Liberalism Unmasked

by Richard Houck

  To hide their dark pasts, Leftist change their identity every so often. But their dogmatic principles of totalitarian collectivism remain constant through the ages. They have called themselves communists, Marxists, Trotskyites, Maoists, Bolsheviks, socialists, Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, Democratic Socialists, Progressive Democrats, neoconservatives, and many more names to boot. Yet the outcome is always the same: war, famine, pestilence, and death — the only things the Left has ever offered to any society.

  The Left has been at war with us and our kind for quite some time. Sooner or later, we are going to need to wake up, to stop running, and to face them as the enemy they are. Those who fight the Left battle the devil.

  Act II: Fighting the Battles

  I

  Words Like Violence: The Left’s Total War on Freedom of Speech

  “HATE SPEECH IS NOT FREE SPEECH YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE!” the purple-haired, cigarette-smoking, degenerate, screamed at me from the top of her tiny, black lungs at a campus protest. Her hands clenched in fists of rage in front of her “Fuck Trump” tank top, she snarled at me with the rabid expression of hatred on her face, feverishly awaiting my reply.

  “And that’s where you’re wrong, darling. Hate speech, is the noblest form of free speech,” I calmly replied. As I sauntered down the brick walkway, on a cold autumn day, the wind blew my hair into a wild mane, my trench coat flowing eloquently behind me in some unintended, yet ornate display of regality.

  Free speech is not, and has never been, a value of the oppressive Left.

  And why would it be? In the face of really free speech, the false narratives of the Left, built upon half-truths and whole lies, would come crumbling down in a magnificent disaster, leaving them exposed as the charlatans they are.

  Free speech in the United States is scarcely limited; the only restrictions are on speech which incites immediate violence. Nowhere else in the world is this liberty so protected.31 In fact, as we will see, even many of our fellow American citizens do not share this value.

  In Germany, hate speech and criticism of heads of state can result in five years in prison. German people have had their homes raided for comments they have left on social media criticizing the migrant population or the immigration policies that have caused a rape and crime epidemic in their nation.32 I’m not talking about Germany during the Weimar Republic or Soviet-occupied East Germany; it happens frequently in the present day, under Angela Merkel — the German leader that Hillary Clinton said she most admired. This is worth reflecting on; this is how close we were to catastrophe in America. We were standing on the edge, looking into the abyss. There is no longer any time to mess around.

  What is the justification for laws against certain kinds of speech? “Hate speech” might cause emotional turmoil for the “victim,” or it might incite hatred against a certain group. Which means that currently, a person can be fined or imprisoned in so-called developed nations all over the world merely for hurting somebody’s feelings.

  The idea of fining or imprisoning somebody for speech is beyond barbaric. Considering how “progressive” the Left is, it is surprising that it has no issue instituting Draconian blasphemy laws of this kind. How ironic that the same group of people holding signs that read “No human being is illegal” seem to have no qualm making you illegal if you hold the wrong political views.

  A man in Cambridge, UK, has been given four years in prison for making “hateful” comments online.33 An 88 year-old woman in Germany, Ursula Haverbeck, has been sentenced to prison for two years for daring question historical events dating back to seventy years ago; her crime is “Holocaust denial.”34 These two stories are by no means exceptional or extraordinary cases; they are the creeping norm in much of Europe today. In 2016 in the UK, over 3,300 people were arrested for offensive online comments. Let us repeat that. Per a communications act which makes it illegal to “cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another,” over 3,300 people have been terrorized by their own government. Generally, these are only white citizens, as people making anti-white comments online are typically left alone.35 European lawmakers now make a higher priority of jailing people for offensive comments, than stopping the massive sex trafficking rings and gang rapes that currently plague their nations.

  Woe to whomever commits a Thought Crime; for that mistake, the Thought Police come knocking. Even tourists are now experiencing its tyrannical reach. Two Chinese men were arrested and fined for taking photos in front of the Reichstag building while making “illegal Hitler salutes.”36 Germany is no longer a serious country.

  Here is a list to consider:

  Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Australia, Finland, France, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Iceland, Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, United Kingdom.

  None of the citizens of these nations are free folk.

  They all have laws outlawing what politicians arbitrarily deem to be “hate speech” — or more accurately, Crime Think, as Orwell foretold.

  One in four countries across the globe outlaw blasphemy. Blasphemy laws are concentrated primarily in North Africa and the Middle East, places that have fallen under Islamic influence. However, blasphemy laws also exist in Europe and South America. Punishments range from fines and imprisonment to death.37

  Thanks to the Left, many European countries claim that hate speech laws are an effort to stop fascism; in an effort to stop “authoritarianism,” they became totalitarians themselves. Brilliant play lads. It is not that the Left has any real objection to authoritarianism, so long as they are in control.

  But I’m starting to realize more and more that countries with theocratic totalitarian regimes are not all that different from “progressive” Liberal nations. And why would they be? Liberalism itself is more of a mentally deranged dogmatic cult than a political philosophy. Hate speech is blasphemy, and hate speech laws are blasphemy laws. Viewed in this light, everything starts to come together.

