All Episodes
Previous Next
July 27, 2017 - Radio Free Nortwest - H.A. Covington
51:16
20170727_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 the marching 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 shoulder By the rising of the moon Out from many a mud wall cabin eyes Were watching through the night Many a manly chest was dropping For the blessed warning light The warmers passed along the valleys Like the man she's lonely crew 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 July the 27th, 2017.
I'm Harold Covington, and this is Radio Free Northwest.
This week, I'm going to be doing something that I never thought I would have to do in connection with any of my political or racial work.
I'm going to try to explain to you, my listeners, most especially my listeners who are under 40 years of age, a point of basic racial and personal morality, which...
I never even considered that I would actually be required to explain to anyone, because it's something so fundamental, so bedrock, that I continue to be astounded that this issue even exists, but it does.
There are two things on Earth which the Northwest Front or any other successful white nationalist movement must never, ever become involved in.
Because to do so would destroy any chance of victory and ruin the image of that movement forever.
Those things which white nationalism must never, ever be associated with in the public mind are infantile and shrill anti-Christianity of the Jesus was a dead Jew on a stick variety and homosexuality.
To my never-ending amazement, I'm going to have to explain to you younger guys among us.
Exactly what the hell is wrong with homosexuality?
Why you shouldn't do it?
Why homosexuality needs to be nowhere near the white nationalist movement, and why, contrary to what Richard Spencer says, it really is a big deal?
The precise wording of Spencer's now infamous comment was something to the effect of, Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years, it's part of Western heritage and culture, and it always will be, and it's no big deal.
Well, Mr. Spencer is correct.
Yeah, buggery has been with us for thousands of years, and it is a part of our Western heritage, taken in the broadest sense.
So was the Black Death.
So was murdering millions of people, either for opposing the Catholic Church or for being Roman Catholics, which we did for centuries and still do in Northern Ireland.
Treating gunshot wounds with little blue pills.
Working ten-year-old children to death in coal mines and textile mills.
And believing that a giant pig eats the moon every month are all part of our Western heritage.
Not all of our people's history is good.
Buggery is one of the many skeletons in the white man's historical closet, and there it needs to remain, pun intended.
I understand that Richard Spencer is a highly educated man, since his family is part of the 1%, and he got a very expensive education.
Now this means he probably knows better than to make assertions like that.
One of the biggest frauds perpetrated by organized sodomy in this day and time is the claim they make that homosexuality was considered beautiful and normal and perfectly acceptable in ancient Greek and Roman times.
Well, that's not true.
Not by a long shot.
It's true that the ancient Greeks and Romans did not have the kind of visceral animus toward sodomy that later Christian societies did, but even in Greece and Rome, indeed down through history, the world over, homosexuality has never, ever been considered to be an acceptable or normal lifestyle, at least not until the past 30 years or so in the English-speaking world.
From what I can see, it hasn't even really caught on so much outside the U.S., the U.K., and Canada, and a few really degenerate places like Amsterdam.
It has always been considered a vice, and in ancient Greece and Rome, insofar as we can tell, it was considered to be a vice at worst and an upper-class eccentricity at best, tolerated in aristocrats and the wealthy so long as they were sufficiently bisexual to get married and sire children to carry on the family line.
Nor was it always accepted even among the aristocracy.
Julius Caesar was haunted for his entire life by rumors that he had a homosexual affair in his younger days with the king of Bithynia, and on several occasions these stories, whether true or not, caused him very serious difficulties.
Caesar deliberately made a habit of seducing senators' wives specifically to put paid to these rumors.
In the Middle Ages, for some reason, the city of Florence in Italy became such a notorious hotbed of buggery that to this day the German word Florenser, meaning Florentine, is a slang term for faggot in Germany.
It was getting widespread to the point where the aristocratic classes weren't reproducing themselves, and the city fathers of Florence were so alarmed by the spread of the contamination among their young men that they set up what was known as the Tribune Noctis, the Tribunal of the Night.
Okay, I won't bore you with any more of this, but suffice it to say that only in the past generation or so has this perversion become anything close to an acceptable way to live.
And that's only come through several generations of the media, the intelligentsia, the universities, and the government.
Pounding gay propaganda into the heads of successive waves of young white people.
Now the faggot lobby claims that anywhere from 10% to one-third of the population is gay, which is wildly out of line with reality.
