Print this post Print this post

Hegemony

2,602 words

Translations: French, German

In September of 2001, just after the September 11 terrorist attacks, I flew to Paris to attend the Front National’s Fête des Bleu-blanc-rouge, a political rally and fair attended by tens of thousands of French nationalists, plus well-wishers from around the world. Before the event began, I attended an impromptu meeting of Anglophone nationalists from the US, Canada, and Great Britain.

When the topic of 9/11 came up, there was a very instructive disagreement. The Americans wanted to emphasize the role of Jewish domination of American foreign policy in causing 9/11. England, however, has a much larger Muslim population per capita than the US, and many of the Englishmen present had witnessed the jubilation of Muslims at the attacks. So they emphasized the problem with Muslim immigration.

Of course they were both right. The 9/11 attacks could not have happened without Jewish domination or Muslim immigration. As I listened to the discussion becoming more and more heated, it dawned on me that no matter what side one takes on the question, “Do we blame the Jews or the Muslims?” white people cannot really lose, since we want to free ourselves of both Jews and Muslims.

Framing the Argument

I had always thought of politics as a matter of winning arguments, i.e., being on the prevailing side in debates about political issues. But it occurred to me that there is a power greater than that of winning an argument. That is the power to frame an argument, to set the parameters of debate, so that one always wins, no matter what the outcome. It is a case of saying, “Heads I win, tails you lose.”

A couple of years later, Mike Polignano and I went to a movie in Berkeley. Before the trailers for upcoming films, they showed advertisements. One ad featured a contest between Coke and Diet Coke. I smiled and remarked, “That is a contest that the Coca-Cola Corporation cannot lose.”

Getting people to debate questions like, “Do we blame the Muslims or the Jews?” is a form of political control. Once the public argues within these parameters, we don’t need to worry about the outcome. Whites really cannot lose.

Or, to be precise, the only way we could lose is by failing to understand the nature of the question, taking one side too seriously, and developing hard feelings toward our “opponents.”

To avoid that outcome, one must not only frame the question. One also needs to control both sides of the debate. One must not just script political theater. One must also stage it. But one needs to make sure that the actors don’t take their roles too seriously. This is Nerfball, not hardball. Stage fighting, not real fighting. One guy takes a swing, the other jerks his head back, and the sound effects guy creates a smack. It just has to look real to the people in the audience. The ring announcers and talking heads do the rest, selling people on the idea that what they are seeing is a real contest.

Controlling the political realm by framing and stage-managing political debate is a form of what is called “hegemony.”

Hegemony

“Hegemony,” from the Greek hegemonia, means leadership, domination, rule. But it is not just any kind of rule. For the ancient Greeks, hegemony referred to imperial or federal leadership, in which the hegemon rules over other states with regard to foreign and military affairs but leaves domestic matters in their hands. For the man in the street, therefore, hegemony appears as a distant, indirect, mediated, “soft” form of domination—although, of course, hegemons had the power to make war on recalcitrant followers.

Hegemony can also take a cultural form, ruling over the political realm by shaping the values and ideas that set the parameters and goals of specifically political activity, including debate. In other words, cultural hegemony is a matter of “metapolitics.” Thus hegemony is a key concept for the metapolitical project of the North American New Right.

If political power ultimately comes from the barrel of a gun, metapolitics determines who aims the gun, at whom it is aimed, and why. If political power is “hard” power, because it ultimately reduces to force, metapolitical hegemony is “soft” power that ultimately reduces to persuasion. (Persuasion is a matter of rhetoric, which involves but cannot be reduced to rational argument.)

Jewish Hegemony

Cultural hegemony is the secret of the soft form of Jewish totalitarianism, “liberal democracy,” that won out against the hard form, namely Communism. In the West, our masters discovered that they could maintain total power on all the issues that concern them while leaving the illusion of freedom of choice. How? Simply by making sure that all options were Jew-safe and Jew-approved.

In Genesis 32, we read that Jacob, who had robbed his brother Esau of his birthright, was frightened to learn that Esau and 400 men were approaching his camp. So Jacob divided his camp in two, reasoning that if one group were attacked, the other would survive. Furthermore, Jacob sent part of his camp to Esau’s camp, while he remained behind. These followers of Jacob came bearing gifts for Esau, but they could of course also act as spies to help Jacob, and even if Jacob’s people were attacked and destroyed, some of them would survive in Esau’s camp.

