All Episodes
Previous Next
May 10, 2018 - Radio Free Nortwest - H.A. Covington
01:02:00
20180510_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 bikes will ski together by the rising of the moon.
By the rising of the moon, by the rising of the moon.
For the bikes will ski 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, rightful known to you and me.
One more door for signal, token, whistle of the marching tune.
Warrior bike 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 man's chest was throbbing For the blessed warming light The waters passed along the valleys Like the man she's lonely crew And a thousand blades were flashing At the rising of the moon At the rising of the moon At the rising of the moon And a thousand
days were fleshing out, rising all the moon.
Greetings from the Northwest Homeland, comrades.
It's May the 10th, 2018.
I'm Harold Covington, and this is Radio Free Northwest.
Okay, this week I need to start out with some inside baseball stuff.
Now, it looks like we're heading for round two of the great deplatforming offensive.
All that crap that started after Charlottesville.
These things happen periodically on the internet.
Various ISPs and platforms and whatnot go sweeping through their ranks looking for wicked evil racists and kick a few people off and then they get slack because basically the pressure comes off for a while and us wicked evil racists sneak back.
And eventually somebody in the liberal left notices that we're back and they start squalling.
Anyway, the new order out of Milwaukee, which is the final gasping remnants of Commander Rockwell's original American Nazi Party, recently not only lost their Twitter account, but had their bank account cancelled after almost 20 years.
This is actually kind of odd.
Now we're talking about a group of four or five elderly men and one woman.
Hell, Art Banneker and Barbara Goetz must be in their 80s now if they're still alive.
And these are some of the most completely harmless old folks the American right has ever seen.
Their actual audience is probably in the low three figures.
Why in God's name would anybody even bother to single them out for victimization?
That's a mystery to me.
But there's something else that happened last week that does have a little bit more relevance.
Some of you may be familiar with a man named Richard Spencer, who does business as the National Policy Institute.
He's the primary personality in what is called the alt-right, and he's also the official fearless leader of us all, selected for us by the media.
Now, letting the media select our leaders for us is a system that I've always opposed, and one of the many points upon which you people have chosen to ignore everything I say, so I won't get into that.
But remember, whether you've heard of him or not, officially Spencer is supposed to be our boss man and the poster child for Wicked Evil Wacism.
So what happens to him is at least middling important.
Spencer had a website called altright.com registered with GoDaddy, and he lost his domain registration name as part of what appears to be a coordinated campaign to drive him and his National Policy Institute out of business through what's known as lawfare, meaning the political weaponization of civil litigation.
As some of you may recall, I have a little bit of past experience with lawfare, and I'm living proof that it can be survived, but it's no fun.
It looks like it's going to be successful.
Spencer is on the ropes.
He's lost his entire staff, like Kyle Bristow and Evan McLaren, who, for whatever reason, have all fled screaming into the night, and Spencer's own internet presence is fading fast.
He recently blocked me on Twitter after about 18 months of me heckling him and asking questions he didn't want to answer, like what was his plan to bring back the Brady Bunch, which I suppose is fair enough.
But I have ways of keeping up with him, and the number of his followers is dropping like a stone.
He's been publicly begging for money on the internet and YouTube to hire new lawyers to fight the several lawsuits related to Charlottesville, and at this point it looks like he's about to drop out of sight.
This, of course, was picked up on by the Soros blogosphere, and he's being publicly mocked and jeered at on Slate and the Daily Beast, that kind of crowd, which is yet more bad optics for the 14 words, making us look weak and contemptible, which, of course, we are, since we allow it, rather than incur the personal risk and inconvenience required to compel this behavior to stop.
We don't need to be appearing in the public eye to be wussy, cowardly little weaklings.
And it's all the more important that we don't look like timid, cowardly little weaklings when we are, but...
Okay, yeah, I know that's not helpful, but damn, I mean, I'm running out of polite ways to say out loud things that we all know are true, things that we have to change.
I mean, how can we change these things if we won't even speak aloud of what the problem is?
Anyway, never mind, I'm rambling.
Again, no one seems to feel sufficiently strongly about it to do anything, and so the embarrassing crap just goes on and on and on, world without end.
Now, this is one reason that I try on these podcasts not to give these filth any information on the party that they might use for that purpose.
Anyway, Spencer's circling the bowl, and he'll probably disappear in the next few months.
Oh, how the mighty are fallen.
But he's not what I want to talk about.
So far, the party has had very good luck surviving deplatforming attacks.
Largely, I think, due to the fact that we don't engage in certain infantile behaviors like LARPing or harassing negroid actresses on Twitter and generally forcing to the notice of our enemies that we exist and that by actually speaking, we are in some way violating their safe spaces, etc.
Interesting piece of liberal psychology here.
The one thing that a left-wing liberal or an SJW or whatever you want to call these nimrods cannot stand, the one thing that will drive them around the twist and turn them into just gibbering morons is being forced to recognize that we exist.
Being forced...
To acknowledge the fact that not everybody thinks that they are bee's knees.
