Dec 29, 2009

By | 22 Comments | Print Print

Interview with Harold Covington, Part 1

tricolorTOQ: Could you give us a brief autobiography and tell us how you became involved in White Nationalism?

Harold Covington: I was born in Burlington, North Carolina in 1953. I had my first dose of racial reality at age 15 when I was thrown into an integrated high school in Chapel Hill, NC which was bad by the standards of the day (1968) but which of course was a kindergarten compared to the racial situation that exists in our schools today. All we had to worry about back in my time was blacks with knives rather than organized gangs and drug dealers armed with semi-autos, and of course there were the hippy-dippy SDS type radicals, many of whom I noticed even at the time appeared to be Jews. Homosexuals didn’t even come into the equation back in those days, and the drugs at school were just beer and grass and LSD, not ecstasy or coke or crack.

I won’t go off into a long digression about the various horrible racial experiences I had in high school, but on the day I finally left there, I looked back and made a silent personal vow that I would devote my life somehow to making sure that no young White person ever again had to go through what I had to go through in that place. Again, I didn’t realize how relatively mild my problems had been and how terrible things would become in my lifetime.

For reasons I won’t get into, basically having to do with the fact that my father was a psychopath, he ordered me out of the family home and I went into the United States army at 17. My experiences in the military provided a further dose of racial reality, although once again I understand they were nothing compared to what young White enlistees go through nowadays when the military has in desperation lowered the recruitment criteria to include drug addicts, criminals, gang-bangers, etc.

I did my basic at Fort Polk, Louisiana and then was sent for infantry training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and Ranger School at Fort Benning, Georgia. At Fort Jackson I picked up a paperback book in the day room called The Order of the Death’s Head, by a German named Heinze Höhne. Rare among studies of the Third Reich, the book was actually reasonably objective, and it had the effect of more or less converting me to National Socialism. I remain a National Socialist in my personal outlook to this day. While I was stationed at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii I joined the National Socialist White People’s Party (NSWPP), which was founded by George Lincoln Rockwell, and was then run by a man named Matt Koehl. I formed a unit of a Party front group called the White Servicemen’s League and ended up getting discharged early, albeit under honorable conditions. Nowadays, of course, I’d probably end up in Leavenworth for it.

After I got out of the army I served on permanent NSWPP staff at the headquarters in El Monte, California under the now-legendary Lt. Joseph Tommasi, who was murdered in 1975. I then became editor of the Party newspaper White Power in Arlington, Virginia. In 1974 I worked for a construction company in Johannesburg, South Africa for about six months, and then went to Rhodesia and joined the Rhodesian Army. In 1976 I was deported from Rhodesia for my activities with the proto-NS Rhodesia White People’s Party, along with two of my fellow Americans, Eric Thomson and Jeffrey Spencer. That’s an interesting example of conservatives being our true worst enemy. I was deported on the personal orders of Ian Smith, and we all know what Mr. Smith’s conservatism did to Rhodesia.

From then on it was the usual long Movement history of different groups, different approaches, all of them pretty much dead ends because there basically isn’t anything that can be done on an all-America basis in order to reverse the terminal decline of Western civilization on this continent, at least not without the use of a level of armed force which practically speaking, the Movement will never have at its disposal.

In 1982 I more or less went on the run for five years due to a legal situation which I’m still not certain it’s completely safe for me to get into, given the paranoid nature of our lords and masters these days and their eagerness to find something, anything, to use as an excuse to plop me down in the cell next to Bill White and Matt Hale. I ended up in Ireland, which at that time had no extradition treaty with the USA, due to the embarrassment and political complications for the Dublin government which would be caused by possibly extraditing IRA men back and forth across the Atlantic.

I learned a lot in Ireland. I didn’t just hang out in pubs guzzling Guinness; I read all the newspapers and watched RTE and BBC Northern Ireland, I made trips into the North, I talked to certain people (very carefully) and I sat quietly in certain known IRA pubs nursing a pint or two of Smithwick’s, listening and observing very carefully. Basically, in Ireland, I saw how it’s done in the modern world, not in 1930s Germany, and it was an invaluable education.

It’s true the IRA didn’t win in the main sense of the term, but Communists though they are (and I know that) this small band of dedicated White working class men and women fought a major Western democratic military power to a standstill, and forced the Brits to buy them off instead of crushing them. Like Rocky Balboa, they went a full fifteen rounds with Godzilla and they were still standing at the end of it. The lesson I draw from this and other events in the past 20 years is that it can be done.

In 2000, in the aftermath of what Morris Dees did to Pastor Butler, I finally came out openly for territorial White separatism in the form of the Northwest Imperative.

TOQ: Can you explain the Northwest Imperative, and tell us how you came to believe in it?

Harold Covington: The Northwest Imperative is based on the conviction, an accurate one, that the United States of America in its present form is doomed, and that it is necessary to the physical survival of the White race that we establish a Homeland for all of our people worldwide somewhere on the North American continent. Economics, demographics, and logistics dictate that the best location for such a Homeland is here in the Pacific Northwest. In addition, we have a long history here of commitment and martyrdom here in the Northwest: Bob Mathews and the Order men, Sam and Vicky Weaver, Gordon Kahl, and our latest martyr from the Northwest Front, Jeff Hughes of Vancouver, Canada.

The essence of the Northwest Idea is to reduce the problem to manageable proportions. We are simply too weak, disorganized, and too few to take over the United States, and we need to accept that just ain’t gonna happen. Instead of a whole huge continent and 300 million mostly hostile people to worry about, we reduce the problem geographically and demographically to three and a half states with about 12 million people, mostly White. Given the inevitable coming implosion of the United States and the collapse of the central authority in Washington D.C., when they run out of money to pay their mercenaries, bureaucrats, and enforcers, the Northwest Imperative is do-able in a way that no other plan we’ve ever come up with is do-able.

The Northwest Imperative also reduces the problem to that of a colonial war, and there are numerous models from the last century as to how to wage and win a colonial war. The objective is to make the disputed territory ungovernable and turn it into a massive rathole down which the occupying power bleeds money, manpower, and resources until it can’t stand the hemorrhage any longer and cuts its losses. The most important statement in any of my Northwest novels, so important that I have various characters say it over and over again in all four books, is this: “In a colonial war, it’s never the generals who surrender. It’s the accountants.”

TOQ: Can you tell us what you are doing to promote the idea of a Northwest homeland and to prepare for its concrete realization?

Harold Covington: We have formed the “Party” of the Northwest novels, called the Northwest Front, although it isn’t really a Party yet and probably won’t be for some time. Right now it’s just what the name says, a broad front rather than a party. We have participation from people who are involved with other groups and from people who are involved with none. There is no formal membership status, no chain of command, and no hierarchy. We provide what support we can to anyone who lives here or who is willing to come here to the Homeland and work for Northwest independence.

Eventually that will have to change, of course. Eventually there must be a disciplined, fighting revolutionary Party of political soldiers, but that’s going to take us a while. White Americans are the sloppiest, laziest, most narcissistic and most undisciplined people in the world, and they simply can’t wrap their minds around a European concept such as the political soldier. Not yet. They will have to change, or they will perish from the earth.

Read Part 2 here.

Read Greg Johnson’s review of Harold Covington’s Northwest Quartet here.

Share

Related Posts

  1. But doesn´t the historical Romanticism you mention include romanticism in the first sense of the word? Isn´t it a reaction against Enlightenment (empiricism and such, founded on rationality)?

    Ulf Larsen

    So funny you ask, because I was talking about this very point to someone last night.
    But to answer your question I would say, that what connection there is is so remote, that it would be better to isolate one from other so as to be clear on the differences and similarities.
    If interested Ulf, perhaps it would be better to simply refer you to Morse Peckham’s “Toward A Theory Of Romanticism” from “The Triumph of Romanticism: Collected Essays.”

    At the beginning of that essay he makes a distinction between the two types of Romanticism, and between the political and industrial revolutions of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, and the cultural revolution of Romanticism (in the second sense).

    Or, you might want to try his “Beyond The Tragic Vision (The Quest For Identity In The Nineteenth Century)”.

