All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 2, 2017 - Radio Free Nortwest - H.A. Covington
01:06:32
20171102_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 of the marching tune.
Warrior pike upon your shoulder by the rising of the moon, by the rising of the moon, by the rising of the moon.
With your pike upon your shoulder, Many a mud-walled cavern eyes were watching through the night.
Many a manly chest was throbbing for the blessed morning light.
Warpers 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 you Thank you.
Thank you.
Greetings from the Northwest Homeland, comrades.
It's November the 7th, 2017.
I'm Harold Covington, and this is Radio Free Northwest.
Okay, let me start out by being honest with you guys.
This week, I'm kind of phoning it in.
I've already sent out a notice to the Northwest Revolution list to that effect, but now I'll tell you what I can about it here on the show.
Now, for reasons which I can't get into on this monitored medium, this coming week is going to be placing extreme demands on my available time.
Every waking moment until about Thursday is already pretty much allocated.
I can't get into details except to state that there is a change in our situation on the ground here.
It is not the type of massive change that we had hoped for and which we still hope for, but it's a very definite overall improvement in the long run.
The thing is, though, that like many long-term improvements, in the short and medium term, it's a five-star bitch.
Yesterday, a group of our comrades here in Kitsap County completed the bulk of the first phase of this series of improvements.
And I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to Andy Donner, Comrade Don, and Comrade AJ for their outstanding efforts in bringing that about.
Let's be clear about something.
I bitch and moan at you guys for laziness and lack of focus, etc.
all the time, but without the assistance of a small group of men and a few extraordinary women, I would accomplish nothing at all, and I'd probably be living in a Salvation Army mission now.
I know this, and I'm more grateful than I can express.
There will be more periods of time in the coming months when I find myself in a similar situation of basically all my time being commandeered for a week or two for special projects that absolutely positively must be done now, now, now, and absolutely positively can only be done with or by hurl, hurl, hurl.
It shouldn't be that way, but it is.
What can I tell you?
Now, I want to go over again with you something that I've mentioned in the past.
One of the things that happens when this occurs, as it has on several occasions, is that the queue of unanswered emails grows and the stack of unanswered letters on my work table begins to swell until the clogging of the administrative artery, so to speak, is even worse than it is normally.
And even worse, in many respects, is that so many of your emails and letters get only a cursory read or skim from me before I have to move on to prevent a complete blockage.
Now, you're saying things that I need and want to hear, but I'm sorry, as lame as it sounds, for real, I just don't have the time.
These are emails and letters that deserve serious reading.
I can't provide much of that in the best of times, but especially not this week.
That's wrong.
But absent professionalization, while we continue to be stuck with loosey-goosey, I'm damned if I can see any way to improve things.
The need for a membership secretary or other kind of corresponding secretary is becoming acute even at the best of times, but on these increasingly frequent and longer-lasting occasions when quote-unquote something comes up, it creates a backlog which amounts to crisis level.
The lack of professionalization in this wee little party of ours has become an existential threat to our race.
I can only hope that at some point I can find the words to convince you guys.
Until then, all I can do is ask once again for your patience.
Every email and letter will be answered.
It may be with just a monosyllabic grunt or a few words, but it will be answered.
Okay, Andy has promised me a long audio piece for this show, and so I'm going to trust him to get that to me.
I may have to pull something out of the archives for a rerun, which is something I absolutely hate doing, but as I've said, this week is going to be especially gnarly.
Tell you what, I'm going to talk now about something I've been covering pretty extensively on the ThoughtCrime blog and elsewhere for several years now, to the point where I suspect that the dictatorship is now taking steps to muzzle that coverage.
Thoroughly illegal steps, but since we are now living in a dictatorship and we effectively have no laws beyond volus primseps lex est, That doesn't matter much anymore, so instead of letting them succeed, I'm going to ratchet it up a notch.
Over the past few years, I've devoted a lot of time on this show and elsewhere to the horrific case of Edgar Steele, who was extrajudicially executed some years ago in one of the dictatorship's fortress prisons in California.
But, as many of you know, there is another legal case that I'm peripherally involved in, in a supporting role, and that is the almost equally infamous case of Bill White.
The Edgar Steele incident was a simple case of outright judicial murder, based insofar as I can tell on the desire of members of the Spokane FBI office not to be transferred out of the lovely and peaceful white Northwest to some urban environment full of niggers and Muslims where they might actually have to do some for-real police work and go after for-real criminals.
So, they fabricated a case against a so-called high-value target in order to impress the reptilian suits in the J. Edgar building as to how necessary it was to keep their office fully staffed so as to deal with all us wicked white supremists.
Now, I understand from some of the things that Cindy Steele said during that case that there was also more than a hint of personal hatred and obsession on the part of one of the FBI agents in particular, including an apparent willingness on the part of the Bureau to use Cindy as live bait and risk her getting killed with complete disregard for her life in the presence of an explosive device which was planted in her car by a federal informant.
But since under the Bill White precedent, individual FBI agents and other federal officials are above the law and cannot be criticized or even named in public by someone with legally diminished constitutional rights such as myself, I won't get into that.
So let's talk about the Bill White case, at least so far as we are legally allowed to.
It has not so far resulted in the death of the victim, probably because White is younger and healthier and not a 65-year-old man just recovering from open-heart surgery like Ed was, although it's hard not to get the impression that some of the abuse and mistreatment White has received at the hands of the dictatorship during his ordeal was intended to kill him, or at least drive him into a mental breakdown of some kind.
In its own way, the case of Bill White is even more insidious because it's being used to establish extremely vicious and serious legal precedents which have the effect of stripping away the last shreds of constitutionality, due process, and accountability from the judicial system and federal law enforcement.
I think when future scholars write the history of our era, if indeed there are any scholars left in the future to write anything at all, they will record that the Bill White case was a milestone.
The point where the judicial process and the prison industrial complex finally became a completely unaccountable law unto itself.
Of course, it always was like that where we're concerned.
This case just dots the I's and crosses the T's.
Now, the first thing you need to know is that I never met Bill White personally, but I cyber-knew him and followed him online for many years before he was victimized by the dictator's servants.
To the point where at one stage the goat dancers claimed that he and I were one and the same person, and that Horrible Harold, the movement's Prince of Darkness, was really up in Bethesda, Maryland, operating under the name of Bill White, and yes, they really are that stupid.
I have to say that the man had some rough edges.
He was one of those guys who was fascinated by the power of the internet, and when he sat down behind that computer keyboard, sometimes he got a visit from Mr. Hyde.
He thought he was invulnerable, and he thought he could say or do anything online because the internet was the last frontier of freedom, as indeed it was in the early days.
Now, bear in mind, all of this was before social media allowed the surveillance state to vastly increase its ability to watch everybody all the time, and before Edward Snowden let the cat out of the bag, when some of us could still pretend that the internet was actually free and not what it really is now, which is a completely surveilled kiddie pool for toddlers, where we are kindly allowed by the dictatorship to sail our boats and our rubber duckies, so long as we play nice and don't scream and splash too much.
Now, Bill did some really stupid stuff online, like mooning in public over some trashy skinhead girl he was lusting after, but also he posted and said some things on the original overthrow.com that I'm amazed never even got him a visit from our friends in the silksuits, or so he said.
I should also point out, in the interest of complete honesty, that part of Bill's problem is that he insisted on wearing the old Hollywood Nazi costume in public, long after I and others of the older school understood that, as proud a tradition as it was from the Rockwell times, we had to lose it if we wanted to establish an account of credible basis of communication at all with our own people.
The result, of course, is that every trial...
The U.S. Attorney finds some excuse to introduce 10-year-old photographs of Bill in all the old lodge regalia and wave the 8x10 glossy photos under the jury's nose like it was Alice's Restaurant.
Sorry, I know most of you won't get that reference before your time.
Now, I'm not going to go all movement on you here and start regurgitating internet bullshit from 10 and 12 years ago and longer like some goat dancer.
Just suffice it to say that Bill had been getting away with all kinds of footloose and fancy free stuff on the internet for years, but he got careless.
And when the trap was sprung, he kinda walked into it, or so I think.
I personally believe, although Bill himself denies this, that his mistake was in creating a cover for a magazine he was publishing during the 2008 election, when The One was on his way to being immaculated for the first time.
He never actually published the magazine.
He was shut down before he could, but he was so proud of the cover that he splattered it all over his website and any other place he could find to post it.
The cover had a picture of the one's glorious and sanctified baby-shit brown visage thereon, and the headline was, Kill This Nigger?
Bill's thinking, of course, was that the question mark would cover his ass First Amendment-wise.
And so it did.
Eventually, after the first three years or so in prison, when a judge threw it all out on First Amendment grounds after Bill had lost his home, his business, his wife, and his child.
Remember that Brandenburg vs.
Ohio case I was referring to?
Yeah, well, it eventually kicked in, just not in time to preserve anything of this man's life.
But back in 2008, somebody at the Obama campaign saw this purported magazine cover online, and they went through the roof, and then...
Well, if you ever want to see what happens when the FBI really does go after somebody with the intention of doing them harm and destroying them, look at the Bill White case.
Although I don't pretend to understand what goes on in the minds of the dictator's servants, the FBI apparently decided or were ordered to use Bill White first off as some kind of example to those of us who dared to protest at the seizure of the White House by a Kenyan-born mulatto who was and is constitutionally prohibited from holding the office and who should be sweeping the floor of the Oval Office rather than sitting behind a desk.
But the Bill White case is also a kind of lab project for experimentation to see just what they could get away with, and more importantly, to see if they could actually use the process of running him through a ringer of multiple charges to create new legal precedents undermining the Constitution, and essentially to create new criminal offenses that didn't exist before, which for the past nine years is what they've done.
The liberals have always hated the Constitution that tells them what they...
We cannot do.
And this was an opportunity to slice away some more of our rights.
Okay, I'm not going to go into too much detail about Bill's many, many legal cases since then.
If you're interested, you can open an account on pacer.gov and get all the bizarre details.
Thousands of pages of them.
But the first thing we need to bear in mind when we talk about the Bill White Affair is that all of Bill's 8 or 10 alleged crimes involved nothing but words on the internet.
Even the United States Attorney's Office, at its wildest and most hysterical, has never claimed that Bill White has ever actually done anything physical at all, or prepared to do anything physical, which is usually how they get people on fabricated conspiracy charges courtesy of federal informers, nor do they claim that he conspired with anyone to do anything physical, which is another way they usually drag people into this crap.
In Bill White's case, it's all about words on the internet and nothing else.
That, in and of itself, is a stunning legal and judicial development, and if allowed to stand, it means the effective death of the First Amendment.
In this country, people aren't supposed to go to prison for words, at least not until this case came along, although there were a few previous to this, like the Matt Hale and Johnny Logan Spencer cases.
In Matt Hale's case, he got 40 years simply for typing a single sentence into an AOL private message chat.
The second thing we need to understand is that Bill didn't do most of it, and that whatever he did do would not and should never be considered a crime in any sane society.
His original arrest was for the quote-unquote crime of publishing information on his website that anyone who knows how to use Google and who knows how to frame a search could have found in 60 seconds.
And the Jewish judge's reasoning in convicting him anyway, if allowed to stand, effectively destroys not just the First Amendment, but the entire concept of constitutional government by formally recognizing different classes of citizens with different sets of rights.
But we'll get into that in a bit.
Now, getting back to Bill's innocence, yeah, I know everybody in prison claims they're innocent or they were framed or whatever.
I get that.
But the fact is that especially in some of Bill's later cases, like those Faragos of lies in Roanoke and Orlando, His defense attorneys made a very persuasive case that Bill did not send the emails in question and that he had nothing to do with what appears to be an entire bogus Facebook page, a hoax that was erected by a person or persons unknown with the specific intention of legally entrapping Bill White.
I might add that in point of fact, it would appear that in at least one case, the email in question was actually sent by the prosecution's star and only witness against Bill White.
Sent when said star witness was actually in the physical presence of United States Marshals.
That evidence was presented at trial and simply ignored.
The same star witness appeared in court under the influence of drugs, admitted on the stand that she was under the influence of drugs, and said that the narcotics had been provided to her by federal law enforcement agents.
Bill White was convicted anyway.
I could make some comment about the demographic composition of these idiot juries that keep convicting them after the dictator's servants wave pictures of Bill wearing the old costume under their noses.
But since I am an admitted white nationalist, and under this very precedent, I, accordingly, have only diminished constitutional rights of freedom of speech and conscience, of it or not.
And yes, I have been indirectly threatened by these political gangsters if I don't shut up.
I have to add that in order to obtain these convictions and work around the fact that the prosecution's evidence is not just fabricated but ludicrous as well, the dictator's courts have ruled with a completely straight face that Bill White has the extraordinary ability to be in two places at once.
Since at the same time he was in Mexico, allegedly sending unpleasing emails to various people, the wisdom of our finest judicial minds have determined that he was also in Florida, making posts to a hoax Facebook page.
They base this on IP addresses which clearly indicate that the posts in question were made at more or less the same time from different countries into widely separated parts of the world, a fact which apparently means something the precise opposite of what...
Sane people would think it means, but sane people no longer have any role in the society, certainly not in the legal process.
The defense politely and deferentially pointed out that this bilocation of Bill idea was deranged, and the judge simply ignored it, as judges ignore all evidence which indicates that Bill White is being victimized by a bunch of politically motivated ghouls with federal credentials in some kind of demented experiment.
Okay, well, not completely.
The 91-year-old judge in the Roanoke trial, yes, you heard me, 91 years of age, did state in open court that he believed Bill White to be innocent and that he was being persecuted for his beliefs before sentencing him anyway.
Yeah.
Look, don't get me started on Bill White trial stories or I'll be here all night.
Some sections of his trial documents on pacer.gov read like Monty Python scripts.
Anyway, all of us need to understand the legal aspects of this appalling persecution of Bill White, because those aspects have ramifications of historical proportions for everybody.
The most stunning result of these seven years of obscene persecution came when a Jewish judge in Chicago ruled as part of the initial trial that the fact that the information Bill published on overthrow.com was a matter of public record and could have been located by anyone online in a matter of minutes was irrelevant.
Because it was Bill White who published this information, and Bill White had, wait for it, an inherently violent and criminal audience, i.e.
white people whose minds are not sufficiently under control.
Therefore, when Bill White published publicly available information, it constituted a threat.
Now, in the first place, this blows all to hell what used to be a legal principle taught in law schools, the concept of the reasonable man, or I guess reasonable person it would be these days.
What would a reasonable man consider to be a threat?
Now, the purpose of this doctrine was specifically to differentiate between some lunatic waving a butcher knife in the air, screaming, I'm gonna kill you ass motherfucker, and the person who says, I find out who's been stealing my yogurts from the break room fridge, I'm gonna kill him.
That's gone now.
The reasonable man in law has now been replaced by a Jew in a black robe and a jury in black skins.
White himself accurately refers to this as a Talmudic form of so-called justice, a rabbinical type of situation wherein the accused has no right to appeal to the lawgiver or to the law itself, but is forced to accept the determination of the rabbi, the judge, as to what he thinks the law means.
And if you're somebody the rabbinical judge happens not to like, you're screwed.
Effectively speaking, there is no appeal, at least none that doesn't take five years and $100,000 in cash to pay for attorneys.
Now, what the rabbi...
A judge has done in this case is arbitrarily and completely outside the United States Constitution.
He has consigned a given set of Americans, i.e.
Bill White and his audience, to a lesser category of citizenship, one that has fewer rights than others, for example, the right to publish information of public record on the Internet.
When the Associated Press or Salon Magazine does it, it's a journalist performing their legitimate constitutional function of informing the public.
When Bill White does it, it's a federal felony, since because of his political and racial views, Bill White is a lesser being in the eyes of the law, who does not have the same rights as others.
This type of relegation of perceived enemies of the established power structure to second or third class citizenship is one of the things which the American Revolution was fought to abolish.
You know, all men created equal and stuff like that.
Hell, this kike in the black rogue didn't just revoke the Declaration of Independence of the Constitution, he revoked the damn Magna Carta.
Because of the Bill White case, any white person who dares to dissent, who dares to disagree, or who dares to voice opposition to anything the dictatorship does is a lesser person, a lower category of citizen.
Who knows?
Maybe three-fifths of a man.
Anyway, tell you what.
I'll let you hear from the man himself now.
This is an interview with Bill that was more or less smuggled out of prison, or at least carried out right under the guards' noses.
It was about four years ago, I think.
You are listening to an American Free Press podcast.
Joining me on the line is William A. White from prison.
Bill, thanks for joining us today.
Thank you for having me on, Dave.
Bill, for the benefit of the listeners, first let them know where you're at right now.
Right now I'm in the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Chicago, though I'm actually about to leave here tomorrow for Parts Unknown.
It appears they may have misfiled me.
You know, I've been prosecuted seven times by the federal government in the last five years, and there's been a number of things going on.
The case I'm up here on was a case that has been dismissed twice.
It's now at the Supreme Court.
It's kind of an interesting issue.
I used to publish a website called overthrow.com, and we had about 150,000 unique readers every month, and we published some material that was critical of a juror.
in the Matthew Hale case, and the government charged me criminally with soliciting a violent felony for the fact that I criticized him in front of an audience that the government argued was inherently violent.
And while the judge threw the case out twice...
The Seventh Circuit, a Jewish fellow named Posner, writing the opinion for them, ruled that the government was correct and that people who share my point of view are so inherently criminal that to merely criticize somebody in front of such an audience is, in fact, a solicitation of a violent felony.
And that's where I am right now.
I was supposed to travel to Virginia for a 2255 appeal.
This is another issue, a very similar issue, but what happened there...
The matter was as it was on appeal, at the Fourth Circuit, a Jewish fellow named Neuberger wrote an opinion upholding a similar case, but there were two dissents on the opinion, and the case was going to go in bank when suddenly my attorney, a woman named Melissa Scoggins, just simply didn't file the appeal.
And she later admitted that she had been advised by somebody that it was no longer in her interest to represent me, and so she had deliberately sabotaged my appeal.
So that gave rise to yet another appeal.
And the issue there, the government has admitted that my attorney was tampered with, but has argued that I did not have a right to not have my attorney tampered with, if you can understand that.
They're claiming that because appeals beyond the panel level do not carry a right to counsel, there is no right to what's called effective assistance to counsel, which means, as my friend Mike Piper said, that if I pay an attorney $50,000, the government can give her $100,000 and win the case without it ever being Amazing.
Those are the formal legal issues.
Now, those who've read American Free Press and have read about my case probably know what I was really arrested for was this.
In these cases, there have been seven.
There are two that are still alive.
The others have been mostly dismissed.
But there was an informant, sort of the James Bond of informants.
His name was Harold Turner.
And this guy was being sent all over the world.
He was sent to Iraq, to Brazil.
He was intercepting weapons for the Iraqi resistance and so forth.
And he got out of control and he was fired by the FBI.
He decided to try to get a contract back by setting me up.
And I have to say, I was never charged with this, but he recruited two people that I marginally knew I'd spoken to and had them both tell the same lie to federal officials and persuaded the government to arrest me for crimes that I was never even charged with.
And when the government realized I was innocent of those charges, they began throwing these speech chases on me to try to find some reason to justify having arrested me in the first place.
So now, five years on, I've been released twice, I've been re-imprisoned twice, and I am sitting here, hopefully, waiting for some court somewhere to recognize I'm not guilty.
Now, you never really did anything except they're going after you because of your words?
Well, that's exactly right.
Both the cases where they've achieved convictions have involved just simply criticizing people.
The first case involved criticizing a federal juror.
The second case involved criticizing people who brought an essentially false federal lawsuit and had gone to the newspapers and the television.
And basically what the court has found is that as long as the newspapers and the television are promoting the government's point of view, that's fine.
They can comment however they like on these things.
But when you start promoting a point of view different than that of the government, then you start having an issue.
You're in jail.
Did you hit somebody?
Did you kill somebody?
No, there's absolutely been no violence.
The judge pointed out that if I'd actually attacked the juror in this case with a weapon, I would have received a lower sentence than if I had simply criticized him.
And that was a factor that was just mentioned at the last hearing.
And you know, Dave, what this really does is it shows the nature of the democratic system.
What I was originally set up on was an alleged terror plot that fortunately I was never charged with.
But during my time in federal prison, I have been subject to very extreme brutality, particularly at the beginning.
It was subjected to sleep deprivation.
I was thrown in cells that were freezing cold.
I, at one point, was held overnight in a cell that was flooded with human feces, all in order to get me to confess to something that just never happened.
And the first 30 months that I had I have to say, thankfully, the reason I'm probably not there now is because of media like yours that has covered the case and like the American Free Press.
But this kind of brutality towards people, particularly in political cases, is extremely routine in the federal prisons.
The bond reformat that was passed by Reagan allows federal prosecutors to hold people who are accused of being so-called "dangerous people" without any conviction or criminal This has been a routine procedure the Bureau of Prisons uses to extort false confessions from people.
Really, these extorted false confessions are the bread and butter of the federal legal system.
And it really has opened my eyes.
I was always a critic of the US government, but I was once somebody who fundamentally believed in the possibility of democratic change.
And what I've really come to realize being in prison is that the U.S. government is fundamentally illegitimate.
I mean, this is a group of extremely violent, essentially criminal people, not just in the United States towards their own citizens, but internationally.
And they claim to be promoting democracy or the empowerment of people.
But what they're really promoting is their own power over people in the name of democracy.
Democracy for them has really become the World Democratic Revolution, I should say, has really become for them what the World Workers Revolution was for the Soviet Union.
And they really don't scruple against using the same tactics here domestically that the Soviets used to control their own citizenry.
And I have unfortunately sort of been trapped in the middle.
You mentioned before that a couple of these characters involved in your cases happen to be Jews.
Is that a common theme that runs through your cases?
There's only really been one court I've been in front of where the lead judge, at least.
Now, there were three judge panels in the circuit courts.
It has not been Jewish.
And now, it was also a Jewish fellow who dismissed the case twice.
But at the appellate level, you have these sort of very radical Zionist advocates of Talmudic law like Posner or Neuberger who have been appointed or neoconservatives, and they ally with the black sitting on the circuit court, and they rule that way.
And that's sort of what American law has become, is these very ideological people sitting on the courts and making very ideological decisions.
And I've come to my own belief that democracy, as practiced by the United States and as imposed by force on the rest of the world, is a fundamentally illegitimate system.
And I have to say, we haven't even got to plugging my books.
There is a fellow out there, Harold Covington, who's written a number of books, and I think has certainly outlined what is probably the only solution to the current situation.
Why don't we talk about, you've written already two books.
I've got two books published and one I'm working on.
My first book was called Centuries of Revolution, Democracy, Communism, Zionism.
I'm going to be down to one minute, so I'll have to go quickly.
My second book is Tradition of the Mother.
Centuries of Revolution is a brief history of the Jews and shows how these political ideologies have emerged from paganism that was absorbed into Judaism.
It's about to go into a second edition with Romanian, German, and Spanish editions planned.
Tradition of the Mother is my latest book.
It spans on the opening chapters of centuries and gives background on how the original Jewish religion formed from the paganism of the Near East.
I've got 15 seconds.
And my latest book, Serpent's Blood, carries that into the Middle Ages.
And Dave, unfortunately, I'm going to have to go.
Thank you, Bill.
When will we be talking to you again?
I'll be here.
All right.
Bye-bye.
Joining me on the line is William A. White from a federal prison in Oklahoma.
Bill, thanks for joining us again today.
Well, thank you for having me back on, Dave.
Last time we spoke, you were in Chicago.
Now, where are you?
I'm in the Oklahoma City Transfer Center, and I was fortunate enough not to be thrown in solitary confinement the moment that I arrived here.
And by some other error, I've managed to get a bunch more time to use the phone.
So I figured we could continue our interview and give also maybe a little bit of an update into what has happened since even Sunday.
The Supreme Court has refused to hear my appeal.
It's the United States Supreme Court, right?
Yes, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear my appeal, which means that the government's decision that they can label the audiences of publications to be inherently violent, and thus to interpret any speech towards that audience as a solicitation of violence, stands.
So this sort of unprecedented power that the United States has granted itself to attack the entire audience of a publication without identifying a single individual member of that publication to have ever been involved in any sort of violence, but to simply say because of a political view, an audience is inherently violent.
That has now been affirmed for all purposes by the United States Supreme Court.
Okay, by them refusing to hear your case, you're saying?
That's correct.
They've refused to hear it, which means that they uphold the decision of the Seventh Circuit.
Is that what that means, or does that mean they just don't want to get involved in it?
It means that they uphold it.
They don't want to get involved in it, but that is the law now.
I mean, the Seventh Circuit hates the law, and there's never been a case, a solicitation case, that has been decided in this manner in the past.
So this new law that this Jewish federal judge Posner created with his opinion has now been essentially said that the Supreme Court has said that's okay.
So that's the law of the land now?
It is in the Seventh Circuit.
And what exactly would someone have to do in order to violate this law?
Speak to an audience that the United States government feels is inherently violent.
Criticize someone before an audience.
What I did was criticize a federal juror on a website, and the judge determined that the audience of the website, all 150,000 monthly readers, unique readers, was inherently violent, and therefore my criticism could be interpreted as a solicitation of violence.
So all you have to do is get in front of an audience that the government, for political reasons, has labeled inherently violent, and say that I dislike this person, and that could be interpreted as a solicitation for that audience to commit violent acts.
Okay, well, the United States is getting better and better.
That's great.
There's no way for people who are outside the political system to participate in American democracy.
The goal of participating in the American system is not a correct one.
What has to happen is that the American system has to be removed if good people are going to govern this country again.
Yeah.
If they ever did at all, I don't know.
I'm beginning to have my doubts.
What do you think?
I doubt that as well, and that's why I write my books.
And we were going to, I think, talk a little bit more about my books.
And, of course, I write basically on the philosophy of history or the interpretation of history.
And I think it's actually amusing.
I was just sent something published by Harold Covington.
He published a draft of a part of Chapter 2 from my new book and then included a sort of a scathing criticism saying it was my efforts were ineffective because I had retreated into writing about history and religion.
And I've tried to note to him that I am in prison and that these people do brutalize people who speak out on current political topics.
And if I were to pursue, I think, the tactics he desires, I think that I would be cutting my own throat kind of the way that things are now.
For those who've seen what's happened recently with Matt Hale, where he's again been forbidden to even send mail to people outside of prison, I've been doing everything I can to do what I can while avoiding that kind of fate, because what would be the point if I can't speak to anyone at all?
And further, I really don't think there's anything left to say about America.
There's plenty to be done in this country, but again, the goal of trying to participate in the system through speaking about issues is really an unattainable goal.
The government has absolutely forbidden anyone to speak out in a meaningful way.
I do what I can do, and one of the things I think is very important is the deconstruction of the progressive myth of history.
The false neo-Marxist narrative that it and its system is the culmination of all historical processes and that this narrative is really the sole justification for American power.
There is no pretense in this country that what the government does is based on right or wrong or that it's engaged in service to some particular people.
But merely that what it is doing is the inevitable result of history and therefore everyone should simply get behind it because that's what's going to be.
And to destroy this myth and to undermine the moral basis or the philosophical basis of American power involves a re-evaluation of all values of history.
And that is what I try to do in my books.
Unfortunately, Dave, I'm being cut short here.
I could try to call you later on today if you want to continue this.
We could talk about some of the specific books in particular.
Yeah, that would be great.
How much time do we have left?
We have 30 seconds, and it took a little while to set up, so I will try to call you in an hour.
If not, I'll call you by no later.
I might add that for the horrible offense of actually giving that interview to the American Free Press, Bill spent many months in solitary confinement, and he has been under special security watch ever since to make sure that he never again gets anywhere near a media reporter or an open microphone again.
Well, we're a little bit late on the music breaks on this show.
You know, we've had all kinds of politically incorrect music on here on Radio Free Northwest.
We've had racism and misogyny and anti-Semitism and I think one or two anti-environmental thingamies.
A lot of anti-queer stuff.
Anyway, it strikes me, though, that we've never had a good Cruelty to Animals song.
Okay, there was that one song I played about how I ran over that Taco Bell dog.
But that was some years ago, so I figure we're about due.
[background noise]
And ninety miles an hour taking thirty feet to jump Ain't ever been caught, ain't ever been treated Some folks say, you're a lot like me You're a
lot like me Good evening
Comrades, tonight I'm going to be discussing the novel Wakolda, and this is by Lucia Penenza.
This novel is the basis for the film The German Doctor.
This film is about Joseph Mengele when he was in Argentina.
According to the film, this is based on a true story.
And it's about a family that moves to Baralache in the early 60s.
And they've inherited property.
And it is their intention to move to the town so that they can run a hotel, which they inherited.
From the grandmother, who was German, and also, too, so that their children could go to a German school in that town, which has a very strong nationalist bent.
And indeed, it even had to close and lay low during the Second World War because it was so clearly nationalistic.
Now, in this town, which is relatively friendly, Dr. Mengele is able to practice veterinary medicine, which was the kind of doctor, apparently, that he actually was, and he also gets to study anthropology.
And this is especially true given all the racially mixed elements in that area.
You can actually have an array of various subraces even within the same family.
Now, the main character, Lilis, is very petite.
And it's to the point where she winds up being teased at school.
Now, Dr. Mengele believes that he can help her obtain a more normal height.
But he tells her that it will not be easy because this is a treatment that's going to have some side effects.
However, there's really no major risk to this treatment, and in the end, she's going to be better off.
Lillis agrees, despite the fact that her father especially has very strong reservations about this treatment, and indeed, she does gain height, but she is indeed ill for a time.
Also, too, Dr. Mengele around this time gets involved in a toy-making venture.
Lewis's father, Enzo, is a doll maker, and he has a very innovative type of doll that actually has a beating heart inside of it.
Mengele wants to help professionalize his small business, because the business that Enzo has with these dolls, even though the mechanism is quite ingenious, it hardly makes ends meet.
But of course it could have great potential.
Mengele also wants to create the dolls because he wants to use them as a symbol to give National Socialists a sign of hope.
At one point, Mengele takes Lilith to what has essentially become a shrine.
This was a bunker that was built in Argentina, which was apparently made by sympathizers of the National Socialist regime.
And they were apparently hoping that escapees from Germany might come to Argentina and use this bunker.
Because of that, the Argentine military destroyed it.
As far as I know, there's no evidence that the bunker was actually used.
Mengele is not given to the various missiles of escape.
Because he fears these are but fantasies, and really he believes in science, and he believes that that is what individuals should focus on.
Just before Dr. Mengele is forced to flee to the tropics, which is really something he dreads, he's able to assist in the birth of twins.
As we know, twins The themes are a subject that seem to fascinate Dr. Mangala.
There are even some people who believe that Dr. Mangala was somehow responsible for all the twinning that occurs in the town of Gadido Gadoy.
But if you think about this, this would really be entirely impossible.
Twinning is something that you can't really create unless you're trying to actually grow embryos in a laboratory.
But you can't just go around and willy-nilly create twins, at least not in the way they say.
The situation in Godito Godoy...
It has been discovered through research, through genealogical research.
This was a founder effect that started long before Dr. Mengele.
That was simply because there was this town and there were some Germans that moved there and apparently someone had a tendency, there was a woman who apparently had a tendency to have twins and she had a lot of offspring and now there's this founder effect in that town.
Unlike the movie, it's rather interesting.
The book, at least the copy that I have, does not seem to make this claim of it being a true story.
Now, I tried to look up the dolls.
I tried to see if there was any reference on the internet to these dolls, which were somewhat distinctive.
And I couldn't seem to find any outside from the references that are made vis-a-vis this film or this book.
But, admittedly, I really don't have that much time for research, as I always strive to do a book a week.
And, of course, some of these dolls were made in the 60s, long before the internet.
It's possible that they just never got on the net.
Both the book...
The book and film are criticized for relying too much on innuendo based on the notebooks of Mengele.
In the movie version, the notebooks really show beautiful drawings.
They're very much reminiscent of Leonardo's drawings, and they show various anatomical curiosities.
In this book, and also in the movie version, Mingala is enthusiastic about all these new projects, but he ends up being discovered by an undercover Mossad agent.
And he has to flee hastily, especially, again, given the recent arrest of Eichmann.
It's very intriguing to believe that this story could be true.
On the other hand, it's also true that many South American Germans fantasize about Mongolia visiting their town.
Certainly the book...
Forgotten Fatherland is about a village where all the older folks love to tell stories about Mingale traveling through their town.
Getting back to this novel or this movie or both, Mingala helps these twins to survive because they're a bit premature and especially one of them is quite small.
The movie version discusses how Mangala really wants to always help the wheat.
It seems that this fascination with experimental medicine or Whatever this is, this compassion for the weak or whatever it is that drives him, you could certainly say that this is something of a departure from the strict Darwinism that you might imagine a National Socialist as possibly adhering to.
So clearly, medicine was really everything to him, and as a doctor, he really wants to be a hero.
This book follows the movie very closely, and indeed in many respects I would recommend the movie over the book.
In this case, if you're interested in the story, just because I think there's a lot of visuals in the movie that do an excellent job of telling the story.
Particularly when you see this Assad agent and she's pulling her sleeve down, it very much is an indicator that she must have been in a camp and that she has a number that she's trying to cover up.
So in this case, I might actually recommend the movie over the book.
Also, too, the author of this book, who also directed the movie, is also using this story, as is often the case, For her own ideological reasons, she says she's exploring this idea of the National Socialist aesthetic and how that aesthetic can still be popular.
So obviously she has a political motive for this story also.
It's an interesting story.
I'm not sure whether to entirely buy into it or not because it very much contradicts some of the other stories that I've heard about.
This, you know, this Joseph Ingele in Argentina, and I've heard stories that he stopped doing medical experiments.
When he was in exile, but this story is saying evidently he did.
So now I'm not quite sure what to believe, but I thank you for listening.
Have a good evening and hail victory, comrades.
The End
A longtime supporter recently asked me to clarify a couple of points in the party program, specifically the prohibition against usury.
Are you going to confiscate all individuals' life savings because they have earned interest, he asks.
The short answer, of course, is no, but it did remind me that we need to pay at least some attention to the dismal science of economics from our point of view.
The nature of usury is a good place to start.
Before we can understand the National Socialist solution for the economic woes of capitalist society, We must first understand the way our present form of user-regenerated finance capitalism arose in the Middle Ages and the early Renaissance period.
Not for nothing is economics called the dismal science.
It's not only a complex subject, but usually pretty boring.
Please bear with me.
I'll try to keep this as simple and interesting as I can.
I'm reading a book on Renaissance Italy at the moment, and it's inspired me to use a concrete example from the past to show how our present economic order developed.
All this is going to be very greatly oversimplified, of course, but I hope it will help you understand one of the many long paths our people have taken to arrive at our present mess.
First off, you need to understand that although Karl Marx was full of sheep dip, he did recognize and articulate certain correct and vitally important things about the nature of capitalism.
Capitalism is utterly dependent on the exploitation of human beings for their labor, and in order to function, must reinvent man as a commodity, an economic unit of production and consumption.
This dehumanizing concept has proven one of the most destructive aspects of the Jewish incursion into Western civilization.
Secondly, capitalism is dependent for the generation of capital not only on profit, but on the highly cost-effective form of profit known as usury, the collection of interest on loaned money.
Long recognized as the ultimate tool of Jewish power, usury was forbidden for centuries to Christians, which used to be pretty much the same thing as saying Aryans, by the Church.
Only Jews were allowed to practice it, and any Aryan found charging interest was subject to a variety of penalties, ranging from fines to the public removal of bits and pieces of the offender's anatomy.
Modern-day banks would have you believe that the economy is entirely dependent on the charging of interest, but that's bullshit.
The generation of non-production-related profit through interest is actually a fairly recent development in man's economic history.
So how did the economy work in the days before usury?
A good case study would be the rise and fall of the great Lombard banking houses of Italy during the Middle Ages.
Okay, let's say we're in Venice, a great trading city about the year of 1396 or so.
Usury is forbidden to everyone except the Jews, and their interest rates are as high as 50%, so no one but a drunk or a madman deals with them.
They exist on interest mostly off the very poor as pawnbrokers.
And the church has even established a series of interest-free co-op religious pawnshops to try and protect the poor from the bloodsuckers.
But if you're a merchant, you still have to finance your ventures.
So, how do you do it?
Now, let's say you want to send a ship to Constantinople full of Italian goodies.
Cloth and worked metal goods and glassware, wool, so forth and so on.
You want to bring back the same ship full of Oriental goodies like spices, mahogany, Turkish rugs, etc.
We'll assign an arbitrary cost to this venture of 10,000 gold florins.
You believe that the profit from the sale of your goods in Constantinople and the resale of their goods in Venice will yield 20,000 florins, which for the sake of argument we'll accept is accurate.
Where do you get the money?
You can put up the entire 10 grand yourself if you're filthy rich, and many of the wealthiest merchant adventurers do, as well as putting up their lives.
For many of these guys are not just businessmen, they're sea captains and explorers, and occasional pirates.
And they command their own vessels.
They can opt to take all the risk, including the risk of the ship sinking or getting captured by pirates, and take all the profit.
Or they can look for investors to share the risk.
Now, since our hypothetical merchant is a good Christian who doesn't want to deal with hebes and a good businessman who doesn't want to pay half his profit literally to a Shylock, he goes to one or more of the great Lombard banking houses, the Bardi, the Patsy, the Stratzy, the Albizzi, or the up-and-coming new kids on the block, the Medici.
These banks are centered mostly in Florence or Siena, but they have branches all over Europe in the days when the first Rothschilds were still haggling with peasants over the pawn of their wooden shoes for a few fennig.
Our merchant adventurer goes to the banks, most likely several of them, because they will be more likely to back him if their individual exposure is less.
He explains his venture, shows them the ship so they know it's a stout seaworthy vessel, and lets them know that he'll be captaining the voyage himself.
And points out that he's got a good track record of a dozen prosperous expeditions prior to this.
He looks good to the Lombards, and so they lend him the dough.
The total outlay for this project is 10 grand in gold florins.
The merchant himself will put up 4,000 florins, or 40%.
The Bardi, the Stratzi, and the Medici banks will put up 2,000 each.
They know that they will have to wait one year for the ship's return to find out how they did.
This is the origin of the old expression when my ship comes in.
If everything goes according to plan, the venture will bring 20,000 gold florins, thus recouping everyone's initial investment and leaving 10 grand profit.
The merchant will take 4 grand of the surplus and the three banks 2 grand each, 100% return on their investment.
Good business.
And something comes of it when those who can afford it get a nice Persian rug or some pepper to put in Aunt Maria's lasagna, which in the days before refrigeration disguises the taste of the half-putrefied sausage that she uses in her recipe.
Of course, it was all a lot more complicated than that.
For instance, in many cases, the ship's captain, if he was not the owner, would have a substantial share, and the crew would have to be paid not only a minimum wage, but a small share each as well.
Plus, there was taxes and overhead just like today.
But you get the idea.
A rich merchant might send out ten ships a year under this system.
Three are lost, but seven of them return, leaving an overall profit, and Venetian society wealthier thereby.
Now, do you know the difference between this system and Jewish usury?
The Lombard banking system was based on productivity for profit, whereas the Jewish usury system is a shell game where money multiplies by itself without relation to anything in the real world.
Money was to be earned by buying actual things of value low and selling high, by making something or building something or undertaking risks to obtain something material and tangible.
In this example, the objective was the importation of X amount of real consumer goods, not the manipulation of numbers on a piece of paper as in today's stock exchange, for example, or the commodities market, where there is only the most tenuous connection, if any.
Between the arbitrary value of the paper and any real or valuable object or commodity.
If the voyage didn't succeed, the investors were out their money, and this risk element led to a high degree of caution, canniness, and ability to assess risk, as well as encourage daring an enterprise for higher profits.
The merchant princes of Renaissance Italy may have had a taste for luxurious living, intriguing, and poisoning one another, but they never threw money away, like present-day governments and multinationals.
They had worked and sweated and bled and killed to get it.
Another variation on this system was public works, for example the bridges over the River Arno in Florence, many of which were built by the bankers who were then allowed to collect tolls until they had recovered the expense of construction and a set profit, after which the bridges became free.
There are endless variations.
Money was lent for agriculture to build a factory or a workshop.
To build a road, whatever, but always something you could touch, feel, taste, use, or consume.
Money did not magically produce money out of nothing as it does with usury.
So, when did usury get its first foothold in the Western economy?
Basically, when the Aryan ruling elite of that time, like their counterparts of the 20th century, lost sight of their principles in the scramble for wealth and started acting like Jews.
Unfortunately, the first big capitalist usurers in modern history were these same Lombard bankers in their early stages.
The Jews then slid in on the coattails of the true claim that everybody's doing it, and within a short time, they were running the whole game.
From the point of view of the lender, usury has one advantage over the productivity or venture-based system.
It eliminates risk for the lender, anyway.
But it increases risk manyfold for the borrower, who not only puts his business and his own capital on the line, but sometimes everything he possesses.
The borrower signs a bond or contract, borrowing 10,000 florins and promising to pay back 15 come what may.
And as collateral, he gives the lender the right to seize certain property if he's unable to pay by the stated date.
The Lombard banking system was essentially a tool for the production of new wealth, while usury is a system for transferring existing wealth into a smaller number of hands, usually Jewish.
Essentially, two things happened.
First, a lot of the Lombard banks crashed down through the years when they inevitably made too many bad decisions, creating fewer and bigger banks, handling more money, led by more unscrupulous men as the Renaissance advanced.
Let's start to sound familiar here.
By the way, late Renaissance bankers and financial tycoons were often converted Jews, many of whom continued to practice Judaism in secret and openly favored their own people at the expense of their host nations.
Additionally, the church became corrupt and quit enforcing the anti-usury statutes, and the secular princes and dukes and whatnot got into debt to the banks and overlooked the fact that they had begun to charge interest just like the Jews.
Usury crept into our economy in stages, and it was still frowned upon even as late as the 19th century.
For example, a character in a Sherlock Holmes story, a ruined gambling nobleman who has mortgaged everything he owns and is about to lose it all, is referred to as being quote-unquote in the hands of the Jews by author Arthur Conan Doyle, an expression one could still get away with using as late as the 1890s.
Now, of course, we've got credit cards operating out of states like South Dakota, with no banking laws to speak of, who charge 24% revolving interest.
It's actually cheaper to borrow money from the mob.
Organized crimes, traditional vigorous or interest rate being 6 for 5 or about 18%.
Another question I've been asked is about various times when I have advocated a return to the gold standard.
As most topics dealing with money seem to do, this also gets into the Jewish situation.
As the French say.
Money was first invented as a substitute for barter, and for millennia consisted only of gold, silver, and occasionally copper or bronze coinage.
Eventually, as trade expanded, it became too cumbersome and dangerous to go on a trading expedition lugging long mule trains loaded with gold coin.
And so, with the establishment of the first medieval banks, the first paper bank draft was invented, allowing a merchant in London to travel to Paris, carrying only a document instead of heavy bags of money so tempting to bandits.
He did his business, he deposited his profits in the parish branch of the Bardi or whoever, and then he drew them out again from the London branch when he got home.
This was the first paper money, and it was specific, like a check made out to only one person.
Eventually, the Lombard and later Jewish banks began to issue what today we would call negotiable securities or debentures.
Bank drafts for X amount of money with no name on them, which could be used as legal tender to buy, sell, pay, and lend.
The practice of individual banks issuing their own paper money continued up until the beginning of the 20th century.
You can see all kinds of examples in museums.
In the flourishing and expanding economy of a dynamic young America, private banks, states, cities, and even railroads issued their own paper money.
But these paper notes or bills were always gold or sometimes silver certificates.
That is, if you had a $10 bill from the First National Bank of Philadelphia and you took it to that bank, you had the right to get a $10 gold piece for it.
Paper money was originally intended as a convenience, not as a substitute for precious metals.
Now, redeemability in gold or silver had one big advantage.
It kept the money supply under control and pretty much eliminated the curse of inflation and insane interest rates.
Almost all the inflationary spirals in the past, aside from the odd catastrophe like the Black Death, have had to do with the uncontrolled issue of paper money, i.e.
the Continental Congress period.
My grandfather, for example, used to use the expression, not worth a continental.
Confederate money, the Weimar period in Germany, etc.
Now, in 1913, this country did something so stupid that it defies rational analysis even today.
We handed control of our money over to the Jews in the form of a private corporation, the Federal Reserve.
Every head and important official of which from 1913 to this day has been Jewish.
There is no such thing as U.S. currency, only Federal Reserve currency, which is by law the only authorized form of legal tender.
It took the Jews 20 years to take us off the gold standard and free themselves of the obligation to back up their green paper with gold or silver.
But when Roosevelt got in, they managed it.
And from 1934 onward, the Jews have literally had a license to print money hand over fist.
The more paper money there is in circulation, the higher interest rates are charged, and the more impossible it becomes for young white married people to buy a home.
It's all very complicated, and I don't understand all the ins and outs of it myself, but basically the cause of inflation and the insanely high cost of everything today is due to the Federal Reserve System using our money as a means to enrich world Jewry and loot the Golden Medina, which in Yiddish means the Golden Honeycomb.
It's their word for America.
Now, I have, in my novels, advocated a return to the gold standard as a temporary measure to get the money supply under control, reverse the wage-price spiral and get the cost of living under control as well, and to see if we can't slash the incredibly inflated cost of real property to the point where young couples can actually buy a home large enough to raise children in, not some cracker box condo or ranting until they're 40. What I would eventually like to see...
Ah, well, that's for another time.
But 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 Underban.
Freedom.
▲
Export Selection