All Episodes
Previous Next
June 22, 2017 - Radio Free Nortwest - H.A. Covington
01:07:05
20170622_rfn
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Oh, then tell me, Sean O 'Farrell, tell me why you hurry so.
Hush a woogle, 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 and arching tune, For your pike upon your shoulder by the rising of the moon, By the rising of the moon, by the rising of the moon, Switch your pike upon your shoulder by the rising of the moon.
Out from many a mud-walled cabin eyes were watching through the night, Many a man's chest was rubbing for the blessed warming light, The waters passed along the valleys like the man she's lonely crew, And a thousand blades were flashing at the rising of the moon.
Out from many a mud-walled cabin eyes were flashing at the rising of the moon.
It's June the 22nd, 2017.
I'm Harold Covington, and this is Radio Free Northwest.
Right, this week I really need to get uploaded as quick as I can because I have a ton of stuff I need to deal with beginning tomorrow on Monday morning when things and places I need open up again.
So this week's show may be a little bit light on the Herald for some of you.
I'll tell you what we're going to do.
We're going to start by letting Andy kick it off this week.
Now, leaving aside all the jokes about him allegedly being a robot and all, I know Andy can be a bit abstruse at times.
He labors under the same difficulty I do.
Sometimes in dealing with a white nationalist or alt-right audience, if you need to talk about housekeeping or inside baseball type stuff, you kind of have to go around your elbow to get to your thumb.
Because if you come right out and say what and who you're talking about, that sets off the goat dance.
And most people simply don't have the time or the patience to deal with that childish nonsense.
Hell, I don't have the time or the patience to deal with it anymore.
Anyway, you always need to listen to what Andy says because he makes very important points in a much more calm and reasoned way than I ever could anymore, which is another reason I usually avoid such topics.
You get me started in on the gooboo crap and I develop a tendency to rant and rave like a loon.
But this week, you need to listen a little more closely than usual.
He's saying some things that urgently need to be said.
Probably said in Anglo-Saxon monosyllables, but now that the internet has completely taken over our wee little movement...
and there is no longer even any semblance of professionalism or real-world existence for us, we have a real problem now involving people who are publicly involved in our cause who have no business anywhere near us.
So listen up.
Greetings from Seattle.
Andy Donner here with a talk on discernment.
Recall that troll question?
My purpose in answering it the way I will is to help everyone listening develop some discernment, but I can't expect you to know what that is unless I tell you.
By absolutely no fault of their own, most people comprising the generations born following the World Wars developed absolutely no discernment because of the poor moral quality of the world they grew up in.
Thankfully, discernment is like a muscle in that it gets stronger the more you use it.
If someone were genuinely interested in improving their ability to navigate all sorts of political As much as I'm forced to acknowledge my own natural unlikability, as someone recently put it, I'm that way for a reason.
At the very least, I have to tell the truth, and truth is frequently unpleasant.
Along with a lack of discernment, the generations currently living have, through various social engineering disasters, come to believe they're entitled to validation from those Sadly, this is expressed nowhere more so than among the alt-right.
The tendency to accept anyone claiming leadership status regardless of how genuinely anti-white or otherwise morally reprobate they are has always existed in the white nationalist movement, and of course this is reprehensible.
Previous iterations of white nationalism at least had the good sense to pretend this wasn't the case.
The alt-right, on the other hand, outright expects anyone coming into contact with them to actively applaud these bad behaviors on the part of anyone, not just leadership, even when these misdeeds are dragged into the light, either by admission or when proof of ongoing bad behavior is presented to the world.
Part of this is that entitlement to approval, but it's coupled with an extreme lack of discernment.
When the alt-right doesn't get the approval they think they're entitled to, they say you're purity spiraling or punching right in order to shift blame.
But first, discernment.
What is it?
The first time I ever heard the term used was in church as a child.
I'm not giving a sermon, but I do want to use their definition because it's actually pretty good.
Formally.
Discernment is the ability to know the conclusion or truth of a matter by examining only its beginning or some other small portion of it.
Most dictionary definitions mention the involvement of heightened perception which enables acute observations of concealed reality.
Informally, this is the ability to tell what's real about a situation based on very limited information, particularly in the Believe it or not, it's actually just practiced intuition combined with detailed observation.
There isn't any reason you can't do this for yourself.
During most of my high school years, my family had what you could call an interesting time at church.
It turns out the pastor was a very nice guy, but he was also very compromised.
Accordingly, he wouldn't dare surround himself with people who would challenge him.
As a consequence, many of the church staff had skeletons in their own closets, and this was no accident.
As an example, the church administrator had previously owned some businesses in that city.
He had to get rid of one of them because there was a credible sexual harassment allegation against him which included a bit of unwelcome physical contact.
This later became relevant due to a similar incident at the church.
This pastor subscribed to the liberal notion of giving someone responsibility to change their bad behavior.
In turn, the church had a full-time janitor who was given his responsibility because he needed to change.
Boy, did that ever backfire.
It resulted in an incident that almost split the church when someone who was actually upstanding found out about it because they did the right thing and immediately shed light on it.
It turns out the janitor was a sodomite.
No one would have guessed this since he had a wife and grown children with children of their own.
Further, he was on church payroll, so it's not like he wouldn't be a fine person on his own merit, right?
Wrong.
Eventually, this mess caught up with the church, which was in a very small city just three hours away from a major metropolis.
This janitor would randomly end up in jail there because he would...
Well, I'll leave that detail out.
The pastor had to find a way to sneak off in order to drive to said metropolis, bail the janitor out of jail, and then drive back home while making sure no one found this out or else the entire church staff would have come under criticism.
This was, I'm told...
A very frequent occurrence which could have been easily avoided simply by not making an active sodomite a church employee.
