Print this post Print this post

Fourth Wave Feminism

Feminist artist Alexis Hunter's "Masculinisation" -- obviously about emasculation

1,629 words

When Cynthia Cockburn and Ann Oakley wrote about the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women this year, they decided to skip writing about violence against women. Instead, they criticized the “culture of masculinity”—and men, generally—for perpetuating all forms of violence.

Feminists have nursed a perverse obsession with what men think and do for decades. They’ve had to, because the success of the feminist program has always been completely dependent on what bell hooks called “the will to change.” The female strategy has always been to nag and manipulate until men stop doing what men want to do and start doing what women want them to do. Men caving and giving women what they want is as natural as salmon swimming upstream. It’s painful to watch but almost everyone does it eventually.

Industrialization, birth control, globalism and a First World shift to managerial and service economies allowed women to push past old boundaries and upend the balance between the sexes.

First Wave Feminists marched for the vote and property rights. Feminists love marches, walks, and long candlelight vigils on the beach. Second Wave Feminists shouted “I am Woman” and stomped around for more exciting employment opportunities and the Gaia-given right to kill their babies. Third Wave feminists stripped off the polyester pantsuits of yesteryear, got painted up like trash, and went genderqueer.

Forth Wave feminism, already well underway, is a female coalitionary effort to control male behavior through public policy while wielding the threat of state-sponsored violence.

Feminists have long dreamed of a gender-neutral world of peaceful security, pleasure, and plenty. For years, they held to the idea that men and women were essentially the same and that traditional ideas about gender were as “lightly linked to sex as are the clothing, the manners, and the form of head-dress that a society at a given period assigns to either sex.” Patriarchal male culture could be blamed for all of the evil in the world, and our ancestors were all peaceful goddess-worshipping pansies.

Now that St. Margaret Mead has been all but discredited, only pink-haired stoners believe in peaceful prehistory, and “SCIENCE” keeps validating both tradition and common sense, feminist gender theory has run aground on the rocky shores of reality and punctured the hull of her Big-Boned Barbie cruise ship.

Feminists have needed to change directions to stay afloat, so they have slowly been conceding that men and women are, in fact, different. Today’s feminists brag about the things women do better than men. The traveling sisterhood of the New Girl Order is proud that women have the kinds of traits that 21st century employers say they want.

Cynthia Cockburn and Ann Oakley want to you to understand that women are more peaceful than men, and men are more violent than women.

Men aren’t always content to march with candles; men are more likely to riot and loot. Oakley and Cockburn noted that 92% of the UK rioters this summer were male, and all of the rioters charged with violent offences were male. Cockburn and colleague then reported that men were responsible for 87% of traffic offences and 81% of speeding offenses. Citing prison statistics, they suggested that if men committed crimes leading to custodial sentences at the rate women did, their nation could save about £3.4 billion every year.

Cockburn and Oakley concluded with some conflicting commentary about testosterone and violence.

First, Cockburn and Oakley explained that, according to SCIENCE, testosterone is associated with status-seeking, but not necessarily with violence.

I’ve read the same studies, and this may in fact be true. But they failed to address the logical progression of status competition. As I’ve written, violence is golden because while it may not be the only way to resolve a given conflict, it is a definitive way to resolve a conflict. Violence beckons from the end of a path of escalation. You can beat me at checkers 30 times in a row, but somewhere in my frustrated gut I know that if I stand up and shoot you in the face, I win. Game over. Violence is “the nuclear option.”

Violence is not merely a criminal or “anti-social” action. The use of force against criminals is merely the violence of the many against the one, disguised by the pretense of “justice.”

The same logic of escalation plays out in state vs. citizen conflicts. Even the most soft-spoken regime must carry a big stick. For instance, a gay liberal mayor can ask some protesters nicely again and again to stop camping in the park, but if they refuse again and again, eventually some kind of physical action—however “non lethal”—will be required to restore order. Likewise, if kids are going to sit in the road and block traffic, eventually you have to break out the pepper spray and “negotiate” more aggressively.

