All Episodes
Nov. 16, 2017 - Radio Free Nortwest - H.A. Covington
55:50
20171116_rfn
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Oh, then tell me, Sean O 'Farrell, tell me why you hurry so.
Hush, a wiggle, 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, a rifle known to you and me.
One more roar for signal, token whistle, off 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 eyes upon your shoulder by the rising of the moon.
Out from many a mud walled cabin eyes were watching through the night.
Many a manly chest was throbbing for the blessed warming 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.
It's November the 16th, 2017.
I'm Harold Covington, and this is Radio Free Northwest.
My original plan for this week's episode was to kick off with a big, long, half-hour speech about Back to the Future, i.e.
why the white nationalist movement needs to get our act together as a movement and get organized again, but I decided not to.
As I mentioned last week, I have, on occasion, trotted out these big, huge ideas or concepts that I've gone on and on about, like Ghost Dance and Brandenburg, and everyone listens and goes, ooh, and ah, and then once the podcast is over, you wander off looking for internet porn or whatever.
Back to the Future is different.
It's not only vitally important, it's something that we can actually do.
Right here and now and do with a comparative minimum of effort as these things go and so I need to somehow see if I can get through to you guys this time and that's always hard.
Our wee little movement seems to be very resistant to big dramatic speeches.
Our wee little movement seems to be very resistant to pretty much everything come to that.
So, with Back to the Future, I'll approach this like Johnny Appleseed, just planting a little seed here and there, but I'll be doing it a lot over a sustained period of time.
Hopefully some of these little seeds will seep into the skulls full of mush and grow.
Imagine a plate glass window in, say, a big Jewish department store.
It's Kristallnacht, and you want to smash that window.
How do you do it?
Do you hurl fistfuls of sand at that window and watch all the little grains of sand fall down to the ground while the plate glass window remains intact?
Do you keep on doing that, throwing handfuls of sand year after year, decade after decade, and maybe century after century on the theory that eventually all that ineffectual hurled sand will just wear the glass away while you get older and older and the Jew inside drains away everything around you and profits from his sleazy store?
Or, do you hurl one big, huge, heavy rock through that window, shattering it to pieces and conking the Jew inside on the head and knocking him to the floor?
Hmm?
Okay, let's go at this from another angle.
Grandpa Simpson long and pointless story time.
There's another analogy I could try.
Although it's historical, and most Americans don't know anything at all about history before they were born.
Except what they see on TV.
You know, like, the three musketeers were young women in armored bikinis with swords, and there were niggers in King Arthur's court, including Sir Lancelot, and Sherlock Holmes' Dr. Watson was an Asian woman, and that kind of thing.
Now, you do know that none of that stuff, all of which I have in fact seen on TV and in movies, you do know that never happened, right?
Since all three of those things, the Musketeers, King Arthur's Court, and Sherlock Holmes are works of fiction and never existed in the real world.
Or do you know even that?
Anyway, that's a subject for another time.
Where was I?
Oh yes, an example from real American history that's relevant to my Back to the Future idea.
How many of you guys out there have ever heard of the IWW, the Industrial Workers of the World, otherwise known as the Wobblies?
They were founded in 1905 in Chicago, the second oldest continually existing communist group in the country after the Socialist Labor Party.
And both of those still exist, by the way.
Those all went with the Socialist Labor Party, headed by the Venezuelan Jew Daniel de Leon.
And de Leon and his hebes were not liked by the white workers of the IWW.
The second thing you need to know is that the IWW was pretty proactive.
They would show up at every strike and physically slug it out with the strikebreakers, especially with the Pinkertons, who were their arch enemies.
They would derail trains, smash factory equipment, burn buildings, or blow them up with dynamite.
And among other things, they assassinated the governor of Idaho by blowing up his house with a bomb.
The IWW got started back in the year of buccaneer capitalism, back in the days when 10-year-old children were worked to death for 16 hours a day in coal mines and textile mills.
Frankly, if I'd lived back then, I probably would have joined the IWW myself.
It was the age of really big, bloody, violent labor strikes, and if you ever want to bone up on real history of the real America, you might want to take the trouble to look up their story.
I'm sure you can find some pretty good books about them.
Hell, they've even got a website now.
Okay, wandering back in the general direction of my point.
The Wobblies were what was called syndicalists, which is kind of the Marxist version of our alt-right loosey-goosey.
Come one, come all, big tent, no organization, no leadership, no bothersome rules and regulations, no moral or character standards, so forth and so on.
Okay.
Absent the internet, it wasn't exactly the same, obviously, but think of a kind of steampunk version of the alt-right.
Their official motto, which I see is still on their website, was one big union, big tent.
Everybody from longshoremen, to miners, to textile workers, to steel workers, to railroad men, to farmhands, to women in shirt factories, anybody who's having trouble with working under slave labor capitalism.
All you needed to be a wobbly was to be a manual laborer of some kind, and you were in.
And since in those days almost all manual laborers were white, this was not the kind of leftist movement we're used to.
Now, in the old days, anyone who worked at a desk with paper and pen in any way was considered to be bourgeois and therefore part of the capitalist system, which actually kind of made sense in 1905.
Don't know how it works today with millions of men and women working on computer terminals and cubicle farms.
The thing is, The IWW themselves operated in a very loosey-goosey manner, deliberately, because they hated any kind of attempt to curb their individuality and impose any kind of discipline on them.
That's one reason why the Wobblies despised the Socialist Labor Party Jew Daniel DeLeon.
They called him the Pope because he wanted to impose hierarchy, order, and discipline on them.
They were unemployed rabble-rousers who would wander the countryside as hobos and were proud of that, too.
The wobbly anthem was called Hallelujah, I'm a Bum.
IWW agitators would stow away on freight trains or they would walk huge distances from factory to factory and strike to strike, agitating and stirring up trouble with the intent to foment a strike.
And they whipped up some doozies, I can tell you, which I won't get into, because I get that most of you have no idea what I'm talking about, and you're already bored to tears.
All I can say is that if you guys ever want some fascinating reading, check out the IWW.
What I'm attempting to convey to you with all this is that a century ago, there was a kind of alt-right in this country.
It was, in fact, an alt-left, although their ideology was actually almost a primitive form of national socialism.
Bear in mind, this predates Lenin and the Russian Revolution.
There were actual racial elements in the IWW platform and in the people that were involved in it, but allowing for the different times and the lack of instantaneous communication technology was pretty much the same thing we've got today with alt-right.
A bunch of white guys who either couldn't get a job, wouldn't get a job, or who were underemployed in menial part-time or transient gigs were wandering around the country all loosey-goosey, disorganized, and proud of it.
No bosses here.
No rules here.
No sir.
And they were trying to overthrow not just the government, but the entire social order as well.
And this was in a time when white males were different from these pale critters we got today.
Hell, Jack London was a wobbly for a time.
What I'm trying to tell you guys is that, like almost everything else we think of as original, the alt-right is not.
Loosey-goosey has been tried before, and by far better men than we are today.
And it failed.
I cannot think of any successful revolution any time in history anywhere on the globe in any society which has been carried out by using loosey-goosey tactics, deliberately avoiding any form of organization or planning or structure so that the participants are not required to impose any discipline, self-control, or inconvenience on themselves, or have it imposed for them.
Human events have never worked like that and they won't work like that now.
Revolution is a job for serious, committed, highly disciplined adults.
Not for a gaggle of adolescents of all ages playing with their electronic toys.
Okay, this is a little clip that I picked up off the internet.
It has a little something to do with this misogyny stuff I was talking about a while back.
This girl's name is Lauren Rose.
She seems to be fairly young and squared away.
I'm sure that immediately I play this clip.
A bunch of you are going to email in and tell me about all she's a Jew or a commie or a lesbian or a feminist or blah, blah, blah, and just tell me all about how imperfect she is and how dare I and the usual thing I will.
I used to be a civic nationalist.
I used to believe that as long as we judged others as individuals, the world would steadily become a better place regardless of our differences.
I used to believe that collectivism was characteristic of the feeble-minded, the unenlightened, and possibly racist.
I used to believe that immigrants to our country would assimilate to our culture if we just gave them the opportunity.
I used to be naive about human nature.
I used to be a civic nationalist.
And so I began to question this belief of mine.
I began to question, why do only white countries have the moral obligation to live in this experimental diversity?
I began to question why Americans living in the land of the free were forbidden the freedom of association.
I began to question why the same groups of people that benefit from our country's altruism are allowed to collectivize within our borders in peace, yet any semblance of white collectivism is considered a form of supremacy.
I began to question why do I have to morally justify the continuation of my people?
I am no longer a civic nationalist.
I am no longer a civic nationalist because demographics matter.
I'm no longer a civic nationalist because in our majority white country, it is considered controversial just to say it's okay to be white.
I'm no longer a civic nationalist because if the United States were to close its borders tomorrow, whites will still become a minority before the next 50 years.
I'm no longer a civic nationalist because in a world of collectivism, individualism is suicidal.
And I'm no longer a civic nationalist because I won't stand by as whites become minorities in their own homelands just so that I can selfishly claim at the end of it all, at least I was an individualist.
And I have a dream that one day, whites will be equally permitted to live in their own countries as others do.
I am no longer a civic nationalist, and I'm not sorry about it.
You know what we haven't had on here for a while?
Something that is really lowbrow.
I mean, just plain crude.
Something that justifies all the stereotypes that these left-wing social justice warriors say about us.
So, what the hell?
Here goes.
Okay, listen, I had a request to do a racial song.
You want to hear that?
This song tells a true story here.
This goes out for Charlie.
Niggers in the night.
You've never seen those niggers in the night.
You only smell those niggers in the night when they sneak up on you.
Lazy fucking spooks.
collecting welfare, driving Cadillacs, a costume nightmare if they need some bucks.
They'll just steal from you.
Oh, my God.
Niggers in the night, three fucking niggers came and rolled me in the night.
With tire irons and those stockings on their face, they found my hiding place.
Then those bastards took my pay and threw my goddamn hands away.
And ever since that night, I've hated niggers, lazy fucking coons.
Those niggers, the fucks, those niggers in the night.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening, comrades.
Tonight I'm going to be discussing Men Among Ruins by Julius Evola.
And I'm going to be discussing an annotated edition, which is edited by Michael Monaghan.
Evola evidently had some of the usual influences, such as Nietzsche and Spengler.
But Evola was much less materialist than either.
And conversely, Evola was much more of a mystic.
So he's always looking for transcendence, and he's very much one who is interested in universal truth.
Because he's always deeply sincere, Evola wants to do the right thing, regardless of advantage or utility, which he would, of course, despise as shallow.
Evola was an intellectual who, like all intellectuals, I suppose, was at some level constitutionally unable to completely toe a party line.
Interestingly, his magazine, The Tor, was censored, but La Critica, which was openly opposed to fascism, was not.
But of course, a critique from Evola is going to be much more damaging than the opinion of someone who clearly would dislike the fascist regime no matter what.
Now Evola was enthusiastic enough that he tried to volunteer for the Eastern Front, but he was told that he was not considered to be politically reliable enough, although it also might have been considered that Evola was more useful as a bridge for diplomacy with the Germans.
And in fact, Evola did visit Germany in 1943.
Now, on the surface, at least, it would appear that Evola got on well with the Germans.
However, the Foreign Affairs Research Office in Bonn wrote a classified memo stating that Evola was essentially a reactionary Roman whose ideas might engender political confusion.
The SS records noted that Evola did not support the supranational order and also the SS wanted to curb Evola's activities and influence and also continue to observe him.
It was that the SS was at the end of the day most concerned with the fact that Evola seems to have a rather dematerialized concept of race.
Certainly Evola would put emphasis on inner nature, but after reading the section of this book that he actually wrote, I'm not sure whether Evola actually disbelieved in physical race.
But it is clear that he wanted to look at the question of temperament and behavior.
Now, of course, it's clear that in a racial state, especially one such as the National Socialist State, Would never be able to create policy based on spiritual states, which are first of all difficult to accurately assess, and which moreover are certainly changeable and would likely be changing throughout an individual's lifetime.
So even if Evola did have some rather amorphous racial beliefs, they could certainly never be taken seriously as any kind of policy.
The actual book Men Among Ruins is found about a quarter of the way through this compilation.
And Evola is very interested in understanding human nature in general and also the nature of traditionalists.
If we are conservatives, then a very important question is, what do we actually conserve?
Because today, words like conservative or even reactionary may wind up referring to bourgeois capitalists, for example, or I suppose other types of ideas.
So, he wants to face head-on this question of who we are, and we always need to understand that the contingency plan is not the principle, and we need to look to the spirit of the law rather than the letter.
Now, Evola also talks about the issue of religion and traditionalism.
And he's not so much one who is a traditionalist in the sense of clinging to a particular religion, for example, such as in the case of Italy, Catholicism.
But he's much more interested, of course, in the relationship of the state to the individual.
Now, in the case of Italy, Evola sees that there's been a lot of upheaval governmentally in terms of Italy, and he sees that Italy has been something of a pawn used to weaken both Austria and also the influence of the church.
But Evola, because he leans more politically in certain respects, or at least sees the political as something that must be dealt with in order for a better organization of human life, he's interested in the difference between the organic state in which order is inherent and the individual works for the state according to their nature.
Versus the totalitarian state in which something is imposed upon the individual.
Evola is against the totalitarian state, and this is something that he talks about in 1951 when he is arrested.
He talks about his distaste for the Sala Republic, which was the second kind of reconstituted, you could say, fascist republic that came about towards the end of the Second World War in Italy.
And, of course, Evola supports fascism at the beginning of the Second World War.
Actually, at the beginning of Mussolini's regime, because he sees it as bringing back a certain traditionalism to Italy.
That he feels that Italy needs.
And he sees Italians as really having this dual nature.
The Mediterranean nature and the Roman nature.
And of course it's the Roman nature that he wants to cultivate.
Now one of the things that Evola really warns is the fact that there was a certain...
Suggestion made back in 1893, and it was made by Wilhelm II about how there could be a league of three emperors: the German, the Austrian, and the Russian.
And that they would fight what was then just starting to emerge, this notion of communism that was starting to emerge around the turn of the last century.
And Evola really laments the direction that Italy ended up going in because of what he talks about as various libertine and Masonic influences, that in 1915, Italy would end up joining the Triple Alliance, which was essentially the allies of the First World War.
And he sees a lot going wrong on that path was taken.
Mavola is a true traditionalist, and so he also talks in this book about the philosophy of the divine right of monarchs.
So he sees literally a union between divinity and the monarch, or the monarch actually being a bridge between the earth and divinity.
I think that this book does a very nice job, or Evola does a very nice job in this book, of making his views very clear.
And I would say thus far that this is the So, again, I've been discussing Evola's Men Among Ruins, and this particular edition is edited by Michael Monaghan, if you're ever looking for it.
So, I thank you very much for listening.
Have a good evening and hail victory, comrades.
We're about to die.
18 wheels are moving.
Are we 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 best found just like a band that runs.
If you put hard on the pedal, some level of mind that breaks.
Let it all hang out, cause we gotta run the band.
Oh, my God.
No!
This is the trucker coming at you from now Minnesota.
And I've ended up running out to the, what was it, before I was delivering in Illinois and ran over to deliver in the homeland over there in Idaho.
There in the Burley area.
Nice area.
A lot of farm communities there.
Saw a lot of real estate along US-30 coming out of Wyoming into Idaho for sale.
Homes.
Ranches.
Really nice area.
You guys need to make your scouting trip.
Come out and check it out if you're interested in that part of the country.
But anyway, so.
And from there I ended up going to California.
Then back over to Illinois for some more drops.
And then I ended up having to snag another trailer.
And it was already preloaded.
And take it out to Pennsylvania and upstate New York over by Buffalo.
And then over by Boston.
They're just south of Boston, and you guys, that area, we truckers hate you guys because there's nowhere to park, and your welcome center, they're on, what is it, I-93, 5, whatever it is right there, south of Boston, coming up out of Rhode Island.
There's plenty of places to park the truck there, but you guys had the building locked up, and the port-o-crappers out there, them fiberglass sheds, yeah, those things suck.
Anyway, up north here the snow's starting to fly intermittently, so it's probably not a good time to go and do your scouting trip now.
The weather is cooling off in the Midwest.
It's 31 degrees here when I pull in to park for the rest of the night.
Yeah, it's starting to cool off here in the Midwest, so I'm sure the snow will start flying here shortly.
I've already had intermittent snow squalls and all that up there in Minnesota and, I mean, Montana and Wyoming and Idaho.
Blue Mountains of Oregon have been getting some snow.
So, yeah, it's probably not a good time to go and be traveling back and forth.
But, hey, I'm a professional.
I get to do this for a living all year long.
Yeah, I hadn't been putting out much here lately because, for some reason or other, my tablet that I'm using to record this stuff with...
Kind of fill-in-the-blanks tablet I picked up from Amazon.
It decided to go and wipe out half my apps on it, and so I had to go and I still can't reinstall about half the apps I normally use for some strange reason or other.
I'm far from a techno geek, but I did manage to find and reinstall my recording app here, so I'm back recording again.
And I'm running by myself because Mrs. Trucker is having...
Issues with her brother-in-law, medical stuff that she's doing at home, so I'm just out here bouncing around the country by myself.
So yeah, you guys really need to get your ducks in a row, even though I'm slowed down because I've...
I'm only running by myself.
I'm still...
The first thing I go and take out of my money is going to Mr. Covington.
And so that's the first thing I always take out every month.
And then I go and work the rest of the stuff in there.
So you guys really need to get your ducks in a row and get your finances together.
Mine's cut down by half because the wife's off the truck and she's doing stuff there at home but making a few extra bucks here and there.
But yeah, you need to go and start supporting the movement rather than just listening to the podcast and also doing your scouting trips or at least making plans to go and make your move out here.
So, I figure I'd go and throw this one in there now that I've got my recording app working again.
So, I'll be making some more of them here as long as the tablet keeps cooperating.
Alright, this is the Trucker signing off for another Tidbits from the Road.
Hope to see you out there making your scouting trips and your migration to the homeland soon.
Take it easy, comrades, and have a good one.
Take it easy, comrades, and have a good one.
We've got a long way to go.
Any short time you get there I'm whisked down just Watch your bandit run Watch your bandit run Thank you.
Hey all, Andy here again.
A quick note before my actual segment gets going.
Just about all of you are going to recognize this next item as a repeat.
As usual, our apologies, but this one's apropos.
Following the episode of RFN wherein a herald laid it all out, a few of the regular sorts of responses reared their heads again.
One of these usual responses is that of having dependents, which keep people tied to their current geographic locations.
As it so happens, I've covered this before.
So I'm going to replay that submission today.
I don't want to single this guy out, the one who's responsible for people, but since coming home myself, I've seen many others do the same who were quote-unquote responsible for people.
So that by itself doesn't prevent migration.
You'll note my submission on having dependents dealt with elders in general, but we had that specific concern vocalized again as well.
And no, I don't mean to call that guy out either.
And the issue of elders aside, the ideas I discuss can be applied to dependents of all ages.
It may be there are some situations which are well and truly unresolvable in the short term, but those will be few and far between.
My next RFN segment is going to address why I'm such a jerk all the time, and my need to replay this submission is actually a perfect lead-in to such, as it will provide a great example to work off of next time I'm on.
Talk to you then, comrades.
From time to time, there are remarks I need to make in response to subjects which are highly emotional, and I usually decide to wait until the fury dies down in order to avoid dealing with the inflammatory aspect of the matter.
For example, I could write a dissertation on the Bundy Ranch nonsense and how it demonstrates the utter lies people tell the party about their inability to migrate, but it was so long ago that most of the Americans in the audience probably don't remember the sequence of events I'm referencing.
It has, after all, been over a year since that wreck was a news item.
I may eventually cover that just for the sake of getting my thoughts out there, but I'd have to sneak up on people with it since my comments won't make me any friends.
In fact, I may not do myself any favors tonight, either, but things need to be said.
A couple of months ago, there was a discussion going back and forth from various RFN contributors and some e-hangers-on by way of comments on a couple of RFN episodes.
From time to time, one of the reasons the party is given for someone's inability to come home is their need to care for elderly or otherwise dependent relatives.
While Stefan and Annie made perfectly valid, helpful, and practical points in their presentation which dealt with this exactly, I actually need to explore some deeper and more fundamental aspects of this situation with you all.
Now, provided those of you making this claim are honest and accurate, which is a twist I'll cover in a moment, there's a very obvious, reasonable, and civilized way to proceed in your situation.
The same day, in early February, when I recorded that long panel discussion with comrades Don and AJ, I pitched this concept to them to make sure I wasn't out of my mind or overstating my position, and they agreed I was right on the money.
Admittedly, Don had to admonish me to be a little less rigid and forceful, and I suppose he was right to do so.
Nevertheless, the position of having your familial elders dependent on you puts you in the position of being the breadwinner.
In the case of emotional dependence or other types of need, you're still the breadwinner, but not of financial resources.
And since you're the one providing what your family members need, you're the one calling the shots.
In past generations, as well as our own elderly or other infirm relatives who truly needed support usually end up moving in with those they depend on.
Granted, this is usually not by choice, since it's very similar, in more ways than one, to our childhood years.
That's usually an upsetting condition to be in, and sure, no one likes it when their parents or other family members have no other choice.
This is mostly because it makes us imagine what our own golden years will be like.
Nevertheless, this is the ultimate form of dependency and it's very akin to having your parents make decisions for you when you were a child.
At best, your own input was politely asked for, but this usually wasn't the case.
Don reminded me that because these dependent family members of yours are likely adults of sound mind, asking their opinion about your moving to the Pacific Northwest is perfectly fine, regardless of whether or not they currently bunk under your roof or theirs.
But remember, you're the one calling the shots.
In any sort of family, the people bringing home the bacon, financial or otherwise, are the ones in control because it's their responsibility to keep providing.
They're the ones who get to make the big decisions, even if those they support don't always like it.
Moving to better conditions for the family is perhaps the most drastic, yet most practical, choice which can be made, and it certainly falls under the umbrella of leadership decisions a head of household might be faced with.
For years now, one of the reasons we've been told not to expect people to migrate is that they can't stand how a move will affect their children.
You can take my word for it.
Nothing bad happens.
As adults, we all know that adolescent concerns are just that and nothing more.
Like with younger children, whatever it is they're worried about will be a distant memory in a month, if not sooner.
True, it's a bit harder with actual adults, but if they truly depend on you, they'll just have to come along.
No, really, that's how this works.
That's how it has always worked.
It has to be this way because survival is involved, and survival usually requires one person to call the shots and have everyone else fall in line.
Truth be told, these concerns are actually a type of narcissism.
Yeah, really, here's the deal.
A person's class, be it social or economic, is frequently demonstrated by what their dependents have access to, and more importantly, what they do not have to do.
Sure, most parents dote on their children when they're able, but this doting is frequently made into a public display, which reinforces whatever class standing the provider sees themselves as having attained.
The party occasionally has to explain why everyone's children must have a required stint in the NAR's National Labor Force, and it's for this exact same reason.
The inability to avoid work or inconvenience isn't pleasant, and it is absolutely a shock to the modern American psyche.
The inability to shield your dependents, children or otherwise, from the same problems we all face.
Now, as I said earlier, so far I've been pretending everyone is honest with us and has accurately described their situation as their elder being dependent on them and not the other way around.
I almost didn't want to go here today, but when I pitched this concept to Don and AJ...
The conversation almost immediately went in this direction, so I'm not the only one thinking it.
Periodically, the party is given some reason for outright refusal of Northwest migration, and it's obviously sugarcoating a screw-up.
My personal favorite was one instance where someone made their penchant for risky property speculation into a situation where they were, quote, damaged by a bad real estate deal, unquote.
I like this example because it's only a real estate deal if you're a professional investor.
Otherwise, what really happened is you took a huge gamble and lost.
I'm not trying to rub it in, but I do need to insist on a little bit of honesty.
Honesty is the basis of this deep and objective inventory of our own moral characters you've periodically heard about here on Radio Free Northwest.
Oh, look!
It's the character issue again.
Yay!
No, but really, this is a problem.
Over the years, the party has turned detecting internet bullshit into an art form, and this I have dependent elders excuse is starting to sound a lot like I'm economically or emotionally tied to my relatives because I can't support myself.
While I understand this situation is becoming more and more common than any of us is comfortable with, being unable to admit what is actually going on is nothing short of denial and avoidance.
Further, BSing the party about it is even worse since you're actually trying to convince yourself by convincing other people.
I once gave a talk on RFN about solving problems and how running your life on autopilot is a bad idea.
While that was all well and good as far as RFN material goes, the precursor to solving problems is admitting they exist, which, of course, goes back to performing this character self-examination we keep talking about.
Do it.
And please, do it right.
Hail victory, comrades.
And speaking of old folks, this is Dave Evans.
Thank you.
Never give up, I will find I will find
Said you know how it feels to be lonesome, you know what it means when you're blue There ain't no use to self-worry, for there ain't nobody worry about you Well I hope you see what I'm
saying, Einstein could very well be right That man's greatest victory is dying, I don't ever give up, but I'll have fun Lay down that cane and start
moving, while you can't get out of your chair Put on your shoes and start walking, be proud of the gray in your house Be proud of the gray in your
house, be proud of the gray in your house Be proud of the gray in your house Be proud of the gray in your house Be proud of the gray in your house Be proud
of the gray in your house Be proud of the gray in your house Be proud of the gray in your house Be proud of the gray in your house Be proud of the gray in your house Be proud of the gray in your house
Now, those of you who follow me on Twitter will be aware that I tend to be a bit outspoken as to my opinions as to what needs to be done and how it should be done and who needs to do it, specifically you.
I recently had a message from someone that I know who has been a sort of peripheral presence on the outskirts of our movement.
The upshot of that being that he listens to Radio Free Northwest, he reads his bulletins, he occasionally drops me 20 in the mail, he wishes me all the best and all that, but now he can no longer be associated with me because I am a quote-unquote terrorist.
And if he is ever in any way connected with me by the FBI or some other secret police organ, then he will quote-unquote get in trouble.
Okay, let's hit this one again.
Well, the short answer to that is yes, you may well get in trouble if you're in any way associated with me in the official mind.
I'm not going to deny that, and all I can really tell you is that unless and until enough of us are willing to get into trouble with the government of the United States, life on this continent is going to become an unbearable hell on earth that no one of us can really imagine.
That's the price of change.
That is the price of making things better for our children and those yet to come.
Somebody has to get in trouble.
Are you willing to let your children, your grandchildren, and all of our children and grandchildren suffer contempt, oppression, servitude, desolation, and murder because you're a chicken-shit coward who is afraid that you'll get in trouble?
If so, then you've got a lot of company.
Most white men and women are too timid and frightened to do anything at all about this.
If the small number of us who aren't can pull it off, then perhaps someday in the future all of you yellow dogs out there will live long enough for your own children to spit on you.
Now, let's deal with that terrorism crap.
In point of fact, no, I'm not a quote-unquote terrorist.
I would not be ashamed of it if I was.
Terrorism is the weapon of the weak against the strong.
It usually involves a very high risk of self-destruction, and therefore, regardless of what moron Jews and howling Republican idiots in the media say, it requires an immense amount of courage.
Now, I admit it.
I don't have the personal courage of Bob Matthews or Paul Franklin or Joe Stack or even Dylan Roof, although I'm not sure that young man understood the entire concept of consequences for actions.
Now, to make this long story as short as possible, it's true that, in one sense, what I do is an act of treason.
I speak of the death of the king, and in medieval and renaissance times, that was quite literally treason, as in head lopping and boiling in oil and being burned at the stake treason.
For many centuries in Europe, not only was it treason to speak of the death of the king at all, if you were into astrology, as most people were back then, it was treason to cast the king's horoscope, because that might reveal the time and manner of his death.
It was treason and punishable by death to speculate on who might succeed the king in the event of his death, which you weren't supposed to be talking about or thinking about to begin with.
Now, Henry VIII was the worst about this kind of thing, if you even referred to any of his miscellaneous wives or children by the wrong title.
Depending on who was supposed to be legitimate that week and which religious faction was on top of the palace heap, you could find yourself boiled in oil.
By the way, Henry VIII was the only king of England who ever actually did that.
Anyway, what I'm getting at with my usual obscure historical references is that officially, in those days, the king was immortal, at least insofar as anything said or even hinted at in public went.
Everyone had to pretend that the present was the permanent order of things, and the monarch would never die.
They all knew it was crap, and they knew that the king was mortal just like everybody else.
He just didn't dare to say it.
Our own lords and masters are like that.
Officially, America is forever.
A tame university egghead called Francis Fukuyama has even written an entire essay on the subject entitled The End of History, wherein he claims that liberal democracy is the ultimate form of government.
And that from now on, mankind's future is one long, endless strip mall where happy-contented-waged slaves will slurp Starbucks and gobble down Happy Meals while we're ruled from behind the scenes by soulless businessmen and executives in expensive suits, as well as a few rabbis in blue-knitted skullcaps to whisper in the ears of the businessmen and executives.
I say that's crap.
I speak openly of the death of the king, of the end of America.
And what's worse, I say out loud how I'm pretty much convinced it will end.
I believe that it is absolutely imperative for the future of all humanity, not just our own people, that when that happens, the white man must acquire an ethnostate of his own out of the wreckage for use as an all-white homeland where our race can rest and recuperate and restore our numbers while the rest of the world goes to hell in a mass slaughter, as will inevitably occur in any society ruled by non-whites.
I believe this ethnostate should be here in the Pacific Northwest, and not some landlocked enclave in Arkansas or Peoria or wherever that can be surrounded and starved to death, and I have repeatedly laid out my reasons for believing that.
I furthermore believe that the establishment of this white homeland will be attained through some kind of armed insurrection or confrontation between white Americans and the United States and its armed men.
Now, these are very dangerous opinions to hold.
They're even more dangerous to speak out loud.
You know why?
Because I'm right.
And pretty much everybody knows it, even though some may not admit to the fact out of fear or self-interest.
This is not a matter of my inciting or advocating anything.
I am simply making a factual observation that there are hundreds of millions of privately held firearms in this country and that conditions are deteriorating to the point...
Where eventually someone on our side is going to load one of those firearms and shoot it at a politician or a judge or a congressman or a multinational executive or an FBI agent or a cop or a news anchor or any one of the thousand and one people who are both actually and morally responsible for the America we were born into turning into an unspeakable horror show with subtitles in Spanish.
The Republican Majority Whip of the House of Representatives, Congressman Scalise, has already been shot and wounded by a left-loon social justice warrior, and there seems to be a good case to be made that the Texas church massacre was carried out by an antifa, so this is already happening.
The war has already begun, it's just that only one side is actually fighting, and as dangerous as it is to do so, I point that out on Twitter and here on RFN and everywhere else.
Someday, someone is going to do something, and it won't be just Craig Hicks wasting a few ragheads who kept taking his reserved parking spot, or Joe Stack crashing his airplane into a mysteriously empty government building.
At some point, some desperate white man who has been bullied and insulted and persecuted and held in contempt once too often is going to take a gun into his hand and get him a week's burying.
And he will do so for clearly anti-government, racial, and political motives that the media cannot explain away or deny.
That's going to happen.
Period.
End of story.
And my alleged incitement will have nothing to do with it.
At some point in time, the white population of North America, desperate, despised, enraged, bullied, insulted, robbed, Raped in every sense of the term, pushed beyond endurance by the sight of monkey-faced savages and foreigners the color of turd, being given all the good things of life that we are denied, while we must live and toil as their slaves and the slaves of the Washington swamp creatures.
At some point in time, I say, those white people will at long last take those 300 million guns out of the closet.
This is going to happen.
I very much fear it will happen without planning, a spontaneous burst of mindless violence that will burn itself out and leave us all like Dylann Roof, driving in a daze aimlessly down the highway until the cops pull us over and round us all up.
I hope and believe that it doesn't have to be like that, and I've written five novels expressing that hope.
I can see why some believe that the feds cannot allow me to continue to say these things out loud.
It's like a dog who starts killing chickens or a bear or an alligator who kills a person.
Once it happens, the animal has to be destroyed.
Because now he knows it can be done and how easy it is and the regime can't take the chance that white people might someday figure out that badges and black robes and briefcases and $2,000 suits might be neat accessories, but they don't make anybody bulletproof.
Once that knowledge spreads, America's done for.
The FBI and other secret police agencies are charged with the task not of enforcing laws, but of keeping the lid on, which is not the same thing.
Now, I'm not breaking any laws, but that's never mattered much where we're concerned, and ever since the Edgar Steele case, it doesn't matter at all.
So yes, there is indeed a chance that if you are associated with me in any way, you will get in trouble.
There is a chance that I will get in trouble myself.
I accept that possibility.
Duty is not some abstract principle floating in a cosmic void.
It is real and it involves work, risk, inconvenience, and pain here in the real world.
That's why it's called duty and not playtime at the zoo.
The alt-right is playtime.
I'm not.
Never have been.
I'm dead serious about all this, so yeah, they'll probably get around to me as soon as there's any sign that any of you are actually listening to me.
And we'll just have to see how that plays out.
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, Sarsha Underban.
Freedom.
Export Selection