Andrew Joyce Reviews Richard Houck’s Liberalism Unmasked

Liberalism Unmasked
Richard Houck
Arktos, 2018
Available at Arktos and Amazon (all 5-star reviews)

One of my favorite old Irish ballads is ‘The Wind That Shakes the Barley,” written by the nineteenth-century poet Robert Dwyer Joyce. The song (sung magnificently here by Dolores Keane) revolves around a young Wexford rebel who sacrifices his relationship with his beloved, and then engages in violence associated with the 1798 rebellion against British rule. The barley of the title, and chorus, is a reference to the fact the rebels often carried barley or oats in their pockets as provisions while on the move. When these guerrilla fighters were captured by the yeomanry, they were often summarily shot and quickly buried in mass graves. In these graves, the oats and barley germinated, resulting, post-rebellion, in pockets of “croppy-holes,” or random barley growing. The pockets of barley, emerging anew every Spring, nourished later generations of roving guerrilla fighters, and came to symbolize the regenerative and unconquerable nature of Irish resistance to British rule. While the politics behind the imagery may be divisive, I find the deeper Romanticism of the symbolism to be utterly compelling. Every movement of resistance, of any political hue, must cultivate a sense of self-renewal and regeneration.

Our own movement is no different. In 2015 I had the great fortunate to attend and address a sizable meeting of Nationalists, both in Baltimore and Washington D.C. On both occasions I was struck by the number of young people “of quality” in attendance. And on both of those nights, in the quiet moments, the song of Robert Dwyer Joyce came forcefully to mind. Here was the “barley” of our own movement, coming into its own in order to take up the mantle and take us forward. Here was the living proof of the unconquerable nature of our ideas, and a new generation to carry them forth. And, recently, the lyrics of Joyce came to mind once again, this time on reading the work of a young intellectual, and precocious writing talent, in the form of Richard Houck and his Liberalism Unmasked.

Several months ago, Richard contacted me via social media. He struck me immediately as an enthusiastic and earnest young activist, still in college and eager to get into the fight. When he told me he was writing a book, I have to confess to taking this with a pinch of salt, or as a variation on the theme that “everyone has a book in them.” As time went on, however, his sporadic communications impressed upon me that Richard was an incredibly serious individual — serious beyond his years and serious in his ambitions. When Liberalism Unmasked finally arrived from Arktos, I wasn’t quite sure what to expect other than that I was prepared for a tour de force. And I was not disappointed.

A recurring thought throughout my reading of Liberalism Unmasked was that it is quite remarkable that the book was written by a young college student. I certainly couldn’t have written anything like this in college. Crudely summarized, the book is an entertaining, enraging, and engaging polemic on the nature of postmodern Liberalism, and its impact on Western civilization. The prose is fluid, and written with confidence and flair. The author has a supreme command of his facts, and marshals them appropriately and convincingly. But perhaps the strongest and most unique aspect of this book is that it is incredibly poignant. In several respects, it is primarily a book about loss — loss of a future, loss of an inheritance, loss of a culture. Houck speaks for his generation when he states that he has been robbed, and that “the harsh reality is that the America my parents grew up in is not the one I am going to inherit.” Houck finds himself in a nation where “national debt is at an all time high, consumer debt is piling up, race relations are the worst they have been since the 1960s, if not before, with a particularly anti-White bent, and it seems the bi-partisan appetite for war has grown insatiable.” Liberalism Unmasked is a primal scream from Generation Z.

Houck describes a slow awakening to the unfolding racial and cultural disaster:

I can’t recall when it happened exactly; I used to be very much a live-and-let-live type man. … I really don’t recall the moment something changed within me. Maybe it was gradual, and then all at once. Much like how fall collapses into winter. First the leaves begin to change color, falling slowly, one by one, until the trees are bare. Letting go of all they held onto so tightly all summer long. Then one morning you wake up to snow covering the forest.

Houck’s analysis of postmodern Liberalism is no-holds-barred. The political ideology has departed totally, argues Houck, from the trajectory of Classical Liberalism (defined and discussed in chapter 3), and can now be understood only as a “pathological neurosis.” Houck proceeds to discuss the manner in which specific practical expressions of Liberalism align closely with personality disorders, with reference to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. As the book unfolds, the postmodern Liberalism is explained as a neurosis typified by deceitfulness, doublethink, hypocrisy, inability to adjust views when presented with evidence, frequent projection, controlling behavior, appeals to altered or redefined definitions of words, consistent feelings of having been victimized, intense sense of righteousness  or moral superiority, inability to recognise the negative outcomes of their own actions, and intense feelings of guilt or self-hatred.