Not everybody accepts that they are superior beings who have the right to tell everyone else how to live.
Not everyone holds them in awe.
And that there are actually stroppy white boys out here who not only do not hold them in any respect or awe, but who will actually make fun of them.
This was the crux, I think, of what they did to that faggot Milo.
Needless to say, I'm not in favor of faggots or faggotry, but I'm just citing this as an example.
Milo actually had a pretty good long run on Twitter, but they didn't pull him until he started making fun of that stupid female Ghostbusters reboot and pointing out the fact that this congoid-looking actress with a face like an ape had no talent.
That was what actually got him permanently banned from Twitter.
Forcing liberals in the establishment to acknowledge that they are not the rulers of the roost, that they claim they are or that they think they are.
Liberals are all legends in their own mind, and anyone who upsets that little apple cart is going to get deplatformed.
Not so much for their ideology, but because they piss off the liberals.
I mean, who knows, I long ago gave up trying to figure out exactly what is going on in the minds of these people.
They're a mystery to me.
But we all need to understand, that could end overnight.
It's possible that you could go looking for Northwest Front and northwestfront.net tomorrow to download this episode of Radio Free Northwest, and both sites might be gone.
I've had the ThoughtCrime blog at blogspot.com for 14 years now.
And it's only been cancelled once, in October 2008, when ThoughtCrime was one of several dozen anti-Obama blogs that mysteriously disappeared from the web for several days, before just as mysteriously reappearing.
You may remember that this was also the month that Bill White was arrested and his servers for overthrow.com were physically seized and destroyed by the FBI.
I've always suspected some connection there, but that's another among the many things we don't have time to get into.
So, yes, it can happen.
It has been suggested that one reason the Northwest Front gets such a comparatively easy ride is that the FBI and other secret police agencies have asked our assorted providers not to take us down so that they can spy on what we're saying.
Maybe.
I don't know.
That's something else you need to keep in mind with anything regarding the security.
Thanks to Edward Snowden, we know now for certain...
Even if we didn't already, that every email and text message in this country is being intercepted and archived.
Anyway, the upshot of all this is that I need to repeat to you all something I've said before.
Do not take the Northwest Front and Radio Free Northwest for granted and do not assume that our present facilities will always be here.
They might not be.
All trace of us on the internet could disappear overnight, and you need to make certain preparations for that possibility.
First thing you need to do is allocate some time to go to the northwestfront.org or northwestfront.websites and download as many episodes of Radio Free Northwest as your short American attention span will stand.
And I'm not trying to be sarcastic or bitter or anything like that.
Downloading all 400 and some odd Radio Free Northwest podcasts is going to take a long time.
It will require a lot of storage space on your disk.
And frankly, before you successfully download all 430 some odd of them, most of you are going to get bored and wander away.
I mean, you're Americans.
This is 2018.
It's who you are.
It's what you do.
It's the way you were made.
I get it.
Anyway, keep these episodes that you do download on your own hard drive, but also store them on an external backup in case you have a crash.
Now, I predict that there will come a time when new people in our wee little movement will come to you saying, Hey dude, a little birdie told me that you actually have copies of old Radio Free Northwest episodes from back in the 20-teens.
I've heard a few bits and pieces of Herald stuff from back before white males were banned from the internet, but I want more.
Can you send me some files of old RFNs?
Of course, by that time you may also be risking a prison sentence for possession of any audio by me at all, but what I'm saying is you need to make sure that you've got everything you want from the NF before we vanish, as may well happen.
Secondly, you need to acquire PDF copies of my written work as much as you can.
There have already been efforts to ban my books and keep them out of print, notably about three years ago.
Which some of you will remember, and most recently with our party manual, the White Book, which is one reason why we're printing our own now.
Oh, speaking of which, Sir Stephen and Lord Goyhammer have now produced and illustrated copies of my Weird Aryan History series.
For information on how you can obtain a copy, contact me at nwnet at earthlink.net.
I have often thought, and more and more I'm thinking in these terms as the deplatforming craze moves on, That someday, our wee little movement is going to have to basically go back to the old days and the old ways.
We're going to have to start fighting high tech with low tech.
I've been telling people for years, hang on to those mimeograph machines out in the garage, guys.
We may need them again.
I personally would not be at all sad to see us go back to a paper and postage stamp, if only for aesthetic reasons.
But I realize that in this electronic age, it's not going to be popular.
And it's not going to be anywhere near as efficient.
I used to think at one stage we'd lose the internet completely.
I'm not so convinced of that anymore because, frankly, I think the internet has now become something so big and so complex and so necessary to daily life that it would be, frankly, impossible for even a regime as powerful as this to completely ban anyone they didn't like for ideological reasons.
From going on the internet or using the internet or in any way accessing the internet or the world wide web or cell phone towers or whatever.
Now it could be we will be forced to step a few paces back as far as our use of the internet goes.
We may be banned from having our own websites like this business with altright.com getting cancelled.
We may be banned from Twitter.