There may be more chemical links between maleness and violence, but since Cockburn and Oakley are willing to accept that testosterone increases status competition, one could simply say that:

Male violence is the continuation of status competition by other means.

After saying that testosterone doesn’t have to increase violence, for good measure Cockburn and Oakley suggest ways that male testosterone can be influenced.

Here’s the whole quote:

Testosterone, the male hormone, the “metaphor of manhood,” is portrayed as driving men inexorably towards aggressive behaviour. Yet studies show that testosterone is related to status-seeking but not directly to aggression. Many other factors are influential. Testosterone levels are increased or diminished in both males and females by diet, activity and circumstance. The opportunity to interact with guns, for instance, appears to increase testosterone, while men’s testosterone levels fall when they are involved with the care of children.

The case we are making is that certain widespread masculine traits and behaviours are dangerous and costly both to individuals and society. They are amenable to purposeful change. The culture of masculinity can be, and should be, addressed as a policy issue.

Some researchers believe that the average man’s testosterone level has plummeted over the past 20 years. According to the MAYO clinic, normal testosterone levels help men maintain healthy bone density, fat distribution, muscle strength and mass, red blood cell production, sex drive, and sperm produc tion. Testosterone can be increased naturally through weight training, and while most men experience a gradual decline in testosterone after age thirty, evidence suggests that weight training can help men can keep their levels higher for longer and possibly stave off some of the negative effects of aging. Unusually low testosterone levels in men are associated with coronary artery disease, aortic atherosclerosis, metabolic syndrome, obesity, diabetes, and depression.

Policy initiatives aimed at pacifying men by lowering male testosterone are a kindler, gentler alternative to castration, with the same net effect. Men will have lower sex drives, lower sperm counts, and they will more often be fat, depressed, and diabetic. Feminist dreams of sleek, gender-neutral utopias will inevitably lead to more doughy bonobos and chunky Chaz Bonos playing out their endless manic-depressive melodramas in a big bean-flicking circle of sterility, sickness, and desperation.

As far as I can tell, we’re half way there already.

It is true that Cockburn and Oakley did not state outright that male testosterone should be reduced as a matter of public policy. After addressing sex differences and testosterone, Cockburn and comrade slid back to the safety of Second and Third Wave feminism and recycled, blank slate rhetoric about changing the “culture of masculinity.”

However, if feminists recommend policy-based cultural and behavioral changes that lead to reduced testosterone, they achieve the same sickening, emasculating end. Fourth Wave feminism is about wielding the principal’s paddle—state power—as women attempt to mother males into helpless and obedient second class women. The feminists of the 1970s made moralistic arguments and pleaded for fairness and equality, but as women came to power their impatience with maleness and the reality of sex differences was evident.

The changes Cockburn and Oakley seem to recommend have already been made. The average man in the UK is not armed, and has probably never fired a handgun. In America, any hint of male interest in violence is frowned upon in the classroom. Christina Hoff Sommers brought an institutionalized anti-male bias in education to national attention over a decade ago, but little has changed. Males who show what in Mark Twain’s day would have been seen as a normal interest in fighting and combat are recommended for counseling or flagged as problem children. Boys with high energy are routinely diagnosed with “ADHD” and drugged. 8-year-old boys are suspended from school for possessing 4-inch toy guns made for action figures. A 7-year-old was recently accused of sexual harassment for kicking a bully in the nuts. Professional feminists like Cockburn and Oakley are paid to advise schools and speak to young people about sexism and sexual harassment. Public and private universities run “My Strength is Not For Hurting” campaigns and seminars. Feminist Jackson Katz is even paid to teach the freaking Marines about “toxic masculinity.”

If men already have far lower average testosterone levels than they did a few decades ago, and males still act like males, how much more enforced cultural retraining will be necessary for feminists to be satisfied?

In light of obvious and persistent differences between the sexes, will feminists simply give up on their dream of a gender neutral world, and work towards a cultural harmony of the sexes instead of an artificially imposed “equality” of apples and oranges?