After important preambles in the first two chapters, things really kick off in chapter 3, “Liberalism in Theory & Practice,” where Houck dips into the miasmic nature of Liberal nomenclature. He places emphasis on the fact the term “Liberal” is incredibly context-dependent: “a Liberal in the United States in 2017 is a different animal than a liberal in Europe in 2017, and radically different from a liberal during the Age of Enlightenment.” Modern uses of the terms “liberal” and “progressive” are “nothing more than marketing gimmicks employed by the Left to give themselves a fresh new image.” In reality, ideas of postmodern Liberalism are “easily traced to communism. … Their roots are in Marx, the Bolshevik party, the NKVD, and the KPD.”

Postmodern Liberalism is:

nothing more than an insatiable desire for control. Liberals want to control our healthcare, our education, what we can say, the news we watch; they want to control our money, our guns, and, ultimately, our freedom. Liberalism is anti-gun, anti-family, anti-free speech, anti-Constitution, and anti-free thinking. It supports degeneracy in all forms, globalism in the form of mass migration, heavy taxation to fund socialist efforts; it is pro-war, pro-Sharia, and pro-violence. Liberals oppose all efforts to preserve individual liberty.

Houck includes an important section in the same chapter arguing that neoconservatism should be seen as a heavily-Jewish, mask-wearing aspect of Liberalism. He notes that “John Podhoretz, Bill Kristol, David Frum, Ben Shapiro, Jennifer Rubin, and Jonah Goldberg, are all opponents of any semblance of an America First policy. They favor mass immigration, foreign wars, foreign aid, and seem to wholly embrace the fact that White Europeans are becoming a minority in our own homelands, all while they support incredibly strict immigration policies for their own homeland of Israel.” Houck closes the chapter with a section on “The Four Horsemen of the Apocalyptic Left” — the four values of egalitarianism, diversity, progress, and tolerance, that the author describes as “ignoble distortions of reality.” Egalitarianism is exposed as a perversion of the concept of equality under the law. Diversity is explained as the goal of everyone thinking the same thing. Progress has come to mean the fictional right of every person to an ever-improving standard of living. Tolerance has enabled the mass rape of women across Europe by ethnic aliens, while accommodating itself quite happily to the legalized gagging of speech. Houck’s meditations on the latter aspect include some quite powerful legal illustrations, including the fact that in California, “to call a person by the wrong gender now carries a heavier sentence than does knowingly infecting a person with HIV.”

Having defined the key features of liberalism, the author proceeds with seven individual chapters containing impassioned analyses of its manifestations in the areas of gun control, climate change, abortion, ‘White privilege’ propaganda, feminism, media bias, and mass migration. Houck is a proud gun owner, and his excellent chapter on liberal activism in gun control deserves to be read and taken seriously by the NRA. Of particular interest is the extraordinary role played by Jewish politicians and their co-ethnic academic helpers, operating under the principles of modern liberalism, in proposing and advancing legislation designed to disarm the American public. The activities of Emanuel Celler, Herb Kohl, Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein and the academic Harold Pollack are all recounted here, along with the misleading rhetoric and weak excuses they’ve employed along the way. Houck takes apart each gun control argument with sharp facts and obvious relish, including those relating to firearm homicides. His defense of the right to bear arms includes the right to possess high powered automatic weapons:

Having those terrifying rifles, with thirty-round magazines, collapsible stocks, precision scopes, and even a suppressor if you’d like it, is quite literally the last line that can be drawn in the sand to protect [all other freedoms]. Gun owners like myself, and others the country over, do not take our heritage or duty lightly by any means. These arms are far more than simple tools or hobbies or “weapons of war.” What those rifles represent is quite literally the last hope, the final straw, the ultimate iron guard. They are the last vestiges of a dying breed. And maybe that is precisely the problem Liberals have with our rifles. Maybe they see us as an archaic. And antiquated lot, nothing but a group of throwbacks that somehow missed a step in evolution while they were busy ushering in the new century. 

