Print this post Print this post

Why Romney Must Lose

2,589 words

Worse is not necessarily better. Obama’s re-election is a defeat for white advocates. A successful black President will restructure the entire country along anti-white lines. And despite all of this—Mitt Romney must lose. 

White advocates should understand at the beginning how desperately weak our position really is. We do not have the numbers to appeal to either major political party on a national scale. White Nationalists are also incredibly divided when it comes to political action—the price of being independent thinkers against the egalitarian ideology of the regime. We are perhaps the one constituency in the entire country that a politician can safely dismiss and even openly insult, saying “I do not want your support.”

Nonetheless, Gregory Hood’s first rule of White Nationalism remains true: the farther away a figure is from White Nationalism, the more likely White Nationalists are to sense sympathy or even quiet agreement. If one is so inclined, you can craft a semi-plausible case about how Romney is secretly on “our” side or how Barack Obama is at least “more independent of Israel.” That said, let’s not kid ourselves that we have any real impact on this election or a potential secret friend in the Oval Office. As a community, we are too divided, too marginalized, and simply don’t have the numbers. The only reason we should care about this election at all is because of the impact it will have on our own organizational efforts. The only question we need to ask is, “Is it good for white advocates?”

Let’s start with the idea that Obama’s re-election is actually an unqualified good thing for White Nationalism. It’s certainly true that Obama’s first term has been a bonanza for white racial awareness. Most observers conclude that “racism” is rising among American whites, or more accurately, whites are becoming increasingly impatient with liberal excuses for black dysfunction. The initial promise that Barack Obama would be a “post-racial” President that could unite the country has already collapsed in ruins. The Obama regime has created the rise of the implicitly white and tactically populist Tea Party Movement and fueled an increasing radicalization of American conservatives. It’s tempting to simply say that we want this process to continue and that we should favor Obama’s second term for tactical reasons. Worse is better, right?

However, there will be formidable costs. If Barack Obama is defeated, America’s first black President will go down as a failure, and there will be riots and disorder that will accelerate the fraying of this failed experiment we call the United States. If he is re-elected, barring some completely unforeseen disaster, he will go down as the liberal Reagan, a successful President who killed Bin Laden, passed his signature health care law, and pulled the country out of recession. Regardless of predictions that “the Collapse” is nigh, the economy is improving (albeit slowly), and there is no reason to doubt that this will continue in the short term. While Americans may find it difficult to adjust to the new normal of high unemployment, adjust they will, and Republicans will find it difficult to attack Obama’s record unless the country relapses into an actual recession.

Make no mistake—this is a defeat for whites, and will be interpreted as such. Even more than in 2008, blacks will see this on tribalist grounds as a triumph over their enemies. It opens the door for Obama to be introduced into the pantheon of great American Presidents like FDR or Lincoln, and the controlled media will do its best to create a mythology that will put Kennedy’s Camelot to shame. Psychologically, it will be sickening.

With these costs in mind, it would be more than justified for white advocates to compromise and vote Republican if there was even a chance to limit the damage. It’s easy to imagine hypothetical scenarios in which a Republican victory could fuel a renewed push towards a populist Right. Even anti-white mainstream political parties can inadvertently legitimize new viewpoints and fuel new political movements. This was the case following Republican presidential victories in the 1980s, when Pat Buchanan commented that “the largest vacuum in American politics is to the right of Ronald Reagan.”

One of the more divisive debates in the history of the white advocacy movement took place during the 1992 Republican primaries, which featured Pat Buchanan and David Duke as candidates. Representative Duke used the usual tactics of fringe candidates, trying to embarrass Buchanan into associating with him, leading to scenes where Pat Buchanan literally ran away so he wouldn’t be caught in a photograph. Obviously, to those opposed to white genocide, Pat Buchanan was acting like a coward.

That doesn’t matter. If Pat Buchanan had won the GOP nomination and the White House (without Perot running to screw over George H. W. Bush, he would have), it would have fueled a new surge in patriotic activism at a time when it could have made a difference. Buchananite officials would have taken key positions in the Party. Elected officials would be forced to attack free trade, immigration, and cultural Marxism out of party loyalty. Everyone would know what issues and impulses were behind his rise, and they would move to exploit them. Even though Buchanan’s policies were preferable to George H. W. Bush’s (or Bill Clinton’s), the more important effect is that it would have fueled further movement to the right. He wasn’t a safety valve—he was gasoline on a fire.