While the pastor wasn't outright lefty, he was certainly fine with way too much bad behavior in his church.
Figuring out what was and wasn't true about him would have taken some time for even the most discerning.
But if someone were truly exercising discernment, well, everything was there in plain sight.
That said, without drawing judgment...
Which is actually not required for discernment.
One must at least know what to watch out for.
And that's the first thing to take note of in trying to develop your own discernment.
This pastor very much avoided any really difficult subject for precisely this reason.
When you're trying to size someone or something up, the first thing to take note of is what they say, especially about disagreeable topics.
If you catch someone just outright lying, then, well, there you go.
That's pretty obvious.
But this pastor certainly didn't teach the right things, because most of the people at that church had incredibly poor knowledge.
This was also by design because no one there would be able to call the pastor out should his bad acts be discovered.
You yourself need to know what is and is not correct and acceptable to prevent this sort of low-grade deception from affecting you.
All of this ended up coming to light at the time my father was asked to join the board of deacons and didn't like what he found out.
For example, most of the other deacons weren't sure what should and shouldn't happen in a church.
That, too, was by design on part of the pastor.
To make sure the pattern is well known, though, I'll repeat it and then apply it to white nationalism.
A compromised or disqualified leader will only surround themselves with people who cannot cause them to be seen for what they are.
Depending on the nature of the various compromises involved in a scenario, no progress toward any goal will be made because those in charge know for effect they won't be permitted to participate in the sort of...
This is why such compromises cannot be tolerated.
They'll actually stop a cause from advancing due to conflicts of interest.
Bear in mind it's easy to laugh at a church, which claims to be the most moral institution in society, engaged in rank hypocrisy.
It's not so fun to find out white nationalism houses this same phenomenon, especially because the rank and file of the alt-right object to even mild criticism.
Nevertheless, it's got to be done or else the entire movement will be dead in the water due to that pesky conflict of interests thing.
For example, I've been told it would be sporting of me to ignore Andrew Anglin's race-mixing shenanigans because he's under fire from the SPLC.
But a white nationalist society wouldn't tolerate race mixing, so it wouldn't tolerate England either.
How, then, is he someone to whom I should defer?
And more importantly, why am I bringing him up during a talk on discernment?
Well, some years back, I made vague comments on RFN about odd pseudo-nationalist websites which are best avoided.
The Daily Stormer is one of these websites.
One of England's earlier entries on his site danced around the subject of race mixing without outright opposing it.
This blog entry even went so far as to describe the proper uses for a particular male bodily fluid as a way to delineate what was and wasn't acceptable for a white nationalist.
England's stand against race mixing was noticeably absent from the Stormer, so I knew something was up.
And for the record, no, I didn't know specifically what until he admitted his Oriental proclivities years later.
That's discernment for you.
It was plain to me something was seriously wrong even though I couldn't have told you what it was, despite years' worth of rumors which, in fact, turned out to be true.
Armed with a very basic premise of white nationalism and an expectation that it be adhered to, I was able to spot this problem almost immediately.
Each and every one of you could do the same if you wished to.
For decades, the movement wasted itself on two things.
Leaders who were clearly compromised and useless activities.
As I've pointed out, one necessarily follows the other, and the alt-right isn't doing any better than your granddaddy's white nationalism for exactly the same reason.
Another of the really, really obvious issues is that of mixed ancestry and how much mixing should be tolerated.
The answer, of course, is none.
If it weren't none, it would be some arbitrary non-zero amount.
The nature of compromise would continually raise that amount, so the answer must always remain none.
But does everyone agree with that?
And more importantly, if someone claimed to tolerate a little bit of non-white ancestry, wouldn't good discernment indicate they're actually welcoming a far worse mixing than they claim?
Yes it would, and I have proof.
Periodically, someone will get their knickers in a twist over this very subject and make sure to tell the party all about it.
Thankfully, someone talking to me over the party message board finally shook themselves out of this particular compromise.
Some weeks ago, Harold didn't approve someone's RFN comment because it contained sympathy for Mike the Kike Enoch.
They got in touch with me, and I had to explain just what was wrong with their perspective.
In the meantime, they listened to a speech from Kike Enoch and passed it along to me because it entirely backed up my explanation.
I appreciate this tip-off, and I've decided to incorporate a snippet of audio from that speech into today's talk.
I never thought I would ask this, but could you all please give Mike the Kike Enoch your attention?
What's the belief, specifically?
I mean, I think people should take their ancestry tests and learn what their biological DNA holds.
Hey, if you've got some non-European, some Jew, you know, up to a certain extent, I think it's probably all right.
I mean, certainly, if you're like half, it's like...
You just heard someone claiming to be non-white asking Kyk Enoch a question about white identity and Enoch's response.
To head off any speculation that he was trying to indicate that half-white should certainly not be considered white, okay, fine, let's assume he meant that.
His cutoff is still half.
It's exactly what it sounded like.
I'm sure you're all aware that Enoch was exposed as being married to a Jewess whom he actively involved in TRS for quite some time.
The party is constantly told by the little kiddies in the alt-right that a little bit of mixing is no big deal because they think you deserve a pass from white nationalism as long as you claim to be pro-white.
But what about those with discernment?
As I said, the nature of compromise is such that this little bit tendency is merely a mask for the standard of half.
And from here on out, I'm going to assume anyone defending Kaik Enoch is simply of severely mixed ancestry themselves or actually opposed to white nationalism.
But more importantly, discernment would tell someone that toleration of a little Jewishness here and there quickly turns into complete and total acceptance of mixture in short order.
When the party examines a situation and tells you all to avoid someone or something, it's not because we make these things up out of boredom, you know.
Would Kaikinok be allowed in any white ethnostate?
Of course not.
But if that's the case, why is he fit to be some sort of spokesperson or guru to white nationalists?
