All Episodes
Previous Next
March 19, 2022 - Radio Free Nortwest - H.A. Covington
01:00:38
20220319_rfn
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Oh, then tell me, Sean O 'Farrell, tell me why you hurry so.
Hush, your vocal, 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.
With your pike upon your shoulder, by the rising of the moon.
The date is Saturday, March 19, 2022.
I'm Jimmy, and you're listening to Radio Free Northwest.
Radio Free Northwest Throughout the last decade, Harold often delved into various heroes of our cause in either his Back to Basics or White Nationalist History segments.
I want to continue that tradition, but not tread too much on well-covered ground.
So while researching our movement's history, I came upon the name of Vidkun Gwisling, and he seemed like a good fit for a segment here.
This segment draws from a November 2003 issue of The Barnes Review in an article titled The Epic of Vidkun Quisling written by Michael McLaughlin.
Vidkun Quisling was born in Firsdal, Norway on July 18, 1887, and his life was largely orchestrated by the events sweeping Europe following the Jewish-Bolshevik seizure of Russia in 1917.
In 1905, he enrolled at the Norwegian Military Academy and he had received the highest examination score of the 250 applicants that year.
In 1906, he transferred to the Norwegian Military College and by 1908, he had received an officer's position.
In 1911, he graduated again with the highest score since the college's inception in 1817.
His standing was so high that he was awarded an audience with the King of Norway, and this young lieutenant was immediately attached to the general staff.
By 1918, he was the military attaché to Petrograd and Helsingfors.
Just four years later, Vidkun Kvisling became involved with Frikjof Nansen's charitable work under the auspices of the Relief Committee for Russia.
Nansen was an internationally renowned Norwegian polar explorer, scientist, and humanitarian.
He was the first man with five other companions to traverse Greenland.
An obvious choice due to his enormous international reputation as a humanitarian, Nansen agreed to act as the High Commissioner for the League of Nations Commission for Prisoners of War.
As a consequence, Vidkun Quisling's mentor was responsible for the humane repatriation of 450,000 prisoners of war rescued from 26 countries in the aftermath of the Great War.
Without question, these unfortunate captives would have died without Nansen's endeavors.
Leading from these humanitarian successes, the Norwegian explorer carried the extra burden of bringing relief to millions of refugees torn apart by the cataclysmic upheavals Following the Jewish-Bolshevik civil wars.
Having succeeded in bringing respite to the world's dispossessed, Nansen, in the early 1920s, was invited by the International Red Cross to direct the work required to save the lives of millions of Russians suffering from revolution, civil war, and Stalin's terror famine.
Nansen, assisted by Vidkun Quisling and other organizations, In 1922, their relief program brought the pair to Ukraine and the Crimea.
From 1924 to 1925, Quisling was in the Balkan and Donau states on behalf of the League of Nations.
In 1925, he joined Nansen again in the Near Orient and Armenia.
Before taking up residence in Moscow to better coordinate his tasks.
In the foreword to Nansen's narrative, Nansen wrote the following about Vidkun Quizling.
These prefatory words cannot be brought to conclusion without heartfelt thanks to Captain Vidkun Quizling for his tireless friendship as a fellow traveler and for his valuable assistance he has rendered to the author through his comprehensive knowledge of Russian.
On June 22, 1941, Germany, supported by its anti-communist allies, preemptively attacked the Soviet Union, which had by then amassed its armies on Europe's borders, prepared to invade and subjugate the continent.
The invading Europeans discovered on the walls of Havels the icon portraits of both Nansen and Quisling, sharing equal status with Our Lady.
The spectacle of unknown Norwegians elevated to saintly status bemused but inspired these soldiers.
Norwegian frontline soldiers several times found busts of Kvisling in Russia's impoverished villages.
The peasants told them of the man from the far north who had once saved them from starvation.
It was a memorable experience for those soldiers who had now been charged by the same man with the task of saving the people of Ukraine from a worse destiny.
In 1930, Quisling returned to his Norwegian homeland, which was then in the throes of communist subversion very similar to that suffered by Germany following the Great War.
Communist insurgents had brought the Scandinavian country to the very precipice of revolution.
The so-called Norwegian labor movement was affiliated to the Communist International.