This bit of Unholy Scripture is a model of Jewish hegemony to this day. In the early 20th century, Jews were overwhelmingly political leftists and supported the Leninist model of hard totalitarianism. But once their golem Stalin turned on them, many Jews began to re-evaluate Communism as a tool of Jewish ethnic interests. Thus, to hedge their bets, a series of Jewish Communist “defectors” (defectors from Communism, but not from the Jewish community) joined the American conservative movement and quickly moved into positions that allowed them to redefine conservatism after World War II.

For instance, two Jewish ex-Communists, Frank Meyer and Eugene Lyons, were among the surprising number of Jews who influenced the founding of William F. Buckley’s National Review. (On the Jewish founders of National Review, see George H. Nash, “Forgotten Godfathers: Premature Jewish Conservatives and the Rise of National Review,” American Jewish History, 87, nos. 2 & 3 [June–September 1999], pp. 123–57. Online here.)

By far the biggest influx of Jewish defectors, however, were the neo-conservatives, most of whom came from the Zionist wing of the Trotskyite movement, i.e., the most ethnocentrically Jewish wing of the most ethnically Jewish faction of the Communist movement. (On neo-conservatism, see Kevin MacDonald’s essays “Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement” and “Neoconservative Portraits” in his Cultural Insurrections: Essays on Western Civilization, Jewish Influence, and Anti-Semitism [Atlanta: The Occidental Press, 2007]).

Now that Jewish intellectual movements have redefined American conservatism to accord with Jewish interests on all important issues, it really doesn’t matter all that much to the Jewish community whether Republicans or Democrats win elections. Yes, most Jews still prefer Democrats to Republicans. Yes, some of them still act like every Republican is an existential threat. Some of them even believe it. (But Jews face every issue as if their very survival depends upon it. It is a form of delusion and hysteria that has served them well.) But the truth is: from a Jewish point of view, both major parties are the same on all essential issues, and any differences between them do not make a difference for Jewish survival. That is real power, total power, yet “soft” power.

As a corollary, Jewish hegemony means that, from a White Nationalist point of view, both major parties are the same on all essential issues as well: they are opposed to our racial survival and flourishing. All the differences between them make no difference to us on the most important, existential issue.

Of course Jewish hegemony extends well beyond two-party politics into all realms of culture—education, religion, the arts, literature, pop culture, economics, etc.—ensuring that whites are distracted with an endless array of options, as  long as they are trivial options that do not threaten Jewish hegemony. This is what we celebrate as “freedom.”

But freedom does not consist in the multiplication of trivial options. Freedom means being able to choose momentous options. And the most momentous option for whites is to choose to get off the road to extinction and back on the road to godhood.

That is a choice denied us by Jewish hegemony. Being “free” under Jewish hegemony is nothing more than being happy slaves. For whites, Jewish freedom means being entertained right up to the point that we cease to exist as a people. If we are to survive, therefore, we must break Jewish hegemony.

White Nationalist Politics

How can whites in North America regain control of our destiny? This is the question of how we organize what we call—out of a hope that springs eternal—the White Nationalist “movement.”

The most popular movement model has been the political party, which comes in two colors, the democratic (such as the American Nazi Party, the Populist Party, the American Third Position, etc.) and the revolutionary (the National Alliance, the Northwest Front), i.e., those who seek to come to power within the system and those who seek to overturn the system. Of course, there is no contradiction to pursuing both aims. The NSDAP and Communist Parties world-wide have done both. But still these are different aims which require different kinds of organizations. Thus every party will tend toward one option or another.

Ultimately, we will have to gain political power, and keep it. Thus I believe that whites need political organizations and political experience. But I have no illusions that we are going to vote our way off the endangered species list. (Wolves don’t let lambs vote on what’s for dinner.) Nor do I think that white nationalists will be able to launch a revolution or a war of secession against the system as it stands today. So what can we do in the meantime?

Furthermore, political parties, whether revolutionary or democratic, are not for everyone. Some people don’t “qualify” for membership. Others don’t like being part of hierarchical groups with ideological orthodoxies, not to mention the church-like interpersonal “drama” that comes with such groups. What can these people do for our cause?

