All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 19, 2019 - Radio Free Nortwest - H.A. Covington
01:00:27
20190919_rfn
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Oh, then tell me, Sean O 'Farrell, tell me why you hurry so.
Hush, a woogle, 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 the marching tune For your pike upon your shoulder by the rising of the moon By the rising of the moon, by the rising of the moon Greetings from the Northwest Homeland, comrades.
The date is Thursday.
September 19th, 2019.
I'm Andy Donner, and this is Radio Free Northwest.
Radio Free Northwest.
Comrades, this week I'm going to take it easy and be a little bit more laid-back and conversational with you, since I'd like to genuinely talk to you just for a bit.
Specifically, I would like to discuss what should and should not be in written communication to the party, whether it be snail mail, email, message board, social media, or anything else, where something you produce could be read back in open court.
It may sound as though I'm being unnecessarily reactive and overly cautious, but I want to remind you all of a few things that have happened in our movements past.
If Harold were alive right now, he would call our attention to the curious case of Johnny Logan Spencer, who wrote a poem called The Sniper, threatening Barack Obama.
It was posted before and again after Obama took office in early 2009.
This utter foolishness got Mr. Spencer a 33-month prison sentence.
Admittedly, I didn't follow the case much after that, because what he did was so incredibly moronic as to be something that simply ought not happen, yet it did.
Now, no, nothing like that has happened this time around, but I do want to bring up another famous case, just to sink the point home.
Bill White.
Now, he didn't even threaten Barack Obama.
Rather, he just published on the internet.
I believe it was a magazine cover with a sniper's target over Barack Obama with the title, Kill This Nigger with a Question Mark.
No, not a threat, but that's what started the mess Bill White is in right now.
Don't ever think the system isn't looking to make chew toys out of these people, and don't ever think it can't happen to you if you're not careful.
Granted, it can happen to you anyway, but don't give them a reason, please.
And for a much more recent example, just this time last month, a Mr. James Reardon was arrested for making online threats against a synagogue or a Jewish community center in the state of Ohio.
Odds are he had absolutely no intention of doing any such thing, and he was posting a joke, or even more likely, he was trying to impress someone that he wanted to be friends with, possibly for racial and legitimate political reasons.
Who knows?
Why is this coming up now?
It turns out we've had a rash of these things come through on the various media I mentioned earlier.
That needs to stop.
I'd like to read one particularly interesting example of this, and I want to make it plain, the man who wrote this will almost certainly recognize himself, and no, I'm not trying to dog you, I just need you to understand the situation you're in.
The portions of this email I'm going to read come from the first and third in a chain, which started as a follow-up to his initial new contact request submission.
Now, for the record, I'm not going to read out the portions I'm worried about.
I'm simply going to hint at what they say.
Sandwiched between statements 1 and 2, which I will get to in a moment, this guy says that he's training in MMA fighting to prepare himself to engage in physical combat with Antifa to do horrible things to them and to make it known to the world that he was the one doing it.
Again, I'm certain this guy is sincere, and I'm certain this was just braggadocio.
His first statement in that first email is that he has always wanted to be involved in a group like the Northwest Front, and he's always wanted to be able to just do something as basic as having regular conversations with another racially aware person.
Hey, I can get behind that entirely.
I understand.
But here's the part that contradicts that statement too.
He's a lone wolf preparing himself for the war, and so on and so forth.
Well, which is it?
You want to be part of a group and participate in like-minded interaction, or you're a lone wolf?
It's possible many people on the internet calling themselves lone wolves don't even know what a lone wolf is.
That's neither here nor there.
I just want you to observe the lack of consistency in these statements and the attempt at impressing us.
And on that point, look, I'm thrilled you want to impress the Northwest Front.
This doesn't do it, and you're about to learn why.
As it so happens, I just said you when I in fact meant you all, and I need to stop and catch myself.
Because again, I'm not talking to this one person, I'm talking to all of you using him as an example.
Just to reiterate, I think this guy's sincere and genuine and does mean well.
The item I want to call out from his follow-up email is that he indicated he spends quite a bit of time arguing on the internet through various social media outlets with, well, anyone.
On the surface, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's a genuinely bad use of time.
If you want to post something, post it.
You want to say something to follow it up, follow it up.
The people that need to see it are going to see it, and the people that don't need to see it are going to hassle you no matter what you do.
There have been quite a few people that have given us a number of red flags over the years about them, and one of those consistent red flags is that they like arguing with Antifa and niggers and Jews on the internet.
Why they think that's a productive use of their time and effort, I'll never understand.
There have been one or two other people that have gotten a hold of the party over the message board lately, and one of the other moderators let their initial posts go through, and I had to follow up and censor them because something slipped through that shouldn't have.
These guys were talking about things they might do to combat Antifa where they live in the homeland, and again, that's all the details you're getting.
They took it a step too far and indicated how they were anticipating a physical engagement to go.
That's not how this goes, guys.
This is not the thing to do.
That is not the way to plan.
There's nothing wrong with self-defense when it's legitimate self-defense, but I want to make it plain that's not how this will be seen by outside observers, and here's why.
Let us suppose that someone out there is defending themselves against Antifa, and they are, how do I want to put this, spectacularly successful in doing so.
What is their world like from that point going forward?
Of course, this goes doubly for taking out Antifa, who sometimes happen to be non-white.
We've seen, year after year, decade after decade even, what happens to white people that successfully defend themselves against not just the black beasts that are the pets of our racial enemy, but anyone that happens to be politically motivated against our race.
It's an absolute disaster for these people, and their lives never recover.
And more importantly, when they're arrested for murder, manslaughter, whatever you want to call it, an investigation will begin.
They will seize your computer, go through your hard drive, go through your emails, go through your social media, and anything else they can get their hands on.
Now, what would happen to one of you who is, again, objectively completely innocent of any crime in the situation, when they find an email or a forum post or a tweet or whatever else you want to call it that says, I'm getting ready to do this.
I'm training in that.
I'm gonna go beat Antifa and let the world know that I did it.
What you just did is you gave a prosecutor the easiest possible first-degree murder conviction they'll ever get because you admitted in words prior to an act occurring that you were planning on doing something that would result in a death, or at least had the potential to do so.
It's true I'm no lawyer, but I have had prosecutors explain this to me before.
All they need is the thinnest wisp of evidence that whatever happened was pre-planned on your part and you're going to prison for a very long time, possibly the rest of your life.
This may still come across as an overreaction or some sort of CYA maneuver on my part, but it's not because the things I'm talking about happen on a regular basis.
We're by no means fans of Patriot Front or the Proud Boys or whatever else, largely because these people hate us for being explicitly racist.
They're not even implicitly racist.
They've got spics and muds of all sorts running those outfits, or at least have on and off.
Individuals involved in both those organizations frequently get arrested for what I suspect are actually self-defense actions.
It's just too hard to tell that at the time.
You need to make every effort to simply avoid these situations rather than plan on how you're going to handle the confrontation.
Self-defense is one thing, but anticipating armed combat with one or more political opponents is not a good thing to do, and it's especially not a good thing to broadcast that even if you think it's just to my email inbox.
Harold said at one point people who did this had to be absolutely nuts because his email was almost certainly one of the most monitored in the country, and I'm sure mine is the same.
Don't ever forget the Greenboro Massacre.
For those of you that don't know, a bunch of commies decided to bring guns to a gunfight that they started and lost.
Their price for that was their lives.
Now, the white men responsible for defending themselves, and it was a clear-cut case of self-defense.
Hell, it didn't matter.
They had civil rights trials up and down the system from multiple sovereigns in order to work around the issue of double jeopardy, so on and so forth.
For each of the men involved, that situation ran for many years and ruined them all in several different ways.
Because the history of white nationalism is so full of instances like this, the NF and I get very, very jumpy when somebody seems like they can't wait to run their mouth to us in an email, not because we think they're planning to engage in acts which might garnish them a terrorism charge or two, but because they're setting themselves up regardless.
Please, guys, think better before you say stuff like that to us or anyone else.
Thank you.
Good evening, comrades.
Tonight I'm going to be discussing The Guard of Auschwitz, and this is a Terry Lee Coker film.
This is a somewhat different experience for me, of course, reviewing a film.
One of the things that you're going to really need to understand if you choose to watch this film, this is a film done in a pictorial style.
And it's done very much in the style of Berlin, Symphony of a City, or a Lenny Riefenstahl film.
So, film that tells a story through pictures and through flashbacks.
And a lot of the characters in this film are really not fleshed out, because, there again, the style of the film is more focused on image.
The characters in this film are playing roles that almost feel more symbolic than actual fleshed-out 3D roles.
So this is a stylistic choice, I believe.
As you can imagine, this is a mainstream film.
So if you're looking...
Looking for a film that is going to somehow glorify members of the SS, you would be better off watching Triumph of the Will, for example, because this is not that film.
This is mainstream.
There is a desire, of course, in this mainstream film, to make our protagonist an individual who, during his service at Auschwitz-Birkenau, becomes disillusioned with other members of the SS, the camps in general.
However, he remains dutiful as an officer in the SS, and he is often asked to come up with new architectural drawings to help make the various camps more efficient.
He does do that despite his sense of conflict about the goings-on at the camps.
In a sense, befriending, is a Jewish woman who, in some respects, lives up to certain stereotypes that the SS talk about.
But she's also highlighted as an individual who speaks out about the sufferings of the Jews in the camps.
She tells the architect that she wants him to live So that he can reflect upon the goings-on in Auschwitz and other camps.
We know that the main character survives the war because we see flashes of him.
As a relatively elderly man, drawing pictures in charcoal, and of course the charcoal is designed, of course, to symbolize ashes, and so he remembers through his artwork just his own persistent memories of the various individuals that he met while serving an Auschwitz.
It's interesting to note that this man's interests seem to be art and architecture and also being in the German military.
It's interesting to notice and reflect upon the fact that these were interests, of course, that famously were present in Adolf Hitler himself.
This seems to be a microcosm of various elements that the people would think of when they think of national socialist regime.
The architect reflects that camps such as Auschwitz will always be the thing that people think of when they think of national socialism.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of truth in that concept in general.
Overall, I don't recommend over-focusing on the subject of the Holocaust, because even if the desire is to refute various claims having to do with the Holocaust, I would say that an obsession with this particular topic is unhealthy.
But if I did recommend...
I would really recommend it for the cinematography, the interesting use of symbolism throughout this film.
And I have to say that I really appreciate the simplicity of the film.
It gives you an idea of the camps, or at least the mainstream idea of the camps, without Getting into too many gruesome details.
It also has a sense, I think, of Jungian psychology and, in a sense, the conscious and the subconscious, the various elements in that, which I think...
You could find in this film, if you looked at it, in that kind of a light.
So, if you want to really understand this film, I would...
I would really advocate making a study of films from the Weimar era and also from the National Socialist era, and I think you'll be much more open to the really fascinating style of this film.
So I think it's worth watching just for that fact alone.
So again, I've been discussing The Guard of Auschwitz, and this is a film that came...
It came out fairly recently.
It was a film just from last year.
So I thank you for listening.
Have a good evening and hail victory, comrades.
We'll see you next time.
Greetings, everyone.
This is Comrade Jason.
To go along with Andy's general advice this week on how to present yourself online and to the party, I want to offer a party update.
I know it's been a while since we've talked about the state of the front and our efforts at party professionalization, especially in RFN, so I think it's time to do so once again.
To start, we continue with our computer server and website security upgrades.
We have bought new computer equipment, And have added new capabilities for digitally scanning historical party documents and many of the important books from Harold's library recovered at the time of his death last year.
AJ is engaged in that project and doing a fine job of it.
It will provide us with more works for Gretchen to review for you, and we may very well share some of Harold's library with you through the website.
This last month, we met with a new local contact who is already seeking to help us with certain needful things that must be done.
And several of the headquarters group also met with another migrant who came to the headquarters area for a scouting trip.
This young man was actually recruited by another organization that serves the 14 words by promoting the Butler Plan of Northwest Migration, and with which the front is forging closer cooperative operational ties.
He is scheduled to arrive in the homeland in the first half of next year.
Migration to the homeland continues to happen, and if you are contemplating a move, we need you most here in the headquarters region.
This will be the party's emphasis going forward.
Harold would often feel obliged to warn new migrants off of settling in the greater Seattle metropolitan area and the Puget Sound, or even around into the eastern part of the Olympic Peninsula, because of the rising costs of living.
But that's not something our race can afford any longer.
This region is actually the hottest in the country right now for jobs, and you will be able to find good work in this area, and this is the area where we need you.
When you consider your move to the homeland in the future, the Pugetopolis should be the first area considered on your list.
This is just the way that it needs to be now.
We need you to come here and help build the future for whites on the North American continent.
No more running away into the nether regions of the homeland.
You need to be where you can do the most good, and that is in the headquarters area.
The needs of the many white children of our future outweigh the needs of the few racial patriots of today.
They are counting on you, and so are we.
So come home, and come here.
Now here's something that I myself have gotten interested in, and which has now become a long-term personal project of mine, and that is to find, pull together, or even write myself a white curriculum for the proper education of future generations of white children.
I've spoken several times about how we have allowed the anti-white communist and Jewish enemies of our civilization and race to infiltrate our schools and universities and to basically finish raising our children over the last 40 years.
The SPLC puts millions of its fundraising dollars each year toward developing so-called educational tools, which they push out to the schools around the nation to poison our young minds.
And this is just one organization.
The subversive billionaire communist Jew George Soros does the same thing through his anti-white and anti-Western Open Society Foundation.
These efforts at communist subversion have turned millions of our kids and young adults into budding communist reds and ignorant emotionally twisted race traitors tripping out on white guilt and ethnomasochism.
What is our plan for combating this?
As a basic tool to create an alternative, where is the white school curriculum?
That we can use to properly educate our next generations.
Is there one?
Is there even a piece of one out there?
If so, I want you to help me find it.
I know there are teachers and academicians in our audience.
I want you to direct me.
Where do I go?
Where is the curricular antidote for these mind poisons affecting our young?
Has it been developed anywhere into lesson plans that can be taught and used by teachers?
I know that Christians have built a rather robust support system for alternative schooling in America, and I'm sure there are resources we could use in part.
Who out there listening to me now has experience with these kinds of support networks?
Does any of you have any material from these curricula that you could send the party or to which you could direct us online?
Please let us know.
My own research into this is just beginning, and so I want you to answer me at the party's email at nwnet at earthlink.net.
Let us know what you know.
This is an important long-term project that must be accomplished.
And if you can provide resources and guidance here from your own experience, please do so.
Now I want to run an audio piece that I came across again this last week.
I expect most of you are aware by this point of a professor, Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto.
For a year and a half, he has been probably the most prominent public intellectual in America, Canada, Australia, and many of the countries in Europe.
He's a professor of clinical psychology at the University of Toronto, and for years he has been putting videos of his lectures online on YouTube.
However, his fame only took off in 2018 when he took a public stand against his university and the proposed Canada Bill C-16.
Which almost certainly would have been interpreted by Canada's famously abusive so-called Human Rights Commission to put people at jeopardy of legal sanction and even jail time for not using the preferred pronouns of transsexuals and other sexually confused people.
Peterson posted a YouTube video of his opposition to this legal absurdity and vowed never to obey it, properly calling it massive government overreach and an attack on freedom of speech.
Because of this video, His popularity surged after that, mostly for the simple reason that President Trump's did, that people finally saw a public figure with the balls to fight back against the thought and speech police, who seem to be taking over this revolting society that we have surrounding us now.