Not likely.

If men and women are different, the new feminism will simply conclude that men must be “fixed.”

For feminists, the answer to any problem with feminism is always more feminism.

First Published at The Spearhead, 12/11/2011

Source: http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2011/12/fourth-wave-feminism/

 

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.)

17 Comments

  1. Jaego Scorzne
    Posted December 15, 2011 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    The Men Right’s Folks are often against White Nationalists saying that we are “White Knights” who worship our Women. Well any Woman who is brave enough to embrace White Nationalism is worthy of a lot of respect. They’re aren’t many of them I admit – women being far more conformist than men.

  2. Jack Donovan
    Posted December 15, 2011 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    Men’s Rights folks are definitely their own kind of stupid. “Men’s Rights” is an absurd concept, and it relies completely on feminist thinking.

    Rejecting feminism isn’t the same thing as hating or rejecting women. Expecting 50/50 participation in every movement is actually a feminist way of looking at things. What would you have to censor or compromise to gain that kind of equal participation? It’s a bit of an affirmative action strategy.

    If you see the sexes as different, but complementary, you don’t need to beg women to play along or treat them like men. Men have always believed that women have a sacred but different role in society. I am merely saying the same thing.

    My critiques of feminism are more aimed at dissecting their obsession with changing and devaluing men than anything else.

  3. Fourmyle of Ceres
    Posted December 15, 2011 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?

    Jack Donovan is so right. Let’s apply his astute analysis to our situation for a moment.

    One, like the MRA, we are ASKING for our “rights.” In reality, as Tom Metzger so correctly stated, “You have NO rights. You have privileges, and those, only to the extent you can enforce them.”

    Terrible Tommy scared off many of the geldings and Eloi what THAT one!

    Two, like Donovans’s really good point (in blockquote):

    Fourth Wave feminism, already well underway, is a female coalitionary effort to control male behavior through public policy while wielding the threat of state-sponsored violence.

    All of that can be applied to us, and much more so, with the de facto policy of White Out!, seen at the foundation of all Affirmative Action policies and practices. The de fac to policy of race replacement that began under the Immigration Reform Act of more than forty years ago. Combine this with a general perspective that hates (1) Men, (2) the West, (3) Western Civilization, and (4) Patriarchal Christianity, and you see the inevitable outcome of mandated equality, based on the lowest common denominator.

    That having been said, I admire The-Spearhead dot com for assertively moving the debate in the right direction, and AfoR for adopting the more forthright, no compromise whatsoever, Tom Leykis perspective of acting aggressively when you are not acting assertively.

    This is all part of the Gramscian Movement, that we can only defeat with a metapolitical perspective, and no doubts whatsoever that we are correct, and have a duty to fulfill, and a destiny to meet.

    Thanks to Jack Donovan for his signal efforts, matched with deep intellectual honesty. If we can get more people like that on our side, so much the better.

    What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

  4. Posted December 16, 2011 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

    I have often been accused of being a feminist for being an open White Nationalist activist. I know though that I am only able to do this because of the support of men like my husband and father and others who help me to accomplish the things that I do.

    Yeah I feel like I want to ride into battle on a horse in full amour swinging a sword and beheading the enemy…….but I dont feel like that makes me a feminist because I would want to make sure I looked really good doing it…..

  5. Lew
    Posted December 16, 2011 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

    I’m surprised to see a feminist argument based on biological reality. We might want to hope this line of thinking gets traction and that they are successful spreading the word about male violence and testosterone. If this perspective does eventually gain traction, once they commit to the position and the public has it drummed into their heads that 90%+ of the violent criminals male, it will be an easy step to point out that 90%+ of the criminals are actually non-White males. 

    Regarding the behavior of White women in general, in looking at it purely from a biology perspective, you can’t blame them. They’re just doing what’s natural. Because of hypergamy, most White women are never going to stop looking for higher status men and moving on when they find one. Hence, the promiscuity, lying, cheating, cuckolding, abortions, out of wedlock births and divorce filings. 

  6. Jim Stark
    Posted December 18, 2011 at 6:03 am | Permalink

    Believe it or not, Feminism died in the 90s. That’s when liberal elites started abandoning it in droves. Not on the surface, where it still has some momentum. But the masses have not taken Feminism seriously for awhile. Comics started attacking it in the 80s. Even the women laughed.

    If you look at the West as an organism, then Feminism serves a purpose by helping to bring down the system. By promoting women into positions of authority and giving them a “voice,” you can destroy anything. This applies to Jews and minorities as well.

    White Nationalism is inherently masculine because it involves conflict and exclusivity, which make women uncomfortable when brought into the public sphere. So the question of why more women are not interested or involved misses the point. A strong movement would not have women involved.

    • Posted December 18, 2011 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

      Jim: Exactly. That’s what I’ve been thinking since the beginning: a truly robust white nationalism should be an all-boys club. In fact, I consider Roger Devlin’s articles published here and elsewhere as important as the racialist topics: two sides of exactly the same coin. And I find it distressing that few nationalists (IMHO most of them are still feminized or implicit conservatives) cannot see something so obvious. Muslims are closer to nature on this issue than today’s liberal westerners and even quite a few “nationalists”. And yes: we are living in the last days of feminism and so-called liberated women.

      Once the interregnum and the coming racial wars are over, the survivors will find patriarchal families as natural as breathing fresh air.

      • Jim Stark
        Posted December 18, 2011 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

        Chechar, I agree. Most of the nationalists you are talking about are probably baby boomers or older. The older people of all stripes are hopelessly lost in liberalism. They are scared of women. The younger people seem to feign liberalism, but are not that invested in it.

        The older people cannot think past rugged individualism, which is a symptom of liberalism. The group needs to be put above the individual at this point. This is a concept that completely repels the older crowd for some reason.

        This doesn’t bode well for any kind of conservatism of the older generations coming to the rescue. I don’t think they are equipped spiritually or intellectually to deal with the problems of the West today. Most seem genuinely confused that the liberal dream is failing, even if they call themselves or consider themselves “conservatives.”

        White Nationalists that talk about establishing a “White Republic” seem like conservative reactionaries that want to recreate 1950s America. While forgetting that the 1950s led to the liberalism of the 60s, 70s and where we are now. The past fights vociferously against the future, even among supposedly like minded people.

        Speaking of Muslims. Did you see how the Egyptian military dealt with all protestors, including women, with equal brutality? There’s a video link on Drudge. The Muslims have much stronger families, which is a direct result of their views on women.

        I think you are right about the coming racial wars. That looks like the direction things are going. There are too many White people in America who just don’t get it.

      • Fourmyle of Ceres
        Posted December 18, 2011 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

        THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?

        Chechar in blockquote:

        Once the interregnum and the coming racial wars are over, the survivors will find patriarchal families as natural as breathing fresh air.

        Damn, THAT’S the Spirit!

        Devlin’s best article, his perfect analysis of why Civilization needs Beta males, which women loathe and detest, explains perfectly why so many men feel trapped in relationships. Perhaps it will be reprinted here.

        Father Himself, Tom Leykis, of Blessed Name, the foremost analyst of man-women relations, noted that many men described marriage as a textbook example of that old con game, “Bait and Switch.”

        Never let women rule your life. Not for one damn minute. Ever.

        What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

      • Greg Johnson
        Posted December 18, 2011 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

        A movement that is as short on people and resources as ours cannot afford to turn away the contributions of women. That said, I think that sex-segregated groups (for both men and women) alongside mixed groups are a natural phenomenon. But which form a group takes should be based upon pragmatic considerations, not apriori commitments of either the feminist or patriarchal stripe. See my “The Woman Question in White Nationalism” for more on my views on these matters: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/05/the-woman-question-in-white-nationalism/

      • Fourmyle of Ceres
        Posted December 18, 2011 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

        THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?