  The United Nations has issued a “warning” to the United States, urging us to abandon our value of free speech, so that our inalienable rights are not “misused” to promote “hate speech.”38 The largest political organization on Earth is now agitating for the abolition of our most fundamental right. In a bygone time, better men would have seen this as an act of total war against our people by a hostile elite.

  It is useful for us to look at what is happening in Europe today; it gives us a glimpse into our own future, — what might have been our present, had the 2016 election gone differently. This book is more than a political treatise; it does not seek only to illuminate and dissect the destructive nature of modern Liberal policies and ideals. This book is a warning of what lies ahead if we are not vigilant today. Our eternal vigilance has always been the high price we must pay for our freedom.

  University campuses all over the nation have already composed disturbing lists of banned words and phrases, side by side with acceptable phrases (Newspeak). College students with no moral convictions and weak characters have been calling for “safe spaces” and bans on hate speech for some time. Even US news organizations have urged a revision of our freedom of speech, modeled on the “progressive” European and Canadian speech laws. Their claim is similar to that of European nations and others that have enacted such laws: certain words or phrases create a “safety” issue for people. We should therefore silence this language in order to protect the exceedingly fragile and volatile Liberal mind from a state of danger. This is a classic example of the collective nature of the Left compared to the individualism of the Right. Even if preventing one person from speaking would spare the feelings of an entire group, that one person’s freedom to speak should triumph over the hegemony.

  Recent Pew research on the freedom of expression polled US citizens from the ages of eighteen to thirty-four, as to whether they thought the government should have the ability to prevent people from making offensive statements about “minorities.” A whopping 40 percent of those surveyed answered in the affirma
tive: the government should have the ability to stop people from making “offensive statements.” Democrats were twice as likely as Republicans to say the government should have the authority to regulate such statements. Of those surveyed in Europe, 49 percent were in favor of government intervention of offensive comments.39

  There is some hope in the fact that 60 percent surveyed in America disagree with government censorship. On one hand, it is shocking that 40 percent of young Americans, people my own age, would be in favor of forfeiting their fundamental, inalienable, rights. On the other hand, it must be remembered that most people, long soaked in the propaganda of the Left, do not even realize that their thoughts are hardly their own anymore.

  The startling aspect of the trend towards approval for hate speech laws is that each generation becomes more and more tolerant of censorship. Only 12 percent US adults aged seventy to eighty-seven were in favor of the government being able to regulate offensive comments. Each generation thereafter become more and more willing to submit to the State.

  A 2017 study asked whether its subjects would support hate speech laws in the United States. 56 percent of black citizens supported hate speech laws. 58 percent of Hispanic citizens supported them. Only 33 percent of white Americans supported the banning of hate speech. 52 percent of Democrats were in favor of hate speech laws in America, while 27 percent of Republicans were in favor.40

  It is clear to whom we must look for the defense of our freedoms.

  Please Choose from the List of Approved Words and Phrases before Speaking

  In Orwell’s prophetic classic, 1984, not only could a citizen be found guilty of a Thought Crime, but information that might threaten the official Party doctrine was also censored and destroyed. History books and articles were commonly rewritten to reflect the current agenda, and as always, thought criminals were routinely disappeared.

  New York City passed a law that makes it illegal to address a person by the wrong title, pronouns, or gender. All businesses, professionals, and landlords, are required to address a person by their preferred title or pronoun. If a man wants to be referred to as “her,” “ze,” “xir,” or any other randomly imagined name, employers, professionals, and landlords are required by law to abide, else they face a fine of $125,000 to $250,000. “Mis-gendering” a person is now illegal in New York City. The law also includes provisions to inhibit the enforcing a “gendered” dress code at work. Meaning, you cannot ask a male employee not to wear a dress and high heels to work. NYC has now made it illegal to observe a fundamental, biological reality.41

  In California, State Senator, Scott Weiner, who is gay and Jewish, wrote a similar bill, one that would charge people criminally, and have them jailed for up to one year, for the crime of mis-gendering a person.42 43 Weiner also introduced a bill that would no longer make it a felony to knowingly infect another person with HIV. The bill applies to blood banks, meaning an HIV positive person would face only a misdemeanor, with a maximum penalty of six months in jail, for donating infected blood and not informing the blood bank of their HIV status.44 In California, to call a person by the wrong gender now carries a heavier sentence, than does knowingly infecting a person with HIV. This is clown world.

  I’m not against referring to people by their preferred name. In fact, if you want to paint your face green, wear a giant turtle shell, and carry around nunchaku, I’ll gladly refer to you as Michelangelo from here to hereafter. Want to wear fangs, a cape, and only come out at night? You’re Count Dracula for me. I’ll be happy to entertain your delusion. I love a good character anyway.

  The issue is that currently throughout the world, it is becoming a norm to criminalize and police language. I’m not appealing to some slippery slope, where I think this is going to spin out of control. It already has. Societies either need to decide that we can say whatever we want, or not. Somebody not calling you by your preferred name in no way inhibits you from being you. I would like it if from now on, everybody only referred to me as, King Richard the Wild Hearted, Last of his Kind, Hero to all Free Folk. Yes, the whole thing. I would like it quite a lot actually.

  Imagine if everywhere I went, people affectionately greeted me that way. Walk into the coffee shop or the gym or class, “Good morrow, King Richard the Wild Hearted, Last of his Kind, Hero to all Free Folk, your standard espresso and muffin?” Life would be grand. But I do not think forcing anybody to call me by such a title under the threat of financial sanction or worse is reasonable in a fair and just society.

  Hate speech laws are only the beginning. “Progressive” nations like Sweden quickly move on to censoring even the access of information, such as the recent denial by the Justice Minister at the request of updated crime statistics.45 This is a classic tactic used by every communist regime we have ever seen. Controlling what people can say is a way to control what they think. Controlling what information people have access to is a way to control what they think. This is about keeping a population in the dark, stupid, weak, and dependent on the State. Liberals today have the same value system that communist dictators have always had. They are the very authoritarians that they claim to fight. The deceitful Left needs to censor speech and restrict access to information, for those are the only two necessary weapons in the battle for truth. Liberals can never win in a fair fight of facts and reason. So, they use the State to limit the arms of the opposition by denying us access to information, and denying us the ability to speak the truth. The Left by nature is anti-truth.

  Incidents all over Europe have been intentionally covered up to keep people unaware of what is happening to their homelands. From the Rotherham sex-operation cover up, to the New Year’s Eve sexual assault scandal in Germany, we are only scratching the surface. In Sweden, gangs of Afghan men raped and sexually assaulted girls as young as eleven at a music festival. When asked about the incident in an interview, a Swedish politician said that often times, they will leave out stories of this nature, as they worry the information may “play into the hands” of the Right-wing, nationalist party.46 The Left understands what it is doing very well; it knows that if people knew the truth of their victimization they would naturally gravitate towards the Right and towards nationalism. It is intentionally keeping these stories, and thousands like them, under cover, at the grave expense of people’s lives and safety — all so it may continue to rule with impunity.

  Sadly, the same trend is beginning to emerge in the US as well. After a string of robberies committed by non-whites on the Bay Area Rapid Transit, San Francisco authorities chose to not release footage of the crimes. Despite the fact that releasing the footage would certainly help to apprehend the criminals, authorities felt releasing the video might perpetuate stereotyping. Further, one of the BART directors stated that the footage “would create a racial bias in the riders against minorities on the trains.”47 Once again we see that those in positions of authority are more concerned with protecting the people who victimize, than with stopping further victimization. There is a large-scale cover up the world over on the part of the Left of all the crimes non-whites commit against whites. This war against us is being deliberately waged under the guise of tolerance and political correctness.

  Liberals in America have resorted to more indirect ways of silencing dissenters; due to our first two amendments, they cannot throw us in jail for speaking the truth. For now. The Left has therefore essentially privatized and outsourced the censorship. Instead of having the State censor us, as in so many other “advanced” nations, American censorship is done via private entities. Instead of using the State to directly police our voices — as happens in Europe — censorship has been out-sourced and renamed “terms of service.” Liberals and tech giants now leverage their terms of service as little more than a virtual Article 58, a way to grant carte blanche to the cyber secret police.

  Tech companies such as YouTube, Google, and Facebook have hired armies of people to find and remove upsetting or offensive content. Not content such as animal cruelty, viole
nt pornography, and calls for rape and white genocide, but content that might be labeled as “hate speech,” according to the Nuevo-Ministry of Truth.48 49 They are actively censoring and manipulating search results, in an effort to ensure we do not stumble upon any content they wouldn’t want us to see. Thousands of accounts have been banned from social media such as Twitter and Facebook simply because they promote white interests and stand against mass migration. The Daily Stormer’s website has become the most censored publication in history, being thrown off of dozens of domain-hosting companies.

  Payment processing companies have followed suit as well, ensuring that those who sell Right-wing books and produce Right-wing radio shows or run Right-wing websites are hindered financially. None of these people are advocating violence, not one of them posts illegal content, as say videos of brutality against animals or violent pornography. That material can easily be found online. But political musing that cuts at the establishment is met with ferocious obstruction. There has been a virtual Hanging Order issued to suppress all forms of dissident thought.

  Speaking of which, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is building a “command center,” with the goal of combating hate speech, meaning anything Right-wing. It is easy to imagine what this will entail: a campaign to remove all instances of Wrong Think that might be found anywhere on the internet.50 The ADL is working with Google, Twitter, Facebook, Microsoft, and YouTube to remove any content deemed to include “hate speech.”51 52 The same group of people that declare cartoon frogs to be the enemy of mankind are now working with the largest video-hosting site, search engine, and social media networks on Earth to determine what people can and cannot access. Horrifying.