Nagging Little Voices

Dungeons and Dragons with Commander Harold Covington

Washington

I just got finished listening to the latest podcast of Radio Free Northwest. As I suspected, Harold Covington, a writer of fantasy fiction, had a few words to say about this website, none of which were positive.

I suggest we play a game.

– First, take a deep breath.

– Second, hold your breath like you are underwater.

– Third, count how many seconds you can hold your breath before you exhale.

I can hold my breath for at least 35 seconds.

Now let’s imagine every second you can hold your breath represents a person. By my count, that is at least 30 more people (counting sockpuppets) than there are in the Northwest Front and 35 more than there are who are seriously willing to engage in an IRA-style terrorist campaign to create a Northwest Republic.

According to Gallup, 25 percent of the residents of Washington self identify as “liberals.” There are 6,664,195 people in Washington state. That means Harold Covington has around 1,666,048 “liberal” neighbors.

Can you hold your breath for 19 hrs and 25 minutes?

If every White Nationalist in America (including every sympathizer who reads these websites including antis and monitors) moved to Washington state tomorrow, they would still be dwarfed by the sheer number of liberals on the ground there.

If they followed HAC’s advice, the liberal, moderate, and conservative majority would unanimously react to vanguardist terrorism in the same way that Americans reacted to the Oklahoma City bombing. Local law enforcement alone would be sufficient to squelch any rebellion. Not to mention the FBI and ATF which have snuffed out any number of such groups over the past thirty years.

Mainstreamers vs. Vanguardists

I’ve repeatedly compared “vanguardism” to fool’s gold. It is a rhetorical position that sounds tough and uncompromising. It is a siren song that at first sounds promising. This type of radical posturing is attractive to highly alienated people, but all bullshit aside, it ultimately amounts to nothing more than escapism.

There is nothing of substance to vanguardism. There isn’t a Northwest Front. There is only Harold Covington (see photo above) living in a fantasy world. There is just one alienated fantasist sitting behind his computer, someone who has no real influence in his own community, browbeating other alienated fantasists to move to the Northwest and join his cult to keep him company.

If I were to move to Washington state, I would find myself hanging out with Harold Covington when I got there, thousands of miles away from home and without a job. Instead of being alienated and irrelevant in Alabama, I would be alienated, irrelevant, broke, and homesick in the Pacific Northwest.

The most damning criticism of Harold Covington is that he doesn’t believe his own bullshit. For all his talk of military bravado, Covington himself can’t even find a single unhinged psychopath to take on the local post office. His own followers won’t move to the Pacific Northwest because even they understand at some level that Covington is nuts.

The Pacific Northwest and Vanguardists

Vanguardists have been active in the Pacific Northwest since the 1970s. From the 1970s until 2001, Aryan Nations was based out of Idaho. The phrase “hiding out in a bunker in Idaho” has become a derisive phrase in the movement for that reason.

When Richard Butler died in 2001, Aryan Nations had a worldwide following of around 200 people. The SPLC bankrupted the group with a wrongful death lawsuit. Their property was seized and awarded to the plaintiffs. It was later turned into “a peace park.”

Aryan Nations failed to make any inroads into the surrounding communities. The group has since splintered and relocated to Ohio and Pennsylvania. If Richard Butler and the Aryan Nations couldn’t spark a Northwest Migration, what makes Harold Covington think he would be any more successful?

All of vanguardism is based on the same errors: unrealistic escapist fantasies, a fundamental unwillingness to adapt their rhetoric to the experience of their audience, a radical sense of alienation from White America, wild millenarian expectations of an apocalyptic collapse, a tendency to withdraw from society, a tendency to express that alienation by erecting unnecessary barriers to understanding, an unwillingness to start where people are today, and radical impulse to burn bridges and push people away.

It really doesn’t matter where the vanguardists go: Arizona, Washington, or West Virginia. The effective result is always the same. Stewing in their alienation, they fail to make any progress in establishing a political base in their communities. With nothing else to do, they log on to the internet to vent their frustrations and share their alienation and misery with others.

“The Northwest Homeland” is an abstract republic. It is an imaginary community that is pitched to intellectuals and vanguardists on the basis of their alienation, fantasies, idealism, and abstract reason. For all his prodding to “come home,” Harold Covington must know that he can never compete with someone’s real home.

There is a scene in Gods and Generals that captures the attitude of many White Southerners to a Northwest Migration.

In 1861, Simon Cameron (President Lincoln’s Secretary of War) offered Robert E. Lee full command of the Union Army. It was a major promotion. Lee was then a Colonel. He could have fought on the winning side of the War Between the States. In some alternate histories, Lee might have succeeded Lincoln as President like General Grant, whose war glory propelled him into the White House.

Robert E. Lee preferred to lose rather than accept a promotion and turn his back on his native state.

Admittedly, this is an extreme example. The vast majority of White Southerners have nothing like Lee’s sense of honor and duty. At the same time, they are highly adverse to uprooting themselves (from their friends, families, kinship networks, culture, communities, native climate) and travelling thousands of miles across America to settle in a strange place where they don’t know anyone and probably can’t find a job.

A good example of this is the response of Southerners to devastating hurricanes. It doesn’t matter how many times hurricanes like Ike, Ivan and Katrina strike the communities along the Gulf Coast. It doesn’t matter to the natives who know that the prevailing weather of the region means they are likely to get hit again.

The people who live there rebuild Galveston, Bay St. Louis, and Panama City. They won’t even contemplate moving to Wyoming or Idaho because they want to live in Mississippi and Florida.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 unleashed an epidemic of negro pathologies in the Deep South. The people who live in Alabama responded by adapting to the hated law, not by fleeing to other parts of the country.

The moral of the story: a fantasy world can never compete with a real community.

There has to be some compelling reason and practical benefit to the settler to abandon everything he knows. In the 1840s, the discovery of gold in California sparked a migration. The Mormons traveled to Utah to save their souls. The pioneers went West for freedom and cheap land.

No one is going to move to the Northwest for Harold Covington will have someone to talk to.

The Pacific Northwest and Mainstreamers

In his latest episode of Radio Free Northwest, Harold Covington accused me of “running down the Northwest.” In reality, I have only criticized Covington and his implausible vanguardist scheme, which will only have the effect of making life even more uncomfortable for White Nationalists already living in the region.

There are many valid reasons for White Zionists to move to the Pacific Northwest. I have spent hours analyzing Wyoming and Idaho. Eventually, I plan to take a hard look at Washington, Oregon, Montana, and the Dakotas. I will complete my analysis with a regional summary.

Harold’s real gripe isn’t that I am “running down the Northwest.” It is that I have written positive reviews of the wrong Northwestern states. Namely, those where Harold Covington doesn’t live, which are excluded from his fantasy world.

White Zionists settling in Idaho and Wyoming could have a far bigger impact than they could in Washington or Oregon. Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota are smaller states than Idaho. Their impact would be even larger there.

There is nothing stopping White Zionists from taking over existing communities in the Interior West and creating communities where anti-White taboos are unenforceable. If they moved to Wyoming or Montana, they could demonstrate the potential of the White Zionist model. That would attract more recruits and the publicity necessary to fuel and sustain a real Northwest migration.

In his podcast, Harold Covington denounced the Ron Paul campaign. Ron Paul’s presidential campaign laid the foundation (through institutions like Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty) for Rand Paul’s successful bid to become U.S. Senator from Kentucky.

Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota are smaller than Oregon and Washington. Instead of 4 Senators, they send 10 to Washington. Wyoming has 2 Senators in spite of being 1/9th the size of Kentucky.

If the libertarians can succeed in Kentucky, the home of millions of “Red State Fascists,” why can’t White Nationalists succeed in Wyoming?

This migration plan is perfectly legal. It is not based on a wild fantasist scheme of a successful vanguardist insurrection. The vast majority of White Zionists are just looking for a place to settle down and live a White life.

The Nagging Little Voice

The “nagging little voice” says:

If I moved to Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, or the Dakotas, I could live a fairly decent life, pay less in taxes, own more property, and my kids would have Nordic classmates. I might find myself an attractive, conservative Nordic woman to marry and live with on my ranch or in my cabin in the woods. There would be no Jews or blacks to put up with.

I would be safe. I might have some actual political representation. If more people moved here, seeing how good we have it, we might even be able to live openly as White Nationalists.

Alternatively, I could move to Washington and join the Northwest Front, which would consist of me hanging out with Harold Covington and a few other alienated vanguardists all day. After getting a job, I would be constantly prodded to support “the movement,” which must have some financial base of support.

Any association with Covington might actually prevent me from acquiring employment. In the event I did move there and built up a nest egg, it could be wrecked at any moment by an unhinged fantasist going on a counterproductive shooting spree.

Maybe I ought to just move to the Pacific Northwest and enjoy living a quiet life there. If I want to hear what Harold Covington has to say, I could always listen to his podcast. That way I could enjoy all the benefits of the Pacific Northwest without the liability of having any dangerous affiliations.

HAC responds to his critics:

About Hunter Wallace 7762 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

47 Comments

  1. Eumaeus, those were some astute observations. I disagree, however, that Pierce made the right decision by walking away from that tenured position. Had he stayed, he could have pushed WN ideas from that position, and no one would have been able to do anything about it. WLP could have been the WN equivalent of Noam Chomsky, an untouchable public intellectual with tenure pushing radical nationalist ideas. Instead, he opted for obscurity. Outside of our circles, no one has ever heard of him which is a shame.

  2. I found the text. I dont think this is exactly where the NA went, nor is it any kind of substitute for the NA manual that later was developed, but if you read this I think you will see my point that this was his logic and you can see it operating through the many endeavors WLP undertook to accomplish.

    Its most interesting how relevant some of his observations remain three decades later, even after the incredible change in information communications brought about by the internet.
    ——————————–
    Prospectus for a National Front

    Introduction:

    America today — and, more specifically, the American people — face the most serious and deadly menace which has arisen in their entire history. This menace far overshadows that posed by any war we have fought, any economic catastrophe through which we have passed, or any previous domestic strife which has torn us. For today we are faced not just with a threat to our territorial integrity, or to our material possessions, or to our way of life, or even to our own lives, but to something far dearer. Today all that we ever have been and all that we ever might be — our race itself — is threatened with extinction.

    Everyone to whom this is addressed is already fully aware of that grim fact and, furthermore, understands the reasons why. Yet, despite this fairly widespread recognition of the threat —- a recognition which has been present for many years now — virtually no effective defensive measures have been undertaken by any segment of the American people — neither by the racially oriented “radical right” nor by “responsible” right wingers nor by anyone else.

    Certainly none of the presently existing conservative or right-wing or anti-communist or racist organizations in America, regardless of the militant stance and revolutionary pretensions of a few of them, can by any reasonable stretch of the imagination be seriously considered as a basis for building the sort of large-scale revolutionary movement we must build within the very near future if we are to maintain our racial integrity and survive as a people. This is not because none of these organizations espouse good principles or have proper goals; many do. They simply are not constituted in such a way and do not work in such a way that it is feasible for them to achieve their goals. Their long-established and unbroken record of failure is the best evidence of this fact.

    About the only good thing which can be said of all these little groups is that they do generate quite a flood of pamphlets, leaflets, bulletins, newsletters, and other printed materials which express some excellent sentiment. But even here it is largely an incestuous sort of affair, in which the propaganda — and the sentiment — are circulated largely within the same vaguely defined “movement” in which they were born. Any real contact or rapport with the general population is absent. And this lack of contact with the public is not due simply to problems of distribution or a lack of access to the mass media. Most movement literature would fail to evoke a sympathetic response front “the masses” even if it could be placed regularly in their hands. It is, for the most part, too esoteric, too introverted, and too ‘kooky” to strike a responsive chord among the general public.

    Instead of genuine political organizations the groups which constitute “the movement’ are, in most cases, clubs, cliques, societies, or cults. They each tend to have quite narrow and specific organizational personalities to which they require every new member to conform. They each have a unique “way to do it”, which they insist is the only correct path to salvation. As a matter of fact, these various programs for victory seldom have much to do with reality. They are based more on daydreams and theory than on hardheaded political thinking.

    Above all, each group or party at least subconsciously regards itself as an end rather than merely as a revolutionary and expedient means. Belonging to the group, carrying a membership card, attending meetings1 and learning to parrot the group’s slogans and the “party line” serve as a fulfillment for most members, with relatively little worry being wasted about the meaning or relevance of the group’s abilities and the lack of any real political progress.

    It may be said of the major (i.e., successful) political parties that they consist almost entirely of men devoid of principles or ideals, of men governed completely by materialism, opportunism, and selfishness. But, at least, these men are adults who know what they want and know how to go about getting it. Politics is not a game or a diversion for them, but a deadly serious business.

    The movement, on the other hand, is filled with overgrown children whose main occupation is talking about what things will be like “when we come to power”. This escapism and lack of maturity extends from the ranks on up to the highest levels. There is a superabundance of talk and wishful thinking and virtually no constructive action to bring the dreamed—about power any closer to realization.

    Idealism, of course, is an essential ingredient of any movement which hopes to secure the future of our race. But the idealism must go hand-in-hand with clear-sighted realism — not escapism.

    One evidence of the lack of realism among the leaders of the radical right (including National Socialist and other racially oriented groups) appears whenever their failure to recruit more than a relative handful of followers is mentioned. The standard defense is: “Yes, but we have a “hard core” who are really dedicated to our particular goals. Numbers aren’t really important; what counts is quality, etc.” Usually this is nothing but self-deception, for there is nothing about having a large number of followers which precludes selecting front that following a hard core of the most capable and most dedicated. But without real masses of people there will never be any real power. And more often than not, where the following is tiny the “hard core” doesn’t exist either; it is more a clique of especially persistent misfits or crackpots than the makings of a functional cadre.

    If the appeal of a group is narrow, only a narrow response can be expected from the public. If certain aspects of a group’s appeal limit public response by creating a crankish, redneck, or unrealistic image, then those aspects should be curtailed or eliminated — regardless of how dear they may be to the hearts of the “hard core”.

    The overall state of affairs confronting us in the movement is certainly sad, although perhaps not unnatural or surprising.
    The standard remedy, which has been repeatedly put forth, is a coalition to harness and synchronize the randomly directed organizational energy which does exist. Such a coalition has not worked in the past. Furthermore, it will not work in the future, because the various groups making up the movement will not co¬operate through any common sense of idealism. Their particular idealisms are simply too narrow, in general, to overlap. Jealousy and organizational loyalties in the long run defeat every serious plan for large-scale collaboration.

    And even if these difficulties could be overcome by convincing representatives of the various organizations that it would be to their advantage to collaborate, it is doubtful whether anything useful would emerge from such collaboration. For one does not create strength simply by joining a number of weaknesses. A new approach is needed which avoids from the beginning the pitfalls which have rendered present and past organizations ineffective.

