All Episodes
Previous Next
June 27, 2019 - Radio Free Nortwest - H.A. Covington
43:55
20190627_rfn
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Oh, then tell me, Sean O 'Farrell, tell me why you hurry so.
Hush, O 'Farrell, hush and listen, and his cheeks were all aglow.
I bear orders from the captain, get you ready quick and soon, for the bikes must be together by the rising of the moon, by the rising of the moon.
By the rising of the moon For the pikes will stay together By the rising of the moon Oh, then tell me, Sean O 'Farrell, where the gathering is to be.
In the old spot by the river, right well known to you and me.
One word more for signal, token, whistle, up, and marching tune.
Throw your pike upon your shoulder by the rising of the moon.
By the rising of the moon.
By the rising of the moon.
Switch your pike upon your shoulder by the rising of the moon.
Out from many a mud wall.
Greetings from the Northwest homeland, comrades.
The date is Thursday, June 27th, 2019.
I'm Andy Donner, and this is Radio Free Northwest.
Radio Free Northwest This week, comrades, I'm going to get to the YouTube situation like I've been promising.
I'm actually glad it's taken this long, because the situation over the last week has evolved such that it's been an absolute riot to watch, and it really has been the gift that keeps on giving.
Because the true nature of this issue, which has to do with the mainstream versus independent media, has been made plain, I don't need to spend time doing that.
Initially, I was going to do so, but my unique take has thankfully turned out to be a not-so-unique take.
Because I effectively have more time on this week's show, I'm actually going to talk about some criticism I've received about the NAR draft constitution, which bears direct relation.
Now, once I've done that, I'm going to come back and readdress the YouTube situation and discuss exactly what we in the NAR would do when something like this happens.
And lastly, I'm going to let Harold Covington wrap things up this week with...
A commentary on capitalism and communism, which also bear a direct relation.
Now, you'll see what I mean by that as the show progresses.
As I said, I don't need to spend too much time on this.
A by now well-known lispy queer decided to start complaining about Steven Crowder and tried to get him completely deplatformed off of YouTube.
That didn't quite work, but in the process, YouTube did a whole bunch of things that outright shocked a whole lot of people and even banned outright a few channels, some of which they've since restored.
The really interesting aspect of this is in a tweeted explanation of their behavior.
Said explanation very subtly referenced authoritative voices.
Never mind that they were talking about a whole bunch of conspiracy theories, as well as some legitimate Holocaust denial and a few other things.
The legitimate voices is what we needed to pay attention to.
Now, at the time, not too many people had caught on to this, and if I'd had time on previous episodes of RFN, I would have expounded on this.
Thankfully, I don't need to, because in the last week or so, as I said, the situation's exploded, and in a fantastic way, whereby Project Veritas managed to record some Google employees, some high-up Google employees, in fact, talking about how they're going to make absolutely certain that a Trump situation doesn't occur again.
And that really is what's going on here.
In case it isn't obvious, I'll take a minute or two and make it clear what's underlying all this.
To make this very simple point very simply, anyone opposed to anything right of center has never ever had to actually argue for their position in a very long time.
As a result...
The candidacy and then-presidency of Donald Trump and the amount of support he's had, or at least to be fair to all parties involved, the amount of fair consideration he's had from even some centrist outlets on YouTube and other places has driven the left into an absolute tizzy.
And what that means is there's never been any substantive response.
And there's not really going to be a substantive response, because as much as I despise Donald Trump and even the more milquetoast Republican Party, the fact of the matter is those people could take apart any Democrat any day, and they've been doing it for a very long time now.
This being the case, YouTube has decided that they have to pull the plug on any Democrats Now, that was obvious to me, and probably obvious to a lot of people, though that hadn't been explicitly said.
That is, until the Project Veritas video wherein a Google employee outright admitted it, as well as a few other emails released from Google, or rather pilfered from Google, that outright say so.
In fact, the whistleblower even indicated that some centrist and left-wing independent YouTube channels were being targeted simply because they're not the establishment media, which is the authoritative voice that YouTube was going to elevate above anything else on its platform.