Climate change, real or alleged, is an area in which I have very little knowledge, so I was grateful for what Houck had to say on the subject. Before reading Liberalism Unmasked, my education in this area was strictly what had been drummed into me as a child of 10 — humans, via their use of fossil fuels and CFCs, were producing large amounts of gases that were in turn eating away at the ozone layer of our atmosphere, allowing in harmful radiation that was heating the earth, melting the ice caps, and placing future generations and multiple species of flora and fauna at tremendous risk of depletion and/or extinction. In Houck’s debunking, language and naming appear again as key liberal tactics, with the author commenting on the evolution of the “Global Cooling” fad of the 1970s into the “Global Warming” fad of the 1990s, until at last we arrived at the incredibly ambiguous moniker of “Climate Change.” To be clear, Houck doesn’t make the argument that the climate is impervious to the activities of man. But he does point out that the Left’s claim that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus (of around 98% of the relevant scientists) that climate change is man-made has no real merit. Of particular relevance here is a 2016 George Mason University survey of 4,000 climate scientists that discovered only 29% of these individuals believed humans are almost entirely responsible for the change in climate.

Houck sees in the Left’s activism on climate control as a drive for power and control rather than genuine concern for the environment. Carbon taxes are nothing more than “a thinly veiled means of wealth redistribution” that do nothing other than “weaken middle-class families, grant more power and control to the United Nations, and smooth the way for mass migration.” Houck astutely points out that the rhetoric of climate change and mass migration are steadily becoming more entwined in the form of increased discussion of putative “climate refugees.” He cites a number of recent news articles, all with the same message: “because the temperatures went up half a degree in the past forty years, we can expect millions of migrants to flood into our nations each year. And of course, we only have ourselves to blame for having the audacity to use cars and electricity.” Houck brings the chapter to a close with comparisons of demographic discourse on the West and Africa. “The only population issue we are facing is the monstrous growth of African, which will in turn lead to far more pollution than all Western nations combined. Yet the Left pushes for whites to stop having children, not Africans. This ‘migrant crisis’ is never-ending only due to birth rates in the African and Arab world.”

In “Infanticide,” his chapter on abortion, Houck presents a sequence of facts, observations, and asides which suggest this is an issue particularly close to his heart. Indeed, as he indicates in his opening sentence, he is clearly appalled and disgusted by this issue. Nothing more, he argues, “characterizes the immense depravity of the Liberal mind quite like infanticide.” This “nefarious and destructive” process manifests “in the average of over one million dead babies since 1970, when the CDC began keeping track of abortion rates.” Houck again points out that the worst deeds of the Left are advanced under a host of euphemisms. In this case, “choice,” “rights,” “freedom,” “women’s health,” and “reproductive health,” are just some of the terms commonly used to circumvent what in reality is often the crude use of scissors at the base of a human neck. Since I agree wholeheartedly with Houck that the dark business of “convenience abortions” is utterly depraved, disgusting, and morally scandalous, I admired the restraint and tone of his deliberations, and his calm dismantling of Liberal lies in this most sensitive and contentious of subjects. Similar to his arguments against the gun control lobby, I came away from the chapter on abortion feeling that it really should be reproduced and disseminated in pamphlet form by pro-life groups because the content and presentation are better than most examples I’ve seen. Of all the anecdotes Houck presents, perhaps the most powerful concerns Leftist rage at a proposal in Texas to change the disposal practices for aborted children:

What was this new law that so powerfully called down the Liberal ire? It stipulated that instead of disposing of the children’s bodies in a bin alongside other “medical waste,” the remains were to be buried or cremated, as at a proper funeral. The Left went off the deep end, claiming this law was being used to financially burden those seeking to commit infanticide. I thought about the comments I was reading, the total lack of empathy they revealed for children that had just had their heads separated from their bodies. I thought about all the animals I had rescued, cared for, and eventually had to bury when they passed away. I buried every single one, and I did so properly. I’ve even buried dead animals I found near my house that had been hit by cars. I thought about that gut-wrenching feeling as I read through the reactions to the new Texas law. No compassion to be found in these hearts of darkness. 