    Criteria for a new effort:

    The first thing which must be clearly defined is the goal of any new political effort. Our political goal must be nothing more or less than the building of a power base for a White people’s revolution led by National Socialists. Keeping this single objective always in mind, we must be prepared to use whatever methods and take whatever path will lead us most surely to that objective.

    In particular, ideology must never be used to establish tactical criteria. Anything which brings us closer to our goal, which enhances our political strength, is acceptable. If respectable tactics are called for, then no fear of being labeled bourgeois must deter us. Likewise, if illegality and terrorism are called for, no charge of “bolshevism” must be allowed to cause us to hesitate.

    This doesn’t mean, of course, that we should not apply our experience and our judgment in establishing tactical guidelines; it simply means that those guidelines should not be influenced by doctrinal considerations.

    In most cases now the wrong tactics are being used simply because they are not based on a thorough understanding of and an intimate contact with the public to be influenced and recruited. It may be depressing and discouraging to realize what that public is like, what is important to them, and what it takes to move them, but only from such knowledge can proper tactical decisions and consequent revolutionary progress come. Decisions made on a theoretical basis, in isolation — or only in contact with other members of the movement — will almost certainly be wrong. We can at this time, however, establish at least two criteria for tactics to be used In a new effort: one pertaining to the utilization of leadership personnel and one pertaining to the recruiting of members and supporters.

    In the first case, we must recognize that there is a dearth of capable leaders in the movement. Mature, experienced, and capable revolutionary leaders — on our side -— are almost non-existent. And, yet, we cannot sit back and wait for Providence to send us another Adolf Hitler to unify our people. We must do what needs to be done now, without any great and charismatic leader, but using as best we can the presently available leadership material.

    Actually, there is more good human material in the movement which is simply floating loose, without any strong organizational attachments, than is definitely bound to the various groups. If we simply round up the best of this material and launch another party, however, then this new party will very quickly find itself one among many in the rat race, competing with others for the money and brains and bodies in the right wing and neglecting the development of a genuine mass movement. This is what happens despite the best of prior intentions, for, once in the day—to—day struggle to keep a small party afloat, the waves become so big that even the most farsighted of leaders tends to lose sight of the ocean.

    The above considerations should not discourage us from starting new organizations, but they should instead encourage us to invent some new ways of going about things so that we make better use than heretofore of our scarcest resource — leadership.

    A second criterion follows from a look at the extraordinarily successful tactics of our enemies. They are achieving their aims in America with the collaboration of a substantial portion of the American people — and, yet, the American people remain firmly anti-communist in sentiment. The secret lies in the use of fronts.

    Consider as an example the massive anti—Vietnam demonstra¬tions of the past two years. These demonstrations have been planned, organized, and led by people — racially alien, for the most part — whose avowed aim is to destroy America and the American people, Yet, probably fewer than five percent of the participants in these demonstrations have been hardcore communists. Probably no more than 15 or 20 percent of them have been Jews (excepting campus demonstrations, where Jewish participation is generally between 40 and 60 percent). Almost none of them have been Negroes. The overwhelming majority of them have been ordinary, essentially decent Americans — our own people — who don’t even realize that the clenched-fist salute they have mindlessly raised in these demonstrations is the long-established trademark of an alien, Bolshevik cult which has butchered tens of millions of our people and enslaved hundreds of millions more. When they march in one of these demonstrations, they do not think of themselves as furthering the cause of communism, but as merely showing opposition to an unpopular war.

    And what has worked for undermining American morale in the Indochina war has also worked for a hundred other projects. The enemy is able to coordinate a huge amount of activity without any single, rigid, formalized structure which can be readily counter¬attacked. And he is able to do this with relatively small numbers of hard-core leadership personnel. But, most importantly, he is able to enlist for his purpose great masses of the American public, because he does not insist that everyone who helps his cause along must swear allegiance to Mao Tse-tung and carry a Communist Party card, or some other unnecessary foolishness.

    For his one unholy end he mobilizes: brainwashed collegiate liberals, who believe they are working for more individual freedom; parlor pinks, who believe they are struggling for “social justice”; alienated kids, who are looking for excitement and a chance to smash something; frustrated women, who think they need to be liberated; pacifists, who believe they are working for peace; priests, who believe they are helping “humanity”; and lots of plain, old-fashioned materialists and opportunists, who believe they see in a Judaized, bolshevized, and mongrelized world the “wave of the future”.

    The enemy works his will through thousands of separate groups, very few of which appear on the Attorney General’s list of Sub¬versive Organizations. Each group, whether the Ad Hoc Committee to Free the Catonsville Nine or the Kerner Commission or the Ripon Society, has its own particular rationale, but each in its own way is “coordinated” into the overall effort. This coordination is seldom something so dramatic or direct as receiving a sealed and coded packet of orders each month from New York or Tel Aviv, but it exists, nevertheless. And it exists without most of the rank and file really being conscious of it most of the time, even though it is no real secret.

    One or the lessons for us in this is that the American people, for the most part, are not interested — or as interested — in the great, vital, world-historical issues of our time as they are in more mundane, parochial, immediate, and personal issues. Even when they do become emotionally involved in a vital issue, the involvement will nearly always be peripheral and personal. For example, the average American who is concerned about the race issue today is deeply concerned only about some highly particular aspect of the issue: Negro vandalism in his neighborhood, or racial fights in his child’s junior high school, or the effect of Negro welfare programs on his property taxes. But he does not relate his specific concerns to the more general problem. He may respond to an appeal to do something about Negro vandalism in River City, but not to an appeal to put a permanent and worldwide end to the threat of miscegenation. Since we have neither the time nor the resources to educate them and change them now, we must begin by taking our fellow men as they are and moving them by means of the handles that are already on them.

    Another lesson for us in the enemy’s use of the “united front” strategy is that a diversity of people with a diversity of interests — sometimes even conflicting Interests — can be directed toward a single goal, not so much by presenting that goal, as such, to everyone concerned, but rather by representing (or even misrepresenting) the goal in a particular way to each particular element of the united front.

    Thus, when we are attempting to organize policemen, who have learned to hate all “revolutionaries,” we should not talk about building a revolution — even a “White people’s revolution” — but, instead, about fighting bolshevism and anarchy, perhaps about building White solidarity. On the other hand, when talking to radicalized university students we can speak much more freely of smashing the System and building a new order, although we might wish to be more discreet in talking about racial matters to students than to policemen.

    That is what we must carefully consider and then to use –- not ignore – the prejudices and special interests of each element in the population to which we wish to appeal. This does not mean that we cannot go much further and be much more frank with promising individuals in any group than with the group as a whole. This further development of selected individuals -— of policemen who can understand and accept the need for revolution, of students who are racially as well as socially motivated — is absolutely necessary, in fact, to provide reliable leadership for the various groups.

    We must always remember that our immediate aim is power — the capability for mobilizing and directing the energies of large masses of people. In order to do this we don’t have to compete with the Democrats and Republicans for blandness or mediocrity. But we do have to avoid isolating ourselves from the public with programs and images so radical that only a small fraction of one percent will respond.

    We must attract quantity — in which alone the power lies — and then extract from that quantity those individuals suitable for a cadre. We need both the masses and the cadre — neither alone will suffice.