I have an alternate account on Gab, by the way.
But it could well be that Gab itself is going to be torn down by the system and removed, thus cutting us off from access to direct chat with each other.
I suspect we will probably be effectively banned from YouTube already.
YouTube, which I believe is owned by Google, is pulling down anything that's even remotely right of center.
And of course, they're demonetizing and all this sort of stuff.
But I think some basic internet use will remain to us.
I mean, we could, if necessary, go back to the way we did in the late 90s and the early aughts.
I used to send out emails called Cgrams, and our main method of mass communication back in those days was something called Yahoo Groups.
Anybody remember those?
Does anybody know if Yahoo still has Yahoo Groups?
I don't know.
I think the last time I even looked at the last one we had was something like 2012.
That's a pity, because I miss them.
I always liked Yahoo Groups, and I'm really rambling now in a very senile Grandpa Simpson manner, aren't I?
Okay, where was I?
I'm kind of at an advantage here because I'm old enough to remember how things were done back in the day before the internet.
A lot of these millennial types on the alt-right don't know anything else, and they have no clue as to what to do if one day the plug suddenly gets pulled.
Now, while I'm on the topic, there is something else that I need from all of you who are really genuinely interested in the Northwest Front, who want to keep up with what we're doing.
I need your postal mailing address for a proper paper mailing list, just in case ever we lose contact via the internet.
It doesn't have to be your real name.
It can be a pseudonym, a nom de guerre if you like.
The address can be a post office box or a UPS store or whatever.
But it needs to be such that the post office will actually deliver mail.
to that address under that name.
That way you can get your bulletins, you can get your organizational letters if appropriate, and above all, I can contact you and I can communicate with you through some medium other than the internet.
It actually, I suppose, would be somewhat counterproductive security-wise to actually email it to me, so you don't have to do that if you want, but you can drop me a line at Northwest Publishing Agency, Post Office Box 2188, Bremerton, Washington, 98310, and let me know that mailing address so that we don't lose touch if there ever is a really massive deplatforming event or something of that kind.
Thank you.
Fear of sin, lawless, hideous, dangerous, dirty, violent, and dumb.
We should be together.
Come on, all you people standing around.
For us to find the ready times.
We should be together.
Thank you.
insane, organic societies handled things in the past, how they acted, how they thought, how they lived, so forth and so on.
Reason being that so many of you guys out there actually simply have no clue as to what things should be like.
You've been raised in an open-air toilet, and you don't know anything beyond the stench of what you grew up with.
I can hardly expect you to give up your lives in battling for good if you don't at least have some idea what good is.
So in this series, I'm not just going to talk about my own personal experiences.
Growing up in the 50s and 60s and early 70s, I'm going to talk about my knowledge of Aryan history, which is something I've always been interested in.
It's true I don't have a PhD or anything like that, but frankly, in some areas I will match my historical knowledge against any PhD you care to name, especially any Jewish one.
Because unlike today's academic establishment, I will give you the truth.
Okay.
What Richard Spencer is enduring right now and what many of us have endured in the past, including myself, is something called lawfare.
The weaponization of the civil law and civil litigation in order to do an end run around the Constitution, usually around the First Amendment, and deprive someone of someone's rights or do something else that the Constitution specifically says isn't supposed to happen in America.
The official way that people like Morris Dees and the ADL and Southern Poverty Law Center and so forth get away with this is that the Constitution specifies that there are certain basic rights that American citizens have and that the government cannot abridge or deny or violate those rights.
Bear in mind that the Constitution was being written in the late 18th century and our founding fathers, not being complete prophets, had no idea that things would ever get this bad, that their descendants would ever be stupid enough to consider niggers to be equal.
That they would ever let Jews into government.
They just assumed it was going to be a Christian country run by an educated elite of more or less Christian white males who had displayed some success in life.
In other words, men basically like themselves.
And they simply didn't realize how dumb their descendants would get.
And so they specified in the Constitution that all of these rights that we have are technically, in essence, in theory granted to us by God, yes, but...
Only the government is specifically prohibited from violating those rights.
This is why the Second Amendment reads, the right to keep and to bear arms shall not be infringed.
They mean, of course, by the government.
Congress shall make no law affecting an establishment of religion, etc., etc.
This, of course, was in a society which was Christian.
And it was just assumed we would always be Christian, and that no one would ever want to run around killing millions of babies, so forth and so on.
So, basically, the Founding Fathers were wise men, prescient men, but they just didn't plan far enough ahead.
And what has happened, of course, is people like Morris Dees, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party have not only abused the civil law and done as private citizens things that the government is not allowed to do and done an end run around the Constitution, but they have installed what is referred to as a quote-unquote activist judiciary, in other words, Democrat and Jew stooges sitting on judges' benches.
This is why President Trump can't get his wall built.
This is why President Trump can't get his Muslim travel ban, so forth and so on.
Basically, the laws and the courts, one of the mistakes that the founding fathers made was to establish the judicial branch of government.