If anything, he's conflicted out of giving advice that is actually good for white people.
This is more than long enough now, so I'll stop after one final observation.
The alt-right kiddies, who easily become outraged at even my most benign questions posed on Twitter, usually cite a specific motivation for becoming cross with me.
They're almost always of the opinion that I'm obligated to approve of the alt-right and them personally because they're also very opposed to the left and cultural Marxism.
Each of the things they tolerate, or even worse, do, absolutely contradict that.
The major figures in the alt-right have banded together in some show of so-called white unity.
But white unity is to the alt-right what tolerance is to the left.
It's a dark sacrament binding all those who fall under its sway into an unholy alliance which only serves to consume everything good it touches.
I'm not kidding, guys.
There are famous trannies that claim to be opposed to cultural Marxism.
And no, I'm not kidding.
I'd like someone to explain to me how sexual deviants, race mixers, Jews, porn stars, and those who enable them are anything other than cultural Marxists themselves.
I once called someone sticking up for alt-right porn stars, and yes, that's a thing.
I called them a cultural Marxist, and they couldn't understand why I would say something like that.
Remember how I mentioned the deacons at that church that didn't know the things they were supposed to know?
Well, we're looking at the same thing here.
They were all incredibly pissed with my whole family for daring to be moral, in a church of all places.
They were even more upset when the pastor's bad behavior was proven in public.
And why wouldn't they be?
After all, the pastor was a nice guy who said nice things and made people feel good.
The only reason someone would ever speak against him is if they had some sort of nefarious agenda.
It's the same thing in the alt-right.
A bunch of Johnny-come-lately pseudo-nationalists don't understand what's right and wrong, and therefore they're easily led astray by people looking to profit for doing everything short of stopping white genocide.
Discernment, folks.
Get some and learn to use it.
If you don't...
You're going to end up like the young alt-writer that told me I had to put up with all manner of anti-white and reprobate activity from leadership because no one is perfect.
It's certainly true that no one is perfect, but that doesn't make all things acceptable.
Discernment should tell you at least that much.
Hail victory.
I'm tempted to send this next one out to Mike Enoch, or Mike Penevich, or whatever his real name actually is, but the trouble is there's so many in the alt-rights kosher crew, I guess you could call them, that the others might feel left out.
So let's just dedicate this one to all of these self-hating Jews that really, really want to be white so bad that they play one on the internet.
The Ballad of Irving He was short and fat and rode out of the West with a Mogan David on his silver vest.
He was mean and nasty right clear through, which was kind of weird, because he was yellow, too.
They called him Irving.
Big Irving.
Big short Irving.
Big short fat Irving.
The 142nd fastest gun in the West.
The 142nd fastest gun in the West.
He came from the old bar mitzvah spread with a 10-gallon Yalmacher on his head.
He always followed his mother's wishes, even on the range he used two sets of dishes.
Irving.
Big fat Irving.
Big sissy Irving.
The 142nd fastest gun in the West.
Irving.
A hundred and forty-one could draw faster than he, but Irving was looking for one forty-three, walked in a soft saloon like a man insane, and ordered three fingers of two cents claim.
Irving!
Big fat Irving!
Big sport Irving!
The hundred and forty-second fastest gun in the West.
One day, Bad Max happened in the town.
His aim was to shoot fat Irving down.
Bad Max said, draw and draw right now.
And Irving Drew drew a picture of a cow.
Irving!
Big fat Irving!
Big gunfighter Irving!
The 142nd fastest gun in the West.
Irving!
Irving!
The James boys was coming on a train at first sun, and the town said, Irving, we need your gun.
Well, that train pulled in at the break of dawn.
Irving's gun was there, but Irving was gone.
Irving!
Big fat Irving!
Big health Irving!
The 142nd fastest gun in the West.
Irving!
Irving!
Well, finally Irving got three slugs in the belly that was right outside the Frontier Deli.
He was sitting there twirling his gun around and Butterfingers Irving gunned himself down.
Fat Irving!
Big Fat Irving!
Big Dumb Dumb Irving!
Big Dumb Dumb Dead Irving!
The 142nd fastest gun in the West!
Really?
Really?
Thank you.
you you Good evening, comrades.
Tonight I'm going to be discussing the philosophy of Alfred Rosenberg by James B. Whisker.
Being from Estonia, Rosenberg was particularly alarmed by the spread of Bolshevism.
Rosenberg believed in the power of religion and art to either affirm or deny the special qualities of the Nordic soul.
Rosenberg seems most concerned with the revamping of Christianity.
This is a problem that has been fairly obvious even from the early days of the movement, and problematic on many levels.
Of course, needless to say, Christianity was popular, but on the other hand, it was presented as gentle, foreign, and based in Judaism.
How is any nationalist going to deal with this?
Rosenberg came to the belief that Jesus was an Amorite.
The Amorites were a Middle Eastern people that apparently spoke a Semitic language, but there were some within the racialist circles of Germany that believed the ancient Amorites were racially Aryan.
This belief was rather shaky even in its day, but this is something that apparently Rosenberg managed to convince himself of, perhaps because he needed to do so.
But at any rate, he believed that Jesus' ancestry was falsified by Paul.
Paul was a Jewish convert to Christianity, and according to Rosenberg, Paul wanted to subvert the true story of Jesus, and of course, as I said, the ancestry of Jesus.
Rosenberg also developed very specific ideas about what was to be held up as valuable in the history of Christianity.
Rosenberg favored the Gospel of John because he saw that Gospel as more influenced by Greek ideas.
But even more than that, Rosenberg revered Justin the martyr.
Now, Justin was a medieval near-saint who wanted to reconcile the non-Jews to Christ.
And Justin claimed that any favor that God had for the Jews dissipated when they rejected Christ.
