All Episodes
Previous Next
March 7, 2019 - Radio Free Nortwest - H.A. Covington
46:59
20190307_rfn
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Oh, then tell me, Sean O 'Farrell, tell me why you hurry so.
Hush, a woogle, hush and listen, and his cheeks were all aglow.
I bear orders from the captain, get you ready quick and soon, for the pikes must be together by the rising of the moon.
By the rising of the moon, by the rising of the moon For the pikes must be together by the rising of the moon Oh, then tell me, Sean O'Farrell, where the gathering is to be In the old spot by the
river, right well known to you and me One word more for signal, token, whistle of an arching tune For your pike upon your shoulder by the rising of the moon By the rising of the moon, by the rising of the moon With your heart.
Greetings from the Northwest Homeland, comrades.
The date is Thursday, March 7th, 2019.
I'm Andy Donner, and this is Radio Free Northwest.
Radio Free Northwest.
As one could frequently quote Harold Covington saying, while he was alive, something has come up.
And what that means is, the amount of time I had for Radio Free Northwest this week has been severely slashed.
This being a big Q&A episode, that means at least one of the major questions I was asked is not going to be addressed today.
As much as I dislike that, looking back on it, it's actually a good thing, because the item getting cut is the waking people up discussion.
That item needs to be dealt with correctly and carefully, and since I don't have the time this week, we're all going to benefit in kind of a roundabout way.
You see, the issue of a potential Northwest Front Discord server has been brought up, and having planned that material and that answer very carefully, it's going to take more time than I initially thought it would.
As this is actually a more important item, it needs to be addressed this week and not next, so I'm primarily going to focus on that.
Having said all that, on to the matter of the Discord server.
A few weeks back, a commenter to Radio Free Northwest asked whether or not he himself should start a Discord server since he'd been mulling the idea over.
Immediately following the question being posed, an email discussion among the HQ group was initiated to figure out an appropriate answer.
That appropriate answer was unfortunately never delivered.
And before I get deep into the subject, I want to explain what happened.
Here's how that conversation went.
Out of the people who actively participated, one person posed the question to the rest of the group.
One person came back with a, I like your response type of answer.
Yet another person decided to say, um, this might be a bad idea.
Everyone else actually stayed quiet while I came back with an answer of, no, no, no, do not do this.
This must not happen.
There's an important reason why, and I'll tell you later.
I happened to be busy that day.
And wouldn't you know it, my email didn't make it to anybody else.
What I want you to take away from that, especially at the request of the rest of the HQ group, is that everyone involved was doing their level best to make absolutely certain a useful and accurate answer was given in a timely fashion, and, well, stuff happens sometimes.
It is what it is.
Anyhow, as I said, I had a very good and specific reason for not wanting someone to do anything like creating a Northwest Front Discord server.
And no, it doesn't have anything to do with Discord partnering with NGOs and handing out people's personal information, although that in and of itself is an excellent reason to avoid Discord.
I was aware of that, but that wasn't my primary focus, and someone else, also in RFN comments, pointed that out.
Whoever you were, good on you because that was important as well.
We've brought this issue up recently, and Comrade Jason was compelled to bring it up again in response to the question about the Discord server, and we don't like it when people just take the name and do their own thing with it.
I'm sure no one means anything by that, but it has been enough of a problem in the past that Jason rightly brought that up and said, hey, could you please be careful to make sure people know you're not the Northwest Front or speaking for the Northwest Front officially?
And, of course, that matters too, but even more important is an episode of Radio Free Northwest.
Harold and I did what feels like a very long time ago now regarding Matt Hale and the Asheville Six.
This particular episode was produced in response to someone asking me an incredibly unfortunate and ill-advised question over Facebook of all places.
I'm not going to go into detail on what that show contains, but I am going to tell you why it's important and I'm going to make sure that it's linked in the comments of this RFN as soon as we publish it, simply so that everyone remotely interested can go right there and give it a listen.
I suggest every single one of you do so because it may literally save your life or at the very least keep you out of prison.
And that is the real reason I didn't want someone to create a Discord server or any other similar thing.
Now, if that sounds like melodrama or that I'm overblowing something for the sake of keeping someone from doing something I think they shouldn't, again, please go listen to that particular episode of RFN before you tell me that.
The view from 30,000 feet is this.
Despite what I'm sure are good intentions, it's far too easy for someone to slip up, especially in real-time communication settings such as Discord, be it text, voice, whatever, it's far too easy for one of us to slip up and say something stupid or outright illegal or risque or whatever.
Bear in mind, Matt Hale is sitting in prison today, and will be for a very, very long time, all for typing a completely innocent phrase into a chatroom where someone had said something they shouldn't.
And in the case of the Asheville Six, all of those people got some shockingly long prison sentences just because one idiot couldn't be told to shut up when he was saying things that ought not be said.
It's the case with far too many new and younger white nationalists that that information is not common knowledge, and for that reason alone, I wanted to make sure that none of us indicated that it was a good idea to create some sort of real-time networking environment that one individual in particular would have responsibility for.
Thankfully, the guy who set up the Discord server has since deleted it and made that public knowledge.
That was a good move, even if you didn't know all this, and once again, I have to thank the other guy in RFN comments who made it plain that Discord itself is not a good place for white nationalists.
I want to make it plain that I'm not saying any of the people, or in particular the guy who created said Discord server, are ignorant or naive or ill-intentioned or anything like that.
Far from it.
It's just that there's a particular answer to this question that I wasn't able to give, and that my email, regrettably, prevented me from communicating to the rest of the HQ group, and that's the reason the response given was the response given.
Quite the opposite, actually.
The people who try to do these things for us are almost always on the up-and-up, and are, as this individual was and as he made plain, simply trying to help.
That sort of thing is always appreciated, but...
Even in the case of non-networking and non-socializing applications, a number of people take it on themselves to do things for the party and do so badly or with mistakes in them or in ways we would not want done, and it's very difficult to walk those things back.
Now, for this reason, I suggest thinking twice and maybe even a third time about any such efforts, and seeing to it you get a hold of the party in such a way that we're not pressed for a response in public, so that we can actually talk these things over with you, should any of you want to try any of these things.
And lest any of you think I'm being overly cautious about this, I need to remind you all of something Harold tried to hint at before his death.
There are, for sure, one...
And possibly more individuals slinking around the perimeter of the Northwest Front who are, well, legitimate white nationalists that simply can't control themselves and have a habit of running off at the mouth whenever they're around other white nationalists about things that, quite frankly, landed the Asheville Six in jail and quite possibly some of the things that inadvertently got Matt Hale put in prison for, again, no fault of his own.
So no, I'm actually giving you perfectly good advice that we know is valid, because there are those among us, and I use the term us loosely because these people have made it plain they don't actually want to be in the Northwest Front, even though they hang around for some reason, that will create precisely the conditions Harold and I discuss in that RFN episode I keep telling you to go listen to.
It's true that the HQ group and I have committed ourselves to a more useful and helpful tone and method of interaction with you all going forward, and I'm going to be as careful as I can in choosing my words here.
I think you'll see why.
One thing the Northwest Front, and several of us involved in particular, have tried to impress on you all is that there are, in fact, historical cycles in white nationalism, and they are regrettably predictable.
Without being overly critical, yet being candid, it's certainly the case that the latest batch of white nationalists who are people that are actually leaving the alt-right to be real white nationalists are remarkably politically and historically ignorant.
Now, to their credit, they're doing something about that.
Don't think I don't notice.
But even so, this is all the more important for me to talk about today because, again, Matt Hale and the Asheville Six are things we need to have burned into our brains and never forget about because the unawareness of a threat is something that would create that exact instance all over again just with new actors in the picture.
We've got to avoid that, and this is my actual intended response that I said I would share with everyone when I got the time to do so.
And with that, I think I have exhausted everyone's patience on this matter, so I'm going to stop.
Don't think I don't appreciate you all listening this far in because these things do matter, and I'm saying them for your safety.
As a result of all this, though, there is a slightly different matter that came up, and I want to make sure it's addressed as plainly as can be.
The guy who deleted the Discord server followed up in the same RFN comment thread, indicating that he was a little bit bummed because he didn't think there was much else he could do to contribute until he himself came home.
I don't want you to worry about that, and not just because you can't do something, but rather, you can.
You see, we, the Northwest Front, and those involved are all individuals, and our individual strengths are what matter most right now, and it will be that way for a very, very long time.
Whatever you can do to improve yourself personally is of immense help to us.
It may not feel like it right now, and that may not be what you wanted to hear, but let me put it to you this way.
Anything you think you want to do, learn, experience, or acquire as a skill can be done while you're making your own homecoming.
I know that because migration is a long haul.
It took me just over a year myself, and in that time, I decided there were a number of things I needed to learn, particularly about history and about the theory of how it is we want to bring the Northwest American Republic into existence.
When I wasn't off my job doing what I needed to do in my free hours to make my migration actually happen, I was spending time learning subjects I thought important.
The concern you're expressing comes from a genuinely great place.
And don't let your lack of imminent homecoming stop you from picking something like I picked something during my own homecoming to develop about yourself.
Personal development, after all, is something nobody, nobody can take away from you, and it's always long-term beneficial.
Now, because you've got a block of time before your migration, this is an excellent time to plan something like that and make it happen for yourself.
Some of the advice Harold also gives is stop watching television and don't waste time on the internet unless you're applying for jobs, planning a scouting trip, or actually implementing your move with online resources.
Having listened to this material through the editing process, I needed to jump back in here and correct something.
I may sound insincere or otherwise patronizing, and I want to assure you all I'm not.
I'm not saying these things solely to lift someone's spirits.
Rather, this is genuinely applicable and important.
You see, one of white nationalism's flaws as a group is that we are way too concerned with what other people are doing and what we think others should be doing instead of what we ourselves are doing and planning to do.
One of the things Harold and I have always asked of people is that they be introspective enough to determine what they themselves need to work on about themselves or do for themselves, because that is always quite a bit more productive and in the long run useful to all of white nationalism than it is to insist other people do things that you yourself haven't done.
I genuinely hope this has been helpful, not just to the guy who was concerned about this, but to everyone who's concerned about their own homecomings.
Music by Ben Thede Good evening, comrades.
Tonight I'm going to be talking about a handbook for right-wing youth by Julius Evola.
As we know, this author can be somewhat weak on bioethnic matters, but in this simple book designed to speak to the youth, he's really at his best.
Throughout this book, the author is going to use the term, the right, and so I'll be using this term as well as I talk about this.
Now, the first point that is made about traditional societies, Is that in those cases, traditionalism or the right never needed any kind of tool to explain itself because it was merely ambient throughout daily life.
So when there came a point that the so-called right finally needed to explain itself, it was easier for individuals to pick up the tools.
Of the left, because these tools had already been developed and were just available.
Now, Evola never exactly specifies what these tools are, but in contemporary times, I think about things like Ian Stewart's music, for example, how he was using that style of music that is really very non-traditional to be an educational and propaganda tool.
Now, of course, Evola, being the traditionalist that he is, he's really very suspicious of these tools, and he calls them infected.
Of course, the next point that he would make in these essays, and I'm sure that's very clear to all of us, is that bourgeois is really not the true writer, the true traditionalism.
Because the bourgeois is already full of democratic and other somewhat leftist and revolutionary ideas stemming from the time of the French Revolution and onward.
And so he's really not talking about that kind of conservatism that many people think of today with, for example, some mainstream Republicans.
One of the most interesting points I think made in this book is this notion of the test of the air, how the right should not just be a reaction against something, but it should be a vocation in and of itself.
Now, like many traditionalists, this author is all for the ideal of an austere life.
And very suspicious of ease, very suspicious of the materialism that he sees America is representing, sees Americanism as a real Trojan horse.
Now, because Evola is such a radical anti-materialist, he's also very much anti-Darwinist, which is a strange position for a modern racialist to take.
But then, as we all know, Evola is rather weak on biology, and therefore how racialist he is is really rather questionable.
Now, very much like Archerygy, Evola is against any notion of a revolution from below.
But this author is also realistic enough to question whether there would be, in today's world, revolution from above.
Although, as I've said, this is a similar idea to the type of ideas that Archirigy has, Archirigy is, of course, a more contemporary author.
Ever since 2016, our Cherokee has become much more optimistic about contemporary leadership, whereas Evola is writing these essays throughout the 50s, 60s, and 70s, and he's responding, of course, to that time frame.
Now, he's mainly talking in this book about the youth in Italy, but he also mentions the youth in Germany and Russia.
And he compares them and says that in a certain respect, they've both found a certain new sparseness in life, although in some ways I would say this is even more true, I would think, of the Germans than of the Russians, where they've come to a point where there is a lot less religious belief.
They've potentially lost faith in leadership.
And again, I would say that would be particularly true of Germans probably in the 50s and 60s in those times.
He also talks about a certain loss of social roles.
So there's a sense of these young people being somewhat adrift.
But it's almost as though the author is taking some solace in this because he sees these young people as looking at life as a blank slate, in a sense.
And he also speaks about going beyond the intellect and trying to regain some sort of more instinctive sensibility.
Now, this author also talks about how some people, especially Italians, might actually look to the work of Machiavelli, but Evola fears that such a philosophy could lead to notions of society that could be run by mere force, and this could create a society that would actually become Too similar to communism.
Also, Avola talks about how some young people might be against this notion of a high-tech society.
But he says it's ironic that these young people will protest that society within the structure of the university.
Because if you're really against the high-tech industrialized society, Then don't go to the university because the university will only turn you into an individual who is ready to fit in to such a society.
Now, Vola also has some advice about hobbies that he thinks young people should take on, and he's very suspicious of most hobbies.
But he likes the idea of mountaineering, again without modern equipment, as I probably said before.
He likes the idea of parachuting and also authentic Japanese martial arts, addressing the term authentic.
And he also thinks that there is a certain type of dueling called mensur dueling, which he thinks is appropriate for young people.
So I hope you enjoyed this discussion.
I know I've talked about some of Evola's works before, and I know that they're always a classic.
And certainly I think giving advice to young people is always worthwhile.
So I thank you for listening.
Have a good evening and hail victory, comrades.
The End Thank you.
Unfortunately, I ran a little long with the Discord thing this week, and I don't have nearly as much time as I want due to my jam-packed schedule and that thing that came up to record another Q&A item.
It was my intention to address an issue someone asked about how they represent the Northwest Front when they're confronted with complaints about Harold Covington himself.
I can't fully answer that this show, but I at least want to drop a couple of hints.
The biggest hint I can give you is that you get your hands on a document called A Brief History of the White Nationalist Movement.
Contrary to popular opinion, Harold Covington did not write this, though his work is cribbed in a couple of places such that it helps form the body of the document.
I know Harold didn't ask this because he's never once lied to me, and sometime before his death, I point-blank asked him and told him I wouldn't fault him if he did write it but claimed he didn't.
The fact of the matter is, no, he did not construct most of that material, and he can't even vouch for some of it firsthand, despite his years in the movement, I might add.
That document will give you a very good overview of what these issues are about, and I want to make it clear I'm talking about the white character issue.
Harold always said that if someone really wanted to know what another white nationalist beef with him was, just tell him who the person is and he can tell you why they're angry with him.
Unfortunately, that's true of quite a few people still in the movement.
Most of what's in that document I don't have first-hand knowledge of, but unfortunately, some of the more salacious material has actually been verified by disinterested third parties in the media, with actual facts and actual proof not as smear jobs to make white nationalism look bad.
White nationalists, as you will find, do a good enough job of that themselves.
What I can tell you about conflicts other white nationalists have had with Harold Covington is this.
Over the years, many, many people got a hold of us to tell us, and sometimes me specifically since they won't talk to Harold, why it is they're disinterested in the Northwest Imperative and the reasons aren't what you might think.
Out of all the people who tell us such things, perhaps the most common complaint was, the person telling us is a longtime white nationalist, and in fact, they are just mad that Harold Covington is involved, even if they know the Northwest Imperative is right.
Shortly after Harold's death, I predicted that we would, in fact, not see these people come around, and I was right.
But even so, here's another of the hints I want to give you.
During my own homecoming, I struggled with the issue of Harold Covington as a person quite a bit.
Because I was primarily focused on what was and was not good for white people, I decided that even if Harold Covington is quite literally the son of Satan, which he most certainly isn't, there's a certain moral obligation to ignore all of that and do what needs to be done to preserve our race.
This is especially important to point out because if someone actually has the race's best interest at heart, they'd be up here regardless of their opinion of Harold Covington, especially now that he's dead.
It might sound like I'm being a bit of a blowhard right now, in retrospect, but I'm not, and here's why.
We often talk about cycles in movement history, just as I did several minutes ago, and truth be told, this has happened before.
There are periodic attempts at engaging in so-called white unity, where certain fearless leaders' transgressions are said to be not worth remembering because the race is, in fact, more important.
Now, this is Harold's opponents telling us this long before I have told you the same thing.
That white character issue really is a gotcha in almost every single case, and I'm not sure what else I can do to make it plain that that's really what we're talking about here is the white character issue rather than an issue of individual personalities.
For those of you hooked on system politics, and, well, even those of you not, here's an analogy.
It's always the Republicans who have to compromise when bipartisanship Or unity, or the country, or whatever is at stake, even though it's the Democrats always leveling the accusation that the other party is not bipartisan or not concerned with the well-being of the country first and foremost, so on and so forth.
That's more or less this whole subject for you.
No matter how many times there's ample proof from every direction about major white nationalist leaders doing things that really ought not be done by anybody, but especially a white nationalist leader, the Northwest Front, Harold Covington, and now myself are told we need to drop it because white unity, the race is more important, so on and so forth.
But when there's an actual plan that would actually stop white genocide, especially in the absence of anything resembling such from any other party, I don't think so.
You see where this is going.
Now, I will cover this more in depth at a future date, but unfortunately, there's not really a good angle to be had here, because we are talking about the white character issue, and until we're willing to face that down primarily in ourselves, we're going to keep running up against just that thing.
Sorry, but that's how it is.
I'm about to play the beginning of a very, very long panel discussion.
This panel discussion is about America as a concept, and whether or not we as white nationalists should care one lick about it at this point in history.
In my opinion, the largest disaster of the alt-right wasn't even its moral failings in a lot of cases, but rather it ginned people up to participate in system politics as if they would actually have any bearing on our situation.
If I weren't more pressed for time this week, I'd add further commentary, but I think I'd rather let you all ingest at least one or two of these before I start in on that long-promised 2016 election post-mortem.
In truth, I've wanted to get into that material for a very, very long time, but I've always worried about the timing simply because I need to be taken seriously.
Now, thankfully, we've seen enough current events that the Trump presidency has progressed exactly as the predictions made on Radio Free Northwest many years before Donald Trump himself was even a political figure.
Sit back, enjoy, and see if you don't learn something.
What we're about to present on Radio Free Northwest in the coming weeks may be some of the most important material American white nationalists ever hear, because how we all collectively choose to react to this may determine whether or not our race will survive on this continent.
it.
Thank you.
So, Don, towards the end of that conversation about that letter, shared an interesting observation, and we were at a dinner some years back in a supporter and party associate's house in Portland, and he shared the observation that He thought, in the NAR, we should encourage neighborhoods and sections of cities and maybe even streets and blocks to be somewhat ethnically white, obviously, as he said.
But, you know, if you're Scottish, be Scottish.
Oh, that's the Italian street.
Oh, that's the German neighborhood, and so on and so forth.
Don indicated to us that the reaction he got the first time he proposed that idea was quite a bit of disagreement, and most of the people present thought that we could just be American for the sake of being American, which is very strange because we're talking about the Northwest Republic, not necessarily America.
But I made some remarks in response to that, and Jason thought my remarks were especially interesting, so we might have an interesting conversation here, but I will briefly let Don share his thought more completely, and then we'll go from there.
Okay, I want to start off with correcting a misperception while I agree.
That the NAR ought to encourage ethnic neighborhoods, ethnic cities even, towns and what all.
That wasn't what I said at this get-together in Portland.
What I said was that this sort of ethnic solidarity, this ethnic unity, this ethnic purity, homogeneity gives Europeans an advantage over Americans when it comes to resisting the Jew, resisting their attempts to corrupt their society, to take control.
And it also helps them by giving them something common that they can rally around when they want to organize and fight back, and that this was stronger among ethnic groups than it is among the white population in the United States as a whole.
Most people at the meeting disagreed with that.
Having said that, there was one woman who was ethnically Scotch, and she agreed with me.
And one of the things that prompted me to say that...
It was her and her son, who were quite openly displaying their ethnicity.
And I was surprised to get such a negative reaction, and I expect to get more negative reactions as a result of this being broadcast.
I expect people to disagree with me.
Nevertheless, that's the way it appears to me.
And I think that if you look...
At organizations historically, for example, we see ethnic homogeneity.
Mormons are primarily English in ancestry.
This is certainly how they started out, and they were successful.
Not only because they had this unique religious idea that united them, but they were also already ethnically homogeneous.
And we see other examples throughout history.
And this unity is, I think, a very strong advantage to have.
And we ought to make use of it.
In the United States, we don't have that as a group in the United States.
white people as white people don't have that strong unity that ethnic homogeneity gives one.
But I think that we can, by encouraging it, create a stronger white nationalist movement in the United States.
Well, I don't disagree at all.
In fact, I emphatically agree.
And the remark I made during the break was that, in my opinion, the entire concept of America and Americanism is absolute BS.
And I have...
Very specific reasons for saying that.
I'm not arbitrarily just throwing that out there.
But more to Don's point specifically, you know, my background on my father's side is a little bit of Swiss and nearly all German, which is basically German.
And my background on my mother's side is a sliver of Irish and German.
So a lot of people that have known me, especially in the context of the Northwest Front and white nationalism, have pointed out that I am markedly German in my outlook on everything.
But I want to emphasize, you know, we in white nationalism point out that you have to start with race and genetics, and then you get society and culture, and then you get individuals that exhibit traits of their society and culture.
And I have to point out that I wasn't raised to be German anything.
I barely knew that I was genetically German.
Yet everything I do and my approach to problem solving and engineering solutions and how society ought to be organized is markedly German.
In fact, a lot of my ideas that I developed myself without knowing that I was white nationalist or even inclined heavily towards national socialism were outright national socialist.
And I realize, to quote Stefan Molyneux, who I hate with a passion, but to quote him because he's right on this, the plural of anecdote is not data, but even so...
There's good anecdotal evidence that what Don is suggesting has a basis in physical reality, and I will further note that if I were living around a whole bunch of people that were Germanically inclined in one way or another, I would not be upset if a little ways over there there were a whole bunch of Italians, and if further north there were some English and Scots, and that just would not bother me.
I would not be remotely bothered by this, and I would look at that as being completely normal and would not be remotely upset at knowing that, oh yeah, those people over there aren't quite like me, but they're still white.
Well, coming at it from a different mindset, being French and Scottish, a.k.a.
an attitude problem in a kilt, looking at the Statue of Liberty for so many years and realizing that that's just another tool that the kikes, especially a certain kike S, put a little note on the bottom about the mixing pot.
That was a Jewish trick to control, to interfere with societal cohesion.
To redefine America.
In their own image and control.
Yes.
Where we need to be ourselves without their influence.
Yeah, that's a good point.
The conception of America, you ask people what that would be today, you would get a lot of very strange concepts that would be unrecognizable to the Founding Fathers and our previous generations.
I want to go to what Andy was going to talk about a little bit that would spur maybe some of my own commentary once I get to hear his perspectives on it, which is when he says the The concept of Americanism, as he sees it, if you're going to use a little more polite terminology, he'd say he finds nothing in it.
I would say it's ideologically bankrupt.
What do you mean by that?
I'm very interested in hearing that.
This is not a discussion we have had before.
It'd be quite fruitful to go down that direction.
Well, you know, I've presented some of this material before on RFN, but again, we love space repetition because, as Jason points out, we do need to make sure we get these concepts correct.
I have actually gotten quite a bit of criticism on this point every time I've brought it up with references and facts that you can cross-check and reflecting on Harold's death.
A couple months before that, we replayed a segment on RFN where I called the Founding Fathers the Founding Felons, and a couple people have asked me about that since then, and...
We all learned, even if you're in a super conservative circle or even just a libertarian type of environment, we all learned a very whitewashed version of American history.
And so we think about certain things as being heroic or ideologically inspired when in fact they were not.
You have some examples?
Like I said, we haven't talked about this before.
This is something that I wish I could remember the name of the author.
There are three things in my mind, the tripod of real Americana.
The first is that George Washington is no hero.
He was directly responsible for starting the French and Indian War that the Brits had to pay for.
And paying for that, strictly speaking, the American Revolution was a disagreement over some very reasonable policies on both sides.
Where the Crown wanted to be paid back by taxes for a war that defended the That we got ourselves into somehow?
Really?
Particularly so we started that war and the Crown had every right to say, you idiots over there started a major war and we expect you to pay us back.
Okay, interesting.
How'd that happen?
AJ sounds like you know something about that too.
Go for it, AJ.
Well, looking back, I can trace my history back to about 1670 when ancestors came over from France.
I guess I've got a slightly different view of the whole Americana idea.
To me, it really doesn't ring that...
Patriotic.
To me, it's kind of a facade.
A lot of it, I'd say, is directly Jew-inspired.
It's greed wrapped up in a flag.
Yeah.
Actually, I'll briefly...
Details, guys.
I'll briefly add this.
I'll make one more claim, and then we'll explain it.
If there is such a thing as an American dream, it's avoiding the consequences of your actions, and I think that's consistent through all of American history, and now we will explain as you're asking.
AJ, continue.
Again, relatives that were in the quickback.
It came down through New York over the years, but from the, I guess you could say, the French perspective in Quebec, the whole American Revolutionary thing really didn't mean that much there, and after all said and done, yeah, we just threw off one oppression for another oppression.
All right, well, I'll briefly explain more about what AJ's talking about.
There's a presentation, and again, I can't stand Stefan Molyneux just because he's a walking contradiction for several reasons.
But he did a presentation called The Truth About George Washington, and I was familiar with some, but not all of that through other sources.
And as it turns out, George Washington played a major part in starting the French and Indian War as a very badly behaved and very treacherous British officer in his earlier life.
And this idea that he was a humble servant of the people was absolutely wrong.
Basically, he deliberately murdered a French diplomat.
And so here's the problem.
That should absolutely not have happened, especially since George Washington was a British officer at that point.
What did he do?
I can't remember.
How many times?
It was just one that I'm aware of, but it turned into this massive...
It was an event that was snowballed by the fact that he tried to cover it up, so the British were like, we don't know what happened.
And if the British had just said, yeah, this one jackass officer killed your diplomat, it probably wouldn't have, like...
Why did he kill the diplomat?
I can't remember off the top of my head.
It was basically he was in a...
I can't remember what caused him to...
He was under orders not to do that, and he was fully aware that he'd run into a French diplomatic party.
And that he basically decided he was just going to have the men under his command kill them all.
I don't remember what the impetus was.
Was this during the French and Indian War?
No, this started it.
This started it.
Basically, George Washington was just out for military glory is what it came down to.
There are some other details there.
But he was just out for military glory, so he ran into a French diplomatic escort.
What I will tell everybody is go find Stéphane Molyneux's presentation called The Truth About George Washington.
We can go into more detail about this in a later date.
I would like to add another example to support your thesis, Andy.
And that is the Whiskey Rebellion.
The story behind the Whiskey Rebellion is that there were farmers who were near the port and there were farmers who were far inland.
And the farmers who were far inland were away from the port, away from the city.
And so it was hard for them to get their product to market before it spoiled.
And so what they did to solve the problem was convert their grain into alcohol, which was portable and which didn't go bad.
And they could bring that to market.
And thereby, you know, compete on a more or less even playing field with the farmers who lived near the city.
Well, the farmers who lived near the city didn't like the competition, and so they got Washington to pass the tax, and, you know, that was to suppress them.
And, of course, the farmers didn't like being suppressed, and they rebelled, and Washington put it down.
There's another example.
So the source I'm looking at, just Googled it, you know, what I Googled was, George Washington killed French ambassador, which isn't quite necessarily what happened, but that's close enough.
And I will...
Go get a look at the man's name, just so we're all clear.
This happened May 28, 1754, and the officer that George Washington killed, along with his entire detachment, was Joseph Colon de Villiers de Jumonville, so Jumonville.
And what was going on is that, basically, George Washington was a military officer.
He'd made the rank of, I believe, major at this point, and he had been directed by the governor of...
I believe it was the Ohio region.
And Stéphane Molyneux's video explores this fully.
Part of what George Washington was on about was clearing the French out of that area because he wanted to grab the land for himself and his family.
So a lot of this was killing people for land.
So he had the opportunity to kill some Frenchies to make the French leave the area out of intimidation.
And this was totally against the orders he had been given.
Doubly so because they were not at war at the time.
And he encountered a diplomatic party.
Everybody should have been waving the white flag at this point.
There was no reason for anybody to fight.
All he was there to do was express military presence.
He was told to be on the defensive.
That's as good as coming from the crown, because at the time this is British territory.
The governor is appointed by the king.
So that order is effectively coming from the crown.
For a British officer to ignore an order coming directly from the governor is liable to get himself hung.
Yeah, that's big.
That's big.
Basically, George Washington was going to make his legacy and make a dynasty for himself of land in the lesser populated regions, which is what you do.
Anyway, so...
So he abused his position for personal gain.
Basically, he went on a murder rampage, and this is doubly bad because I know there are many different accounts of this incident, but everybody agrees on the fact that this is something George Washington himself later admitted, is that...
He could have stopped it, but he was too scared of the shooting to take any action.
His detachment was jumping a very small party by comparison of French and a few Indians here and there, and he could have, if he'd wanted to, ended it by issuing the order to cease fire to his troops.
But basically, no, he wasn't going to do that because he deliberately jumped this party because he saw some Frenchies he wanted to shoot.
The way he painted this incident and the way he described this to his superiors and the way the British powers were playing this...
The way they played this is what started the French and Indian War on the basis of George Washington telling lies about his violation of orders.
And it's worth noting that later, when the Continental Congress was being formed, we have this idea, this whitewashed opinion of George Washington that command was forced upon him.
He didn't want it.
There's the myth of George Washington.
The reluctant soldier?
The reluctant soldier.
The truth is, he went to every single one of those congressional meetings in military garb trying to vie for the position.
He's a genuine SOB.
He really is.
In fact, for those of you not an American wondering why I have such a bee in my bonnet about this, one of the buildings, and you can Google this, in Washington, D.C., has a mural on the roof, I believe it's on one of the domes, called the Apotheosis of George Washington.
And in English, that means the deification of George Washington.
So if you want to understand just how whitewashed George Washington is as a figure, there you go.
So anyway, that's one of the first things you need to understand about George Washington, is he started this war, and that war was, again, largely very stupid, because if the colonists had paid the taxes they owed, they very well would have ended up with members in Parliament.
The British powers were actually very friendly to the idea, it's just that...
You know, you need to pay your debts first.
You're a legitimate colony of ours.
You're important because however else you want to slice it, just objectively speaking, each one of the colonies was a power unto itself for different reasons.
The South, obviously, for farming, but there was important stuff going on in all of these colonies.
And it's not as if King George was stupid enough to think that he didn't want them on his side.
Well, this is very interesting.
This matches up with some things I have heard.
Now, by background, I was thoroughly steeped in My upbringing and a big buyer into American exceptionalism.
I still pretty much am, and I can objectively talk about that with certain things that do remain from this time that we still enjoy, that no one else and no other nation on the planet enjoys.
Freedom of speech being one of them, our Second Amendment is unique in the world.
Certain things like that, we are quite exceptional in many ways.
It's not the mythos that I was taught growing up.
So this is fascinating to me, and wanting to get the details was very important.
Well, so let me ask you this, just even about the Constitution.
Since we're moving on to that subject, would you briefly name that book again?
Oh, it's called...
I don't know if it's a book or an essay.
I think it is a book.
It's called The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner.
And he was a lawyer in the day.
He's from that time period.
And he writes very clearly, and the arguments are very easy to follow, and he tears apart the authority of the Constitution.
In fact, if you follow his logic, I don't see how any government anywhere can claim legitimacy or legal authority.
Which is, I don't know that I would go that far myself, but it's worth noting that the current constitution we have is unconstitutional.
And not within itself, but it's actually a—it was an outright revolution against the Articles of Confederation, because the Articles of Confederation were never legally done away with.
Now, before I go any further, I need to point out I'm not a sovereign citizen type or anything, and I don't refer to the Articles of Confederation as having any effect today, certainly no effect that someone would recognize, but it's worth pointing out that the—and you can research all of this in detail—the Constitutional Convention that produced the document we have today Was initiated under a certain set of rules, and then those rules were just cast aside to just outright revolt against the existing powers, and some colonies' representatives did not agree with this, namely Rhode Island.
And when the Rhode Islanders spoke up, it was made very plain to them they would either endorse this or the new country would impose a tariff on the foreign country of Rhode Island.
That's how serious this got.
Interesting.
So that there's a whole lot of coercion involved in this process, and they're...
What's a good way to go with this?
Basically, it's worth noting that, more or less, the American Revolution, there were legitimate complaints on both sides, and you can argue it was kind of inevitable simply because the Americans felt that they were not being treated correctly by the British, and in certain respects, you could argue that that's true.
I'm trying to be somewhat objective about this.
Might is right, and that's the bottom line of all governments.
All governments are based on force.
Interestingly enough...
George Washington, famous quote, What is government?
Government is not reason.
Government is force.
Radio Free Northwest is brought to you by the Northwest Front.
P.O. Box 2188, Bremerton, Washington, 98310.
You can visit the party on our website at www.northwestfront.org.
Until next week, hail victory.
▲
Export Selection