In other words, make the court systems a branch of government.
In the Northwest Constitution that we have, which you may read if you go to our website, or I will be happy to send you an individual copy of it.
Anyway, in our Northwest Constitution, we make it clear that there are two branches of government, the executive and the legislative.
The purpose of the judiciary in the Northwest American Republic and the court system is to ascertain facts in matters of law.
That's all.
It is not to make law.
It is not to interpret law.
Later on in this little talk, I will get into Bill White's theory that our law is basically rabbinical.
But right now, let's look at the beginning of things.
How did our legal system get into such sorry shape to begin with?
Okay, time to do the old Joy Reid trick and hit the Wayback Machine again.
For a variety of very complex reasons, English society, upon which American society was essentially based, because starting at the time of the Revolution, the 13 colonies on the eastern seaboard were kind of a small replica of the England of the day, and then later on they began branching all over the continent and diverging and bringing in French and Italians and Poles and all that sort of stuff.
In most states, our laws are based on British common law with the exception of Louisiana, which, under the terms of the original Louisiana Purchase, was allowed to keep what's called the Code Napoleon, and which still, I believe, operates under Code Napoleonic law to this day.
That's why things are so weird in Louisiana.
The laws down there are just not derived from the same common ancestor that most everybody else's are.
But back in the Dark Ages, in Anglo-Saxon times, they had a very interesting approach to law and justice.
They had their courts and whatnot, but these courts were mostly concerned with money, fines, for various criminal acts or torts or whatever.
There was a lot of violence in those days since there were no police and you had to pretty much fend for yourself.
And there was actually kind of like a sliding scale of cash measured in silver pennies for body parts, like if you...
Cut off a hand, it was a fine of two shillings, four punts.
If you put out an eye, it was ten shillings.
I mean, by the way, I'm just making those figures up, but you get the idea.
And life, of course, was most expensive.
If you kill somebody, the value of that man to the community was weighed.
I don't know.
a blood feud would break out, and early Anglo-Saxon law is mostly set up with the idea of trying to prevent blood feuds, which actually is a very noble and worthwhile goal in a racially homogenous society.
These blood feuds would just tear whole communities apart.
They still do to this day in some places like Sicily and Albania and so forth.
Nowadays, of course, the preventing of blood feuds is sometimes held up to be one of the most noble purposes of our wonderful law and the wonderful people who administer it, blah, blah, blah.
And that's why you just must never, ever take the law into your own hands.
Oh, no, no, no, no, no.
You must leave it to the policeman.
And the judges and the lawyers and all these people who are just so much smarter than you and so much better than you and so much wiser than you and so much more entitled to tell you what is just and what is right.
One of the best descriptions of our legal system I ever heard was by some old country lawyer, and he was trying some guy who had taken the law into his own hands in some way.
I don't think he killed anybody.
Some asshole had molested his daughter or something like that, and he just went out and beat the shit out of him.
And so he was arrested and brought to trial for assault or whatever.
And the lawyer was standing in front of the jury, and he pointed to the prosecuting attorney, who I believe was a woman dressed in her finery, her Hillary pantsuit.
And he pointed to the judge in his black robe and he said, Folks, now you know in the world we have grown up in, these are the people that get to decide how much you have of two things, money and justice.
You don't get to take either of those things for yourselves.
These men and this woman in their wisdom will just decide for you how much of it you're going to get.
Well, my client decided he didn't like his cut, or something to that effect.
All very folksy and everything, but that basically is it.
The court system today is about rationing out commodities.
Two commodities specifically, money and justice.
It is also basically an engine for turning out money for lawyers, but we'll get into that later.
But then the Norman Conquest came along, 1066 and all that, and the Normans actually, I think, had a taste for blood, or they wanted to keep the Saxons down, or whatever.
So a lot of the monetary punishments in old Anglo-Saxon law became physical punishments of various horrible kinds.
But the most important thing you need to know about this period in our law happened in June of the year 1215.
This is something that I'm amazed that so few white nationalists know about.
But you all need to know about this.
The most important legal document in our history is not the United States Constitution.
It's the Magna Carta.
Now, you may or may not be familiar with the story.
A bunch of barons were tired of bad King John pushing him around and doing assorted bad acts he was doing.
It wasn't so much that he was killing people or raping women or raping their wives and daughters or anything like that, although I'm sure that was going on as well.
What pissed the barons off about King John was that he was infringing on their rights to kill, rape, and pillage and so forth, and he was also hitting them where it counts, in their wallets.
He was not spreading the wealth around.
He was confiscating barons' estates, etc., etc.
Anyway, they all got together in the year 1215, and they got a grip on King John at a place called Runnymede in a big meadow, and King John was forced to sign something called the Magna Carta, which means the Great Charter.
It is the first document in history, to my knowledge, specifically agreed upon, even if it was at a swords point, between a ruler and his people.
Laying out how they would be governed, and what the rules would be, what the laws would be, what the procedures would be, and above all, the Magna Carta laid down one utterly revolutionary principle for the time.