Justin was very popular, and even though the church always had their misgivings about Justin, he was held in high regard by the common folk.
As I'm reading about Justin's beliefs, I'm sure that I came across them before as a belief that was held by the Puritans.
So it seemed that this philosophy of God renouncing the Jews when they rejected Christ was something that did survive into Puritan times.
Another very important figure to Rosenberg, and even more important than Justin the Martyr, was Meister Eckhart.
He is a very famous mystic among the Germans.
Eckhart lived before the Reformation, and therefore he always sought to stay with the Catholic Church.
He was so beloved that indeed there are many Germans even today that will still bear that name.
But despite the fact that he was supremely popular, in 1327 he was charged with heresy.
Because the public loved him so much, the church was unable to make those charges stick, at least not during his lifetime.
The reason that Rosenberg loves Eckhart so much was that he had little interest in humility, mercy, or grace.
Instead, he was intent on the nobility of the soul.
Eckhart believed that the soul was the same substance as God and thus it could work with God to fight evil.
Because the soul had such an important mission, it had to make sure it did not unite itself with anything less than God.
To a certain extent, both Justin the Martyr and Eckhart were mystics that were part of this very vivid age of early Christendom.
This was at a time when the Church had not yet fully cracked down on all the Gnostics.
And this book goes into a lot of these various Gnostic movements.
The main thrust of all of these movements was a rejection of materialism.
When I say the rejection of materialism, I don't just mean that they wanted only the And that they didn't want any luxuries.
That's often the way we talk about materialism now.
We talk about a materialist as someone who wants luxury.
But that's not what they mean.
They're talking about a movement where the end goal is for human beings to realize an entirely spiritual existence.
And when I say that, I mean that very literally.
Because they really wanted everybody to become a monk or a nun, and they wanted people to...
Stopped reproducing.
And in this way, human suffering would come to an end, and everybody that was currently existing would eventually die, and they would go to heaven to be with God.
Of course, this idea of a totally spiritual existence, a rejection of all material existence, this obviously would not serve Rosenberg, but Rosenberg did desire to reject one certainly key teaching of Christianity, and that is that he rejected the doctrine of original sin.
Once you get rid of original sin, of course, the notion of Jesus as God becomes entirely superfluous.
Interestingly, Rosenberg also rejected the notion of creation from nothing.
So there's essentially two ideas of creation in religion.
You can either have a religion like Christianity that has the idea that the universe was created from nothing, Or you can have a religion like Sonatana Dharma, where there's this continual recycling of the universe.
So Rosenberg wants to reject creation from nothing, he wants to reject original sin, and he also wishes to reject the Old Testament.
At the end of the day, Rosenberg does admit that it would be easier to start a completely new religion than it would be to finagle Christianity in the way That he has to finagle it.
But at any rate, Rosenberg really wants to help create a new society.
And of course, we can never really be sure about what the Bible says or what any ancient literature says.
There's really no way to verify it.
But we can certainly influence public opinion if we control the past.
And that's really what Rosenberg wants to do.
And he calls this...
Also, too, Rosenberg, like Hitler, was interested in art.
He becomes one of the members of the famous Wagnerian think tank that I've spoken of before.
Of course, it's likely that Hitler and Rosenberg enjoyed the camaraderie within this group.
They already had their own well-formed ideas, and they didn't come to this until around 1923.
That was at a time when, obviously, right before Hitler went off to prison, So this is probably just an enjoyable kind of friendship or discussion group for Hitler and Rosenberg because their ideas were likely already formed before coming to this group, of course.
The author goes into the whole controversy about how Wagner, in his later life, became rededicated to Catholicism and how this caused a break with Nietzsche.
By the time Rosenberg and Hitler come along, at this point, the controversy was old news.
Of course, by 1923, Wagner had long since passed away.
He gets put on a pedestal, of course.
It really isn't the controversy it had been.
Rosenberg also believes that the Germans should return to the land, but the cities could be cultural centers.
Rosenberg, he also cares about the state of painting in Europe, and it might be a surprise to learn this, but apparently Emile Nold was not the only nationalist who liked Expressionism.
So did Goebbels.
However, Hitler sided with Rosenberg.
Art was to be a source of solace, it was to be non-emotional, and it would put the mind at rest.
It says here that Rosenberg loved Van Eck, and I suppose that Rosenberg would have also liked Hitler's favorite painter, someone by the name of von Ault, who did mainly architecture.
However, Rosenberg would be most focused on the human figure.
Rosenberg believed that heroic figures should always be shown as Nordic.
Regardless of their actual physical appearance.
He talks about two types of artists, how there is one type of artist that will go around the truth and have multiple interests, and then there's another type of artist that just attacks the truth directly.
And he talks about how the second...
The second type is, according to Rosenberg's ideas, a bit out of step with our current society, but that once society would be restored in the way that Rosenberg would like, then the second type could flourish.
Rosenberg wanted to enrich art with the study of archaeology and ancient manuscripts so that Nordics could better understand their culture.
And he was very strict about everyone sticking to their own culture.
He didn't like the fact that Nordics were getting influenced by Oriental art.
He thought it was...
To the ruin of Western art if Nordics would do that.
And while this does seem like an overreaction because it's easy to admire Oriental art, one can easily say that Rosenberg saw a time in which painting was very much on the decline.
And as I must have said some years back when I reviewed the myths of the 20th century, Rosenberg was very excited about the idea of the First World War, creating a heroic mythos that Germans would then idealize and then go forward to reorganizing Europe.
I would very much recommend this book, Philosophy of Alfred Rosenberg.
I would say do yourself a favor and before you read Myths of the 20th Century, read this book.
In fact, if you have little time and you don't have the time to read Myths of the 20th Century, then just read this book and it'll summarize it all for you.
