All Episodes
Previous Next
April 5, 2018 - Radio Free Nortwest - H.A. Covington
58:22
20180405_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 bikes 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, right will know to you and me.
One more roar for signal, token, whistle up and arching tune, for your bike upon your shoulder by the rising of the moon.
By the rising of the moon, by the rising of the moon, switch your bike upon your shoulder by the rising of the moon, out from many a mud wall.
Many a manly chest was throbbing for the blessed warming light.
Warmers passed along the valleys like the man she's lonely crew.
And a thousand blades were flashing Greetings from the Northwest Homeland, comrades.
It's April the 5th, 2018.
I'm Harold Covington, and this is Radio Free Northwest.
Okay, got some feedback from listeners I want to deal with in this episode, and I need to clarify that from now on, when I say that, I'm not only referring to email questions, but stuff off Twitter and Gab, although not Facebook, which I haven't bothered with in six or seven years.
Now, I know that many of you do not use Twitter, And that you despise Twitter and what Twitter has done to our rapidly fragmenting culture, which I get.
I don't blame you.
Twitter is arguably the most addictive form of internet, and that's saying a lot.
It's what crack is to ordinary powdered cocaine, what crystal meth is to ordinary amphetamines, what absinthe is to ordinary booze.
I know a lot of you who are not on Twitter and who hate its guts get really irritated when I constantly refer to it, and I know it makes me sound like some kind of alt-right dweeb when I talk about my followers and when I send out my tweet storms to the email list, so forth and so on.
I'm aware of all the objections to Twitter, and most of them are perfectly valid.
That said, like it or not, we have to play the hand we're dealt, and this is the hand we've been dealt.
The internet is how people communicate in the year 2018, and it is the only mass media that we have any access to.
Now, this anti-Twitter posture is just a continuation of the same ambiguous attitude that I and many others have always had towards the internet.
We hate what it has done to our people and our people's minds, and we get so pissed off that we send out an email or comment on a blog or send out a tweet telling everybody how much it pisses us off.
It is what it is, guys, and I've stopped fighting it.
I would give my right whatever extremity you care to name to be able to take us all back to the days of paper and postage stamp and the faithful old mimeograph machine in the garage.
Those days are gone now.
Anyway, this first item is from Bill in Spokane.
Dear HAC, there's a thought floating around the so-called alt-right, he means Twitter and YouTube and the blog comment sections, that says, quote-unquote, We can only win via the ballot box.
Armed revolution is impossible.
It can only happen via system politics or a military coup.
There has never been an armed revolt from the right in world history.
You can't get a revolution from the right because those people aren't motivated like the left is to revolt and take the rich man's money.
You know history a lot better than me, so I'd be interested in your opinion, signed Bill from Spokane.
Yes, I'm going to cross that idea.
And, frankly, it seems to be just another excuse that the timid, frightened, weak, bone-idle, pale-skinned beings with atrophied penises and testicles on the alt-right have concocted to excuse their own cowardice, their laziness, their incompetence, and their longing to remain safe and comfortable while somebody else does all the heavy lifting.
I'm sure if some Godot-type character was out there actually doing the job, these people who claim it's impossible to revolt from the right would be cheering for him lustily from behind their anime avatars and their mighty Aryan warrior pseudonyms.
But getting down to the idea that it is impossible to revolt from the right, uh, no, that's not true, Bill.
And in fact, it's been done on a number of occasions.
But first off, let's think about this.
How exactly do we define quote-unquote revolting from the right?
Now, for example, was the Roman Empire right or left?
And therefore were Arminius the German and Boudicca the British warrior queen revolting from the right or the left?
I suppose medieval peasants' revolts would be referred to as revolting from the left, although, with one notable historical exception, none of those seemed to have had any long-term political goal as such, and basically involved rape and pillage and getting drunk on the manor lord's wine cellar.
To be sure, the peasants also did a lot of murdering lawyers and judges and burning their legal documents.
Now, is that right-wing or left-wing?
It's, in some ways, like what the so-called sovereign citizens of today get into.
As we move forward in history, we get into the whole religion thing, and that really screws the pooch when it comes to figuring out whether various insurrectionists were revolting from the right or the left.
I'll try to keep this restricted to successful insurrectionists, but was Guy Fawkes revolting from the right or the left when he plotted to blow up the Protestant king and the parliament and bring back Catholicism?
The French Huguenots and other European Protestants of the 16th and 17th centuries were rebelling against the highly reactionary Roman Catholic Church of the time.
But most Protestants were highly capable merchants, businessmen, craftsmen, and in later years, when Europe went out to colonize, they provided the majority of the entrepreneurial classes in North America, including the plantation system, which brought monkoid slavery with it.
So, was capitalism right-wing or left-wing in the 17th century?
How about the Jacobites, whose music I've played on here quite often in the past?
Raising the Highland clans to restore a Catholic monarchy to Britain?
I mean, do you begin to see the problem?
Religion really confuses things.
Okay, the terms right and left as we know them today actually originated during the French Revolution.
The French Revolution Yes, that one.
These terms originated from all kinds of historical trivia having to do with the seating arrangements in the French Revolutionary National Convention.
The extreme radical types of the day, whom we would call socialists or quasi-Marxists, were on the left of the Speaker's Rostum in a high-bleacher kind of a deal which was called the Mountain, hence the old expression ultramontane for extreme leftism.
Then on the right, you get the grand, or the river.
And in the middle, the plain, the moderates.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Yeah, I know, sounds like the rules for Texas Hold 'em.
Okay, I'll try to make some effort to answer your question, Bill.
I repeat, yes, people have revolted from the right and done so successfully.
Restricting myself to successful examples, but always bearing in mind that these things have to be defined within the context of their time and culture, let's see what we can come up with by way of successful revolts from the right.
First and foremost, always, Adolf Hitler's revolution in 1933, which brought the Third Reich into existence.
Yes, I know.
That was largely political, true, but again, look at the special context of time and place.
The German Revolution of 1933 was the result of a sustained 14-year campaign using every method, including system electoral politics, the crude media of the time, printed propaganda, and most definitely including armed struggle.
A complex attack in today's terms.
It would not have been possible without generous helpings of armed coercion from the SA and the SS.
Those bodies were what kept the NSDAP from being deplatformed, as the saying goes today.
Yes, National Socialists during the Kampfzeit were fired from their jobs and evicted from their lodgings, but the employers and landlords who did so would often end up with broken noses and cracked skulls from stormtrooper fists and blackjacks, and so any massive defunctionalization of the kind that the Saurons are capable of today was made impossible by strong and brave young white men who were not afraid of the police,
who were not afraid to inflict bodily harm on those who were doing harm to the German people, And who accepted possible prison and death as coming with the territory.
Mussolini's March on Rome of 1922, ditto.
Mussolini's black shirts used to seize communists and force-feed them doses of castor oil.
You need to bear in mind that in both Germany and Italy, hundreds of young men in the SA and the SS and the Fascia di Combatimente died in the streets, at the hands of their people's enemies.
Political stuff aside, that's a revolt.
The ultimate piece de resistance of revolting from the right is the Spanish Civil War of 1936-39, which established 35 years of peace and prosperity under Franco.
Yes, I know, different place, different time, different culture, different circumstances, but that applies to all of this.
What you have to understand is that every revolution is as unique as a snowflake, dependent on a thousand different variables of place.
Time, circumstance, planning, and just plain dumb luck.
To say that a revolution from the right is not possible is not only historically inaccurate, it is attempting to establish rules for an earthquake or a volcanic eruption.
Now, we know what causes these things to some degree, but at the end of the day, these things just happen, and we still don't fully understand them.
They just are.
Okay, where were we?
Successful revolts from the right.
Hmm.
Okay, how about Pinochet in Chile in 1973?
Now, I know the weaklings of the alt-right will claim, that was military, that was a military coup.
Well, not to a large extent it was, but it also had extensive support, both politically and in the streets, from broad sections of the population, especially certain other unions, like the Truck Drivers Union.
And the military units were often accompanied by groups of armed civilian auxiliaries.
Who, for whatever reason, did what it was not convenient that the soldiers should do.
Oh, and how about the American Revolution itself in 1776?
Okay, I know that was historic before the official definition of right and left, but since they were revolting against a landed aristocracy and an established church, would the Minutemen be considered left-wingers?
How about the Thermidor Revolt in Paris in 1794 that sent the left-wing proto-Soros mass-murderer Robespierre to his own guillotine?
Now, that might be called a palace coup or a political coup, but it required a fair degree of flintlock and bayoneted muscle to pull it off, plus the support of the Paris mob against the left-wing National Guard.
I also should mention that that whole procedure took about three days.
Making it one of the shortest successful revolutions or coups in history.
Then there's Admiral Horthy, who overthrew the communist regime of Belakun in Hungary in 1919.
Yes, he used some regular troops left over from the Habsburg days, but he also used German Freikorps, who were technically armed civilians, albeit very organized ones.
And he used assorted volunteer militias, who were tired of Jews hanging people from telegraph poles all along the rail lines.
And there's the Irish War of Independence, 1919-1921, which admittedly had a socialist tinge, what with James Connolly and the Irish Citizens Army and all.
But it was primarily Catholic nationalist, and it was revolting against a government which included notorious liberals like Winston Churchill and Lloyd George.
The Iranian Revolution of 1978 installed the Khomeini regime, which is still in power to this day.
Now, is that regime right or left, or do these things simply not apply to Muslims?
Whatever it is, it was created by a massive revolt in the streets led by one elderly man in exile using cassette tapes to spread his message, and it brought down a modern state supported by the U.S. and NATO.
Kind of inspirational for me.
Now, what about the Ba 'athist revolution in Iraq, 1950-something, I think?
Yes, partly military, but with massive and direct support from the people.
Was Saddam Hussein right or left?
Getting back in time again, there was Garibaldi's unification of Italy in the 1860s.
He was revolting against the extremely conservative Catholic Church of his time, true, but he was doing it to establish a monarchy.
Right or left?
Okay, guys, you get the idea.
Basically, what these alt-right nimrods are tweeting is that it is quote-unquote impossible to revolt from the right because they are too weak and terrified and just plain too bloody bone-idle lazy to get up off their flabby pale asses and do so.
This is Johnny Cash.
Johnny Cash.
There once was a musical troupe.
A pickin', singin' folk group They sang the mountain ballads And the folk songs of our land They were long on musical ability Folks thought they would go far But political incompatibility Led to their downfall Well, The one on the right was on the left, and the one in the middle was on the right, and the one on the left was in the middle, and the guy in the rear was a Methodist.
The one on the right was on the left was on the left, and the one on the left was on the left.
This musical aggregation toured the entire nation, singing traditional ballads and the folk songs of our land.
They performed with great virtuosity and soon they were the rage, but political animosity prevailed upon the stage.
Well, the one on the right was on the left and the one in the middle was on the right and the one.
The guy in the rear Burned his driver's license The curtain had ascended A hush fell on the crowd as thousands there were gathered to hear the folk songs of our land.
But they took their politics seriously and that night at the concert hall, as the audience watched deliriously, they had a free for all.
Well, the one on the right was on the bottom and the one in the middle was on the top and the one on the left got a broken arm and the guy on his rear.
Said, oh dear.
Now this should be a lesson if you plan to start a folk group.
Don't go mixing politics with the folk songs of our land.
Just work on harmony and diction.
Play your banjo well.
And if you have political convictions, keep them to yourself.
Now the one on the left works in a bank and the one in the middle drives a truck.
The one on the right's an all-night DJ and the guy in the rear got drafted.
The one on the right's an all-night DJ and the guy in the rear got drafted.
The one on the right's an all-night DJ and the guy in the rear got drafted.
Good evening, comrades.
Tonight I'm going to be discussing White Like You by Spencer J. Quinn.
This is a fictional tale, and rather uniquely, because I haven't read very many books like this so far, this has a Christian identity bent.
And you can tell that by the names of two very important characters in this book, because this is a tale of two brothers, and they're named Ben and Isaac.
Initially, Ben is part of the mainstream.
His career is comprised of writing standardized test questions.
And these are essentially questions that they would use for something like the PSAT.
This story takes place in the future.
So there's a lot of technological advancements that we don't have now.
And also, too, there's a lot of monitoring an individual's access to the Internet.
Now, Ben is very, in many respects, he's straight-laced.
He's very career-oriented.
And so Ben doesn't really have any problem following the rules.
However, his brother Isaac has always been something of a drifter.
Isaac was the less favorite of the two brothers, and he had a really hard time growing up.
And so he becomes really something of a drifter.
At first he's something of a hippie, but eventually he drifts into the white nationalist movement.
And at some point, after drifting into the nationalist movement, he visits his brother Ben.
Now, Isaac doesn't really have much.
He's always, as I said, he's kind of on a shoestring himself.
At one point, he uses Ben's internet device, and Isaac accesses a website that he's not supposed to, that no one's supposed to access.
Of course, the one who gets blamed for this and ultimately loses his job is Ben because it's Ben's device.
So Ben gets blamed.
So suddenly, Ben goes from flying relatively high in his career to being essentially out of a job.
Ben could have continued...
Writing standardized test questions as an underground test writer, he does have that opportunity.
But perhaps rather fatally for Ben, Ben becomes fascinated with the changes that he sees in his brother Isaac.
And he wants to figure out what Isaac has been doing.
And some of this is just curiosity, it's concern.
But eventually Ben is drawn into the movement as well.
Because this book is set in a future where the movement is very suppressed, individuals in the movement have to find very creative and very advanced disguises.
Another thing that has happened...
By this time, is that the movement has consolidated itself into a town, which is essentially a kind of military base in disguise.
So it looks like something of a normal town, and the activists in this town are, in many cases, very much disguised in a very advanced type of disguise.
It has allies, individuals in other towns.
Government officials, for example, that are sometimes willing to help the town.
And also, too, there are even some members of minority groups that will be hired by this town or will use the services of this town in order to make the town look even more diverse.
But this can be dangerous because the town is actually something of a target.
Individuals who are in the movement at this time are highly professionalized and also very dedicated, but they're professionalized to a point that it's hard to believe because, for example, they will routinely learn languages such as Arabic and Mandarin to help further their disguise.
Now, achieving fluency in something like Arabic and Mandarin is much easier said than done, of course.
And in actuality, I'm sure that it would take many years to do that, if ever.
So I found that aspect of the story maybe a bit far-fetched, although it would certainly be a desirable capacity to have.
This story, as you might imagine, is really told from Ben's point of view.
And like so many others who are drawn into the movement, like Ben, Ben ends up having to disguise himself, perhaps permanently.
And so one of the questions in this story is how long can you or how much can you pretend to be someone else before you actually become what it is that you pretend to be?
Because this new identity is so all-encompassing, There are many psychological, sociological, and maybe even spiritual issues that are brought up in this, and you'll understand this if you read this book.
This book is about an individual who really gives up everything.
And so featured prominently in this book is the notion of an individual giving up all of their personal aspirations, no matter how intimate or essential they may seem.
Another theme in this book, which is perhaps allegorical, Is that Ben, although in many ways Ben is entirely given over to at first his career in educational testing and then later on his career as a revolutionary,
we also see Ben drawn into a romance with a Zoroastrian woman by the name of Aria.
Aria is Iranian.
And she considers herself white.
But Ben has to question whether or not his commanding officer would sanction this relationship because, of course, this is one of those confusing or, in some ways, marginal situations.
Arya, being Zoroastrian, is someone who really has A strong dislike for Muslims because she's seen her country taken over by an Islamic revolution.
And ultimately, Aria is rightly accused of adultery because she's very unhappily married.
She's also very self-possessed.
And ultimately, when Ben is temporarily on some sort of leave from this revolutionary movement, he goes out in search of Aria, who has been accused of adultery, rightly so, in point of fact, and has been taken to Tehran.
The end of this book is really quite bleak.
This book is a page-turner because, to be honest, you want Ben to find redemption, you want Ben to find normalcy, and you want Ben to become himself once again, quite literally.
And unfortunately, this ending is rather nihilistic.
I find that In some respects, disappointing, but in another sense, you have to understand that in a lot of ways, Ben is already, you could say he's already dead in some sense, that he has totally lost his identity so much that, in a way, he can't even go on.
And you'll understand this if you read this book.
So, I hope you enjoyed this discussion.
You know, I have to say, I think there's a lot of psychological subtext in this book.
And for that reason, I found this book to be rather fascinating and certainly one that I had difficulty putting down.
So I thank you very much for listening.
Have a good evening and hail victory, comrades.
The End Thank you.
Okay, boys and girls, once again, the eternal question has arisen, to streetwalk or not to streetwalk?
This came up on Twitter.
With regard to what happened to the guy with True Cascadia who got doxed and lost his job, etc., and pulled down their website along with him when he fled screaming into the night, so forth and so on, and the way he got doxed, of course, was he went to Charlottesville, he got his picture taken, and somehow or other the Antifa or whatever tracked him down.
Now, this is a very complex subject, this whole business of to what degree you actually come out and show your face and what degree you don't.
One of the reasons we need a professionalized party is so we can have leaders who can literally show their faces in public.
Personally, I believe that the Northwest Front could have made much, much better use of this young man where he was at Wells Fargo Bank and not being open and running the group's website and running around with a tiki torch at Charlottesville, but we won't get into that because that's a whole other thing.
Anyway, like I say, this came up on Twitter, and I think it's time we did a recap.
This is something Andy Donner did a while back that deals with this whole subject of streetwalking or LARPing, live-action role-playing, as it's become known.
Greetings from Seattle, comrades.
Andy Donner here.
Before I really get going on today's Real Politics material, I need to answer a question I was sent over Facebook.
Comrade John, I am really sorry it took me so long to even see it.
For the record, if one of you wants to talk to me, make sure your message is going to a place I'll actually see.
I tend to ignore the other tab when I'm looking at Facebook messages, and John's question was buried there for a couple of months.
Anyway, Comrade John asked, If the state of Nazi Germany had not been defeated in war, do you think it would have held together over time?
Would the socialist elements have eventually agitated against the nationalist side, as in Rome and his essay?
Do you think it would have allowed for stable transition of power from one leader to another?
Are you aware that the Ba 'ath party of Iraq and Syria was modeled on the NSDAP?
In those situations, the dear leader eventually outshined the party.
Do you think the fact that there was no check or balance on the leader's power was a good thing or bad thing?
It is a known fact that several military mistakes are directly attributed to Hitler.
I'm interested in National Socialism, but am not quite ready to admit it is the greatest form of government ever.
Ethnic nation-states ruled by hereditary monarchies did the lion's share of putting the white man on top back in the day.
I'm actually in a unique position to answer this question.
I myself am not a National Socialist, though some would say otherwise.
During a routine party meeting, Mack once described me as an agnostic national socialist, so do what you will with my response.
Further, it's not at all the case that the Northwest Front pushes national socialism or requires it of those interested in Northwest nationalism.
No one here advocates it as essential racial dogma.
I don't perceive national socialism to be racially unhealthy, and if the NAR ends up being a national socialist state, that would be just fine with me.
There are two separate parts to John's question, the second of which I'll take first.
John, you made a number of very important observations about history and the leaders in it.
Regardless of the government involved, mistakes are attributed to any and every leader.
My first real politics talk actually went over the reality that America was almost a monarchy instead of the wrong-headed experiment the founding felons crafted.
After that, I went on to point out...
In practice, non-democratic forms of government tend to look the same since there's either one person or a very small group exercising a very large amount of power.
This is true for any non-democratic system, be it national socialism, hereditary monarchy, or some variety of oligarchy.
In any of these systems, the people in charge will always be the main focus since they're the ones responsible for what ends up happening, not their parties, supporters, or peers.
In reality, checks and balances will always exist in some way.
Factions exist, and always will.
Even in admittedly desirable monarchical systems, exchanges of power weren't always pleasant.
So that concern is ever-present in any type of government.
Out of respect for John's concerns, I'm trying to stay objective.
Even so, I have to point out that Adolf Hitler is criticized from all angles, especially in the movement.
To be honest, this is all hindsight analysis, and in retrospect, everyone screws up.
Always investigate and consider the past, but don't stress over these sorts of things since they'll always be.
As for the first part of the question, I really don't see why National Socialism wouldn't have stuck around for a while.
Sure, white people tend to organically create shiny new ideas and philosophies, so I'm sure it would have eventually been replaced by something else.
But that's not exactly germane.
It's true that varying factions exist in every environment, but socialists wouldn't have had much of a reason to agitate in Nazi Germany.
There's no way every single person was happy, but that's just people for you.
Nationalism and socialism aren't mutually exclusive.
Remember, socialism isn't the same thing as communism, much to Rush Limbaugh's chagrin.
Just look at the difference between the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich.
National Socialism would have lasted since it was good for just about every last German.
But why?
Well, aside from the obvious racial angle, we need to consider economics.
With an honest economic system, Germany was able to rise out of the disastrous state it was in and actually enable common people to enjoy what would have been high luxury in other European countries.
You might say the National Socialist policies had a high ROI.
Today's talk is about just that.
In mid-December of last year, I did a housekeeping segment on RFN which has bearing on this subject.
The party and I are regularly approached about a possible, though somewhat fanciful, Northwest agency which would theoretically give substantial physical and financial assistance to those trying to come home.
The trouble with this idea is that the party would only agree to expend resources on those we think to be a good investment.
More specifically, the outlay of money in particular would cause the party to expect a good return on that outlay in the form of skills and services rendered by the migrants we would help with said money.
That is, we would expect a good ROI.
This is totally reasonable, since otherwise we wasted precious resources.
Just breaking even means we wasted the opportunity to use those resources in a better way.
I can hear you all wondering what in the world this might have to do with real politics.
Remember back to the RFN episode where I discussed the actual solution.
That, or think back to the Northwest Independence novels.
For this purpose, I like A Distant Thunder because it covers some of the fictional party activity prior to the revolution itself.
There's a particular strategy required to liberate colonial territory from a large, occupying power.
Everything the party does needs to align itself with that objective.
But hang on now, don't any of you slack in listening, since this part is important.
Prior to actually making a bid for independence, there are things which need to happen in order to support that bid.
By the by, they're still technically legal, but that's neither here nor there.
Anyhow, the return on investment of our legal activity must be the ability to execute and support the strategy which we've adopted.
Now, short of you people actually coming home and helping the party, we can't actually do what we need to.
However, it's still the case that we can waste our time and resources doing things we shouldn't do.
And that's just as bad, because it actually results in a negative ROI.
Now here's the thing.
It would be dumb of the party to invest the manpower, time, and money required to relocate someone of t-shirt youth quality because doing so is guaranteed to result in the total loss of that investment.
That's a bad ROI.
There's nothing but cost and risk with no potential for a payoff of any sort.
It wouldn't result in anything but a drain on the party, so it's not something we're going to do.
Not only does it not further the work required to create a fighting white revolutionary party in the Pacific Northwest, it actually detracts from other things we need to accomplish in the interim.
Now, with this base, I can make my point.
There's another activity which white nationalists are prone to, even though it has an abysmal ROI.
Harold has taken to calling this phenomenon streetwalking.
And no, this isn't about prostitution.
Public demonstrations are a white nationalist movement perennial favorite, but they're absolutely the wrong thing to do.
Let's recap.
There's only one solution to white genocide, and that's the Northwest American Republic.
There's only one way to realize that solution.
See the Northwest Independence novels for details.
Since that's the case, anything which either doesn't contribute to or detracts from it...
Doesn't give us any return and is, therefore, the wrong thing to do.
I'm going to wrap up today's talk analyzing the ROI of streetwalking.
This has come up several times on RFN, but I want to try this approach to see if it's any more effective.
Hey, I can dream, can't I?
Alright, so here's the deal with streetwalking.
A few of us get the bug to run around and make idiots out of ourselves with a sign...
And possibly chanting something pithy because we feel the need to be brave and show the world what mighty white Power Rangers we are.
Of course, there's the immediately obvious cost and risk involved.
Aside from the financial cost of whatever physical equipment, signs, funny costumes, and transportation is required, there's the immediate issue of one's identity being exposed to the world.
There's also the less tangible risk of making white nationalists look bad, but I'll get there in a second.
The one viable strategy we have available to us needs functional, reasoning adults who aren't all gummed up in society because their politics are known to the world at large.
Exposing oneself not only puts you at risk, it puts your comrades around you at risk of exposure as well.
Whatever you take away from my talk today, you do not under any circumstances have the right to make that choice for other people.
Doing so comes desperately close to deliberately outing them yourself, and the party will take notice of it when it happens.
Think on that for a bit.
But enough about risk.
What about the rewards?
Well, there aren't any.
Streetwalking and other public events do not assist the strategy required to create the Northwest American Republic.
Mass demonstrations and political action aren't a part of the Butler Plan, so at best they're a wash.
And remember, a wash is as good as a loss because it's missed opportunity to do something else.
Let's figure the ROI on this.
All risk and loss with no reward.
Wait a minute.
That's a terrible return.
No, really.
At best, the only thing to come of this is an emotional and possibly hormonal high, which is the real reason anyone ever does this.
I get that many of you out there are really into this sort of thing, but it's just not helpful or relevant to what really needs to happen.
And since I'm on the subject, Don't try to sell me on the idea that this is brave.
Bravery doesn't mean taking stupid risks for no payoff, so public activity doesn't entail any sort of bravery.
It's stupidity, a little drunkenness, well, most of the time anyway, and perhaps a little void rage if we're to believe stereotypes of white nationalists.
Even if there were zero risk involved in streetwalking, it would still be useless because it doesn't play a role in the task we need to accomplish.
Conversely, It's not cowardly to refuse to engage in dangerous activity when there's nothing to gain by it.
I've said before that I used to do my fair share of public activity, but it wasn't related to racial politics.
Further, when I did so, it was to stop specific events which were happening at specific times and places, and I was one of what was usually a very, very large number of people.
I figured I'd better come clean since someone would call me on it if I didn't.
I would go into details, but it would be rude of me to go on longer.
I know some of you are absolutely obsessed with public demonstrations, but please think back on what I said about obsession and enthusiasm.
Actually think about what you're doing in the future.
Your bad behavior will eventually cost you, and possibly someone else, very dearly While buying your race absolutely nothing?
Why throw your potential away like this when you could properly participate in the Northwest Imperative?
Hail victory, comrades!
Okay, next up.
This is from someone using the name RightWingNightmare via Twitter, and it kind of segues into the whole gooboo business I was talking about last week.
Hey, HAC, a good topic for the next Radio Free Northwest.
Can you discuss personal relationship cultivation in the homeland?
I think people are afraid to trust people who they are told to trust, and ultimately that'll hold us back.
If we can truly trust for trios, it might make a difference.
Hoo boy, that is a long and complicated topic which I need somehow to condense into a few bullet points or else it'll be three hours from now and I'll still be wandering in the direction of Shelbyville with an onion on my belt.
Trust between white men these days in any sphere of endeavor is problematic because trust in the old days was something that grew out of a man's personal sense of honor, loyalty, and integrity.
And through personal knowledge of his past actions in a close-knit community where everybody knew everybody else's business from birth, all of which created an innate moral sense of right and wrong.
And the majority of white men born after about 1975 don't have one.
They were never taught how.
More and more white boys have grown up with absent or, at best, only part-time fathers, and mostly they had no role models to follow growing up.
Unless they read books and learned about the past on their own, which, to be fair, a lot of young white kids do.
Nowadays, a sense of personal honor and standards of character are actively discouraged in white male children.
It's part of what's referred to as toxic masculinity.
But right-wing nightmare needs a few snappy pointers as to who you can trust.
Okay.
First off, on meeting someone new for the party or anything else for that matter, the first thing you need to check for is basic compost mentis.
Is the new guy you met just plain crazy?
Does he have strange facial tics and talk to invisible people?
Does he talk about weird stuff?
Could be anything from aliens to weird sex stuff to any other thing that he seems obsessed with to the point of everything else.
Is he clearly nursing some kind of personal grievance?
The loss of a marriage or a child or a job or a home or something specific that Obama's America did to him?
Look, we all of us have personal wrongs that have been done to us by America, but make sure that this new guy is joining the party to put something into it, not get something out of it.
And that's one of the things that can only be revealed with time.
Check for any sign of alcoholism or excessive weed use.
If someone uses any outright illegal hard drugs, no, cut ties immediately.
That's a character defect that can't be corrected.
Vet your new contacts as much as you can on the internet.
Check their social media for anything that shouldn't be there.
Remember, FBI informer Chris Cantwell, race-mixing slut Lauren Southern, and a lot of others have been first detected because of old images on their social media that they seem to have simply forgotten were there.
Before deciding whether a man is a good comrade, first determine if he's a good man.
Is he married with children?
If so, see if you can get a read on what kind of husband and father he is.
Cheating on your wife is not cute, and if a man cheats on his wife, he'll cheat on the party eventually in one way or another.
If you met him at work or by way of business, how is his work ethic?
Is he punctual?
Does he know his job?
Does he do it well and efficiently and on time?
Or is he a slacker, constantly bitching and moaning and finding excuses as to why he isn't cutting the mustard?
Long story short, right-wing nightmare, you need two things in order to trust another man with your life, and make no mistake, that's exactly what this is.
You need knowledge.
Knowledge of the man, his life, and his past.
And you need time.
And that's unfortunate, because time's something we may not have much of.
Where human beings are concerned, snap judgments are often wrong judgments, especially if you're dealing with someone who is deliberately attempting to deceive you for whatever reason.
Someone who is acting on an agenda that has nothing to do with the 14 words.
And I'm sorry, we get a lot of that.
There's nothing like time.
Use as much of it as you can before the tactical situation becomes critical.
A somewhat similar question comes from a young lady in Michigan whom I will call Sandra or Sandy.
That is not her real name, by the way, because I don't want to risk her nasty-ass parents possibly picking up on this podcast and dropping her worse into the doo-doo than she is.
Sandy has been told that she will be required to vacate her family home the morning after her high school graduation by her liberal feminist Hillaryite mother for alleged white nationalism.
Yes, folks, we're starting to get things like that.
It's not only teenaged boys who are starting to question and seek answers.
Now, Sandra's father is apparently opposed to anything quite that drastic, but he is unable or unwilling to stand up to his vicious and deranged wife in order to protect his child, which is about par for the course for American manhood these days.
We don't protect our children from harm anymore against any threat.
Sandra's heretical and fashy leaning was apparently rumbled through her mother using some kind of special secret parental usage monitoring software that I never heard of, supposedly especially developed...
help liberal parents detect whether or not their adolescent offspring are visiting quote-unquote Nazi hates.
Now, this sounds like something that the Southern Poverty Law Center, or ADL, would come up with, but I don't know any more about it than that.
I can't get any information from Sandra about just what this stuff is, because she's gone dark for the past week, and I suspect she's had all her computer and phone privileges suspended and her devices taken away.
But before that happened, She was caught supporting President Trump, whatever that means, she wasn't clear, and engaging with certain forbidden YouTube videos and websites and doing other naughty things, including a secret Twitter account that had green frogs all over it.
One of the forbidden sites Sandra was patronizing was apparently northwestfront.org, and she even downloaded a few Radio Free Northwests, and this set off all kinds of bells and whistles.
Apparently, Sandy's mother got hold of these and completely freaked.
The legend that I was somehow involved with and responsible for Dylann Roof is apparently alive and well out there in liberal land.
Now, this girl's mother is Soros to the point of actually being involved with the SPLC and Antifa in some way, at least according to Sandra, who admittedly may be gilding the lily somewhat, given her age, but it sounds bad enough.
And like I said, I haven't heard from her for a while, but her last email was as follows.
Dear Mr. Covington, my mother has ordered me to leave the house on the morning after my high school graduation this June.
Nor will my parents pay for my further education until I apologize publicly on the internet for all of my Twitter posts and for listening to you and reading your books.
She confiscated my copy of The Brigade and she says she will only give it back to me if I agree to burn it in the backyard and let her video me and upload it to the internet where everyone I ever talked to online can see it.
What do you suggest I do?
I can try to calm her down by lying to her, but why should I?
It's not like I can unlearn what I know like deleting a computer file.
How do you handle the estrangement from family and pre-WN friends that happens once they find out about you?
Signed, Sandra.
Okay, Sandra, I don't know if you're ever going to hear this, but this is something that just about all of us go through to one degree or another.
I'd like to tell you that what you're experiencing is extreme or unusual, but I'm afraid it's not.
What's happening to you is actually pretty much what happened to me.
I ended up joining the Army at 17 because it was that or flip burgers at Hardee's.
The thing is, if my father hadn't ordered me out of the house, I would have left under my own steam and it wasn't over racial nationalism.
But yes, I've met more than one of our comrades down through the years who have been completely disowned and denounced by their families, including me.
Although, like I said, in my case, if it hadn't been that, it would have been something else.
If anybody's interested, there are some passages in my novel Fire and Rain, which are semi-autobiographical.
These family dynamics are all individually different, of course, but I can give you guys certain bits and pieces of guidance based on my own experience.
First off, a word of advice.
Once they find out, never, ever try to argue or debate with them on the issues, or convince them that you're right by logical or factual persuasion.
It won't work.
It never does, because the facts of race or the realities of history and politics is not what it's about from your family's point of view.
It took me some years before I realized this.
Save yourself a lot of stress and wasted time.
Don't even try.
If they ask you about your racial beliefs, remember they're not trying to learn or understand.
They're trying to find some way to fix you and neutralize the threat that you represent to the family in whatever material wealth and status the family has been able to accumulate.
If you want to know what they're afraid of, look at what was done to Richard Spencer's mother in Montana.
She was subjected to a vicious campaign led by a female troll prominent in the Jewish community with the expressed aim of driving her out of her hometown of Whitefish, Montana.
So, yeah, they're not worried about nothing.
There is a saying that if you catch a monkey in the jungle and paint him green, then return him to his natural environment, the other monkeys will kill him because he's different.
The brutal truth is, once you become a green monkey, if you try to return to your native trees, from your family's viewpoint, it's about damage control and keeping you from dragging them down with you.
The only way that they can do that is by joining with your persecutors and shouting louder than anyone else during the two-minute hate, if you'll pardon my mixed literary references there.
This is especially true if your family is rich and has more to lose than others, which was true in my case.
My father used his control of the family wealth to quarantine me quite effectively.
When I became a green monkey, my father laid down the official family policy, and with the very occasional exception of my mother many years ago when she was alive, no one has ever deviated from it, including my ex-wife when she was still alive, and my own children to this day.
The official version is, I am mentally ill.
I am toxic and deadly contagious, and there is to be no contact with me of any kind.
Period.
End of story.
Any contact with me back in the day would risk the cutoff of those monthly checks from the family fortune and presumably disinheritance from the big boodle itself.
Now, as it happens, it's not me but my middle brother who really is mentally ill.
He sucked his thumb until he was about eight, and until his early teens he did a number of...
Very, very bad things, which I won't get into.
He began seeing a Jewish child shrink at UNC at about the age of ten, and one of the reasons for our family's catastrophic move from Burlington to Chapel Hill in 1968 was so that he could be nearer his psychiatrist.
At one point, there was serious talk of committing him to a cacklebox, but my father refused because that would leave a permanent mark on his record as a mental patient.
We're talking Michael Myers here.
Okay, eventually, with the help of the shrink and assorted psychotropic meds, he became non-violent, at least, and so far as I'm aware, he's never been in any serious trouble, so I guess you'd call him one of psychiatry's success stories.
Beyond that, I won't say any more, but you have to be familiar with our family to understand just how utterly bizarre it is to accuse me of being the mentally ill one.
I mention this by way of pointing out that in these situations, when it's necessary to distance oneself from the green monkey, Facts simply don't matter.
My family was living in the post-factual era where all is narrative long before Donald Trump ever came along, and so will yours be if this happens to you.
By now, my children have been raised for 30 years hearing only the one carefully constructed narrative, and apparently the protocol still holds even though my father is no longer around to enforce it with his loaded checkbook.
It's become a kind of ingrained behavior, and so far, none of my family members has ever broken it since my mother died.
Except for my middle brother once long ago when he left a series of incoherent threatening messages on my answering machine back in Raleigh.
Now, that may not be entirely true.
Since around 1997, I've had a long-term internet stalker who started by sending me a series of anonymous emails through the old DevNull site which indicated that I was under intermittent physical surveillance at that time, possibly by private detectives.
And who, for the past 21 years, has periodically put in cyber appearances of various kinds, the latest being his habit of leaving occasional comments on the RFN site which bear his distinctive content and stylistic marks.
It is, in my opinion, possible to the point of being likely that this is one of my brothers, and I think I know which one, but I can't prove it since this character always uses a proxy server.
If I'm right, put it this way, I still ain't the Covington brother who's mentally ill.
But I understand why my family took this attitude and why your mother's doing the same, Sandra.
White Americans are herd animals.
The Hillary Clinton crowd is a herd like any other, and herd animals have an instinctive sense of danger when they sniff a predator downwind.
They get restless and on edge, ready to bolt.
American herd animals understand viscerally that the one thing that will not be tolerated is any dissent or questioning of the official narrative on race, on the Holocaust, on immigration, or the Second World War.
These narratives are chiseled in stone, and to disbelieve or question them is social and economic oblivion.
Sandra, your mother is throwing you out of the house for the same reason that the families of accused witches and heretics in the Middle Ages or accused Trotskyites in Stalin's Russia turned on their own.
It is a desperate attempt to deflect the wrath of the gods away from them.
It's like in 1984 when Winston Smith screams to O 'Brien to take Julia to room 101, not him.
Your mother throwing you out of the house is her reacting to the very real threat that you represent to her and the rest of the family and their status in the herd, and she's bolting.
Her love for you, if any, simply isn't strong enough to resist a lifetime of social engineering and psychological conditioning.
Very, very few Americans can do that, Sandra.
They're just not strong enough.
Try not to be too angry or upset with your mom.
She literally can't help herself.
*outro music*
Yes, she loves her status and her stuff more than you.
But that's what she's been engineered from birth to do in the world that the Jews and the ironically named social justice crowd have created.
You can't change her, but it's not her fault.
If you want to do something about this, spend your life in fighting against the system that created her and made her like she is, and do everything you can to bring it down.
Every American, at some point in their lives, is expected to burn a pinch of incense on the altar of the false gods of Rome, if you'll excuse my using a religious parallel.
Most Americans quietly burn that pinch of incense, like contributing to the AIDS marathon, even though you despise faggots, or putting a Hillary Clinton bumper sticker on your car to make sure it doesn't get vandalized, even though the sight of the old hag makes you gag.
They do it and they get on with their lives.
Some find it's necessary to burn more than a pinch.
After Charlottesville, my younger brother apparently felt it necessary to post a long, rambling screed on Facebook denouncing me for the fourth or fifth time in public as being quote-unquote mentally ill, even though he knows perfectly well it's untrue, and even though I was never mentioned in connection to Charlottesville.
I don't know what kind of pressure he's under, but in his case, sometimes he seems compelled to shovel the incense on with a front-end loader.
Alice, just hope you and your mom never get that bad off, Sandra.
Good luck, honey.
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 Underbond.
▲
Export Selection