    A final lesson from the united front is that, properly operated, it allows the most efficient use of human resources. A relatively small number of top—echelon people — planners, tactical specialists, liaison men — are able to coordinate and guide, even if indirectly, the activities of hundreds of thousands of individuals in thousands of separate organizations. The day—to—day affairs of the various organizations are handled by members of the organizations themselves; the coordination and general guidance, on the other hand, is provided by leaders who do not become entangled in these affairs and, thus, are able to exercise their skills freely and effectively.

    A National Front:

    What suggests itself, then, to meet our two criteria of mass recruitment and effective use of leadership personnel, is a National Socialist analogue of the Reds’ united front. This would involve, instead of simply forming another party, the building of a two-level political structure.

    First, there would be formed a political superstructure, consisting solely of a working staff of experienced leaders — organizers, propagandists, fund raisers, and persons of demonstrated competence in a few other essential areas — and totally dedicated to the single Job of guiding and aiding the building of a White people’s revolution in America.

    The immediate task of this superstructure would be to spark the formation of a political infrastructure, based on the broadest possible spectrum of White Americans: liberals and conservatives, longhairs and hardhats, policemen and student radicals, truck-drivers, businessmen, and housewives.

    The infrastructure would necessarily consist of many organizations, rather than one. The reason for this is that a single party is expected to have a single, well—defined character; it cannot behave one way in Chicago and another way in Detroit. But an infrastructure consisting of a number of separate groups, linked only through the superstructure, is ideally geared to exploit a variety of situations. A National Front could, for example, coordinate the activities of one group of middle—class property owners in New Jersey, for whom ‘respectability’ might be a prime consideration, with another group of blue—collar workers in Michigan, for whom rough—and-ready activism night be the key¬note.

    Whereas a party, by its nature, needs a more specific program than merely White solidarity and revolutionary change and also binds its leaders to that specific program, a National Front would allow its talent to be used on a broader front, to exploit a wider range of possibilities, and to mobilize more people through a variety of appeals.

    A National Front can form and coordinate more-or-less per¬manent groups: the East Side Citizens’ Association, the National Policemen’s League, or Students for a New Order; and it can also quickly exploit new opportunities with strictly ad hoc groups: Cleveland Citizens for Impeaching Stokes, Committee for Justice in Palestine, or Richmond Mothers to End Terror in Our Schools. – And it can do both these things at the same time, while keeping its eye on the single, continuing task of building the revolution. While individual parties and groups have their ups and downs, some dying and the best surviving, the National Front maintains its continuity of purpose.

    This prospectus is too brief to describe in detail the various activities to be expected of a National Front staff. Only a few suggestive examples can be offered here: In addition to providing regular counseling, outlining of monthly group projects, and so on, National Front organizers can solve for local groups such specialized problems as those involved in holding successful Street demonstrations or public rallies; in opening and operating a political bookstore; in setting up a revolutionary print shop; in installing and operating a recorded—message telephone service; and, in the case of the largest groups, in producing a local party newspaper. Monthly, or even twice-monthly, workshop sessions for each local group, with National Front staffers training local organizers, would provide an enormous boost to the capabilities of the local groups and at the same time generate a fresh supply of the best local talent for recruiting into the National Front staff.

    Services of this sort would require National Front organizers to keep on the move, spending a day or two each month (more if necessary in special cases) with each group. Other staff services could be provided with relatively little travel. If three or four of the local groups are large enough to print monthly tabloids, for example, much of the content can be provided by the National Front propaganda staff: all the national and international news items, editorial cartoons, feature articles, and even some of the local news stories. A service of this sort would not only make it enormously easier for a local front organization to have its own propaganda organ, but would maintain the essential thread of unity of purpose among all groups affiliated with the National Front.

    Ultimately, some single party, with an undisguised National Socialist program, may very well become the bearer of the revolution. But, without a leader of extraordinary capability, that is not likely in the near future. We must act now, and we must choose a mode of operation which allows us to build the largest possible power base with the greatest possible speed. The two-level operation suggested here, with an infrastructure of organizations designed to recruit a mass base and a superstructure which coordinates these organizations from an überparteilich standpoint, offers a number of advantages over previous efforts.

    Box 9473
    Arlington, Va. 22209

    August 31, 1970

  3. LEW you are kidding me, did you not know Chomsky was a Jew? And for all his anti-Israeli critique he is indeed a zionist. An atheist Marxist Jew quasi Zionist just like Israel Shahak, whom we like to quote because he occasionally shows how looney and wicked the Israelis are. No, Chomsky was not untouchable and to the extent he was it was because he was a Jew, following a different tack to the same goal.

    Look at the hell Kevin MacDonald has had to pay. He is tenured, he has his job, and he was tormented by the Jews at university. No, William Pierce knew full well what was required of him, by himself, and he gave the fullest measure of commitment. Not a mistake but unqualified personal commitment. He lost his family over it too. He went the distance. He was “the man in the arena” — Tedduy Roosevelt, who said:

    It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

  4. Of course I know Chomsky enjoys the protections afforded only to Jews. My point is that with tenure even non-Jews can say what they want without getting fired, and although he would have been shunned by his peers a tenured position would have been a better and more credible platform from which to work, reach and influence people. WLP clearly thought he could be more effective taking that path he did, and the result speaks for itself. Few people, for example, have ever seen that astoundingly brilliant analysis you just posted.

    On a separate note, in light of the views WLP puts forth in that document, I really don’t understand why he didn’t spend more time over the years on the narrow tactical considerations that he himself said would be so crucial for drawing large numbers of people to our side.

  5. While I have issues with the Northwest Front as well, one thing has to be said about liberals. Liberals are mostly not liberals because they have carefully thought out the state of things generally and, from first principles on their own worked out that the liberal view is the correct one. The vast majority of liberals are liberals because it is TRENDY, in their socioeconomic group, to be a liberal.

    People who do one thing because it is trendy now may well make a radical and extreme switch to another view when that view becomes the trendy one. And in looking at NS Germany we see that what is trendy can change drastically and overnight. Hitler was nothing if not a trendsetter.

    The prevalence of liberal Whites in the Pac NW may be disgusting but should not be viewed as the insuperable problem of the Northwest Front plan. The biggest problem is that racially conscious people in the Midwest, the Southeast, and anywhere else are generally pretty attached to where they live and moving anywhere else for them is going to be a hard sell, let alone the Pacific Northwest, which absent a Northwest Front movement that is perceived as viable would be the last place they’d go. For a Southerner, the Northwest might as well be Mars.

  6. Re: Will Williams

    What do you mean “us,” Kemosabe? You and I agree on very little.

    That’s true.

    I’m officially changing my political designation to “Hard Right.” In 2011, I will build upon this concept and contrast it with “White Nationalism.”

  7. Read that old VNN thread and you’ll see we were having the same silly “Vanguardist v. Mainstreamer” argument you’re regurgitating and fanning today, we just didn’t frame it using Lenny Zeskind’s or your term

    Leonard Zeskind did not invent the term “vanguardist.” Groups like the National Alliance adopted the term “vanguard” and modeled their strategy along those lines.

  8. The question of which approach is wrong is based on the erroneous presumption that both approaches should not be simultaneously pursued.

    You can’t simultaneously pursue both approaches. That is why this debate has dragged on for months now:

    (1) You can either work within the system or reject the system as hopelessly corrupt.

    (2) You can either adapt your message to your audience or draw finer distinctions that distinguish your point of view.

    (3) You can prioritize organization over rhetoric or you can prioritize rhetoric over organization.

  9. “(1) You can either work within the system or reject the system as hopelessly corrupt.”