In contrast, what would Mitt Romney lead to? Even his supporters don’t really know what Mitt Romney believes about critical issues. He has run an oddly defensive campaign for a challenger, seemingly pinning all of his hopes on the poor economy. He has offered no positive vision for what he would do as President and has managed to antagonize the very white working-class voters in the Midwest (the Reagan Democrats) that would propel him to an easy victory.

The one constant of Mitt Romney’s political philosophy is the redistribution of wealth to the rich. His running mate’s brilliant idea is cutting Medicare payments that disproportionately benefit elderly whites—the one welfare program whites really benefit from. At a time when there is a real opening to mobilize against the parasitical bankers that have ripped apart the Western world, the Republican Party is offering us a parody of a vulture capitalist.

A Romney victory would be catastrophic on several fronts. Putting the equivalent of the Monopoly guy in the White House would be a massive shot in the arm to the Occupy movement and other elements of the activist Left. Leftists have done an excellent job of policing themselves to ensure that street opposition to the banks is monopolized by activists firmly committed to Left-wing social causes, open borders, and anti-white animus. While this has limited their appeal, with a corporate stooge in the White House they will be able to frame themselves as the populist alternative to a corrupt system. The result would be a re-energized Left, from the halls of Congress on down to the lowest antifa.

Romney’s policies, like those of George W. Bush, would actively punish and dispossess his own base. It’s not clear that Romney actually is the “lesser evil.” An emphasis on finance capital and an indifference to white workers would exacerbate the class divisions ripping apart American whites.

Romney’s swift adoption of the Chamber of Commerce position for unlimited cheap labor suggests that restrictionist Republicans would once again face the threat of national suicide at the hands of their own party. A Republican House is likely to dig in its heels against Obama’s plan to ram through amnesty. A President Romney would actually be more likely to win over Republican defectors to join with the Democrats to deliver the death blow to white America.

That said, let’s be honest—even if Obama is still the President, amnesty may be a fait accompli. There may be enough Newt Gingrichs and Jeb Bushes this time around to join the Democratic push for dispossessing the historic American nation. Amnesty will be the final nail in the coffin for any Republican presidential aspirations. It is critical that there is a black face on this action and that it is interpreted in racial terms as an aggressive act against “racist” whites. If Republicans do it, it will be simply be seen as a strategic mistake.

The most commonly advanced argument is the most unconvincing. After the fiasco of Chief Justice John Roberts, it should be embarrassing to suggest that whites should vote for Republicans in order to get “good judges.” While Republicans have to pick judges who carefully refrain from expressing themselves on anything and then read the tea leaves to hope they are conservative, Democrats casually nominate their “wise Latinas” and activists from the ACLU. Republican-nominated Justices like David Souter and Sandra Day O’Connor would carefully look for legal rationales to preserve programs like affirmative action, whereas Justices like Ginsburg and Sotomayor casually toss aside whatever stands in the way of their policy preferences. After a half century of catastrophic judicial activism starting with the Warren Court (Earl Warren being nominated by the Republican Dwight Eisenhower), we simply don’t have time for these games anymore.

Despite the claims of an “elected dictatorship,” the President does not have independent freedom of action on domestic policy. Foreign policy should be far more important in the choice of a President. Here, Romney is not even close to the lesser of two evils, but is far worse. A Romney Administration would mark the return of the neoconservatives who have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

The Obama Administration has overseen the transformation of the Middle East from generally pro-American (or at least easily bribed) autocrats into democratically elected paladins of the Muslim Brotherhood. Amazingly, Romney manages to simultaneously criticize the Obama Administration for allowing this process to occur while also saying he’s not moving fast enough. He condemns Egypt’s conquest by the Muslim Brotherhood but thinks we need to “do more” in Syria to achieve the same result.

Romney has also been boasting of his fealty to the Jewish state. A Romney presidency would accomplish the neat trick of increasing radicalization in the Muslim world, antagonizing Islamic populations through rampant interventionism and servility to Tel Aviv, and blowing American lives and treasure in adventures that make the country less secure. Once again, Americans will be sent to die for people who hate them. Romney would scoop out the worst filth of the Obama and Bush foreign policies, combine them, and unleash it on the world.