        Jim Stark in blockquote:

        White Nationalists that talk about establishing a “White Republic” seem like conservative reactionaries that want to recreate 1950s America. While forgetting that the 1950s led to the liberalism of the 60s, 70s and where we are now. The past fights vociferously against the future, even among supposedly like minded people.

        Respectfully, those of us who favor a “White Republic” are the LAST ones who would be “like conservative reactionaries that want to recreate 1950s America.”

        THAT America is as dead as the America of 1860, and it is not – can not – come back.

        THAT America was seduced by the most productive economic system in the history of the world into ignoring the foundations of national greatness.

        We only wish to recreate one Aspect of THAT America, and that is our Constitutionally granted RIGHT to freedom of association.

        The most important element is usually overlooked, except by Harold Covington, and that is the VERTICAL component of Race. Take one thousand Class “A” people, given them time, and they will form the Northwest Republic for the rest of us. Trust me: we get one thousand Class “A” men in one place, working to build the Northwest Republic, and the women will soon follow.

        Incidentally, speaking of being “short of resources,” it might be an excellent time to remember counter-currents in your Christmas planning. If that’s a bit of a problem – and for many of us, it is – the New Year would be an excellent time to make timely (monthly!) contributions to counter-currents.

        What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

      • Posted December 18, 2011 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

        The most paradoxical thing about women is that, while the fairest specimens of Aryan females look indeed like the crown of the evolution physically, if you empower them the race goes extinct. They will simply stop to reproduce.

        All of the present demographic winter looks like a typical shit test WRIT LARGE:

        If you let my whims run amok with runaway feminism your little genes are going extinct. Have a little respect of yourself you pathetic eunuch. Take heed of how nymphs and nymphets were fair play when the first Romans faced extinction and resorted to the abduction of the Sabine women. After the racial wars in a Mad Max-like world, will you have the balls to abduct me and convert me into your legit wife, with lots and lots of kids you pussycat, or will you let that the niggers do the actual job instead and turn America into Northern Brazil?

        Every time I watch how Clarke Gable handled Vivien Leigh during that famous scene, carrying her up the large stairs in his arms and telling her, “This is one night you’re not turning me out”, I shake my head imagining the non-brute, silver-tongued intellectuals and gentlemen, you know, the AltRight types (for the interregnum they’re ok, after the wars we’ll need the Linder types).

        Gable passed the test. Leigh awakened the next morning with a look of pleasure for having been “abducted” and being put, on the marital bed, in her rightful place by the brute. But it makes me wonder. Like the ancient Italians seeking wives in order to found families, will 21st century nationalists pass the test after the rule of law collapses? Our whole survival depends on it…

        @ “Devlin’s best article”

        Link please?

  7. Lew
    Posted December 18, 2011 at 10:42 pm | Permalink

    I don’t think Devlin has a best article; they’re all brilliant with breakthrough insights. I would follow the Devlin tag and read everything, then do the same the other places where he publishes.

    • Fourmyle of Ceres
      Posted December 19, 2011 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

      THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?

      Chechar:

      Devlin is seminal. Lew’s idea of going to the link and starting there would be ideal. I think it was part five of a series we only ran four parts on. Type “F. Roger Devlin” and “beta” and/or “beta male” into your search engines.

      This is the delicate balance we need to respect; the Alpha Male working WITHIN a framework, to the betterment of all. Remember, Ashley Wilkes never knew Scarlett as well as Rhett did, but he helped finance and develop the post-war Atlanta. After laying all of the foundation, Rhett moved in. The rest, as they say, is history.

      Some fascinating history, indeed. In many ways, most of what passes for self-identified White Nationalists resemble no one so much as Katie Scarlett’s father, who could not comprehend that all he has known as gone, and retreated into mumbling passivity.