    This is an oversimplification. Anybody whose efforts are mainly in the area of utilizing free speech is in a very real sense working within the system. Yes, the fact that the system is corrupt means that you may have to fight to have your right of speech respected. Most of us are in that position.

    Even Harold Covington, who declares that the government has no legitimacy, still owes to that government and its laws the fact that he hasn’t been hunted down and killed. If Will Williams hadn’t done it, Tom Metzger would have, if not for the system and its laws. So really, who is there that really regards the system as 100% corrupt and makes no use of it?

  10. Will, even if Covington turns out in the end to be one of those wrong people, I think you would still agree that the cause is still right.

  11. Greg Johnson, does it bother you, when you promote Harold Covington’s fiction, that he used Hill of the Ravens as a vehicle for labeling Dr. William Pierce as a federal informant?

  12. Jack is right about the comment section.

    (1) No one cares about these old feuds.

    (2) No one wants to read WWE Smackdown every night.

    (3) The people who thrive on creating chaos are a turn off to the people we need to attract.

    There will be some changes in 2011 that will take this into account.

  13. Hadding,

    If you are trying to say that “vanguardists” are hypocrites, then I would agree. The people who heap abuse on “the system” all day and ridicule the Constitution are always the first to squall about their rights when they get in trouble with the law.

    Bill White, the World Commander of National Socialism, was a spectacular example of this.

  14. The big question is whether anybody really wants to read what Jack Ryan or Hunter Wallace have to say.

    Covington’s smears and the reaction to them are not “old feuds” in the sense that they would be dead and forgotten if Will Williams didn’t say anything. If you believe that then you haven’t been paying attention.

  15. Hunter Wallace says:
    December 4, 2010 at 12:55 am
    Jack is right about the comment section.
    (1) No one cares about these old feuds.
    (2) No one wants to read WWE Smackdown every night.
    (3) The people who thrive on creating chaos are a turn off to the people we need to attract.
    There will be some changes in 2011 that will take this into account.

    Jack Ryan replies:
    Very well said Hunter. I would also suggest that people try to be a bit more positive and try to give people the benefit of the doubt if they are honestly working for our White side – whatever way they go – mainstream, vanguard, religious, separatist – even if they fail miserably but gave it their best.

    We might also try not to “air our dirty laundry” as anyone who strikes out in the open and comes “out of the closet” for our White side, “names the Jew” – it’s pretty certain they are going to go through rough employment, financial times. Look at A.H. – he was once a vagabond struggling “artist” – had to get money from family etc., but he managed to come back and do well, own a Mercedes convertible, get a great looking G.F.
    🙂
    Maybe it will work out that way for most of us – I hope so.

    Stay positive folks and let’s look back on 2010 and understand – yeah, in so many ways, our side did great.
    TED KENNEDY IS DEAD!
    The South is solidly back in White control – yeah!
    AWESOME!

  16. I think a major part of the problem was some of the content that was being posted on the blog. It is very tempting to get baited and respond by poking fun at Jim Giles, Harold Covington, Greg Johnson, etc.

    Right now Greg Johnson has a post on Counter-Currents where he is comparing himself to Jesus. I had to resist the temptation to write a post about Jim Jones.

    We have spent far too much time discussing “vanguardists.” These people are not worth the attention we have given to them or the time that we have spent on the subject. These threads always draw out the people who have a dog in the fight.

    In 2011, I want to head in a more positive direction and steer clear of discussions about fringe characters. I think the strength of this blog is getting engaged with the mainstream and more involved in practical politics that can make a real difference in our lives.

    I’m proud of my posts about Virginia, Georgia, Wyoming, Idaho, and Colorado. That is the template that I want to expand upon. Not these discussions about Greg Johnson or Harold Covington.

  17. “We might also try not to ‘air our dirty laundry’….”

    UNBELIEVABLE! Jack Ryan the Harold Covington FAN says that we should not “air our dirty laundry”!

    Does “dirty laundry” also include completely false personal smears? Or is it only the true criticisms of Harold Covington that should not be aired?

  18. I’m also going to be carving out a “new discursive space” called the “Hard Right.” I think it is clear that an alternative to White Nationalism is desperately needed.

    The White Nationalist movement is stuck in a ditch. It has shown no signs of getting back on track. I see nothing coming out of the movement but more spinning tires, mudslinging, and griping on the internet.

    We need a place for White people who are not hopelessly alienated from their contemporaries. We need practical solutions to problems like immigration where we can start building some forward momentum. More than anything else, we need to identify and connect with a mass constituency.

    That’s the direction I am headed in next year. I’m tired of traveling in alienated circles.

  19. The big question is whether anybody really wants to read what Jack Ryan or Hunter Wallace have to say.

    The only reason I even check this place out is to see what kind of “freethinkers” are out there. I’m much more interested in those making the comments than I am the GOPish slant that oozes from the articles now.

    Quite honestly, I would like to see posters like Will(and a few others) spend more time with practical action rhetoric than sitting here Mainstreaming It with Hunter’s persona of the month.

  20. Hunter is saying “I don’t need you losers. You’re not gonna have good ol’ Hunter to kick around anymore. That’s it. I’m gonna walk right out that door. . . . Next year.” Giving people plenty of time to beg him not to go.

  21. If “Hard Right” is worth doing, isn’t it worth doing right now? And isn’t telling the world about it just another “From the Provinces,” namely a break that really isn’t a break?

  22. Greg,

    The calculus here is that there is no point in wasting any further time on people like you who aren’t doing a fucking thing to solve our problems.

    Harold Covington talks about saving the White race. The man is estranged from his own family in North Carolina and abandoned his own children in Ireland.

    William Pierce couldn’t hold together his own marriage. If memory serves, he was similarly estranged from his children.

    It is time to turn the channel.

    There are all sorts of ways to get things moving on the ground right now. That’s a better use of my time than keeping track of failures and rent seekers in the White Nationalist movement.

  23. @Robert Campbell
    “but my take-away is quite the opposite, and leaves me firmly convinced that electioneering is a dead-end unless a metapolitical sea change precedes it.”

    I half agree with that. However you can use electioneering as one vehicle for that meta-political battle. The Greens in Europe and Ron Paul are examples of this. In the early days the Greens didn’t electioneer to win they electioneered to propagandize because elections are times when people are more inclined to listen.

    @Hadding
    “Also I think some of you people grossly overestimate the average American’s aversion to violence. You are telling me that people who watch Iraqi cities being blown to bits with cruise missiles have a problem with mass-murder? They do not, if it is presented as somehow justified.

    It’s not enough to present it as justified. It has to be presented as justified by the accepted moral authority. Promoting violence before you have undermined the currently dominant accepted moral authority and replaced them with at least 1/3 of white people is stupid.

    @fred
    “I can’t believe you guys are talking about vanguardists and didn’t mention the King of the Vanguardists.”

    A more serious contender:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUV2QTXIW1U&feature=related

    As an esoteric, pointless but maybe interesting to someone aside…

    Lenin’s vanguardism didn’t work the way he envisaged. He did create a vanguard organisation and he was alive and young enough when a collapse happened but his first attempt to take power failed. If i remember right it was only when he went populist that he gained the numbers neccessary to mount a successful coup.

    So even if someone wanted to create a white vanguard org (in the Leninist sense of vanguard) and they did get a collapse of some kind to take advantage of then they should learn the lesson of Lenin and go populist *at the point of collapse*. So you have a cadre vanguard up till the collapse and then go populist when the collapse happens to get the numbers for your army.