The worst part is that a President Romney would co-opt the frustrated patriotism of Middle Americans into supporting these pointless quagmires. With President Obama, there is at least an opening to argue that foreign interventionism is actually targeted against Middle America. The current cold war between the Navy SEALs and the Obama Administration is a key division white advocates would be wise to exploit. We want to encourage the idea of a Dolchstoß, a stab in the back of brave patriots by a civilian leadership that despises them. It also happens to be true.

However, with President Romney, Middle Americans would support these interventions and unleash another wave of pointless false patriotism. Worst of all, the primary target of a Romney Presidency would be Russia, our number one geopolitical foe. In its dying gasps, the might of the American Empire would be marshaled to destroy what little white anti-system resistance remains against the global order of liberal capitalism. Much like under George W. Bush, the Left would be free to exploit popular anger against wasteful foreign wars. Instead of a populist uprising against an exploitative anti-white system, we would see a rising Left mobilizing against the racist, patriarchal Empire of white supremacist religious extremist Mitt Romney.

This is the heart of the issue. If white advocates are to triumph, we have to become the popular opposition to the ruling system. It’s not just what policies are followed, it’s about how they are interpreted. If Romney is President, it once again forces the white advocacy community into a reactionary stance, defending the corrupt American ruling class and its financial masters against an anti-white Left with renewed revolutionary élan. Unlike a President Pat Buchanan, Mitt Romney would generate no momentum to the revolutionary Right. Instead, he would gradually retreat, apologetically, embarrassingly, on all of the issues that are important to us. His only strong stands would be in defense of his old colleagues at institutions like Bain Capital.

Emotionally, of course I want Romney to win. Of course it will be sickening to watch the celebrations on MSNBC or in the college towns around the country. The aforementioned costs are real. However, we must remember that the United States of America has already been lost. We can no longer afford to read into things what we wish to exist, rather than what actually is there.

Worse is not always better, but in this case it is. We have no alternative to offer anyone at this time. Our enemy is this system. Therefore, our best bet is for this system to be revealed for what it is—a parasitical institution dedicated to destroying white communities and degrading the best in humanity for the benefit of exploitative plutocrats and twisted culture distorters. A friendly white face doesn’t change anything.

Even if, under the most sympathetic reading, Mitt Romney does want to help, there is nothing in his career or life to suggest that he will actually do anything to actively oppose the Left-wing forces arrayed against him. When this system fails, we have to be sure it is identified with the right people and that the right people get the blame.

We have to delegitimize the regime, and most white people vote for the Republicans. Therefore, we want to encourage the idea President Obama’s government is an occupier. This is already happening. Birtherism is the desperate attempt of conservatives to believe in constitutionalism and Americanism without having to draw racial conclusions. Soon, even this thin reed will be taken away. If Obama is re-elected after months of a triumphant victory narrative among Republicans, many will believe that the election was stolen. Reports of bussed-in Somalis swinging the vote, corrupt political machines in major cities, and threats of black riots are all to the good. A situation in which Mitt Romney wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote would be even better.

White Americans need to understand that they can’t elect their way out of this crisis; that it is literally no longer possible. They need to understand that it is the System itself that is against them, and readings of the Constitution won’t save them.

This doesn’t mean Republicans are irrelevant. It doesn’t mean third parties are irrelevant. It doesn’t mean partisan democratic politics are irrelevant. They are all relevant insofar as they lead people to us. What it means is that we have to craft an independent force to save our race and advance our ideas and policies.

This election is not our fight. We have to engage in politics on our own terms. Even mainstreamers should dedicate their time and talents only to movements and figures that can lead to greater things, not sacrifice for people who will continuously retreat from the day they are elected.

No one else will do it. It will take everything we have to save ourselves. We shouldn’t dedicate anything we have, even our votes, to saving our enemies.



  1. Mark Robinson
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 3:29 am | Permalink

    Obama was made by the Chicago jewish elite, many pro-iraq war jews supported him:

    OBAMA AND THE JEWS: A look at why some Jews love him and some don’t trust him; and at the key role Chicago Jews played in getting him to where he is

    One longtime Jewish observer of the political scene, who did not want to be identified, said admiringly that “Jews made him. Wherever you look, there is a Jewish presence.”

  2. Ted
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 4:54 am | Permalink

    Another brilliant essay. In contrast to the self-absorbed, incoherent ramblings of other commentators, Hood concentrates on matters of grave importance and makes his points clearly and forcefully. Well done. Although I understand that Counter-Currents is primarily a metapolitical endeavor, political analyses such as these are all to the good.