Since the popularity of his YouTube videos of his in-class lectures exploded, he has given interviews all around the world, written and published a best-selling book, And has gone on a sold-out speaking tour throughout many major Western white nations.
The Front has never really addressed Peterson's popularity or played him on RFN to this point, but he has become a significant and encouraging part of the growing resistance to the poisonous modern rhetoric of the cultural status quo.
In the clip I have here, he talks about the purpose and meaning to be derived from life, which is a central component of his rhetoric and his philosophy.
Let's listen.
Well, I'll tell you a couple of strange things, things that I don't really understand.
The first is, when we've done the analysis of the effects of the Future Authoring Program, it has had a differential impact on men, and it's had a particularly differential impact on what I would call excluded men.
And so that would be non-Western ethnic minority men, or...
Majority men who aren't doing very well.
So, for example, at Mohawk College, the Future Authoring Program had a particularly robust effect on Mohawk College students who were men who hadn't done very well in high school and who hadn't picked a major that had a career destination at its end.
So you can imagine those people have an ambiguous relationship with the idea of education, and they're not oriented specifically towards a goal.
They're not very motivated.
Why did it have a differential effect on men?
That's a good question.
Well, first of all, the women are doing better.
So it might just be a matter of the fact that it does better for people who aren't doing as well, and at the moment, most of them are men.
I don't believe...
I think that might be part of it.
But I don't believe that's all of it.
I think that part of the reason that women are doing better is because they're agreeable.
And so if a system sets out a structure and says, here's a pathway to attainment.
The women won't rebel against that.
They'll go along with it.
And that's working very well for them at the moment.
The men, especially the men on the disagreeable end of the distribution, and there's way more men on the disagreeable end of the distribution than there are women, right?
That's what you get if you look at overlapping normal distributions.
So there's the female distribution for agreeableness, male distribution for agreeableness.
Tremendous overlap.
Okay, women are higher.
All the really agreeable people are women.
All the really disagreeable people are men.
And maybe the real differences occur at the extremes, right?
And it's a very interesting side effect of overlapping distributions.
So people can be mostly the same, but that can still produce radical differences.
Disagreeable men won't do anything they don't want to do.
They just say, up yours.
I'll go home and play video games.
I'm not listening to your stupid classes.
And why should I work for you?
I'll just go have fun.
I'll do my own thing.
I don't think they're motivated.
And so then if you take the men who are like that and you say, okay, what do you want?
You can have what you want, but you have to figure out what it is.
So then they write down what they want.
They think, oh, hey, well, that might be worth having, so maybe I'll put some effort into it.
That's what it looks like to me.
Now, you know, that's weak evidence.
And this is a weak argument.
But I'm trying to stretch out my understanding to account for this.
But I'll tell you something else that's really weird.
I don't understand this either.
So...
More than 90% of the people who watch my videos on YouTube are men.
Now that's weird because about 80% of psychology students are women.
So that is not what you would expect, right?
You'd expect that the majority of them would be women.
And you might say, well, it's because of the political stance I've taken.
And I thought, well, that's possible.
So I went and looked at the demographic data because I have that.
Well, before I did any of the political videos, 85% of my viewers were men.
So it's actually increased a bit.
It's increased by 6%.
Trivial, but it was still overwhelmingly men.
So that was interesting.
I thought, what the hell?
Why is that exactly?
And then now I've been watching crowds when I've been talking to them.
And the crowds that have come to see me in person.
This happened at the University of Toronto free speech debate.
And I actually noticed it and commented on it before the debate took place, because I was talking about intrinsic differences between men and women.
And I looked around the room and I thought, hmm.
Hey, 80% of the people in this room are men.
So I had all the women stand up and then all the men stand up.
I said, look, here's a natural experiment.
For some reason, 80% of the people who showed up to this are men.
Now, everybody thought I was kind of cracked to do that.
And it was a risk, you know.
But I thought, no, there's something going on here.
And then what's interesting now is that every public appearance that I've made that's related to the sort of topics that we're discussing is overwhelmingly men.
It's like 85 to 90 percent.
And so I thought, wow, that's weird.
Like, what the hell's going on here exactly?
And then the other thing I've noticed is that I've been talking a lot to the crowds that I've been talking to, not about rights, but about responsibility, right?
Because you can't have the bloody conversation.
What are you doing?
You can't have the conversation about rights without the conversation about responsibility, because your rights are my responsibility.
That's what they are, technically.
So you just can't have only half of that discussion.
And we're only having half that discussion.
And the question is, well, what the hell are you leaving out if you only have that half of the discussion?
And the answer is, well, you're leaving out responsibility.
And then the question is, well, what are you leaving out if you're leaving out responsibility?
And the answer might be, well, maybe you're leaving out the meaning of life.
That's what it looks like to me.
It's like, here you are, suffering away.
What makes it worthwhile?
Rights?
You know, you're completely out.
You're completely...
You have no idea what you're...
It's almost impossible to describe how bad an idea that is.
Responsibility.
That's what gives life meaning.
It's like lift a load.
Then you can tolerate yourself, right?
Because look at you.
You're useless.
Easily hurt.
Easily killed.
Why should you have any self-respect?
That's the story of the fall.
Pick something up and carry it.
Make it heavy enough so that you can think, yeah, well, useless as I am, at least I could move that from there to there.
Well, what's really cool about that is that when I talk to these crowds about this, the men's eyes light up.
And that's very...
Like, I've seen that phenomenon because I've been talking about this mythological material for a long time.
And I can see when I'm watching crowds, people, you know, their eyebrows lift, their eyes light up because I put something together for them.
That's what mythological stories do.
So I'm not taking responsibility for that.
That's what the stories do.
So I say the story and people go click, click, click.
You know, and their eyes light up.
But this responsibility thing, that's a whole new order of this, is that young men are so hungry for that, it is unbelievable.
And one of the things I've been talking to some of the people who've been running for the conservative leadership in Canada, and I've been talking to them about...
Well, the difficulties they have communicating with young people, because conservatives, what the hell are they going to sell to young people, right?
Because being conservative is something that happens when you're older.
They can sell responsibility.
No one's selling it.
And the thing is, for men, there's nothing but responsibility.
You know, I was watching The Simpsons the other day.
I watched the first Simpsons episode, and I deconstructed it.
And so it's really interesting.
So what happens in the first Simpson episode is that...
It's Christmas, and Homer and Marge are going to buy some Christmas presents, but Homer doesn't get his Christmas bonus.
And so he's absolutely crushed by that.
And that actually is a recurring theme in The Simpsons, where Homer loses his job or something like that, or can't make enough money.
He's completely crushed.
Even though he's kind of useless, bumbling, laughing fool of a guy, you know, the thing that gives that show its soul is that he's still oriented towards his family.
That's what makes him honorable, is that foolish as he is, He's decided to adopt responsibility for his family and to try to bear that.
And so he's a holy fool.
He's not a complete fool.
And it's so interesting watching the story because he suffers dreadfully as a consequence of not being able to fulfill his responsibility.
Well, that's for men.
Women have their sets of responsibilities.
They're not the same, right?
Because they're complicated, because women, of course, have to take primary responsibility for having infants at least, but then also for caring for them.
They're structured differently than men.
For biological necessity, even if it's not a psychological issue, and it's also partly a psychological issue.
Women know what they have to do.
Men have to figure out what they have to do.
And if they have nothing worth living for, then they stay Peter Pan.
And why the hell not?
Because...
The alternative to valued responsibility is impulsive, low-class pleasure.
And you saw that in the Pinocchio story, right?
That's Pleasure Island.
It's like, well, why lift the load if there's nothing in it for you?
That's another thing that we're doing to men that's a very bad idea.
And to boys.
It's like, you're pathological and oppressive.
It's like, fine then, why the hell am I going to play?
If that's the situation, if I get no credit for bearing responsibility, I could bloody well be sure I'm not going to bear any.
But then, you know, your life is useless and meaningless, and you're full of self-contempt and nihilism, and that's not good.
And so that's what I think is going on at a deeper level with regards to men needing this direction.
A man has to decide that he's going to do something.
He has to decide that.
Yeah, well, you know, partly what you're trying to do in the future authoring process is say, okay, well, what's your highest value?
Right?
It's the star.
It's like, okay, what are you aiming for?
You can decide, man.
But, you know, there's some criteria.
It should be good for you.
It should be good for you in a way that facilitates your moving forward.
Maybe it should be good for you in a way that's also good for the family and the community.
It should cover the domain of life.
I mean, there's constraints on what you should regard as a value.
But within those constraints, you have the choice.
You have choice!
Well, the thing is that people will carry a heavy load if they get to pick the goddamn load.
And they think, well, I won't carry any load.
It's like, okay, fine.
But then you're like the sled dog that doesn't have a sled to pull.
You're going to tear pieces out of your own legs because you're bored.
People are pack animals.
They need to pull against a weight.
And that's not true for everyone.
It's not true, particularly, say, for low-conscientious people.
I mean, maybe they're open and creative or extroverted and some other things.
But for the typical person, they'll eat themselves up unless they have a load.
This is why there's such an opiate epidemic among dispossessed, white, middle-aged guys who are unemployed in the U.S. It's like, they lose their job, they're done.
Right?
They despise themselves.
They develop chronic pain syndromes and depression.
And the chronic pain is treated with opiates.
It's like, that's what we're doing.
So, yeah, that's what it looks like to me.
And it's so interesting to watch the young men when you talk to them about responsibility.
They're so goddamn thrilled about it.
It just blows me away.
It's like, really?
That's the counterculture.
Grow the hell up!
And do something useful.
Really?
I could do that?
Oh, I'm so excited by that idea.
No one ever mentioned that before.
It's like, rights, rights, rights, rights.
Jesus.
It's appalling.
And I feel that that's deeply felt by the people who are coming out to listen to these sorts of things, too.
They've had enough of that.
And they better have, because it's a non-productive mode of being.
Responsibility, man.
That's where the meaning in life is.
That clip demonstrates as well as any other why Peterson has the following that he has.
He's articulate, forceful, full of conviction, and he talks about some of the most important things that we need, psychologically, to live lives of meaning and purpose beyond the base biological aspirations of every other form of animal life on this planet.
Listening to Jordan Peterson is like a breath of fresh air to those who hunger for intellectual substance over the frivolous concerns served up to the people by the mainstream's weepy liberal citizens.
And it's no wonder Peterson has become an international phenomenon paralleling that of President Trump himself.
Everyone loves a fighter, and Jordan Peterson fights many of the things that we are fighting, and I count myself among Jordan Peterson's fans.
