All Episodes
Previous Next
May 2, 2019 - Radio Free Nortwest - H.A. Covington
54:46
20190502_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, right will 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 Wish I could come home.
Greetings from the Northwest Homeland, comrades.
The date is Thursday.
May 2nd, 2019.
I'm Andy Donner, and you're listening to Radio Free Northwest.
Radio Free Northwest.
Two weeks ago, during our previous original program, Comrade Jason was forced to edit down some of my commentary, and I'm going to try and approach that same subject in a more sane way here.
In quite a few ways, I'm actually glad this is how it happened, simply because I can summarize exactly why we talk about the things we talk about on this program, play a little bit of Herald as it relates to this subject, and then move on to other things.
Jason has had cause recently to observe that at times we have to do a little bit of psychotherapy on this program, but Don Welke would point out that you can't effectively do psychotherapy over a podcast, so it's best that we sprinkle that in among other content.
As such, we will be moving on to other things for quite some time.
There were a couple of items I handled especially badly that Jason was kind enough to remove to give me a second chance today.
The first of these items is the important point that no matter what cross-section you take of society at large, only a very small portion of that cross-section is willing to act based solely on factual presentation.
Honesty compels me to point out white nationalism is one such cross-section of society, and as such, that applies to us just as much as anyone else.
If you don't think so, consider this.
Harold Covington's content Style and presentation both on and off of Radio Free Northwest had truly made the Northwest Imperative the prime entity in white nationalism, and technically it still is.
All the work he did received many accolades, right up to the point where individuals had to apply it to themselves, and then it went nowhere.
I don't need to tell you why it went nowhere, because we're all human beings and we can all relate to our own flaws.
If we're honest enough to admit that they exist.
But so what?
The answer to that is the second point which Jason was forced to cut out for the sake of everyone listening to my last presentation.
In short, the answer is this.
When somebody quote unquote wakes up, it's because of a choice they made to pay attention to something On our last new RFN,
Jason had a very eloquent explanation of why waking people up is a problem, and that centered around the important observation that it keeps us from engaging in actual productive activity.
Now, here's another way of looking at Jason's point.
You see, it's not an external influence that causes someone to wake up.
The true catalyst, the true limiting factor, is they themselves.
And because it's they themselves, we should not attempt to control other people in that way, since controlling what we do as individuals with our own efforts is far more important and far more applicable.
Jason also provided the insight that waking people up is Perceived, anyway, as a relatively easy gift to give.
Very true.
And I will note that this is especially common among new religious or political or whatever converts.
They want to replicate what happened to them in other people.
There's nothing abnormal about this, but, again, a mature perspective on this is that your external influence is the least important thing happening, and therefore it should receive the least of your efforts.
On top of Jason's insight, I would add the following remarks.
First, yes, this is a gift to give, but in the NF's experience, a lot of the people trying to give that gift are people who rightly or wrongly perceive themselves as in a position to do nothing else.
And because of that, they feel as if we're invalidating them because they either can't or won't do something else.
Now, to those who merely won't do something else, shame on you.
You ought to know why.
There is, however, a much more critical observation to make here, and that is that this gift-giving mentality actually has a negative manifestation that bumps right up against the white character issue and all that boring spiritual stuff, as Harold used to call it.
You see, when someone wakes up, as I have already pointed out, and we've proven the last time we were on RFN, they themselves are the catalyst.
They themselves are choosing to pay attention to knowledge they have already acquired.
Again, for the most part, it's things that most of us knew for quite some time and simply didn't want to deal with.
Now there's the rub.
There are many definitions of waking people up, and nearly every single one of them that we've been given to discuss comes down to the notion that knowledge will change people.
That's not true, and we all know that's not true, so why do we, as white nationalists collectively, obsess over this idea?
Well, it's time for some ugly introspection.
Let's consider, very briefly, the concept of an enabler of bad behavior of any sort.
Enablers come in all shapes and sizes, and at some point, just about every single one of us has been an enabler of someone else's bad behavior.
This applies to every single one of us that have ever participated in the Waking People Up canard.
You see, deep down inside, a lot of people, especially white nationalists, are very uncomfortable with the idea that they knew something they didn't act on, and as a result, we all subconsciously engage in the Waking People Up canard so we don't make each other feel bad about not having done better sooner.
Now, for the record, this applies to every single one of us, me chiefly.
I hold myself to exactly the same standard I'm holding you to, and I want it understood to every single one of you that I am issuing a blanket forgiveness for this bad behavior.
Yes, I hope you understand how seriously I mean that, because I really do mean it, provided we all agree that we're not going to do this again because there are more important things to be done.
In other words, everybody who agrees right now to stop enabling each other's bad behavior on this particular point, you're A-OK with me.
And now, my closing observations.
As uplifting as I want to be about this subject, we can only get there if we all agree to be honest about what's going on inside of ourselves and what our real motivations are.
Harold will have more to say on that later this program.
Now, two: As promised, we're done with the psychotherapy for a very, very long time, because I understand this is not everyone's favorite subject.
I'm going to close with this remark that I've made half a dozen times over the years on Radio Free Northwest.
If you will do these things for yourselves, we on RFN won't have to do them for you.
You're gonna have to do them for yourself.
What things am I talking about?
All that boring spiritual stuff.
Take it away, Harold.
I know a lot of you wish I'd stick to the usual nigger-nigger-nigger kind of material that so often passes for political thought in the movement.
I know that discussion of our own faults and weaknesses makes a lot of you restless and uncomfortable.
It's usually put to me something like, You're such a brilliant writer, Harold.
Why don't you fight the real enemy instead of just attacking other white people?
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
It's so much easier with so much better a feel-good factor to blame the Jews or Obama or the government or anyone outside our own people.
Anyone outside our own hearts and souls for what's happened to us and what's happened to the magnificent world we made and we once ruled.
Well, I'm afraid I'm going to bore you again with all that spiritual stuff.
Not that there hasn't been progress.
Some, anyway.
It used to be that getting anyone in the movement to admit that we just might be partially to blame for our lack of success was like pulling teeth.
After 50 years of failure, though, the handwriting is now on the wall in such large, flaming letters that it's pretty much impossible to ignore.
Virtually everyone involved in racial nationalist activity will now pay lip service at least to the idea that there's something very badly flawed within our own ranks.
Now, where the frantic, stubborn, and sometimes almost hysterical resistance kicks in is when I and a few other iconoclastic types attempt to get specific about what is wrong, who is wrong, how they're wrong, and what has to be done about it.
Aryan man is the highest form of earthly creation.
Our minds and personalities have more depth, more strength and discipline, more energy, more creative force, more deductive and intuitive capacity, and more ability to assimilate knowledge than any other humanoid species.
Because our characters are more diverse and complex, we accordingly have got a greater number and a greater complexity of faults and weaknesses.
Just as a tractor can cover more acreage faster and more efficiently than, say, a horse-drawn plow, So a tractor is prone to more specialized and frequent breakdowns, and requires more specialized repair than a horse or a mule.
Aryan man is a marvelous thinking, feeling, fighting, building, exploring, and creating machine.
But we are very high-maintenance machines, and a lot of our bugs seem to be inherited, because down through the ages we've always displayed the same flaws and weaknesses.
One of these, for example, is what Commander Rockwell called the lure of the exotic.
In its true form, this makes us voyage around the world in little wooden sailing ships in search of spices, gold, and new lands.
It makes us turn our eyes to the heavens, seeking new galaxies.
But in its corrupted form, it makes dumbass redneck GIs marry diseased Filipina bar girls or middle-aged white men spend $10,000 to import some slut from Hong Kong as a mail-order bride from one of those damned agencies.
Another one of our racial traits is our innate love of freedom.
In its true form, it led to the Magna Carta.
It called the Minutemen to stand at Concord Bridge.
It was this love of freedom that made the cannon roar in Charleston Harbor and at Bull Run to rip that Masonic dishrag out of the southern sky and replace it with our own crimson banner of nationhood.
But in its corrupted form, it's become a kind of laziness, an excuse for cowardice.
Wherein white men abuse the concept of freedom to allow aliens and sodomites and corrupt tyrants to run amok in society while they sit in front of the television, their guns gathering dust in the closet.
Whereas once we fought with weapons in our hands to secure freedom for ourselves, now we graciously grant others the freedom to abuse us, insult us, and oppress us, rather than miss Monday night football.
but if i had to pick the one character flaw which has caused our people more grief down through the ages than any other i'd have to pick ego along with its two handmaidens vanity and hubris White people are more prone to insane egotism than any other race of people, and that includes the Jews.
An especially arrogant Aryan is more insufferable than the worst Jew, because although a conceited Jew can be despicable, a lot of times he's comical as well.
The most uppity Jews generally have the least to be uppity about.
Your average Hebraic Hollywood mogul producer or Wall Street stockbroker or university bigwig is still only the biggest cockroach on a Jewish dung heap.
They know it, and everybody else around them knows it.
But an Aryan whose ego gets away from him is a tragedy, because unlike the Jew, there's generally at least a touch of genuine potential greatness under there somewhere.
In some cases, a lot of it.
And yet the person's blind, inflated self-esteem renders his or her genuine genius or talent or skill almost worthless.
Why this seems to be our race's particular curse is hard to say.
Nor has it been all bad all the time.
It wasn't just gunpowder and horses and steel weapons that helped Cortez and 700 Spaniards destroy the Aztec Empire.
It wasn't just the magnetic compass that helped Magellan circumnavigate the globe.
It wasn't just the diesel engine that made the first Zeppelin fly after a dozen previous failures.
It was a self-esteem among white men that would not take no for an answer or accept defeat as an option.
But for white people in the context of the modern-day world, as part of our attempts to resist racial destruction, Ego has been a disaster, a kind of spiritual epilepsy that seizes us when we least expect it and sends us into an uncontrolled, destructive spasm of incomprehensible madness.
The first problem that ego creates in the movement is that we get people who join our ranks because of it.
Way too many people become involved in the movement not because they want to put something into it, but because they want to get something out of it.
They sense that something is wrong in the world we live in, and they try.
Some of them try hard.
But they simply can't lose all the baggage that this society has imposed on them.
Above all, the ego that has to be constantly massaged and pampered, the craving for constant new sensation, and above all, the particularly American demand for instant gratification of every whim and impulse.
Egotistical white people know that something is wrong.
They find the movement, they come in, and it doesn't take them long to discover that the movement takes everything and gives back almost nothing.
They sulk, they half-step, they leave in a huff, and they wander along to the next group or next fad, or sometimes they just settle down in front of the TV.
Now, that's not always the way it happens.
I've seen a lot of people come into the movement, and some of them are still here, and they'll be here when I'm gone.
And I have no doubt that some of them will do a better job than me.
But given the kind of human raw material pool that we have to draw on, our failure rate is way too high, just like it's high with every other institution in this society, from the big corporations to rock bands to the academic world.
We're not the only ones who have problems with white people's insatiable ego, with white people's demand for instant gratification with no effort or risk, and with our complete lack of any self-control or discipline.
Ego hurts white people in many ways.
First off, it makes white men and women join the movement for the wrong reasons.
Without getting too esoteric or really wandering off on a Grandpa Simpson trip here, I've observed down through the years that whenever someone comes into this thing of ours with, oh hell, I'll go ahead and say it, when they come in with an impure heart and impure, selfish, ego-driven motives, they almost always fail.
Either they drop out in anger and despair or else they become totally cynical like a lot of our so-called leaders.
They get out for the buck and nothing else.
The best people we have ever had were those who served our cause, not used it.
Served it with their whole hearts and minds and wills.
Served it unselfishly with no thought of reward or gain in their mind.
Commander Rockwell, Joe Tomasi, Bob Miles.
Bob Matthews, Rick Cooper, and a whole slew of others who are still alive, whom I won't name because they'd be really embarrassed to be praised for doing what is to them their simple, quiet duty.
They have that grace.
And by the by, men and women like that are far, far more common in our ranks than you might believe if you listen to me rant and rave on here sometimes.
Not common enough, but there's always enough of the good to keep us alive and fighting in the face of all the bad.
You're out there listening to this right now, the good ones.
At least I'm sure that a lot of you are.
You are the ones I want.
Like I said earlier in this broadcast, most of the people who are listening to me right now aren't ever going to lift a finger to do anything actually to help create the republic because it's risky and it's inconvenient.
Yeah, I get that.
But not all of you are like that.
Like St. Peter, I have become a fisher of men, and I'm trying to get you hooked on the idea of freedom for our people in a new country of our own.
When you make the decision that you're going to be part of history and that when you die, mankind will know that you lived and remember what you did, get in touch with the Northwest Front.
We're ready when you are.
We're ready when you are.
Good evening, comrades.
Tonight I'm going to be delving deeply into World State of Emergency by Jason Reza Georgiani.
The premise of this book is that on September 11, 2001, we moved from an age of international conflict into an actual clash of civilizations.
I believe that...
These days we can say this even if we're prone to believing in some sort of 9-11 conspiracy theory.
Because regardless of that particular thing, I think we do have essentially three choices in the world today.
We have the type of imperium that Jojani is talking about in this book.
Or we have the possibility of Chinese hegemony or the Islamic caliphate.
The author notes that there are certain societies, namely Japan, Russia, and India, who would actually be swing societies and that they could go in any number of directions.
One of the theories that the author discusses in this book, and I think fairly significantly, is the theory of Carl Smit.
According to Smit, a sovereign is someone who decides when a state of emergency exists.
When I look around the world today, I note that many people who are in power, especially in the West, seem reluctant to declare that there is any kind of state of emergency, although I do see this to some degree with Trump as far as the government shutdown over the border wall.
Also, too, Georgiani, very early in this book, gets right into the concept of eugenics.
A lot of people, when they hear the word homogenics, immediately start thinking about national socialism and this notion of trying to make sure that everyone is Nordic.
But in actuality, homogenics is a very open-ended topic.
And for example, in China, in recent weeks as of making this audio, you probably heard about the embryos that were being created to be resistant to the Also too, embryos could be designed to have a higher IQ or potentially greater athletic ability.
These designer embryos They don't have to be from one single racial group.
They could be some type of hybrid as well.
For example, if someone was trying to increase athletic ability, for example, everyone knows of the famous running and jumping athletic ability of Africans.
So clearly, eugenics is a very open-ended topic, and it does not have to have anything to do, for example, with Nordics.
It could be quite to the contrary.
This author also goes into the topic of robotics and drones.
And the author talks about the fact that the US military is now able to employ drones that actually fly significantly higher than any commercial airline would.
These drones also do not have to have a pilot and therefore they're not constrained by the needs and limitations of a human pilot.
The author also talks about the question of robotics and how, in today's world, very small robots can be designed.
They can be designed for espionage reasons or other tasks.
And they can be designed to look like small insects that might enter someone's home.
You might not even know they're there.
And the author also talks about robots that can fold up like origami and that can communicate with each other and form larger robots.
So this could potentially be quite scary The author also discusses this question of virtual reality and video games, and the fact that there are some people who are entirely consumed by these alternative realities.
And if you do have a dark sense of humor, you might even find this section of the book rather darkly funny when you read about the absurd situations that people get into when they become addicted to these video games.
Even more interestingly, and in some ways core dilemma of this book, the author is very concerned with energy sources.
The author talks about coal and natural gas.
And says that in both these cases, these types of energy sources are either very difficult to transport or very difficult to harvest.
And the dangers and environmental problems brought up by both of these potential energy sources even when you're trying your best to handle them in responsible ways.
Then the author goes on to talk about the question of hydrogen and also hydroelectric power.
In both these cases, these are energy sources that really need some sort of supportive substrate, whether it would be fossil fuels or nuclear energy.
So they're not exactly complete sources in and of themselves.
Then the author goes on to talk specifically about nuclear energy and says that nuclear is a very potentially clean energy source.
However, obviously with nuclear it has to be successfully contained.
And as we've seen in the cases of Chernobyl with Human Era or the case of Fukushima where there was a natural disaster, containment doesn't always work and then you have a very serious...
Environmental problem.
Therefore, the author concludes that ultimately the only really good solution is going to the moon and finding an energy source that we probably heard the name of in the movie Iron Sky, and maybe as a result we thought that it was somewhat made up or somewhat fiction.
But it turns out that apparently helium-3 is a real resource that could be harvested on the moon.
The author notes that whoever goes to the moon and controls that territory would have geopolitical control over the earth.
And so the author notes that in this situation, potentially that we could have on the moon regarding possible territorial disputes on the moon or other celestial bodies, that this might change the dynamic that Carl Smit talks about.
Carl Smit talks about how there are various nations in the world that are various different geopolitical entities, and that's the reason we've always had various nations and the potential threat of war, because there's always been various interest groups upon the earth.
However, when Carl Smit was getting older, He did note that if there was ever an extraterrestrial threat, that that may change the whole dynamic of international conflict.
And the author does note that this theory was really never developed by Carl Smit because it was only something that he came to in old age.
But the author does see this as a very real exception to Carl Smith's theory of international conflict.
And the author believes that realistically we have about 30 years to develop a one-world government that would accommodate this new extraterrestrial foraging for energy resources.
After making that statement, the author wants to discuss the connections between ancient Iran and Europe, particularly with regard to the Scythians and the Sarmatans and places in Europe like the Ukraine, also Bulgaria and Croatia.
The author sees these areas as very much having been linked to ancient Iran.
The author talks about the link between Mithraism and ancient Rome and how this religion of Mithra really influenced Christianity.
And also the author wants to talk about the great sophistication of the Tsaristrian religion and the sophistication of Iranian civilization and how this type of civilization could easily give birth to this worldwide As I was reading this book, and I'm not sure to what degree the author is interested in this, but I was almost wondering if this was some sort of a critique.
In a way of Nietzsche's work, because, of course, Nietzsche's major work being also Sprak of Zarastustra, when Nietzsche actually criticizes Zarastustra, in a sense, and says that Zarastustra would be the first to recognize his eras.
So I'm wondering if Nietzsche was, in a sense, criticizing Zarastustra's reform of Dharma.
I'm curious, in a way, for the differences and similarities between the opinions of Georgiani and Archeroge, and I'm wondering if they might have some sort of theological debate in the future, and I'm thinking that would be very interesting.
The only sort of criticism that I might have of this book is that as I was reading about ancient Iran, for example, there were many times, and also when I was reading about English philosophers as well, because that's something else covered in this book, there were times when I wanted the author to better tie in those ideas with the interests of the movement.
Because apparently this is a book that the author is writing for an alt-right and or a movement audience, and personally I would like to see somewhat more of a tie-in in terms of those issues,
such as migration, for example, and ideas specifically having to do with an ethnostate, I think would make this I feel a bit more pointed in terms of its overall relevance.
Aside from that, this is a book that I would recommend because it is talking about very relevant issues that will be really potentially impacting everyone in the relatively near future.
So again, I've been discussing World State of Emergency by Jason Reza Giorgiani.
I thank you very much for listening.
Have a good evening and hail victory, comrades.
We'll see you next time.
A quick word in your shell-like ears, please.
Harold made it a point while alive, and I've made it a point to keep it a point, to not talk over people's segments after they're done playing unless something of great import was said that needs further addressed.
Gretchen asked a very critical question about why Georgiani would not write about a white ethnostate given that his audience was certainly the alt-right.
As it turns out, this is the Georgiani I thought it was, and he himself has significant Iranian ancestry and thus would not be interested in a white ethnostate.
His concerns do appear to be more Iran-oriented, and I don't fault him for that one bit.
Just be aware who we're talking about.
That's all.
That's all.
Greetings, comrades.
This is the trucker coming at you from Minnesota.
Just did a lap through the homeland.
Everything's green.
Spring is springing out there, and blooms are blooming, and the cherry blossoms are out, the tulips are out, and all that kind of stuff.
So, it's pretty nice, of course.
The other thing that I've noticed when I was picking up in Seattle, the homeless communities are in big swing there, too.
That's one thing that you have to go and put up with.
If there's a green space around, be it forest, be it bushes in the median, or in the get-on-get-off ramps, stuff like that, well, they're gonna go and pitch their tents there, and, oh, man, they are such...
Eyesores.
I'm sure that some of you in other parts of the country have to put up with this too, but seeing as how Seattle is such a mild climate, I mean, yeah, granted it rains out here.
Yeah, they've got the blue tarp strung all over the place, over the top of their tents, and I even saw one that had a kayak, and it was a big either king or queen-sized mattress out there.
I'm not sure what the hell they were doing with that because it's got to be soaking wet by now.
The amount of rain and snow that they've had lately and out there in our neck of the woods.
But, yep, like I say, that's one big eyesore that we have is the big homeless communities that we have out here.
It's just...
Just ridiculous.
And Seattle and their infinite wisdom, stupidity, whatever you want to classify it as, is safe injection sites so you can shoot up your heroin or whatever in a safe environment.
Oh my god!
We gotta have that!
Oh yeah, the liberals out here, the Democrats, boy, they just have to go back that kind of stuff rather than going and dealing with them.
And getting them off?
No, no, no.
We just have to have a safe place for them to shoot up.
Places like McDonald's and stuff are putting blue lights in their bathrooms so they can't see their veins to go and shoot up, so they've got to go elsewhere to do it.
Another big thing about the homeless community or homeless people out here is if they're walking down the street, they need to go, well, they just go and drop their drawers right there on them and take a dump on the sidewalk.
Don't believe me?
Well, you can ask my daughter.
She got to see it firsthand when she was over there.
One of her few Ubering runs over there to Seattle.
And she swears she's never going back over there to that side of the sound again.
She, along with my wife, hates Seattle.
Of course, so do I. But that's because I end up having to try to drive a truck through there.
Alright, well, this is the...
Trucker, signing off from Minnesota.
Hope to see you out there on the road, making your scouting trip and your migration soon.
Have a good one, comrades, and take it easy.
Drive safe.
We're down now.
We're going to do what they say can't be done.
We've got a long way to go.
Any short time to get there, I'm westbound just to watch a bandit run.
We're going to do what they say can't be done.
Briefly, another quick word in your shell-like ears.
Again, we don't like doing this here on RFN, but something needs addressed.
You might wonder why I let Trucker run a segment trashing Seattle like that in light of some migration-related requests I'm going to make later this year.
Well, as it turns out, he's not telling you anything that isn't already common knowledge.
And more importantly, this trend isn't happening just in Seattle, but all over the West Coast and partially on the East Coast.
Now, granted, they're having a little bit better success out there combating it, but in cities inside the United States, away from the coast, there have been large homeless populations for years, and this is actually happening there, too.
So this is more of a big cities problem in the United States.
So again, why would we run that?
What's interesting about this is, shortly before his death, Comrade Donald Welke and I were discussing a recently aired documentary here in Seattle dealing with the subject of whether or not Seattle is dying.
And on this documentary called Is Seattle Dying?
from Como News, which can be had on YouTube if you go looking for it, the issue of what's actually underlying this homeless and poo-in-the-streets sort of crisis, it is actually a drug addiction problem.
This is handled a little bit better out East, where their attitudes towards drugs aren't quite as lax as the West Coast, but again, cities like Denver and others do have this issue as well.
What's fascinating about this is that your standard center-left, whatever you want to call them, out here in Seattle and other places along the West Coast are perfectly willing to discuss the idea of whether or not our civilization is dying.
It's not just us saying it.
And that is the takeaway.
Back to your regularly scheduled program.
This past weekend, I took a trip to meet with new comrades out in the eastern part of the homeland in Idaho.
I met with a new couple from the East Coast who responded to the idea of the Butler plan and Northwest migration by taking a scouting trip throughout Washington, Idaho, and Montana, before deciding on one of Idaho's clean, safe, and beautiful white cities by the water.
They bought land in that beautiful state, and were out here planning how they will build on it to raise their family in the homeland.
They did all this before even contacting the party, because the Butler plan made sense to them, And they knew almost immediately they needed to be in the only salvageable part of America for their children and for their children's children.
The other folks I met with are a group of young men who have recruited their own following from the Internet and have facilitated the move of several members and at least one young white couple to the homeland in their primary settlement area of Coeur d 'Alene, where the front also has a number of comrades.
These young men are impressive, well-spoken, intelligent, and dedicated.
They are intellectually connected to the Front through their belief in Northwest Migration and the Butler Plan, and their organization and the Front will be working together to facilitate other white people coming home.
For reasons of security, I will not name their organization as yet, but you will come to know them.
What was most encouraging is that every man and woman that I met this past weekend is a solid Class A personality.
For those of you who have the ability to listen closely, you will know that a Class A type person and a Class A revolutionary are not quite the same thing.
In addition to intelligence, emotional stability, maturity, and the ability to commit to the cause, the Class A revolutionary needs certain life circumstances, flexibility, and personal resources to maximize his potential for effective action.
But you're not going to get Class A revolutionaries from anything other than Class A personalities, as the character issue is central to the entire enterprise, which is something Harold preached to us time and again.
But these folks are as solid as we could hope for.
They're as solid as any organization anywhere could hope for, or any company, any corporation could hope for.
But their commitment is to something greater than their own material comfort in a decaying America.
Their commitment is to the race.
Their commitment is to us all.
And I was honored to meet them.
I will be honored to work with them as we go forward together.
So, you should know that purposeful white racial migration to the homeland, inspired specifically by the vision of the Butler Plan, is still happening as we speak.
And the front continues to be contacted by new migrants, and we are still in touch with people planning their own scouting trips to the homeland in the near future.
Maybe we'll hear from you for the same purpose soon.
So now on to another segment that I've edited down from another video by John Mark and his YouTube channel, Mark My Words.
I played a piece from this young man a couple months back when he had a strong analysis of the coming racial civil war in our nation and the West in general.
This time he talks about a fundamental element of political power that the left knows instinctively, but those on the right almost always seem to forget.
Here's Mr. Mark.
Hey everybody, John Mark here.
Welcome to Mark My Words.
Today I'm going to talk to you about the number one law of political power.
Before I get into it, I have to say a huge thank you and a huge welcome to all my new subscribers.
As most of you know, this is a very new channel.
A little over a week ago I only had a few hundred subscribers.
Now I have 17,000.
So the channel has grown much faster than I expected.
So a huge hug and a huge welcome to all my new subscribers and the first subscribers as well because you guys were the first ones on board.
And I want to tell you all this.
You are not going to want to miss a single video that I put out.
After this video, I'm going to start explaining propertarianism.
Propertarianism is, as I put it, parasite-proof government.
Everyone on the right wing needs to understand this.
I call it the iPhone of right-wing thinking because it builds on what we had before and it contains some innovations and rule of law that enable us to keep out the parasitism from the elites and from the left.
So I won't say any more about that right now, but all of these videos that I've been doing are preparing you...
Today we are going to talk about the number one law of political power.
If you are a group that wants more political power, you must utilize this law to your advantage.
If you don't, you will lose political power.
If you do, you will gain increased political power.
And the United States of America, the right wing for many decades, has been attempting a strategy that is the opposite of this law of political power.
We've been on the wrong side of this law.
The left, on the other hand, has been using this law of political power to their advantage.
And it's not so much that the right is dumb and the left is smart, and that's why they've done this.
It's because, as I'll explain, the right wing does not instinctively gravitate towards using this law.
And I'll explain why that is.
On the other hand, the left wing does instinctively gravitate towards using this law because they don't have much other choice.
All right.
What is the number one law of political power?
The number one law of political power is intolerance.
Be intolerant of everything that you do not want.
Let me say it a slightly different way.
Punish everything that you do not want immediately and harshly.
Nassim Taleb is the person who brought this law of political power to my attention.
He said, In any society, the most intolerant group wins.
Even a small group can force their will upon the rest of the population if that small group is intolerant and the rest of the population is tolerant.
And the simple reason for this is that an intolerant group doesn't take no for an answer, they don't give in, and the tolerant group does give in.
So if your group wants political power, it must punish everything it doesn't want.
If your group does not do that, you're going to lose political power to other groups that do punish everything that they don't want.
If what they want is different than what you want, and they punish people for violating what they want, and you don't punish people for violating what you want, they're going to win.
So the number one law of political power is be intolerant.
You could even just use the simple word punish.
You must punish everything you don't want.
In politics, Tolerance is weakness.
Many right-wingers are looking around the United States of America and Western Europe saying to themselves, how did this happen?
How did we go from relative normalcy to clown world in the span of just a few years of time?
How did this happen?
Let me tell you how it happened.
Tolerance.
The people who are imposing clown world are intolerant and almost nobody will say no to them.
Precisely because they're intolerant and precisely because they punish you if you try to say no to them.
Social justice warriors are absolutely intolerant.
If you say anything that they don't like, they immediately punish you for it to the greatest extent that they can.
At the very least, they call you a racist Nazi.
At the very least, they make you defend yourself against that accusation.
They immediately put you on the back foot.
See, this is one big mistake that libertarianism and classical liberalism made.
This is why, even though they have very good elements, they are incomplete and ultimately failed strategies.
Because they're too tolerant.
What classical liberalism and libertarianism said, and by the way, my goal is not to slam libertarians, slam classical liberals.
We all know that there are nuggets of gold in there.
Libertarians are basically just saying, don't steal from me.
Leave me alone to produce.
Classical liberals are trying to focus on the rights of the individual.
We understand what these things are.
I'm not trying to get into a big argument.
I'm trying to laser focus on what works and what doesn't work.
And what I'm explaining to you today is a fatal flaw in both classical liberalism and libertarianism, which is they've tried to maximize the number of people participating in the economy by being tolerant of anything that doesn't directly have to do with economic activity.
You want to be gay?
I don't care.
You want to be a different skin color?
I don't care.
You want to do this?
I don't care.
As long as you're participating in the economy, we're happy.
The reason it's a fatal mistake is that many, many people on this planet do not just want to participate in an economy based on their own merits as an individual.
That is not the optimum strategy for millions of people on this planet.
Because millions of people on this planet, billions actually, are not that capable.
The average IQ of the human beings on this planet is 90. That is not a high average IQ.
So the optimum strategy for many of these people is not to compete on their own merits as an individual.
The optimum strategy for them is to form a team with other people who get ahead by hook or by crook.
And they don't care about your preaching about classical liberalism.
They don't care about your preaching about libertarianism.
They don't care about that because that's not the optimum strategy for them.
That's not the best way for them to get ahead.
The best way for them to get ahead is to form a team and try to get political power.
The LGBT crowd is a perfect example of this.
The libertarians might say, I don't care if you're gay, as long as you participate in the economy.
A classical liberal might say the same thing.
The problem is, gays feel low status because they've felt low status throughout Western history and they've been low status for a very good reason, which is they impose a cost.
On the majority of people who are heterosexual couples with children.
I'm not going to explain all that, but the point is, gay people don't just want to participate in the economy.
They want status.
They want not to be looked down upon.
And so what happens is they form a team, and they go out there and they fight for political power, and they say, we've been discriminated against.
You all know the drill.
And next thing you know, if you're a straight white man...
You are behind gay people in line for jobs and spots in universities.
And the classical liberals and the libertarians are looking around going, wait a minute, this isn't what we meant.
This isn't what we wanted.
Well, yeah, no shit, Sherlock.
It isn't what you wanted.
Because you were tolerant.
Therefore, you got what you didn't want.
Being tolerant is a mistake.
Let me just say something about Jordan Peterson.
I had a revelation about Jordan Peterson today.
I give Jordan Peterson a very hard time because he is on the losing right.
Jordan Peterson cannot lead us to victory because he is not realistic enough.
He's going around preaching classical liberalism as if that's going to win somehow.
It's not going to win because most people don't care about that, especially most non-white people.
So going around and saying, let's not play identity politics when it's obvious that everyone but white people plays identity politics unapologetically, and they're obviously not going to listen to Jordan Peterson.
But the revelation I had about Jordan Peterson was, If every moderate centrist or classical liberal was like Jordan Peterson, we wouldn't be having the problems that we're having.
The problems we're having in America are due to the fact that no one will say no to these social justice warrior frees except for the hard right, that I call the winning right.
But Jordan Peterson, to his credit, he does demonstrate extreme intolerance of the far-left crazies.
If every classical liberal, if every libertarian, If every moderate centrist, if every moderate leftist showed that kind of intolerance to the far-left crazies, we wouldn't be having the problems that we're having.
So to his credit, he shows intolerance to them.
The problem is he's only one man.
And we can't just go around preaching to people, hoping that enough people will listen.
We have to have it in our rule of law that this is not acceptable.
You're not going to go around and form a team of people based on lies that you've been discriminated against.
You haven't been discriminated against.
You have been kept in check because you impose a cost on normal people.
There's a very good reason we don't allow you to impose that cost.
Or in the past we didn't at least.
Then we got tolerant and you started running the show.
Well, I can tell you one thing for sure.
That's not going to last.
So I hope you're getting the point here.
Tolerance is weakness.
As I said in the last RFN, only some people can respond appropriately to intellectual argument and cold hard facts.
Most people have to be herded through emotion, social pressure, and force.
This goes along with what John Mark is saying here about punishing undesirable social and political forces.
It is very effective on the whole, but one of the things to always keep in mind is that the carrot and stick together are always more effective than either alone.
We're more likely to accept the stick when there are also carrots involved.
It allows a man to not feel so bad about his weakness in allowing himself to be beaten with the stick, and so adding some carrot is less likely to make a man feel he needs to rise up and actively oppose you for the sake of his own personal pride.
This is a very useful effect we should all remember when initiating propaganda or political work that we undertake for the cause.
What this piece on intolerance shows us above all is that there is simply no substitute for getting onto the battlefield and doing battle with the enemy.
It is something that we must accept, that ideological, social, and civilizational battle is a never-ending process.
The struggle for white freedom and a harmonious and prosperous existence is never won completely.
If you are expecting that someday it will be, you need to stop with that expectation and come into the real world.
We, as a race, will never be able to retire from the work that needs to be done to secure our existence and a future for our children.
Individuals can retire in their own personal lives, but there can be no assumption of final victory, no retirement from the battle for white freedom and prosperity by our civilization as a whole, to live out our days in civilizational prosperity and ease.
Just accept that it is necessary that you commit a part of your life to the racial and civilizational struggle and become a cheerful and willing warrior.
There is no greater cause to sign up for, or more important effort in life, than finding a role for yourself in this greatest of enterprises, the upward striving and glory and advancement of the race.
We all must pay our fair share in words, courage, effort, and pain, so that we can all thrive together.
Take this responsibility seriously, but take it with a light heart, if you can, as just one of life's important necessities.
Whatever you find your part to be, do it, and do it with a reverence and cheer in your heart.
Nothing you can do is of more fundamental importance than supporting the life and well-being of your people.
So let's talk about tolerance in a little more detail.
The first thing that we should recognize is that tolerance is not a virtue.
It is merely a tactic or a social strategy.
A strategy to gain some distance from a problem or to buy some peace and quiet.
But of course, that almost never works.
By definition, we don't tolerate things that are good and desirable.
The only things that we ever tolerate are things which are fundamentally undesirable and unwanted.
Through their rhetoric since the 1960s, the left succeeded in making tolerance into a virtue.
By suckering people into considering tolerance to be a virtue, the left cast an aura of desirability over the entire concept.
Most of us are geared to want to embody virtue in our own lives, whichever virtues we feel are most important.
But a fundamental element of our concept of virtues is that we expect better outcomes from living by them.
This is essentially how virtues are recognized and defined in the first place.
By incessantly preaching tolerance as a virtue over a period of decades, the left has gotten people to assume completely incorrectly that all forms of social tolerance therefore also will get us better societal results.
But tolerance necessarily means the destruction of standards.
Living with extreme social tolerance means living with an extreme lack of social standards.
And today, all around us, we are seeing the fundamentally unworkable madness of this approach.
When the left preaches tolerance, they feel virtuous and engage in signaling their virtue, showing that they are morally superior beings.
When what they really are, are just another faction using rhetorical sleight of hand and a tortured manipulation of meaning as leftist propaganda.
Notice that there is absolutely no lack of intolerance on the left.
In fact, in their twisted virtue signaling world, one of their main mantras now is: "No tolerance for intolerance." So that just gives the game away.
The left's version of tolerance is a house of cards and a sham.
Just a means of social pressure to get us to drop all standards in defense of our people and civilization, and to allow the emotional weaknesses which they themselves exhibit and suffer from to find an acceptable place in society when their weaknesses and dysfunction should not be accepted.
Keep this understanding in mind and you can use it to counter the left's argument on tolerance with the more sentimental and gullible whites who are willing to give the specious arguments of the anti-white, multiracialist, leftist wackos a chance.
Explaining that extreme tolerance necessarily means an extreme destruction of societal standards is something they may be able to understand, and maybe you can save them from the road to hell which the left always paves with white people's good intentions.
▲
Export Selection