    All the points I am in agreement with. The “white knight” syndrome that WNs have is laughable. First, it was Reagan as the “Great White Father” to deliver us from liberalism. Later, otherwise intelligent people raved about Putin and the “deep game” he’s playing. If by “deep game” you mean a geopolitical interest in a “strong Russia” independent of any concern for the actual ethnic make-up of said Russia, well, yes, but past readings of Vladdy as some sort of Russian ethnic nationalist, much less a racial nationalist, were ludicrous.

    Here’s the reality: Romney and the GOP care nothing for Whites except their votes. The GOP is about robber baron economic policies, coupled with fighting wars for Israel, with a few aracial “social issue” bones (“abortion,” “gay marriage”) thrown out to the evangelicals.
    The GOP has been laughing at the White middle class and White working class for decades (starting at least with Nixon’s promotion of affirmative action and busing, if not before, with Ike’s use of the National Guard to enforce desegregation). The GOP is anti-White. The Democrats are anti-White. Ron Paul cares only about “sound money for brown people.” Even ostensibly “pro-WN” third party candidates publicly denounce WN, as described by Matt Parrott several weeks ago. That’s the reality.

    How do we know when someone is “on our side?” When they publicly and explicitely say so. Anything else is just wishful thinking, and time is growing too short for fantasies about “secret supporters.”

  3. Vick
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 7:34 am | Permalink

    With respect, while Hood says that “worse is not necessarily better,” this article does in fact boil down to a “worse is better” argument.

    “Worse is better” arguments only work for people who have nothing to lose, or who don’t care if they lose what they have left. On the left, you see “worse is better” arguments among groups like the RCP who try to appeal to the non-white, dirt poor, borderline criminal underclass. This is the natural constituency of the “worse is better” argument. On the right, this argument possibly has some appeal to the white underclass.

    Middle class white folks and even lower middle class white folks will rightly reject “worse is better.” Anyone with anything to lose will reject this kind of thinking. This is the challenge of radical, non-mainstream politics – how to convince anyone to give you a second look when you have very little to offer them other than “you have lose everything you have before you have a chance of a better life.” Life is short, most people aren’t going to trust you to follow you down some convoluted, decades-long path to a future you can’t guarantee will happen.

    Long story short, if you’re wondering why more normal, well-adjusted white people aren’t rallying around the “worse is better” banner, it’s because no one with any sense of self-preservation rallies around such banners. Figure out who you are trying to reach, and then speak to them in a way that makes sense to them. “Worse is better” isn’t it. The proof is self-evident.

    White advocates can engage with mainstream politics, and can engage positively with their communities. Yes, it’s a challenge, but it’s a challenge that at least has the potential to bear fruit. Practical approaches to doing this should get at least as many column inches as yet another “worse is better” article.

    • Greg P.
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 6:20 pm | Permalink


      Long story short, if you’re wondering why more normal, well-adjusted white people aren’t rallying around the “worse is better” banner, it’s because no one with any sense of self-preservation rallies around such banners.

      That is true enough for the majority of whites, but Gregory Hood’s article is not intended for the white masses. It is intended for intelligent, racially conscious whites who are concerned about our race and stopping white genocide, not just their individual self-interest.

      So your argument is a classic case of mistaken audience. Counter-Currents is not intended for mass consumption.

      Figure out who you are trying to reach, and then speak to them in a way that makes sense to them.

      That’s what BUGS mantra approach is all about, reaching the racially unconscious/pre-conscious white masses. Actually, I take back the “masses” part. The majority of intelligent white people are affected by the same conditioning and group dynamics as everyone else, so the mantra approach works on them too.

      There is, of course, a good deal of overlap between these approaches, as there should be. An example being the importance of using and imposing pro-white terminology even in our more intellectual, metapolitical circles, and avoiding anti-white terms.

      It is very important to know your audience and know there are different approaches which are appropriate for them. Always ask yourself who the audience is before you blast another pro-white’s argument.

  4. Lew
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 10:23 am | Permalink

    Gregory Hood slams another homer. I’m glad to see your byline seeming to appear more frequently lately.

    You make an important distinction between policies and the narratives and interpretations around the policies. With Romney we will get the worst of all possible worlds: policies that are every bit as anti-White as Obama’s but that play to the left’s narrative.

    Regarding emotion, I too, despite arguing against Romney for almost two years, would love to see Obama thrown out on his ass. This election has given me a new appreciation of the power of emotion and irrationality over intellect and logic.

