The Lethality of Liberty: How Fanatics for Freedom Help the Cause of Tyranny

Marxism belongs with necrophilia, bestiality and listening to Elton John. In a well-ordered world, indulging in any of those things would exclude you from respectable society for life. And would ensure that no-one ever took you seriously in any discussion of politics and morals.

Elton John, homosexual purveyor of musical horrors (image from Wikipedia)

Alas, that exclusion doesn’t happen in the imperfect real world. Only two of those four depravities are frowned upon: necrophilia and bestiality. But fans of Elton John are free to walk the streets without being jeered and acolytes of Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky can be found throughout Western politics, media, and academia. That’s wrong – very wrong. Indeed, I would say that Marxism is by far the worst of the four. The other three are merely morally and aesthetically depraved. They corrupt individuals and damn single souls. Marxism isn’t just morally and aesthetically depraved: it’s also intellectually depraved. And it ruins entire societies. The ideas of Jewish Marx, part-Jewish Lenin, and Jewish Trotsky lead directly to death and disaster. That was proved by the mass-murdering slave-state of the Soviet Union. It’s also proved by blood-thirsty neoconservativism, where Jews like Victoria Nuland and her husband Robert Kagan have eagerly pulled the levers of death-machines in Iraq and Ukraine.

Victoria Nuland, Jewish dealer of death and destruction (image from of Wikipedia)

Migration manures Marxism

As Kevin MacDonald has documented, “Neoconservatism’s key founders trace their intellectual ancestry to the ‘New York Intellectuals,’ a group that originated as followers of Trotskyite theoretician Max Schactman in the 1930s and centered around influential journals like Partisan Review and Commentary (which is published by the American Jewish Committee).” Much less well-known is the influence of Trotskyism on Britain’s disastrous New Labour government. But the part-Jewish journalist Peter Hitchens thinks it very significant that many of New Labour’s senior figures, like the liar and war-criminal Tony Blair, followed Trotskyism and other branches of Marxism in their youth. Hitchens is right. He knows the evils and immoralities of Marxism from the inside, because he was once a member of the International Socialists (later the Socialist Workers Party) under the Jewish Yigael Gluckstein, who adopted the nom de guerre Tony Cliff as he tried to emulate his heroes Lenin and Trotsky and turn Britain too into a mass-murdering slave-state. Thanks to his own past, Hitchens knows that Blair’s student Trotskyism doesn’t shed light only on his lies and war-crimes in Iraq. It also sheds light on why Blair appointed the intensely ethnocentric Jew Barbara Roche as his minister of immigration in 1999. Hitchens has explained why Trotskyists and other Marxist-Leninists are such fans of open borders:

When I was a Revolutionary Marxist, we were all in favour of as much immigration as possible. It wasn’t because we liked immigrants, but because we didn’t like Britain. We saw immigrants — from anywhere — as allies against the staid, settled, conservative society that our country still was at the end of the Sixties. Also, we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered people — usually in the poorest parts of Britain — who found their neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly “vibrant communities”. If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called them bigots. …

When we graduated and began to earn serious money, we generally headed for expensive London enclaves and became extremely choosy about where our children went to school, a choice we happily denied the urban poor, the ones we sneered at as “racists”. What did we know, or care, of the great silent revolution which even then was beginning to transform the lives of the British poor?

To us, it meant patriotism and tradition could always be derided as “racist”. And it also meant cheap servants for the rich new middle-class, for the first time since 1939, as well as cheap restaurants and — later on — cheap builders and plumbers working off the books. It wasn’t our wages that were depressed, or our work that was priced out of the market. Immigrants didn’t do the sort of jobs we did.

They were no threat to us. The only threat might have come from the aggrieved British people, but we could always stifle their protests by suggesting that they were modern-day fascists. I have learned since what a spiteful, self-righteous, snobbish and arrogant person I was (and most of my revolutionary comrades were, too). (How I am partly to blame for mass immigration, The Daily Mail, 1st April 2013)

Trotskyists correctly see mass immigration as an ideal way to undermine society and sow chaos. Their hope is that they will then rule the ruins. But they’ll be satisfied if they don’t get to do that, because destroying society will be a reward in itself. Like Marxism in general, Trotskyism attracts those who are eager for power over and revenge on the majority. That’s why it is so disproportionately Jewish and why Jewish leaders like Gluckstein have recruited their wannabe secret-police chiefs and slave-camp commandants from resentment-filled and revenge-thirsty minorities.

Maximum possible freedom

You can also see Jewish leadership and minority malice in the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), a Trotskyist cult that was run by a Jewish professor of sociology called Frank Furedi and that recruited members from minorities with grudges against the White majority. Imitating his own mentor Yigael Gluckstein, Furedi adopted the revolutionary nom de guerre of Frank Richards as he set about turning his recruits into cognitive clones of himself. Even today, several decades after the RCP ceased to sail under its true colors, its former members write and speak in uncannily similar fashion as they argue passionately for the maximum possible freedom of the maximum possible number. They now trade as libertarians rather than Trotskyists, but that wouldn’t make any difference in a well-ordered society. Adherence to libertarianism should be as damning as necrophilia, bestiality and listening to Elton John. It’s no coincidence that libertarianism is almost as Jewish as Trotskyism. Those who preach freedom are paving the way to tyranny just as surely as those who praise Trotsky.

After all, Trotsky argued passionately for freedom too. Then he played a central role in the creation of a mass-murdering slave-state. If you want to understand how that happened, I think a recent comment at the Unz Review is an excellent guide. The pseudonymous commenter was responding to an article by A.J. Smuskiewicz that asked Why Are Conservatives So Stupid?”:

The problem with your analysis is the assumption that the political and cultural “opposition” is, in any meaningful way, conservative. [Republicans] are not conservative in wanting to conserve a way of life, a nation, a tradition or a people. The two terms you use, “freedom” and “values,” illustrate the problem. Freedom has no essence: it is infinitely malleable, it promotes change. Change is inherently Leftist. Freedom promotes change and change will be harnessed by the Left for their ends. Without an orthodoxy that is defended, there can’t be any change that is not Leftist (emphasis added). The other term, “values,” is also not conservative and has no essence or reality in Truth. It was first extensively used by Nietzsche to describe the new reality the superman had to create with the death of God. Nietzsche thought these supermen would be reactionary and destroy the plague of modernity — egalitarianism. The Left hijacked Nietzsche and values are created by the Left. The impotent Right merely tries to take the edge off these values and assists the March of the Left. So without an orthodoxy there is nothing for these paper-tiger conservatives to conserve. They are constantly trying to conserve yesterday’s Leftism and prepping for defeat and the next adoption of Leftist values. So, they will fight for girls’ and women’s sports today while applauding an adult man “becoming a woman” as an act of freedom. They conserve nothing and actually acclimate the population to Leftist hegemony. (Comment by Tarr on “Why Are Conservatives So Stupid?”, The Unz Review, 22nd March 2023)

That comment is an excellent summary of why so-called freedom is fatal for Western nations. The left don’t pretend to believe in it any more. They have the power they were really seeking when they argued passionately for “freedom” in the 1960s. Now the left can laugh as their useful idiots on the right argue that “freedom” will save us from leftism. It won’t: it will merely feed the leftist beast.

9 replies
  1. Robert Tate
    Robert Tate says:

    Christopher Hitchens can be considered fully Jewish, as his mother was a Jewess.His appalling brother Peter became a neo conservative,and ended speaking favourably of Judaism,even though he was a commited atheist.

  2. GirlinTexas
    GirlinTexas says:

    After years of trying to determine “what in God’s name is happening?” I have determined international capitalism and communism are two sides of one coin, or should I say, shekel? Either way, the vast majority of citizens clamor for the crumbs flicked off the elite/government table. The diaspora, about which Jews whined incessantly, “We have no home!” was their great advantage; once they brought devastation to a particular local economy, they “fled” to another locality, into the arms of their brethren, still whittling away at whatever industry remained to be thwarted locally and moved offshore – rinse, repeat, escape…..but, now they are thoroughly entrenched just about everywhere, no more fleeing, and Gentiles may be toast. The next time your white, liberal friends or relatives decide to donate to further the education or success of poor black or brown kids, who will then grow to be anti-white activists and work feverishly to decolonize math, (How is that even possible? Just the suggestion is ridiculous – 1, 2, many….easy-peasy!) suggest that perhaps a bit of European networking might be of greater benefit. I no longer donate a single dime nor a single minute of time to further anything or anyone not beneficial to White America.

    • Weaver
      Weaver says:

      It’s positive to have friendly relations with other groups. Anti-whites portray whites as supremacist, cruel, dangerous, etc. The great risk is that all these people team up against the few white communities. Note: You have a tremendous number of families with mixed kin.

      Capitalism and communism are absolutely the same coin. However, we see socialist states like Syria surviving globalism. So, that total control is apparently useful in defense. We see East Asia using more government and successfully sometimes.

      North Korea is ruled by a god-king who wields nationalism, not just ideology. Ah, I’m not praising him, but he’s something between right and left. Vietnam is neutral. China resists neocons somewhat. So, “left” is sometimes different.

      The great danger is just biotech. As some here post, when that takes off, it will be the thing. I dunno that it matters who starts it. China seems likely to jump in.

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      Djew gots it.
      Finally, somebody sees the light.

  3. Eric
    Eric says:

    When the socalled protestants attacked the catholic church, always supported by jews I might add, they, the protestants, set themselves on a course that would bring the heels of the jews on the necks of Europeans. The jew problem was caused by “white” protestants. A few catholics have turned traitor over the years. The Puritans were judaizers and their spiritual descendants continued in the same abominable heresy.

  4. Gordon
    Gordon says:

    This doesn’t seem right. It was my understanding that Christopher became a neo-conservative and remained a committed atheist until the end, unfortunately. However, his brother, Peter, became a fairly traditional Anglican. I was sympathetic to many of his social/political positions, but I haven’t read anything of his for some time; so maybe there’s been a change.

  5. Bobby
    Bobby says:

    Another fine piece Tobias, thanks.

    There’s really no such thing as Marxism, Communism. They are just fancy words for Jewish mafia. Even worse though than a mafia, Jewish mass murderers.

    You should read ‘The Devil and Karl Marx’ by Paul Kengor, Tobias. I think that you would like it. Kengor really brings out how ugly and monstrous “Marxism” is. Goes into detail about what went on in Romania’s Pitesti prison among other atrocities.

  6. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    I am so glad someone has pointed out how disgusting “Sir” Elton John is! How did that talent-less creep, with no service to Queen or country that I know of, ever get a knighthood? Nope, the UK consisting entirely of lizard-beings would not explain it. Even Reptilians should have more musical taste.

Comments are closed.