All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 22, 2019 - Radio Free Nortwest - H.A. Covington
01:00:20
20190822_rfn
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Oh, then tell me, Sean O 'Farrell, tell me why you hurry so.
Hush-a-wookle, 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 well known to you and me.
One word more for signal, token, whistle of an arching 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, Readings from the Northwest homeland, comrades.
The date is Thursday, August 22, 2019.
I'm Andy Donner, and you're listening to Radio Free Northwest.
Radio Free Northwest.
As was indicated on last week's rerun, today will, as far as my portion of the show, be a Q&A session.
Not too long ago, we were asked why we always play Rising of the Moon as our opening and closing music for Radio Free Northwest.
Rising of the Moon is a poem put to music that commemorates the failed 1798 rebellion in Ireland.
The song itself was popularized to help spur the also-failed rebellion of 1867.
Now, hopefully that doesn't spell disaster for the idea of the Northwest Imperative, but we'll have to see.
The reason it's played, though, is because of its historical significance in spurring such a rebellion against an occupying power that was trying to oppress those who simply wanted to live their own lives.
Appropriate, eh?
Some weeks ago, a comrade using the name Mr. Simple emailed these questions.
Question 1. I have heard Northern Asians and Ashkenazi Jews possess higher IQs on average than Europeans.
If Jews especially have higher IQs on average, then why can't they build and sustain a civilization on their own auspices?
Is it a case of a group endowed with great abilities using them for nefarious purposes?
Good question, comrade.
Normally I would hop right into answering something like that, but you'll note this question is a two-parter.
Part two reads, Northern Asians tend to possess higher IQs in comparison to their southern counterparts.
Nonetheless, whether Japan or the Philippines, they are components of Asia.
In the case of Europe, I heard a few years ago, Northern Europeans have a mean IQ higher than their Southern counterparts.
Is that because of the Moore invasion of Southern Europe, or other circumstances?
Another excellent question, comrade.
I'm going to answer this one first, because its answer bears significant weight on how I want to approach the answer to the first part.
Here goes.
My dear Comrade Simple, you have stumbled, perhaps unintentionally, on a couple of very important facts.
Generally speaking, all over the world, regardless of what group of people you are considering, there is a north-to-south IQ gradient, and it has appeared to be that way all through history.
Why exactly that is, I don't know.
It probably has something to do with needing to plan for long winters with few resources, and then plan for short-to-medium summers with...
Very little opportunity, relatively speaking, to grow food, to provide for those long winters, and so on and so forth.
I'm not a geneticist, I'm not a biologist, so I don't precisely know, but that pattern does exist.
Now, comrade, you also point out, and quite rightly, that whether north or south, an Asian isn't Asian.
Why is it, then, that all IQ research trying to make some sort of a point about racial differences must present a major racial group that is, in fact, better than white people when, for those of you who mathematically understand the law of averages, the data is very clearly manipulated by excluding Southern Asians?
I don't think I need to point out that Southern Asian countries are hellholes for a very specific reason, just like nigger countries are hellholes for very specific reasons.
Also, I see you've correctly surmised there's a bit of a problem in applying this general idea to modern-day Europe in particular because of that damned Moor invasion you mentioned.
Listen, without trying to open a whole can of worms here, let's just be honest.
Large portions of southern Europe are effectively half-breeds with Turks.
It's unfortunate, but it is what it is.
After having considered carefully this exact subject so that I don't give you a poor answer, my understanding of white history...
Seems to indicate that there were very frequent migrations from Northern Europe and the northern parts of the planet where white people were to the more southern parts, where occasionally civilization would take a swing up and a swing down.
Because of that, I'm inclined to say that historically Southern Europe wasn't all that different from Northern Europe as far as intellectual development goes.
And because of that, I am inclined very much to say that, yeah, that more invasion kind of made a mess of things.
What you have to remember about this subject is that when you breed an Aryan with an Aryan, you get another Aryan, and the fact of the matter is that Northern Europeans were very much capable of breeding more Europeans with Southern Europeans, so that it was very, very feasible to mesh those genetics every once in a while and keep the Southern population more or less on par with the North overall.
At least that's my opinion.
And if that doesn't quite satisfy someone out there, here's another way of looking at it.
Some years back, a genetic study of European countries was released that indicates, more so than other races, white people in Europe are genetically a big old family.
Now, that does reinforce the Nordic migrations angle I'm taking.
But it also indicates that if there were smarts coming from up north, they were certainly very well passed around.
And because the invasions by the Turks happened before we had the ability to measure IQ in a scientific, reliable way, the fact of the matter is that I am inclined to blame the Moore invasion for this.
I'm really not that worried about that, though, because those surveys are of geographic Europeans, not necessarily genetic Europeans.
Just like Comrade Simple was right to point out that Asians are Asians, whether North or South, bringing up the Moor invasion somewhat invalidates that condition for modern-day Europe, simply because not all of those people in Europe are actually European.
So strangely enough, this is one of those subjects I actually tell people to not worry about at all, at least as it applies to our people and our people only.
Mr. Simple asked, Is this just the case of somebody with gifts using them for nefarious purposes?
And the answer is no, not really, because if you think about it, the Jews actually did build themselves a civilization.
Now, I'm going to drive comrade Jason nuts if I don't take a brief diversion into a conversation the HQ group had a couple weeks ago.
In the recent past, the HQ group had a brief conversation about exactly what's the deal with Jewish parasitism.
More specifically, are they inherently parasites or not?
Now, to be fair to those that had the or not argument, okay, in theory, if you want to go full Lysenkoist, you might be able to eventually breed a race of Jews that is not inclined towards parasitism.
Even so, objectivity requires I point out that merely making that statement implies that, currently, as it stands, they are in fact a race of parasites.
So much so that they call us cattle when they say Goyen.
But let's consider this issue from the perspective of cattle.
Could you find cattle that ask the question, why is it humans can't create a civilization on their own auspices?
And of course, too, that we would all laugh, because we did.
They're just our food.
Now consider the issue from the perspective of a Jew.
They've created a civilization.
A parasitic civilization.
A long-standing parasitic civilization.
And the substance of our lives and societies is what they gorge on.
After they're done destroying it, of course, but that's a given.
You see where I'm going with this?
It's a little bit more complicated, and I don't know that today I can answer it.
Even so, the issue of whether or not this is a matter of a gifted race of people using their gifts for evil is a fascinating question, and someone else sent us something almost identical to that, which I'll touch on later in the episode.
All right, Comrade P., abbreviated to hide his identity, sent in a question about the Grand Solar Minimum wrecking the growing season in the Pacific Northwest.
Now, Comrade P, this is a fantastic question because it allows me to get into a very important subject about knowing our history.
Just to make it clear, I am in no way trying to pick on you.
I just need to point out some of the obvious premises of this question.
This question assumes, or outright implies, that we haven't had to deal with that sort of a problem before as a race over thousands of years of recorded history.
I assure you, we have.
It's been done before, and we survived, I know, because we're here.
There are all sorts of reasonable questions that someone could ask about conditions in the Pacific Northwest that we can assume to face, be they climatological, political, natural disasters, issues with our own people, issues with challenges to the new state, so on and so forth.
Now, none of these are bad questions, but we must know our own history to realize that it's been done before.
There's nothing wrong with trying to anticipate and solve these problems.
Quite the opposite.
In fact, I always say if somebody thinks of this as an actual problem, it's because they have the insight, even if they don't know it yet, to actually solve the problem for all of us.
I always tell that to anybody that asks a question showing a bit of forethought.
If you think of this as an issue, you yourself are the one that needs to come solve it.
Look, when I say we need to know our history, I'll be the first to admit it.
I'm no Harold Covington.
He was the master of that sort of thing, but, well, he's gone now.
That doesn't stop any of us from learning, though.
We get questions that are very pertinent to the struggle we're going to face all the time.
And to answer those questions, I always look back to see what people did in their situation specifically coming before us and what we would need to do to morph their solution to fit our predicaments now.
We especially get this question all the time with the proposed method of bringing the NAR into existence.
Oh, but you'll never be allowed to do that.
The Jews won't let you.
The powers that be didn't let people create their own countries in the past either, but they still did it.
Now look, I'm not meaning to make light of Comrade P's question.
Of course it's important, it meant something to him or he wouldn't have asked it.
And hey, it means something to us or we wouldn't answer it.
But I do want to impress that simple answers sometimes are the most important, and in this case there is a very simple answer.
This hasn't been a problem for our race before, so it's not going to be a problem for our race now, because we've already licked it more than once.
Quite some time ago, a local comrade emailed the HQ group asking our thoughts on why intellectually gifted Aryans tend towards the left.
This is an absolutely fantastic question, because it exposes what's wrong with a materialist worldview.
Now, for the record, this particular comrade did not and does not have a materialist worldview, but many white people today, especially those coming from the alt-right into actual white nationalism, are still suffering from such.
To make it plain, the NF has no religion, Plink, so I'm not here to throw spirituality of any sort in your face.
What I do need to point out is that materialism is quintessentially the Jewish worldview, and it's best if we do away with it or else we will never recover the things in ourselves we need to recover to save ourselves from genocide.
Having said that, I will now answer the question.
This thing of ours very frequently becomes obsessed with one concept and one concept only for way too long a period of time.
Right now we are way too obsessed with IQ as the only metric by which we can judge something.
At its root, IQ is just the ability to logic out new concepts.
To a lesser extent, it is our ability to solve new problems that we've not encountered before.
That's all that it is.
By itself, IQ can most certainly be applied to good or bad ends.
This is one of the most important things to realize, that a person's character can be just as important as their IQ in the long run.
Having high IQ but low character, or bad goals to which you're applying your IQ, is clearly an issue.
Remember, Asians have similar IQs to white people, but they have a completely different type of creativity and a completely different approach to the world around them, such that they have an entirely different civilization.
To answer Mr. Simple's question from before, strictly speaking, we can't say that there's a one-dimensional problem of, oh well, gifted Jews are just doing evil things.
No, they have a different type of creativity, specifically parasitic, verbal manipulation of other people, and they have a different way of approaching the world, i.e.
materialism, and that dictates the type of civilization, if any, depending on how you want to view it, that Jews create.
So what's the deal with white people?
Well, it turns out that's the character problem.
Again, I'm not here to preach any sort of religion at you, but it's worth noting that our traditional beliefs have some very, very useful things in them.
Why is it an otherwise perfectly intelligent white person would choose something outright degenerate, or at least left of center, as a way of living their life?
Turns out, there's a social motivation to do so, and it's not so much popularity, but rather it's wrapped up in the reason that Bill Clinton was such a popular president.
In fact, it's the same reason that child molesters are looked down on in prison, even by people who have done things worse than child molestation, like mass murder.
Everybody needs somebody to feel superior to in order to justify their own shortcomings.
That is, I'm not as bad as that person, so I'm really not all that bad.
And yes, I did just compare President Bill Clinton to a child molester, but given what we've all known about him and his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein for however many years now, that's probably not inappropriate.
But what does that have to do with highly gifted, yet immoral white people?
People have logicked out that it's in their benefit to make all sorts of degeneracy acceptable socially so that the thing they want to do, such as, say, sleeping around or cheating on their spouse or whatever else, is seen as bland and passé by comparison.
And that right there is the heart of it.
When someone decides to become vaguely immoral or otherwise abandon some sort of traditional life or traditional beliefs, their immediate inclination is, well, what can I get away with now, and how do I get away with it?
There isn't really a simpler answer other than to go back to the Bill Clinton question.
Bill Clinton and his behavior are absolutely reprehensible.
Nobody disputes that.
But he's popular.
And he's well-liked, because if he's popular and well-liked, then somebody else doing something wrong but not as wrong by comparison cannot be called out by the rest of society.
Bill Clinton is popular because he makes everybody feel good about their own faults, because it's very, very difficult to be worse than Bill Clinton.
Here's yet another way of thinking about this.
Immediately, hypocrisy sticks to anybody on the right because we actually have standards.
Hypocrisy, on the other hand, will never ever stick to anyone on the left because by definition they can't have standards, or else they would fail to meet most, if not all, of them outright.
Why then go left?
If you're so smart you should know that standards are beneficial to everyone because they're what keep everyone from slipping.
Well, it turns out if there are no standards at all, whatever you want to do must be okay, right?
So it is that white character problem.
As the Northwest Front and Harold Covington and I have told you all for years, white people are especially good at justifying their decision to do the wrong thing.
It almost always boils down to convenience, and it's worth noting that when somebody decides to drop their own standards for them personally, because standards are hard and they'd prefer to have an easier life, they immediately have to find a way to make that thing they want to do acceptable.
Hey, why not go hard left, right?
If everybody's just as good as everybody else, then there's no such thing as a wrong choice.
Now, I'll note the comrade asking this question has asked a brilliant question, because all in all, it's very easy, and it's been observed by many people in the movement, that brown people, non-white people, tend to vote relatively far left, and left alone in their own natural environment with no outside influences, white people tend to vote squarely right of center.
Well, of course we do.
We're primed that way.
The reason this comrade is asking the question is that it just doesn't make sense to see otherwise high-quality, if we're going just strictly based off of IQ or intellect, high-quality white people going left.
Now you know why.
I'm not going to say this is the only answer, of course.
Other members of the HQ group came up with their own responses and emailed him, and I don't want to pretend like I'm the only one that has a response.
Even so, I think this one is more relevant and more appropriate, given that it ties into long-standing problems we in white nationalism and white people as a whole have got to solve, or else we're toast.
With that, I've run very long on several of these questions, and I don't have any more time for my material this week.
I'll see if I can't catch up on some of the points I hinted at and teased in later programs.
We'll see if I can't catch up on some of the points I'll see if I can't catch up on some of the points I'm looking for.
Greetings, comrades.
This is the Trucker coming at you from just east of Boise, Idaho.
Just left the house after a long weekend at home.
Weather out there was real nice.
It got up into the 80s there in the Pugetopolis area when I was home on Saturday.
The other days it was a little bit cooler than that.
It only got up into the 70s and it cooled down at night into probably about the low 60s.
Or so, I guess it was.
Something like that.
So it's real nice weather at the moment.
Coming out of Portland earlier yesterday, after I got loaded at right around noon, it was upper 70s, lower 80s there.
Breeze blowing through there.
If you were into the windboard surfing or the parasail surfing, however the heck they do that, man, you would have had a blast out there on the Columbia River yesterday.
They were just having a ball out there.
Zipping all over the river.
Yeah, there's quite a bit of summer activity to be had around this neck of the woods.
Where I'm sitting at right now, it's 70 degrees right after sunrise.
Nice cool, nice temperature outside.
Supposed to get up into the upper 80s around this neck of the woods.
Came through a little bit of rain yesterday coming out of Oregon.
Not much.
Everything was still fairly green.
Starting to...
Brown up a little bit now because of getting into the hotter part of summer.
It was about a week or so ago when I was trying to get home.
They were having me swap out loads and stuff, and I picked up a load of potatoes there in eastern Idaho, and I decided to take a different road this time, coming out of Idaho Falls with the load that was heading for Pennsylvania.
Instead of going down to take US-30 across, I went and took US-26.
My recommendation for you guys that are actually going to make a scouting trip out here, US-26 is a good way to come into the homeland.
It is really scenic.
There's a lot of stuff to do.
After you come through Pinedale, Wyoming, you get into the recreational area, there's neglected to find out what name of the lake it was, but there's a big reservoir there, a river that runs alongside, I think.
Snake River starts somewhere in that neck of the woods.
But it's a real pretty area.
A lot of camping, a lot of hiking, a lot of water activities.
Not too far from Idaho Falls.
Probably about maybe an hour's drive from Idaho Falls area.
So if you're into that kind of thing, there you go.
What can I say?
It's one of the prettiest drives coming into the homeland I've stumbled across yet.
Anyways, I just thought I'd throw that one out there.
I'll catch you next time.
Be safe.
Keep your feet off the damn dashboard when you're driving because you never know when them airbags are going to deploy.
I see especially women with their feet up on the dashboard.
You think, oh yeah, I'll be able to move my feet, get my legs down in time.
Yeah, okay, right.
Seen stories about that.
Keep your feet off the damn dashboard and the windshield.
Alright, this is the Trucker signing off from Idaho.
Have a safe one, comrades, and hope to see you out there on the road making your scouting trips and your migration soon.
Westbound now, 18-wheel roadmets.
We're going to do what they say can be done.
We've got a long way to go.
Any short time to get there, I'm Westbound.
Just watch your bandit run *Screams* you
I've just re-listened to my material wherein I answer the question why smart white people tend towards the left, and a much more simple answer to that question is available, and it's that facts motivate very few people overall.
It goes without saying that any smart person would realize degeneracy of any sort is bad for them first and foremost, and they would therefore avoid it, and then applying that, they would therefore want other people around them to avoid it, because they'll be hit with the after-effects of degeneracy, but no, that's a fact, and facts aren't necessarily the best motivators.
Someone's emotional desires got the better of them, true, and that does tie into the answer I gave, but it is not the most fundamental answer.
It's very, very difficult for white people, and that goes for the NF included, to try and not think about things in a purely factual basis, especially when they feel that they themselves are not immediately affected by the subject.
As such, it's hard for us to think about the underlying motivations for why a smart white person would go to the left because, especially in the Northwest Front, we have to be very fact-oriented and very aggressive about doing what's best for all of us in the long run rather than try to answer very deep questions with very deep answers that prove to be unnecessary, as so many of our race do with our addiction to theorycraft and the white pathology.
One of our very long-term British commentators left a comment on Radio Free Northwest asking why we don't have more submissions from other people on the show anymore.
Well, it's not for lack of asking, but I'll ask again since the subject's come up.
Anybody at any time is perfectly welcome to submit something they think appropriate for Radio Free Northwest.
Just to be clear, though, we could get rid of it on technical grounds.
and we could also reject it for content reasons and certainly no fighting personal feuds on this program in disguise of actual politics and with that I think I've exhausted my list for
this week Good evening, comrades.
Tonight I would like to discuss the book Whiteness, The Original Sin by Jim Goad.
Now, I do have to admit this book is something of a rant, dealing with a lot of current events and social critique.
Now, the perspective of this author was very much a salt-of-the-earth type, and now an individual who is plagued by the need for nuance.
Now, of course, academics today, if you ask them for a definition of whiteness, they would likely say that whiteness is a construct.
And while this seems cliched, I think what they really mean by this is when they're speaking of whiteness in quotes.
They're really speaking more of a sociological construct than they are a biological state.
So I think they're speaking more about, in a sense, a certain enculturation rather than necessarily a measuring of each individual.
For example, you know, perhaps you could have...
A person who was olive-skinned participating in this quote-unquote whiteness more than a person with, let's say, a very pink complexion.
So I don't think that, you know, when they're talking about whiteness, I don't think they're talking about, you know, Nordicism or something like that where you have these very strict...
Perhaps measurements of the individual and objective tests that one could do to test a person's degree of Nordicism or something.
It's not like that.
It's more of a cultural privilege construct that I think these academics want to talk about.
But at any rate, as I said, this author is not into those kinds of subtleties.
This author is at times a bit witty.
He makes an interesting joke about moving to India, deciding that Indians are more served by the publishing industry in India, and then demanding all kinds of grants and awards for those observations.
Now, the whole crux of this book is very much interested in America, and it's also interested in very much the black-white polarity.
A recurring question in this book is asking if there are any black countries that are more prosperous than white countries.
And also, it asks the question, well, if white countries are so racist, Why are Asians doing so well in white countries?
And, of course, those are obviously rhetorical questions.
Now, this author, being very much in love with current events, he does have a very succinct discussion of Charlottesville, and he talks about this Mayor Bellamy and how He revoked a permit, and then the Unite the Right group got the permit back through the ACLU.
But then the group was told that they had to leave Lee Park or face the rest.
And frankly, a lot of them did want to leave the park, but then there were so many Antifa protesters.
That it became impossible for them to leave.
So you were setting up a disaster in that case.
One of the things that they talked about during that time, I remember there was a lot of talk of how the protesters, the Unite the Right protesters, were from out of town.
It's interesting how this concept of locality, like other concepts, It's utilized when it's convenient.
If 100,000 Turks and Africans decide that they're going to all swarm and walk up to Germany, for example, it's really great that they're from abroad.
But if some Americans go to Charlottesville to protest taking down a monument, then it's really interesting that they're from out of town and they shouldn't be doing that.
And, you know, maybe sometimes you've looked around, and I know this has happened to me, and I've seen white people who are really very insular.
They kind of live in their own very elite world.
Sometimes just a world of not only white people, but of elite whites.
And yet they are extremely for integration and concerned about...
You know, whether or not everyone's getting a fair shot in life.
And you kind of ask yourself, well, why are these very elite people so concerned with this integration and everything like that, assimilation and immigrants?
Why are they so, why do they have that mindset?
Because they're in a way, you might say they're kind of vulnerable.
You might see them as being vulnerable and yet they're...
You'd think they'd be conservative in some sense, and they're not sometimes.
The author talks about something called Passover Syndrome and says that they believe that if they say the right things, they're going to be passed over.
You know, if there's violence, it's not going to affect them.
But the author notes that at the end of the day, people of color, they don't really like traitors.
So that's the irony there.
And the author addresses this question of white guilt, again, vis-a-vis Americans.
And he talks about how there are a great many whites that came to this country really as indentured servants.
Now, sometimes these indentured servants would end up trying to go back home, but then they'd get recaptured, and many would spend much of their life in bondage.
They also had death rates that were very competitive with African slaves.
So the author just wants to remind white people about that and talks a lot about poor whites in the South and the origin of the term redneck, how they were working out in the hot sun and their necks would get sunburned.
And really says that, you know, there's a lot of whites in this country that really don't need to feel any guilt.
The author talks about Muhammad Ali, who, of course, was born with the name Cassius Clay, and talks about the irony there, how the original Cassius Marxist Clay, or at least the one that was famous, the one that Muhammad Ali was originally named after, He was actually an anti-slavery advocate.
However, when Cassius Clay changed his name to Muhammad Ali, he was actually naming himself after an Egyptian warlord that actually enslaved the Sudanese.
Now, this author notes that Muhammad Ali had opinions about race that would today be considered insensitive or controversial.
And the author does note that famously Ali was on record as saying that he was thankful that his granddaddy got on the boat.
Of course, what he meant by that, even though I'm sure he wasn't, you know, happy that the people in his lineage were enslaved, I don't think, I'm sure he's not saying that.
But what he is saying is that he was happy that his ancestors were able to come to the First World because he realizes that life is easier here because he did get the chance to visit Africa and spend time in Africa, and he realized that life in the First World, even though it's not perfect, it's better than it would be in Africa.
And the author talks about those bias indicator tests that were so popular back in the mid-2000s.
They had a test that was developed to see if you had implicit racial bias.
And the author talks about one of the conclusions from this that...
In general, whites tend to be actually more colorblind as compared to blacks and probably other groups as well.
I suppose that's because a lot of times white people just don't have to think about these issues.
And the author talks a lot about different current events.
And just as there's often a double standard, you'll hear a lot about white-on-black crimes, various hate crimes perpetrated by whites, and you don't hear much about the other way around, and it's just not as emphasized in the news.
Now, even though this author is primarily focused on America, he does speak briefly about the Holocaust.
And he says that people that are called deniers are really, when you listen to what they say, typically they're quibbling over numbers, they're quibbling about how exactly people died, but there's no one who's saying that the camps were somehow a vacation or anything like that.
No one's saying that it was a wonderful time and place to be Jewish or to be some sort of perhaps a political dissident or perhaps a gypsy.
So the author says that even those things should be put into more of a perspective.
Now, the author is now without some admiration for the Jews because he looks at them and he sees them as a people who will not take abuse.
And, for example, when they were victims of the knockout game, even though they didn't fight back physically, they did get in touch with lawyers.
The author talks about self-loathing and talks about how it's a very unattractive trait.
And actually, this is the first author that I've read that I would say is more of a supremacist than a separatist.
The problem with talking so much about current events is that the material becomes dated very quickly.
But this is a book that would be More accessible to people who are more interested in recent history or interested in American situations and individuals who may not be that interested in more European events or things like World War II and things of that nature.
Depending on how much you want to study, I would say if you want to read this book, Read it, but then maybe go on to some other authors if you want a more nuanced point of view.
So I hope you enjoyed this discussion.
Have a good evening and hail victory, comrades.
The End Hello everyone, this is Comrade Jason.
Andy's question and answer series this week works well with what I want to talk about, as does Gretchen's timely review of Whiteness, the Original Sin.
Andy answered a question we received about the parasitism of Jews and referenced a conversation the HQ group had on them not too long ago.
That conversation was also, in part, about the weird and almost semi-mystical way some white nationalists have talked about Jews in the past, and sometimes still do.
Many writers aware of the Jew in years past have regularly expressed a sort of uncomprehending astonishment at how venomous and greedy they can be, how pernicious and destructive, how treasonous and underhanded, all the while acting as if history isn't full of examples of our own kind, and indeed all peoples of the earth, doing things that are completely comparable to even the worst things of which Jews have been accused.
A lot of times Jews are talked about as if they are something special, almost otherworldly.
An almost supernaturally ordained nemesis that can be understood only in semi-mystical terms as the universe's cosmic spiritual antithesis to the white man.
Jews forged by the very devil himself to be our eternal enemy in the battle of good versus evil.
I have to say I revere Revelo P. Oliver and his writings, but I do have to cast blame his way for some of this semi-mystical over-reverence of the supposed unique and ethereal qualities of the Jews in the present day.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see it.
Jews are not alien life forms.
Jews are not mystical and ultimately inscrutable.
They are, in fact, entirely scrutable and comprehensible.
Maybe, to a certain degree, we feel the need to build them up in our own minds to make sense of the fact that we haven't yet found a way to permanently overcome them.
They are certainly the most annoying, problematic, and socially dangerous race we have ever encountered.
And it is maddening that we haven't sanitized their influence in our societies for good by now.
We should never be blind to what they are, which is racial competitors and often enemies.
But our discomfort with this failure to permanently inoculate ourselves against their influence shouldn't make us imagine that they are something they are not.
Fundamentally, Jews are just a minority population Forever living in the lands of others, and trying to make things go their way, even if it's at the expense of those other populations.
It's no more complex than that.
So as a part of this, let's talk about the whole parasite thing Andy addressed earlier, and how indulging in this parasite trope also undermines our clarity and vision with regard to the Jews, just as the semi-mystical reverence thing does.
It is common for us in our community to make the observation that, indeed, Jews do not have and have never had a quote-unquote civilization of their own.
It simply does not follow, however, that they are, or in the future would be, incapable of creating their own advanced civilization.
We know what the requirement is.
It's merely a high enough average intelligence within a population as a whole, and we know full well that Jews have that.
The Jews had a territory in which they had their own culture and in which, if they had been able to hold it and increase their numbers and power sufficiently, they could have established something large and persistent enough to have been called a civilization.
But the Jews rebelled against the foreign rule of the Caesars of the Roman Empire and were pushed out of their lands to roam the earth in the lands of others as a diaspora people.
Historically, it's happened a lot, and it happened to the Jews.
So, as a people living amongst foreigners, always in lands not their own, what would you expect them to do?
How precisely would you expect them to live?
Obviously, they would seek to carve a place for themselves and pull whatever resources they could into their own control, nurture their relationships with their host populations, and seek to extract maximum benefit to themselves from the arrangement.
It's also obviously predictable.
We, being the host population, can certainly characterize it as parasitic, sure.
That is valid.
But living parasitically is a very successful evolutionary strategy.
I saw an article just a few weeks ago making the rounds on social media about a fascinating parasitic worm that embeds itself into a certain type of snail, and its larvae grow to occupy the eye stalks of the snail.
They engorge the eyestalks and dramatically pulsate back and forth, making the eyestalks look like caterpillars, so that they are then eaten by birds and continue the cycle of their lives within the bodies of these birds that feed on them.
The worms even mentally control the snail, which is nocturnal, to make it roam around on the tops of leaves during daytime to increase the chances of being seen and eaten.
Mentally controlling the host.
Now that certainly is Jew-like, wouldn't you say?
Anyway, it was creepy and bizarre, and the perfect kind of thing to spread widely and educate thousands on social media.
Well, the article educated me on a very interesting fact, that over half the known species of animal life on Earth live their lives parasitically off of other organisms for at least part of their life cycle.
So guess what?
The Jewish parasitic strategy of survival is shared by the majority of the life forms on Earth.
Such an existence is obviously wildly successful.
Of course, parasitism can often be ruinous and even deadly for hosts.
But that's for the host to worry about, isn't it?
My main point here is that trying to criticize Jews for selecting a very effective survival strategy after being thrown out of the Levant by Caesar in 70 AD is really kind of ridiculous.
And because it is ridiculous, it does us no favors as part of our propaganda.
The Jewish strategy has allowed them to survive and at times thrive.
And most importantly, from their perspective, maintain themselves improbably and against all odds in the lands of their racial competitors for nearly 2,000 years.
That's quite impressive, if we are intellectually honest.
And we should be.
Always.
So for us to pretend that Jews can only live parasitically and are incapable of civilization on their own is really just a stupid conceit on our part.
It must have been originally developed by a mediocre thinker.
And has been propagated by other mediocre thinkers through the years just because, I guess, saying it makes us feel superior, doesn't it?
But through this analysis, I hope you now see that it's juvenile and unsupportable and, quite frankly, beneath us.
And doesn't it now strike you just as intuitively off the mark?
No neutral party whom we might hope to enlist in our cause could be persuaded that the Jews have no ability to create a civilization of their own.
On its face, that conjecture is just not credible.
And when you rely on incredible propaganda, you lose credibility.
So we really should do away with this dumb piece of our occasional rhetoric about the Jews.
Let's put this one to sleep, and out of its misery.
At the end of the June 13th RFN, a little over two months ago, I ended the show with music and an audio clip that were both tied to Jews and their nefarious doings as enemies of the white race.
The audio clip was from an interview with Noel Ignatieff.
Where he describes his war against whiteness, a war which he has been waging for over two decades in academia.
Here's a bit of an extended version without the musical overlay from the previous show.
My concern is doing away with whiteness.
Whiteness is a form of racial oppression, sure.
The suggestion is that it is somehow possible to separate whiteness from oppression, and it is not.
There can be no white race without...
The phenomenon of white supremacy.
If you abolish slavery, you abolish slaveholders.
In the same way, if you abolish racial oppression, you do away with whiteness.
Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.
Your views are fairly well received in academia.
Yes, they're legitimate.
Not to say that everyone agrees, but sure.
Whiteness is an identity that arises entirely out of oppression.
Whiteness is not a culture, it's not a religion, it's not a language, it's simply an oppressive social category.
Blackness is an identity that can be plausibly argued.
Black studies is the study of The task is to bring this minority together in such a way that it makes it impossible for the legacy of whiteness to continue to reproduce itself.
So who is this Noel Ignatiev who spouts such venom against us?
Well, he's a Jew, of course, who, like many of them, looks and sounds very white.
And he gets lots of play on that through the ignorance of people who assume he has a greater credibility and objectivity, since he's talking about his own kind, right?
Wrong.
He's talking about us, whom he considers his racial enemy.
By his people's determination, actually, since Jews are the ones who famously divided all the earth into Jews and everyone else, promised by their desert god Yahweh that they would get to enslave all other peoples and steal their stuff.
More than just a Jew, however, this man is the quintessential example of the classic Jewish communist agitator, who infiltrates a key part of society to corrupt its conversations and subvert it to divide and control.
Classically and stereotypically, he's the child of Russian-Jewish immigrants, was a member of the American Communist Party, has been a Marxist agitator all his life, worked numerous times to foment labor strikes, enrolled at Jewish-run Harvard University and stayed on to teach, for Christ's sakes, so he could poison the minds of our young, and co-founded the magazine Race Trader, whose banner motto is as heard in this clip, Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.
Of course, that is part of the giant con that this shyster is selling.
The motto mentions only whites.
But being titled race traitor, one would think Nolignasiev is talking about himself.
But he is not.
He's talking about what he wants you to become.
He's talking about what he wants to turn whites into.
Nolignasiev is not a race traitor, because he is not white.
He is faithfully performing his service to his kind.
Trying to get you to betray yours.
If he were honest, the title of his rag would be Race Enemy, but obviously truth in advertising is not his goal.
Noel Ignatieff is a social maggot burrowing into the flesh of the nation.
You don't get a more stereotypical example of the communist Jew enemy worming his way into the centers of power and influence for the purpose of weakening us than Noel Ignatieff.
This guy is it, and unfortunately he's been extremely successful.
As the interviewer notes, his attacks on whites are well accepted in the halls of academia.
Antifa of Portland, to the south of us, is one of the most active Antifa terror cells in the nation.
When you see video of them on the news, they are almost entirely white, and they are avowedly communist.
They are the product of our foolish recklessness in allowing the enemies of our civilization to finish raising our kids in our universities for the last 30 years.
They are the product of Jews like Ignatieff being allowed to do their subversive work.
By the time socially poisonous and destructive concepts begin to be noticed by the public at large, they have typically been cooking in the fetid halls of academia for years beforehand, being tried out on young adults, being refined and honed as propaganda, prototyped and revised into concentrated mind poisons, That, when they leech into the mainstream, are weaponized by the leftist media and deployed against all common sense and reason, against unsuspecting normal people just wanting to live their lives.
This is what this man has been doing all his professional life.
In a properly healthy white society, a man like this would have already been dealt with.
But let's talk a bit about his philosophy here and tie it to what we're seeing in the broader society now.
You may find it surprising, but I am going to tell you that Ignatiev is entirely correct with his main premise, that whiteness cannot exist apart from a system of white supremacy.
If you know the details of his philosophy, you will know he bases it on the idea of race as merely a social construct, one of the stupidest modern notions we must unfortunately suffer with.
But he nevertheless comes to a proper conclusion here.
Whiteness cannot be divorced from white supremacy because whiteness cannot be divorced from white superiority.
As we know, whites are naturally, biologically superior to every other race.
Overall, whites are the best that the Earth has to offer.
Now, some other races are very close to us, it's true.
But in the geographically separated and parallel evolutions of the various human subspecies on the Earth over the last several hundred thousand years, One of them was going to turn out to be the overall best.
And that's us, baby.
If it's white, it's almost always better.
But when whites are forced to live alongside inferior non-whites in the same territory, the only thing that works even halfway well is when the white master is holding the reins.
Today's chaotic and disintegrating society, as compared to American society of merely 70 years ago, illustrates this clearly.
Whites must rule non-whites because whites are superior, and it is in accord with the nature of the universe that the superior dominates the inferior.
It's the primary way in which you tell the superior from the inferior, by which one dominates.
On a level playing field, whites win.
So this asshole Jew, Noel Ignasiev, is actually correct.
Whiteness cannot be divorced from white supremacy because whiteness will not be allowed to exist under any other conditions than white supremacy.
And here's why.
The whiteness that this communist Jew enemy is trying to destroy is nothing more than whites just being ourselves and designing our own societies in accordance with our own natures to benefit us and our children, something that all peoples and all nations naturally have the right to do.
But according to the poisonous rhetoric of the Jew subversive, this cannot be allowed for the evil white man.
The increasingly frequent public attacks on whiteness show clearly that our racial adversaries will not allow us to simply be ourselves in nations that we do not control.
Their own egos and resentments and jealousies will always compel them to try to shackle us and leech from us or steal whatever we produce, because what we create will always be superior.
In a multiracial America which whites do not control, we will be socially and legally enslaved by non-whites and put to work for the inferior purposes of their inferior lives.
They will never let us freely be who and what we are, which is superior to them.
All we have to do is look at the transformation of South Africa to see that in a mixed-race society, which racially loyal whites do not rule, meritocracy and justice become impossible.
Because non-whites simply will not stand for our natural superiority finding its proper and inevitable expression.
In order to live free, the white man must live alone.
Anarchy can work for a single town in an almost failed state like Mexico.
But on any greater scale, someone will always be in charge.
And as we know from national socialist philosophy, the best must rule.
If the best, who are the only ones actually capable of building and advancing civilization, do not enforce their rule, they will eventually be turned upon and seized and dragged down into the desperate clawing mass of ordinary and subpar men and slaughtered by them.
Which is, of course, a perfect description of the racial future that communist Marxist Jewish pieces of shit like Noel Ignatieff want for us.
Something similar to his thesis can actually be said of the Jews.
That Jewishness is inseparable from Jewish subversion.
As intelligent minority racial adversaries in white lands, Jews will always naturally seek to undermine and co-opt white control of our societies for their own purposes and benefit without regard for what is good for us.
We talked about this earlier.
It is their adaptive mode of survival that has worked for them for 2,000 years.
Jews will always sacrifice our interests for theirs if the two are in conflict.
If whiteness is inseparable from supremacy, Jewishness is inseparable from subversion.
As Nahum Goldman wrote in The Jewish Paradox published in 1978, I hardly exaggerate.
Jewish life consists of two elements, extracting money and protesting.
The eternal conflict between Jews and whites shows that racial and social conflict is endemic and unavoidable in conditions of racial diversity.
History is totally clear on this.
That racial diversity breeds racial sociological warfare.
Always.
So, in summation, Ignatiev has it right about something which is not wrong in the least: white supremacy.
White supremacy in white lands is necessary for protecting whiteness itself.
The two are actually inseparable.
What are not inseparable are the races of mankind.
The races can most definitely be separated.
And this is, of course, our plan, to secure peace, safety, and harmony once again for our people.
When the Melians asked the Athenian Greeks by what right did they come across the sea to subjugate and destroy their nation, the Athenians replied, the strong do as they will, and the weak suffer what they must.
Listening to Jews again during the 20th century made whites racially weak, and so we suffer.
The Northwest Front is here to once again make whites racially strong and to get things turned back around.
Spread the word.
The task is to bring this minority together in such a way that it makes it impossible for the legacy of whiteness to continue to reproduce itself.
Well, you know, when we're discussing things to eliminate and make impossible to continue into the future, you first, Jew.
The End
Always played it by the book Always gave more than I took Try to be fair, try to be good And do the right thing if I could But things have changed a lot around here Where there was laughter,
now there's fear They promised me some love hereafter Then just like that there's shootin' at your wars are coming Wars are coming.
Wars are coming.
Wars are coming.
Soon.
I'm a bad man if I durst.
Put my kith and kinfolk first.
While I'm sick and tired of being pleased.
My whole world be fought for least.
Wars are coming.
Wars are coming, Wars are coming, Wars are coming soon I was born to sympathize, never been a bad man in disguise But now I'm forced to celebrate every last thing that I hate Was it coming?
What's a coming soon?
All of those that I maintain Music
Call me names if I complain.
I gave it all, they give me nothing.
So what do I care if you think I'm bluffing?
Wars are coming.
Soon.
Better get your...
Get yourself prepared.
You don't want to hang with the rest of the herd.
Sheeple lemming, cattle mouse, they're on their way to the slaughterhouse.
Wars are coming.
Wars are coming.
Look at the crem trail in the sky.
Isn't it time to wonder why?
Lover, mother, hero, dreamer, light 'em all up for the next Fukushima.
Wars are coming.
Was it coming?
How come that your new world order left my whole world without border?
You gave away my wonderland to the alien hogs of the hippen ham.
Was it coming?
Was it coming?
You must have seen the writing on the wall.
Haven't you read the 17 protocol?
You just gotta wake up to the master plan when they're doing away with suit.
Was it coming?
Was it coming?
All the false flags they create to subjugate the nation state.
How many more will the company kill for the Wall Street Wolf and the dollar bill?
Was it coming?
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