  5. Posted November 5, 2012 at 10:52 am | Permalink
  6. karsten
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 11:32 am | Permalink

    It’s certainly true that Obama’s first term has been a bonanza for white racial awareness. Most observers conclude that “racism” is rising among American whites, or more accurately, whites are becoming increasingly impatient with liberal excuses for black dysfunction… The Obama Regime has created the rise of the implicitly white and tactically populist Tea Party Movement and fueled an increasing radicalization of American conservatives.

    This is “certainly” true? Rather, this is certainly not true. Where is any shred of evidence that “Obama’s first term has been a bonanza for white racial awareness”? If only it had been! The Tea Party is not implicitly white. They have done nothing to advance white interests. Would that they had! Would that they would. Rather, they pose with black individuals and hold up signs saying, “Does this look racist?” They are just as afraid of being called “racist” as Republicans. I don’t see them embracing even a shred of WN.

    When “most observers conclude that ‘racism’ is rising among American whites,” (at least, most observers who are not WNs,) those observers are liberals who use such pronouncements to further SPLC funding and goals. Their claims of rising racism are mere tactics. At a time when any shred of so called “white power” (what little of it ever existed) is collapsing, it would be foolish to be deluded enough to find our enemies’ illusory and tactically constructed claims of rising white power to be assuaging. It’s like being in a terminal cancer ward and accepting, at face value, a snake-oil salesman’s claims that his placebo is “curing” you.

    If Obama’s victory would indeed spur any kind of rising white consciousness about whites, I would accept the premise of this piece. But I have yet to see any evidence that it would. Rather, I only see evidence that whites will blithely continue abetting their own destruction, as they have been doing. After all, the whites in South Africa were faced with far more obvious attacks on themselves, and they have never risen up, nor, alas, will they.

    Just think: in the 1990s, someone like Pat Buchanan, barely a WN if at all, could run for the Republican nomination and be competitive. Now he can barely retain a job in the media. Someone like him would never be allowed to run for any Republican office today.

    I despite Romney, but Obama’s victory will only embolden our enemies and make whites feel that much more powerless and cowardly.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

      Obama’s victory clearly has been racially polarizing, and the clearest evidence of that has been in relatively uncensored news commentary threads as well as personal communications from various people about their awakenings in the last four years.

      But not all polarization will bring whites our way. There has also been an increase in interracial sex and marriage in the last four years, which may be due to the fact that Obama’s presidency has broken down some inhibitions to race-mixing among weakly ethnocentric whites.

      Such people are lost to our race, but we already knew that we could not save all whites anyway.

      We have also lost white advocates who are easily demoralized. But easily demoralized people are not really an asset to a movement anyway.

      If we start making headway, some of these people will come back to us. But we will not make headway by worrying about them. We need to keep our eyes fixed on our long term goal of an ethnostate.

      Racial polarization, whatever the collateral damage, advances that goal.

      Worse is better for now.

      There is, however, no way to predict which candidate would pursue the worse policies. A war on Iran would be a very bad thing for America, which would be a good thing for White Nationalism world-wide.

      But one can’t base one’s preferences on such calculations. That’s being too clever by half.

      You don’t look at the individual politician. You look at the system that creates them. And they are products of the same anti-white system.

      For me, the only real issue is this. Given that both candidates will be equally anti-white, which candidate better makes clear the anti-white nature of the system? Obama, obviously. Let’s keep the black face on this anti-white monstrosity.

  7. karsten
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 11:41 am | Permalink

    In fact, I’m going to go a step further.

    If Romney wins, and his plutocratic policies alienate whites, that would/will be beneficial. That would create disillusionment which would further radicalize the Tea Party.

    Also, if Romeny wins, there will be black rioting, rioting that the media will not be able to ignore, as they ignore smaller-scale white crime. That has a change of somewhat igniting white consciousness, or at least creating further exasperation with blacks.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

      Blacks riot whether their team wins or loses. The only factor predictive of black rioting is a sufficient number of blacks without adult supervision.

  8. Jaego
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    My concern is the SCOTUS and who get to elect the next one. Another Obama term means another Liberal on the Court and then we really go down the toilet fast. Worst case scenario: the U.N ban on small arms is enacted and challenges to it are thrown out. But if America is already lost, then this might be all for the good since it will force a real fight while we still have the numbers to at least have a chance.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

      When you are playing against a crooked opponent, you don’t puzzle out different counter-moves and gambits and possible outcomes, you flip the table and start a new game. Anything less than that is cherishing a delusion of power and agency and the fundamental fairness of the system. That’s what all this talk about the Supreme Court, rioting blacks, war with Iran, etc. is rooted in. Time to wake up. Time to let go of America. Time to let go of the illusions. Time to let go of the past. Time to focus on the future, on building a future for our race.

      You’re in a sea of shit, and you are still worried about avoiding being flushed down the john?

      • Jaego
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

        Yes, you and the columnists here have helped me see that. But do you accept the full implications of all this? We approach the Jefferson’s Thirty Tree with this. There is no room for the glass implements here. No one negotiates with powerless people.

      • Jaego
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

        Correction: We approach Jefferson’s Thirsty Tree with this.

      • Stronza
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:44 pm | Permalink
  9. denikin
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    I disagree with this article. The Obamananza has done nothing to racialize Whites or wake them up in any way. I honestly doubt whether ANYTHING can wake American Whites up at this point. If Whites were even capable of regaining their racial consciousness it would have happened the moment they found out that the DNC elected a black as its presidential candidate. They would have asked themselves, “Why should a White majority country vote for a non-White?”

    A Romney victory, which is highly unlikely, would be a colossal smack in the face to ideas of diversity, multiculturalism, and egalitarianism. It would be the White guy defeating the black one. It’s a shallow image, but the masses adore shallow images. You have to remember that people prefer positive images to negative ones. Worse is NOT better. Better is better. Sleeping Whites won’t be racialized by defeat, they’ll be racialized by victory.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

      Your initial premise is false. I know people who have been awakened by Obama.

      Romney is not running on an anti-diversity and multiculturalism platform, so interpreting a Romney victory as such is just wishful thinking.

      • denikin
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

        “Romney is not running on an anti-diversity and multiculturalism platform, so interpreting a Romney victory as such is just wishful thinking.”

        It’s not about how we interpret it, it’s about how the masses interpret it. Whites will look at a rich, handsome, successful White man (even though he isn’t pro-White) being beaten by a black “community organizer” as proof positive that their time is truly up. For them that’ll be proof that history is on the side of the blacks, and that Whites need to lay down and die for the benefit of all humanity.

        The idea that Whites will become racialized by black rule is nonsense. If South African Whites didn’t get radicalized by thousands of brutal farm murders then what chance do American Whites have over here where things aren’t half as bad?

        If Obama wins the election, Whites won’t care. What’s done is done; Obama won fair and square. But if Romney wins, the left and their brown masses will chimp out big-time… and that MIGHT wake up some Whites and force them to see that the only reason why they hate Romney is because he’s White.

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted November 5, 2012 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

          Thinking the public will interpret a Romney victory as a repudiation of diversity is delusional as well.

          I am sorry to be so blunt, but I don’t believe you seriously believe this. These are just dishonest pro-Republican talking points crafted for WNs to scare us into electing Romney.

          If there are whites who are stupid enough to give up because of a second Obama win, we are well rid of them.

      • karsten
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

        Your initial premise is false. I know people who have been awakened by Obama.

        I believe you, but again, this is merely anecdotal. You may indeed know people who have been awakened by Obama, but far more people could have been cowed by Obama. I think the latter is likelier the case.

        A Romney victory, which is highly unlikely, would be a colossal smack in the face to ideas of diversity, multiculturalism, and egalitarianism. It would be the White guy defeating the black one. It’s a shallow image, but the masses adore shallow images. You have to remember that people prefer positive images to negative ones. Worse is NOT better. Better is better. Sleeping Whites won’t be racialized by defeat, they’ll be racialized by victory.

        I agree with this.

        I also completely recognize that Romney will be anti-white. Of course he will be. No one thinks otherwise. However, the argument above, about symbolism, is valid. Seeing a white man beat a black man — in fact, THE black man, the much-touted savior of the blacks — would be quietly emboldening to mainstream whites at the level that matters most, and the only level on which they can be touched: symbolism.

        It’s a narrative of victory, whereas otherwise, whites are only ever bombarded with narratives of defeat, vis-a-vis blacks (defeat at sports, defeat at sexuality, defeat at “coolness,” etc.).

        (Sorry for the double post. I messed up the formatting the first time.)