Being a fan, however, does not blind me to the fact that Jordan Peterson is either stupid or a coward, perhaps both, on matters of race.
Consider the following.
One of the most terrifying statistics I ever came across was one detailing out the rationale of the United States Armed Forces for not allowing the induct...
You can't induct anyone into the Armed Forces in the U.S. if they have an IQ of less than 83. Okay, so let's just take that apart for a minute because it's a horrifying thing.
So the U.S. Armed Forces has been in the forefront of intelligence research since World War I. Because they were on board early with the idea that, especially during wartime when you're ramping up quickly, that you need to sort people effectively and essentially without prejudice so that you can build up the officer corps so you don't lose the damn war.
Okay, so there's real motivation to get it right, right?
Because it's a life and death issue.
So they used IQ.
They did a lot of the early psychometric work on IQ.
Okay, so that's the first thing.
They're motivated to find an accurate predictor, so they settle on IQ.
The second thing was the United States Armed Forces are also really motivated to get people into the armed forces, peacetime or wartime.
Wartime, well, for obvious reasons, peacetime because, well, first of all, you've got to keep the armed forces going, and second, you can use the armed forces during peacetime as a way of taking people out of the underclass and moving them up into the working class or the middle class, right?
You can use it as a training mechanism.
And left and right can agree on that.
You know, it's a reasonable way of promoting social mobility.
So again, the armed forces, even in peacetime, is very motivated to get as many people in as they possibly can.
And it's difficult as well.
It's not that easy to recruit people.
So you don't want to throw people out if you don't have to.
So what's the upshot of all that?
Well, after a hundred years, essentially, of careful statistical analysis, the armed forces concluded that if you had an IQ of 83 or less, There wasn't anything you could possibly be trained to do in the military at any level of the organization that wasn't positively counterproductive.
Okay, you think, well, so what, 83?
Okay, yeah, 1 in 10. 1 in 10. That's 1 in 10 people.
And what that really means, as far as I can tell, is if you imagine that the military is approximately as complex as the broader society, which I think is a reasonable proposition.
Then there's no place in our cognitively complex society for one in ten people.
So what are we going to do about that?
The answer is, no one knows.
Say, well, shovel money down the hierarchy.
It's like, the problem isn't lack of money.
I mean, sometimes that's the problem.
But the problem is rarely absolute poverty.
It's rarely that.
It is sometimes, but rarely.
It's not that easy to move money down the hierarchy.
First of all, it's not that easy to manage money.
So, it's a vicious problem, man.
And so...
It's hard to train people to become creative, adaptive, problem solvers.
It's impossible.
You can't do it.
You can't do it.
You can interfere with your cognitive ability, but you can't do that.
Training doesn't work really as well as people think.
It's not going to work in six months, but it could work in six years.
No, it doesn't work.
Sorry, it doesn't work.
The data on that is crystal clear.
This is just a great clip.
Here we have Peterson unreservedly reinforcing the legitimacy and usefulness of the concept of IQ for his audience.
And with it, he illustrates a very important societal problem in an advanced society of the near-uselessness for any important or even mundane purpose of those people with IQs that are too low.
The test that he mentions here for the U.S. military is called the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, or ASVAB.
And is given to every soldier, airman, and sailor attempting to enlist.
Not all of the military branches use the ASVAB in their commissioning for officers, and mine did not.
I never had to take this test, but of course I knew all about it.
I had never considered the implications of the need for this vetting in the way Peterson presents them here, but the point he is making with this is excellent, and I have tucked it away for my own use from here on out.
I am grateful to Peterson for it.
But I must point out that this clip serves as clear evidence of Peterson's cowardice on the topic of race.
If the cutoff for usefulness to society is approximately 83, the 1 in 10 argument is only valid for whites, only applicable to a normalized IQ distribution which is centered around the white IQ mean of approximately 100.
As you and I know, however, not all races have this average IQ.
The average IQ for Blacks in America is 84 or 85. This means that almost half of Blacks fall into the category of next to useless for any purpose in an advanced complex society like ours.
50% of Blacks rate as essentially useless, not 10%.
With the extensive knowledge of the development and application of IQ testing which Peterson demonstrates here, there is simply no possibility that Peterson himself doesn't understand this.
And therefore there is no excuse at all for his hiding the fact of it.
For pretending this terrible social fact is capped at a mere 10% for our unfortunately multiracial nation.
It is far worse than he suggests and he knows it and is lying about it through omission.
Obviously for purposes of political correctness and covering his ass.
He is a Canadian, though, and that means he doesn't actually have freedom of speech.
Pathetically, after 240 years, still no one on this earth besides an American does.
Regardless, I think this lying through omission is inexcusable for anyone promoting himself as an honest public intellectual and a man of science.
I think we can really do nothing but consider it as evidence of Peterson's fundamental cowardice when it comes to race.
Now, let's have a look at some of his stupidity on the subject.
Roll take.
Professor Ricardo Duchesne, a historical sociologist and professor at the University of New Brunswick, argues that, quote, individualism is a unique attribute of European peoples.
Quote, it has been exported to some degree to other nations.
But in my view, it is not something that comes to them naturally.
So, he continues, If Europeans become minorities in the West,
he argues, the founding idea of the West, that no entity, not an individual, not a community, not the state, Look.
The medieval Europeans identified seven deadly sins for a reason.
And one of them was pride.
It's like...
Let's make the presumption.
I do believe that for reasons that aren't obvious, that the West has got some things right.
We've got the sovereignty of the individual right.
That's the most fundamental thing we've got right.
We've articulated that, I think, in a remarkable way, not only theologically, philosophically, in our body of laws, in our societies.
And one of the consequences of that, as it's had its effect, On the rest of the world is that everyone is getting richer quite fast.
And that's a really good thing.
Okay, having said that, it's like, am I proud of that?
It's like, I didn't do that.
What the hell?
Pride.
What's that?
That's not the right response.
How about responsibility for that?
How would that be?
It's like, you're part of this great and unlikely...
This strange set of propositions that says that in some ineffable manner, the poorest person is as valuable as the king.
It's like, how the hell did we ever figure that out?
That's an impossible thing to think, and yet that's the bedrock of our legal system.
That's nothing to be proud of.
That's something to tremble before, to take on as an ethical burden.
And not to wave a flag for how wonderful you are that you happen to have the same skin color as some of the people who thought that up.
It's not the right response.
It's like it's to open your eyes and recognize that as a miracle.
And a relatively new miracle on the world stage.
And to participate in the process of upholding that in your personal and your public life.
That's not pride in...
European tradition.
Like, when I go to Europe, and I love going to Europe, and the European cities are, they're unbelievable masterpieces, which is why they're completely flooded by pilgrims, right?
Tourists, pilgrims, who go there to look at the beauty.
It's like, I don't feel pride about that.
I feel like I have something to live up to.
That's not the same thing, man.
And so these right-wingers in this, it's like, look what we've done.
It's like, no, it's not you that did that.
That's something, man.
You've got to have your act together before you would dare to say, well, that was me.
It's like, yeah, sure.
Sure, it was you.
Yeah, right.
No.
That's hard to stand up and take your place in that kind of historical process, that unlikely, miraculous historical process.
Not to just feel ashamed at the way that you're presently constituted in the face of that means that you're deluded and you're using your...
Your great fortune at being a beneficiary of that system.
Look at what we've got here.
This great peace that we're inhabiting right now.
You're using your unearned...
The unearned gift that's been granted to you as a source of personal pride in your accomplishments due to your skin.
It's like, no.
Not good.
Not a good argument.
And that doesn't mean that, well, there's nothing valuable about European culture.
There's plenty about it that's valuable.
It's not even so clear to what degree it's European.
I mean, it came out of the Middle East, you know?
I mean, who...
It's so muddle-headed that you hardly know where to start.
There is so much in here, but I'll try to cover it efficiently.
First, note the pacing of this response.
When you work past the bluster and the supposed outrage at the very notion of racial pride for whites, what do you hear?
I hear a disjointed, halting, and torturous attempt by Peterson to answer this question that sounds like he's continuously working out on the fly what he wants to say.
In the previous clips, did Peterson seem unsure of what he wanted to say?
Not at all.
That's because, in those other clips, he knew what he was talking about.
Here, he doesn't.
At all.
And it shows.
Notice how long it takes him to even start to answer the question, and how hesitantly he begins.
It's as if he's never even thought about it before.
Do you believe that for one second?
Let's start with the obvious absurdity of this very prideful man beginning with a slap against the very feeling of pride he expresses so often himself.
If you know anything about Peterson's advice in his book Twelve Rules for Life, He makes much of people having enough pride to, as he puts it, stand up straight, with shoulders back, ready to meet the world.
A fundamental pride in the self is the basis for that.
And he knows it.
By starting off by referencing the seven deadly sins from a medieval religious mantra designed for propagandistic social control, he puts himself behind the eight ball from the very beginning.
Not a good start, and it only gets worse.
Next, addressing the uniquely Western value placed on the individual, as noted by Professor Duchesne, he reduces this into a mere economic observance.
The first and only thing that comes up for him at this point is not freedom.
It's not the ennoblement of the individual, which he does finally get around to later.
His point here is, look at how much stuff we all have now.
Look at how rich it's made us.
Really?
That's the first thing that comes up.
After this, he rapidly transitions into committing the left's ridiculous intellectual sin of reducing race to nothing more than skin color, when his entire professional training in the psychological and sociological sciences has informed him thoroughly of the highly varied temperamental and psychosocial differences between the races.
Here, he betrays his own knowledge base as well as things he has said elsewhere.
He expresses bewilderment at the very notion of racial pride.
Then he pretends that feelings of racial pride are the same as feelings of pride in individual accomplishment.
He knows better, and so do we.
No one thinks of them in the same way.
It's a confusion of semantics, and he willingly and enthusiastically makes it.
I was going to say he blindly makes it, but then I realized I don't actually think that that's true.
I think it's a purposeful choice.
Because he knows he's in dangerous waters and wants to navigate them by misleading his listeners for his own safety.
As I said, no one thinks of group pride in the same way as individual pride.
No one.
When people feel racial pride, it's more akin to simple thankfulness and gratitude, and a feeling of good fortune to be attached in a very real way to a legacy and a broader biological and ethnological family.
He pretends this is the same as individual pride in accomplishment and pushes a false point which only confused and muddled thinkers could accept.
Then, clearly feeling the need to ramp up the emotion, he adds indignation to the mix, as if he feels personally affronted by feelings of racial connectedness among white people.
The very idea!
The entire middle portion of his response becomes a stage performance to conform to the standards of polite and academic society, which is naturally anti-racist, at least when it comes to white consciousness.
He knows he's on the spot with something real, powerful, and important, and he's trying to play-act his way out from under it.
He gets into his role of the scoffing academic and gets up ahead of steam.
Everything seems to be going great in his virtue signaling.
He's saying all the approved things.
Our hero is working his way out of the trap.
The light is at the end of the tunnel, and then it all hits a giant wall.
He has the misfortune to utter the leftist enemy's own key magic propaganda word of unearned.
You know this word, and so does our hero.
As in, unearned white privilege.
This is, of course, the cynical phrase used by the enemies of the West to imply that whites don't actually have any right to the nations and societies our ancestors built for us.
That enjoying the fruits of our own civilization and bequeathing any legacy to our own next generations is somehow illegitimate.
Saying this word "unearned" out loud just stops Peterson dead in his tracks.
I almost edited down the pause that this mental schism of Peterson's caused before I realized that this pause of fully five seconds is the most important part of the entire clip.
When you see the video from which this clip is taken, Peterson can't even look either the audience or the host in the face.
He has to look up toward the ceiling to restart his brain.
When he finally realizes he actually can't get out of the trap with dignity, he presses forward and the rest just falls apart.
He can't bring himself to use the leftist phrase of unearned privilege, so he turns it into unearned gifts.
But at the end, he's still left fumbling around, trying to use emotional indignation again as an argument, and I think he knows it's not convincing, and it's probably insulting to anyone who has listened to him closely, and who is not suffused with white guilt, and who might actually appreciate the incredible blessing of their having been born white.
By the end, this stalwart defender of Western European civilization is reduced to defensively and weakly throwing off a suggestion that European civilization may not even have been European, that its roots are somehow buried in the Middle East for God's sake.
How incredibly pathetic!
He tails off at the end and capitulates.
By an ignominious and insensible suggestion that the very idea of white pride is simultaneously simply absurd, yet so involved that he doesn't even know where to begin.
Well, we did see that at the very beginning of his answer, didn't we?
The first full five-second pause where he had to think on how to even get started?
When you don't actually know what you're talking about, it is indeed hard to know where to begin.
Jordan, let me help you out, buddy.
These are truths you need to learn to accept, and you will never be caught out as the fool like this again.
Race matters and cannot be made to not matter.
And civilization is a racial enterprise which can only be defended on a racial basis.
The racial truth will set you racially free.
After bashing Jordan in this way, I don't want to leave you with the impression that I don't respect him or that I am not thankful for his work.
Mr. Peterson is doing incredibly valuable work for our race, even though he doesn't see it specifically in that way.
He is fighting back against our enemies very effectively on many fronts.
Naturally, no one who remains racially blind as he does can rate our full respect, but he is still a worthy white brother fighting the good fight, and he is extremely valuable as a gateway drug to the full truth.
He encourages intellectual rebellion against the system, and rebels who pursue truth far enough eventually will find their way to racial truths and thus eventually to us.
We can only be glad for this and encourage it.
So Jordan Peterson is a very valuable white man, especially for our younger folks.
Listen to Jordan Peterson when he tells you that the quality of your life is dependent upon finding a purpose worthy of you.
And dependent upon taking responsibility for this world and its outcomes.
For everyone listening to this Radio Free Northwest, you know what I'm going to say next.
You know what responsibility you need to take on.
It is nothing less than the responsibility for our collective future, the future of white humanity.
What did you do this week to further that cause?
If you did nothing that you can specifically name, it's time to plan what you will do this upcoming week and the one after that.
Do you want a future of servitude and abuse handed to you by envious Jews and niggers?
Or do you want one that you helped to create for yourself and all of your people?
As with everything, we act or we are acted upon.
We choose or the choice is made for us.
So I ask you, when it comes to securing the existence of our people and a future for white children, what are you going to do?
Westward from the Davis Street, it's there 'twas said to lie The sea route to the Orient, for which so many died Seeking gold and glory,
leaving broken, weathered bones And a long-forgotten, lonely cairn of stones Ah, for just one time, I would Take the Northwest Passage To find the hand of Franklin Reaching for the Beaufort Sea Tracing one warm line Through a land so wild and
savage And make a Northwest Passage to the sea Three centuries thereafter I take passage on Steps of brave castle, where his seed of flowers began.
Watching cities rise before me, then behind me sink again.
This tardiest explorer Driving hard across the plain
Ah, for just one time I would take the Northwest Passage To find the hand of Franklin reaching for the Polkhorst Sea Tracing one more line through a land so wild and savage And make a Northwest Passage to the sea Through the night behind the
wheel, the mileage clicking west I think upon Mackenzie, David Thompson and the rest Who cracked the mountain ramparts and showed a path for me To race the roaring Fraser to the sea
Ah, for just one time I would take the Northwest Passage To find the hand of Franklin reaching for the Polkhorst Sea Tracing one more line through a land so wild and savage And make a Northwest Passage to the sea How then am I so
different from the first men to this way Like them I led a settled life, then I threw it all away To seek a Northwest Passage at the core of many men To find their boat the road back home again
Ah, for just one time I would take the Northwest Passage
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