The rule of law would prevail in the land, and everyone was subject to the law, including the king.
This idea that the law is greater than the king, and greater than the monarchy, and greater than the government, and greater than naked steel, was incredible for the time.
But a lot of the legal forms that we use today, such as grand juries, actually are to be found not in the United States Constitution, but in the Magna Carta.
Bear in mind, like I said, in 49 of the 50 states, and in the...
The law comes from British common law.
Now, the British themselves had no constitution as such.
What they had was something called common law, which, in their view, consists of all of the court rulings ever made and all of the laws ever passed by Parliament.
To them, the whole of that body of mess going back...
A thousand years is their constitution.
But the closest thing they've got is the Magna Carta, which does lay out, as I said, certain principles which were unique for the time and unique even for today in most countries.
And, of course, King John immediately broke the charter.
The Pope gave him permission to ignore it, and very seldom in the next few hundred years was that charter of rights actually enforced.
But the principle had been established.
So, that's something you need to bear in mind, is a lot of our common law today that we use here in the United States does not actually come from the United States Constitution or from colonial times.
It may come from colonial times, but that means it just goes back to medieval England and the Magna Carta.
Now, what did this Magna Carta do that was so incredible?
First off, like I said, it established the idea that the law rules, not the individual monarch, not the king.
And it also establishes rules and procedures whereby people can be made subject to the law.
In other words, criminal offenders.
Now, prior to 1215, they had the feudal system in England.
Basically, when William the Conqueror came over in 1066, he conquered England, although it took him almost 20 years to do it.
We have this idea that there was this one big battle at Hastings, and it was all then a done deal now.
But he gave land in the form of manors and estates to his barons in exchange for military service.
Basically, they had no standing army, so William had to rely on his nobility, his knights and his earls and whatnot for his military forces, and so that was the deal.
It's a lot more complicated than that, of course, but the fact is that in his estates, on his manor, the lord of the manor, be he the Duke of Earl, or be he Sir John Rumpelpumplington, or whatever, or be he just a very minor, what they used to call a bog knight, a guy who was technically a knight because he owned a manor, and because he, possibly because his father had been a knight, or he'd been knighted on the battlefield, but he was basically just a thug.
And he was the law on that manor.
In theory, he was supposed to administer the law in accordance with the rulings of courts.
They had courts.
They had hundred courts and manor courts and elite courts and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and courts of king's bench and blah, blah, blah.
Technically speaking, the manor lord was supposed to at least attempt to follow the law of the land in dealing with his peasants and his serfs and whatnot and his neighbors.
And some of them did.
But if you had a bad lord of the manor, if Sir John down the road was a drunk and a rapist and a thief and he liked to skin people alive just for sport and just to hear the screams, there wasn't really much you could do about it.
Well, there was.
You could make like Robin Hood and go into the forest and live as an outlaw.
And that was about it.
In theory, the lord of the manor had the right to arrest anybody he wanted.
To bring any charge he wanted before the manor court, he could intimidate witnesses, he could ignore witnesses since he was also the judge, he could basically, in essence, just do what he wanted.
But, after the Magna Carta, in theory, that stopped.
A lot of the legal devices that we have today come from the Magna Carta, and they were laid out at that time with the intention of protecting people from the law.
The Magna Carta is, to my knowledge, the first legal document in history, the first political document in history, the first document of any kind in history, that actually laid out what the government can do and what it cannot.
One of the most important provisions in the Magna Carta, which you will also find in our Constitution, Fifth Amendment, I think, Fifth or Fourth.
Unreasonable seizure of goods, something like that.
Anyway, the idea is that no man may be despoiled of his goods, or his land, or his wife, or his life, or anything like that, without due process of law.
Meaning, if you want to fuck somebody up, you gotta go to the courts.
And this is basically what Morris Dees and Mark Potok and all these people do today with the Southern Poverty Law Center.
A lord of the manor could no longer just charge somebody with a crime.
If he or anybody else had a complaint of a crime being done against them, they had to take it to the grand jury for that particular judicial district.
The grand juries were called by the sheriff, who was actually not a sheriff like we think of with a badge.
The sheriff was actually the king's official in that particular shire.
It means technically Shire Reeve.
The sheriff would summon a grand jury of, and I think some of them are pretty big, A hundred men or something like that.
I think it took a while for them to get this whole system sorted out.
But the idea was that before you could charge someone with a crime, you had to go before this grand jury and you had to present some kind of evidence that this crime had taken place and that this person had done it.
Then he or she could be formally charged and arrested and thrown in the dungeon and probably end up having their hands chopped off or whatever.
But at least you got some form of a trial and there was some form of review by a civilian or allegedly disinterested party before the lord of the manor could go start chopping things off your body.
And it developed down through the centuries into the whole system of courts and whatnot, which in Britain is even more convoluted and bizarre than it is here.
But they had some good ideas.
For example, up until the 1970s, when there was a body found, a dead person was found, they convened what was called a coroner's inquest.