    To Joe Webb:
    “I don’t understand Dedalus, your take that the Enlightenment spawned both communism and fascism. My understanding is that the Enlightenment led to excessive “thinking” from premises that are clearly wrong, equality, natural rights, and a belief in the fundamental rationality of man. Also, “natural goodness” and Universalism are profound snares.

    Romanticism, in philosophy and poetry, is a mixed bag but clearly what stands out is “feeling” as opposed to “thinking.””

    I like the sentence above Joe. It’s not at all a bad way of putting it. Except for one word, “opposed”. I think that’s key. In an attempt to simplify, but not over-simplify, a terribly complex matter I would describe the difference between the Enlightenment and Romanticism by saying that the former is a question of Either/Or, and the latter a question of Both/And.

    Romanticism did not try to resolve what they came to see as irresolvable, ie; the tension that arises in an individual between his reason and emotion. Or the tension that arises between the will and the world. Another way of putting it is to say that Enlightenment was about the Drive Toward Orientation and Romanticism about the Drive Toward Reality.
    Or, that the metaphysically, that the Enlightenment supported a a Constitutive Metaphysics (an attempt to say what the world “really” is) and Romanticism a Instrumental Metaphysics (concerned more with Situational Thinking, if one prefers, Ecological Thinking).

    In this respect Joe emotion is not prized for its own sake, but as a means of breaking through the limits imposed by an excessive rationality.

    Also, it is well worth pointing out that both Enlightenment and Romantic thinkers and artists often used the same words and signs, but sang them to a different tune.
    Some quick examples:
    The way Edmund Burke used words like “unconscious” and “organicism” and the way Wordsworth used it.
    Also, in painting, both types of Painters painted storms, for example. But there are stroms, and there are storms. The Enlightenment painters were unable to achieve the transitory moment the way the Romantics could, exactly because their over-riding metaphysic was in placing time within the context of unchanging nature.
    And as this relates to time, we can see the difference between the two concerning History.

    The Enlightenment used history as either chronology or to extract moral plums that society was to simply admire and follow (just like PC does today with silly movies like “Che”. They are silly exactly because you’re not supposed to question his actions, just be impressed and follow).
    In other words, The Enlightenment promoted conformity for conformities sake.
    And that brings us from the Historical to the Social and, therefore, to one of most important differences betwen the two.

    George Herber Mead put it best when he said that Romanticism was the first historical period to seperate the self from the role.
    The attempt to seperate the one from the other is not easy. But in doing so one is able to look at themselves from right-angles, so to speak, and question their own assumptions. And, not infrequently, change them for the better. If they can do this with themselves they are better prepared to do it with society and culture. Otherwise they are trapped in Either/Or thinking.
    For this reason Critique rather than Criticism (that, by the way, though a question of semantics, is the only thing I object to in KM’s fine phrase “Culture of Critique”. I think it would better to refer to it as a Culture of Criticism.
    The reason is that Critique is more procedurally oriented, and implies an effort to seperate or detach reason from emotion, for the purpose of an increased objectivity. Something Jewish intellectuals are not at all interested in doing. If anything, they use their intellect to conceal their motives):
    It’s for this reason that Romanticism used history to focus on process, and as a way to seperate the self from the role.

    Lastly, and most importantly, Romanticism’s ultimate goal is to free itself from Redemptive, Utopian, mythologies, metaphysics, or, orientations. The Enlightenment’s worst error was to promote a simplified, even facile solutution to man’s most complicated problems through the notion of perfect adaptation of man to environment, ie; Conformity and Obedience. If we just do This, we will get That, ie; We will be Redeemed. It can’t be done, as a glance at mankind’s history makes perfectly obvious. An obviousness that becomes unusually conspicious in the 20th and early 21st centuries.

    In my view, to acheive this, the Right and the Left of Western Culture, have debased reason and emotion, while turning their back, either deliberately or unconsciously (it’s hard to tell) on the single greatest acheivement of mankind since the creation of the city 6,000 years ago. We are living with the consequences today.
    The only solution I am aware of to this dilema lies in that very acheivement itself, Romanticism. It is also the single greatest answer to any and every criticism levelled against us as a Race, since it offers the only possible solution to problems effecting the entire Species.
    That is certainly something to proud of, and to work for.

Back to Top