Right up until the end of last week, as many of you will recall, there had been no real substantive discussion of Google's hint by way of the YouTube Twitter account that they were going to elevate these quote-unquote authoritative voices.
Obviously, like I said, I don't need to spend time on this now, because it's been made perfectly clear by their own missteps.
That being the case, I'm going to move on to the discussion of the draft constitution, and precisely how a neocon or quasi-conservative, freshly-minted white nationalist might perceive some problems with it.
So, on to NAR draft constitution objection number...
heck, whatever it is now.
These things are just going to keep coming right up until the day of victory.
Anyway, here goes.
Someone on Gab looped me into a discussion they were having with a what seems to be newly-hatched white nationalist complaining about some of the contents of the NAR draft constitution available on the party's website.
To be fair, some of these questions are actually very reasonable, but I have a concern that they're not actually sincere, which I'll explain in a moment.
The first thing I'd like to point out is that this criticism opened with a salvo of, to quote this person, Why is it no one smart is ever attracted to white nationalism?
I want to make it plain that I empathize with people from this perspective because I had these same concerns the first time I read the document many years ago.
That said, it was on me to learn better, and learn better I did, and I'm here to briefly share part of that wisdom with you.
Let's all please understand something.
When a kosher conservative, neocon, standard Zionist Republican, whatever you want to call them, becomes a new white nationalist, much of their thinking is still clouded by Jewish economics.
And capitalism is certainly Jewish economics.
Much of the concern someone might have about national socialism is in the word socialism.
Think about this for a moment.
The Jews lie to us about everything, so why wouldn't they lie to us about the definition of capitalism, too?
It turns out they have, but I'll let Harold talk about that later on this program.
When a kosher conservative, especially an American kosher conservative, learns about the reality of race, that new knowledge takes time to percolate through the rest of their thought processes, and instead of thinking about things along racial lines, they, and I want to make it plain that I suffered from this too at the beginning of my own white nationalism, Anyway, they will look at words like socialism as foreign and communist or whatever Harold would say.
With that, I'm going to begin talking about the Bill of Rights, Section 4 of the NAR draft constitution.
To quote the criticism that spawned the segment you're hearing right now, the NAR would be nothing better than your standard democratic socialist republic, and nothing could be further from the truth, but again, I understand where they're coming from.
Much of this criticism revolves around the use of the word right in section 4 of the draft constitution.
It turns out this word is misconstrued horribly upon the first time reading this document.
Among other things, the Bill of Rights to the draft constitution specifies that residents and citizens of the Republic shall have the rights to adequate and life-preserving medical care free of charge, adequate food, shelter, clothing, and to a safe and stable home for children.
The right to gainful and productive employment, and, most interestingly, the right free of charge to all such education, technical training, vocational training, and instruction as shall be within their innate personal capacity to understand, assimilate, and apply in life.
Now, that's quite a mouthful, so I recommend everyone go read the document in its entirety for themselves so they understand where I'm coming from with this.
At first glance, especially to the uninitiated, that may seem as though we're practically communists, or, again, beefsteak Nazis, or whatever you want to call us, but we're not.
In fact, this is a very right-wing type of government when you factor in that we make differentiations between who can and should vote and how many votes someone might have.
Even so, what's with the use of the word right everywhere?
I want to challenge all the critics of this draft to be consistent in their own thinking.
Do we say that when someone dies, their right to life has been violated, or that the government has somehow failed to preserve their right to life?
No, nor should we.
It isn't okay for someone to take something away from you, but that does not mean the government or your fellow man has to provide it.
And this, in light of what's gone on to many creators on YouTube and other users of various social media platforms, should be very clear.
As Harold explained when he addressed this same criticism many years ago on Radio Free Northwest, those in our cause have frequently been deprived of all of these things simply because they were shunned by society or otherwise terminated from their jobs for not having done anything wrong, so on and so forth.
That can't happen.
It must not be allowed to happen.
It should not be the case that your political opinions can be used against you such that you are completely defunctionalized and made a pauper.
Okay, look, in an era post-AHCA and Obamacare, I can understand why some of this alarms people.
I need to point out that it's a historic fact that in Ireland, England, and other European countries, a very basic emergency life-sustaining services only national health care service actually eradicated all sorts of diseases that we had a harder time with here in America.
It's also the case that it didn't cost a whole lot of money either, because everybody got the bare minimum necessary to stay alive that was appropriate for their age, plus some very serious emergency coverage out of it and nothing else.
If Harold were here right now, he would say that, yeah, a homogenous white ethnostate would find some way of making sure that nobody died of preventable illnesses that they themselves didn't cause.
I can also see how that right to free education would freak someone out, but consider this.
Decades ago, it cost very little, even relatively speaking in terms of less inflated money, to go to college because state governments would actually pay nearly everything for the person going.
Not that many people got to go, though.
Article 9 of Section 4 specifies that this free education is what someone can understand and productively apply in society.
That's actually a very limiting factor, and this is not any sort of Bernie Sanders or other Democrat candidate free college for everybody, because, quite frankly, most people can't cut it in college because it's for academics.
The other rights in this document are far less alarming, and I want to point out that, generally speaking, as Harold told us many times, these rights exist so that you can't pull them away from someone because of their politics.
You can't just unperson someone for whatever arbitrary reason, as has been done to so many white nationalists.
Newcomers and Johnny-come-lately should bear that in mind.
We know what it's like to be a white nationalist.
You don't.
You're free to learn, though, because we're very interested in having you.
Okay, having covered that issue, another line of criticism that was issued by the same person indicates that why are there rights with no responsibilities, or something to that effect?
Well, friend, I have a hard time taking you seriously on this point because, while I can't prove it for a fact, it's very difficult to navigate to this document without passing an overview or an outline which follows the Bill of Rights immediately with a Bill of Responsibilities.
Now that bill of responsibilities is the essence of what National Socialism actually is.
I don't have time today to deal with the actual meaning of the word socialism, but I will say this.
There are two ways of reacting to the reality.
Human beings' socialization and the way in which they socialize matters.
One is to drop all standards so that nobody feels bad, and the other is to hold everyone to a high standard such that no one gets away with dragging the rest of society down.
That will be the responsibility of both residents and citizens in the NAR.
I've gone on long enough on this subject for my purposes today, but I will say that the type of society the Bill of Rights would create is sustained by the Bill of Responsibilities.
And I find it especially fascinating that the guy making this criticism indicates that, okay, okay, fine, these rights, but where are the responsibilities, when in fact we have them?
So even he himself in his neophyte state understands that, yeah, this is feasible under certain conditions.
Part of the government's job is to see to it that citizens and residents of the NAR would live up to those conditions.
Okay, that's enough on this.
Let's get back to YouTube Part 2 so you can understand what the NAR would do with its Bill of Rights in this situation.
So, back to YouTube.
What would the NAR do with a situation like YouTube or other social media deplatformings?
Well, at the outset, I want to say this does not appear to be ideological insofar as people from all over the political spectrum are ending up deplatformed, demonetized, suppressed, or whatever.
So what is going on here?
Many of you will recall that, when alive, Harold once or twice mentioned that he would like to see some sort of legal precedent, either by the courts or by law itself, specify that refusing to publish someone's books, or refusing to allow them a platform of any sort whatsoever, even if you disagree with their opinions, constitutes a civil rights violation.
I'm honestly not quite sure how such a thing would play out in practice, but...
Given the situation he had all through his life, trying to get his material out to other people so that they could consume it, I understand his perspective.
So what of it with YouTube, then?
Andy Donner here, breaking into my own segment.
The audio I'm replacing with what you're hearing right now was corrupted, and I didn't discover that until post-production.
I was on quite the rant, and I almost didn't want to pull it out because I really wouldn't be able to re-record and replicate what I said.
Upon reflection, though, you deserve better, so you're hearing this.
Basically, I was talking about how the NAR Constitution's definition of a right, combined with the fact that my private company isn't a good enough reason to deprive someone of speech, is what we need to consider for the rest of this segment.
I also discussed that I might compare the ideology and the actual capitalism issues one after the other, and I say that so that what you're about to hear me say makes sense.
You know what?
No, I'm not going to do that.
Instead, I'm going to explain both of them at the same time because they're actually the same thing.
Here's what I mean.
This isn't well known in America, but European courts, just like a broken clock, are occasionally right by no merit of their own.
You see, contract law is handled very differently in Europe than it is in America, and this is a fascinating subject to explore because on this point the Europeans, as screwed up as they are, actually have a better grasp of right and wrong.
Observe.
European courts will throw out clauses or even entire contracts that are unreasonable or unenforceable at the drop of a hat.
Okay, maybe that's a slight exaggeration, but they are much more prone to saying this is a dumb contract or we're not upholding it if the terms are unreasonable.
And what's especially interesting about the definition of a contract is that, strictly speaking, it's only a contract if it's negotiable.
And what's not negotiable?
The terms of service to your preferred social media platform.
And that especially includes all the made-up categories of speech that they don't like.
As I've said before, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm citing common definition.
This should be pretty obvious stuff.
The ma private company or ma freedom of association really only applies when someone hasn't promised anything or committed to anything for the ongoing use of a platform.
And quite frankly, this business about we can just cut you off whenever we want cause we can, that doesn't really stick.
There's another legal principle that I don't know the Latin term for, but in English it basically means the longevity of something establishes it as a fact, which means that if you're on a platform for years just tweeting, tweeting, tweeting, or posting, posting, posting, or whatever, and you suddenly get caught off arbitrarily, there's a problem.
That's not right, according to the general understanding of right and wrong in the law.
So, why is this happening?
How do companies get away with this and...
The answer to that is the capitalism.
You see, they have more money than you, and you're technically on their servers, so they get to decide whether or not you even get to stay, which is false, because look at it this way.
Some people, or a lot of people, try to make a business out of it, and some people do so well that they make lavish livings for themselves just off of their social media content.
And I think that's absolutely fine.
This whole situation is made that much more interesting when there's a business relationship present.
A business relationship, among other things, is an obligation.
You don't get to just eliminate obligations because they're inconvenient or otherwise distasteful to you.
Rather, the opposite.
Interfering with a business, even one run over social media, is a known tort.
In other words, in a sane society, that would be an actionable lawsuit item, even if...
The company running such a platform had terms of service that says we can dump you whenever we want because people make their plans and build their lives frequently around their economic activities.
Refer back to the rationale of what you can't do to someone in the NAR and why you can't do it.
Our opinion of what's going on with the general deplatforming should be pretty obvious.
In truth, capitalism is not free market economics like it pretends to be.
Rather, it's just a private-sector version of communism where people who have money instead of the Politburo get to control society.
Clearly, this late-stage capitalism thing is a real problem for white people.
We might just want to do away with it.
Free market economics, on the other hand, are based in honesty and decency, and it's not honest or decent to invent classifications of speech or suddenly alter an existing agreement that you hold people accountable to and say, hey, you're violating my terms of service even though you weren't violating it five minutes ago and your behavior hasn't changed.
You might think I'm overreaching there, but I actually have proof.
You'll recall shortly after Charlottesville, when the Daily Stormer was being deplatformed by their domain name registrar, the head of said domain name registrar made it plain in the press that he thought he really shouldn't have that power and he really shouldn't be able to just silence someone.
You'll also note that the Jewess in charge of YouTube had to issue some huge apologies and run around trying to appease everyone and was even forced to put a few channels back after they were banned, and it's pretty clear that the people doing this know they're doing something wrong.
Thousands of years ago, centuries ago, and decades ago, there have been many racial loyalists of all stripes that came before us and actually laid down the principles by which we know these things are wrong.
And with that, I hope you've all found this helpful.
Good evening, comrades.
Tonight I'm going to be talking about In the Name of God, Defending Apartheid by Michael H.H. Warren.
Now, this is a memoir of South Africa in the 1980s, and the perspective is of an English-speaking South African who joins the Afrikaner-dominated South African Defense Force.
Warren going into this paramilitary unit, he studies at the University of Witzwaterswind, and this is a university that tends to be leftist, like many universities are.
However, Warren was really shocked by a 1983 church bombing in Pretoria, and that was one of the things that kind of inspired his service.
The author also notes that the situation in South Africa and in surrounding Angola and Namibia at that time was really very much ungovernable.
All these issues, plus difficulties with the ANC, would really compel nearly every male of a certain age in South Africa to go into the South African Defense Force.
Now, the author does explain that, of course, there were medical or psychological conditions that could get you out of this.
However, the author is physically healthy, and he's unwilling to fake a psychological condition.
Because of this, he ends up doing two years of this national service.
The first year he spends in a kind of fairly standard boot camp type training that, of course, is going to be tailored to the unique environment of South Africa.
And then he undergoes some...
Political indoctrination, which deals with something that was called Total Onslaught at that time, which had to do with the fear that the South African government was going to be taken over by communists.
Now, after this first year of basic training, the author moves on to an assignment near Pretoria, and he always wants to stay in the Pretoria area because that's where his family is, and that's also relatively near his fiancée.
At the end of the first year, the author is assigned to go to a mixer at a women's army college.
The author finds that these women are rather odd because he's really not used to the idea of women being into the military, and he does note that because of the crisis going on in South Africa at that time, and because these are obviously women in a military service, that they have to be very utilitarian in their style of dress and in their manner.
It's just something he's not used to.
But he does note that Boda's daughter, Morazan, was in this type of service.
Now, at this point in the book, the author takes a break and discusses his family and how they came into South Africa and his childhood recollections.
And the only thing I would really say about this part of the book, it talks about how South Africa was a place that white people could kind of start over, and it was a fairly idyllic place back in the day.
The author also notes that the term Afrikaner was a term that was originally used by the coloreds and was only later taken over by the Dutch.
Now, frequently, this author is going to get into certain competitions and the needling of Afrikaners because there's always that tension between the English Afrikaners and the Dutch.
It's a kind of competition.
It's perhaps not, at least not from his perspective, not necessarily very vicious, but it is always there, bubbling under the surface.
Warren has some things that he has to put up with during these two years of military service.
First of all, he has this fiancé that he's very serious about and really wants to marry once he gets out of the service.
However, unfortunately, these two years proved too long for Warren's fiancée, Kimberly, and she plays the field quite a bit, but Warren always forgives her.
But then she develops a serious relationship with a half-Jewish man that she meets while she's studying.
By this time, Warren has matured greatly.
Because of his time in the service, which he sees as valuable to his maturation, and he really tells her that if she can't choose between him and Jimmy, this man that she's come to be involved in, that he's going to choose for her, and he stands up to her and he leaves her.
You really feel relieved for him because she puts him through so much.
The other thing is that during his second year in the service, he has to actually train recruits, and he has to deal with various black trainees.
Now, as you might remember if you studied anything about the South African Defense Force, there were Blacks in this type of paramilitary group, and they essentially would join for two reasons.
One was money, and the other, I suppose, might be for infiltration.
And at times, this author is actually endangered by the incompetence of the black trainees.
But he always feels very guilty about apartheid, and he always blames the system and says they didn't receive adequate training.
Now, this author is very altruistic, and as a result of that, he's very well-liked, very popular.
By all of the men that he trains, so he's very well thought of in that regard.
He has sympathy for these black trainees and how they're thought of as traitors by their own people in many cases.
He makes a point to say that he disagrees with the National Party, and he really apologizes for the South African Defense Force and the system in general.
However, interestingly, today he lives in Pennsylvania.
Now, at the beginning of this book, he notes that he has a dream about running around the streets and whitewashing various graffiti, and how, because he's doing this and because he's being something of a vigilante in this dream, he's chased around the streets by various immigrants.
So, it's almost as if he's all over the place in this book.
He's upset about the terrorist actions of the...
He criticizes the ANC in some respects.
He says that in modern times, he thinks that they're clinging to power too much in South Africa.
But, you know, he's also, as I say, apologetic about the system.
And he also talks briefly in this book about how he has at one point...
Years after his service in South Africa, he experiences a conversion to a fundamentalist form of Christianity, but he doesn't go into any real detail about this in this particular book.
He also talks quite a bit about the cultural gaps between the white South Africans and I would suppose especially the English-speaking South Africans and these blacks that were in the townships and the black refugees that were coming into South Africa.
And he talks about how their struggles and their methods in terms of the ANC were really not well understood by the whites in general, and especially not well understood by the English, I would suppose, because I would think the Afrikaners would have more of an insight into the blacks.
I think they had more of a contact with them.
And so the struggle in South Africa was very much an uphill battle.
It was a struggle because of the countries that were surrounding South Africa, and it was a struggle because of the lack of morale actually within South Africa, especially amongst the more liberal English-speaking whites.
So, for all of these reasons, you can really see where the situation in South Africa was very much doomed, much like the situation was in Rhodesia.
Of course, South Africa was somewhat better off having a direct route to the sea, but they were still in a very great deal of trouble.
At the end of the day, this author is living in Pennsylvania right now, so what does that tell you?
The criticism that I would have about this book is that the author tends to get rather too detailed about his military training.
Unless you're very interested in basic military training, you might find some aspects of this book rather tedious.
Other than that, I was interested to find a book that deals with that historical timeframe in South Africa.
From the perspective of someone in the South African Defense Force, and that's why I ultimately decided to read this book.
So I hope you enjoyed this discussion, and once again, I've been discussing In the Name of God, Defending Apartheid by Michael H.H. Warren.
So I hope you enjoyed this review.
Thank you for listening.
Inhale victory, comrades.
Inhale victory, comrades.
Thank you.
Last week, I asked that you guys get back to me on a couple of topics, and one of them was communism, i.e.
exactly what you thought communism was and is.
Now, for whatever reason, nobody did, but I promised to talk about that this week, so here goes.
There's a kind of myth that world communism perished with glasnost and perestroika in Russia and the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany, so forth and so on, but that's not true.
Not only are there still a few countries left that are technically speaking communists, but communism is still very much alive and well on the American University campus today, as well as in the Obama administration and, of course, in the Democratic Party.
Now, the forms have changed.
That's all.
The Democrats practice a kind of decaffeinated communism, Marxism-lite, if you will, and, to be sure, the hand of a...
Bongo is still somewhat less iron than that of Joseph Stalin, although I have to admit that arresting and imprisoning people for what they post on the internet by way of poems and public record information is getting pretty damn close to 1930s Stalinism.
Okay, the first thing we need to understand is that capitalism and communism are two sides of the same coin, and both philosophies teach essentially the same thing, i.e.
that man is first and foremost an entirely economic animal devoid of any spiritual or moral dimension.
To both communists and capitalists, human beings are units of economic production and consumption, machines that have to be fed and maintained until they're worn out and then thrown on the scrap heap when it becomes too expensive to repair them and cheaper to replace them, like spare parts.
This essentially is what is now happening to millions of middle-aged white men.
They're being tossed into the dumpster and replaced either with third-world aliens or with younger new college graduates who work far more cheaply and who have no accumulated seniority or experience.
We should always remember that capitalism is just as pernicious It's the wealthy capitalists and multinational corporations who brought the illegal aliens here in the first place, remember.
National socialists and other white nationalists believe that life shouldn't be like that, that there should be more to life than a cash register.
One of our goals is to create a homeland for our people, not only where they'll be safe and where new generations of white children can be born and raised in sanity and security, but a land where they can be happy and spiritually fulfilled at the same time all their material needs are being met, and that means putting people before profits and before politics.
Money is a necessary evil.
It's now so ingrained in human culture that it's probably impossible to get rid of the concept altogether.
But in a sane and normal world, money is a tool, just like a carpenter's hammer or an electrician's pliers.
Money is not and should not become a force or a power in its own right.
That's what capitalism is based on, and that's wrong.
The object of all economic activity should not be to accumulate wealth or generate profits for someone else.
It should be to provide for people and create a healthy and prosperous society where white men and women can thrive and raise children and live out their lives to their full potential.
For the past century, the world economy has been a battleground between two conflicting ideologies, Marxist socialism and capitalism.
Both of these philosophies are Jewish in origin.
Communism is the brainchild of the son of a rabbi, Karl Marx, while capitalism, as we know it, is the result of the seizure of the Western money system by Jewish bankers like the Rothschilds, who practiced the usury system.
The only real difference between communism and capitalism is an argument over which group of Jews will get all the marbles, the commissars like Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, or the Wall Street crowd like Goldman Sachs.
Both Marxism and capitalism have the same view of mankind.
Man is nothing more than a life form with two arms, two legs, and opposable thumbs with which he can do work for the Jews, a unit of economic production and consumption, and the object of the game is to squeeze as much value and wealth out of each individual as possible while providing him with the least possible amount of food, shelter, clothing, bread, and circuses to keep him on the factory line or driving a truck or plowing the ground or whatever.
That much Karl Marx got right.
The result of these two competing Jewish worldviews controlling our economics and our culture for so long has been a human and ecological disaster.
The planet is being polluted and destroyed almost beyond livability, and I'm sure I don't have to tell you that fewer and fewer people are really happy or productive.
The sheer amount of personal and family-related stress which is generated by living in a completely materialistic world is a large part of why society is collapsing, even without adding in the other factors of race and crime and drugs and corruption, which are the byproducts of materialism.
I know that the Northwest Republic isn't supposed to be a completely national socialist state, but the fact is that economically speaking, there's going to have to be a lot of very strong NS elements in the Republic if we're going to avoid falling into the same pitfall of laissez-faire capitalism that damn near destroyed us.
First off, the Jews and their system of usury, i.e.
financing everything with money lent out at interest so that money breeds money, must be completely eliminated from the national economy of the republic.
Economics should be based on production, and by that we mean that everyone in society should contribute something to the common fund, be it creative research or craftsmanship or even simple labor.
But everybody should make a tangible contribution of something other than pieces of paper called business.
It's a matter of producers versus parasites, and one of the reasons...
The Western economy is in the bad shape it's in right now, is the fact that there are finally getting to be too many parasites.
Too few people paying the taxes and too many eating the taxes.
And once you get past a certain tipping point, the whole house of cards is going to start coming down.
We're seeing this in Europe already, in Greece and elsewhere, and we're also seeing it in certain American states like California and Illinois, which are about to go broke because there simply isn't any more money.
Secondly, it's an ironclad fact of economic life that wealth is Now, there's a very important difference between free enterprise and capitalism.
Free enterprise is where a man is free to work at what he's good at and to keep the bulk of his earnings, with the state taking only the bare minimum necessary to provide necessary goods and services for all, like medical care, law and order, and defense.
Capitalism is where money, and the possession of huge sums of money more than any individual would ever need or could ever spend, becomes a power in and of itself.
Money is like fire.
Properly used, it will warm you and cook your food.
But if you let the fire get out of control and too big, it'll burn down the house.
That's the difference between free enterprise and capitalism.
The difference between the fire staying in the stove and getting too big and burning everything down.
In a Marxist-Socialist state, this problem is solved, or allegedly solved anyway, by making all money, all housing, and basically everything else the property of the state, with the government deciding who gets what.
This is what Obongo and his Jew crew in the White House are shooting for here in America.
For example, they're in the process of becoming the country's largest landlords by taking over government-guaranteed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac defaulted mortgages and readjusting them, forgiving part of them, so that the householder ends up more or less paying his mortgage to the government through the state body that guaranteed the original private mortgage.
The federal and state governments are already the country's biggest employers, and government employees are the only ones who aren't hurting financially.
Washington, D.C. and the suburbs of D.C. as well as The greatest producer of wealth that any white society has is the immense productivity and creativity of the white worker.
That's what the Northwest Republic will have to rely on in order to create our new economy, not borrowed money and not crushing taxation.
The state will have to be socialist in the sense that it will be the duty of the nation to train our people, to motivate them, to employ them in every capacity in which they can be useful, and to make sure that they're rewarded commensurate with their abilities and the value of their labor.
But using workers as an expendable resource, like communism and capitalism do, is not only cruel and inhuman, it's also stupid and wasteful.
And in the Republic, stupidity and waste will be things that we won't be able to afford.
I don't have to tell anybody listening to this that modern-day American business is great.
Grossly inefficient, and it's top-heavy with useless middle management who are complete jerks.
Those of you who read the Dilbert cartoons in the papers know how true to life they are.
And the Dilbert scenario applies to every aspect of American economic life.
The very thought that companies can get better productivity and higher profits by not...
Mistreating their workers and by not using them as livestock just never seems to occur to American employers.
Now, the first step economically for the republic will have been taken by the revolution itself when we eliminate Jews and usury from the economy and when we've established a national economy based on productivity and investment rather than debt and interest.
Next, we'll have to create the National Labor Service I referred to in the Hill of the Ravens so that any problems with unemployment are solved by giving people jobs.
Not welfare checks or entitlements.
In every society, there's always work to be done.
The problems are caused by arguments over who does the work and who reaps the profits.
Inflation is another economic problem which we won't have to deal with in a republic because the Jews will no longer be controlling our money supply through the Federal Reserve.
Inflation is caused in part by shortages of goods.
True, and I for one am not one of these libertarian types who screams in horror at the thought of price controls for certain necessary basic commodities like food and energy and shelter.
But the inflationary Spiral is basically the result of the government printing paper money hand over fist when they can't collect enough taxes to pay their bills, as is starting to be the case in this country under Obama.
Now, if you carefully control the money supply, you control inflation, you control prices, and you can control wages.
If the government lives within its means and doesn't borrow money...
The main thing you guys need to remember is that both communism and capitalism have been tried before.
Communism doesn't work at all without concentration camps and forced labor and mass arrests and all the sort of merry crap that happened under Stalin.
A lot of people wonder why Stalin did all the things he did in the 1930s and enslaved 10% of the population.
It wasn't so much because he was mad or anything like that, although he was.
The fact is that it was the only way that he could get the communist system to find...
Communism won't work without a huge fund of slave labor.
Capitalism works, well, kind of, so long as everything is smooth sailing, but at the first sign of trouble, the capitalist system starts to throw people overboard.
Both of these systems of government are very much complicated by the factor of race.
The most effective and efficient communist societies have always been those composed of Asians, because Orientals have a natural anthill mentality.
And the worst societies, both capitalist and communist, have always been the ones comprised of blacks, from Africa to Detroit.
Basically, A few closing remarks on today's episode.
I'm glad to see that, at least for the time being, the Iran situation has puttered out.
As much as I would love to see this country wrapped up in another no-win scenario in the Middle East, simply because it would present our window of opportunity, the fact of the matter is we're so far beyond not ready for that as a movement that, well, it needs to be put off for a while.
Recently, we teased an announcement which we anticipated to deliver on today's program, but we decided to put it off until the July the 11th show because that will be the memorial of Harold's death, and it would be thematically appropriate to announce it then because of what we have to say on that program.
Rest assured, it's genuinely good news, and we're thrilled to bring it to you, but not just yet.
Stay tuned, comrades.
Radio Free Northwest is brought to you by the Northwest Front.
P.O. Box 2188, Bremerton, Washington, 98310.
You can visit the party on our website at www.northwestfront.org.
Until next week, comrades, hail victory!
▲
Export Selection