Financed by Moscow, Their party banner was the blood red hammer and sickle.
These sons of Moscow agitated for a Soviet Norway through bloody revolution if need be.
A future prime minister bragged that soon the red flag would be hoisted above Norway's parliament while another future minister made incendiary speeches calling for revolution.
It was this same rabid revolutionary politician who was elevated to Minister of Defense in 1935.
The same minister who failed the opportunity to build a defense force capable of resisting Winston Churchill's sinister invasion of Norway, or to resist Germany's preventative invasion.
you Communist agitators were quite active in Norway.
Strikes were organized, seditious literature was passed from hand to hand, political opponents and police were murdered, the offices of opposition parties torched, politicians intimidated, riots were organized by revolutionaries, By this point, Vidkun Kvisling was now the minister of defense in the cabinet of the country's newly elected Peasants Party.
Because he had spent five years studying Russia at the military college, few people were better qualified to recognize the danger poised to humanity by godless communism.
He acted decisively to prevent Norway becoming another Soviet republic.
Realizing that the final communist push was imminent, With armories and military installations already targeted, Quisling immediately mobilized Norway's armed forces and police, and the insurrection was quickly put down.
The communists never forgave Vidkun Quisling for denying them Norway.
I think now is a good time for our first music break.
Since this next song is sung in Norwegian, I'll read out the lyrics in English first.
On Viking raids to foreign lands went men of Norse descent.
On kingship stood, man by man, of the herd ready to fight.
To Greenland and Iceland and Shetland went the voyage of long ships west.
In France, in Ireland, and England, the Norseman was an uninvited guest.
Yes, the enemies had to give away, even the Pope lost his power.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
In defense of the great Norwegian kingdom stood loyal men of the herd on guard.
So we raise a herd anew of Vidkun Quisling's men, and here is old Oslo town stood up the Viking Corps.
See the beacon's light from the mountains bears bid of the era, and the light of the beacon shall tell about herd men who readies for battle.
Yes, the enemy had to give away, and the bigwigs lost their power.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
In defense of the great Norwegian kingdom stood loyal men of the herd on guard.
The End
The End Good evening, comrades.
Tonight I'm going to be discussing the book Putin's War Against Ukraine by Taurus Kudzo.
Now, the premise of this book is that Russia is the only current global power to stand against the decadence of the West.
And as you read this book, you may well come to believe that Russia is actually an ethno-nationalist imperial state.
As it supports nationalism outside Russia, as in the case with Orban.
However, another more questionable reason could come to mind.
Russia was greatly traumatized by the Great Patriotic War.
So, the question comes to mind...
Does Russia support ethno-nationalist movements because it agrees with them, or does it support them as a reason to invade later on?
Russia has become famous for black ops, particularly on the internet.
For example, I've come to conclude that the show Commandant Base 211 on BitChute is a brilliant example of a black ops.
In which actors pretend to be the real society in Antarctica.
Now, not surprisingly, they support the Ukraine.
This is despite the fact that in real life, Ukraine wants to be in NATO and wishes to become westernized.
But it's interesting to note that there are based factors both in Russia and also in the Ukraine.
There seems to be two minds within the parameters of our movement as well, depending on how widely you define those parameters.
For example, some conservatives, such as Parvataka Archeragy, tend to side with the Eurasianist philosophy of Alex Dugan.
We know that Alex Dugan very much has Putin's ear.
And Dugan is very much for the inclusion of Ukraine in the Russian Federation.
In our Cherenji's case, his views could be influenced by the fact that he favors Russian Orthodoxy over other forms of Christianity because he thinks that Russian Orthodoxy is comparatively more dharmic than other Christian denominations.
On the other hand, the writer von Kanwitzberg, who wrote 30 Fundamental Truths for the Contemporary National Socialists, really roasts Dugan in his writings and strongly advises against Eurasianism, which he sees as multiracial and in no way any kind of substitute for National Socialist thought.
This is a very tragic and difficult situation because clearly we can all see that in aggregate, Ukrainians are among the most racially valuable of whites.
And any that choose to go to Western countries will be an asset wherever they settle.
But...
On the whole, this situation, even if it remains completely conventional, is still very dangerous.