Finally, the White Nationalist revolutionary fantasy literature of William Pierce and Harold Covington does not sit well with most Americans, who do not relish the idea of Bolshevik-like revolutionary sects seizing power, establishing a one-party state, shooting everyone who opposes them, and dinning propaganda into the heads of the rest. (Personally, I find Covington’s novels tremendously useful and entertaining. See my review here. Pierce’s novels are useful as well.) The Jews abandoned Bolshevism to pursue “soft” hegemony. Couldn’t some White Nationalists do the same?

White Nationalist Hegemony

It is too soon for White Nationalist politics. So in the meantime, we need to focus on metapolitics, which will lay the foundations for the pursuit of political power. Metapolitics has two elements: (1) propaganda, meaning articulating and communicating our message, and (2) community organizing, meaning creating a community that lives according to our philosophy today and will serve as the nucleus of the new political order we seek to build tomorrow.

What should be our message? Among other things, that whites are a distinct ethnic group with distinct interests. That we live in a world in which there are real ethnic conflicts. That it is right for whites to take our own side in these ethnic conflicts. That multicultural, multiracial societies make ethnic conflict and hatred inevitable. That ethnic conflict can best be ended by the creation of ethnically homogeneous homelands for all peoples. That it is an existential imperative—a matter of life and death—for whites to create or preserve ethnically homogeneous homelands for ourselves by any means necessary.

Our goal should not be merely to make this the common sense of the political right, but the common sense of the whole political spectrum—of the whole culture—so that no matter what political party wins election, our people will never again have to fear for our survival. We do not need to move people in the right direction along the political spectrum. We need to move the whole spectrum in the white direction.

Our goal need not be a right wing, one party state, but a pluralistic society in which we are still arguing about feminism, abortion, environmentalism, etc. But the arguments will all be among white people, and no white group will be able to ally itself with non-whites to gain the upper hand against other members of our extended racial family.

That is real power, total power, but “soft” power: white cultural and political hegemony. And there is nothing sinister about it. It is what existed in America before the rise of today’s Jewish hegemony.

Yes, white hegemony would quietly restrict our options and frame debates to ensure racially healthy outcomes. But most of us accept limitations on our choices to attain greater goods, such as the preservation of endangered species. Well, whites are the most important endangered species of all. We want a society in which you can choose anything you want, as long as it does not imperil the long-term existence of our race.

Divided we Win

How can White Nationalists pursue this kind of hegemony? We too need to divide our camp and go forth to colonize every shade of the political spectrum. We need to find ways to address our message to every white group and subgroup, for all whites have racial interests.

Old school white advocates tend to be captives of political “apparatus” thinking. They believe that the struggle is entirely political, and that we will win only when our political team beats the enemy political team. But before we can engage the enemy, we must build up our political apparatus. We must unify our camp.

This naturally leads one to think that the very existence of multiple organizations and approaches to white advocacy is an impediment to our cause, a weakness in the movement that must be overcome. Thus all too often, the first order of action is not to attack the enemy, but to attack other white advocacy groups in the hope that one can discredit their leaders, smash their organizations, pull away their members and donors, and unite them behind one leader.

The value of the metapolitical path to white hegemony is that it makes a virtue out of necessity, namely the existence of multiple groups and approaches (including political apparatuses). This kind of diversity will always be with us, and combating it is a criminal waste of scarce resources that could be used to attack the enemy. Besides, the best way to attract followers is to attack the enemy effectively, not people who are more or less on our side.

To my mind, a diverse array of White Nationalist groups and approaches can strengthen our cause in two ways. First, even if there is “one right way” to save our race, it has not been discovered yet, and it is more likely to come to light if people experiment with different approaches. Second, we whites are a diverse people, and our movement needs to craft messages that resonate with the full range of white constituencies. The more approaches to white advocacy our movement can embrace, the more white constituencies we can address.

They key to making diversity within our movement work for us is to create discreet channels for communication and coordination among different camps of white advocates. Such back-channel coordination will maximize our impact and minimize destructive infighting and “friendly fire” incidents. This form of organization is the topic of a future article.