Because, as I've said before, Rosenberg's book was in desperate need of editing, and this book will save you a ton of time.
So I thank you for listening, and I hope you enjoyed this discussion.
I know it's running rather long, so have a good evening and hail victory, comrades.
I know it's running rather long, but I know it's running rather long, so have a good evening.
Men come and go.
They are born, they live, they die.
Sometimes they live prosperous, happy lives.
Sometimes they live poverty-ridden, miserable lives.
But the deciding factor which separates all men is their mortality.
That is not to say, naturally, that it is possible to live forever in the physical sense.
That is impossible.
However, it is possible to be immortal in a different way.
The year is 2017 and we approach the 500th anniversary of the Reformation.
The actions of a single tipsy monk in the then small and relevant town of Wittenberg changed European history forever.
Many may say for good and many may say for the worse.
That is irrelevant.
The fact is that some 500 years after his death, Luther is very much alive today.
The fruits of his work, whatever he himself might think of the current Protestant and Evangelical churches, if he saw them, are all over the Western world at the present.
And despite the comprehensive attack being waged against Christianity from within and without, the Reformation, which began because of one man, is remembered 500 years on by many millions in the Church and outside of it.
That is not to say that Luther will be remembered forever.
If the white race is annihilated, it is highly likely that he and many of our heroes of European history will simply vanish into nothing.
But he is, in an example, of the only achievable form of immortality to live forever in memory, immortalized by recorded history, to be ever present in the actions of those that come after you.
Luther is generally remembered for his enormous feat in practically single-handedly opposing the might of the Roman Catholic Church.
And yet his anti-Semitic tracts go largely ignored by many, perhaps because they pose a contrast for some between the all-loving reformer and the fiery demagogue at the pulpit.
But there is also a general suppression of Luther's warning against the Jew, and the people behind this suppression happen to be the usual suspects.
Whatever you think of Luther, an eternal powerful force drove him.
He would invariably have described this as the power of God working through him.
And there certainly is a divine power, but whether it wishes to speak through the minds of individual men is impossible to discern.
That there are so many world religions and that so many world religions have come before is evidence of a humanity seeking answers.
Answers for existence.
Answers for life and death.
Answers for love and happiness.
Answers for pain and suffering.
The flame of life is a term a young Adolf Hitler used to describe this life essence in conversation with his childhood and teenage friend August Kuzebeck.
Hitler enunciated his theory that there is a divine inspiration, a power, which expresses itself through certain men, sometimes ordinary ones and sometimes ones of status, and catapults them forward to meteoric heights.
He compared himself to Rienzi and told Kuzebeck that he would one day, like the Roman Tribune, Rise up from nothing to save his people.
The theory espoused by the then unknown and completely irrelevant Hitler is not a new one.
There are certain men who, through an apparently inhuman supernatural drive, have pushed themselves into the history books, often arising from the massed ranks of the peasantry or the poverty-ridden, to be remembered forever.
To live forever.
Some men are blessed with this flame, this spark.
Others lack it entirely.
There are men who lead, and there are men who follow.
There are field marshals, and there are soldiers.
Napoleon once said that he believed every single grenadier carried a field marshal's baton in his soldier's pack.
He was naturally not speaking of an army of field marshals, but rather of the potential of man who has the opportunity to push forward to great new things.
Some may be successful in doing so.
Others may be completely annihilated.
That is the way of life, the way of struggle.
Nothing is given to man by nature for free.
Nothing is ever simply given over.
Some fortunate individuals are born into rich families and banking dynasties, but often nature punishes them for this privilege.
The psychopathic nature of so many leading Jewish media figures and bankers, financial VIPs and so on, is well known.
That these people practice insane satanic rituals as a part of their daily lives is the irrevocable truth.
They are punished for being born into teeming ill-gotten riches by the force of nature itself, exhibiting in them the characteristics of syphilitic men unable to control their utterly mad nature.
The flame of life is discoverable.
That must be made clear.
There are rich and poor men, often destined for irrelevance in the history books, who have discovered a part of this life essence, or all of it, and have allowed it to power them forwards.
But there are also men who are blessed with it.
It lives inside them, granting them the sheer willpower to go forwards.
If we look at the greatest figures of European history, these are simply never men produced and raised by the morally bankrupt but materially abundant banking houses and families of the Judaic sect.
If we go from the ancient world and progress onwards, from there we see time and time again examples of great men, appearing often from nothingness, who have changed the history of the world and thus live forever.
The two most important examples of this heroic inner will come from two ordinary men who came in both cases from nowhere.
Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler are these two ordinary men.
Both came from comparatively common families.
Both drove themselves with a divine providence backing their thinking and their actions, and only an overextension of their own personal forces, as well as the might of the coalitions arranged against them, managed to bring them down.
Bonaparte and Hitler lived in many ways parallel lives.
The peaks of their careers were brief stops.
Napoleon as Emperor of France and her territories.
Hitler, as in the style of the official title, Germanic Führer and Führer of the German nation.
And after their peak often came their downfall.
In both cases, the meteoric rise was accompanied by the fall akin to that of a comet falling to earth.
When an SS Oberfuhrer was informed that Hitler had fallen during the Battle of Berlin, he remarked, A blazing comet is extinguished.
With his death, Hitler took Germany and much of Europe with him.
The coalition of satanic forces arranged against him had been so strong as to break the willpower of an entire nation using purely the material.
It had not been words nor strength that had broken Germany, but rather a game of numbers, who had more tanks, more planes, and small arms, and so on.
The fate of the German people was sealed.
Now they face annihilation by demographics, just as Hitler prophesied.
William Scheirer, in his accounting of the rise and fall of the Third Reich, opened his heavily biased but well-written account of the period with the following acknowledgement of the reality of the struggle fought by Germany.
Adolf Hitler is probably the last of the great adventurer-conquerors in the tradition of Alexander, Caesar, and Napoleon, and the Third Reich the last of the empires which set out on the path taken earlier by France, Rome, The curtain was rung down, on that phase of history at least, by the sudden invention of the hydrogen bomb, of the ballistic missile, and of rockets that can be aimed to hit the moon.
All of the aforementioned men possess that unique spark, that amazing drive, that unfettered willpower, the flame of life, that amazing unparalleled spark, that divine blessing, that something other, which characterizes the coming and going of brilliant men.
Ordinary men live and are forgot.
The brilliant men who change history are remembered forever.
Even as the population now steadily becomes less and less aware of their own history and the once bright lights of historical figures in our own very distant past fade, we can look to the examples of those who have prevailed throughout history despite all of the muck showered over their name.
We choose on the upcoming anniversary of the Reformation whatever men today may think of it as an example of the immortality of one man Through the history of his deeds.
That Martin Luther has stood the test of time is sufficient evidence enough for all men out there who are, if not simply concerned with the decline of the white race, but desire immediate action, that change can only come through action, even if that action amounts only to the protestation of your rights and your right to express your beliefs.
Perhaps amongst the white man today in this late dark stage of our existence, there are still men who are willing to go to the church door and to pin upon it a thesis of their beliefs, a document to posterity accounting for the fact that whilst many were too busy supping their cheap beer or devouring chemical-ridden processed foods, that there were those willing to sacrifice everything to subject themselves to the most bitter ridicule and derision for the sake of their race.
That represents the discovery of this driving force.
Behind all ambitious, fanatical men, if you believe in yourself enough, and if you are willing to act upon that belief, you will go on to achieve success, or the merit at least to being remembered and immortalized through history by acting, rather than merely existing.
And that is what separates the driven men from the idle men.
Though many may work in their ordinary lives exceptionally of whatever task is set before them, and that is not in a dishonorable existence at all, quite the opposite, they will not strive to change things, to turn the tide of history, unless they are inspired by the presence of other more charismatic and more ambitious men who are able to exert themselves accordingly and spread their message with an aura of power and with a convincing tone.
This is what will make our desire, our dream, our vision a reality.
A lack of perception for what is really required is common amongst all pro-white movements since 1945.
The key to success is the empowerment of a single leader in whom men can believe, without any kind of consideration of an alternative.
A person in whom absolute faith and obedience can be placed.
A person who carries the banner selflessly, and is willing at any time to die for it, but asks of those following him No more than he himself is willing to give.
A single leader who is blessed with that same flame of life which carried Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon and Hitler forward.
The people need a man to follow, not a man who is willing to tolerate competing ideological standpoints.
There must be just one leader.
There must be just one flag.
And there must be just one ideal.
The idea of a competing spectrum of ideologies tolerating one another is an absurdity.
That only National Socialism can guarantee the survival of the white race is a given fact to all of those of upstanding racial and cultural quality.
Those who would suggest in opposition to this the ideologies of reaction, of monarchism, of fascism, of theocracy, of libertarianism, are generally speaking men of a poorer personal and racial character who are only suggesting alternatives to National Socialism.
Either for the sake of their personal safety, as it is unlikely they would last accordingly in a national socialist state, or because they are hiding something, an impurity, or a lack of personal status.
Their ability to leech off of the rest of the people would be dramatically diminished in a meritocracy state of the Hitlerite variety.
With every person bound to the national community, obligated to follow the leader, and swearing allegiance to the battle flag of the nation, instead of having a national existence of competing interests constantly crushing one another, A national existence of everyone pulling on the same rope and fighting for the same existence and the same culture would appear.
In place of money, community.
In place of anarchy, obedience.
In place of immorality, strong, large families.
In place of atheism, belief.
In place of a new leader every five years, a single man ruling until he is unable to do so further.
And so consequently, the replacement of a system which propagates dysgenic sexual perversion, social catastrophe, all-encompassing economic poverty, political uncertainty and religious decline, with a system promoting the healthy upbringing of a new generation of white men and women, the strengthening and promotion of the marital bond to such an extent that marriage will become a natural part of life rather than something to be feared as potentially life-wrecking.
The creation of a national community, in which all individuals are able to prove themselves worthy to one another, regardless of their class or status.
Establishing a secure, interest-free economic plan, which removes the Jew in his entirety from the economic life of the people, and in so doing, eliminates the insidious disaster that usury has been for the white man.
The certainty of a single political party, with one leader, and a strong ruling body backing him, which can accordingly make decisions, securing the future and the life of the people and their nation.
The removal of atheism as a principle and the strengthening of religious belief among all, that they may discover the essence of life however it is taught.
This can all only be achieved by action.
It cannot be achieved on a global scale.
It cannot be achieved on a national scale.
I call upon those who are listening to invest themselves wholeheartedly in the Northwest Imperative, to dedicate themselves resolutely to the creation of a white homeland.
If you can discover the flame of life, if you can discover what it is that drives you, gives you the willpower to continue even when it appears that all hope is lost, then you will have the chance to assist in the great endeavor to save and secure the white race.
You have nothing to lose.
Action, and only action, will turn the tide.
Like a front line stretched along a great distance, the white race is being attacked on all sides, from within, from without, by a thousand different attackers.
Any kind of capitulation, Any kind of surrender means the death of thousands of years of history and the highest culture known to man.
That of Alexander and Caesar passed on to Napoleon and Hitler.
You must make the conscious decision to either stand or see your family tree obliterated, submerged by the brown tide.
If you think you can escape this blunt reality, you are mistaken in such a way that it is not in any way amusing.
You may have the fortune to establish a large white family.
But the number of your children, which drift off into the nothingness of racial treason and sexual degeneracy, will perhaps leave you with only a tiny handful of living relatives who are not consumed by the sea of sin which constitutes the present worldly existence of most white people.
And the sons and daughters of your children will inevitably also drift off too, joining their brothers and sisters as race traitors and sexual mutants.
This you can stop, but only through action, only through utilizing what belongs to you.
What you have, and your own willpower.
Failure is not an option.
You have, effectively speaking, nothing left to lose.
If you go down this path, the path of fighting for the white race, you can be certain of nothing other than that you shall be attacked incessantly.
You will be made poor.
You will be cut off from many people you love.
You are likely even to be killed.
Are you willing to risk everything?
If you believe you are, then perhaps you have an inkling of the flame of light.
This can only be turned around by the establishment of a white homeland in the Pacific Northwest, in fertile ground where the swastika banner may fly freely once again.
There can be no other path than this for those who believe.
A white future must be achieved, even if it takes a lifetime.
In his last broadcast speech, Adolf Hitler readily made this call to arms before the commencement of the final desperate struggle to defend the Reich.
He did not falter at any time.
Irrespective of the fate awaiting him, he fought until fighting was physically no longer possible.
With several million German soldiers already dead in the heroic battle for Europe, and another few million to follow them to their graves in the final struggle, and in the genocide practiced by the Allies after the war, Hitler stopped at nothing to turn the tide.
But the flame of life can only carry so much against the tide of numbers, and Hitler too was consumed.
But his spirit shall rise again, and the world shall know he was right.
In vowing ourselves to one another, we are entitled to stand before the Almighty and ask Him for His grace and His blessing.
No people can do more.
That everybody who can fight, fights.
And that everybody who can work, works.
And that they all sacrifice in common, filled but with one thought, to safeguard freedom, national honor, and thus the future of life.
Anyone who thinks that the struggle is lost, or that they have better methods of fighting it, let them go forward.
The fate that awaits them for treason and dereliction of duty is perhaps worse than that of simply not acting.
Those who do not act will be ignored by history.
History shall spare them any notice at all.
But the weak, the traitors, the egotists, history will at least put a footnote in for them, if merely to scorn them as the weaklings they are, and as an example to all of what constitutes real failure.
The fragile, cowardly nature of the weakling.
The pathetic betrayal of the traitor.
The sneering arrogance of the unaccomplished egotist who always believes he has a better plan.
Let men like that go along as they please.
When everything begins, it shall begin so quickly that the weight of their inadequacy stays their feet and they shall be left behind, with only the record-keepers around after the fact to record their irrelevance.
The End
Alright, as I said at the beginning of the show, this week's episode is a bit of a rush, and you may find it a little light on the Herald.
But for reasons which I can't get into this week, I'm going to need as much free time as possible on weekdays when things are open.
I just don't have the time to spend my Monday and Tuesday this week writing out a script and doing the interminable sound editing that's necessary so that our RFN productions don't sound like stoners, wiggers, and half-wits with all the e's and uh's and a...
Yeah, I know, I'm kind of phoning it in this week, as opposed to call-in shows where I really do phone it in.
I apologize for this necessity to those of you who live to hear my dulcet tones every week, and believe it or not, there do seem to be some people like that, but it is what it is.
I really, really wish that I could sit...
All of you down across my kitchen table, if I had a kitchen or a table, and simply tell you what the hell is going on with us, with me, with the party.
Just explain to you why things are the way they are, but I can't do that.
I can't even tell you why I can't talk about certain things going on with us, because if I did, well, that would be talking about it.
Understand?
Okay, look, I can't wind this week's episode up without discussing last week's plugging of a major Republican and neocon powerholder, Louisiana Congressman Steve Scalise.
No one was actually killed except for the standard funny little man who heard voices in his head, but this is a major development in a number of ways.
First and foremost, this time the funny little man who heard voices in his head wasn't one of us for a change.
He was an open and acknowledged left-wing Bernie bro with a traceable and provable past.
Bernie himself even publicly denounced and apologized for this schlub, James Hodgkinson, probably grinding his dentures like crazy while he did so.
Secondly, for the first time since the madness began two years ago with Donald Trump rolling down the escalator at Trump Tower to announce his candidacy, somebody finally brought a gun to a gunfight.
Not sticks.
Not bags of piss and poo.
Not pepper spray or various aerosols from Glade Air Freshener to hairspray that are supposedly weaponized.
None of that nonsense.
This was not LARPing.
It was not a dog and pony show carried out like some kind of pro wrestling display where all the moves may look good, but everybody knows it's fake.
That it's basically just children playing in a sandbox under watchful supervision of the adults.
This was not street theater carried out in the hovering presence of the police so that they could step in and make sure that nobody played too rough and really got hurt.
No, this was an actual hit, albeit not a very efficient one.
Possibly due to the fact that the funny little man hearing the voices in his head was 66 years old and probably out of practice.
If he ever was in practice.
I don't remember reading at the time that Hodgkinson ever served in the military, and I just did a quick internet check and wasn't able to find anything to that effect, so it could be he was just a bad shot.
But it's significant that this time, somebody finally brought a gun to a gunfight.
And not only that, they didn't just sashay and do-si-do around in the latest camouflage gear from Cabelas.
They didn't just wave their semi-autos around in the air for the television cameras like so many Bundys.
This time, someone actually pointed the weapon and pulled the trigger.
Wow, what a concept!
Like, far out, man.
Secondly...
This time, the funny little man who was hearing the voices in his head actually seems to have had some concept of target selection and the high-value target.
Now that's something that none of these price tag attackers on what I suppose may loosely be termed our side seems to have been able to wrap their minds around so far.
Yeah, yeah, I know Dylan Roof bagged some monkoid South Carolina state senator who was a big wheel with the local Democratic Party, along with eight or nine little old colored ladies wearing their church crowns, which is about as pointless and psychologically counterproductive a target as I can imagine.
