The Wayback Machine -

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Covington knows what he is doing.

Recently there has been a divergence of interpretation about the likely motive behind some of the claims that Harold Covington has published. The premise that Covington issues false personal attacks is not in question; it is most clearly demonstrated, for example, by the several false accusations of murder that Covington has leveled at Ben Klassen. The only question is whether Covington himself believes what he is saying. Basically it is a question of conscious lying or delusionality.

Since Mr. Covington seems to be generally functional and coherent, I lean strongly toward the former interpretation.

It would be impossible of course to prove that Mr. Covington does not believe anything that he says, but we happen to have documentation that he has no compunction about false posturing. We have the words quoted from Mr. Covington's own mouth:

"We won't be lying to them about anything important."

This is found in section IV of the National Democratic Front's Members' Bulletin (10 December 1987), wherein Gary Gallo, chairman of the National Democratic Front, describes in general terms a meeting that he had with an unidentified racialist leader who proposes pandering to Christian sentiments "even though the real message is anti-religious."

(Click on an image to select it, then click again to enlarge it to a legible size.)

In the NDF's Leaders' Bulletin, of 11 December 1987, Gallo identifies the previously unnamed racialist leader as Harold Covington, and suggests that Covington's dishonesty reveals contempt for the White race.

A little over a year later, in March 1989, Ben Klassen  gave essentially the same assessment in the COTC's Racial Loyalty newsletter:

... [T]he same fellow who condemned Christianity a few years back and even now jokingly talks about Christ as “the dead Jew on a stick,” and has openly admitted any number of times that he himself doesn’t believe in all that Christian claptrap, now makes the official statement that his “movement” is a Christian Movement and no member is to distribute any “violently anti-Christian” (read C.O.T.C.) literature. How about a race-mixing Jehovah’s Witness tract, Harold? He, himself, is now even strongly considering becoming ordained as a Christian Identity minister. Would you believe?

Covington was making a big show of Christian faith in order to cultivate White Christian followers, even though he did not believe in their religion whatsoever. The fact that Covington really had contempt for White Christians became obvious years later when he (subtly) expressed that contempt in one of his novels. Pastor Martin Lindstedt complained about this in 2003 as follows:

I ended up asking about Covington back in 1998, when I was suspicious about being 'used' by appearing on Covington's 'Whitespeak' jewhoogruppen [Yahoo group]. Katya Lane ended up predicting, "Sooner or later you will grow tired of his lies." Well, I must have been stupid because I didn't figure out until reading Covington's latest self-published novel, "Swill of the Jayhawks" [Hill of the Ravens] that Covington regarded Christian Identity soldiers as nothing but cannonfodder to be given third-rate shitizenship, if that, in Covington's 'NorthWest Republic' of covingtonistas.[Martin Lindstedt, VNN Forum, 22 December 2003]

Lindstedt here was seeing through Covington's duplicity, as Gallo called it. It means that Covington is not delusional (or at least not thoroughly delusional): he is a man who talks out both sides of his mouth and knows it.


  1. I have read The Hill of the Ravens and in no way I find an anti-Christian novel. Yes, there was one particular extremist sect in that novel but the broadest message is that both Christians and Neo-Pagans must work in a unified front. (See also the other three novels of the Quartet: that’s the broad message.) In fact, the very Hymn of the newely founded Northwest Republic according to Covington's vision is none other that one composed by Luther himself.

  2. I am well aware that Covington has had the nerve to present Luther's Ein fester Burg ist unser Gott as the anthem of his make-believe republic.

    You are not suggesting that this is evidence, contrary to the documentation of Gary Gallo, that Covington believes in Christianity, are you?

  3. You've forced me to examine what Covington's novel says about Christians.

    The doctrine of Identity Christians is represented as not very credible. On PDF page 7 of Hill of the Ravens, Covington calls the historical and theological basis for CI "tenuous."

    Lindstedt was correct that CI (and Christians in general) are not represented as first-class citizens of Covington's fantasy republic. In Hill of the Ravens CI are generally "bravos and charlies" but not "alphas."

    Lindstedt was also right to observe that CI are represented as footsoldiers (cannonfodder, in his terms) but not officers: "... and I know that the Christian Identity people are some of our best citizens, not to mention our best soldiers. Always were. God knows I’ve commanded enough of them."

    The same character goes on to say this:

    "But I’ve always had this little bugbear in the back of my mind about Christianity. There’s Jesus and then there’s Jeeee-zus. I’ve always had this suspicion that if and when the chips come down, Christians choose Jeeee-zus over their race. You remember what the Old Man [i.e. Covington] said about it.”

    So, in Hill of the Ravens, Christianity is represented as problematic. On the one hand the mainstream Christians, if they are serious about their religion, are unreliable because of the conflict between religion and race. But the CI people are fools or simpletons who belong to the lower classes: "bravos and charlies" and not "alphas."

    I think Lindstedt was right to perceive the underlying attitude in Hill of the Ravens, that CI are basically useful idiots.

    And Gary Gallo was correct to perceive that Covington was condescending to people that he regarded as fools.

  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  5. Chechar, your impressions are hardly worthy of consideration. I don't treat people this way just for disagreeing. Truly, you are a crackpot.