Print this post Print this post

A Party of our Own

titus2a4,182 words

Editor’s Note:

To continue Ted Sallis’ discussion of “democratic multiculturalism” (here and here) I am reprinting this 2003 essay by Michael Polignano, from his book Taking Our Own Side, which sets forth the idea and agenda of a party dedicated to pursuing white interests within a multicultural, multiracial society. 

This is not a White Nationalist party, since it does not aim at replacing the present system with an ethnostate. At the very least, it is a way of trolling the system until it reveals its true anti-white nature. It would also work as an agent of racial polarization. And if it were successful at preserving and enhancing white power within the present system, we might arrive at a point when the white ethnostate becomes a feasible goal, in which case the goal-posts could be moved.

Perhaps the biggest impediment to getting whites to adopt this sort of platform is the stubborn belief that we cannot pursue our own interests unless we represent everybody else’s too, as opposed to merely taking our own side in an ethnic struggle for power.

Part I

The majority of Americans are White.

The majority of White Americans do not support more immigration, especially non-White immigration, and they want our present immigration laws enforced. But still America is flooded by massive legal and illegal immigration.

The majority of White Americans do not believe in “Affirmative Action” and other programs that give education and employment to non-Whites at the expense of Whites. But such programs continue.

Why? Because neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are interested in protecting and advancing the interests of White Americans. Both parties instead cater to the ethnic special interests of Jews and non-Whites, forcing the White majority to foot the bill.

Democrats see a clear political advantage in such policies, since an overwhelming percentage of Jews and non-Whites vote for Democrats.

The Republicans, however, sacrifice White interests as a matter of sacred principle. The Republicans enjoy power only because of White voters, especially White male voters. But they bend over forwards and backwards to appeal to Jews and non-Whites who hardly ever vote for them anyway.

Not only do the major parties take the White majority for granted, they label Whites who object to their anti-White agenda and wish to protect White ethnic interests as “racists.” Yet when Jews and non-Whites pursue their ethnic interests openly, we’re told such pursuits are a blessing of “diversity,” America’s greatest strength (or so they say).

I am sure a substantial number of White people in the Republican Party are racially conscious to some extent. They occasionally even propose policies to advance White interests. But they feel they must cloak all such proposals in universalistic rhetoric.

Republicans oppose Affirmative Action not because it harms the interests of the White people who vote for them, but because of a rosy vision of an individualistic, “color-blind” meritocracy. And if they mention ethnic interests at all, it is only to lament how Affirmative Action leads people to discount the achievements of genuinely talented non-Whites.

Free-marketers defend freedom of association, but not because it would allow Whites to exclude non-Whites from their living and working spaces. Instead, they talk about the universal rights of all featherless bipeds. And when they mention ethnic interests at all, they argue that the market would work against racism, not for it.

It must be hard to fight for something that you are afraid to name, because all this clever, under-the-radar advocacy of White interests never really makes much headway. It does, however, keep racially conscious Whites voting for a party that continually betrays them. Maybe that’s all it is ever meant to do.

It is absurd that in a democratic republic no political party will openly fight for the interests of the majority.

It is amazing that no ambitious political leader has stepped forward to represent the majority.

That’s why it’s time to form a White People’s Party.

The sort of party I envision would have a single goal: to protect and advance the interests of Whites in today’s multicultural, anti-White America.

The White People’s Party would pursue White interests within the present multiparty political system and the framework of the US Constitution (including the constitutional procedures for amending it).

The White People’s Party would represent the interests and pursue the support of all White people. It would set aside issues that divide Whites while seeking to unite us around the most important issue of all: our survival. Unless our survival as a race is assured, none of the issues that divide us matter anyway.

By “White people,” we mean people of European descent. If there are any questions about particular individuals we could, as a rule of thumb, ask them to demonstrate their European ancestry for at least four generations back.

The White People’s Party would not accept the membership or support of Jews and non-Whites. We would not work for their interests, and we could not expect them to sincerely work for ours.

Here are some concrete suggested platform points for a White People’s Party:

  1. Abolish Affirmative Action and Racial Quotas: The WPP would end all racial quotas and preferences that give non-Whites educational and economic advantages at the expense of Whites.
  1. Protect Freedom of Association: The WPP would stand for absolute freedom of association and disassociation. It would therefore abolish all so-called “anti-discrimination” laws that force people to associate with people with whom they prefer not to associate and prevent them from forming exclusive voluntary associations. If Whites wish to live in all-White neighborhoods, patronize all-White businesses, and attend all-White churches and schools, they may do so.
  1. Preserve the White Majority: America grew to greatness because of an overwhelmingly White majority. But if present demographic trends continue, Whites will be a minority in America in less than 50 years. The WPP would, therefore, halt and then reverse the erosion of the White majority.
  1. End Non-White Immigration: The WPP would end non-White immigration completely, deport all illegal non-White immigrants, and then repatriate all non-White immigrants who have arrived since 1965, as well as their descendants. If it was possible to bring them here, it will be possible to send them back. 
  1. Pro-White Family Policies: The WPP would promote policies that encourage Whites to have larger families and make it possible to spend more time with their children. Conversely, the WPP would make sterilization, birth control, and abortion available to non-Whites free of charge. 
  1. Put American Economic Interests First: The WPP would put the economic interests of American citizens before the interests of international capital and multinational corporations. To this end, the WPP would greatly reduce income and capital gains taxes and replace the lost revenue with tariffs on imported manufactured goods. This would spur economic activity while protecting American workers. 
  1. An America-First Foreign Policy: The WPP would adopt a foreign policy that puts American interests first. Never again would American soldiers die for the interests of foreign peoples and multinational corporations. Currently the United States has deployed troops in more than 150 countries around the world. We have more troops guarding the border between North and South Korea than we do guarding our own border with Mexico. The WPP would bring these troops home. The US would no longer play the role of the world’s policeman. In particular, the US would no longer give aid to Israel, the greatest threat to world peace, but will instead adopt a neutral stance in the Middle East. To achieve a balance of military power, the US would sell arms to Israel’s neighbors. 
  1. End Foreign Influences: To prevent foreign subversion of the American government, no American would be permitted to hold dual citizenship status. White Americans who hold dual citizenship status would need to renounce the citizenship of their choice. Furthermore, since Jews are the most destructive agents of foreign influence in America today, all Jews would be stripped of American citizenship and encouraged to move to Israel. Finally, no foreign national would be allowed to work in or own industries that vitally affect the national interest, including politics, law, the military, medicine, the media, teaching, banking, investment, etc.
  1. Crack Down on Crime: Since non-Whites account for a disproportionate amount of violent crime and Jews account for a disproportionate amount of white-collar and vice-related crime, the WPP would mandate racial profiling as a tool for fighting crime. The WPP would also sterilize felons convicted of violent crimes. 
  1. Reform the Welfare State: A decent society provides a safety net for the unemployed, the disabled, and the elderly. Since productive people fund such programs, however, they should be reformed so as not to overly burden the productive. The WPP would also abolish all programs designed simply to redistribute income for the purpose of forced equality. The WPP would, furthermore, disqualify people from voting while on public assistance.
  1. Encourage Self-Employment: Self-employed people are freer to speak their minds and be active citizens. Therefore, the WPP would adopt policies to increase the number of self-employed people.
  1. Protect Freedom of Speech: The WPP would protect freedom of speech and thought by abolishing all so-called “hate crimes” laws, which seek to criminalize thought. The WPP would also break up mass media conglomerates that control and distort the free flow of information. 
  1. Reform Education: The WPP would end all forced school integration, which retards the education of White children by putting less-intelligent non-Whites in their classes. The WPP would also end all race-based college admissions policies and adopt a strict meritocracy. Furthermore, the WPP would require that all colleges and universities that receive federal funds and have endowments sufficient to cover the cost of education to abolish tuition and admit students purely on the basis of merit. The best universities in the country should educate the brightest, not the richest and best-connected. Finally, the WPP would, out of considerations of national security and competitiveness, severely curtail the policy of educating foreign nationals in American universities. 
  1. Insure Voter and Juror Quality: Stupid and ignorant voters lower the quality of public decision-making. Stupid and ignorant jurors cause miscarriages of justice. The WPP would, therefore, require that all prospective voters and jurors pass tests measuring their intelligence and education. 
  1. Gun Control: Whites are far more likely than non-Whites—particularly Blacks, Amerindians, and Mestizos—to use guns responsibly. Therefore, the WPP would ensure the freedom of Whites to own guns while restricting the freedom of non-Whites.

These are just suggestions, but they give some idea of the platform a White People’s Party would have. This platform is not consistently conservative, liberal, or libertarian. But it is consistently pro-White. The White People’s Party would be most accurately characterized as “populist,” but it is not for “the people” in general, only White people.

A political party is not something to be proposed lightly. There are many more issues to be discussed: How would such a party be organized? What would its electoral strategy be? What about “ideology”? How would a White People’s Party relate to other pro-White organizations? How would it handle political issues not directly relevant to White survival?

November 16, 2003

Part II

In the previous chapter, I proposed the formation of a White People’s Party to protect and advance the interests of Whites within the present political system. I also proposed some planks for a White People’s Party platform.

I received many letters responding to my proposal. All were friendly, most were supportive, and a few were critical. I wish to respond to some of those criticisms here.

The Ideology Question

As I see it, a White People’s Party should not be for liberalism, conservatism, socialism, capitalism, nationalism, libertarianism, environmentalism, or any other “ism.” It should only be for the interests of White people, and none of these ideologies are consistently pro-White.

Some think that a pro-White political party requires more than a platform of concrete proposals. They think that it requires its own ideology, a statement of general philosophical principles, an abstract worldview.

I find this idea quite seductive, because I am very interested in political ideologies. But in the end, I think it would be a mistake to base a White People’s Party on an abstract ideology. Instead, a White People’s Party should merely propose concrete measures that serve White interests and show how all the other parties betray them.

There are several reasons for this.

First, none of the major parties has an official ideology, and a political party that tries to sell a whole ideology would be regarded with suspicion by most Americans, who would see it as somehow “foreign.”

Second, it’s far easier to get people to accept the simple idea of protecting White interests than to accept an entire raft of ideological tenets.

Third, more people can agree on a concrete platform than on an abstract worldview. Just consider the different ideologies represented in the pro-White movement today. What little co-operation there is would disappear if all White Nationalists first had to be neo-Confederates, or Odinists, or National Socialists.

Fourth, the opponents of a White People’s Party would naturally prefer to steer political debate away from specific policies that affect the interests of White people. They would prefer to “refute” these policies by linking them in the public mind to unsavory personalities and ideas, and there is no reason to make their job easier.

Fifth, a White People’s Party whose only fixed principle is “to defend White interests in today’s America” could serve as a “Big Tent” for all manner of pro-White individuals and organizations. Currently, the pro-White movement consists of numerous groups and organizations espousing sharply contrasting ideological tenets. A White People’s Party that does not address deeper ideological or philosophical questions, but instead offers a concrete pro-White platform, would not seek to challenge or replace currently existing pro-White organizations, but it could provide a common ground for cooperative effort.

The Utopianism Question

Some of my critics seem to be utopians. Now, I find utopias seductive, particularly those of my critics. Utopias are seductive precisely because they are so different from present day reality. But they are problematic for the very same reason: It is hard to get there from here.

One of my critics, for instance, was dismayed that my suggested platform contained nothing about sending all non-Whites somewhere else. Another said that a political party was undesirable, because the whole democratic system is undesirable and should be replaced with some sort of aristocracy.

But in today’s world, these proposals are political non-starters, and if you are not willing to start with anything less, then there is no point to starting political activity at all. The only thing one can do is daydream about scenarios of economic collapse, race war, and violent revolution, for perhaps then such proposals would have a chance.

But I would like to do something in the meantime.

I think it is helpful to have a utopian vision of an ideal society. It can serve as a lodestar for navigating the stormy seas of politics. But when one decides not to sail by one’s lodestar, but instead to sail to it, then it becomes worse than useless; it becomes a danger and a distraction.

Human beings have very little power to control events. Thus I do not view political activity as utopia-building. Instead, its aim is to take steps, in the here and now, to stop the social trends that, in time, will destroy the White race and to set in motion new trends that will preserve it.

There is no way of predicting what form society will take after such policies are allowed to work for a couple of generations. But I am certain that measures that seem utopian today may well seem politically possible and desirable after 50 years of pro-White policies.

The important thing is to begin now, while there is still a White majority and while we still have the freedom to speak and organize. Groups calling for an overthrow of the Constitution have always been subject to government infiltration and persecution, and in the age of the PATRIOT Act, things will only get worse.

Thus it is imperative for Whites to pursue their collective interests within the present political system and constitutional framework. (Fortunately, the Constitution contains provisions for its amendment.) As long as the First Amendment still has weight in the legal system, we must do everything we can within the law to advance our interests.

Revolutionary measures are legitimate only when a system prohibits peaceful change.

The Jewish Question

My platform was criticized for being impractical and utopian for explicitly excluding Jews from the party and for advocating their removal from the United States. I hesitated some time over these proposals. But in the end, I decided that they are among the most fundamental practical proposals in the whole platform, fundamental because if these planks were removed, the whole party would be pointless.

The idea of admitting Jews to a party fighting against their interests is preposterous. Not that they wouldn’t join. Indeed, they would join in large numbers if allowed. They would donate large sums of money. They would use their skills as persuaders, schemers, and swindlers to make themselves indispensable. They would rise rapidly to leadership positions.

Then they would sabotage the whole thing.

Any organization that does not explicitly exclude Jews will end up being dominated and subverted by them. No sense letting them put their noses under the tent.

That is why Jews have to leave America. They dominate the leading institutions of our culture: the political parties, the news and entertainment media, the arts, the education system, banking and finance. And they subvert these institutions to pursue Jewish interests at the expense of White interests. They are not the sole cause of America’s problems, but they are a major cause, and there is no way to save this country without first taking them on.

I am not accusing Jews of “dual loyalties.” There is no such thing. Whenever the allegedly dual objects of loyalty conflict, one wins out in the end. Whenever Jewish and American interests conflict, Jews invariably choose Jewish interests, and White Americans are left paying the bill, often with their lives.

Jews don’t have dual loyalties, but they do have (officially or unofficially) “dual citizenships,” and they take full advantage of them to exploit their host countries for Jewish advantage. Now that Jews have their own state, it is time to end the charade that they can be loyal citizens of anything other than the Jewish collective. I would be the biggest Zionist in the world if Jews would actually go to Israel. But they won’t go as long as they can exploit dual citizenship status. A White People’s Party would end that status and send them slouching towards Bethlehem.

“You can’t win.”

In the long run, we’ll have to win. But in the short run, yes, a White People’s Party will suffer many electoral defeats. It is, however, a mistake to measure the success of a political party solely in terms of victories at the polls. A White People’s Party can do a great deal of good even if it never wins an election.

First of all, a White People’s Party will educate the public about how the system caters to Jews and non-Whites at the expense of the White majority.

Second, a White People’s party, by standing frankly and unapologetically for White interests, will encourage and embolden White resistance to the multicultural society.

Third, to sustain itself through many electoral defeats, a White People’s Party would have to become the nucleus for a new pro-White community. I caught a glimpse of such a community in September of 2001, when a generous friend made it possible for me to go to Paris to attend the Fête des Bleu-Blanc-Rouge, the annual rally of Jean-Marie Le Pen’s Front National. There I saw thousands of French people of all ages, regions, classes, and walks of life drawn together to celebrate and defend who they are. Such community-building activities are valuable even if a party never wins an election.

Fourth, a White People’s Party may not win an election, but it can cause the Republicans to lose them. In a close race, if a White People’s Party were to poll only one or two percent of the vote, it could defeat the Republicans. If the White People’s Party were simultaneously to field candidates in close congressional districts across the nation, it could decimate the Republicans’ congressional delegation. This would force the Republicans to cater to White voters in the next election cycle. If the Republicans fail to do so, the White People’s Party will continue to grow, eventually to the point where it can win elections outright. Either way, Whites will benefit.

Regarding election strategies, I think that a White People’s Party should begin by focusing on effecting change on the local and state level, trying to bypass the national government as much as possible. It seems to me, for instance, far more likely that a White People’s Party could amend the Constitution through the state legislatures than through Congress.

“You can’t avoid divisiveness.”

I think that a White People’s Party should adopt the strategy of shelving all political issues that divide Whites to pursue the most important issue of all: our survival.

But if party members are elected, they will be called upon to vote on many issues where Whites are divided. Would a White People’s Party simply abstain from most political debates? Surely the voters would quickly find that intolerable. But the party could not allow its representative simply to vote their consciences either. It would have to take stands on divisive questions. Do we support limited government or pro-White social services? Do we support the environment if doing so conflicts with White workers’ interests?

I think that this is an excellent objection, and I am not sure how to answer it. As I see it, the goal of a White People’s party is not to answer or obviate all the political questions that divide Whites. Instead, it is to create a society in which all the political controversies that divide us remain live issues. It is just that the debates will be between Whites about what is best for Whites. If we could just bring that to pass, it would be progress enough for me.

“You’ll be smeared as Nazis or Klansmen.”

The party I propose would not be affiliated with any other pro-White group, including National Socialist and Klan groups. We would neither endorse nor condemn such groups, and we would gladly accept their support, as we would gladly accept the support of all pro-White individuals and organizations.

It is hard enough to persuade people that the White race is in danger and that Whites must rally to protect themselves. It would be harder still to combat more than a century of lies about the Civil War and Reconstruction, and more than half a century of lies about the Third Reich and World War II. Fortunately, it is not necessary.

But we’ll still be smeared as Nazis and Klansmen. Our enemies will call us every name in the book. But, unlike conservative and libertarian cowards, we’ll make no special effort to avoid or refute such smears. Such efforts are pointless, because our enemies will not be concerned with justice or accuracy. Besides, those who hesitate to defend ideas merely because they are shared by unfashionable individuals clearly lack courage and conviction.

Our standard response to all attempts to discredit us in the public mind by linking us to Nazis, the KKK, and other demonized groups would be: “To the extent that Nazis and Klansmen support our pro-White agenda, that is to their credit.” We will never apologize for pursuing what is right and good.

“You’ll be smeared as racists.”

Of course we will. We are racists. But we do not regard this as a smear, but as a badge of honor. Race is real. Different races are genetically capable of different ways of life, just as different breeds of dog are genetically capable of different ways of life. American civilization cannot be maintained by replacing Whites with non-Whites anymore than poodles can replace sheepdogs and chihuahuas can replace sled dogs. Racism is an objective and enlightened viewpoint, and we will not apologize for it.

“You’ll be smeared as White Supremacists.”

Again, this is no smear, but a badge of honor. America ruled by and for Whites was a great nation. America ruled by and for Jews and non-Whites is a nation in decline. A White People’s Party will restore American greatness by restoring, perfecting, and perpetuating White supremacy.

“But what about the non-Whites?”

I was genuinely surprised to receive this question. In my eyes, there is no honor and no credit in concerning oneself with the interests of other races. They can look out for themselves. The White People’s Party is not interested in non-Whites and Jews. They have the Democratic party, the Republican party, the Libertarian party, the Reform party, and every other institution in our society looking out for their interests. We are interested only in looking out for White people. That’s the whole point.

November 23, 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.

10 Comments

  1. Phil
    Posted January 31, 2015 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    We have one already. It’s called the American Freedom Party. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with it, and it has Kevin MacDonald and other non-insane people as members. Not to discount your idea, but we don’t need new people creating new parties every other week as seems to happen in the U.K. We have one, lets work with it. Join the American Freedom Party right now.

    • Sandy
      Posted January 31, 2015 at 10:49 pm | Permalink

      I agree. Take for example, the church. First it divides into Orthodox and Catholic. Next it divides into Catholic and Protestant. The Protestant churches have since divided into so many denominations that each man will soon be his own church. The weakened Catholic church is now a loyal servant of the money power – or something, anything but Jesus Christ.

    • Michael Polignano
      Posted February 6, 2015 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

      As I recall, the AFP’s candidate for President, Merlin Miller, was criticized for attacking White Nationalists. The sort of party I envisioned would be explicitly pro-White, and its leaders wouldn’t worry about being labeled as “racists.”

      • Michael Polignano
        Posted February 6, 2015 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

        A potential party would also need to explicitly mention the demographic threat of Whites becoming a minority in their own country, and support measures to halt any further reduction of our percentage of the American population. Saying we are for “the American people” is too broad.

  2. Franklin Ryckaert
    Posted January 30, 2015 at 5:35 am | Permalink

    What if such a party is simply declared “illegal” because it is “racist”? All the media and most politicians would agree ( and a lot of the White public too ) and when it would be brought before the Supreme Court what do you think will be decided? Expect something like : “racism” is a crime, a “racist” party is a criminal organization and thus should be forbidden. Though I agree with your program, I think an American UKIP approach has more chance.

  3. White Rose
    Posted January 29, 2015 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

    This proposed platform makes copious amounts of sense and reason, and, therefore, I despair of it ever coming to fruition. Setting aside my cynicism for anything that would do great good for Whites actually being embraced by Whites, I would love nothing more than to have a party of our own.

    I think there is also merit in looking at how we can move forward and attack anti-White policies on a “plank” level, even if we don’t yet have a full political body. For example, HUD is working night and day to destroy White neighborhoods and only White neighborhoods. Communities that have been “enriched” by HUD need to organize to sue for damages for decreased property values, increases in crime, and the marked lowering of the quality of life for the afflicted residents. We are blessed, in our White Privilege, to have no shortage of anti-White policies from which to choose.

    Lastly, I recently heard an interview with a party called the American Freedom Party, http://american3rdposition.com/?page_id=9184, which has some interesting ideas.

  4. Occidental Composer
    Posted January 29, 2015 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

    “The idea of admitting Jews to a party fighting against their interests is preposterous. Not that they wouldn’t join. Indeed, they would join in large numbers if allowed. They would donate large sums of money. They would use their skills as persuaders, schemers, and swindlers to make themselves indispensable. They would rise rapidly to leadership positions.

    Then they would sabotage the whole thing.

    Any organization that does not explicitly exclude Jews will end up being dominated and subverted by them. No sense letting them put their noses under the tent.”

    Agreed. But there are certain scholars in the Radical Right (I won’t name names) that would disagree with you.

    They seem to think that the jews are their ‘carte blanche’ for the present political system.

    What an illusion…What an incredible illusion – the jews have not changed.

    And since I agree with you on the jewish question, I’ll look forward to buying your book because I’m now more interested in reading it from cover to cover.

    Thanks for posting this Dr. Johnson.

    • bruce jewett
      Posted January 30, 2015 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

      Jew should not be able to join …they can’t be trusted

  5. Occidental Composer
    Posted January 29, 2015 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

    Like Leon, I’m wondering the same thing too…

  6. Leon
    Posted January 29, 2015 at 8:34 am | Permalink

    A political party divorced of ideology seems like a novel idea. I wonder if there are any precedents?

    Kindle Subscription
  • EXSURGO Apparel

    Our Titles

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    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

    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

    Tyr, Vol. 4

    Reuben

    The Node

    Axe

    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

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    The Fourth Political Theory

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Metaphysics of War

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Shock of History

    The Prison Notes

    Sex and Deviance

    Standardbearers

    On the Brink of the Abyss

    Beyond Human Rights

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    Archeofuturism

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Tyr

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Revolution from Above