Print this post Print this post

Mike vs. Emory

2,861 words

Editor’s Note:

This essay is from Michael Polignano’s book Taking Our Own Side, available in hardcover, paperback, and PDF download here.

The “Year of Reconciliation”

Emory University declared the 2000–2001 school year to be the “Year of Reconciliation” for important issues affecting the University, and I naïvely took this claim at face value. According to the Year of Reconciliation website:

our aim was to celebrate the turn of the millennium through exploring a theme that highlighted the work of our faculty and students, promoted interdisciplinary dialogue about matters of importance to us all, encouraged discussion of the future of our university, and provided opportunities to use our thinking and discussion as first steps to action. We chose a theme that would be broad enough so that each member of the community could interpret it in a way meaningful to herself or himself.

I decided to interpret the Year of Reconciliation in a meaningful way. I raised a controversial, very important issue which I didn’t believe academia (or the general public, for that matter) has fully considered: the possibility that observed differences in both scholastic achievement and in violent crime between whites and blacks result partly from genetic differences between the races. I knew, of course, that the issue has always been a very controversial one. Nonetheless, I thought that at a university, ostensibly the highest citadel of rational thought, during a supposed “Year of Reconciliation,” the arguments for both sides of this unresolved issue could be subjected to critical analysis, leading to more enlightened conclusions on the matter, or so I’d hoped.

I broached the subject in an October 6, 2000 editorial for the school newspaper, the Emory Wheel, in which I discussed UC-Berkeley Professor Emeritus of Psychology Arthur Jensen’s most recent (1998) book on the subject of intelligence, The g Factor. In this book Jensen, among (many) other things, provides empirical evidence suggesting that Blacks and Whites differ in “g” (general intelligence), and he hypothesizes that this difference stems from genetic differences between the races. I soon learned that Arthur Jensen has held this opinion since 1969, that he has published over 400 articles in various peer-reviewed scientific journals, and that he was (and is) well-respected by his colleagues in the field, both as a rigorous scientist and as a man of impeccable personal integrity. This opinion is shared even by those who strongly disagree with his stance on race differences in g, an area that comprises only a small portion of his contributions to the scientific study of intelligence.

I raised the possibility of inherent racial difference with regard to the wisdom of continuing compensatory programs (like Affirmative Action and Head Start) designed to get Blacks on an equal footing with Whites. I reasoned that if Jensen’s hypothesis were correct these programs could never succeed, and could only do harm in the long run by misappropriating resources better spent elsewhere. Thus, a critical examination of Jensen’s most recent work in the area should certainly have been in order during the Year of Reconciliation.

Emory’s Response

In the next issue of the school newspaper, an open letter to me from then University President William Chace appeared. Besides questioning my motivation for writing the editorial (something I had expected), he made the patently false claim that “the jury is not out on Jensen,” meaning that his hypothesis had been discarded as untenable. Prior to writing my editorial, I had made absolutely certain that Jensen’s hypothesis was not only being actively debated, but was also steadily winning the support of experts in his field. I found that earlier that very same year (2000) Jensen was defending his book on the publicly-accessible Psycoloquy, “a refereed international, interdisciplinary electronic journal sponsored by the American Psychological Association (APA) and indexed by APA’s PsycINFO and the Institute for Scientific Information.” I smiled, thinking to myself how embarrassed Chace would be when he had to eat his own words, for surely at least one Emory faculty member up to speed on the subject would realize that Jensen’s work was by no means scientifically disproven. Did Chace really think I was stupid enough to defend such a controversial position were it not justifiable by current research in the field?

Chace also decried as “wholly repugnant” my suggestion that compensatory programs should be reconsidered if they could not achieve their stated goals. According to him, Affirmative Action and Head Start are justified because they punish Whites, regardless of whether or not they help Blacks. He concluded his letter by “demanding” that the Emory community respond to me, using “all of the instruments of reason and civil discourse—and no other means.”

My reaction at that point was one of furtive amusement. I was certain that at least one individual in the Emory community would expose Chace’s mistake in dismissing Jensen in such a curt, summary fashion. I wrote Chace an open letter in return, a modified edition of which appeared in the next issue of the school newspaper (apparently the newspaper made an exception for Chace on its policy of not allowing directly addressed open letters: I was told I wasn’t permitted to address Chace directly).

I received countless emails concerning my article from students for about the next month, and found out that my article had been the subject of discussion in several classes. I also was contacted by the president of a student group called RACES (Racial and Cultural Education Source). He told me that his group was going to schedule a forum the coming Wednesday to discuss the issue. I told him that I thought a forum was a great idea, but that Wednesday would be a bad time because I had a biology test to take that evening, and I didn’t like the idea of having to take the test and defend my column in front of a potentially hostile crowd all in the same evening.

His response, as quoted from an email I received that weekend, was:

I do not think that I was clear on the subject matter of the forum on Wednesday. We will not take a large time to discuss your editorial—we are more concerned with the reconciliation of the matter at hand and how we as an Emory community can learn to educate each other about racial differences and learn how to be together here as a community. Your concerns are valid about walking into a potentially hostile environment, but I think that many people will agree with me that you have done that to yourself in your editorial . . . many people have expressed to me that they felt it important you attend. However, if you cannot attend the forum will go on. This issue needs to be addressed and the community needs to voice their opinions and we need to continue forward in a constructive manner toward bringing all cultures together on campus. This matter is much bigger than a single person.

I was astounded that this individual thought that the matter could be adequately resolved if no one were present to defend Jensen’s position. I had two problems with his reasoning. First, I strongly disagreed with his priorities: Bringing people together is great, but not if it comes at the expense of the truth. The latter should always have priority. But questions of truth, apparently, played no role in his thinking. Second, even if “bringing cultures together” were more important than truth, one could never hope to bring people together on anything but the most superficial level if the issues keeping different groups apart are not permitted to be discussed in a forthright manner.

From his email I got the impression that I was going to walk into a kangaroo court, a show trial where I would be presented as the obviously wrong racist, a farce where the verdict had already been decided and nothing I said would make any difference. Why else would only a short time be devoted to my editorial? Why else would the forum be able to continue if I didn’t attend? Only if the judgment were already determined in advance would these things not make a difference.

The forum proved to be the travesty I’d envisioned.As a news article in the Wheel points out, I had to go up against a tag team of six professors, all of whom argued against Jensen. (Interestingly, none of them had expertise in psychology.) Combined, they had 30 minutes to present their case, while I only had five. Needless to say, five minutes were insufficient time to make a case even if I were an excellent public speaker and possessed the knowledge of Jensen himself. I did my best to address each of the points raised by the six professors, but since they gave me only 50 seconds per professor it was an impossible task that I was foolish even to attempt. I also got the impression that nothing I said really mattered: most audience members certainly didn’t come with open minds; they came to pronounce judgment.

It was evident from their remarks that none of the professors had bothered to read what Jensen had to say about race. Nowhere did he argue that races were fixed, discrete categories, as the professors claimed. Rather, Jensen defines them as “breeding populations that, as a result of natural selection, have come to differ statistically in the relative frequencies of many polymorphic genes” (The g Factor, p. 418).

I pointed out that Jensen made use of Stanford geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza’s comprehensive study of population differences in allele frequencies, published in 1994 as The History and Geography of Human Genes. (“Alleles” are alternative forms of a gene.) The main analysis in this book is based on blood and tissue specimens obtained from representative samples of 42 populations, from every continent and the Pacific Islands. All the individuals in these samples were aboriginal or indigenous to the areas in which they were selected; their ancestors have lived in the same geographic area since at least 1492, a familiar date selected to mark the beginning of extensive European explorations and consequent major population movements. Measuring the allele frequencies of 120 alleles for 49 different genes, Cavalli-Sforza and his co-workers then calculated the genetic distance between each group and every other group, and constructed a genetic linkage tree based on this data. The entire tree and a simplified version containing larger groupings appear below.

I explained that whether one uses the term “race” or “population” to describe the groups Cavalli-Sforza researches is merely a matter of sematics. I also noted that the number of human racial groups is arbitrary, varying based on how specific one wants to get on the genetic linkage tree. While racial categorizations such as “White,” “Black,” and “Asian” are social constructs, they correlate to a large extent with the biological groupings as shown on the genetic linkage tree. “Whites,” for instance, all share ancestry in the “Caucasoid” category. “Black” is the social category containing the greatest genetic variance: Although a New Guinean and a Bushman are just as genetically distant from one another as an Englishman and a Bushman, New Guineans and Bushmen both evolved far closer to the equator (hence facing similar selective pressures during the past 100,000 years or so of human evolution) than Englishmen, whose ancestors had to endure the selective pressure of an Ice Age. Hence, for traits under selective pressure like skin color, cranial shape and capacity, and mental ability, New Guineans and Bushmen resemble one another and thus would be socially categorized as “Black.”

However, no one besides myself at the forum was willing to acknowledge any biological influence on socially-identified racial groups. After anthropology professor George Armelagos said that “race is not a useful biological construct,” I asked how it was that forensic anthropologists could reliably and correctly identify the race of a human skull if race had no correlation with biology. I also pointed out that races differ in frequencies of certain diseases, and that mainstream science has found that some of these differences have genetic components. For instance, I pointed out a study showing that some people of European ancestry possess a gene providing resistance to HIV infection, believed to have arisen in the population because it also provides resistance to the bubonic plague which swept through Europe in the Middle Ages. But these rebuttals fell on deaf ears. The prevailing idea put forth at the forum was that racial classification was “bad science,” in addition to being inherently evil and “hateful,” and no one besides myself challenged that idea.

In the weeks following the forum, I met with a number of Emory professors who were willing to admit privately that Jensen’s findings might be correct. But to their shame and my disgust none of the scientists was willing to do so publicly. Out of apathy or fear they were willing to let stand Chace’s false assertion that “the jury is not out on Jensen.” The one professor who was willing to defend me publicly was James Gouinlock, a professor of philosophy who was far better informed about Jensen’s work than the scientists who attacked it. Gouinlock wrote a letter to the editor of the Wheel defending me. But the Wheel refused to print it, or even acknowledge its receipt. I also learned that most White students at Emory were convinced from personal experience that race and IQ are linked. But only two students were willing to defend me publicly, one on scientific grounds, the other on First Amendment grounds. An Emory alumnus, John R. Morgan, M.D., also wrote a letter to the Wheel in my defense.

I created a discussion group on LearnLink, Emory’s internal computer network, to examine the issue further. I was interested in hearing if anybody had any substantive criticism of Jensen’s work, since the professors at the forum entirely misrepresented Jensen’s position on key issues like race. The responses I received were mostly ad hominem attacks with ridiculous or irrelevant disparaging comments, although some productive discussion did take place.

I came to realize that an extremely nasty and highly motivated minority of faculty and students held the campus in the grip of fear. The purpose of my public humiliation was clear: It was a warning. Anyone who publicly acknowledged scientific facts or personal experiences about the reality of race could expect the same treatment.

Arthur Jensen is the Galileo of our times. And to its eternal shame, Emory University refused to look into the telescope.

The Reconciliation Symposium

As could be predicted by Emory’s response to Jensen’s work, the following Spring’s Reconciliation Symposium proved to be a one-sided farce (a left-sided farce) which reconciled absolutely nothing. The symposiasts were a racially and sexually diverse bunch who held blandly homogenous, predictably “progressive” opinions about everything. No reconciliation was needed, because contradictory data and contrary viewpoints were never discussed. A list of some of the headlines from the Wheel’s Reconciliation Symposium coverage speaks volumes:

  • “Gender balance tipped in men’s favor, Epps says”
  • “Social relief for oppressed minorities dominates social justice discussion”
  • “Cole exhorts audience to mix color lines in race reconciliation panel discussion”
  • “Reconciliation crumbles sans democracy, prof says”
  • “Emory prof says restorative justice more effective than death penalty”
  • “Chopp exhorts students to look at world from global perspective, not myopic one”

Fortunately, some students protested. Indeed, three of the six editorials written about the Symposium deal with this topic.

The best of these is the staff editorial, which rightly chided the symposium as “a fantasy reconciliation” and noted “it takes a great stretch of the imagination to consider an academic summit with an almost complete monopoly of opinion in nearly every field to be a productive advancement of debate.”

Another editorial suggests a “mini-symposium” directed at students, with one of the panels entitled “Reconciling the Opposing Sides in the Race and Intelligence Debate.” The author notes, “When controversy flared over this issue in the fall, professors and administrators moved quickly to squelch debate on one side. This gives the impression that only a few students believe that race and intelligence are connected. Casual conversations tell a different story.”

The final column, entitled “Reconciliation Requires Vigorous Debate,” dealt with the panel “Reconciling Race, Ethnicity and Other Lines that Divide Us.” After noting that “there was not any reconciliation going on in this discussion because no one offered a strong dissent to any of the panelists,” he writes, “For all the senseless and malicious dribble Wheel columnist Michael Polignano spewed last fall, he had a point in suggesting that the academy lacks a spectrum of academic thought.”

Over the past few years, I have researched the work of Jensen and others regarding race differences. Contrary to popular belief, I’ve found that the preponderance of scientific evidence supports the view that genetics play just as much (and likely more) of a role than environment as far as racial differences in mental ability are concerned.

An Amusing Postscript

Later on that year, my picture appeared on the cover of Emory’s 2001–2002 course catalog. A black student, trying to shame Emory into catering even more slavishly to ever-disgruntled minorities, complained that the picture was somehow an endorsement of my ideas. But that is preposterous. Emory only wanted me for my body, not for my mind.

October 6, 2003

 

 

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.

9 Comments

  1. rhondda
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 7:42 am | Permalink

    Now this took guts. (slang for courage, one of the noble virtues I do believe)

  2. no limit YT
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 7:42 am | Permalink

    Chace also decried as “wholly repugnant” my suggestion that compensatory programs should be reconsidered if they could not achieve their stated goals. According to him, Affirmative Action and Head Start are justified because they punish Whites, regardless of whether or not they help Blacks. He concluded his letter by “demanding” that the Emory community respond to me, using “all of the instruments of reason and civil discourse—and no other means.”

    Can you please post his letter in full? I’d like to analyze the “because they punish Whites” portion. The morality of “uplift and advancement” is often portrayed in charitable terms, but we all know that the cost to Whites isn’t just considered incidental, but “a good thing”. I’m fascinated in how the sell the idea.

    Eradicating racism through punishing Whites for their unearned White privilege seems to be the formula. It starts with forcing Whites to admit their privilege, which is the first step toward surrendering privilege through embracing Diversity. Anti-racism is the religion, and the sacrament is hating ourselves for our blessings, and elevating blacks above us in atonement for our racist sins and shameful Jim Crow past. Cambria Will Not Yield calls it “negro-worship”.

    White privilege is the cause of black suffering. Just point the suffering, then point to Whites, and say “you did this!” What White at Emory would dare say, “No, I didn’t!” They might as way say, “I’m a Nazi who wants to kill six million Jews!” The response would be the same.

    When you hear about increased Diversity, i.e. reduced and diminishing Whiteness, mostly Whites always say “but I think that’s a good thing”. Their embrace of their own dispossession and genocide is the anthropological question of the 20th and 21st centuries.

    Was Chace ever taken to task for not “demanding” that the entire science budget at Emory would be dedicated to proving once and for all that Jensen was wrong?

    If you go to Emory today, you get the sense that Jensen is vindicated. You see very few blonde, blue eyed Whites, so few that they are a distinct minority. You see even fewer authentic Affirmative Action Diversity Sons of Obama. You mostly see high IQ Asians, all very aloof, with an even mix of Orientals and Indians. Smooth, shiny jet black hair and skin from yellow to dusky is the dominant norm. The other White girls are dark haired, very slutty looking, and distinctly Yankee. The White men look like the effeminized girly White boys that fill our TV commercials. Everyone avoids preppy attire for fear of “displaying too much unearned White privilege.” Blacks jockey for tenure by writing editorials in The Wheel complaining that not enough Whites know about “black suffering” and that Emory should institute mandatory Civil Rights and social justice classes.

    You occasionally see a White girl with her buck negro boyfriend, and groups of White men usually have a black Diversity mixed in to hold them accountable to their inner racists, but you never see the Orientals or Asians voluntarily socializing with the blacks.

    It’s always “not enough” with them. Even if you drag your White daughters to them with pleas that they forgive you for not having more White daughters to offer in sacrifice to their “vibrant and enriching Diversity Moloch,” the negroes will still torture and kill you for “taking too long to do the right thing”.

    You should have retorted to Chace that “isn’t it wholly repugnant and racist” that we allow special programs that send a message to blacks, and more horrifying, to Whites, that blacks can’t advance on their own capacities and on a basis of genetic equality with Whites? Doesn’t the very existence of Affirmative Action programs at Emory stereotype and racially profile blacks as having some inherent inferiority, even if it’s just cultural disinterest in books, that requires special treatment?

    I came to realize that an extremely nasty and highly motivated minority of faculty and students held the campus in the grip of fear. The purpose of my public humiliation was clear: It was a warning. Anyone who publicly acknowledged scientific facts or personal experiences about the reality of race could expect the same treatment.

    The openness of the Internet, the growing fear in the White community about the consequences of the Omama-Holder regime of hate-Whitey, the observable dispossession that is touching more White families, and the general offensiveness and repugnance of blacks, who we are told “enrich” our lives, are all combining to instigate a push back. Whites are becoming a little less fearful about speaking up. That trend will accelerate as our misery does to. Sadly, it’s not coming soon enough to help Mary Grabar, the Dissident Prof who exposes liberal dangers, keep her job in the enemy camp at Emory.

    Emory officials today are scared of another race story like yours, not because they are ideologically fearful of the debate, but because they are sick and tire of negro mau-mauing for more privileges, and they can’t say no to the foul negroes for fear of being called the R-word.

    They embraced integration, so let them suffer. You should push The Wheel to let the debate rage. Just relentlessly respond to articles like this, and they will eventually publish your comments in print.

    “Given the university’s location in Atlanta, a center of the civil rights movement, the Wheel has an obligation to track social justice issues at Emory, and indeed, citywide.”

    http://www.emorywheel.com/detail.php?n=30884

    “If I had a son, he’d look like Treyvon, the No_Limit_Nigga.”

    • Michael Polignano
      Posted April 4, 2012 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

      Here is Chace’s letter in full:

      http://www.students.emory.edu/WHEEL/Archive/00_Oct10/column1.html

      Thanks for making me aware of Mary Grabar, and the current Treyvon debate in the Wheel. I might just have to start weighing in on these matters as an Emory alumnus, since to appear in print you must have a connection to the school. I found that out when Jared Taylor wrote a letter to the editor responding to Chace, which the paper subsequently refused to print citing a “students/alum/faculty-only” policy.

  3. Michael Polignano
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

    I wanted to expose the “Year of Reconciliation” for the farce it was, and to show that political correctness prevents honest and rational discourse. I succeeded there, at least in planting seeds of doubt in people’s minds that I knew would sprout later the more America declined due to racial falsehoods being enshrined as unquestionable truth.

    The race/IQ issue, certainly at the time and perhaps still today, is the clearest example of the suppression of academic freedom. And very little of the scholarly research I investigated at the time dealt with Jewish/Black or Jewish/White differences in IQ, as opposed to a great deal of work available on the White/Black difference. I also was a newcomer to the Jewish Question myself, having only just been introduced to it a year earlier after reading Duke’s My Awakening

    My biggest mistake was in getting too intellectual, especially with the crowd I was speaking to. Their eyes glazed over as I attempted as best I could to explain my position. If I had to do it over again, knowing what I now know, I would have kept it simple and focused on a single consistent message. I would have developed some kind of rapport with the audience with a bit of humor, told them that what I really wanted was to disprove Jensen once and for all, and then publicly demanded Chace (who was present) to finally disprove Jensen once and for all by inviting him to attend the upcoming Reconciliation Symposium.

    • Morgan
      Posted April 4, 2012 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

      “My biggest mistake was in getting too intellectual, especially with the crowd I was speaking to. Their eyes glazed over as I attempted as best I could to explain my position.”

      All their positions are supported at an emotional level; or if there is any logic, it’s not the logic you and I have to labour under, but a self-referential system built into their ideology. From my experience, the more logically sound your position, the stronger their emotional reaction is to it. Put differently, the more rigorously argued and logically sound the more heretical it is to them.

    • San Fran Lofts
      Posted April 6, 2012 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

      “White men alone possess the intellectual and moral energy which creates that development of free government, industry, science, literature, and the arts, which we call civilization. Black men, can neither originate, maintain, nor comprehend civilization.”

      -Sidney George Fisher, Laws of Race, 1860

  4. Lily White
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

    Now that’s an idea we should use: “Jews are smarter than blacks”. Let the Jews explain how they aren’t. The them defend their Equality with the Negro based on race is just a construct and IQ tests are bias in favor of racist Whites, and race biology is a discredited pseudo science that brings back painful memories of the 19th Century quacks who said negroes have more in common with apes than with Anglo-Saxons.

    The Jews at the $PLC, ADL, AIPAC are genetically predisposed toward their higher IQs and superior work ethic than the blacks in the NAACP, DOJ, and Congressional Black Caucus.

  5. Geoff-UK
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

    Why would you attempt to help that portion of the population most likely to bite your hand for your trouble?

    Recognize the world the way it is, base your behavior upon that, but never, ever deviate from the Groupthink. It’s not going to help what’s approaching.

  6. brian
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    1st, hats off to you sir for your courage & integrity, & kudos to the thoughtful commentors above. & heck, the debate could even be framed as why is the hispanic/mestizo mean higher than the black mean, or why is the asian mean (wayyy) higher than the black mean, or why is the asian mean higher than the hispanic mean (or why is the japanese mean higher than the hmong mean)? it’s difficult to present such truths to an audience who doesn’t understand “g” & who doesn’t understand “overlapping normal distributions.” similarly, the typical audience wants to blame the allegedly poorer education of blacks, when the sad truth is education does not make people smarter (sad to the millions who somehow believe that school/education makes people smarter! the same millions who think all we must do is educate certain groups about STDs & their rates will go down, or educate them about eating right & they’re obesity level will go down, etc. Alas, education is wasted on 2-digit IQ types & school does not make people smarter than they’re pre-set to be)

  • 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