sons, you make several passing references to the future Northwest custom of arranged marriages.
	What is that about, and what are your views on marriage in general?
	Signed, Patricia in Maryland.
	Okay, Patricia, let me see if I can encapsulate this for you guys in a few words.
	Now, the first obvious thing about what's left of Western society these days is that it isn't working.
	Now, rather than go off on a long, digressive babble...
	About why it's not working, which is what movement and right-wing people usually do, since we all know what we need to be doing and we're just too chicken set to do it, I think if we're seriously looking for a solution, we need to deploy one or two strange people who have spent their lives reading books because they were too poor to do anything else and who have a bent towards the past because the present is so crappy and who therefore have a lot of obscure historical knowledge.
	Do we know anybody like that?
	Okay, if we want to see what works and fix the problem, we need to look back to a time when things did work and go as far back that way as is humanly feasible, allowing for the fact that it's now the 21st century, and certain things like technology have changed beyond recovery.
	In other words, rather than whine and moan, because everybody's doing everything wrong today, which is what right-wingers usually do, we should look closely.
	And analyze and reinstitute what our forefathers did right.
	Now some of you guys have been asking for more Aryan history on here.
	Okay, you got it, so don't complain about being bored.
	This is what you wanted.
	If you want to pick a time when the institution of marriage, well, Christian marriage, but we're just not going to get into the whole Christianity or religious thing at all right now.
	Just talk about marriage anyway.
	If you want to pick a time when the institution of marriage itself seemed to flourish and function at its peak, let's start with the high Middle Ages from about 1300 onward through the Renaissance up to, say, the end of the 17th century when certain socioeconomic jokers
	In those days, most marriages were arranged beforehand between the parents of the two people involved.
	Although, yes, there were all kinds of individual exceptions and permutations, and a lot depended on the class of the people involved.
	A lot of times, little boys and girls would be engaged when they were only children, and a lot of times they'd just live down the street from one another, and they played together and grew up together.
	So, yeah, while sometimes a bride and groom would never meet before their wedding day, that was usually not the case.
	And usually it applied only to the 1% upper class of the day.
	Now the super elite, like kings and queens and princesses and dukes and earls and whatnot, don't really concern us here because in their case, most marriages were arranged for the purpose of international political alliance for or against somebody else, which doesn't apply to most people.
	Although there were local politics involved in certain marriages and in cities and villages.
	Now, the aristocracy did have some kind of weird marital events coming out of their peculiar political and financial needs.
	The 15th century was very weird for that for some reason.
	There was the case of Richard, Duke of York, who was a plantagenet prince who was married at the tender age of eight to a young lady who was a very wealthy heiress.
	The bride herself was like six years old.
	So, that's something we would consider rather unusual, but it was not considered unusual by the people at the time.
	They understood that this was not a real marriage.
	It was being done for financial and political reasons, and the groom and the bride, after the marriage, were then taken back to their respective castles or manors or whatever, and I believe they never saw each other again.
	That was an unfortunate period.
	Richard himself was murdered at the age of 12 as part of the Wars of the Roses, and the little girl died of some kind of disease.
	About the age of eight or nine, I think.
	I'll have to look that up.
	That happened quite a lot back then.
	Another thing you have to bear in mind when you look at the traditions of our people from that period of our past is the impermanence of life in general.
	They had much shorter lifespans and so forth and so on.
	And then, of course, you got the infamous case of John Woodville, Sir John Woodville, who, in the 1460s, his sister married King Edward IV, and so her family immediately started grabbing up everything they could, right, left, and center.
	And Sir John, who was 16 years old at the time, was betrothed to a very wealthy heiress, the Dowager Duchess of Bedford, who owned about a quarter of England.
	Obviously, she was a very rich prize in the marriage stakes, so they were betrothed and scheduled to get married, and the bride was 80. Now, that was a bit much, even by the standards of the day.
	Sir John got quite a bit of sympathy from his contemporaries, and he actually hopped on his horse and lit out for the continent.
	His family actually sent a posse all the way to France to more or less arrest him and drag him back to England.
	I'm not quite sure how that turned out.
	Obviously, probably wasn't a very long marriage if it did take place.
	But that's the upper class.
	I mean, upper class shenanigans have always been very different from what normal people do.
	The very poor people, the serfs and peasants and laborers, pretty much shifted for themselves and made their own arrangements, as they've always done.
	They had no money, so nobody cared about them.
	Sound familiar?
	Now, where it gets interesting and instructive, as far as marriage goes, is in the so-called bourgeoisie, the middle classes, the skilled craftsmen and merchant class, the government officials, the bankers, the notaries, and the lawyers, who even then were a plague on society.
	Now, we know a lot about this because these classes of people were actually literate, and they wrote things down, like letters and journals and account books and so on, allowing for a lot of individual variation in specific cases.
	In most European societies, the institution of marriage functioned as follows, more or less, up until the end of the 19th century.
	Marriage was not regarded as a personal affair so much as it was a family matter, and beyond the family, a community matter.
	It was recognized that marriage and the production of children were actually kind of the point of everything, which is something we have way lost sight of today.
	Now, the Jews, of course, recognize this, and this is why they've done everything they can to destroy Gentile marriage as an institution and drive wedges between white men and women to make sure fewer white babies are born, and eventually not any.
	In the old time, there was none of this self-centered, narcissistic crap we have today among white girls and boys alike about, I am special.
	I march to the beat of a different drummer, and I must be free to learn all I can about me.
	We've had that narcissistic horseshit for 40 years now, and you see what the result has been.
	Look around you.
	Now, that's not to say that young men and young women were not recognized and valued as individuals in times past.
	They were.
	Precisely because they held the future in their hands, but they were recognized as part of a nation or a city or a community's assets.
	It was always understood that the young had certain duties and obligations to the community as a whole, primarily making sure that the community survived and didn't die out when the last generation's hair got white and they were too old to function, which is more or less what's happening to white people today.
	Now, by the way, this is one of the reasons that homosexuality was severely frowned upon in the old time, because faggots don't have babies, and they reproduce by corrupting young boys and girls and preventing them from having babies.
	If you don't believe me, you can look up the Tribuna Noctis, I think it was called, in 15th century Florence, known in the vernacular as the Court of the Night.
	For some reason, Florence in the Renaissance was just full of fruit flies.
	It got so bad that one German word for faggot is still, to this day, florenzer.
	It also got so bad that for several generations, the city fathers of Florence were very alarmed by the low birth rate in the city.
	And they attributed this, with what degree of accuracy I don't know, but they attributed this to the fact that so many of their young men were turning into sodomites and not getting married and siring children.
	The night court was a special vice squad that raided notorious homo cruising spots and gay bathhouses and kicked in doors where buggery was going on and dragged the bugger boys away to assorted punishments in the public square that sometimes involved snipping bits and pieces off them and nailing those bits and pieces in picturesque places and sorry, I am rambling.
	Where was I?
	Marriage, yes.
	Marriage in those days was not primarily to do with sex or love.
	Although these things were recognized as nice to have, they were not the main concern.
	Marriage was mainly a financial and business matter between two families.
	Usually, the optimum age for marriage was considered for the girl to be in her mid-teens and the man to be in his late twenties.
	Say, an age difference of about 10 years or so.
	Even in those days, it was generally recognized that girls mature earlier than boys.
	In addition to the financial and career side of things, the young man was expected to sow all his wild oats and get through all his adventures in his late teens or early twenties.
	So by the time he was 26 or 27, his youth was considered to be over, not like today, and he was expected to grow up.
	And assume his natural place in the social and civic order and start raising another generation, bearing in mind that unless disease or violence got him, he would probably die in his fifties sometime.
	Natural lifespan, I repeat, was much shorter in those days.
	If he lived in a city, he would have gone through his apprenticeship at goldsmithing or butchering or carpentry or whatever his trade was.
	He was expected to be an established journeyman working for a master craftsman or else be a master himself by then.
	A member in good standing of his guild, so forth and so on, so that he could support a wife and family.
	Now bear in mind, this was in the days before welfare or food stamps.
	Everybody was on their own back then.
	If it was out in the country somewhere, the man would be expected to have the prospects of inheriting his farm or some position like bailiff of the manor, etc., etc.
	Second and third sons generally had no prospects, and they didn't get married until they did.
	In the old days, there were generally more men who were never able to marry because of financial and what I guess we call career reasons today, and who died as bachelors than there were girls who died as old maids.
	Again, bear in mind, we're not talking about sex here.
	We're talking about the legal and social institution of marriage, which is what everybody strove for.
	You were never really anybody in the community until you were married, thus establishing who you were and your place in the pecking order.
	Marriage was considered to be the natural state of men and women, and anybody who was not married or who refused to marry was looked on as strange and antisocial.
	Okay, I need to stop all this historical rambling and cut to the nub of Patricia's question.
	In the Northwest Republic, we need to redefine the way that we think about certain things, or you might say recover and revert to much earlier versions if you want to use computer terminology.
	We need to stop viewing marriage as a purely personal matter.
	It isn't.
	Marriage is essential to the traditional nuclear family and we need to do everything in our power to encourage it.
	Now, I'm talking about marriage, not sex.
	That's another stupid thing we've done in the past century, is to start confusing the two.
	Sex itself is personal, so long as it does not infringe on the welfare of the community.
	Now, those limits are laid out in the Northwest Constitution.
	No race mixing and no homosexuality.
	And since non-whites won't exist here, we won't even have to worry about misogynation.
	Beyond that, we're not going to go peeking into bedrooms.
	If your partner is of the same race and the opposite sex, as far as I'm concerned, you're good.
	Although, as a matter of social policy, I think adultery should be frowned upon.
	That does not mean that we're going to run around pinning scarlet letters on anybody.
	I think that can safely be left to what they used to call community standards, back when there were communities and back when we had standards.
	And before anybody rushes to send me emails regarding polygamy, that's one can we're going to kick down the road.
	A bridge will cross when we come to it.
	Now, as far as the arrangement of marriages in the Northwest Republic goes, I believe that the Republic needs to cultivate a population which is not just racially homogenous, but socially and economically and politically stable.
	Where everybody has a stake in society.
	Now that is best achieved through a community consisting in the overwhelming majority of traditional nuclear families between a married husband and wife, where the gainfully employed father is the head of the family of multiple white children, and the homemaking mother is the heart.
	This is the model which has been proven down through history to work best for us.
	In order to achieve this, we need to create an economy that can sustain this template, of course.
	But we also have to encourage the institution of marriage as a whole.
	We need to revive the medieval idea that marriage is the natural state of humankind.
	And we need to do anything we have to do to achieve this optimum result.
	Which gets into eugenics, which is another minefield I'm hesitant to talk about because the racial enemy has created such a poisoned fog of toxic gas around the subject that it upsets even a lot of our own people to talk about it.
	Anyway, Patricia, that is a very quick and very imprecise summary of my beliefs on marriage.
	Now it's the turn of Mecham and Clancy to give you their viewpoint on the matter.
	Maybe someday I'll go back again to Ireland And my dear old wife would only pass away She nearly has my heart broke with her nagging She's got a mouth as big as Galway See her drinking 16 pints
	of Pabst Blue River Commercial!
	And then she can walk home without a sway If the sea was beer instead of salty water She would live and die in Galway Bay See her drinking 16 pints at Pad Joe Murphy's The barman says,
	I think it's time to go Well, she doesn't try to speak to him in Gaelic In a language that the clergy do not know On her back she has tattooed a map of Ireland And when she takes her bath on Saturday She rubs the sunlight soap around by Tlada,
	Just to watch the suds flow down By the way By the way Okay, I'm running along here, and so I need to be brief and then sign off.
	Now this morning I did something which was kind of a surrender on principle.
	After much thought, I went ahead and opened us a TrueTube account so that Northwest Front videos will always be available to the public no matter how frantically YouTube purges us, as has been occurring for a while.
	As much as I thank and deeply appreciate the comrades who operate TrueTube, I always resisted opening a TrueTube account, and I still do in principle.
	I always considered it a form of backing down, of allowing myself to be run off YouTube by Jews, and that's not happening.
	As soon as the Colonel House School of the Cinematic Arts comes back from whatever sabbatical they've been on for the past six or eight months, and start making more videos, I will resume uploading our video material to our YouTube channels, and I'll expect the rest of you to do so as well.
	I am using Tutube only as a last resort to make sure that a few of our videos don't disappear from the net forever.
	Specifically, the only ones I've uploaded so far have been the two that drive the Jews into their worst conniption fits.
	The one I did in August called Why I Say Nigger and Colonel House's famous, or should I say infamous, video called The NVA Attacks.
	I am against falling back on TrueTube for the same reason I insisted on staying on Facebook a year ago when they were going through one of their racist purge fits and they were demanding cell phone numbers and just making it such a bitch for canceled people to get back on that many of them said, yeah, screw it.
	What I did not do was go running to that...
	Faux Facebook, whatever it was called, I can't even remember.
	I insisted on the real thing.
	Me?
	I bought burner phones, and I used Comrade's phone numbers, and I now have enough identities on there so I don't think they'll be able to get rid of me.
	Although, of course, I still can't use my own name, which is annoying as hell.
	I would love to see how I could do on there if I were allowed my full constitutional rights.
	But, obviously, the Jew Zuckerberg has other plans.
	As much as I hate the fact, the internet is all we've got by way of mass communication, and we can't allow ourselves to be pushed off into our own little isolated corners where we speak only to ourselves.
	That is the basis of the internet blackout now imposed on the party.
	Yes, we're there, but no one knows we're there because we are never allowed to go viral.
	Hence that purge of all our links that took place back in August.
	I think somebody figured too many people were getting curious about the Northwest Front.
	We have to be on Facebook and YouTube itself for two reasons.
	First off, because that's where our target audience of young white people is.
	Now, we have spent the past 60 years talking only to ourselves in little mimeographed newsletters and then in recorded telephone messages and now in our own special internet places like TrueTube and that fake Facebook and Stormfront and VNN and we see what this has resulted in, which is doodly squat.
	Secondly, we need to establish a movement-wide policy.
	Jews do not tell us what we can think, what we can say, or where in the internet we can be and what and where we can post.
	That's not happening.
	Not for me and not for any of us.
	And we must become accustomed to fighting for our rights on the internet any time the kikes try to silence us.
	Then maybe one day we'll find the balls to fight for our right to live for real.
	Our time is up now, so that's it for this week's edition of Radio Free Northwest.
	This program is brought to you by the Northwest Front, Post Office Box 4856, Seattle, Washington 98194, or you can go to the party's website at www.northwestfront.org.
	This is Harold Covington, and I'll see you next week.
	Until then, Sasha Underban.
	Freedom.

▲