 

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

8 Comments

  1. Posted August 20, 2011 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

    Finally, the White Nationalist revolutionary fantasy literature of William Pierce and Harold Covington does not sit well with most Americans, who do not relish the idea of Bolshevik-like revolutionary sects seizing power, establishing a one-party state, shooting everyone who opposes them, and dinning propaganda into the heads of the rest.

    But what if the dollar crashes much sooner than expected, the subject of a couple of my recent entries (here and here)? A post-crash America could shift paradigms, just as the citizens of Rome shifted from paganism to Christianity after their empire fell after a series of barbaric invasions.

    • Fourmyle of Ceres
      Posted August 20, 2011 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

      Chechyar in blockquote:

      But what if the dollar crashes much sooner than expected, the subject of a couple of my recent entries (here and here)?

      The dollar “crash” will be the last fiat currency to “crash,” which I interpret to mean have a substantially lower value than the 3% inflation rate would create literally in a matter of months.

      So, at the end of the Currency Wars, an adjunct to the Resource Wars, we will be on the top of an imploded economic order, as measured in dollars. We see this now, as the yields on Treasuries collapse as a response to other currencies failing. The end game looks like, in part, new Euros [Southern (PIIGS) and Northern (Germany, Nordics, Russia)] as a sideshow to mask shifting the cost of absorbing the loss of value in Southern Eurozone currencies. This loss will be shifted to Eurobonds, which will be the responsibility of all of the people of economically united Europe in about two years. The central banks win again.

      We’ll still be on top, such as it will be. The deeper End Game looks like a conversion to a gold standard for international transactions, modifiying this at first with gold as the foundation of a basket of commodities backing currencies. In time, an all gold standard, and with it, a new fedual society and a new Dark Age.

      A post-crash America could shift paradigms, just as the citizens of Rome shifted from paganism to Christianity after their empire fell after a series of barbaric invasions.

      True, but the foundation for the shift to Christianity – not a Form of Christianity we might easily recognize, but one formed from adopting the “pagan” faiths and practices with the new religion, and calling it “Christianity” as the new universal religion of the Empire.

      The foundation was laid over centuries, based on the unifying metatheme of Christ the Redeemer. What similar unifying metatheme would we have to offer?

      Again, Constantine brilliantly took what worked, placed it in a Christian system, and called it “Christianity.” What works for us, that can be placed in an extant Christian metapolitical framework, while fostering the formation and development of the Northwest Republic as a Racial Homeland? I have some ideas on this, and think you have raised some very important concerns. For the first time, we are not reacting as helpless victims, and that is very heartening.

      More to follow.

      What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

  2. Fourmyle of Ceres
    Posted August 20, 2011 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

    Iranian for Aryans:

    Those systems are failing on all fronts. The Internet is where we can make effective movies, and effective media, at very little cost. There is storyboarding software out there for next to nothing. What we need is to send a consistent message as Horus the Avenger has discussed, specifically addressing the theme of the genocide of the white Race, and what can be DONE about it.

    As for third parties, the Republicans and the Democrats have rigged the Game thoroughly. An answer might be to organize a national organization devoted to self-help within organizations free from the extant political system, something like the National Grange, with a family (Racial!) focus. Certain religious systems seem to offer opportunities for us. Isaiah’s Remnant – see the piece by Nock by that name – offers very useful ideas.

    As does the Northwest Republic, particularly as an analytical model.

    What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

  3. Fourmyle of Ceres
    Posted August 20, 2011 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    Ward:
    Thank you for starting a very illuminating discussion. I agree that a thousand approaches must be used as the best way to fulfilling the Common Purpose. I think we must start with a Positive Theory of Race, define what opposed it, and define ourselves as the Opposition to the Opposition, taking the war to the Enemy on intellectual and emotional fronts, which will lay the foundation for a stable political organization outcome.

    Greg is right in defining Jewish hegemony as a metaissue. THEIR metapolitical goal is the genocide of the White Race.Your comments are on point, as well.

    Ward Kendall in blockquote:

    What I’ve concluded is that whites will never become “Jew-wise” in numbers large enough for whites to wrest power from them. Nor do I believe that whites have the ability for the latter solution, no matter how much they bluster.

    In politics, things can change very quickly. I know of too many families repeat familes living in their cars, and sleeping at Wal-Marts overnight. They have been so demoralized – Bezmenov’s First Principle of Cultural Conquest – that they have all but given up. Incidentally, Bezmenov stated he was amazed at how easily his group could demoralize the Woodstock Generation. He didn’t realize the groundwork has been laid by Freud, Boaz, Adorno, Horkheimer and their fellow travelers.

    What defeats demoralization is remoralization, a reFraming of moral issues. That requires, in the West, a Restatement of Christianity, based on Kinist ideals, using concepts found in the christianseparatist website. This Christianity would be patriarchal, and uncompromising. “Intolerance ‘R’ Us,” and we would follow the lines of Martel, and Joan, who was Called because the men were compromised beyond redemption.

    Martel, and Joan, had no doubt of the one thing that matter, victory. Joan defined victory as the removal of the English from France, Martel as defeating the Muslims threatening Europe. We might define victory as the formation of the White Racial Homeland by the Racially Conscious Community.

    Christianity is the ONLY religion, the only moral force, the Jews fear. We need no define ourselves against them, so much as for us, and our Posterity, our Families.

    This allows us to address the secular political issues in a metapolitical theme that is totally acceptable to the people we are trying to reach, while saving us the burden of fighting the shadows placed on the wall before us. NO MORE CHARLIE BROWN!

    This defines the metapolitical foundation for the “new models that are needed,” neither “democratic” political parties, nor “revolutionary” political organizations. The door is open to us to adopt the Forms of the political moment, and adapt them to our needs, discarding what no longer works, and replacing it with Something Better.

    I don’t wish to ruffle feathers here, but to say “one right way” has not been discovered yet must rightly be laid upon the table of debate as only an opinion – and not as a fact. After all, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    The “one right way” requires a consistency of metapolitical purpose, and the temporal structures defined and refined in the fulfillment of that metapolitical purpose.

    I don’t see any “shutting of a door to debate” at all. I do see the insistence that the debate must be framed in terms of what will work, and what is needed to make it work. This is where your painfully gained experience is desperately needed. Remember, the One True Way quickly degenerates into Do It MY Way, as the example of the (failed!) National Alliance proves. The One True Objective, however, allows a thousand Ways to lead to The One True Objective. A remoralization begins with the emotional acceptance of Four Words:

    “We’re Going To WIN!” (HT: Kevin Alfred Strom)

    The means and ends are left as exercises for the student.

    Have I mentioned the Northwest Republic tonight, specifically as an Analytical Model?

    What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

  4. Pelican
    Posted August 20, 2011 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

    Getting off the road to extinction and back on the road to godhood is a great way of putting it.

    We have lost much. Evola goes so far as to posit that the Arya could once perceive the metaphysical directly. In the belly of the Kali Yuga, the spirit suffocates and we even adopt modern (degenerate) thoughts.

    Too many of the descendants of the Arya lust to control the banking houses and the pool halls, seeking merely to change players while preserving the same old games. Sights can be set higher. Weininger taught that the Platonic essence of Judaism is materialism and, whether he was correct or not, he is to be lauded for analyzing a threshold issue. It is a good bet to believe that we can thrive by becoming what we are rather than being what we have become.

    May multiple approaches breed multiple approaches for, as e.e. cummings wrote:

    _______________________________________

    plato told

    him:he couldn’t
    believe it(jesus

    told him;he
    wouldn’t believe
    it)lao

    tsze
    certainly told
    him,and general
    (yes

    mam)
    sherman;
    and even
    (believe it
    or

    not)you
    told him:i told
    him;we told him
    (he didn’t believe it,no

    sir)it took
    a nipponized bit of
    the old sixth

    avenue
    el;in the top of his head:to tell

    him

    ____________________________________

    And may a substantial percentage of those approaches follow upon sober meditations about Platonic essences and such.

  5. francis alexander
    Posted August 20, 2011 at 11:23 pm | Permalink

    Great article; what you seem to be describing is a certain sort of invulnerability, the highest virtue in the world of tradition.
    But if we can’t vote our way out of things that leaves only the gun. Surely in terms of that a Bolshevik type militarised party IS the best option. The only alternatives are armed mobs or community militias, both likely lacking in political or strategic direction. Bolshevik style parties can at least ensure that the violence is purposeful. Invulnerability requires both leadership and discipline.

  6. White Republican
    Posted August 21, 2011 at 3:18 am | Permalink

    If Israel had twelve tribes in biblical times, it must have many more tribes today, organised on the basis of ideology rather than endogamy. The Jews seem to have controlling shares in virtually every ideological and political movement in the West today. But the Jews are not divided, they are segmented, as Greg Johnson effectively notes.

  7. White Republican
    Posted August 21, 2011 at 3:22 am | Permalink

    How should people on our side be united? In organisational terms, one could say that there are two approaches to this challenge, one of the warehouse and one of the workshop. The warehouse approach tries to realise unity by bringing together disparate individuals and groups under one roof. The workshop approach tries to realise unity by creating an effective organisation which outperforms other organisations, which attracts activists from other organisations, and which sets the agenda and pace of the larger movement. It involves giving work to people rather than a seat at a table.

    According to Richard Pipes, there is a French proverb to the effect that the best way to destroy something is to replace it. The workshop approach involves establishing functional forms of organisation that displace dysfunctional forms of organisation through superior performance. The workshop approach is obviously better than the warehouse approach. It is fundamentally creative rather than conservative. It is oriented towards conquering the future rather than preserving the past. It involves creating genuine unity on the basis of common work and a common understanding of what is to be done and how it is be done, rather than an artificial, fragile, and sterile unity achieved by getting the parties involved to agree not to fight each other. In the latter approach, the parties involved remain parties, who seek their own advantage at the expense of other parties. Pacts of unity between such parties are not unlike the peace established by a teacher whenever they enter a classroom: as soon as the teacher leaves, the students misbehave. I don’t think that there is any means of getting such parties to work together for long, to surmount their “petty bourgeois anarchism” (François Duprat). They are effectively ungovernable by any means.

    Incidentally, I think it is appalling that many people on our side seem to actually believe that democracy is both possible and desirable for political organisations and states. Most leftists have no such delusions. “Democracy” is something they often invoke but don’t actually believe in: for them, democracy does not mean giving power to the people, but giving power to their people, and pretending that their misrule has a popular mandate. In this, leftists are profoundly hypocritical, but they show a more realistic grasp of politics than many people on our side. I suspect that when people on our side express a desire for democracy, they are sometimes expressing a desire for leadership which serves the common good, a leadership which is responsible and accountable to the people, and a state which is sovereign in its sphere but only in its sphere. They mistakenly regard democracy as a regime which can realise these healthy and legitimate aspirations.

    Perhaps Counter-Currents should publish more articles concerning what Julien Freund called the impolitique in relation to White nationalism. As the back cover of Freund’s Politique et impolitique defines it: “L’impolitique est la manière de faire de la politique en méconnaissant son esprit et sa vocation et en méprisant ses impératifs d’activité organisatrice et protectrice des hommes dans une société donnée. Elle est la mauvaise politique, qu’on a toujours rencontrée au cours de l’histoire, mais qui s’amplifie de nos jours, particulièrement sous la pression de l’idéologie révolutionnaire . . .” It would be fair to say that most people who are involved with White nationalism, or receptive to it, are effectively apolitical or impolitical rather than political.

  • Video of the Day:

  • Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    The Lightning and the Sun

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Carl Schmitt Today

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    Generation Identity

    Nietzsche's Coming God

    The Conservative

    The New Austerities

    Convergence of Catastrophes

    Demon

    Proofs of a Conspiracy

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    The Wagnerian Drama

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    An eagle with a shield soaring upwards

    A Life in the Political Wilderness

    The Fourth Political Theory

    The Passing of the Great Race

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    The Prison Notes

    It Cannot Be Stormed

    Revolution from Above

    The Proclamation of London

    Beyond Human Rights

    The WASP Question

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Jewish Strategy

    The Metaphysics of War

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    The French Revolution in San Domingo

    The Revolt Against Civilization

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    Archeofuturism

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Tyr

    Siege

    On Being a Pagan

    The Lost Philosopher

    The Dispossessed Majority

    Might is Right

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance