All Episodes
Previous Next
March 21, 2019 - Radio Free Nortwest - H.A. Covington
40:09
20190321_rfn
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Oh, then tell me, Sean O 'Farrell, tell me why you hurry so.
Hush-a-woopal, 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, rightful norm to you and me.
One word more for signal, token whistle of the marching 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.
Which am I?
Greetings from the Northwest homeland, comrades.
The date is Thursday, March 21st, 2019.
I'm Andy Donner, and you're listening to Radio Free Northwest.
I'm Andy Donner, and you're listening to Radio Free Northwest.
On this week's Radio Free Northwest, I had intended to continue a Q&A theme from the last time we produced another episode.
Unfortunately, we have been preempted by a major international news event.
I bet you can't guess which one.
That's right, the New Zealand mass shooting.
Before I get into the meat of this subject, I do need to issue the regular disclaimer.
Random and stupid illegal acts do not help our cause any, and you should not do them.
I'm not saying this because I personally don't want to get in trouble for something, especially because this time around I don't think I actually could, because the Northwest Front isn't even remotely related to what went on, but more importantly because I don't want any of you to repeat what went on and land yourselves in prison for the rest of your life, or even worse, killed, simply because you had to work something out of your system.
And now that I've said that, I want to issue another disclaimer.
As far as I know, I am still protected by Brandenburg v.
Ohio, and I can discuss what, in theory, is a good idea.
Actual revolutionary theory can be brought to bear on this subject based on the few things that we have been able to ascertain at this time.
And I say that simply because I'm recording this the weekend prior to this episode of Radio Free Northwest being produced, and the fact of the matter is the story could radically change between now and when you hear this.
Even so, I think most of my commentary is safe because I'm remarking on the manifesto that was produced prior to the shooting.
Very rarely, the white nationalist internet will manage to impress me.
After seeing what I've seen in the first couple of days following the shooting story, I'm absolutely astounded, and I mean that in a genuinely positive way.
The vast majority of people have seized on precisely the correct wording on the subject, and for the first time in a while, I'm actually encouraged at the sort of thought I see in the rank and file.
It's absolutely true that if the established powers are going to keep pushing and pushing and pushing to the point where, if we're to believe the shooter himself, he was avenging a white child who was killed with no recompense whatsoever, well, this is what's going to happen.
And for the record, no, I don't want these things to happen.
They're simply going to.
That has been the general attitude and the conversation taking place, and hats off to every single one of you for standing your ground on this and not backing down.
Because we're discussing what, in theory, I think should and possibly could happen, I'm in lockstep agreement with you on this.
The astute listeners among you will realize I just said a couple of things that may sound contradictory.
It's true.
Very few people actually involved in real white nationalism want violent things to occur, and that includes bloody revolution.
That may sound odd coming from the Northwest Front of all places, but again, what should happen and what I want are completely different things.
It is absolutely right, by any theory, that those under assault by hostile powers and hostile invaders should be able to protect themselves and avenge killings of their own as needed.
If nothing else, this is consistent with nature's law.
On top of that, I note that the Prime Minister of New Zealand has promised an increase to imported refugees.
One wonders what the logic is behind that, other than outright antagonizing people you are now aware are dangerous.
I don't advise random acts of violence, but I certainly don't advise heads of state to deliberately antagonize their base populations after such events occur.
Just to play devil's advocate here for a moment, because I find this subject genuinely amusing, One could easily turn this logic around and say that why would you import more refugees than you already are every single year if you think they'll be subject to these attacks?
All you're doing is further antagonizing people, but more importantly, you are increasing the chances that something like this may happen.
One wonders what politicians actually intend when they do these things.
I say that tongue-in-cheek because everyone listening to this program knows full well that white genocide is the goal, and how dare any of you ever say boo to any aspect of the New World Order agenda.
Despite knowing better, and knowing to expect such, I'm still flabbergasted by the response coming out of the kosher conservative and traditional American patriot set when these things happen.
Would any of you who love to celebrate America and our founding and our revolution know what the Sons of Liberty are?
You might want to give them a Google, because it turns out the revolution was started by absolute terrorists.
Yeah, here in America.
If these milquetoast, panty-waste, self-hating white assholes were here during 1776, they would have denounced the American Revolution on the basis of, well, whatever their justifications are right now.
Violence in and of itself...
is not inherently wrong, and again, I'm appealing to nature's law here.
After all, these very same immigrants have been responsible for killing white people just because they're white all over the world, and that has been a documented mainstream news item now for how many years?
You can't seriously expect us to say that it's wrong to do these sorts of things, right?
Many months ago, Hillary Clinton was quoted in the news as having said at some point the Democrat Party is going to have to do something to deal with illegal immigration and other demographic issues simply because she at least knows for a fact she can't keep antagonizing white people the way she does.
And because so many leaders have more or less admitted what's going on and have dedicated themselves to doubling down on this policy to shove this down white people's throats, I really don't think I need to keep commenting on that, but I did want to take time to cheer every single one of you on who has decided to not back down on this point.
What you just heard comprises one half of my commentary on this matter.
The other half of the commentary is issuing the customary criticisms of what was done, in addition to being a stupid illegal act.
The fact of the matter is the stupidity and illegality of this is particularly pronounced in light of the manifesto that was left behind.
I have only skimmed portions of that manifesto, but the fact of the matter is I found it very well written.
One part in particular of said manifesto indicated that the shooter had this idea of why isn't someone doing something?
Why isn't someone doing something and then apparently a switch flipped in his head and he decided he should do something.
Right up to that point, I absolutely agree with him.
But there are some subtleties here about revolutionary theory you need to understand.
If the shooter is to be believed and that manifesto is genuinely his, and I say all that because who can trust the mainstream media these days, right?
Anyway, if those words were genuinely his, he fully intended to draw attention to this cause.
Okay, well, he did that, and no, I'm not going to cuck on optics here.
The fact of the matter is nature's law is nature's law, and I'm not going to denounce nature's law just to appear as if I'm trying to play system politics, because I'm not.
Harold Covington had some old commentary about Joseph Stack, the man who flew his airplane into an IRS building.
That fireside chat of Harold's was especially important because he made an impassioned plea to every single one of us to not throw our lives away for empty gestures.
As we've reminded you plenty on Radio Free Northwest, this is not the early 1900s Europe, and we are not early 1900s Europeans.
Symbolic gestures don't work on modern white people.
Let's think back to the lectures Harold gave us on the revolutionary tripod.
Successful revolutions correctly handle all of the problems brought about by addressing the revolutionary tripod.
One of the legs of said tripod is the loss on the part of the occupying powers of the credible monopoly on armed force.
This is where random lone wolf stuff doesn't cut it.
I have referenced an actual authority, Harold Covington, who lived through these events and actually played a part in responding to them while he lived in Britain.
Secondly, the Northwest Front's recommended reading list contains many, many books by people who actually pulled off real-life revolutions, and having read all of them, I can assure you they would not approve of this.
No one of genuine import or nothing of genuine value was killed, hurt, destroyed, removed, or otherwise appropriated by an actual revolutionary power.
This was not a revolutionary act.
Now, to be completely fair to those involved in this, Even so,
I want to spell out the take-home point so that I'm very clear.
Don't break the law.
Especially don't break the law for the stupid reason of trying to draw attention to something because, as has been stated, not only does it not work on white people, the fact of the matter is this doesn't even help any revolutionary cause.
I want to reiterate that the United States Supreme Court, as yet, supports my right to talk about the theory of what I think should and could happen.
It should be the case that there is a functional revolutionary party here in the Pacific Northwest that will create an all-white, independent, sovereign nation here for the benefit of our people and only our people.
It should be the case that every single one of you understands that dealing with the revolutionary tripod has nothing to do with what we saw in the news lately.
Even in the best of revolutionary theory, violent acts are only a means to an end, rather than an end unto themselves.
Because if you want an actual revolution, this isn't how to pull it off.
It's true, in recent days we've seen governing bodies all over the world double down and triple down on the fact that they are going to force us to go away quietly, and they expect us to just accept what's going to happen to us.
It's awful, and it's wrong, and none of us deserve this, and you should absolutely be enraged.
That rage does not justify random stupid illegal acts that you should not perform, regardless of the circumstances.
Hello everyone, this is Comrade Jason.
I'm going to be holding off continuing the panel discussion we have been playing for you for the last several shows, and instead add my perspective to Andy's on the revenge attacks on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand this past week.
The attack on two mosques was carried out by a native Australian, who posted online his reasons for the attack in a 74-page manifesto, along with a message and link to a Facebook page where he announced that he was going to live-stream the attack.
Several hundred people supposedly watched it live, and copies were made which soon proliferated around the net.
Hysterical screamers from both right and left have been engaged in a fit of delirious outrage over the inability of big tech to completely suppress the most significant physical resistance to the Muslim invasions of our nations by any civilian individual white patriot that we have ever seen.
From a purely technical perspective, the attack was quite well executed and achieved an impressively substantial body count of at least 50 cultural and racial invaders as payback for Muslim attacks on our own people.
However, this event is not something to be celebrated, no matter how emotionally satisfying it may be to see the Muslims get back some of what they have been dishing out.
There is, of course, the common perspective that the worse things are, the better.
Meaning, the day of reckoning is brought closer the more quickly the oppression comes upon us.
There may be some validity to this argument.
Honestly, it's a tough call.
New Zealanders are certain to lose the rest of the few gun rights they have.
Calls for additional restrictions on gun rights will likely be renewed in Australia, and politicians in certain pantywaist blue states in America may ultimately try some more attempts at gun grabbing because of this event as well.
The entire kosher conservative and leftist white traitor world are once again screaming about evil white supremacy and hate, which, of course, comes from their natural instincts to police and try to control the thoughts and even the emotions of all the rest of us.
The normie world is currently in the process of losing its collective mind over this, as would be expected.
It is a pathetic and ridiculous spectacle.
But then again, so much of our world is nowadays.
Since Andy recorded his segment, quite naturally the discussion has kicked up about whether this was a genuine event or another false flag of the kind we know full well that the governments of the world and the international deep state stage from time to time.
The young man who carried out the attack, Brenton Tarrant, talked in his manifesto about how he had traveled the world after making some money in cryptocurrencies, and that what he saw firsthand of the Muslim takeover of white lands is what began his awakening, what our enemies, of course, call his quote-unquote radicalization.
People online are making much of the fact that he visited Israel and some other nations and locations that people find significant.
This week, the headquarters group has debated how much of this we should address in this week's Radio Free Northwest.
But really, the possibility of a false flag is almost immaterial to what we need to say regarding this event.
Almost the entire world will accept this as just what it appears to be at first glance.
And that is the important thing.
This world is no longer our own.
And the perspective most people will have on this will be gained from the media and information sources that are primarily in the hands of the enemies of the white race.
And it is with this perspective that I offer you the following.
It is a truth that must be faced that in the 20th century AD, our ancient enemies, the Jews, finally overcame the world-conquering white race and placed us under their thumb.
In the vast majority of our nations, we are now basically a slave race to their needs and agendas.
If we are going to free ourselves and our future generations, we need to understand how they overcame us.
They certainly did not overcome us through overt acts of random violence.
Yes, the Jews can be considered to have developed the modern scourge of terrorism.
Like so many Jewish innovations, it was designed to help them while hurting and weakening everyone else.
Irgun terrorists in Palestine carried out the first sustained modern terror campaign against the British in that territory.
Between the end of World War II and Israeli independence.
But we have to understand this was as a final stage tactic by organized resistance to get a colonial power thousands of miles away to finally give up a territory as not worth the trouble.
This final stage of the Jewish play for the Holy Land was only instituted after decades upon decades of propaganda work and social subversion on the international scene and in the hearts and minds of the world's populations.
Only in the end stage was that the proper time to roll out this kind of activity.
And, being brought in at the proper time, it was effective.
What happened last week in Christchurch was nothing close to this.
So no, the Jews did not subjugate us in this way.
How did they overcome us?
They overcame us socially.
They overcame us rhetorically.
They overcame us emotionally and mentally.
They were able to substitute a false morality of multiracialism and fake equality and anti-racism for the old Aryan moralities of virtue, honor, superiority, and excellence.
Primarily, they were able to do so through their money power, which allowed them to feed all their other efforts in their use of the media power and of governmental power.
Money is the most flexible and useful form of power in the world.
Surely you have heard of the golden rule.
He who has the gold makes the rules.
Acts of violence, whether terroristic acts like the Jewish bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946, or using your law courts to throw dissidents into your Jewish gulags and white supremacists into the isolation cells of an American supermax, are only one form of the exercise of worldly power, the power of the sword.
There are two others, the power of the pen and the power of money.
If you want to get another man to do what you want, there are only three ways.
You can convince him, you can buy him, or you can force him.
Media, money, and government.
These are the seats of worldly power, which determine the fates of all nations.
And where do Jews famously always go?
They always go to all three of these, exactly where you would expect them to.
They are a diaspora people, living in the lands of others.
Naturally, they will focus on their group's influence in the circles of power.
This really isn't a knock against that race, and subversion is to be expected from them, always, because of their history and because of who they are.
It's a bit pointless, really, to get mad at them for it.
The fault lies with us, who allow them to get away with it.
But the thing that we must understand is, that regardless of why they do what they do, the Jews overcame us by collectively and consciously getting their hands on all three levers of worldly power.
And the only way that we will now overcome them is to get our hands back on those levers of power in exactly the same way.
Disconnected, isolated, uncoordinated acts, like the Christ Church shooting, will no more save our civilization than the Muslim attacks we suffer with nowadays will overcome us.
At this point in the long struggle ahead of us, such attacks are a complete waste of time, and much worse, a waste of the most important and precious resource we have.
As Harold said, your race has greater need of you than to throw your life away to take out a meaningless handful of Jews, shitskins, or white race traitors.
So don't do it.
Do not give up your life for your people.
Give your life over to your people.
Do not take yourself out of the battle with a self-chosen suicide mission the way Brenton Tarrant did.
This was a young man who came to understand the full scope of the problem at only 28. In his manifesto, he wrote lucidly on one of the fundamental problems facing the white race, which is that in this soft, cozy world of safety which we have created for ourselves, whites are not having enough children.
We need 28-year-old racially aware and loyal white men and women living and working for 60 more years, raising families, enjoying grandchildren, and spending those 60 years helping other whites to become aware and pulling them back into our greater racial family again.
To recover the shared purpose that Jews have brainwashed out of us.
The last thing that we need is our people throwing themselves onto the bonfire that our enemies have made of our civilization and into which they want to cast us all anyway.
That is what Brenton Tarrant did.
He threw himself onto the funeral pyre and into the maws of the machine.
Do not follow him in.
However, he himself could have found a woman and had five kids and spent a lifetime of effort on behalf of his race, instead of doing what he did.
What is the potential denied our future from his life and all of his descendants who will now never be born because he threw his life away?
Make no mistake.
Brenton Tarrant is not a hero.
He did it wrong.
He has hurt us.
He is not a martyr to our cause and should not be considered to be one, for the obvious fact that he was not martyred.
Having made no provision for striking at the enemy and getting away with it, he allowed himself to be taken alive, and he has now realistically lost what remains of his life.
But spiritually speaking, he never intended to give his life for the cause or he would have done it.
This Christchurch attack was, in essence, little more than a publicity stunt.
Brenton Tarrant made his name for the history books, and the rest of us are going to pay for it.
It is an open question whether this act will do more harm than good.
But it is likely that it will do more harm than good.
Is it satisfying to see someone, somewhere, fight back in precisely the same way we are attacked by Mohammedan hordes?
To see their blood spilled the way they have been allowed to spill ours?
Of course it is.
It is gratifying in many visceral ways that I don't need to explain to you.
But the modern white man is already living far too much for his own immediate gratification and not for the future.
So we sure as hell don't need any more of that, do we?
Harold always said he could find 1,000 men to say they would give up their lives for the race before he would come across one who would truly work for it.
In our current situation, we do not need fighters.
At least not yet.
What we need is dedicated racial workers.
We don't need our best people throwing their lives away.
And Mr. Covington recorded probably the best segment on this ever written by any white nationalist.
It was about an incident in Austin, Texas, that actually happened about a mile and a half away from where I was living at the time.
He eventually asked me to produce a video to accompany it for YouTube called Joseph Stack and the Propaganda of the Deed.
Harold always was the most eloquent of us, so I think I'll let him drive the point home.
This is Harold Covington speaking, and the date is February 18, 2010.
This morning, at around 10 o 'clock Central Standard Time, a man named Joseph Stack crashed a light aircraft into the Internal Revenue Service offices in the Federal Building in Austin, Texas.
He left behind a long online manifesto, or final communication, In which he described, with great passion and somewhat less coherence, the shafting that, like so many white men of his generation, he received at the hands of the America he was raised to believe in.
At the present time the authorities are only admitting to Stack himself being dead.
Looks like the poor bastard didn't even manage to take a single bureaucrat in a suit with him.
It's not clear at this point whether Stack had any white racial leanings or not, but his is a condition of mind and soul we can all sympathize with.
To quote his own farewell address to the world, he said, "I have just had enough." In this he speaks for all white Americans, and his willingness to make his point by giving up his own life tells us that at least he meant what he said.
I've spoken before in my writings of what the radicals of the 19th century referred to as the propaganda of the deed.
Well, this was it.
Was his act a complete waste?
I hope not, but I'm not sanguine about his chances of accomplishing anything.
Americans mostly exist on a beavis and butthead level.
Symbolic gestures like stacks go right over their heads.
But I want to take this opportunity to speak to all of you out there, both men of Stack's generation and mine, and also to young white kids who have been raised under political correctness, and who understand that America no longer holds out any hope or any future for them.
Time and again, over the past 40 years, I've seen white men snap like this.
They go to a shopping mall or a former workplace, armed with a couple of semi-autos, and they come in the door smoking.
Or else just go off on a pointless spree, blasting anything black or brown that moves until the cops catch up with him, and either the guy gets shot by the police, or else he sticks the muzzle in his own mouth and he blows himself away.
I know that right now there are untold numbers of angry white males out there who have been driven to the point of homicidal rage by the terrible injustice, the unfairness, and the tyranny of mind, body, and spirit which is Obama's America in 2010.
I know some of you in the back of your minds are contemplating doing something of this nature.
You wouldn't be human if you weren't.
I know some of you listening to my voice right now are thinking in your desperation and your righteous rage at the wrongs that America has done to you that going out in a blaze of glory might just be worth it.
I'm telling you now, no, it isn't.
There are practical reasons why it isn't worth it, not the least being that there's no way you could possibly inflict enough damage on the enemy to justify the sacrifice of a single racially aware white life.
There are so few, so terribly few of us, and every one of you is precious to me and to our racial future.
If you were able to kill a hundred or a thousand street niggers or Mexicans or federal bureaucrats, the scales still wouldn't balance in our favor.
I'm reminded of the words of General George Patton, who said, Nobody ever won a war by dying for his country.
You win by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
You may reply, It's my life, and I can give it up when and how I want.
No, it isn't.
Your life belongs to your people and to the moment of history into which you have been born.
It is not yours to throw away.
The late Pastor Robert Miles once said, A racist is someone who knows who he is.
If you have attained the precious gift of racial consciousness, of knowing who you are, then it is your inescapable duty to use that consciousness to secure the existence of our people in the future for white children.
You are not in this for yourself, for your own benefit or your own private vengeance.
There have been ages in the past wherein white men were free to live for themselves and their own desires.
This time and place we live in is not one of them.
Many of you will have read my Northwest Independence novels, but I want to remind you of what I had a number of my characters say in all four of those books in one form or another.
The duty of a revolutionary is not to kill people, but to free people.
Our goal is to change the world, and all of our personal lives, actions, and decisions must be subordinated to that objective.
Any damn fool can die for his country and his cause.
Only a true patriot and a man of honor and integrity can find within himself the strength of character, the self-discipline, and the iron will to live for it.
That kind of moral strength and character is what I demand of everyone associated with the Northwest Front, and it is what all of you should demand of yourselves.
Transcription by CastingWords
you you Good evening, comrades.
Tonight I'm going to be discussing a classical treatise of political philosophy.
And this is a treatise that I had to read back when I was in college.
And I'm sure that we've all heard of it, if not actually read it ourselves.
And that would be The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli.
Now, this is a very detached political philosophy that has been attended by a bad reputation, and this is largely due to Cardinal Pohl's critique.
Also, some have blamed the Bartholomew's Day Massacre on this book.
However, it was actually written in a spirit of hope that Italy, and particularly Florence, because that seems to be the author's main concern, would get out of its cycle of war and foreign domination.
So this author wants to draw from history and wants to assume that human nature is constant.
Now, this author is similar to Evola in that they were both Italians that were very much taken by the ancient Romans.
Now, this author states that when a principality is newly acquired, it's very easy if the culture and language is much the same.
But if not, then perhaps the royal family and or also citizens should settle there.
And in this case, the citizenry can very much inform the royal house of the goings-on and the loyalty, and also there may start to be a blurring of the lines as these citizens become assimilated into the newly acquired territory.
The author talks about the need to make alliances with those less powerful than you.
And he makes note that you should not ally yourself with the more powerful because they'll basically take over and then you'll be doing their bidding.
When a prince, or I suppose a political leader, is coming to power, they may make use of those who really enjoy rebellion.
And it's good to use those people when you need them, but realize that they are probably not going to be your friend forever because they could just as easily turn on you as they turned on someone else.
Also, don't attempt to bribe anyone into friendship because that won't be reliable.
The subjects should always be kept united and loyal, and according to this author, it is best to allow citizens to bear arms.
However, an exception is made when a conquest is new.
In that case, you'll probably want to wait for some time before you would allow them to bear arms, perhaps several generations.
Also, too, it's really good for a prince to be frugal, unless you're up and coming, and then you might want to be seen as more generous.
Now, the author talks about being genuinely kind, faithful to one's word, and devout.
And the author talks about this as a kind of modality, not so much a false state, but a state that one can turn on and off whenever necessary, because you have to be the opposite when circumstances would demand it.
You also really want to seek to be esteemed because if you're esteemed then people are less likely to oppose you.
However, at the beginning you might want to take on some either fake or possibly limited opposition because then you'll be seen as overcoming this opposition.
Now if you're concerned about foreign influences then you'll want to In some way, physically or metaphorically, wall yourself off from these influences.
On the other hand, if you're more concerned with your own people, then any kind of fortress or walling off will do more harm than good.
This author talks about the quality of armed forces, and he talks about the differences between mercenaries, which of course are soldiers that are essentially being paid to fight, versus the auxiliary forces, which in his day would be a force that would come from another governing body.
Now, both of these substitute troops are somewhat dangerous for various different reasons.
Mercenaries are really doing fighting as more of a job than anything else, so they may be unwilling to take too many risks.
On the other hand, auxiliaries may show valor, but largely they're working for someone else, and so you never know their loyalties.
Now, the author talks about esteeming talent and showing up at local festivals.
So you want to be supportive of, of course, cultural enrichment and things that people enjoy and look forward to.
Also, too, if you have a new conquest, you don't want to change things like taxes or traditions.
So essentially, you don't want to get people up in arms about the little things that are going to be very upsetting to the average individual.
He also talks about the possibility of setting up an oligarchy.
And he talks about political ministers.
He says it's best for both princes and ministers to have an understanding of things for themselves and also to understand where other people are essentially coming from.
Now, the ideal minister would really need to be very selfless.
He knows that only a shrewd prince can really be well advised.
Of course, there's always certain weaknesses that are way hard to fix because the problem with individuals, every personality is going to have certain strengths and weaknesses, and every possible personality is essentially designed for certain circumstances and will fare well in some cases, but not so much in others.
So in this way, the author sees human nature as very often incomplete.
And he also realizes the problem that people are not always going to be honest.
And he's very realistic about this.
He realizes that sometimes the truth is really going to be wasted on some people, especially when those individuals only want the surface.
And they're really only ready to process something at their level.
So, unfortunately, this author sees honesty as something that should be reserved only for really the best individuals.
Now, the problem with this book and the reason it has such a bad reputation, it's really because it was written at a very religious time in history and very religious time and place, but it was really too honest for its day.
And that's really the reason this book has such a bad rap.
And people will even say that it was written by the devil, who was sometimes actually nicknamed Old Nick.
I found this book to be somewhat appropriate, I suppose, for this time of year, since I'm doing this review in October, so it can sort of dovetail with the whole bookie October theme.
But to be honest, this is really just a very wise and a very innovative political treatise that has a very early example of a kind of pragmatism.
So I found this book actually fascinating to reread because it was such a long time since I'd read it, and I think it has much to say about statecraft in a way that's very concise.
So I thank you for listening.
Have a good evening and hail victory, comrades.
*music*
Thank you, Gretchen, for that review.
The Prince is a classic and essential work of what has been termed real politic that helps us understand and effectively exercise the forms of power in our world to take it back from the Jews and their mentally enslaved anti-racist lackeys among our own people who now control things.
There is a really good meme that has made the rounds on the Internet for a few years now and captures a fundamental aspect of the birth and death of civilizations.
Hard times create strong men.
Strong men create good times.
Good times create weak men.
And weak men create hard times.
This can hardly be improved upon.
It captures the cyclical nature of all human endeavors and reminds us that every new generation has the ability to foolishly waste and overturn the achievements and progress of prior generations.
We cannot be complacent, and we cannot escape the need to continually fight for those things that must be preserved.
Human history shows that peace is always a temporary condition, and we need to realize that continual progress is not guaranteed.
History is full of examples of societies and civilizations that regressed and were lost.
From Machiavelli, we can gain a useful, hard-nosed attitude about what must be done in the political sphere to get beyond the racial delusions and soft sentimentalities of our present age.
The white man's technological mastery over science and nature have given us a civilization of amazing material comfort and safety, but it's not serving us particularly well at the moment.
The unlimited entertainments available to us now, into which so many of our young people seem to pour their lives, are wasting far too many of our efforts in life.
Whites need to stop distracting themselves from the unpleasantness of actually paying attention to where we are headed and get a grip in figuring out our prospects for survival and what it will realistically take to achieve it.
That's where we all will have to work together, globally, as a race, more effectively than we have ever done so before, to have a chance.
The Northwest Front is one of your best resources for developing the mentality and courage needed to work with your fellow Whites to build the shared vision that will be essential to our ultimate victory.
We are glad you are with us, and we will make it happen together.
Thanks for listening, comrades, and we will talk with you again soon.
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, comrades, hail victory!
▲
Export Selection