All Episodes
Previous Next
April 4, 2019 - Radio Free Nortwest - H.A. Covington
38:40
20190404_rfn
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Oh, then tell me, Sean O 'Farrell, tell me why you hurry so.
Hush, O 'Farrell, hush and listen, and his cheeks were all aglow.
I bear orders from the captain, get you ready quick and soon, for the bikes 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 the north to you and me One word more for
signal, token, whistle Out 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.
Wish your heart.
Greetings from the Northwest homeland, comrades.
The date is Thursday.
April 4th, 2019.
I'm Andy Donner, and you're listening to Radio Free Northwest.
Radio Free Northwest.
It is with no small measure of sadness that the Northwest Front must announce to you all that this week, Comrade Don Welke, whom you've all heard on this program as well as a number of call-in shows and panel discussions, has passed away.
Details we deem appropriate for Radio Free Northwest will be covered another episode.
For now, I will just say that I, the HQ Group, and the rest of the Northwest Front deeply mourn his passing.
As I said, we'll eulogize him later, but I do need to point out this puts all of us in a rather significant bind.
You see, I have 500 things going on in the background, and a number of personal items on top of that.
Further, the party was just about to turn a corner on a project in which Don Welke was actually the key person.
And on top of that, all the others in the HQ group have 500 other things going on as well as their personal lives too.
So, my RFN commentary plan for this week is simply getting axed.
I deeply regret that, because in particular I wanted to cover the waking people up canard, because multiple serious people asked multiple serious questions about precisely that, and I should treat it in the manner it deserves.
As I said, I find this regrettable, but it is what it is.
Firstly, I want to thank our usual contributors for their material this week as it's proven especially important because otherwise we would have had a very content-like show.
As we're already running reruns twice a month or more sometimes, I really, really didn't want to do that.
So again, Gretchen Trucker, thank you both.
I also want to thank Comrade Jason for pinch-hitting and putting the show together and providing other materials and editing as needed.
There is yet another comrade who will go unnamed, for obvious reason, who dealt with the initial brunt of the issue of Donald Welke's passing.
I must profusely thank this comrade because he's also the one who dealt with the immediate brunt of the problems dealing with Harold Covington's passing, and I find it very unfortunate I have to continually expect this of this person.
Comrade, you know who you are, and the party wouldn't be here right now without you.
Now, as I said, this has put me personally in a bind, because I need to do my part in helping the HQ group out during this transition, and I've got other things to do.
Thankfully, we should have a panel discussion ready for you this week, and Comrade Jason will take care of that from here.
Thank you all, and be well.
Greetings, Comrades.
As Andy mentioned, the front took a hit this week with the loss of Comrade Don.
I really appreciated Don.
He and I shared an electrical engineering background.
Had both worked on technological defense projects, and were both heavily into history, sociology, philosophy, and many other important intellectual areas.
He was a good guy, a good conversationalist, and I was thoroughly enjoying working with him in the headquarters group.
I had intended to have my own original piece for this week's RFN, but, honestly, Don's death has hit me right in the head, and so that did not come to fruition.
RFN is a creatively intensive effort, and it's just not been a week for that.
I'll have some good stuff for you next time.
This time we do have all original content from our other contributors, as well as a continuation of the discussion panel, just as Andy has said.
So let's begin, and I'll have a few comments afterward.
Here's the Trucker.
Greetings, comrades.
This is the Trucker coming at you from South San Francisco.
I tried to go and do a recording earlier in the week, but for some reason or other it wouldn't send because I have a new tablet and downloaded a new app and all that, so I've got to go and figure it out.
So hopefully this one will send because I've been technologically challenged here recently.
I had my tablet had a screensaver on it.
Or a screen protector, excuse me.
It wasn't cracked, but the tablet ended up with stress cracks in one of the corners, and it was really twitchy and kept doing weird stuff, so I had to have it replaced.
So, this is my replacement tablet, so hopefully this works.
But anyway...
Here lately, over the past, what, month or so that I haven't been able to send out audio files and tidbits and make submissions to the podcast, I've hit a few challenges here on the road with this lovely winter weather that we're having coming up on a load going from California up to North Dakota.
I ended up having a snowstorm roll through and shut down the Island Park area of Idaho, which is by West Yellowstone.
Yeah, there was probably a dozen or so truckers.
They've got a story about that in the news.
Got shut down.
They'd pull over to go and do their mandatory 10-hour break and woke up and had snowdrifts all around them, and the roads were closed, and they ended up having to sit there for the better part of a week, waiting for the storm to pass, the winds to die down, and the road department to get out there and plow and snow blow the roads so they could continue on their way.
They were running out of fuel and food and all that kind of crap.
So those of you who are actually planning on making a scouting trip or migration to the homeland, that's one of the reasons Mr. Covington always recommends you wait until at least springtime, if not the beginning of summer, to plan and do your trip to the homeland here.
So anyway, yeah, that's a really good idea.
Now that the spring is hit and the weather's starting to warm up, well, you got the other hazard instead of snow-covered, slippery, and closed roads.
Now you have the liquid version of that in the plain states where the roads are being flooded and roads and bridges are being washed out, train tracks are being washed out, and all that kind of crap.
Now you have that to contend with flooding.
Please plan accordingly.
And hopefully be able to see out here on the road, making your scouting trip and hopefully your migration soon and safely.
Alright, this is the Trucker signing off from South San Francisco.
go.
Have a good one, comrades, and take it easy and drive safe.
We'll be right back.
We'll be right back.
Tonight I'm going to be discussing Sex and Society in Nazi Germany by Hans-Peter Buell.
Now, obviously, this is a book that deals with the 30s and 40s in terms of Germany.
But it's also a book that was written in the 1970s, and of course in the 1970s there were lots of issues regarding divorce, for example, regarding women getting more involved in the workplace.
So, in some respects, you could see this book as written in that light and perhaps discussing some of the sociological concerns of the 70s, but doing it through the light of the 30s and 40s in Germany.
The good thing is that this book is going to deal with the divisions between theory and practice, which always exists no matter where or when.
But even more specifically, National Socialism tends to be an eclectic view because you're always going to have the exoteric and the esoteric understandings of it.
On the one hand, it's a movement that does tend to attract conservative individuals.
These are individuals who generally love the idea of moral standards and they're kind of solid and middle class in some sense.
On the other hand, the movement itself could easily be described as somewhat Nietzschean because it's interested in power and it really wants to create a new aristocracy.
And sometimes aristocracies can be unbound by parochial notions.
In this case, you tend to have varied points of view, and everyone has their own perception of what National Socialism is.
For example, Hitler himself in this book is quoted as saying that he hates prudishness and moral pride.
But on the other hand, you had a pastor by the name of Selman who rejoiced when he saw prostitution vanishing.
The author notes that in some ways the Reich was kind of trying to be a counteraction to certain issues of modernity.
But on the other hand, there were times when modernity could come to the aid of the programs of the Reich.
And the author mentions this question of education.
During the 20s and 30s, you had more women in Western Europe that were coming more into the workplace.
As a result of that, their children...
We're more likely to go off to school or to go off to some afternoon activities.
When National Socialism was coming about, it was easier for these children to be propagandized.
However, it's also interesting to note that some of the assumptions that we make today in the current year, oftentimes we talk about, for example, in American politics currently, how we tend to see women as being more liberal than men.
And it seems to be true right now and in America, but back in the 20s and 30s, the reverse was often true, because when women got the vote, for example in Germany, the conservative and religious parties gained a number of votes from that.
And in fact, Hitler found a lot of financial support in the form of wealthy older women.
He sometimes mused that these supporters dwelt in eternal truth and that they were using their intuition.
Now, the author does note that, of course, everyone in the Reich was supposed to be in a state of subordination to the government and to the state.
To that end, many festivals were held, and one way of looking at this is that when an avatar comes to the earth, it's not only to vanquish evildoers, but it's also to bring joy to devotees.
There are many opportunities for this.
The author notes that for everyone, these festivals would take up their time, and of course the author sees these festivals as a kind of emotional manipulation.
More and more as we get into the mid-30s and certainly by 1936, there's this very strong notion of the youth leading youth.
And more and more there was an emphasis on people getting into party activity at a very young age, hopefully by the age of six.
But because there was a lack of suitable child care, It was decided that it was more practical to wait until a child attained the age of 10. Now, the author notes that the youth were so preoccupied with the H.J. and B.D.M.
activities and leadership that oftentimes their schoolwork could suffer.
But teachers were discouraged from punishing these youth with poor grades because really, at the end of the day, political activity was considered really more important than, say, spelling and mathematics.
The author mentions that the plans of the Reich were, of course, very ambitious, needless to say, and there were many building projects.
Now, as a result, there were many foreign workers around, and the author points out that this could result in a double standard.
Sometimes, Eastern European women could become married to German men.
However, German girls and women who took to foreigners found their behavior very much frowned upon, and they could easily be subject to a certain public humiliation, which was often very harsh.
Now, the author notes that at this time, also too, just amongst Germans, there was a lot of socializing, particularly amongst the youth, and the author notes that there were a lot of H.J. schools.
And oftentimes the BDM girls might go to these schools and they might end up serving, for example, as they might be nurses or they might become waitstaff or they'll go to rallies.
And the author notes there's a lot of fraternization between adolescent boys and girls.
The author notes that oftentimes there's a lot of teen pregnancies.
What happens is that this is a very, of course, a more buttoned-up time than we're in right now.
There's this gap between they don't really like illegitimacy all that much, but they want to increase the birth rate.
And so illegitimacy is less and less frowned upon.
In fact, more and more they just want to increase population.
You could look at the case of Martin Borman, who had an ideal marriage, what was considered at that time to be an ideologically ideal marriage.
And with his wife's permission, he actually entered into something called an emergency marriage, in which he took another wife.
So this notion of eugenics was really giving men a certain carte blanche.
Also, too, as the conditions deteriorated, as the war was drawing to a close and things were clearly not going well, there were a lot of youths that were more and more out of control.
And sometimes they really got tired of the regime.
So if you've ever seen that movie Swing Kids, and when I say swing, I'm referring to dance.
I'm not referring to stuff that went on in the 60s and 70s.
But that movie seemed almost cartoonishly fake in a way.
However, according to this author, apparently there were clubs in Germany of young teenagers who were Anglophiles and...
They would dance swing, among other activities.
Clearly this book is not designed to idealize the Reich.
This is designed as a sociological critique of those times.
I can see where someone in the early 70s might write a critique dealing with the question of social mores.
And so again, this book was entitled Sex and Society in Nazi Germany by Hans-Peter Buell.
And this is actually a book that you don't have to buy.
You might find it at a library, but you could also find it on Amazon, perhaps at a discount.
So I hope you enjoyed this discussion, and have a good evening and hail victory, comrades.
You're welcome.
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.
This is the absolute case.
By and large, societally, civilizationally, over the last hundreds of years, etc., it goes back even to the Greeks and the Romans, the fundamental genesis of our collective Western world.
A big thing that we focus on is the truth of things, the truth of how the world actually works.
Anyone who expects to interact with the world in an effective way, if you are operating your society divorced from The truths of the world, natural law.
You inevitably will get yourself into trouble.
This is ripe for discussion in other future roundtables because of how our current society is set up, basically built on fundamental lies about human nature and society.
I don't want to go there right now.
What I do want to say with this discussion is that this is fascinating.
This is something I had heard before, which challenged my upbringing as a full-blooded, full-throated, patriotic American with the standard American mythos.
That, you know, we're learning right now some of the details of, you know, didn't exactly go that way.
Like they say, history is written by the victors.
And, you know, once you win, you can spin things any way that you want.
To Don's point, you know, it's been said throughout time in various ways.
Chairman Mao himself knew and understood and said this.
He wasn't white.
He was one of the most successful politicians and leaders in world history, taking that ragtag band of communists that had fled thousands of miles across China, rebuilding it, coming back, and taking control of the most populous nation on the planet.
You cannot deny the efficacy of what that man knew.
One of the things he said was, political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
That is the way it is.
And it's a flat fact.
It is a flat fact.
So one of the things I want to get to was Andy's initial characterization, which is his opinion of Americanism.
As a whole, because what we have here is one of the things we are fighting for is an establishment of a proper and stable conception of a white nation out of the American project, which has been taken over, actively undermined and destroyed and is failing and is going to collapse.
So when we build something beyond that after America, we need to understand what America was and what it is in truth.
And in the mythos of our people, because that is one of the things that is still operative in America now.
The white people that we can convert, they still have a firm belief in America, the potential of America, what they think it represented in the past, what they think it will represent in the future or could.
So as those illusions collapse, we need to be able to properly pick up the pieces.
My question to Andy is, your conception of Americanism, the way loyal Americans, people that we would want, people have the capacity for loyalty to our people.
Those kosher conservatives, those people who voted for Donald Trump, and I made this point earlier off microphone, in Europe, those people who listen in our brother and sister nations around the world, if you truly don't understand the election of Donald Trump, it does boil down to basically one thing, which is that it was a loyalty election.
It has become apparent in America, just like it's becoming apparent in Europe, that our elites are not loyal to the people that they serve.
One entire half of the political sphere and spectrum in America, the Democrats, are easily seen to be not loyal to America the nation, America the people, the conception of America that most people have, the mythos of America.
They don't want it.
They don't like it.
They want to undermine it, change it, and destroy it forever.
That was seen by the American people.
It is felt here more than it has ever been.
That explains Donald Trump's election more than anything else.
The rallying cries to lock up his opponent, right?
Spontaneously burst out at his elections.
Lock her up.
Lock her up.
They're talking about Hillary Clinton, of course.
A Marxist, internationalist, America-hating politician of the managerial elite who cares not for the people but professes to do so.
Complete charlatan.
We wanted her locked up because she's obviously disloyal to the nation.
Donald Trump's election, the wall, it's all about protecting this nation, America first.
That's loyalty.
People responded to it.
To Andy and anyone else who might want to talk about it, what is the American conception that you object to currently that would not work for us or that we have to fight against?
And that, you know, what are your thoughts on that?
AJ's got a thought.
I've got to interject here.
Part of the problem with America is the Zog, Zionist Occupied Government.
This is what Americans revolted to when they elected Trump.
Although he does have his issues.
The man is an out-and-out Zionist regardless.
He always has been.
Yes, but he is seen and perceived as loyal to America, and I do believe he is, to his understanding and conception of what that is now.
Now, I think he's a more Americanist in my vein, accepting the mythos of America, and this is what I'm talking about.
Your mythos has a lot of power.
So it currently still has a lot of power over Americans that, once they understand, could be rolled into white nationalism and giving their energy and effort to something true and real, which is the realities of the white situation, the racial struggle.
Diverting that from America, as Harold said, And with the standard patriots.
I have always said something.
When I say, you know, other people in the movement have said this before, I have, but I'll repeat it.
Kill your inner wigger.
And what I mean by that is, first, stop being American, and then stop being American.
And two points that were just made.
One, the Zog issue, and two, America as founded.
There are two things I want to bring up there.
First, there's a pretty reasonable, unfortunately, it looks like it's true.
Well, Hero has pointed this out before, but there were always Jews in America.
And it's also the case that it appears as though the actual purpose of Christopher Columbus's voyage, as much as I hate to admit this, it looks like it's pretty sound, and I could be wrong.
Somebody out there who wants to correct me on this, do so please with a reference, because I'd like to be wrong about this.
It very much looks like that surreptitiously had the purpose of creating another Israel for the Jews after they were being booted from Spain in 1492, because that was the same year that Queen Isabel...
deliberately booted the Jews.
And so there were a lot of Christopher Columbus's voyage, his backers were Jews trying to look for another place to live.
And so part of the problem is Oh, right.
Oh, right, yes.
And you'll note that the party's website, northwestfront.org, has pages about our proposed draft constitution.
It is not a federalist system.
It is, in fact, one of the things Hitler did in Germany that worked very well was to eliminate corruption and eliminate confusion in the law was to centralize power.
He actually cut down a whole lot of regulations.
You know, contrary to a kosher conservative's understanding of national Germany, Hitler actually made...
Very few new regulations.
What he did is he got rid of all of the old corrupt stuff and just had a few rules, but everybody had to abide by the few rules.
And that's very much part of the model for the NAR is that type of government is very effective.
Don, I understand you're a bit of a Russophile and Putin is doing a bit of the same thing there now.
And you've studied it more than anybody here.
You happen to think it's working very well.
And at first glance, I would agree that that sort of eliminating corruption by having a very small number of rules that everybody has to abide by and nothing else.
I don't know that Putin has reduced the number of rules.
He may have.
I have to look into that.
But what he has done is reduced the power of the regional authorities and centralized the power into Moscow, which is what you said, and that is accurate.
And I think that is to the benefit of Russia, to the strength of Russia, to the stability of their government and their society.
I agree.
Is that because that works against localized corruption?
That's precisely why.
Yes.
Okay, that does kind of go against my instinct in a lot of Americanism, which the Anti-Federalists, who did establish a Bill of Rights, which protected the states and the people in many excellent ways that we still benefit from, they would want a less centralized government.
So this tension between the two, there are certainly some benefits.
Russia has a history of corruption in many ways that is societally endemic to them for lots of different reasons.
We could talk about that someday.
But the point is, corruption in America, Well, you have to compare the difference between the United States and current Russia, the Russian Federation.
The Russian Federation, Russia, is still recovering from the effects of communism.
They've come a long way, maybe, but they're still recovering.
And their futures, if they continue on the path they're on, looks like they're very bright.
They're getting richer and stronger, and they maintain stability, both economic and political stability.
So, that's my take on that.
What do you think this would mean for the NAR, though, with regard to the strong central government?
Well, that's a very good question, because there's still a bit of a dichotomy where the way this is expected to play out is that there's a strong central government that makes all the rules everybody follows, and there is no such thing as a local legislature.
There is, however, a local sheriff.
That's in charge of the Civil Guard in a particular region.
And it's very important, even though I'm a marked anti-federalist myself, I freely admit that it's very important for locals to be able to choose who enforces the laws.
Because, you know, these laws, as much as a legalist would want the law as the law and it needs to be the law and it shouldn't be subjective, and I agree in most cases it shouldn't be subjective, the fact of the matter is that you need somebody that knows the people he's policing in order for things to be reasonable and fair, because there has to be...
It's not that I'm a moral relativist or I think that laws should be ignored because I think there should be very few that are rigorously enforced.
But the fact of the matter is that the representative of the law needs to be respected by the community he's policing.
And because of that, the community needs to have a say in who they deal with on a day-to-day basis.
So there will be locally elected sheriffs, but they will be enforcing the law that the National Convention gives them.
So coming back to Americanism and how that plays into the kind of perceptions we need to overcome, perhaps, to break people away from that.
To a new conception of an all-white nation.
And I want to ask you a question.
I'm curious, your reaction just immediately on that subject, how many people listening to us right now even know that there is such a thing as an anti-federalist?
It's not in our conversation any longer.
It's not really mentioned and referenced in our popular culture and our media.
And why do you think I would ask?
Because most of the people that are so super pro-America don't even know that there is another option.
And that by itself is disconcerting.
Right.
It's one of the things that have been dropped from the American conversation and the generalized ignorance all across the nation about our founding fathers.
Now, let's talk more about our founding fathers.
And even the mythos that, you know, patriotic Americans do have, the ignorance around even what they think they know is huge.
So let's talk about, like, say, you know, we've briefly mentioned the Constitutional Convention, where we actually got the current form of our document.
I will say that, of the founding felons, that all of them have their pluses and minuses.
Even George Washington, as bad as some of the things he did, did some very useful things, and we wouldn't have the United States of America if we assumed that that's a good thing without him.
Well, and it's also the case that, not to detract from what you're saying, but just to clarify, Lenin...
As awful as he was and as Marxist as he was, I have to admire him simply because he is the most effective revolutionary in history.
That's just a flat fact.
Not to take away from what you're saying, because you're right, but it's also true of everyone.
Now, so I want to pull up a quote by one John Adams.
We all remember him.
Now, regardless of what someone thinks of religion, I want to make it very plain that I'm generally pro-religion and I'm not in any way critiquing someone's stance, whether it be pro, against, Christian, pagan, whatever.
We really need to point out that the vast majority of people that constructed what we think of as America were Christians.
It simply needs to be understood so we can understand the perspective that some of them were bringing to the table.
Now, John Adams said at one point, quote, And this is the especially important sentence, quote, Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
Unquote.
Now, we need to understand the culture of America at that particular time.
And Jason has repeatedly referenced American exceptionalism, and we need to define what that is.
Now, there's the, and to be fair to Rush Limbaugh, as much as I can't stand the man, he actually has this right.
What's exceptional about America is, among other things, as we've referenced today, the First and Second Amendment.
Throughout history, nobody, with the exception of America, has had a governing document that purports to restrain the government from doing things to the people.
And that is very much true, that America, in that respect, is wonderfully unique in all of world history.
And I'm saying this partly to acknowledge the observations that have been made by others here, but also to point out that I am not one-sided in this.
I'm trying to be objective about this.
In that I'm about to level some very shocking criticisms, which I have paused to reference sources for, so that we know for a fact we're getting this right here.
There is a book that briefly discusses some aspects of the history of the forming of America's political life.
Now, I need to preface this observation that this book is partly shit.
The expression, I believe, is chew the meat, spit out the bones, and I need you all to do that here.
This book I'm referencing...
Leftism Revisited by Erich von Kuhnert-Ledden.
He's an European aristocrat that came over here, I can't remember when, shortly after World War II, I believe.
Now, I'm not going to bother spelling that name for you.
Just Google Leftism Revisited.
The subtitle of this book, and you'll understand why I say this is a bit of a crock, is From de Saad and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot.
Now, disclaimer.
This idiot, and I'm putting him in the idiot category even though I'm telling you to read his book, is of the opinion that Hitler was left-wing.
Now, this is one of those, he's playing to American kosher conservatives.
That's what he was doing with this book.
But he, in his thought, is genuinely right-wing, even though on this point he is out to lunch.
He doesn't get it.
He misses it.
And this is part of the problem when I say stop being American and stop being American is that, well, you'll understand what I mean in a moment here, but basically...
One of the early chapters in this book deals with some more interesting events during America's political founding, particularly the Constitutional Convention.
You've all heard this anecdote that following the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin emerged, and a woman asked him, what do we have, sir, a monarchy or a republic?
And his response, very famously, was a republic, madam, if you can keep it.
Now, precisely what went on during the Constitutional Convention?
I have to absolutely insist that Again, particularly, this is not me criticizing Christianity in any way.
I'm actually very friendly to Christianity.
I was raised in what I consider to be a very good religious environment, but there's a particularly an evangelical whitewashing of these events that has, at this point, infiltrated into popular culture that is a myth around our Constitution.
Our Constitution, what we have today, is the last viable compromise before the entire convention would have fallen apart.
It is by no means anybody's best effort.
And I want to reference something.
The quote earlier that I read from John Adams points out that, okay, so these men were Christians, almost exclusively.
And there were a few deists and some non-religious people and one or two atheists there, if I remember correctly.
They were represented.
But, regardless of someone's opinion, there is a decidedly Christian bent to the Constitution in certain ways.
Now, they didn't explicitly make Christianity the religion of the Republic, but, as I point out, and most of you will be familiar with this, that influence is there.
And here's the problem.
Christian men, in theory, and I'm going to say this because it was the pattern, for those of you who don't know, it was a pattern for a very long time in legislatures all around the country and in the National Congress that somebody had to prove what they were doing with a scriptural reference, which I think is a little bit frightening.
Were you not aware of that?
It was that way for decades, that somebody had to prove what they were doing out of the Bible.
Yes.
Really?
Again, this is just, that's, I'm not trying to down religion, I'm not trying to up religion, just, that's kind of how the evangelical community has educated itself about this, using actual references from founding fathers.
So, someone with that bent.
Certainly, especially when John Adams was clearly saying that this Constitution is fit only for a moral and religious people, well, there's a bit of a problem there.
Now, anybody that grew up in a Christian environment will have a particular ideological bent and a particular religious bent that the heart of man is deceitfully wicked.
Who can know it?
And to that I say clearly not John Adams.
See, this is the problem, is that those of you that are religious, and even those of you who aren't, should refresh themselves with...
The contents of the 13th chapter of the Book of Romans.
It's in the New Testament.
It actually talks about what, from a Christian perspective, a government is, and it's the purpose of a government to see to it people don't break the law.
And that isn't necessarily, especially in modern times, for a Christian wouldn't look at that as enforcing Israelite dietary laws, but they would say things like don't murder, don't steal, so on and so forth.
And so a Christian...
Any sort of reasonable Christian, which a whole bunch of especially evangelicals tend to think the founding fathers were rather than a bunch of founding felons, no Christian can credibly say, I wrote a governing document that is only good when people are good because one of the central tenets of Christianity is people are bad.
So if this is the best we can get from an assembly full of Christians, it's an absolute crock because the people who wrote it knew better than to come up with a document like that.
I think I'll conclude the panel discussion segment there.
It's not the greatest break, but it's the most natural one in the material without carrying it out another 10 minutes.
Some of the most important points from this panel are to come in the next segment, and I'll roll in my commentary on this material in addition to what follows next time.
As we deal with another important loss to the front the rest of this week and next, I do want to assure you that work beyond RFN continues in other important areas of reorganization.
Which will gain the front new capabilities for the mid-year that is coming quickly upon us.
And we'll talk with you more about those things when the time arrives.
For now, thank you again for listening, comrades, and we'll talk to you again next time.
Have a great week.
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