It actually appears to be around 1% of the population.
Who are naturally inclined to the practice, but I'm sure the percentages rise if you include young people, especially boys, who have been persuaded to experiment with buggery because they have been convinced by a lifetime of indoctrination from school and Hollywood and general youth culture that it's cool, or who experiment with it for other reasons which I will get into in a bit and which are even sadder.
The sodominic propagandists have always concentrated their efforts on white kids and have achieved virtually no success in, pardon the expression, penetrating the black and Hispanic and Muslim communities.
It's true that virtually all black men are bisexual, but that's not a lifestyle choice.
It's because they're animals, and basically niggers will stick it anywhere that's warm and wet.
Interestingly, one place where homo propaganda really does seem to be producing results is the Jewish community.
And that's driving the orthodox hebes around the twist.
Okay, enough of the historical digression.
Before I proceed, let me deal with the rather constant accusation by trolls, fools, queers, and goat dancers that I am quote-unquote obsessed with this perversion, and I am so obsessed because I am a secret queer myself.
Uh, no.
Those of you who are familiar with the way in which the so-called gay lobby operates will recognize this as a standard ploy and disregard it.
They're constantly accusing anyone who opposes them, especially in Hollywood fiction and especially Republicans, of being closet homos.
Of course, instances like the Larry Twinkle Toes Craig incident in the Minneapolis airport some years ago and things like the Log Cabin Republicans certainly don't help.
But, no, I'm not a queer, and so far as I'm aware, the overwhelming majority of white people who actively oppose buggery are not queers, but do so because they are among the few remaining who retain any sense of human decency.
A sincerely dedicated anti-homo on any grounds is actually a pretty good recruitment prospect for us.
It shows that they still have healthy racial instincts.
Let me get down to brass tacks.
Why exactly is homosexuality wrong?
Wrong in a universal moral sense.
And I have to say again that it utterly freaks me out to have to explain to you younger guys something that you ought to know instinctively without having to be told.
Why must white nationalism never, ever be associated with it in the public mind?
Now let me count the ways.
First off, if you are of a more or less Christian bent, and most Americans still have at least a slight veneer of Christianity, then there is the simple fact that God forbids it.
Now, I won't stoop to quoting actual Bible verses here, like a televangelist or the guys who write the little Christian comic books you find on the seats of buses, but check out Leviticus 1822, Leviticus 2013, and the whole Sodom and Gomorrah thing, and you'll get the idea.
Now, for many centuries, that was enough for white folks.
The word of God says no fruit flies, so no fruit flies.
And for many people in this country, that's still enough.
People whom we are going to need on our side.
Just as the left loons grossly exaggerate the number of dykes and bugger boys in American society, so they continually understate and underplay the number of people of all races who are still at least partly Christian in their outlook.
I know that the heyday of the great televangelists has passed since the 1980s, but enough white people in rural and small-town America still have enough of a vestigial Christian upbringing so that they simply are not comfortable being in the same movement with fruits, and they will not follow a so-called white nationalist leader who is openly sodomitic like Milo.
And when the time finally arrives, when the Northwest Front or any other white nationalist group steps up to the plate and turns to the white people of North America and says, The time has come.
Follow me.
Then we must come to the people with our hands clean.
And that does not simply refer to ass bandits within our ranks.
It means no Jews, no mudsharks, no morally undesirables among us.
The reason buggery is wrong, number two.
What's this all about, after all, what we're doing here?
White genocide, am I right?
The world enemy, as personified by George Soros and Hillary Clinton, is trying to kill us all off.
Remove our entire species from the face of the earth.
Why in the name of all common sense are we helping this process by compromising on buggery?
The Sodomitic Act does not produce white...
It produces loose bowel movements.
Why would any racial group or ideology pretending to resist extinction tolerate any practice that reduced the number of white children being born?
Why must any white ethnostate that is ever established firmly prohibit homosexuality and enforce that prohibition with iron will?
Tolerating homosexuality is counterintuitive and counter-survival.
White people cannot survive if white men are fucking each other in the ass and not getting white women pregnant and bringing white infants into the world.
Indeed, the left loons are so aware of this fact that the Tweety Pies on the alt-right recently discovered and circulated an article from some feminist website urging white women not to birth white babies but to become lesbians or sleep exclusively with blacks.
We're not making this white genocide thing up, you know.
And for the next millennium or so, the white race must be all about survival, since until we screw our moral courage to the sticking point and make the collective decision to use our vastly superior scientific knowledge and technological capabilities to make this planet all non-Jewish white from Jamaica to Jerusalem,
Even in our ethnostates, assuming we create any, we will still be living surrounded by a mud-colored sea which at any moment could rise up and engulf us.
Mandatory heterosexuality is a vitally necessary rule for racial survival.
Reason and buggery is wrong.
Number three.
It is terrible for white nationalism's image.
I'm sorry to say that today, when many thousands of people think of white nationalism, they think of Milo Yiannopoulos.
God help us.
Or other alt-right figures who are perceived rightfully or wrongly to be light in the loafers?
We need to ask ourselves this question.
If we are fighting to create a world, or so-called ethnostate, where homosexual perversion is quote-unquote no big deal, as Richard Spencer says, And where it's okay to sleep with non-white women and other men, so long as it's purely recreational, and where a little dab or two of Jewish or non-white ancestry is okay, just so long as that person quote-unquote does good for the movement, then what the hell are we doing any of this for?
Why would we devote our whole lives to changing the world simply to create a kind of liberalism light?
How dare we ask a whole upcoming generation of young white people to suffer and die and give us everything in order to create a world of bugger boys and Murano Jews in positions of authority over them and their children?
The white nationalist movement as a whole, and the Northwest Front in particular, must be seen to practice what they preach in their own lives.
The party and its members must be clearly seen to exemplify all of the ancient virtues of our people, most especially including sexual morality, personal discipline, and self-control.
And yes, those are not dirty words.
For the past 50 years, courtesy of our Jewish enemies who are trying to destroy us and who appear to have succeeded, Western society has become obsessed with sex in every natural and unnatural form.
Not only have young white women been turned into sluts and thots, but young white men have been taught from the cradle, among other things, that if they're not leaping into a different bed every night, they're somehow failures as men, and that high school and college are largely about getting drunk and stoned and pursuing sexual gratification, never mind actually learning anything.
One of the more insidious ways in which homosexuality has been presented and promoted to young white men is through feminism and sexual permissiveness generally.
The saying nowadays is, if it feels good, do it.
You know, as an aside, I find it weird that I'm sometimes accused on Twitter of being a follower of Aleister Crowley because his do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law is very similar and equally poisonous to Western values.
Now, here is where we get a kind of intersectional perfect storm between feminism and buggery.
On the one hand, we have 50 years of so-called youth culture teaching young white men that if they're not having some kind of sexual congress every single night of their lives, they're some kind of failure as a man.
An attitude which persists in men my age wanting to use Viagra and whatnot.
Then, on the other hand, you've got feminism turning young white women against white males and telling them not to have sex with young men of their own race and most especially don't marry them.
Because television and movies tell us that all white men turn into wife-abusing brutes on their wedding night.
And besides, it's wicked for white women to birth white babies who might grow up to oppress, pull little people of color and LGBTs, etc., etc.
So, what's a young white boy to do when, among other reasons, he can't get any tonight because feminism has turned all the girls he knows into screaming, abusive, man-hating bitches who will certainly do him harm in many ways and possibly try to damage his genitalia at some point in the relationship?
Why not experiment with his good buddy Todd or Jason from the football team who finds himself in the same position?
I don't even want to think about how many times some variation on this has taken place.
As a matter of fact, I'm getting sick of this whole topic, so let's take a break.
Speaking of queers, here is a classic from back in the day.
This is the mightiest of musical maestros of the 1960s.
Tiny Tim Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh
And tiptoe through the tulips with me Tiptoe from the garden, by the garden of the willow tree And tiptoe through the tulips with me Showers
away, and if I kiss you in the garden, in the moonlight, then you'll pardon me and tip-toe through the tulips with me.
Maybe the flowers will stay We're okay The showers away
And if I can still In the garden In the light Will you pardon me And tiptoe Through the children With me In the garden Okay, we're going to go to Gretchen and the Trucker next.
Gretch, Trucker, I apologize for putting you guys in with all this toxic waste I'm talking about this week.
I know it reeks, but I really don't want to devote a whole show to nothing but the stuff.
It really does sicken me, and I don't think others want to listen to it either.
I think we all need an extended break before I get back to it.
Thank you.
Good evening, comrades.
Tonight I'm going to be discussing The Perils of Diversity: Immigration and Human Nature by Byron M. Ross.
So this book is a very general overview on the topic of immigration.
It talks about the topic from a global perspective.
So this book starts out talking about how there's substantial sympathy for immigrants today.
This is found throughout society, but especially among elites in particular.
Even when you think there's a foundation, for example, some of the foundations that you'll hear about if you watch Nature on PBS, which you think are probably fairly neutral foundations, they very much support immigration.
There's little attention to study regarding how societies self-maintain.
Ross's ideology is that inhabitants create societies.
So to better understand society and human nature, Ross gives the reader a quick class on the subject of sociobiology, the science of genes, behaviors, and selection.
Now, this overview is in a way very good, but it's also very general.
Interested readers would do well to study Dawkins or Wilson and other relevant writers to get a deeper view of the subject.
Unfortunately, people are more emotional and religious than forward-thinking and logical.
Obviously, we live in a culture that certainly supports white genocide, to state the obvious.
But the fascinating question to all this is really, why is this so?
And of course, we see this primarily in white elites.
And again, why would these elites be that way?
Because we see this even in elites who have no interest in domestic help, but who still seem to be leftists.
Now, the answer given by this author is largely the secular religion of Marxism.
But even then, you might ask why Marxism is so popular.
Well, today's version of Marxism: The Suppressor of the Third World Workers.
And that's when unemployed whites view the ideological left and they increasingly see no help in sight.
If you look over at the conventional right, they only see a discussion of the Constitution interpreted in polite ways, which is never applied to the question of citizenship, or they might see a discussion of free market or even secondary social mores, which are universally applied.
No one in the mainstream, and not even Trump, for example, commits fully or is able to commit fully to identity, although Trump at least speaks of belonging and what constitutes citizenship.
However, aside from Trump, who is not really a conventional conservative or rightist, as you might say, most of the conservative movement tends to always be conceding ground to the left.
This is perhaps because conventional conservatives perhaps only care for their own enrichment.
Now, Ross notes that after World War II, America was plunged, obviously, into the Cold War, and in order to be a voice against military dictatorships that had resulted from the Communist Revolution earlier in the century, the states had to appear morally superior.
This would lead to a desire to make integration a popular social cause.
By 1965 in the States, and even earlier in Europe, due to the population loss from the Second World War, foreign populations were brought in because, as we know, there was a pressure for family reunion.
This soon led to chain migration.
Of course, this is covered in Arthur Kemp's March of the Titans, and certainly it is in no way new to us.
This author compares Europe to the States, and Ross views the U.S. as more responsive to popular pressure.
Ross explains the various European bureaucracies that create voter apathy and make sure to prevent the expression of incorrect thought.
In Europe, supranationalist ideology has tended to dominate, and this is a concept that lessens the sovereignty of various European nations.
Today, with Brexit and the AFD, we may...
We may be seeing a desperately needed reversal.
In Europe, non-citizen residents are referred to as third-country nationals, and in 1999, the Tempere Council gave full rights to third-country nationals in Finland, Sweden, and France.
Now, several other nations, at least at the time of writing this book, were opposed to this idea.
In this book, Ross discusses the various ideologies of multiculturalism versus assimilation.
And as you might know, neither of these ideas are all that strongly supported by research.
Instead, the most common sense approach, and the author doesn't necessarily...
Well, the author implies this, but to sum this up briefly...
We see multiculturalism when race or religion is very different from the majority of the population.
And we tend to see assimilation when you're talking about two slightly different ethnic groups or two slightly different versions of the same religion.
So it really just depends on what the demographics are.
Ross notes that an IQ of 110 is needed for college-level work, and he points out that generally poor societies have a tendency to have a low aggregate IQ.
And he talks about if things continue to decline in the West because of all the third-world immigration that the West will eventually likely lose out to China.
Now, Ross hopes that immigration will tend to trail off, Poor nations can somehow improve their lot, can somehow raise their IQ status, and he talks about this in cases where malnutrition may be more to blame than heredity.
One thing that is certainly true is that the Middle East has always been quite a powder keg.
Now, the author also talks about a special case of Africa and how really since colonization ended, Africa has really been very much unable to self-govern.
Ross really doesn't see any particular remedy for this and thinks that it might be best if someone would come along and recolonize Africa.
Ross realizes that Europeans will not be ideologically or even have the will or even the ability at this point in time to do that, and he considers whether Muslims might end up recolonizing Africa.
He also speculates rather wildly about Western versus Muslim conflicts.
Some of the speculations in this book are, I think, rather wild.
One of the wildest being this idea that China might at some point invade Africa due to the one-child policy creating a lot of lonely Chinese males.
I would call this really off the wall because really the Chinese don't really care for Africans that much.
Roth openly wonders if the West can survive, and if it doesn't, will its culture or cultural contributions be maintained by others?
Roth also attributes the Western lack of will to contemporary nihilism.
The fashionable idea that nothing can be absolutely judged.
And the author talks about what would wake people up eventually, and in his mind, oppression would likely wake people up.
This seems like an odd point of view.
This author seems to underestimate the real instability of the Middle East, and particularly this influence of Wahhabism.
He doesn't really seem to see that in the way that we would see that today.
But you have to understand that this book was evidently written in the early aughts.
Now, of course, we're in 2016, and the Middle East has changed quite a bit.
It's destabilized quite a bit.
And I suppose that's reflected in this book.
The author doesn't believe that terrorism will be an awakening force, particularly.
But he does note the global solidarity of Muslims, and certainly it's hard to avoid the great value for tradition and how they, unlike Westerners, are not influenced by Marx, nihilism, or even an overwhelming desire for personal freedom.
Unlike somebody like Benoist, for example, Ross has a rather conventional view of Western culture, or European culture, which he equates with Western universalism.
This author is conventional enough that he fails to see the value in the nationalist position, and therefore he leaves himself without any true remedy.
So again, I've been discussing Byron M. Ross' Peralds of Diversity, Immigration, and Human Nature.
So I hope you enjoyed this discussion.
Again, I think this book is a good overview for someone who's never thought about these topics.
I think for us, there are lots of things in this book that would be rather old hat.
The only thing I can say about it is that it's kind of one-stop shopping for all of the relevant topics.
So thank you very much for listening.
Have a good day and hail victory, comrades.
We're about to die.
We're going to do what they say can't be done.
We've got a long way to go, and it's short time to get there.
I'm westbound just like a bandit run.
If you put hard on the belt, some never mind your brakes.
Let it all hang out, cause we gotta run the base.
Greetings, comrades.
This is the trucker coming at you from Nebraska doing another truck recovery.
Not that that matters to you guys, but anyways, I thought I would do a little trucker extrapolation on Mr. Covington's crystal ball gazing.
What would end up happening if, like, say, another Carrington event, a big solar flare, if you're not aware of that one, it happened back in the 1800s.
I don't remember the exact year.
I forgot to look it up before I started this.
But, anyway, it fried all the telegraph lines across the country.
Well, imagine that happening today.
Do we have telegraph lines anymore?
No.
But we do have phone lines, fiber optic cable lines, power lines.
Oh, man, can you imagine it?
Melting lines, setting them on fire across the whole country?
Think that's impossible?
No.
And a little bit farther out in the crystal ball gazing, if someone, say, North Korea...
Or one of the Islamic states, whichever, ISIS or whoever, one of them goat-raping countries, terrorists, whatever, went and fired a missile or three above the United States and did one of those super EMP things and knocked out the grid.
Well, it didn't knock out all the electronics, knock out the power grid, knock out cars, trucks, anything that runs on electronics.
I mean, we'd be thrown back into the 1800s.
Yeah, I don't think very many people would last very long during that kind of situation.
As dependent as we are on the grid, all your refrigeration would be gone, your heating would be out.
I know.
You're going to say, oh wait, yeah, I'd still have heat.
I'm on natural gas.
Well, it takes pumps to go and pump the natural gas.
Computers to control the pumping and electricity to run the pump, so no, you'd be without gas.
Okay, fine.
Well, I got oil heat.
Well, you still need electricity to go and run that oil furnace or boiler or whatever.
About the only way you'd end up having heat is if you were on wood heat.
But, I mean, most of the wood stoves have blowers, so you'd be without that, but you'd still be able to light a fire.
But how are you going to be able to supply that wood stove with fuel, wood, if you have no way to cut the wood?
They go, well, I got a chainsaw.
It doesn't have electronics.
It'd still be fine.
I said, well, okay, yeah, you're right there, but...
Your chainsaw needs gasoline, and normally you'd need electricity to pump the gasoline into the can that you take home to fill up your chainsaw.
So, yeah, you'd have wood for a little while until your fuel ran out, and then you'd be screwed because that'd be the end of that.
So, anyways, we'd be without any trucks to go on.
Move stuff across because trucks don't run without fuel and fuel doesn't get pumped without electricity.
And same thing with your car.
And no food would get delivered to the stores because they don't have any electricity to go and run their cash registers, their refrigeration units, their electrically opening doors, all that kind of stuff.
So, yeah.
I don't think it would do too well.
This country, it'd kind of like be, like I say, back in the 1800s.
So, that was just a little thought from the road to think about.
So, anyways, well, take it easy, comrades.
Hope to see you all making your scouting trips and your migration soon.
This is the trucker coming at you from the road in Nebraska.
Have a good one.
Take it easy.
Drive safely.
We're going to do whatever.
They say, can you know?
We've got a long way to go.
Any short time to get there, I'm Chris Bounders, but watch a bandit run.
Any short time to get there, I'm Chris Bounders.
I'm afraid it's back to the sickening topic of the week, for which I do apologize.
This wouldn't be necessary if the enemy hadn't convinced people like Richard Spencer that filthy sexual deviations are no big deal.
Yes, they are a very big deal.
But before we go any further, you guys just know I could not possibly resist this opportunity to play this one one more time.
And now a preview of our coming attractions.
Manhole Productions presents...
Derek John.
And Chuck U. Farley in the South Sea Saga.
Buggery on the high seas.
Buggery on the high seas.
All right, Ty, that's Curvy Dog to the Yarn Arm.
Aye-aye, Captain.
Yom and Bozum.
Sir!
Read the charges.
Aye-aye, Captain.
Simon Kelly, you have been charged with the honest crime of buggery on the ISA.
Adios, my crew.
I'm innocent.
I'm innocent.
I didn't do it.
You've got to believe me.
I'm innocent.
He's lying.
I am not.
You are so, you big fibber.
Look, I'm not lying, Captain.
Yes, he is, Captain.
He's a big liar.
Look, you shut up or I'm going to get you.
You already did.
That's why you're in trouble now.
All right, both of you, shut up.
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
Look.
I told you to shut up.
But he's a big fibber, Captain.
He's lying.
Look, you either shut up or I'll give you what he's going to get.
And what's that?
Fifty lashes with a cat and eye tails.
Fifty lashes?
He should get at least a hundred for what he did to me, that big fibber, you liar, liar.
Look, tie that scurvy dog to the yardarm, too.
Get your hands off me.
You smell like fish, you big brute.
Here, give me that whip.
Voice that dog from the yardarm.
Hey!
You're hurting my wrist!
This isn't funny now, you guys.
Hey, come on.
Oh, rip the shirt.
How cliche.
I suppose you have me walk the plank next or something.
Here, take this, you dog.
Oh!
Ooh, yes, awesome, yes, ooh, yes, yes.
Thank you.
Thank you.
You know, as a kind of commentary on the way things have gone, that was a Cheech and Chong classic from the mid-70s.
Today, in my opinion, they couldn't get away with making something like that, and even if someone with as much juice as Cheech and Chong were to try it, my guess is they'd be run out of the industry.
I know it's kind of odd to think of the 1970s as an age of innocence, but hey, we had National Lampoon then that could say things and publish that article about foreigners from the world over.
Never mind, I'm rambling again.
Reason number four why buggery is wrong.
Because homosexuality is a form of mental illness, and we cannot be led by or march alongside people who are mentally ill.
We cannot try to get mileage out of creeps and kooks and perverts.
Yes, I know we often do make that attempt.
I've tried it myself in the past.
It's never ended well, and I deeply regret it.
Getting mileage out of creeps is a shortcut and not a very effective one.
A shortcut that almost always causes more problems than it solves.
And that's one reason why I have to do what I can to put a stop to this practice on the alt-right.
At some point in the future, more likely sooner than later, we're all going to pay a heavy price for the Mike Enochs and the Greg Johnsons and the Milos and the Mormon Lesbos among us.
Trust me on this, I have seen this flick way, way too many times before.
Now, here is where I was tempted to get really gross and talk about exactly what it is that homosexuals actually do.
You'd be surprised at how many people have no idea on that, and one of the ways in which homosexuality has always been made acceptable to so many people is to gloss over and conceal those little details.
I won't talk about that, but I will give one fairly raunchy example that almost all men will be able to relate to.
Guys, at some point in your lives, as part of a physical exam or some kind of medical treatment, you will have undergone, or you will undergo, a charming little thing called a prostate examination.
If you're unlucky, in your 50s and 60s, you will also undergo a horrific procedure known as a colonoscopy.
I will not describe these procedures here except to say that when this happens to you, you will learn an eternal fact of human existence.
Having a foreign object jammed up your ass hurts like hell.
I have said that when I die, I have my epitaph for my tombstone all picked out.
That epitaph is, Here lies Harold Covington.
He spent his entire life trying to drive a nail with a marshmallow.
You can't stage a revolution with people who are weak.
Perverted and mentally off their rockers who enjoy giving or receiving pain and degradation any more than you can drive a nail with a marshmallow.
As with any job, you have to have the right tools and the right equipment.
I'll say to you that anyone who actually takes pleasure in and enjoys undergoing that kind of pain and degradation is not right in their mind.
And anyone who enjoys inflicting that kind of pain and degradation on another human being is not too far behind him.
We toss around the term sodomy and make it a subject for humor and prurient curiosity, and yeah, I'm just as guilty of that as everybody else.
I mean, there's something so inherently ridiculous in the act that, I mean, you just kind of gotta laugh when you think of it.
But in reality, it's a shameful thing that only mentally ill people practice or engage in.
These things have not been referred to by the law as unnatural acts for nothing.
Reason that buggery is wrong, number five.
A homo is a homo first, above all else, always.
It's part of their mental makeup and it can't be changed or worked around any more than a nigger can change the color of his skin.
These people define themselves by their perverted sexuality, not by their race or their cultural heritage or lesser things like their career or their religious faith, like other people do.
A faggot is always a faggot first and foremost, just like a Jew is a Jew first and foremost.
What he does is more important to him than what he is.
You may have noticed now, for the past 30 years or so, that the so-called gay rights movement has moved away from demanding equality, and quietly, almost unobserved, it has shifted into demanding superiority.
We're supposed to acknowledge that not only is wild-eyed bungholery an equally valid lifestyle choice over marriage and children, but it is a better choice, because, you know, like...
Gays are such cool people, dude.
Another thing you may have noticed about queers, since the legal restrictions and social punishments that once kept them in check have melted away, is that they are constantly in everybody's face with their perversions.
It's not enough for them to go off into a quiet little corner somewhere and perform these acts between two consenting adults, but you and I and everybody must not only be forced to look at it and acknowledge it, but a Applaud and validate it.
I mean over and over and over again.
This isn't just burning a pinch of incense on the altar of the false gods.
This is burning a wagonload of it and cheering while we do.
Reason that buggery is wrong, number six.
The late Westbrook Pegler once described the Jews as history's greatest carpenters of trapdoors.
Whenever their spidey sense warns them of danger, which has been often enough down through the ages, The Jews begin to construct ideological, political, and social trap doors through which they may escape the coming storm.
Now, you know, the Muslims aren't just coming here in overwhelming numbers to rape our beautiful white daughters and to contaminate our bloodlines with the mud in their own blood.
They fully intend to take vengeance on the Jews for what they've been doing in Palestine for the past century.
In that, at least, I have to say they're justified.
They've begun doing that in Europe, especially in Britain and France, with a number of violent attacks over the past few years.
One of the reasons the Jews have become active in movements such as neoconservatism and the alt-right is because they can sense trouble coming, and almost like squirrels instinctively hoarding and hollowing out trees for the winter, the Jews are trying to build themselves ideological and political trapdoors.
Preparing, I think, to abandon Marxism and leftism, if necessary, in order to escape the coming storm.
Buggery is one of the thin edges of the wedge that they have been inserting to try and pry open the whole right-wing and conservative movement all across the spectrum, so it will be subordinated to the central goal of Israel's survival and the survival of the Jewish people.
Now, you may have heard of the four horsemen of the apocalypse, death, war, pestilence, and famine.
Well, the four horsemen of movement modernization are buggery, Now, those are the four conditions that the Jews require to subvert the whole right wing to their purposes.
Like neoconservatism has taken over the Republican Party to the point where Republican congressmen and senators, and I believe even our illustrious president as well, have little Israeli flags on their desks alongside the little American ones.