      It was, and the balanced combination of Ashley Wilkes – quiet, smart, hard-working, victim of pussification – and Scarlett O’Hara – smart, clever, ruthless, and with no illusions whatsoever about the goodness of human nature – who laid the foundation for the NEXT Southern nation.

      After everything hit a critical mass, then the really smart aggressiveness of the Alpha male, Rhett Butler, took over.

      If memory serves, didn’t Mr. Butler head up some sort of clandestine organization that made the streets a little safer? Reminds me of a sort of Northwest Volunteers type organization, but then again, that’s just me.

      My latest thinking is tying in the aristocratic mindset with the balance of masculine Archetypes. Rhett had it intuitively, and Ashley never would. The Patrarchal social systems work to inculcate this in their future.

      Ask yourself, given what is needed to create and transform the Northwest Republic, what would Rhett Butler do? How would he differ from anyone you’ve met in self-identified White Nationalist circles? What would he do differently, in an “apple-pie, strictly legal, sort of way?” (HT: Jim Giles) How could it be done?

      What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

      • Posted December 19, 2011 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

        FC, Still don’t find that fourth part of Devlin’s article. Do you remember at least the website that published it and a couple of words of the title?

      • Fourmyle of Ceres
        Posted December 19, 2011 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

        THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?

        Chechar:

        I think the most complete source of Devlin’s articles was the last ditch website, run by Nicholas Strakon.

        The critical element is that Civilization REQUIRES lots of Betas, both as toolmakers, tool users, and tools, themselves, working together what can not be accomplished in any other way.

        To my mind, the problem begins when they are wedded to the approval of women – the process of pussification – rather than to their unique Destiny, their own sense of Purpose in the fulfillment of Racial duty, Racial greatness.

        The-Spearhead.com focused more than most on the issue of George Sodini, who exemplified the pure Beta Male – solid, hard-working, checklist of required duties checked off, doing all he was told a man had to do to be desired by women. This was when Devlin’s comments came to the attention of many people, in part because Sodini did it all the way he was told to do – nice house! nice car! nice job! – and was scorned by women. His moment of revenge was thus all the more horrible, because he had NEVER been exposed to the teachings of Father Himself, Tom Leykis.

        In one of his comments here, if memory serves, Devlin himself told one person who critiqued him that all of the things you do to get a woman’s attention/approval miss the point, if you do not hit her radar in the right way. Sodini is a perfect example; “good provider,” but he was not “exciting” enough for the women whose radar he hit – at least, not that he saw.

        On the other hand (heh, heh heh) most of us at The-Spearhead have a genial, “ignore the whore, and dump that bitch” perspective. Sodini didn’t. Sodini did approval dancing, and danced court for people who held him in absolute contempt, not because of anything he did, but because he DIDN’T hit their radar, and kick their rationalization hamster into high gear.

        I also recommend Marky Mark’s Thoughts website, and the comments of “Christopher from Oregon” on there. We must learn psychological distance from the indentured servitude The System wishes to place us in, particularly making us the indentured servants, beaten like rented mules for pampered sluts and worthless whores.

        Not that I get excited about this topic, or anything.

        THAT is why Race – as a critical focus of the metapolitical project – is of such critical, temporal and transcendental importance. You keep your eyes on the stars, and your Mind on how to build the Bridge to them.

        Incidentally, I think “Christopher from Oregon” tells the story of his brother, who came early from work to find his wife in bed with their neighbor, another woman. She told him that she was going to divorce him, and get everything.

        She did. She got EVERYTHING.

        Marriage is usually what Tom Leykis described it as – simply bait and switch.

        The only way to win is to not play the Game. Simple as that.

        What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

  8. Posted December 19, 2011 at 10:02 pm | Permalink

    FC, thanks.

    If you mean this article–:

    http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/devlin_home_ec_06.htm

    –it *was* published here albeit with a different number:

    http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/06/home-economics-part-5/

  • 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

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Archeofuturism

    Tyr

    Siege

    On Being a Pagan

    The Lost Philosopher

    The Dispossessed Majority

    Might is Right

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance