All Episodes
Previous Next
April 18, 2019 - Radio Free Nortwest - H.A. Covington
55:14
20190418_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 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 known to you and me.
One word more for signal, token, whistle, and 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, For your pike upon your shoulder by the rising of the moon, The date is Thursday, April 18th, 2019.
I'm Andy Donner, and this is Radio Free Northwest.
...the chest was rubbing for the blessed warming light.
The corn was passed along the valleys like the man she's lonely croon.
And a thousand blades were flashing at the rising of the moon.
At the rising of the moon, at the rising of the moon.
And a thousand blades were flashing at the rising of the moon.
The astute listener to Radio Free Northwest will note that 420 is almost upon us.
Regrettably, we haven't had the opportunity to plan anything special for the Fuhrer's birthday this year, so, despite the lack of actual Fuhrer-related content, well, we needed to call it out because it's the right thing to do.
Best in Fuhrertag, lads.
Anyhow, waking people up.
That's right, we're finally going to get to it after, what, six weeks of my promising.
Having dealt with this subject at length repeatedly over a period of many years on Radio Free Northwest, both by way of Harold Covington and myself as needed, I have to admit I'm somewhat frustrated with how to proceed this time.
Now, thankfully, a couple people left some comments while they were asking this question, and on the April 11th rerun that I played just for this subject, a couple other comments were added.
Right at the same time the issue of waking people up was put to us again in the recent past, someone else asked a rather interesting question.
From the perspective of waking people up, about how to detect crypto-Jews.
Now, a crypto-Jew, such as, again, Mike the Kike Enoch, or Stefan Molyneux, or Lauren Southern, or a whole bunch of others.
I believe a couple others were named in the question.
Yeah, they're around, they're hard to detect, and they're incredibly dangerous as individuals because, well, what's the best way to explain this?
I know.
Rat poison.
Briefly, rat poison is 99% reasonable sustenance if you're a rat.
And 1% poison.
Now, it's always that 1% poison that does you in.
The fact that the 99% was there, well, was irrelevant.
In fact, the 99% good stuff, again, good being relative, that's what lured you in.
And that goes directly to the concern about why you would want to detect a CryptoJew.
Here's the thing, though.
Yeah, they're hard to detect, but you found out about them anyway.
Ponder that while I explain the general issue with waking people up.
And I'll come back around to this point when I want to discuss how we should all react to the subject as a whole.
So there are two things that are almost identical to one another that I want to bring up at the very outset.
The first of these was brought up by that first commenter I mentioned on the April 11th rerun, and that's the issue of, is the NF setting up some sort of a straw man when we attack this panacea view that waking people up will magically solve all our problems?
And in that exact same vein, the second issue I want to bring up is that of the definition itself of waking people up.
Now, first things first, are we strawmanning?
The answer to that is no, absolutely not.
We are not strawmanning.
Actually, Harold was spot on, because what he was responding to is decades of white nationalist movement history.
The clever listener will immediately retort, but Andy, that's not...
Well, I still don't agree, but even if I did, it wouldn't be relevant, because the alt-right shat itself and died quite some time ago because the fact of the matter is the A-list celebrities, and that's what they are, running the alt-right ran out of political snake oil to sell you.
Truth be told, the Northwest Front received all sorts of feedback from all segments of the alt-right B-list leadership on down to rank and file that no, really, once enough people just woke up to what was going on, things would, in fact, be magically different.
Now, of course, there was always some sort of implied political or cultural or societal action that would be taken, but it was always a done deal once everybody quote-unquote woke up.
And that has been true for the entire white nationalist movement's history.
And that is what you heard Harold responding to from, again, October 2012.
Everything white nationalism had done for a period of decades was centered around quote-unquote waking people up.
As in, we can just show enough people true facts and they will change their behavior.
Now let's examine that notion for a very quick minute here.
For a period of many years now, I myself, Harold Cummington, and others as needed have presented all sorts of things that are true, citing sources with verifiable facts, and it hasn't amounted to a whole lot, regrettably.
Most of the people hearing my voice right now are not going to act in the way they know full well they ought to, because facts don't motivate people.
I'll bring up a few examples, and not just from the Northwest Front's era either, but all of white nationalist history.
Those of you who have been listening to Radio Free Northwest over the last couple of years will note a particular episode where some alt-right, Johnny-come-lately pretend-white nationalist decided to challenge us to a debate.
We weren't going to bother because there was a point in white nationalist history which Harold brought up as a relevant reason to not bother debating, well, anybody.
There was a point where Tom Metzger's mailbox was being monitored by the SPLC and or Morris Dees after a nasty court battle in which the settlement was that Morris Dees had access to all the mail that Tom Metzger was sent by his supporters.
This is obviously something that can't be allowed to stand because, at the very least, Tom Metzger could have had the decency to tell the entire movement that, hey, it's better if you don't send me any mail because my mail is being watched by hostile agents.