For example, there are 15 nuclear plants in Ukraine, and if they become damaged and then they start to leak or become destroyed to a point where there's contamination.
Obviously, there could be a situation even more serious than the Chernobyl disaster.
And certainly Russia may destroy itself in this as well, in one way or another.
You could also say that the United States could destroy itself in this.
And some may say that acceleration and chaos is good.
But, of course, too much chaos would make organization impossible.
Also, too, of course, in a theoretical revolution, a hypothetical Northwest state may well want to become an ally of the megastate of Russia.
And if Russia is destroyed, then it cannot be our France in a revolutionary situation.
So, a very delicate and problematic situation here, to put it mildly.
In theory, because Russia is a megastate, it is also the only white state that At this point, could perhaps one day compete with China.
We could see a monopolar world coming out of this, or we could see complete chaos coming out of this.
Now, there are some individuals who take what might be viewed as a rather fanciful view, but an interesting view.
And these are individuals that see a potential World War III coming about as fulfilling the prophecies of Rendsburg.
If this were to come about, then there would be a golden age.
That prospect is very exciting.
And I certainly hope that that prospect is true, because in that case, we would be in such a state of renewal with regard to the geopolitical situation that the Northwest organization would not even be necessary anymore.
Not because there's anything wrong with such an organization or such an ideology, but because in the Rendsburg prophecy, a Fourth Reich is actually achieved.
And in such a case, one could argue there still could be such a project, potentially, if one really wanted it.
One might say that the project would become Now, that is a very joyful notion.
However, I feel, in many respects, duty-bound to stick to the material logic of the world as it can currently be verified.
So right now, I want to continue looking at the world.
A bit more logically or pragmatically vis-a-vis this organization and my contributions.
So I'll be sticking to largely the material factors of this world in this report, and that is the world as we know it now and assuming.
The world as we know it will go forward in some respect with the assumption that intervention is either not coming or not possible, but in the hope that such intervention is miraculously possible.
I thank you for listening.
Have a good evening and hail victory, comrades.
Thank you.
By April 1932, Quisling was able to stand in his country's parliament and publicly expose the treacherous activities of the international revolution directed by Moscow.
Moving on, and while conceding the laudable aims of Norway's labor movement, in a speech regarded as one of his finest, the Norwegian Minister of Defense shamed the Red Front movement for being foreign-financed and guided by Marxist principles with the single aim of class war and revolution.
Quisling had a keen understanding of world order and was a recognized political philosopher.
Much of Quisling's analysis and many of his statements influenced and contributed to the ideology of Italy's emerging Benito Mussolini, whose new fascism was successfully creating the corporate state.
Such was the success of fascism that even Churchill conceded by stating, Of Italian fascism, Italy has shown that there is a way of fighting the subversive forces which can rally the masses of the people, properly led, to value and wish to defend the honor and stability of civilized society.
Hereafter, no great nation will be unprovided with an ultimate means of protection against the cancerous growth of Bolshevism.
As a philosopher about whom few records remain, Vidkun Quisling put forward a revolutionary thesis to provide for a system of universalism.
It called for a new world order based on a groundwork of religion and morals as well as statecraft and science.
He saw this as the essential building block of a world community based on the complementary values of race, a constitution of religion, statecraft, science, and morals.
Is still hidden away in an Oslo vault.
Quisling set about carving his niche as a politician, and in the same year wrote his book, Russia and Us, which is the most stringent analysis of Soviet affairs ever to appear in the Norwegian language.
Increasingly, Quisling attracted the fury of Norway's red agitators, who he had so recently bested during his term as Norway's minister of defense.
On May 17, 1933, The independence day of Norway, and also the same year which the German people elected Adolf Hitler as their country's leader, the Norwegian leader formed his own political party, the National Samling, or National Unification.
His opponents sought in vain to libel and slander him, but there was no flaw in the party leader's curriculum vitae.
His popularity and patriotism were without question, and his impeachment of the hard men of the left had by now been endorsed by two-thirds of the Norwegian parliament.
National Samling's leader, inspired by the Elysian ambition of Nansen, sought to unify the Norwegian people under a program of reconstruction.
As in Britain today, Norway had become separated from the basics of life and was drowning in political expediency, social engineering, pornography, decadence, racial debasement, and political correctness gone mad.