After a brief chapter titled “Highway Robbery” on the Leftist use of systems of mass taxation for malevolent socio-political ends, Houck produces a substantial chapter that comprises one of the real gems of the book: “White Privilege & Other Fables.” Houck’s summary is a classic: “Racism has become a religion to the Left. “White privilege” has become the Original Sin, and the only way to absolve oneself and repent is through sufficient tithing of white guilt, and living a “virtuous” life of ethnomasochism.” An academic cottage industry has sprouted up around the concept of white privilege, and Houck points to college textbooks like Paula Rothenberg’s White Privilege (2016) as leading the charge. Ultimately, the theory boils down to the use of “whiteness” to explain not only White success, but also any other group’s lack of success. The glaring weakness of this entire system of thought, however, is dependent upon a blatant omission of all data relating to Asians, especially Chinese and Japanese. Along with ignoring specific data,

race denial is a necessary pillar of Liberal ideology. Recognizing aggregate biological differences between races in terms of intelligence, forward-thinking, self-control, abstract thought, and morality, would call into question the very foundation of equality, multiculturalism, mass migration, and affirmative action programs. If all groups are identical, then you can blame Whites for the failures of other groups; however, if there are reasonable alternative explanations, such as biology, the entire concept of White privilege comes undone.

The chapter is a veritable compendium of anti-White propaganda, including analyses of the ways in which Liberals have gerrymandered statistics in order to invent Black victimhood narratives, as well as accounts of some of the most outrageous “anti-racist” witch hunts (“racism” in maps, Black health, cycling, sleep patterns, and babies). Houck closes the section with a delightful invective against the ADL and SPLC, and an indictment of the anti-White consensus in academia.

Houck’s brief chapter on feminism offers a punchy debunking of the myths of the “wage gap,” college “rape culture,”  and women’s liberation, illustrating instead a sordid tale of promiscuity, chronic depression, sexual disease, and broken families. While some of this may be familiar fare, the author’s passion and style convey a fresh approach. The same holds true for “Ministry of Truth,” a chapter on media bias that is full of facts worthy of being drummed into the ‘Normie’ mind until they finally sink in. Take, for example, the fact that during the election cycle leading to November 2916, 96 percent of all campaign dollars from the media industry went to Hillary Clinton. It should be painfully clear that any notions of an objective and honest media are woefully naive, and Houck condemns the media for its role in warmongering, pushing “hate crime” hoaxes, covering up Islamic terrorism, and engaging in election meddling.

Houck’s final chapter on aspects of postmodern Liberalism, and also one of the longest in the book, concerns the mass migration plot currently playing out across the West. The chapter points out that the UN is complicit in actions against White countries which correspond closely with its own official definition of genocide. Taking up the 1965 Immigration Act, the author recounts the now familiar involvement of Jews in contributing propaganda, lobbying for votes, and creating a sense of moral obligation in the wider public. While the author acknowledges certain vulnerabilities in Western culture, he is clear that the demographic collapse of the West is no an accident or an act of suicide, but the result of a “mass migration scheme that has been planned for quite some time by a hostile international clique of global Leftists.” An account of the Kalergi plan then follows, before an extended discussion of the violent impact of Muslim migration to Europe.

Closing the book, Houck departs from his analysis of aspects of Liberalism with a impassioned section titled “Winning the War.” Clearly an optimist, the author views the election victory of Donald Trump as a significant turning point in American history, hailing the win as “ a revolt against globalist policies, against open borders, against a loss of rights, a total rejection of the Liberal narrative. … The 2016 election was the start of a revolution.” If this revolution is to progress and succeed, Houck argues that the Liberal rot has been so extensive that almost every institution will have to be razed and rebuilt. “Everything they control needs to be gutted. Every position they have taken needs to be stripped.” In practical terms, Houck calls for an overhaul of the education system, an end to foreign aid, an end to birthright citizenship, an end to welfare provision for migrants, the introduction of extensive repatriation programs. “The wall needs to be built, and needs to be visible from outer space.” Finally, the author argues for an end to the perception of politics as being a battle fought between Right and Left, and advocates instead a politics in which the interests of Whites are pitted against any and all opposition.

I felt this was the perfect way to close the book, because so many Whites are ideologically locked, for myriad reasons, in the Liberal camp. As such, and despite being a movement keen to develop a coherent and united ethnic block, we find ourselves very often confronting “our own” and trying to persuade them to take their own side in a battle we are currently losing. This was undoubtedly an emotionally trying book to write, and in some respects it represents a difficult reckoning with the worst elements among our own ethnic group. But perhaps Houck, like much of the new crop of Nationalists, is forced by fate to abandon what is left of what they love and what is left of their inheritance, in order to stake their claim for what is rightfully theirs — a future. Unfortunately, this struggle seems fated to involve in-group hostilities.

And on this note, we might return to the words of Robert Dwyer Joyce:

‘Twas hard the woeful words to frame
To break the ties that bound us.
But harder still to bear the shame
of foreign chains around us.

33 replies
  1. Luke
    Luke says:

    I believe this photo includes the visage of an actress named Debra Winger, who is not White. She is a jewess. And, as jews are apt to do, they like to play the parts of ‘evil whites’ in Hollywood movies so as to help the jewish team agenda to brainwash whites with self-hate and to teach them to hate their own skin color. The effectiveness of this jewish Hollywood tactic can be seen in the massive number of deracinated, SJW programmed, whites who’ve been turned into psychological basket cases who refuse to ever take their own race’s side in any conflict that pits white interests against non-white interests.

    • Roo
      Roo says:

      A small correction – the pic is from the show “Mad Men” and Ms. Winger is not portrayed. However, your critique of her and her fellow Travelers is spot on.

    • Super Alt-Right Mario
      Super Alt-Right Mario says:

      First and foremost I obviously blame the Jew for this tactic of self-loathing.

      However, I will also take a step back and denounce the parents for being lazy peices of sh*t who did not teach their children the glory of our people.

      Seriously, shame on those parents.

      They failed miserably and the end results are evident.

      Instead of watching football or whatever else it was they wasted their time with, they should have implemented white culture hour every other day for the benefit and integrity of their families.

      Now all we have is another self-loathing NPC.

  2. Loren R.
    Loren R. says:

    I have enjoyed reading Mr. Houck on is Twitter feed. Hard to believe he is still in college. Thank you for the review of his book. Very detailed and persuasive.
    Unfortunately we all know what the problems are and the manifestations of those said problems.
    We are absolutely screwed. Unless we can band together and fight back. But they have thought of how to prevent that too.
    So we continue to talk about how bad the problems are and how devious, vicious and parasitic the problem causers are.
    Over and over and over again we bemoan our fate. In greater detail and scope. The facts are out there, the evil ones have been exposed.
    Yet we continue to have no way to effectively fight back. We continue to have no leaders who will take up our mantle and lead us to victory. We have the righteous cause. We can do it. We have done it. With stunning success. Maybe we can stop picking each other apart at the margins and start picking apart our enemies? We have vastly superior numbers. Every day I see more and more people saying they don’t want to be replaced or have their jobs taken away by illegals or outsourcing.
    Who will lead us to the promised land?

      • Loren R.
        Loren R. says:

        Hello Karen,
        You are absolutely 100% correct. Jesus Christ is the only one who I put my complete trust in.
        However, as I tell all my believer friends, there has been war after war before He was born and after He died. It is up to us to carry forth the mantle of freedom of religion and speech which our enemies want to take away from us. This is a Biblical struggle. They have been evil murderers from the get go.
        I am looking for someone like an Abraham Lincoln to lead us in the coming war. The war between the American dream and the Marxist socialists that have taken over almost ever single pillar of our society.
        I am very grateful for Kevin and Andrew and I am hopeful that out of all the people they have woken up,
        someone will be willing to lead us to victory over evil. Our else Jesus comes again and sets us all straight.

  3. Barkingmad
    Barkingmad says:

    At first glance, it is surprising that anyone under the age of, say, 50 could possibly have any prowhite old fashioned views at all when you consider that the entire younger bunch of whites have been steeping and stewing in the muck of liberalism since their birth. However, if we really believe that it’s nature and not nurture, we have to acknowledge that some people are born with a purpose into a meaningful universe and that all of us are less affected by propaganda than we like to think.

    Now, about your statement: “what in reality is often the crude use of scissors at the base of a human neck” to describe abortion. To the best of my knowledge, this is done only to stop late-term pregnancies. Not defending this practice, or abortion in general, just saying it is not the way most abortions are done. Some call it “intrauterine cranial decompression”.

    The procedure is usually performed on unborn children suffering from hydrocephaly, Down’s syndrome or other anomalies whose mothers are suffering maternal depression on learning that their unborn children suffer from such problems or on unborn children whose mothers are undergoing major life crises. (The above information from Catholic News Agency.) However, others say that women have late term abortions for other, non-medical, motivations. Mostly, they were just slow to getting around to having it done because of indecision or financial reasons.

    The ancient Greeks & Romans (and nonwestern races as well) abandoned (exposed to the elements) unwanted children, not all of whom were deformed or sickly. A slow death from starvation or cold. My point is that I never hear the end of how wonderful these ancient western cultures were. A certain small portion of these abandoned newborns might have been found and adopted with the girls raised to be prostitutes.

    It’s a fallen world, folks. Nothing but the direct intervention by (anyone’s idea of) God is going to fix things at this point. Still, keep your powder dry. 🙂 I’m going to buy Houck’s book as a Christmas present for a person who likes things kept simple.

    • Charlie
      Charlie says:

      The Brown skins have a much higher proportion of abandoning their young, burying them alive with their ancient Obama princes, enslaving them, sodomizing or sexually violating them, ripping their beating hearts out in voodoo rituals….. etc. So lets not engage in self-hating until we’ve hated on the inferior races first, K?

      • Barkingmad
        Barkingmad says:

        @Charlie. It is hard to disagree with you. It’s just that, you know, we’re supposed to be different and better. I don’t hate the inferior races, I think that they are what they are and want to live separate from them.

        @Arlene. Thank you for the link to that video. I’ve seen about half so far and will watch the rest as well.

  4. Charles Frey
    Charles Frey says:

    Verily, the climate change experts owe all of us an explanation !

    Our planet has experienced FIVE ICE AGES. That adds up to four intermittent warming periods; applying advanced pre-Kindergarten arithmetic.

    Though no expert myself, I suspect, that some of the delinquent green house gases are a result of excessive flatulence by said experts: and, needless to mention, by the eternally tax-hungry politicians.

    In the meantime, I want to extend my greatest appreciation to MacDonald’s hamburgers for using beef that flatulates less: as guaranteed by their current TV ad.

  5. Charles Frey
    Charles Frey says:

    An author to my liking:


    Moderator: Could you replace my prior comment with this one ? Quite a difference between WORDS and LABELS !

  6. JRM
    JRM says:

    “a Liberal in the United States in 2017 is a different animal than a liberal in Europe in 2017…”.

    Not sure of this. Different by degree or different by kind? I’d say the differences between a European Liberal and an American Liberal aren’t great enough to make them different animals.

    “Take, for example, the fact that during the election cycle leading to November 2916, 96 percent of all campaign dollars from the media industry went to Hillary Clinton.”

    The ol’ gal just won’t die, will she? (ha ha)

  7. Edward
    Edward says:

    “Crudely summarized, the book is an entertaining, enraging, and engaging polemic on the nature of postmodern Liberalism, and its impact on Western civilization. The prose is fluid, and written with confidence and flair.” — Andrew Joyce

    Mr. Joyce: You’re a talented writer with many insightful and interesting ideas.

    Quick comment:
    Very many writers of English habitually use unnecessary commas and could benefit from a brief review of the pertinent rules. Just two examples from this article: The comma after “Liberalism” is awkward because the words “impact on Western Civilization” also fall semantically within the rubric of the polemic. Likewise, there is no need for a comma after “fluid.” Yes, I ought to be in a more forgiving mood and simply overlook these things, but I also need to apply myself afresh to improving my English composition skills. Certain older writers rarely made these now all-too-common mistakes. For example, one would most likely find very few, if any, of these in the writing of Conan Doyle. On the other hand, Charles Dickens, one of our greatest writers, wrote his lengthy books originally in shorthand and didn’t pay much attention to punctuation!

    • Barkingmad
      Barkingmad says:

      @Edward. It’s an issue of old-style British punctuation and the newer American-style, I think, or at least that is what I was taught in school.

      Anyway, a comma after “fluid” seems to make for better understanding and flow, somehow. If you were reading this passage out loud, you might see what I mean.

      The comma after “Liberalism” is not really necessary in my opinion, but does no harm, either.

      So many books and articles nowadays have ghastly punctuation. The two above examples are not in that category.

      More input into this would be welcomed (by me, anyway).

      • Edward
        Edward says:

        I didn’t really expect my comment to be published. After all, this is no big deal in this present case.

        I can certainly understand and appreciate your point of view.

        When I was a child, I was taught a set number of rules for the “correct” use of the comma and instructed that, when thinking of using a comma, “If you cannot think of a rule or reason for it omit it.”

  8. Super Alt-Right Mario
    Super Alt-Right Mario says:

    I sure hope our people along with folks of different persuasions are reading this book.

    We’re already sold on the impending perils and endgame consequence of the J-left’s trajectory. So in other words please wake up my fellow self-loathing whites before we ultimately lose what little we have left.

    On a side note to all the pro-whites who fill the comments section with black pill after black pill, listen to me carefully.

    The revolution begins at home.

    Stop thinking on when the time is right to have a family, and just do it. The time is never really right, but in the name of our people sacrifices will be made.

    Have a minimum of three children.

    Live a modest lifestyle if need be ’cause at the end of the day we need more white people. We together can raise the next generation, possibly the greatest generation of racially conscious, proud offspring.

    Lazy parenting however will not be an option.

    You’ll have to teach your kids real history after they return from school. The truth about slavery and who were the first slaves in this country. The list goes on and on but it must be done. If I can do it I expect the same of you.

    If you don’t teach them the glory of our people they’ll more than likely end up LARPing as black men or participating in miscegenation. That’s the end result of lazy parenting when we live in a Jew based culture that advocates negro worship.

    Heed my words, fam. The last thing this movement needs is another childless advocate.

  9. celt darnell
    celt darnell says:

    Look, I’m sure it’s a good book, but the college student thing gives it away.

    Everything mentioned in this review has already been said a hundred times (if not more) already. Seriously, can anyone here older than 30 honestly say they heard anything new here?

    Happy to welcome the rookie to the team, ‘though.

    • Timothy Shaw-Zak
      Timothy Shaw-Zak says:

      Celt Darnell,
      To that I would say, “There is nothing new under the sun.”

      The phrase “it’s been done before” is by convention a way of saying it’s somehow less worth doing again. You know what will happen if nobody keeps saying these things. (I assume you do, as a reader of TOQ.)

      For myself, I would rather these ideas be repeated than let them become lost in the sea of “novel” ideas. The descent of a lineage must be unbroken or it becomes extinct. The addiction to novelty can be a lethal one.

  10. Hans Frank
    Hans Frank says:

    How does barley germinate from 6 feet underground? Superstrain? Touching story but I think some artistic license was used.

    • Edward Munckton
      Edward Munckton says:

      hastily buried bodies= either shallow mass graves or bodies buried on top of one other with the topmost being only a little under the soil. Artistic licence maybe but croppy holes are a thing

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      My first reaction was identical to that of EM above. To me, the term ” six feet under ” doesn’t conjure up images of tape measures.

      As the reincarnation or at least the namesake of the Governor-General of Poland and as a trained jurist, you certainly left your own, still sprouting ” Superstrain ” of seed there.

      Though an adherent of Irving and Faurisson, and despite the fact, that my beloved father wore your emblem on his lapel, it does little to adorn this site or to win us converts.

  11. Lynda
    Lynda says:

    ‘End to birthright citizenship’ immediately makes one think of anchor babies and the change in law that is needed to ‘send them all back’. How this will play in the hands of the J-Force is that native born American Whites can be prized from their country of birth. It can be used for population transfers and ethnic cleansing of Whites from ancestral lands and native soil.

  12. Elizabeth1620
    Elizabeth1620 says:

    I find it within my heart to hate the liberals because they have contributed to weaponizing the rest of humanity against me because of my race and now I find myself in the position of having to choose between survival and being kind. They have chosen kindness that will lead to our collective death and expect the rest of us to comply. I only ever wanted to be kind as well, but when it comes right down to it, I would rather fight and survive. I wish I were a man so that my will would be of more consequence in this terrible liberal-formed hellscape.

  13. Elizabeth1620
    Elizabeth1620 says:

    Another thought about being a parent of children and especially teenagers exposed to this extreme brain washing education system is that if you don’t have the means to protect them from the life long indoctrination, and you go against what the system teaches them, they will hate you and my fear is that they will leave and throw themselves into this terrible degenerate and aggressive environment and you lose your opportunity to protect them from it.

  14. Amy Armadillo
    Amy Armadillo says:

    Sounds like a good book. After all, it was well-received when Jonah Goldberg published the same book under the title “Liberal Fascism” ten years ago. We’re making real progress here.

    Anyone see Breitbart’s feature on Trump’s Oval Office Hannukah celebration, with a room full of “Holocaust survivors” in attendance? Every dystopian movement Houck discusses is founded and funded by the Jews. Since the modern creation of Israel we are living in the Era of Jewish Empire, and it’s global in scope.

Comments are closed.