But he didn't.
At some point shortly following that particular development, Harold Covington found third-party objective proof of this and made sure the entire movement was made aware of the situation.
Nobody cared.
In fact, Harold was dragged through the mud again by the movement because he actually stood up for what you would think would be a fairly obvious issue of character such that the people who mail you and write you their support would not have their identities exposed to the SPLC, but again, oh well, really basic facts stop mattering when you're a white nationalist.
Again, here's another example, this time RFN-related.
How many times has the party been confronted with the claim that The Northwest is full of liberals and, well, about half a dozen variations on that particular theme.
It turns out it's provably false thanks to a new study that I wish I'd kept the link to at the time because it would be interesting to share on social media.
But basically, there was a company that ran around and surveyed the entire United States to try and figure out the actual political leanings, elections aside, of everyone in every state and what the actual ideological makeup was of every part of the country, again, mostly separated by states.
It turns out that Idaho and Montana are predictably super conservative, for the most part.
Oregon actually has a much larger conservative-leaning population than it does liberal.
Again, that's just not who ends up voting.
Washington was the only state where you would have a slightly more liberal, on average, leaning.
That's wildly out of whack with the elections.
The Northwest is not full of liberals, and we have explained that ten different ways on this program over the years.
Even so, long-term listeners will sometimes get in touch with us and go, I've listened to you for years and I've heard you talk about this, but the fact of the matter is the Northwest is full of liberals, blah, blah, blah.
Generally speaking, those advocating waking people up, those of you who advocate this, seem to have a very hard time actually doing what you advocate.
And I'm not even talking about Northwest migration, necessarily.
It's just a simple matter of, we can talk to you about demonstrable facts, and you just ignore us, yet you're somehow confused about why we're not trying to wake people up.
Just real briefly, look in the mirror.
I keep talking about this white character thing, but that deep and introspective examination of yourself that...
Radio Free Northwest has called for for so many years would work wonders for all of you who still are confused about this subject.
And yeah, I might have a bit of a tone issue here, but it's warranted.
And it's warranted because this was initially spurred by a few commenters saying, I've been listening for a very long time, and in two of those three cases, I know for a fact, yes, these people have been listening for, heck, longer than I've even known about the party.
And they still say, I just don't understand why you aren't for waking people up, when in fact we've explained this many different times in many different ways on many different occasions.
So what then is our actual issue with waking people up?
Well, here's the thing.
When somebody ends up agreeing with us, it's because they've decided to pay attention to one or more subjects we talk about as white nationalists in such a way that they will deliberately seek out the knowledge that they've been lacking because they realize they're lacking it.
Again, that deep and introspective self-examination will reveal this to be true for those of you who have not yet done that or have been hiding from this particular point.
And yes, I said hiding from this particular point, because there are a lot of things we all know that we would rather ignore or not admit to ourselves that we do know, because that would put us on the hook for changing our behavior in accordance with what we know we know.
I'll sum it up with this.
Those of you that want us to be worried about waking people up, and I say us to mean white nationalism as a whole, not necessarily just the Northwest Front, Need to realize that we ourselves cannot act or think or decide for someone else.
So the people that you're trying to wake up are actually the key to this process.
They are the catalyst.
It's their decisions that drive their learning.
And because of that, this is not somewhere we need to put energy because, again, we ourselves can't accomplish the thing we're saying we want to accomplish because it's up to the other person.
So even if you have one of many different definitions of waking people up that have been put forward to us, no, we don't need to be responsible for this process because knowledge is very effectively crowdsourced on the internet, and especially good forms and good presentations of the knowledge we want someone to have exist in several different varieties.
When someone is ready to find that, just like the issue of how you tell when someone's a crypto-Jew, No one's going to stop you.
Now, briefly, a couple of concerns were put forward that I do want to address before I stop talking and let Jason take the presentation over this week.
Generally speaking, someone's political perspective as well as their historical understanding starts at the moment of their birth, and they are horrifically unaware of the things that came before them unless they are deliberately educated in such.
People who gained their political and racial awareness during the alt-rights heyday kind of think that they invented this thing.
And I hate to sound like an old fuddy-duddy on that point, because I'm not really any older than any of these people on average.
The fact of the matter is that the alt-right was just a very abbreviated and very rapid repetition of a whole bunch of decades of white nationalist history, because people who suddenly gain new ideas think, What an awful lot of people don't know about the Northwest Front is that it was the go-to thing in white nationalism for
maybe three or four years prior to the advent of the alt-right, and it was that way because white nationalism had essentially burned itself out, and the Northwest Front was the only thing standing.
There were quite a few signs, again, prior to the alt-right, which is where a lot of our current listenership came from, and that's where their perspective starts.
And like I was saying, prior to said alt-right, the fact of the matter was there were many, many clear and very positive signs.
And I say all of that to address one specific concern that was brought up.
The claim is made that...
We need alt-right farm teams or outlets to funnel people to the Northwest Front.
Firstly, people were being funneled to the Northwest Front through other similar mechanisms prior to the alt-right existing, so even if I could shut down every alt-right outlet today, which, trust me, I'd love to do just on the general principle of it because many of those places are just outright not-white nationalist, it wouldn't matter.
And I'd like to call everyone's attention to something they may or may not know about, a little incident called the Deepwater Horizon oil spill from the early heydays of Barack Obama's presidency.
Everybody and their brother was worried that we had permanently ruined the oceans, even though we have a major oil spill every few years and nothing ever gets permanently ruined, or...
Even really partly weren't.
And I say that as somebody that lives a hop, skip, and a jump from Puget Sound, which was supposedly destroyed many years back by an oil spill, but you'd never know if it happened today.
You see, in every single one of these instances, nature compensates for whatever's happening, and especially in the case of Deepwater Horizon, a new bacteria was discovered that was actually converting the oil into harmless byproduct.
And because nature abhors a vacuum, even if I could destroy all of the alt-right outlets I don't care for, something would just pop up to replace them, so it's really not a problem.
I understand not everyone will agree with me on that, but let's remember the alt-right started off, and sadly basically remained, nothing more than a very effective troll operation, which most of the low-level participants in were surveyed as being around the alt-right because they thought it was funny or entertaining.
Now, that's their words, not mine.
I didn't come up with that.
True fact.
Most of the people who marched at Charlottesville were surveyed, and they were there because it seemed fun.
Even so, Jason reminded me that credit where credit is due.
But more importantly, again, people are going to wake up no matter what, so it's a whole lot more important for us to focus on things that will actually have a tangible impact.
And I say that because the second of these commenters on the April 11th rerun made the point that, okay, look, I kinda see it the way Harold saw it, where there's some sort of cosmic thumb on the scale keeping us from doing things too early, but at the same time… Shouldn't we be taking appropriate steps right up to that point?
And the answer is, yeah, because we can still do that legally, thankfully.
I'll leave you all with this.
The white character issue is real, and not being willing to admit certain things to yourself is the source of many woes in white nationalism, and that deep, abiding, introspective moral inventory that Harold Covington, I, and others have asked you to perform really does matter.
Greetings, comrades.
I have the main responsibility for the show this week.
And first, I'll add a few of my own thoughts to what Andy has said about this issue of waking people up.
The first point I want to make is that we are not downplaying the importance of educating people.
The issue is that too often, way too many white nationalists get stuck on this when they can and should move beyond words into broader action that will further our cause.
We fully get that when you break out into this greater understanding of the world that we share, it can be a huge emotional relief.
It feels like a breath of fresh air to have the racial lies you are conditioned to believe in fall away from your mind.
The scales fall from your eyes.
We know what it means to be set mentally and emotionally free from the societal lies with which our enemies infect our people and nations.
When this happens, people want to pass on a gift that they themselves are so thankful for having received.
Quite naturally, they want to share the knowledge, the facts, the ideas that have made the biggest difference for them.
Which is understandable and right, of course.
However, there's a pitfall to all of this that many people fall prey to, and it ends up blocking them from taking effective action beyond just serving as another conduit to spread the good word.
It is the tantalizing idea that there's a set of facts and perspectives so convincing that if we can just spread them far and wide enough, a sort of grassroots of white racial consciousness will spontaneously organize, and the halo of this educational effect We'll end up doing most of the hard work for us.
Andy covered how Harold was reacting to his long experience of seeing white nationalists of the past get focused too intently on this possibility and fixate on the educational piece of our task, allowing it to crowd out other types of actions we need to take.
In many respects, educating our fellow whites is the easiest part of our task because really it just requires a bunch of talk.
But as they say, talk is cheap.
Now, it is true that having effective propaganda is essential, and that is a big part of the Front's mission.
Harald was expert at that, and we still have some excellent talent in that sphere.
The thing at which Harald failed was creating the organization that would grow beyond the beginnings of what he did achieve.
And he was the first one to admit that he was probably not the man for that job.
Whereas he was most suited to the propaganda and educational needs of the party, We'll have more to say on that farther down the road.
But having good propaganda, clear, lucid, well-researched, and well-founded rhetoric that can be relied upon, obviously is very important.
Words and ideas can move the world.
This is something we all know.
Something else we know is that every generation must be taught anew.
We are not saying that waking people up is not a critical piece of the puzzle.
We are warning that it is too easy to default to the idea that magical things will happen if some critical threshold of general awareness is breached.
Now, this is kind of true.
That does happen.
As Victor Hugo said, But no man knows exactly what the threshold of awareness is in any circumstance.
And as I have said, talk is cheap, and there is no shortage of talkers.
Actually, there never will be a shortage of talkers.
Right now, the number of people talking our issues is greater than ever before.
The alt-right came to prominence because so many people were waking up and talking to one another.
The front didn't make that happen.
What in many respects did make it happen is the increasing insanity from a hard left that completely won the culture wars and that has been essentially getting their way in the social sphere for the last 30 years.
That is what has been waking people up more effectively than 70 years of white nationalism was ever able to do.
This illustrates an important point which Andy addressed.
The crowdsourcing of knowledge that is possible today through the internet and bulletin boards like 4chan and 8chan has been extraordinarily effective in directing people to the answers that they need.
And plenty of people are doing a lot of waking other people up.
Even with all the shadow banning, search manipulations, and outright censorship that Jugal is doing right now on YouTube, That platform is still absolutely filled with energized new public personalities and freelance journalists who feel able and emboldened to explicitly defend white people and white civilization.
This is in stark contrast to the weak and tired narratives of the ineffectual quote unquote conservative right which lost all ability to conserve a damned thing when it stopped being racist.
Leftist anti-white insanity that has broken into the mainstream is waking scores of people up.
Gratefully, this is simply not a primary task we need to handle.
That work is being done.
The Muslim invasion of Europe, which shifted to high gear in 2015, has been waking people up.
Those who are truly looking for the real answers to what has happened to us will find their way to the full truth.
And that definitely includes the Northwest Imperative and the Northwest Front.
So this is not realistically something we need to focus on.
We do need to have the tightest and best answers for people for what can be done and what comes next when people do make their way here, however.
That is the real work of the party, and it continues.
As I mentioned, we have greater flexibility along these lines in a post-Herald world than we had before.
So as Andy talked about at the end of his segment, people are naturally going to wake up and there will always be multiple avenues for them to find their way to us.
We couldn't interrupt that by bashing some of those feeder sources, even if we wanted to.
New ones will always arise and lead people to the truth because of the societal disintegration we are all witnessing.
They will continue to wake up just as they have been as a reaction to the insanity going on around them, which amazingly is still increasing year after year.
One could have forgiven a man in 2012 for thinking leftist insanity had reached its peak and couldn't get any worse, and then for thinking the same thing again in 2013.
But it's 2019 now!
And the way things have gone, 2012 and 2013 seem halfway sane in comparison with today.
So honestly, we do not have to worry about waking people up.
It will happen, and there are plenty of avenues to lead the right kinds of people to our doors.
We certainly can increase that through our own targeted recruiting efforts, and we will be doing that.
But right now, the same forces that produce the alt-right, the crowdsourcing of knowledge and mean generation, it's all working brilliantly.
Disillusioned alt-riders are finding their way here.
Harold's death happened at a most inconvenient time, essentially, right after the implosion of the alt-right.
If he had gone earlier or later, the front would have been in a better position to take advantage and grow by the circumstances of that.
But its having gone the way that it went will not make or break us in the long run.
Andy and Harold have expressed in the past their frustration that facts don't seem to matter as much as we all think that they should.
Andy highlighted that with his talk about the absurdity of quote-unquote our people, white nationalists, continuing to send letters and money to Tom Metzger long after Harold proved he had been completely compromised by the enemy, and Morris Dees was taking half of all the money sent into him by the dictates of the courts.
Andy will sometimes say that facts don't change opinions and they don't change behavior, and Harold has said things like that in the past.
Now, of course, Andy knows and we know that it's not 100% the case.
That's not an absolute, but sometimes it can feel like it is.
What I would say is that it is only a small subset of men who can fully respond to facts appropriately.
Most people must be herded by emotion, social pressure, and force.
Understanding this sheds light on something that we see too much in life, which is that knowing the right answer doesn't always make a difference in what people actually do.
So while the educational piece is essential, the waking people up piece is essential.
There is far more beyond that.
And when the front seems to grouse on the idea of waking people up, Our message is just a reminder to you and to ourselves that we cannot and will not get stuck there, as so many white nationalist organizations have in the past.
Okay, I think that's enough about that for this show.
Let's hear about a foreigner's thoughts on the strengths and follies of the dying, or perhaps we should say murdered, American project.
Here Gretchen reviews a book by Tomislav Sunik.
A white patriot from our homelands in Europe who was floating around Jared Taylor and American Renaissance about a decade ago, and whom I had the pleasure of meeting briefly at an AMRAN conference back then.
Here's Gretchen.
Thank you.
Good evening, comrades.
Tonight I'd like to discuss Homo Americanus, Child of the Postmodern Age by Tomislav Sunik.
Now, the thesis of this book is about the comparison of American and Soviet systems, and indeed also individuals.
Now, this author does state that communism was certainly the grimmer of the two, but does contend that most communists were in fact non-believers.
Now, this author is Czech, but has spent a lot of time in the States, and so it's interesting to get this non-American perspective of the world.
Now, as you read this book, If you do happen to read it, you might notice that there is a certain generalization, I think, about Americans that very much gives away the fact that this is a European author.
Sometimes I wonder if this author is generalizing perhaps a bit too much.
Nevertheless, this book has many fascinating insights.
The insights this author makes is that one of the reasons communism ultimately failed in the East is because its aims were better implemented in the West.
Now, this is an author that is very much fascinated by the Puritan origins of American society, and particularly as these Puritan origins pertain to the American government.
Over time, the religious aspects of Calvinism became passé, especially as the world became increasingly skeptical of any religious beliefs.
But what did remain was this moralism, this desire to punish and reward based on a utopian idea of holiness.
And this was never abandoned, and it certainly can be traced to present-day sociopolitical concepts.
Also, it should be noted that no one is really allowed to examine these underlying concepts without serious sociopolitical risk.
Sunik does note that Americans can often be given the reputation of being materialistic, and the author says that he agrees with this reputation and does note that the Calvinists saw nothing wrong with making a living.
And that viewpoint does continue to this day, but the author is quick to point out that Americans are much too moralistic and religious.
And the author notes that this is something that will hold back American individuals even when they desire to help this movement.
This is an author that is very plain about his concern about universal religion, a universalist religion like Christianity.
Very much lends itself to a linear vision of history, and this leads to a notion that there will be an eventual end of history.
So this very much dovetails with this utopian end of history concept.
Now the only way to break free of all this is to become much more Hellenized in thought and to become more Nietzschean.
In fact, Sinek laments that the Puritans were not Nietzschean Darwinists.
Now, this is a curious criticism of the Puritans, given that the Puritans existed so many hundreds of years prior to Darwin and Nietzsche.
So, this author is very...
upset or lamenting the fact that instead of being Nietzsche and Darnus, these individuals were Puritans who came to the States, and because of the geography of the United States being what it is,
being such a large country, and the fact that there were no state-bearing natives anywhere to be found on the continent, There was the possibility for Manifest Destiny, and then after 1945, individuals who were influenced by the ideas of the Puritans went back to Europe.
And by this time, the remainder of Puritanism had been really transmogrified into this universal democracy.
And of course, the author notes that this brand of Puritanism had its helpers, such as the Frankfurt School.
The author talks about how in Europe, books on eugenics and anthropology were removed from the shelves.
Professors that dealt with eugenics or things like anthropology and also archaeology were often dismissed, and questionable artifacts were removed from museums, either destroyed or hidden away.
Even more than this scrubbing of the past, there was also, in France and Germany, various laws were enacted to muzzle individuals that wanted to talk about the history of World War II, but also even more than that, individuals, particularly in Germany and France, so right in the core of Europe, were convinced that they had to protect a Constitution.
So this constitution becomes more important than the people themselves, very much in line with this notion of Calvinism in the utopian society.
Now, the author does note that some Europeans may look at the American zeal, and they may see it as somehow faked.
But the author notes that it is very much a post-Christian zeal and states once again that this is rooted in Calvinism and ultimately in Jewishness.
And indeed, it is the finishing up of Judaism.
Now, the author doesn't always trace this philosophy to Jewish people per se, But rather to people that have been steeped in this Judaism via Calvinism.
And the author is actually grateful for the fact that Eastern Europe was communist because this made for a very insular society.
And although life under communism was difficult, the author is grateful for it insofar as it was necessary.
Keeping the eastern part of Europe for a time safe from these influences that would later tend to swamp Western Europe.
But the author is very frustrated with the West in general, frustrated with this light motif having to do with the love of Israel.
And the author wonders how much longer the West will persist in this.
The author talks about how the term the West is sometimes used to refer to America, and sometimes both America and Western Europe.
And the author does discuss the way we use the term Eastern Europe, and the author says we shouldn't say Eastern Europe because actually Eastern Europe is more European than Western Europe these days.
The author is keenly aware of geography, as I said, the geography of the United States, and the author understands why America becomes what it did.
The author also laments that Germany is a landlocked country, and this is an author that very much idealizes the American West and the South, and Even an author who would like to imagine the South rising again, and he does talk quite a bit about postmodern agrarianism and kind of sees that as a very ideal or praiseworthy state.
Now, the author does note that up until around the 30s, Americans would write about eugenics.
For example, However, the author is also a little cautious about the history of eugenics because he says that in America, unfortunately, eugenics was put under the influence of capitalism.
And so the author notes that in the States, eugenics was really not about beauty or spirituality, but it was about making better consumer animals.
Now, the author, very much like something Harold would have said, this author compares the Southern defeat to the German defeat and very much sees the Southern defeat as a foretaste of what happened with Germany.
And this is definitely an author that hopes that America will get back to its unofficial aristocratic roots.
This is an author who very much wants people to start rethinking history, philosophy, and religion.
And he really wants people to be fearless about rethinking any religious or moralistic dogmas that they might find within themselves.
hiding somewhere amongst their core beliefs.
And only by doing this will an individual, particularly individuals who are Americans or have been influenced by American thought process, will an individual really break free of this.
And this author also recommends Reading National Socialist Critiques of Communism as a way to better understand communism and the similarities between the utopian notions of communism and the utopian notions within Americanism.
Now, this book gave me a certain sense of deja vu.
And I don't know if that's because these concepts have become so familiar to me over time just through certain intuitions and also through the study that I've made of this subject.
I even ask myself if I might have read this book in the past, and at this point I've read so many books that I'm not even quite sure anymore.
In any event, this is an excellent book that does bear repeating and very much dovetails with the writings of our charity.
So I would recommend reading this book.
My only critique of it is that it seems to leave itself dangling without a really definite conclusion.
Nevertheless, the views of this author are very clear.
So I thank you for listening.
Have a good evening and hail victory, comrades.
The End Now let's have some more of our long-running panel discussion.
When we last left our heroes, they were continuing with the bashing of the Founding Fathers and the things they didn't do right.
There's some really good stuff in here.
I think you'll like it.
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.
The authors of the Constitution, by their own admission, had no reason to think it was going to work.
Just bear that in mind.
Now, the culture, and this is important to get into the religious culture of the British colonies that later became America.
I don't care to throw a religious light on this necessarily, but there was a religious component to everyday life in that society.
And that society, part of the reason that the Constitution worked for so well for so long, relatively speaking, is that the people were actually good, in that through the various hardships in American life, the average person had learned to be their own authority and apply the rules.
To be fair, even anarchists say, You know, when someone is genuinely ideologically an anarchist, they say that means no rulers, not no rules.
And the reason the American Constitution did so well for America is that the people were dedicated to applying the rules to themselves first and foremost as individuals so that they did not need an external authority to manage them.
They did not need a sovereign.
By the way, the Founding Fathers disagreed with that part, too.
I earlier mentioned that the Constitution we got...
The end result of a whole bunch of compromises, and some of those compromises are directly counter to white nationalist ideology, and I'll get there in a bit, but think about this.
There were previous iterations and previous attempts at coming up with constitutions, and the book I referenced, Leftism Revisited, and several others, if you care to Google the matter once you learn what the deal is, there were numerous attempts to bring European nobles over to be the new monarch of America.
And what I want you to understand about that is a lot of, and this is, again, to be fair to the American enthusiasts, not all of them think this, but one of the versions of the American myth is that we were finally ready to throw off kings, whereas the Founding Fathers, who were rebelling against the established authority even after the war, they made several attempts at monarchy in that convention.
In fact, those were very close to working out.
They had actually proposed and written a number of, I believe it was a...
You know what?
Go read this for yourselves.
I don't have time to stop and go look this up again, but there were a number of very, very famous noble families that were, like, borderline princes, but not really princes, and they weren't kings, but a number of, like, relatives of the Habsburgs, a number of other German families were petitioned, like, hey, would you come over here and be the monarch?
And the only reason they did that is that they didn't have a lead family.
At one point, they actually considered George Washington for this.
Now, we can see what that disaster would have turned into, but...
It was by no means guaranteed we were going to get the document that we got, and it was by no means guaranteed that we were going to end up with a republic.
The only reason that we ended up with a republic is that all of the nobles who were petitioned, Vention almost in unison, said, we think you're going to tank, we don't want to be involved, find somebody else.
That's the only reason we're not a monarchy, is that the European nobles looked at us and laughed.
And I don't know what to make of that, right?
I wasn't there, I can't offer further comment on it, but that is what happened.
So it's very clear that we do have an American myth and a huge amount of ignorance over our own founding, how things came to be.
That's what I'm taking away from this.
Right.
As a former dyed-in-the-wool, red-blooded American, for sure, still struggling a bit with what is going to need to be let go in my own psyche and in my own allegiances to the American myth.
Because part of why I asked this and wanted to understand our conceptions of Americanism in this discussion and hear from these guys about what their thoughts are, if we are going to establish something new, We have to understand how America came to be, what it evolved into, how it was changed, how it was undermined, what the founding mythos was, what the mythos came to be, what it is today, because we are going to be asking for the allegiance of our people to something new.
And so the loyalty that we all have to the nation we have grown up in, as it collapses around our ears...
It is going to be very hard to let that loyalty go.
It is going to be hard to let our understanding of what America was and of what it is change to really see what's going on and to let that go once again, as I said, and to give our allegiance to something new and to commit behind that vision.
That's what we're asking of you.
That's what we're asking of our people.
So we have got to overcome that.
I'm one of the perfect examples of the type of individual that needs to be overcome.
So this is why this is very fascinating to me.
I want to hear what these guys have to say.
Don has a thought.
Are these myths necessary to a stable, successful society?
And if so, do we need one?
I don't even know how to go about beginning answering that one, but it's a good question.
Because I have no problem creating a myth, provided it's not based on something that doesn't have a basis in reality.
Embellishment is one thing, lies are another.
And as long as we're not lying to people, I can accept a myth.
What I would say about that is, it will be created regardless of anything we have to say about it.
Oh, that's a good point.
Because that's what happens.
That's true.
So, 200 years after the founding of the NAR, it probably is going to have to be done again.
Probably.
If we're going to be honest with ourselves, every generation has the potential and opportunity to completely undo what the prior generations have done.
And so, you have to think about how you educate the next generation, the founding myths that you do support, and if they're not myths, if they're truths, you've got to be very careful about this.
One of the things we are seeing now in the collapse of American society, if you are paying attention on social media, it is highlighted on social media more than any other place, but more and more Americans are getting their news from social media, so it is enhanced and more visible there, is the fundamental attacks being expressed by our youngest generations against some of the most valuable things in American society.
The First Amendment.
Which is unique to our nation still after 230 years.
It's unique in the world.
No other nation on the planet has in their founding documents, in their constitution, such strong protections for the rights of men to speak freely to one another about their circumstances and their futures as America has.
This is now not supported by a growing and ridiculously sized number of our young people.
Coming out of our universities, the percentages are really frightening.
It's pushing 40%, if it's not over 40%, of university students believing fully in restrictions for freedom of speech because speech, as they're being told now, is akin to violence.
Let me tell you something.
You and I can have a conversation, but if you think speech is akin to violence, I'll smack you right across the face and you can tell me the difference.
Okay, speech is not violence, but this is the stupidity that some of our...
Young people are being indoctrinated with in our universities.
So some of the fundamental, most outstanding aspects of America that do protect our liberties, do protect who we have been, are under absolute attack.
And so we have got to think about this.
If we're going to craft something new, we've got to think very seriously about how we perpetuate it into the future, how that is done.
Because, like I said, every generation has the ability and opportunity to undo what prior generations have done.
And that is what is happening now.
That is what you get when you allow your enemies to finish raising your Directly relevant to what you just said,
what were the founding felons trying to avoid in the Constitutional Convention?
And there's a very clear answer that everybody agrees on, and that's the French Revolution.
Now, that's important because the French Revolution is kind of the most pure example of democracy we've had in a very long time.
Another white nationalist I was talking to on Twitter, oh, he said this maybe 18 months ago, the history of the world is by and large the bulk of mediocre people screwing things up for everybody because they think they know better.
And we absolutely have to avoid that, because that's democracy in a nutshell.
There's a problem, though, and this goes right back to, again, a religious person.
Particularly a Christian familiar with the Old Testament, as I would assume just about everybody in that convention was, would understand the story of Korah and Moses from the Old Testament.
We know what God thinks of democracy if we're Christians.
Korah didn't like Moses running things, so he got a bunch of people together, approached Moses, and said, I'm in charge of the democracy of Israel now, and God swallowed them into the earth.
That's what God thinks of democracy.
You know, that's just, again, a Christian perspective.
That's just reality.
Nobody likes this nonsense.
It's always bad.
There's a problem, though, and that's that moral compromise with evil always begets a little bit of evil.
Again, because we're talking about Christianity influencing the men that they admit that it influenced them.
We can quote the Bible again and say a little leaven leavens the whole lump.
And what I mean by that, once you compromise a little bit with evil, there's more evil there.
Part of one of the good functions of religion, when people use it correctly, and that's a very important provision, is that they use it to keep evil from gaining a foothold in their own life.
That is the best use of religion.
But did the framers do that?
No, and they knew better.
The House of Representatives was dictated by the Constitution to be appointed by popular vote in each state.
And they did that because they thought they were going to give a little bit of democracy a little bit of room so that you wouldn't have the French Revolution repeat itself.
Well, we're in a way worse situation now than the French Revolution.
Now, granted, there are factors for that, Jews, a whole bunch of other things.
I understand that.
But allowing in democracy, you know, it's like a virus or a cancer.
If you don't kill it, it spreads.
It eventually spread, even though, granted, there's a case to be made that the 17th Amendment was not ratified.
We now have a big problem because the whole purpose of the Senate...
There's an analogy.
I don't know if it was...
Why don't you refresh people on the 17th Amendment and what it changed?
So the 17th Amendment, previously, the states themselves and usually the governors of states would send two senators.
And the purpose of the Senate was to restrain the House of Representatives.
And this shows the major problem with the logic of let's have some democracy in the government, but limit it, you know, so on and so forth.
I mean, it's good that the framers limited democracy or else we'd be in a way worse situation now, but there's still democracy happening.
The purpose of the Senate is to restrain elected representatives from going out of control because democracy does that.
You do have to have some natural mechanisms, some antibodies to guard against the infection of mass democracy and pure democracy.
Yes, and of course the Senate has been watered down in that senators are now elected by popular vote rather than selected by the state legislature.
The point to be made is that...
The Senate was designed to be far less democratic, for sure, removed from direct democracy through the legislatures of the states themselves, with the states' interests in mind as a check against the pure democracy of the House.
There was a recognition, what Andy's getting at here is a complete recognition of the limitations and perils of too much democracy.
There's another aspect to this which wasn't mentioned, and that is unlike the House of Representatives, which is proportional to the population of each state, the senators, I get two senators from every state no matter how many or how few people live in that state, which is also anti-democratic.
Yes.
And, again, the framers themselves were clear about what the purpose of the body was, and it was to compensate for something that really shouldn't have been there in the first place, except that they'd abandoned a more traditional style of government and they were kind of forced into this position.
And, again, somebody might criticize me and say, well, they were doing the best they could.
That's like saying, I was attempting this robbery the best I could, so I better kill somebody to cover it up.
You can always stop committing a crime when you're in the process.
If this was going so badly that they had to compromise with something they knew was evil, according to what Christians tell us about their own moral standards, they should have known to just walk away.
Because they were already in rebellion against the existing government.
One of the things I would say...
They, of course, were still very practical men because they had to be.
Life back then was not as it is now.
scientific mastery of the natural world.
And so, you know, they did have to compromise to practical principles of governance and setting up a new nation.
Sure.
Which I think we do need to keep that in mind as we bash the founding fathers here.
But what I would say at this point on some of this here is as we learn the truth...
I have to stop you.
I don't want to interrupt you, but I have to stop you to correct one misnomer or one misstatement I heard there.
The new nation existed.
Well, that's true.
They recognize, though, their recognition was that the Articles of Confederation, for the intent that they had and what they saw needed to be done, were insufficiently strong.
So it was still a very new nation.
True.
So that's my perspective on that.
I won't disagree with you there, but at the same time, none of that precludes the reality that if what they wanted to do wasn't going to work the way they wanted it to, it's almost better to do nothing than the wrong thing in certain situations.
Now, when you're in a...
Yeah, I'd say that's a judgment call.
It's a judgment call, but at the same time, the people in that room would purport to have good judgment.
And let's talk about their judgment here for a second.
This is what I said will prove to you the wisdom of John Adams and the founding felons.
You'll recall that spending bills can only initiate in the House of Representatives.
They had a rationale for that.
According to the founding felons, elected representatives will never overspend the people's money.
Anyway, slow clap, right?
But that's, I mean, this is the problem, is that, granted, there's one argument I consider good that you could make against what I'm saying, and that's that that was a completely different group of people back then.
The culture was different, whatever.
I refer you back to John Adams.
You're right about that.
John Adams, this Constitution's good only for immoral people because it left so much authority to individuals, which I would argue there are merits to.
But at the same time, this just is not operable anymore.
You can't look at our current situation and say that this is the way out.
No, and things have changed so radically since that time anyway.
One of the things the NAR is going to have to grapple with, and we've talked about a bit, is the corruption of intent.
Once again, successive generations changing what has been set up.
Things evolve.
Whatever is set up in all human endeavors, it has a natural life cycle, akin to our life cycles, of birth, growth, maximum vitality, and then several false recoveries on a downslope that falls off the cliff and dies.
It's a natural birth and death life cycle of what seem to be of all human creations, because what you always have is, as time passes, the burst of energy, the burst of intent, the genius that allows something truly exceptional to come into new form.
The people who created that and the circumstances under which it was created, those all change.
Those people go away.
And the creators, as they leave the scene, they give up the scene to the managers and the people of lesser capability trying to maintain.
And typically the people who move into positions of power after that, after a revolution, after something new has begun, are not of the same caliber as the men who began it and created it in the first place.
So you'll always have this cycle of birth, maximum vitality, and decay, often with several false recoveries.
This will happen to anything we set up as well.
We need to, I think, have it in mind as we begin it because you can set things up properly to alleviate the worst excesses of that if you understand that it's going to happen anyway and not have any illusions about that.
So that's probably part of our task.
I completely agree with you on that point.
And you had stepped away briefly, but I made a point when I was reintroducing this that the one thing I have to reiterate is that when we are doing that, we must not make a compromise with something we know is death.
We must not do what was done with the Constitution we live under now and make a compromise with something we know will be its downfall.
So there you have it, folks.
A lot to think about in there.
A lot of key points to which this entire conversation had been building.
And I'm interested to see the comments that it will generate if you find those points as interesting as I do.
Well, that's it for another week.
Thanks for listening, comrades, and we'll have more for you next time.
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.
▲
Export Selection