I'm pretty sure the state senator was nothing but an accident.
Other than that, none of the recent price tag attackers, except Andre Breivik in Norway and Thomas Mayer in Great Britain, seem to have had any discernible political motivation, never mind any kind of attainable political objective in mind.
Most price tag attackers just seem to sort of explode into a hissy fit over some personal incident or interaction with the scum that left them feeling all but hurt.
I mean, that guy Craig Hicks in Chapel Hill wasted three Muslims, not because they were invaders who had no business here, not because he was defending his country and his heritage, but because they stole his parking space, of all things.
The great poet Ezra Pound once wrote, The trouble with warfare is that you never get to kill the right people.
Now, I say again, I don't want any of you doing this mess, but if you must be one of our suicide bombers and destroy your own life...
For God's sake, die for something greater than a stolen parking space, will ya?
At least inflict some damage on the right people.
Can I say that?
Well, I guess I'll find out.
Okay, this leads into another topic.
I want to talk to you guys about something called stochastic...
Now, what's that, you might ask?
Well, the official definition is as follows.
Stochastic terrorism is the use of mass communications to incite random actors to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable.
In short, remote control murder by Lone Wolf.
Now, that's the official definition of stochastic terrorism.
What it actually seems to mean is it's a buzzword made up by liberals and assorted left scum to delegitimize and hopefully destroy Fox News, whom the left scum hate for being the first to break their media monopoly, even before the internet.
I first heard this two years ago or so.
With relations to Dylann Roof, I think, but it really took off when some guy shot up a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado after it was revealed that a number of such clinics were running what amounted to baby chop shops for stem cells and other body parts, and the left scum blamed this on Sean Hannity in an attempt to get him fired.
They failed in Hannity's case, although they later were successful in taking Bill O 'Reilly and Roger Ailes' scalp through the usual procession of He Touched My Titties Bimbos.
So far, Hannity is hanging on by the skin of his teeth.
Anyway, that's where the term came from as part of an attempt to novel Fox News.
But the term does have some significance as an actual phenomenon.
Attende-vous, mon brave.
Let me explain to you about stochastic terrorism, because it is a real thing, and someone might try to do it to you, or through you.
Okay, stochastic terrorism in real life might be considered a particularly nasty form of doxing.
It attempts to take advantage of the fact that America is a country teetering on the brink of insanity to the point of becoming non-functional, and that American society as a whole, and the Internet in particular, is full of dangerously mentally and emotionally unstable people, many of whom are sufficiently disturbed to commit violence.
With a little manipulation and a constant drumbeat of media demonizing, some of these weirdos might be incited and egged on to commit criminal and violent acts against the people that you hate, up to and including property damage, arson, and murder.
Then the poor dumb bastard who responded to your internet manipulation either goes to prison for life or else he ends up dead when he sticks his gun in his mouth as the police close in.
But what do you care?
He's just cannon fodder.
You're like the imam who sits in his madrasa and selects and indoctrinates the young men to strap on the suicide vests and go blow themselves up.
You're safe behind your computer.
You're cooking.
You got free speech.
So the law can't touch you.
Nah.
Well, it's not totally true.
It depends, as always in this society, on whose ox is being gored.
Now, if you're Madonna, you can threaten to burn down the White House.
If you're Kathy Griffin, you can get your picture taken, holding up the president's bloody severed head.
If you're an artsy-fartsy theater in the park outfit, night after night you can stage a quasi-Shakespeare play showing the president being stabbed to death by women and dark-skinned foreigners.
If you're Rachel Maddow or some supercilious liberal asshole at The Guardian or Politico.com, yeah, you can pretty much say whatever you want to incite to murder anyone from little old me all the way up to the President of the United States, as long as your intended victim is white, male, and somewhere to the right of center.
I cannot count the times that I have seen outright threats and calls for Donald Trump's murder on Twitter, including one memorable tweet from some jackass Hey, isn't there anybody out there who's willing to take one for the team and kill Donald Trump?
Which is about as blatant an act of stochastic terrorism as can be imagined.
Needless to say, nothing was done about it, and so far as I know, not one individual has ever had their account cancelled by Twitter for calling for the murder of the President of the United States, never mind being arrested by the Secret Service.
Now, I think that in the past, I've made my genuine disapproval of this kind of cowardice manifest, and I won't waste your time with another repetition of my views on the matter.
I will say this.
Be aware that there are people out there, either on our side or more germanely pretending to be on our side, who may attempt to use the internet to manipulate you into self-destructive acts.
I don't do this crap.
I have made it clear in my novels how I think it should be done.
Our race and civilization will be saved by white males who make the conscious decision to become men again.
It will not be saved by funny little geeks and basement dwellers with electronic devices in their hands, nor will it be saved by crazy men who hear voices in their heads.
But there are those out there who really are trying to get their voices into your head and get you to produce blood and death that they can feed on in various ways.
Don't fall for it.
Stay alert, stay focused, and keep on following the Northwest Front.
We are doing our best to give you something meaningful to do, although the process is long and hard and frustrating.
We will get there.
We will get to the day where we can say, here it is, here's the finished product, come and join us.
Make sure you get there with us.
And when the time comes to take one for the team, I will be there with you.
Or if I'm not around, someone will.
Pay attention to your surroundings.
Pay attention to what's going on around you.
Pay attention to who is trying to get close to you and what they're saying.
Be aware and stay safe.
Chucky Arla.
Our day is coming.
Well, our time is up for this week's edition of Radio Free Northwest.
This program is brought to you by the Northwest Front, Post Office Box 2188, Bremerton, Washington, 98310, 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 Andaban.
Freedom.
▲
Export Selection