Alright, for once we're not running long.
Actually, we've still got plenty of time, but I genuinely find this subject distasteful.
Speaking about it exhausts me, and I'm also well aware of the danger of devoting too much time to it, because it will begin to appear that I am, in fact, quote-unquote, obsessed with it.
So, I may just go ahead and wind things up a bit early this time.
Now, first off, once again, I have to repeat, the mere fact that I need to be doing this at all boggles my mind.
I used to predict all kinds of things regarding the movement's future.
Never anything remotely like this.
If you'd told me even 20 years ago that one day there would be serious voices raised asking us to accept faggots, Jews, and guys who quote-unquote sport-bang brown pussy among us, I wouldn't have believed you.
Down through the years, I've known many variations on white nationalism.
Everything from the John Burt Society to the Klan to Bob White and Duck Book to Christian Identity.
All 101 of Willis Cardo's scams and every conceivable variation on National Socialism.
Rejection of homosexuality is just bedrock.
It's part of what cultural anthropologists refer to as our subculture's tail.
Not just a moral commandment, but an assertion of our whole reason for being.
For 50 years, any time any fearless leader came bebopping along, good, bad, or indifferent, anti-queer was just one of the boxes he checked automatically.
Very few white nationalists ever made a really major anti-queer effort.
It was part of the rhetoric, of course, but everyone just knew and accepted that queers were beyond the pale.
You didn't really need to spend too much time on it.
They weren't trying to get in and take over the movement, which is pretty much how society looked at them back in the day.
Everyone knew that they were around somewhere, but they kept well out of sight and nobody talked about them in polite society or otherwise.
Any mention of it on TV, in any context, would probably have gotten the show canceled.
The subject just didn't come up.
The original version of Don't Ask, Don't Tell I am not quote-unquote obsessed with this perversion, but I do find it personally repulsive in both genders, although I suppose that like most men, I'm slightly less offended by lesbianism than by male sodomy, since frankly, like I think most men, I find it difficult to take lesbianism seriously, and my observation of individual dykes is that we don't need these women in our gene pool anyway.
I think that unlike male homos, some of them may in fact be genetically defective for real, and deserving of at least some sympathy depending on their behavior.
Now, I mentioned in the first part of this podcast that there is a religious prohibition against buggery, although I myself am not a Christian, and yet in a way I suppose my personal objection to homos is religious.
Sort of.
Kind of.
There is no question in my mind that there is an intelligent, creative force in the universe of inconceivably vast depth and scope, which, for want of a better term, I will call God.
This creative force made the earth and its contents, for whatever reason, and imposed on all of the living species of the planet a set of rules.
And one thing history demonstrates time and again is that when men and women ignore the rules of God, or the gods, or nature, or the cosmos, or the great pumpkin, or whatever, The results range from bad to catastrophic.
Who knows?
Maybe the dinosaurs died out because they all decided to turn queer and the females stopped laying any eggs.
A homosexual is a man or a woman who has decided that he or she knows better than God what role they are to play in the universe.
A homosexual has taken it upon himself to decide that he or she knows better than God why they have been brought here and to what use their body is to be put.
That is true blasphemy.
And I want nothing to do with people who are so bloody arrogant and stupid as to think that.
Associating with people that incredibly dumb and narcissistic is dangerous.
Giving people with that kind of impaired judgment leadership roles in any endeavor of any kind, never mind the resistance movement upon which the continued existence of our kind depends, is a recipe for disaster.
We must not do it.
I'm going to close with an old joke I heard many years ago.
A queer hadn't been feeling up to snuff lately, so he goes to the doctor, and the doctor runs some tests, and he says, I'm sorry, you're HIV positive and you have developed full-blown AIDS.
Oh my god, screams the queer.
What will I do?
What will I do?
The doctor tells him first, I'm giving you a prescription for these pills.
They're the strongest laxative we've got.
Secondly, I'm prescribing a special diet for you.
You need to drink a quart of prune juice in the morning and another quart in the evening before you go to bed.
Finally, I need you to come into this office three times a week to receive an enema with full irrigation.
And the queer asks, Will that cure my AIDS?
No, says the doctor, nothing can cure AIDS, but it'll damn sure show you what your asshole is supposed to be used for.
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, Sarsha Underban.
Freedom.
▲
Export Selection