And the coroner was a royal official.
He was not necessarily a doctor.
We think of coroners basically as a medical examiner, but in old England, a coroner was a royal official.
It means crowner.
In other words, he worked for the crown.
And he was supposed to determine how such and such a person had died.
This can be an important right for the community to know how someone died.
Today, in most homicide investigations, as some of you may know, it's like pulling teeth to get any information out of the police or the district attorney until basically they've got their story straight.
If nothing else, the coroner's inquest system assists in enforcing the people's right to know what the hell is going on in their own neighborhood, in their own backyard, and if they don't know who committed a crime or who murdered somebody, at least they will know, in theory, what happened, because the coroner's inquest is a public proceeding.
Anybody who wants to come can come.
And watch and hear the evidence from the person who found the body, the wounds, etc., who saw who do what, and so forth and so on.
The old laws, in many cases, were intended to prevent officials and government bureaucrats and corrupt officers of the law, etc., from hiding things from the people.
You might say that a large part of older law under the Anglo-Saxon system was intended to enforce transparency, as they call it today.
And when they found a dead body, the law was the first finder had to report it immediately and then go back with the coroner to the body.
And then the coroner would conduct his own investigation.
There was a little bit of detective work involved.
The body would be taken into the local pub or whatever, laid out on a table, and the coroner would summon a jury.
They would form a jury often by just stepping outside and seeing who was out there in the public square or, you know, slopping his hogs or whatever and drag him in.
They'd get a dozen men.
There are still...
Old people in Britain today who can remember in their youth just happened to be walking by the courthouse steps and some guy came out and grabbed them and said, Hey you, come in here.
We need a coroner's jury.
So this practice of actually literally just summoning a jury from whoever was available was fairly common even up until living memory.
Okay, so the coroner and the jury would look over the body and they would hear witnesses.
And bear in mind that for most of its history, England was a rural...
Agricultural country.
Most of these cases took places either in relatively by our standards small towns or sometimes in villages out in the country.
The jurors were all local men.
Everybody pretty much knew everybody.
Everybody was related to everybody.
So unless it was one of those cases where a total stranger had been found dead, and they did happen but not often.
Usually, everybody in the community already had heard the news and they had some idea of who had done what.
Okay, maybe that's not consistent with our so-called desire for impartiality.
Actually, under the old system, jurors were selected specifically for partiality.
That's what a jury of your peers means.
The courts of the time wanted judgments made by juries of people who knew.
The defendant and the victim, who knew the events, who were familiar with the personalities involved because it was believed, and this makes a good deal of sense, that people who knew who was what and what was what could make a better judgment, a more just judgment.
Anyway, sorry, I'll try to keep the digressions to a minimum, or we'll be here all night.
So the coroner's jury, dragged off the street or wherever, would meet, they would examine the body.
They would hear the witnesses, and they would render at least a tentative decision, based not just on what they'd heard, but on their knowledge of the locality and their knowledge of the people involved.
Well, that was old Joe.
He was drunk as hell, and I saw him slip and fall into the river off the bridge.
Okay, accidental death by drowning.
This is some stranger.
We have no idea who he is.
He's sitting there with a knife in his back.
Probably somebody murdered him.
So the verdict would be murdered by person or persons unknown.
Now, if the killing had been seen, the coroner's jury could actually charge the person.
They could bring an indictment.
They could say, okay, we find that John Jones was murdered by John Smith in a fight over a cow or something like that.
Now, the English have managed to keep a lot of these old records from...
Literally hundreds of centuries ago.
And one of the most fascinating things in history, you can find these things on YouTube and everything, these documentaries from the BBC where some guy has been looking up at some old legal case or he's done some archaeology or something and he goes into the various royal records or county records and he'll be enrolling these big rolls of parchment and he can find, okay, here, this happened, this so-and-so was indicted for murder in October of 1392 or something like that.
Now, the point I'm getting at here with all of this rambling is that the Magna Carta sought to put a check on the power of government, to tell government and the judicial system what they could not do.
It was intended to protect the common man from abuse at the hands of the rich and powerful, like Morris Dees and Robert Mueller.
The grand jury, which is so badly abused today in our judicial system, was intended to be a protection against arbitrary arrest.
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, And in the old days, in the spirit of the Magna Carta, yeah, that's what it's supposed to be.
Unfortunately, the law right now is administered by people like Morris Dees and Robert Mueller.
And the so-called Department of Justice, which is a laugh.
And so we've come a long way from those days when the law was really a shield and not a sword.
This is The Birds.
The Birds.
The Birds.
Then pretty boy grabbed the law machine, the deputy grabbed the gun, and in the fight that followed, he laid that deputy down.
And he ran through the trees and bushes, he lived a life in strange.
Every crime in Oklahoma Was added to his name He ran through the trees and bushes On the Canadian River shore And many starving farmer Opened up his store Was in Oklahoma City It was on a Christmas day We're
The letter that could say You say that I'm an outlaw You say that I'm a thief We'll use Christmas dinner For families on relief As through this life you travel You'll meet some funny men Some will ride to you with a six gun Some will be a
thousand men As through this life you ramble As through this life you roll You'll never see And I'd love to take a family from your home I'd love
to take a family from your home I'd love to take a family from your home Good evening, comrades.
Tonight I'm going to be discussing the Jewish peril, Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.
Supposedly, according to this famous treatise, these are said to be the writings of Sergal Nihilists, but supposedly some of these ideas are also taken from university lectures of Jewish students.
And not surprisingly, this document was rumored to have been stolen from a Freemason.
So a lot of smoke there where Freemasons are concerned.
Because the content of this is certainly inflammatory, the editor does urge moderation.
Needless to say, many...
Many people believe, any serious scholars, they will today believe that this work is a forgery.
Nevertheless, forgery or otherwise, it is a foretaste of things that were to come, and in particular the Russian Revolution, because the work did surface in Russia in 1905.
It was said to be a favorite of Tsar Nicholas.
Protocols, of course, detail a route to power for Jewish agents.
First of all, the authority of the aristocracy is to be torn down.
This, of course, is to be done essentially by the press or, of course, other forms of media.
The aim of all this, of course, is to make...
Ordinary Gentiles see monarchs as really nothing special.
And these Gentiles, who are really not very smart, are to believe themselves to be on a road to great freedoms.
However, these abstract freedoms would really We really only concern various frivolities and worldly materialism.
Also, too, these Gentiles should be made to believe that there's really a great diversity of opinion that exists, and of all these opinions, they can choose freely.
But in actuality, the puppet master would be behind all angles of an issue, whether it should be a liberal point of view or a point of view that would be seemingly conservative, or a kind of false conservatism, one would suppose.
To this end...
Behind the scenes, only the most servile of political upstarts would be able to get anywhere in government.
The point of all this is really the fact that, according to this treatise, the individuals that really knew how to govern were the aristocrats.
However, the commoners don't really know how to govern.
They really won't understand the long-term issues.
That's what the Jews really want.
They want incompetent leadership.
They also like to promote anything that tends to reduce religious faith.
And this religious faith would be largely replaced by science and reason.
Wars, when they were fought, according to these protocols, should not produce any changes in territory.
However, there would be increasing international rights, and these rights would tend to erase borders.
Now, you have to understand that these protocols are very much designed for the long term.
So, they would take at least 100 years to be fully fledged, and maybe even more than 100 years.
So, this is a very long view.
Now, of course, while they were busily doing all of this, the Jews would certainly take into account various characters and tendencies of various nations.
And, of course, this would be to best tailor the results.
Now, another thing that would be important in bringing about these changes would be the law, because the letter of the law is, by necessity, very narrow.
Consequently, the Jews want to promote this notion of criminal rights, and they want to do all this to make sure that there's increased chaos in society, both with the open borders and things like eroding religion, eroding social mores, maybe more crime in some cases, just to increase chaos overall.
The society has degenerated into this chaos.
Then they want to actually reverse and take away these liberties that they had been promoting.
The end result of this, according to these protocols, is a king that would come about that would replace the Pope.
This king would essentially have no property because essentially everything would belong to him.
And also his air.
Now, if anyone were to see all of this coming down the pike, or some version of this coming down the pike, then that person would be viewed as really something of an eccentric, something of a kook.
And so they would be dismissed by the general public and, of course, by the press.
This is something that Harold has talked about.
He's talked about how people like us always look nutty no matter what, so sometimes it might be fun to embrace the nuttiness and just sort of have fun with it.
I tend to disagree with this.
My view is to stick...
To opinions that are in a way more solid, more proven.
I don't like to go out on too many limbs with a lot of way-out conspiracy theories because I don't want to play into these hands of seeming like just sort of an eccentric.
So I really like to seem in a way as normal as possible.
The other thing about this society is that people would tend to want to maintain the various social norms that they had been trained to have, that they'd been manipulated to have by the press.
And as a result, people would essentially spy on each other.
We do have to understand that bringing about this type of society is something of a religious obligation for Jews.
So I suppose we should have the generosity of understanding in this.
However, of course, these protocols are meant to serve essentially as a warning for Gentiles.
I think that certainly these protocols are important in terms of the history of the last century.
But I think even more importantly, whether you're going to say they're a forgery, whether you're going to believe in them, the fact is that in many respects, they really do describe the world today.
So a large part of me does see this as a bitch.
Too much of a coincidence.
So, when Harold sent me this book, even though I, like many other people, would pretty much assume that I know what's in it, I was very excited to read it and bring it to you.
So, I hope you enjoyed this discussion.
Have a good evening and hail victory comrades.
We'll be right back.
We'll be right back.
This is the trucker coming at you from Tennessee this time.
And a doctor doing delivery out here.
And I just got some couple updates from the Mrs. Trucker and the trucker's daughter.
I guess there's two new businesses opening up in the Kitsap County area.
One up in Silverdale and the other one in Bremerton.
I don't know the name of the establishments, but I guess one's going to be one of those box store tractor supply places, and the other one's going to be a box store kind of like a farm supply store.
So, those of you in the retail industry that might fit that billet, go in.
This is kind of a heads up that you can...
If you're going to be moseying out this way, there's going to be some jobs opening up.
One of the places there in...
The east side, as they call it, of Bremerton.
The old Eagle or Lowe's hardware store is the location that one of them is going into.
So if you know of the size of Lowe's, it's a pretty good sized facility.
Probably about the same size, say a Walmart medium-sized or so Walmart Supercenter.
So it's not going to be any little itty-bitty place.
It's going to be halfway decent.
They've got a big-ass parking lot there.
I haven't heard about anything going in at the other end of the plaza where the old Kmart store used to be at.
But yeah, I saw they were at that location when I was home just about a week ago that they were putting in the pillars and the fencing bars type thing around the outdoor display area.
Like I say, I'm not sure.
At that point in time, I didn't know whether that was going to be.
What it was going to be, but it's going to be one of the two, either the tractor supply type outlet or the farm store supply center.
And the other one's going to be opening up in Silverdale at the old Albertsons grocery store location.
I haven't been by that one, so I'm not sure how the progress is going on that, but I would imagine the one in East Bremerton will probably be opening up in the next couple of months, more than likely.
Like I say, they're just wrapping up construction, and they've got to stock it yet, put all the shelving in, and all the rest of that internal stuff.
So, those of you that are looking for work that might fit your billet, there you go.
Alright, well, this is Trucker, signing off from another little segment from the road, stuff from the driver's seat.
Alright, have a good one, comrades.
Hope to see you out there on the road, making your scouting trip and your migration soon.
This is the Trucker signing off from Tennessee.
We'll see you next time.
We'll see you next time.
Because it was done by me, completely ad lib.
No script.
Just sat down and ran off at the mouth for an hour.
So, if it sounded like I made a few flubs, that's why.
I've been talking about some of the ways that the law was applied to human situations in Aryan societies of the past.
And while I was gabbling on, I mentioned Bill White's theory that the law today is actually rabbinical.
No, that's not just an expression or the usual anti-Jew conspiracy theorizing that our people engage in.
It's a very astute observation.
The law today is indeed rabbinical.
What Bill means is that we have to live with and work around this huge mass of laws that we're all supposed to bow down to and obey.
So massive and complicated that it's almost impossible for anyone in America and the Western world as a whole to go for a single day without breaking some law or other in some way, often without even realizing it.
How the hell are we supposed to survive in a society like that, surrounded by skulking monsters of law enforcement and bureaucracy and the entire predatory legal profession?
Where the slightest unconscious or unavoidable slip can get you pulled into the mangling machine, shredded, and at the very least drained of every penny and every single thing of value you own.
We are compelled to use and pay for the services of rabbis.
Lesser rabbis called attorneys and greater rabbis called judges.
These sages interpret the law like a Jewish rabbi interprets the Torah or the Talmud.
By the way, that's what the Talmud is, a collection of rabbinical commentaries down through the centuries, wherein all these old guys in skullcaps and beards give their interpretation of what Jewish religious law really means, like the British and their common law.
When one judicial rabbi rules against you, the only thing you can do is appeal to another rabbi or panel of rabbis and hope that they will rule differently.
Questions of fact, like guilt or innocence, never enter into the process.
Bill White has repeatedly and at great effort provided the courts with clear technical evidence by IT experts that he never owned or operated a certain Facebook account and that he is in fact innocent of all the charges against him.
The 91-year-old judge at his sentencing in Virginia stated openly from the bench that he believed Bill White to be innocent and that he was being persecuted for his political beliefs.
And then proceeded to sentence him anyway, apparently as a pure and cynical act of judicial terrorism, pour encourager les autres, to frighten other people away from saying or thinking anything critical of this country's policies or the people who run it.
At several points during Bill White's martyrdom of the past ten years, the courts and federal law enforcement have more or less admitted that they fabricated the whole thing, and that Bill is in fact innocent of all their charges.
That these people all knew Bill to be innocent makes the fact that he was brutally tortured in an unsuccessful attempt to coerce a guilty plea even more egregious.
I'd like to close by reminding you that yes, we do have a better way.
In our draft constitution for the Northwest Republic, not only do we abolish lawyers as a class, but there is no judicial branch of government at all.
When a legal issue arises, the citizens of the Northwest Republic will be able to appeal directly to the lawgiver, and not to some rabbi in a black robe who will offer his personal interpretation of the law to be thrown onto the whole stack of what's gone before and further add to the confusion.
Interpretation of the law will be done by the Constitutional Committee of the National Convention or Parliament, which will be a board of senior deputies in the first few years, I would assume, veterans of the War of Independence, and later on military veterans and genuine public servants of the type that the United States doesn't produce anymore.
Men who are entitled to interpret the Constitution and the law of the homeland because they have offered up their lives for it.
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