Such was the extent of the Red Terror that National Samling, as with anti-communist organizations throughout Europe, found it necessary to organize a defensive ring.
Throughout Norway, over 500 well-disciplined men were selected to form the H.E.R.D.
Defense Force.
With the exception of the stable and prosperous National Socialist Germany, Europe was pretty much in turmoil.
Britain and France, whose preferential trade agreements were threatened by German competition, urged on by international Jewish interests, were blockading German products and threatening war.
Poland, backed by England, was constantly attacking Germany's border while Czechoslovakia, on Germany's eastern border, had treacherously allowed the Soviet Union the use of its military airfields, aimed at Germany's heart.
Throughout the world, and in particular in Europe, the Soviet Union was agitating for world revolution.
Menacingly, it was poised to overthrow Romania and its oil fields, thus grabbing Germany by the jugular.
In northern Europe, tiny Finland was desperately fighting to stem Soviet aggression.
On March 6, 1940, overrun by overwhelming odds, they failed and the hardy Finns surrendered much of their country.
Despite the capitulation, they bravely fought on and an army of farmers brought the Red Army to a grinding halt.
Their success against Stalin's armed might outraged Winston Churchill.
The English autocrat soon sought revenge for Stalin's humiliation and finally got it on December 7, 1941, when England declared war on Finland.
Simultaneously, England also declared war on Hungary and Romania.
In Norway, Quisling took the field against the Soviet-inspired Camarilla that was aiming to embrace the whole of Europe in a gigantic pair of pincers, With one of its claws in Scandinavia and the other in Spain.
Europe was in mortal danger.
But few were better qualified to act than was Vidkun Quisling, as he knew the Soviet plans as well as they themselves did.
He could follow the Soviet strategy step by step towards its final goal of world domination.
At this point, Quisling had already met Leon Trotsky, the alias of the Jew Lev Davidovich Bronstein, And he knew his view of world revolution.
He had also met leaders of the Russian Revolution in the Caucasus and the Ukraine, the Danube Deltas, and in Moscow itself.
Although a combination of diplomacy, real politic, and censorship hid the Soviet revolutionary aims from the masses of Western Europe, Quisling was one of those sufficiently enlightened to identify and thwart the communist threat.
This is a fact for which every single Briton owes a debt to Quisling.
Hardly surprising, the National Samling's slogan was Norway neutral, Norway prepared.
It was a slogan detested by the saber-rattling Winston Churchill, who was already planning the violation of Norway's neutrality as part of his strategy to deny or to the National Socialist Germany.
Vidkun Quisling was proving to be an adept prophet in the militaristic maneuvering of those countries that sought any excuse for war.
There was hardly a communist cell, active entryism, conspiracy, or fifth columnist front in Europe that Quisling did not know about.
His base was Norway, but his heart was for the security of Europe.
His two principal aims were to stop the Marxists in Norway, And to bring unity to the anti-communist reaction throughout Europe.
In fact, up until Hitler's election, when communism in Germany was dealt with root and branch, Quisling was concerned that the Weimar regime, in defiance of the Versailles Treaty terms, had assisted communist Russia's aggressive intentions toward Britain and her empire.
This is yet another reason for Britons to reflect on the debt they owe to this Norwegian patriot.
Kvisling's party urged adequate defenses to maintain Norway's neutrality from wherever it was threatened.
The real traitors, Norway's communists, especially after 1935 when the Red Front Labour Party came to power, campaigned for disarmament and, in the event of war, a general strike and the laying down of arms.
This was precisely what the Soviets wanted.
In fact, the Norwegian Labour Party smuggled Trotsky into Norway under the assumed name of Sadao.
This left little doubt as to the catastrophe likely to befall Britain's closest Scandinavian neighbor.
Quisling did everything possible within the law to have Trotsky thrown out of Norway, but failed due to the government having invited him in the first place.
What followed was one of the most audacious acts of anti-subversion ever mounted in peacetime.
Agents attached to National Samling, without Quisling's knowledge, Distraught at the appalling likely consequences of what he called the Brothers' War between Britain and Germany, Quisling had intervened a month after England declared war on its European neighbor.
He telegraphed the British Prime Minister Chamberlain, proposing that on British initiative a union of European nations be formed.
His secretary and biographer Franklin Knudsen wrote, A few weeks later, he had ready a detailed draft for cessation of hostilities and a proposal for re-establishing peaceful relations between the brother nations Great Britain and Germany.
As Knudsen surmises, if Quisling had had any desire to exploit the confusion of the World War and to seize power himself by the aid of foreign bayonets, He would have done exactly the reverse, lulled the people into a still more profound sleep, and one day confronted it with an accomplished fact.
On October 11, 1939, after Poland's attack on Germany had been repulsed and German territory ceded to Poland in 1918 was recovered, Vidkun Quisling sent an urgent telegram to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.
Having in 1927 to 1929, Been charged with the task of attending to the British interests in Russia, I take the liberty of addressing myself to Your Excellency being aware of expressing the opinion of nearly all in the Nordic countries when saying that the Brothers' War between Great Britain and Germany,
with Bolshevism as Tertius Gaudens, is being felt in an especially tragic degree in our countries that are so closely related to Great Britain as well as to Germany.
Your declaration of September 30, 1938, concerning the relations between Great Britain and Germany, and their vital importance to the peaceful development of Europe, made a strong impression here, and we are convinced that what is in question today is to save Europe and civilization through peace with Germany in the spirit of your declaration.
The only positive way to achieve this is to fuse British, French, and German interests into a European confederation on the initiative of Great Britain in order to create a community of interests and cooperation beneficent to all parties.
Under these circumstances, and in view of the sufferings which the war is causing also to the neutral Nordic countries,
I deferentially appeal to your immense authority and responsibility, and beg to suggest that the British government, in accordance with the tested methods of federalization in America, South Africa, and Australia, invite every European state to choose ten representatives to a Congress charged with the task of preparing a constitution for an empire of the European nations to be submitted to a plebiscite in each country for
acceptance or rejection.
You are the only statesman who, under present circumstances, can bring Europe back to peace and reason.
Quisling, former Norwegian Minister of Defense you Thank you.
This telegram was cordially acknowledged, to which Quisling afterwards said, I received a friendly message of thanks, but otherwise I heard nothing more on the matter.
Alarmed at the emerging evidence that Britain and France intended to attack Norway, Sweden, and Finland, Hitler, on December 27th, gave explicit orders to prepare comprehensive plans for the defensive occupation or, if too late, a strategy to throw the English cuckoo out of the Norwegian nest.
His fears were not groundless.
On September 19th, 1939, less than two weeks after his declaration of war against Germany, Winston Churchill, as First Lord of the Admiralty, put forward the suggestion Churchill went on to bemoan the fact that
having made his case, the cabinet would not give their consent.
It was not until April 1940 that Churchill got his way.
He dismissed any suggestion that Norway would retaliate by pointing out that Great Britain, through trade blockades, could bring the whole industry of Norway, centering on Oslo and Bergen, to a complete standstill.
In short, Norway, by retaliating against us, would be involved in economic and industrial ruin.
England's swashbuckling first lord contemptuously dismissed suggestions that Germany would retaliate.
Another cunning plan of the ever bellicose Winston was to declare de facto war on Norway, Sweden, and Finland.
This strategy was drawn up on February 5th, 1940, when the Allied Supreme Council of the Western Powers held a meeting in Paris.
There, it was agreed to send up to four divisions, camouflaged as volunteers, to Finland via Norway and Sweden to seize those countries' iron ore assets.
The strategy was aborted because of Sweden's stated determination to resist.
Having been denied his calamitous warlike way, Churchill, on February 16, 1940, ordered British naval forces to proceed into Norway's territorial waters and board the German freighter Altmark, which had prisoners of war on board.
As Quisling had surmised, The Norwegian government turned a blind eye to Churchill's impudent two-fingered salute to their country's neutrality.
On April 8th, English aggression against Norway proceeded.
The Royal Navy began to mine the Scandinavian country's coastal waters, an act of war that once again blew a gaping hole in solemnly signed declarations.
British and French troops were simultaneously being mobilized to invade Norway.
Their first objective was to occupy Narvik and to clear the port before advancing to the Swedish frontier and further troops were readied to occupy Stavanger, Bergen, and Trondheim.
Hitler was hardly alone in being horrified at the English and French invasion of Scandinavia.
His country's legitimate and crucial trade links with Finland would be broken in defiance of international law.
Hitler was painfully aware that the invasion of his country would quickly follow and he stated, The enemy would find himself in a position to advance on Berlin and break the backbone of our two fronts.
Instead of the British and French arriving first and drawing the Germans out, the German armed forces reached Norway first, and with remarkably few forces prevented the British and French occupation of Norway.
Consequently, we were out of the running, and for all that, it was we who had taken the initiative in the operation, admitted France's Paul Raynard.
France's General Gommelin disconsolately agreed, stating, The intention had been to entrap their opponents by provoking him into making a landing in Norway.
It had gone disastrously wrong.
They had been beaten to it by Hitler.
Churchill himself reluctantly conceded, saying the Norwegian government at the time was chiefly concerned with the activities of the British.
Undeterred, Churchill persisted in his aim to occupy Norway, with Trondheim being the obvious choice.
There was only 2,000 German troops stationed in the coastal town, who would be little match for 13,000 British troops.
The British army was, however, routed during their encirclement and badly mauled.
The remnants were evacuated by May 1st.
More to save face than from any realistic chance of seizing neutral Sweden's iron mines, the British mobilized 20,000 troops and put them ashore at Narvik.
Embarrassingly, they too were routed by 2,000 Austrian Alpine troops, supported by as many sailors again from the German destroyers based at Narvik.
At this stage of the war, Germany, which had so far merely protected its borders against Anglo-French aggression, retaliated against its tormentors.
The numerically fewer and more lightly equipped German army overran France.
338,000 Allied troops, mostly British, Retreated through northern France, most of whom were rescued on the express orders of the conciliatory Adolf Hitler.
Along the Norwegian coastline, the remnants of Churchill's defeated British army in Norway were simultaneously evacuated.
Everything that Vidkun Quisling had warned against had turned out precisely as he predicted.
Rarely has a country suffered the ignominy of bearing the charge, I told you so.
Quisling stood vindicated.
Interestingly, the then-Norwegian government, like today's Labour Party activists, was selectively pacifist.
Just as in England, there are government ministers who once supported the campaign for nuclear disarmament, Quisling recalled a Norwegian apparatchik sitting on the military committee while wearing the broken rifle emblem on his lapel.
He became the Minister of Defense.
Quisling wondered what these warriors would do now to defend Norway's interests.
Time for our second music break.
This is another patriotic Norwegian song, and I'll again read the lyrics out in English first.
Comrade, we march towards the goal.
We're prepared to fight for our cause.
Our will is as hard as steel.
Attention, young herd, comrade.
Forwards go on, go on.
We march singing man by man.
We march, we march, for people and fatherland.
We never forget what they did, those who led our people to their deaths.
Only with Quisling, our leader at the helm, can we save our people from its distress.
Forwards go on, go on.
Never back, forwards we must.
We march singing man by man.
We march, we march, for people and fatherland.
And when the storm bell calls us once, again to battle Vidkun Quisling's soldier, raise our red-yellow banners high, hail and bless, young herd comrade.
Forwards go on, go on, never back, forwards we must.
We march singing man by man, we march, we march, for people and fatherland.
CHOIR SINGS
CHOIR SINGS
The End
Right now, I want to play another clip from Asha Logos, which is from a series of podcasts that he puts out from time to time.
This clip is from his second podcast and is titled On the Cultural Differences in Conceptions of Power.
Just as it is with individuals, nations and cultures can't help but view all others through a lens of their own creation.
They can't help but presume these others to be wired similarly to themselves.
The French writer, Anise Nin, said, We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are.
It's my contention that a high-trust society and culture, for example, can't help but assume the same of others they come into contact with.
Similarly, a shrewd and crafty culture might naturally assume others to be operating from the same playbook of shrewdness and craftiness.
Thanks for listening.
One of the clearest examples of this mutual misreading would be how these two cultures might end up viewing offices and positions of power, even the idea of power itself.
I wanted to start by a quote from one of the most popular and well-loved rabbis in Israel's short history.
A man whose funeral drew 800,000, making it the most attended in the history of the nation.