  24. “If you are trying to say that “vanguardists” are hypocrites, then I would agree.”

    No, I am not saying that “vanguardists” are hypocrites, because I don’t use that word, and if I did use the word, I wouldn’t MISUSE it the way you do. I do not recognize the category that you have created as a catch-all for people than whom you would like to be seen as smarter.

    What I did mean is what I said, that you oversimplify when you say that regarding the system as corrupt and working within it are mutually exclusive. Unless you are an outlaw, you do both.

    If the system were totally corrupt, it would simply crumble.

    There are some people, most notably Harold Covington, who exaggerate the extent of the system’s corruption to such a point that one must conclude that anybody who takes a public position on race and isn’t thrown in prison for it can only be working for the Feds.

  25. Hadding blurts out the obvious: “…Harold Covington, who declares that the government has no legitimacy, still owes to that government and its laws the fact that he hasn’t been hunted down and killed. If Will Williams hadn’t done it, Tom Metzger would have, if not for the system and its laws…”

    Yeah, that pesky JOG protects Tubby from proper Aryan justice — “Winston Smith” loves Big Brother — and so do some of JOG’s court officers. Where is one of those bad-assed righteous lone wolves from Tom’s dread Leaderless Resistance when we need him? When we earn the authority to punish as well as reward, then there won’t be any Covingtons queering things from the shadows. That shit will no longer flush, if I can be so indelicate.

    Greg Johnson says: “If ‘Hard Right’ is worth doing, isn’t it worth doing right now?

    “HARD RIGHT NOW!” “”Hunter” might be able to score a girlfriend with a slogan like that!

    I remember trying to explain Dr. Pierce’s vanguard approach to Jimmy Guiles on the phone, and used the term “hard-core nucleus” in passing. I could tell Jimmy wasn’t really listening very closely to what I was telling him, but he must have liked that phrase because the next day he was telling his fans that what’s needed is a “hard-core nucleus” of ass-kicking ex-high school football players like him, and that ol’ time religion of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

    Celestial Time says: “Quite honestly, I would like to see posters like Will(and a few others) spend more time with practical action rhetoric than sitting here Mainstreaming It with Hunter’s persona of the month.”

    Let me know when you find a venue that’s suitable for that, CT, and I’ll come swap wars lies with you there.

    I jumped in here mainly to keep “Hunter” & friends honest when I got a Tubby Alert. Most people don’t know what to believe about defendant Covington, so I can come in as a certified expert, Tubby’s plaintiff, clear up the confusion, set the record straight, like at Hadding’s blog by that name in the OD blogroll.

    “Hunter,” you asked about the National Alliance goals. Of the five general goals we’ve covered four. The fith goal deals with the ethnocentric economic system.

    2.c. NATIONAL ALLIANCE GOALS
    2.c.i. White living space
    2.c.ii. An Aryan society
    2.c.iii. A responsible government
    2.c.iv. A new educational system

    2.c.v. An economic policy based on racial principles
    There are two fundamental criteria which must be used for judging each and every governmental intervention in economic matters. They are, first, the long-range welfare and progress of the race; and second, human nature. Which is to say that in evaluating any economic policy we must ask ourselves two questions: Will this policy ultimately be beneficial or detrimental to the quality of our race? And is it in accord with human nature?
    We look first at the racial effects of a policy and insist that they must be positive—or at least not negative—and then we insist that the policy be based on a clear and realistic understanding of human nature, so that it is workable.
    We can understand better the significance of these two principles if we consider briefly two quite different economic systems, Marxism and laissez-faire capitalism.
    Marxist economics has human happiness rather than racial progress as its ostensible aim, and it is based on assumptions that are at odds with reality and with human nature. It aims at providing material comfort for everyone, more or less equally. It cannot even admit the possibility of racial progress, because that implies that some types of men are inherently superior to others and that some directions of development are more desirable than other directions.
    Whether one prefers the Marxist goal of the greatest happiness for the greatest number or the National Alliance goal of stronger, wiser, and more beautiful men and women is a matter of one’s values. It was not on its choice of values that Marxism foundered, however, but on its refusal to recognize the fact of human inequality and the nature of human motivation. When people are not permitted to work for their own profit and advancement, they do not work well; and when a society’s leaders do not attain their positions through their own strength and merit, that society is likely to be ill led.
    In contrast to the Marxist system, we recognize the need to permit people to compete, to reap the fruits of their labor, and to exercise leadership according to their demonstrated ability. They will work harder and more efficiently and will order themselves in a hierarchy of ability. The result will be a stronger, better led, and more prosperous society. There will, of course, be those individuals who will not work or whose natural abilities are such that they cannot compete effectively. Rather than following the Marxist path of robbing the successful in order to reward the unsuccessful, we must take measures to ensure that society’s lowest elements do not multiply and become more numerous in later generations.
    The laissez faire capitalist system provides another illustrative contrast. Under such a system the society as a whole has no goals: there are only the goals of individual men and women. The capitalist system, like ours, provides strong incentives for individuals: the strong, aggressive, and clever rise and prosper, and the weak, indecisive, and stupid remain at the bottom. Leaders tend to be capable—at least, in the capitalist economic environment, with its special conditions.
    Without a unifying principle, however, a capitalist society easily can fall prey to certain inherent weaknesses. One of these weaknesses is the instability which leads the rich to become richer and the poor to become poorer, not solely because of differences in ability but because the possession of capital gives the possessor an enormous advantage in the competition for more capital. When personal gain is the only motivation in a society, those who already are rich can arrange things to favor themselves: they can block threats to their power in ways which may be destructive to the welfare of the society as a whole. They can hold down the price of labor, limit healthy competition within the society, and exploit the environment without regard for the long-range consequences.
    The overly rigid social stratification resulting from unrestricted capitalism can lead to endemic class hostility and even to class warfare. It can slow racial progress by making the ability to acquire and hold capital the supreme survival trait.
    We need an economic system which, in contrast to Marxism, allows individuals to succeed in proportion to their capability and energy, but which, in contrast to capitalism, does not allow them to engage in socially or racially harmful activity, such as stifling competition or importing non-White labor. We need to structure our economic system so that it cannot fall prey to the instability of capitalism. We need to maintain social flexibility, so that capable and energetic individuals always have the possibility of rising. We need to ensure that capital does not have the possibility of changing society’s rules to suit itself. The way to achieve and maintain an economic system which meets these criteria is to design and govern the system subject to the supreme principle: the ultimate aim of all economic policy is racial progress.

    Race-based 3rd Position (R3P)

  26. “Hunter” defends: “Leonard Zeskind did not invent the term ‘vanguardist.’ Groups like the National Alliance adopted the term ‘vanguard’ and modeled their strategy along those lines.

    Really? What other groups did that, “Hunter?”

    Robert, speaking of that rare Prospectus that Eumaeus discovered, I captured that one and printed it out fast before it got buried. Dr. Pierce wrote that in 1970. It shows just how consistent his “vanguard” approach was from then forward. He wrote this 40 years ago in Prospectus:

    “We must attract quantity — in which alone the power lies — and then extract from that quantity those individuals suitable for a cadre. We need both the masses and the cadre — neither alone will suffice.”


    It sounds to me like he knew exactly what he was going to do. The operative word in that first sentence is “suitable.” He knew suitability when he saw it in an individual. HAC was still cowering in bathroom corners, pissing himself, when Dr. Pierce was already going about building the White resistance’s vanguard movement with a sense of urgency.

    Eight years later, September of 1978, Dr. Pierce addressed the first convention of the National Alliance membership and reinforced what he had said in Prospectus:


    “Our task is not to persuade a numerical majority of the American population that we are right but rather to build the numerical minority of those whose values coincide with ours into a majority of will and determination.”

    Dr. Pierce leaves no doubt as to which individuals he thinks are suitable for his vanguard cadre: the ones whose values coincide with his uncompromising hard racial line. William Pierce was the man with the Plan.

    The Plan has not changed. There is a Remnant of Pierce loyalists who will regather and rally around Dr. Pierce’s program and goals when they recognize it again — and they’ll keep it unadulterated.

    All those who have claimed to be successor to Dr. Pierce’s Plan, whether they use the word vanguard, or not, have come up short, due mostly to their compromising on the Plan by going “mainstream.” They broadened their outreaches to appeal more to those who did not share Dr. Pierce’s ideals and values and world view. Coming off Dr. Pierce’s hard line racial position of strength was a formula for failure when we’re up against the already powerful, revolutionary-minded Marxist Jew.

    Pierce’s more suitable cadre wanted no part of the compromises his successor unilaterally put into place, such as removing the policy that set the National Alliance apart from the rest — that Xianity is an unsuitable ideology opposed to that of the Alliance — so they voted “no confidence” with their feet. It was more like the Alliance deliberately left them more than that they left the Alliance.

  27. In that prospectus WLP writes about the importance of using tactics, modified programs and front groups to build numbers; however, I perceive that WLP and the NA general did not put much emphasis on this area (using rhetoric and tactics to build numbers). If this is not true and WLP did put emphasis on this area, maybe some of the former NA members here can say what he did, or what his approach would have been had he lived.

    WLP:

    That is what we must carefully consider and then to use –- not ignore – the prejudices and special interests of each element in the population to which we wish to appeal. This does not mean that we cannot go much further and be much more frank with promising individuals in any group than with the group as a whole. This further development of selected individuals -— of policemen who can understand and accept the need for revolution, of students who are racially as well as socially motivated — is absolutely necessary, in fact, to provide reliable leadership for the various groups.

    We must always remember that our immediate aim is power — the capability for mobilizing and directing the energies of large masses of people. In order to do this we don’t have to compete with the Democrats and Republicans for blandness or mediocrity. But we do have to avoid isolating ourselves from the public with programs and images so radical that only a small fraction of one percent will respond.

  28. LEW, that 40-year old quote you provide from Dr. Pierce answers your own question. I could write a book of all the ways our membership reached out and targeted various segments of our less-radicaalized kinsmen, but that’s not the subject of this thread.

    You like fiction. Read Andrew MacDonald’s _Hunter_. He covers so many issues that a race-thinking newbie will find fascinating, eye-opening. One lesson I remember taking away after reading _Hunter_ was Pierce’s differentiation of tactics from strategy. I don’t want to spoil the ending for you; read _Hunter_ yourself.

    It can’t be bad that this thread turned into a lesson about what made Dr. Pierce tick, but Nagging Little Voices, really, to me, is about a rare opportunity to further expose this insufferable fraud, defendant Covington, who some of you less discriminating “WNs” . find so “brilliant. Are you still not sure about what he is, LEW?

    Let’s try an experiment, LEW, OK? Let’s narrow the CQ (Covington Question) down to a detail that you concentrate on to wrap your mind around.

    Posted earlier in this thread is a link to a document written years ago by your fiction writer Covington, but attributed to his fictitious persona Luther Williams, and calculated to appear as non-fiction. Here’s that link again: http://img18.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=haroldcovingtontheoldor.jpg

    Now, let us narrow in one this one claim by Covington in that 6-page “brief history” (page 3): “[Will W. Williams] wrote and published a long, rambling attack on Harold Covington entitled “The Perils of Hobbyism” in the December 1992 NA Bulletin, to which he signed Dr. Pierce’s name without permission.”

    There are plenty of claims in this history, but for now let’s look at just this one. Covington reinforces this claim on page 6 where he is comparing himself to Dr. Pierce. Remember, this is Covington writing about himself, comparing his third-rate plagiarisms to Dr. Pierce’s:

    “[Covington] is also one of the greatest unsung masters of the written English language on the Right, in any era. His only living equal is Dr. William L. Pierce, and it would be interesting to see them cross swords. Somehow I think Pierce would meet his match at last. (The article ‘Perils of Hobbyism’ [sic] doesn’t count, since it was written by Will Williams and is a very inferior imitation of Pierce’s style.)”

    Remember, that’s defendant Covington’s nagging little voice that he calls Luther Williams talking, not Covington himself, though he admits somewhere else in TOOP that he was the first to publish and distribute Luther’s “brief history” first through his so-called Dixie Press publishing arm.

    In actuality, Covington tried his best to “cross swords” with his imagined rival Dr. Pierce — the real thing — hundreds, even thousands of times with such provocations as we see in the above quote. Dr. Pierce answered all that once, and just once, and that was in his internal NA BULLETIN (for members and a few others only) with his “The Perils of Hobbyism” editorial, the one piece Covington states with such authority, per se, through his fictional character, Luther Williams (as in William Luther Pierce ), that I, not Dr. Pierce, authored. What utter nonsense!

    Hadding features a facsimile of this 18-year old editorial by Dr. Pierce here: http://noncounterproductive.blogspot.com/2010/10/perils-of-hobbyism-by-dr-william-l.html.. To believe defendant Covington, it’s necessary for you to believe that I wrote “The Perils of Hobbyism,” as he claims. I won’t allow that because it is a bald-faced lie.

    Now, LEW, once you can stipulate to the fact that defendant Covington is an extremely disturbed individual who has envied Dr. Pierce’s work for decades, while smearing him, undermining his good works, go get an eyeful of this most recent rip-off of Dr. Pierce by this hopeless plagiarist Covington: http://www.youtube.com/user/colonelhouse775#p/u/4/EaDC_aWjGPs

    Pathetic.

  29. That little blurb from one of Covington’s recent podcasts (that the Jews always go too far) tacked on as a golden nugget of wisdom before Dr. Pierce’s speech is actually something that Dr. Pierce said long ago, I believe in an address that he gave about the Jews’ pressuring the Swiss banks. I found an ADV from 2004 in which Kevin Strom referred to it but I didn’t find the original script.

  30. From Covington’s podcast of 9 December 2010:

    “You want to know what happens when you let the wrong one in? Look at the history of the National Alliance during the late 90s. The wrong person in that kind of position can wreak untold havoc. And it’s happened. Now we are not going to let that happen to the Northwest Front.”

    What “untold havoc” is supposed to have happened to the National Alliance in the late 90s? That was when the organization was really taking off! The NA had no serious internal problems until 2003, more than a year after Dr. Pierce died.

    Covington seems to rely on his listeners’ being rather poorly informed and having no source of information other than himself.

  31. In the American Revolution, Americans did not “defeat the British” They WERE the British, and they overthrew their own government. It’s a well-established fact that only a tiny minority of Americans were revolutionaries. Perhaps 1%, with the other 99% being the equivalent of todays liberals and conservatives; whining and crying about each other and what goodies they can get from big daddy, and that those evil revolutionaries are upsetting daddy and he might decide to not give anyone anything. Lets face it, you CONservatives have had over fifty years and have not accomplished anything, and now the end is drawing near.

    I never got involved in radical politics to make friends. I don’t give a damn about Harold Covington or any of you or anyone else. I want to live in a White society. That’s the only reason that I got involved. I don’t care about religion, capitalism, or anything else. The so-called right has failed miserably for over half a century, and probably a lot longer Now we’re at the point where they fail at almost every turn, and there is little to conserve. The true definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result. YOU have FAILED.

    The analogy of holding one’s breath is an ironic one. If someone had one of you by the throat and was holding your head under the water…. would you hesitate to react violently because you might tend to upset this person?

  32. All white Nationalist must ponder this. First read all the things on Mormonzietgeist about Mormon Church. Joseph Smith is the most sucessful white racist in american history, then Brigham Young. Smith had the Freemasons going crazy because of his higher true rites in Temples. The Masons killed Joseph Smith. Dewey Buddy Tucker had the National Emancipation of White Seed Party which was Militant Idenity. Butler was member of NEWS and when Feds neutralized News, Butler and Britton formed Arytan Nations. No matter what form our groups might take, the Feds, ADL, Mossad, and etc., will be their to infiltrate and neutralize. The Justice Department has a training facility were they train agents to go all 2000 counties, and set up phoney organizations to gather info on racially aware people. When a person arizes who has great potential he in neutralied or killed or put in jail. Harvey Ruvin a jew from Dade County, Florida said one man working in dark is more dangerous than 1,000 men working in open to Zionist Control. I hope a militant white will start a White Mormon Church of Jesus Christ with all the original teachings of Joseph Smith. The Mormon Church now in Salt Lake has been infiltrated by illumanati. The two Seed lines is true! Harold Covington and his new Northwest Constituion has many errors. One is naming the head man President. Congress, Senators, Representatives are disgraceful words to all true White Men. If we ever take over an area anywere, we must take control of all land and divide it with all white citizens, period. I agree with almost all of David Lane’s assesments, only Spirituality is missing and this is were a White Mormon Church would come in with Doctrine of Whiteness and Darkness.The Temple Rites of Smith were for White Race Survival. The Priesthood is only for The True White Seed line. The USA that existed in the 1950s is gone forever. In fact the USA is the worst enemy of White Race, it has to go, to hell with sickning Patriotism, why love something that destroys you? The Lone Wolf tactic of Louis Beam is good.

  33. George Lincoln Rockwell was brillant, but his comment in In Hoc Signo Vinces that the White Man can never win by Sneaking is not correct. Since Woorld War 2 the government has spent billions on Neutralization, control and elimanation methods aganist all White Racist Movements. The Justice Department has agents all over the USA. They set up phoney organations to Monitor, Control and Neutralize. These Agents are highly tranined and get good pay checks . The Government also sets up staged events to demoralize. Take for examples, Patty Hears SLA and William A H. Williams of ARA, both occured in early 70s to test how far left or right would go. Other possible staged events are CSA Compond Assualt in 80s, to Maybe just maybe even Order, so dont get mad, just think! Maybe most of the leaders today are Agents. Robert De Pugh in 70s with Shelton Scoggions made all attendees of Patriot Conferences take lie Detector Test. Many White Racist leaders refused to take test like Fields abd Stoner of Thunderbolt. Traitors must be dealth with harshly. Many say Duke, Covington, Black and many others are Agents!!!! One day in future our race willl get our own Ben Laden leader or Sub Commandant Marcus type leader. The Powers that Be who we know are not going to let any true White Leader Arise. Read the Mini Manuel of Guerilla Warfare by left wing Brazillian. The Elite will never give up their power peacefully. One Tactic the snakes use, is to set up phoney organizations, let them get a little big a few years and then make that outfit defunct, to Demoralize, all of those politians in D.C. are worms of the lowest order. We are in the dark ages of time now and it will take along time with many battles before we ever win. To Hell with all those Anti White Bastards in Washington D.C. To a future white state! Do you think they would let us vote like blacks in Sudan for Seperation, Ha. Ha.!! Never, Only by blood and guts!!!!

  34. The Controllers, Illumanati, Powers that Be use dirty tactics to discredit White Racial Pride. They infiltrate White Movements, Set up Phoney Organizations, Make Phoney leaders like Duke and Wallace and attack every way possible to confuse and destroy us. A real White Leader will never be allowed in the open. Only thru Lone Wolf Tactics can we win. Kill The Bastards by Beam, No other way. We will never legally attain power. Only thru bloodshed is freedom attained. Some phoney leaders set up anti christian groups, racist but anti God and some phoneys with New Age Agenda from Scotland Yard take White Race Beliefs and put the garbage about Lizard people, shape shifting and queers are OK and we had both sex organs thousannds of years ago, and its Lizards not evil seed of Cain. The True Teachings of LDS of Smith and Young have battled USA thru their history. The USA is controlled by Anti White Evil Seed who take Masonic Brotherhood we are all the same and shove it down our throats, its their Agenda and New World Order. Someone needs to form an under ground secret White Mormon Church and aggressively fight these bastards. It will take many many genrations to defeat these snakes. If all the Capitals in US disappeared over night along with all the Court Houses and other anti White Organizations, their would still be millions of evil bastards to replace them. We need to find out the DNA Marker of Race to weed out the phoneys. Just remember this, all of our White Movements are some way infiltrated or controlled. An Underground White Mormon Church more militant than Klan or Aryan Nations could be our Salvation from complete destruction. White Mormon Wolfs, form the Church for the future long battle with the Evil Seeds. The Raven will Return!

  35. Concerning HaroldCovington and his New Northwst Constitution, All White Nationalist must never forget Richard Butler of Ayran Nations and his Platform For The Aryan National State which had 10 Articles and was a complilation and carry on of Dewey Buddy Tuckers National Emancipation of White Seed Partys 10 Demandments. Also the 10 Goals of the NSWPP. When a White Mormon Church of Jesus Christ is formed, it will be more militant and racist than any organization in history. Brigham Youngs Oath of Vengeance must be made more militant and the new White Mormon Church of Jesus Christ must be prepared for a long long battle with the Evil Seed of Cain. All the Original teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young must be restored and clarified. The Evil Seed of Cain with the Way Of Cain had secret rites to protect itself from the Seed of Adam. Witches and Seed of Cain stole things from White Masonry . Joseph Smith understood this and this is why he was killed so violently by Seed of Cain. The Illumanati Seed of Cain have a Super Rite called The New and Reformed Palladian Rite. A New White Mormon Church of Jesus Christ must have counter Rite of our own. John Todd said that Rothchilds use Gaelic Witches for their power. May a White Mormon Church of Jesus Christ be formed and The Raven and odor of Cedar return. So Mote It Be.

  36. Hunter Wallace says: “Ward Kendall is not Harold Covington. I have known that guy for years. He wrote a book called “Hold Back This Day.” Totally different style.”

    I am aware that Covington has a few supporters that are actual biological entities and not just sockpuppets.

    However, word is that Covington is not above using another living person’s name. Do you know for a fact that the real Ward Kendall (who wrote that book) supports Covington as abjectly as described on the VNN Forum thread linked above?

  37. Warning: WordPress does censorship! Plus the Left and Right and all areas are infiltrated by Justice Department Agents. So Much for Freedom of Speech. No matter what is done, you cant stop ideas. 100 monkey snydrome. WHITE MORMON POWER!

  38. It’s been sorted out since I commented on this thread that Covington actually has used Ward Kendall’s name on a number of occasions. I pointed out to Kendall a thread on VNN Forum and some of Covington’s Yahoo groups where “Ward Kendall” had posted. Kendall said he didn’t do it.

Comments are closed.