Quote, This is one of the two dominant conceptions of power in the modern world,
namely power as a means of living a more comfortable and convenient life, through the doting servitude of those whom you rule over, as a means for personal gain, essentially slaves and vassals.
This is an ethos based around what I've called other sacrifice, as contrasted with self-sacrifice.
The ideas underlying other sacrifice encourage every individual to take as much as he possibly can from those he has power over, and to seek power as a means to more easily obtain such pleasures.
Next, we turn to the traditional Indo-European or Western conception of power, namely as the highest and most profound responsibility.
Tsar Nicholas of Russia, for example.
Was so concerned about his ability to shoulder the awesome responsibility of being caretaker to his people that he had to practically be forced to take office.
He didn't feel worthy of the role.
During periods of hardship and turmoil for the nation, he'd often go days without sleeping, looking ashen and pale, struggling with the profound weight of an entire nation on his back, a nation which he cared for very deeply, in the manner in which a father cares for his children.
Witness accounts and diary entries attest to this beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Here is a man who served his nation by leading it.
In the former case, we have power viewed as a means to an end, the end being hedonistic paradise and that type of psychological satisfaction that arises in certain personalities from the act of dominating others.
In the latter, we have power viewed as the ultimate duty to one's god and nation and people.
The former view has inspired all Marxist modes of thinking, and that eternal ethos of the rebel seeking to depose his master, enviously eyeing what he believes is a lifestyle akin to heaven on earth, and desiring this for himself, failing to see or understand the immense responsibility of the office, and instead obsessively focusing on the materialistic trappings provided to the office holder.
It's also at the root of the entire concept of class warfare, and the historical hatred stoked against kings and monarchs of old.
One might go so far as to call it an ideology of revenge, a thirst for vengeance against those one views as unjustly living better or easier lives, and wanting the same for oneself.
I bring up this comparison not only to help draw a differentiating line, but far more importantly to make a point that I...
Don't think these are two viable philosophies, each with their own merits, each workable in their own way.
But rather that one is healthy and natural and productive, the other unhealthy, unnatural, and destructive.
And the reason is simple and obvious.
One starts from the root of love and compassion towards one's people, earnestly seeking to do the best by them and for them, Striving to be sober and prudent and disciplined and informed enough to be worthy of the role.
And the other seeks power largely as a means for increased leisure or to correct some perceived injustice in the manner of you have power, I don't have power, I want your power.
Which of these two motive forces do you think might produce the best and most committed leadership?
The cultural Marxist poison we've allowed to seep so deeply into academia over the recent decades has produced a generation that view power as practically synonymous with exploitation, as if that were the main role and purpose of power throughout history.
This naturally led to the viewing of many of the greatest figures in history not as hard-working men brimming with merit, judgment, or character, earnestly wanting to make a positive impact on the world, But rather as brigands, as slave masters, as criminals, devious men looking to dominate their fellow man by any means necessary.
And this brings us full circle to the earlier quote by Nin.
We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are.
The subversive culture that has hijacked most of the institutions in the Western world has proceeded to fundamentally reshape them in their own image.
By interpreting influential figures, both past and present, through their own sickly and malformed lens, presuming them to have the same base motives, the same petty desires, the same selfish goals.
When base men author history, history becomes base.
And our post-World War II era stands as profound testament to this.
The reins of power are currently held by men seeking for a splinter in their neighbor's eye while missing the towering redwood tree in their own.
And even when they can't find the splinters, they posit that surely they must exist in droves just beneath the visible surface and go about creating their narratives accordingly.
One of the sad paradoxes of the human condition is that those most fit and capable of leadership Those most wise or intelligent or possessing of sound character and judgment rarely seek power.
Nor are they skilled self-promoters and showmen or manipulators or deceivers.
This is one of the reasons democracies can pose such grave dangers if the political system isn't created with an anti-corruption mechanism foremost in mind.
Because the worst sorts of human beings always seek additional power.
And inevitably view it in the negative context mentioned earlier.
And in a democracy, one merely needs to control the informational inputs of the population to control their voting, and thus largely dictate the machinations of the political system.
Major media is of course our most significant informational input, and because money can purchase media institutions, it was all but inevitable that media would end up controlling our political system.
And what types of individuals are most likely to rise to the top of the financial ladder?
Benevolent and compassionate men of true discipline, strength of will, and leadership?
Or might it be rather the most shrewd, the most willing to compromise themselves, those most willing to manipulate and deceive?
The tools required to best ascend the ladder of financial gain certainly aren't the tools required for leadership or justice and sound governance.
There are certainly exceptions to be found.
There still exist plenty of wealthy individuals of high caliber and good intent.
But I'm only interested in the broader perspective with regards to the systems and structures, because it's these that matter, that serve to shape the future.
And looking at the big picture, observing what traits and tendencies our modern financial system most rewards and which it most penalizes, it's almost as if certain forces had developed the most efficiently To cite an example, let's take Marx.
Karl Marx was a communist, and considered communism to be naturalized humanism.
Both of these doctrines have an endless supply of lofty language, catchy slogans, And might easily be seen by anyone lacking requisite context as a caring or humanitarian ethos.
But considering that bit of wisdom regarding evil always wearing a pleasant mask or sweet-smelling perfumes, let's take a look at Marx himself.
By any reasonable standard, the man was an abysmal human being.
he admitted working for satan and once said i wish to avenge myself against the one who rules above he was almost universally despised by everyone that came to know him This man was the epitome of other sacrifice, of being driven by hatred and envy and malice and every profoundly negative emotion known to man.
Yet, somehow, the seed spread by this man has sprung into a philosophy that represents, in large part, one of the two major warring factions in our world today.
Making him one of the most influential figures who ever lived.
We might contrast him with the polar opposite extreme in Christ and his example of wisdom, self-sacrifice, limitless goodwill, seeking balance and harmony and operating from a motive force of love.
This feverish battle against the patriarchy taking place today isn't merely against the idea of an earthly father, tasked with the ultimate responsibility as guide and caretaker for his children.
It's equally against the idea of a heavenly father, or an ultimate creator, an ultimate ordering mechanism.
We have the founder of Marxism openly praising Satan and blaspheming God.
We have the founder of anarchist thought and Mikhail Bakunin stating, and I quote, But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first free thinker and emancipator of worlds.
He makes men ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience.
He emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge.
End quote.
And flash forward to the present, we have the guiding philosophy behind Obama and the Clintons and so many others of the modern far left, Saul Alinsky, dedicating his book to Lucifer with high words of praise.
These are not potential leaders of mankind.
These are willful destroyers, harboring a hateful malice towards those above them.
This is not a competition between two worldviews that genuinely seek the best for all humanity, and just happen to have slightly different ways of going about it.
This is rather a battle of archetypes, a battle between natural hierarchy, order, and structure, and the malevolent urge to destroy these things.
Keep in mind this isn't speculation.
Many of these leading thinkers on the other side fully admit to being driven by hatred and malice.
And looking at the few instances in which they've attained the power to carry out their aims, we see the largest and most vicious murder sprees in recorded history.
Men willing to kill entire families because of their race or religion, who engaged in years of rape and pillage and the wholesale destruction of the most competent and hardest-working members of their societies.
If this isn't a demonic force of the type mentioned in the Bible, or the Bhagavad Gita, or the Zoroastrian Gathas, then nothing is.
It's the most archetypal example of chaos and confusion in human form.
And if we're not able to defeat it, I suspect they'll make the Bolshevik Revolution and the resulting fallout of tens of millions murdered look like child's play over the coming decades.
These men were not meant to be philosophers, intellectual architects, trailblazers, or leaders.
To put it bluntly, they're sick and maladjusted men, an ever-present danger to the world, and they're meant to be contained.
Thanks for listening.
This is the end, beautiful friend.
This is the end, my only friend.
The end of our elaborate plans.
The end of everything that stands.
The end, no safety, no surprise.
The end, I'll never look into your eyes again.
The end, I'll never look into your eyes again.
All right, well that's about all the time we have this week.
Radio Free Northwest is brought to you by the Northwest Front.
You can reach the party on our website at northwestfront.info.
If you have any questions or comments that you'd like to have addressed on air, feel free to drop us an email at radiofreenorthwest at protonmail.com.
We'll talk to you again next week.
▲
Export Selection