  10. Corey
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

    I didn’t need this article to oppose Romney. That was a given for someone like me. But I must say it’s disheartening that even within a movement that supposedly wants radical change, no one wants to do even a marginally radical thing. I seriously have to listen to people who think Romney is a good option, or that Obama will destroy everything. Neither are true, it’s merely emotion talking, and not even reasonable emotion. Screaming little girl emotion.

    Romney needs to lose, and he needs to lose badly. The typical White Republican voter needs to understand that his “feel good” politics are no longer an option. He can’t sit around dreaming about what he perceives as his empire, and his power. He will be forced to reflect on things. This is something he probably hasn’t done in his entire life. But he will, or his kind will die out.

  11. uh
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    The only piece about this farce one ought to read.

  12. Greg P.
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

    Another excellent article.

  13. Ted
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

    The typical White Republican voter needs to understand that his “feel good” politics are no longer an option.

    Exactly. Some people here don’t quite understand the cost of Romney getting a large share of White support, much less winning the election. People talk about “perceptions” – so here is another perception: that by voting for Romney, Whites tell the GOP, and the System in general, that they’ll tolerate being lied to, scammed, and being given no options over and over without end, as long as they can “vote for the lesser of two evils.”

    The GOP takes White voters for granted – “they have no where else to go.” The GOP says the following, in essence, to White voters every four years: “Yes, our candidate is an anti-White disaster, a minority-pandering, pro-Zionist Likudnik. Yes, he lied to you in the primaries (that’s expected, after all), yes he shifted Left for the general election, and, yes, if elected, he’ll break just about every “conservative” promise he made during the primaries. Yes, sure, if elected, he’ll open the immigration floodgates, go to war for Israel, champion “civil rights,” nominate moderates to the Supreme Court in the spirit of “bipartisan compromise,” give an illegal alien amnesty, do nothing about affirmative action, attack “White racism” while pandering to minority racial activists, give billions in foreign aid while Americans do without, etc etc without end. BUT – the Democratic candidate is ever so slightly worse – so you must vote for our guy.”

    No thank you. By falling for this scam, for the GOP hysteria, White voters never give the GOP any incentive to change. Why should they? Since White conservatives will vote for anyone who has an “R” next to their name, you’ll continue to get a stream of Bushes, McCains, and Romneys. You vote for them, legitimizing them, so you’ll get more of them.

    Imagine what would happen if a sizable portion of the White electorate stayed home, or voted some credible third party. Sure, Obama would win – he very likely will win anyway – but the message will be made loud and clear.

    If Whites vote for Romney and he wins, that reinforces the scam, and gives a “White mandate” for his anti-White liberalism. If Whites vote for Romney and he loses, that reinforces the idea that the Whites can be taken for granted, so the GOP must “reach out” to Hispanics. The ONLY way White interests will be even noticed is if Whites refuse to vote for an anti-White Republican over an anti-White Democrat.

  14. Andrew
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

    I would like to add my voice in agreement with Mr. Hood’s conclusion that Romney is the worse of the two evils. I really wish he was someone worthy of support. He is handsome, well-spoken, intelligent, is a good family man and is moral and principled in his private family life (in politics, maybe not so much). I love seeing his clan of handsome sons, lovely daughter-in-laws and blonde grandchildren, who seem happy, well-adjusted and successful. In the debates, I couldn’t help rooting for him, wanting my fellow European American to vanquish the negro, the representative of the “New America” that is displacing my kind and culture.

    But, sadly, while personally Romney has a lot to offer, as a political figure he is an epithet. I am not sure what epithet to use, actually, perhaps something along the lines of a shallow, two-faced, short-sighted deceiver and traitor might be a start. Maybe the epithet should be something vulgar and profane, as befits the execrable policies he would champion that would greatly harm the long-term welfare and survival of his kinfolk. In any case, Mr. Hood and others have laid out the case against Romney better than I can.

    About the “Worse is Better” argument, worse is not always better, but it is often better. Amnesty is obviously a very bad thing, and when it comes to the numbers of non-Whites coming in, then worse is worse. But for Nationalism to thrive here in the U.S., we do need the economic situation and standard of living to become worse, and in this case, worse is better. While personally this sucks, it is necessarily medicine that will be required to help awaken Whites. In the big scheme of things, America must fall to its knees before its traditional people can be saved.

  15. Roissy Hater
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

    Our main problem is not Zionist politics, its Zionist culture. People are bathed in Zionist electronic mind control from cradle to grave.

    Really, what symbolic difference does it make if Romney takes back the White House and your child is listening to Negro music, watching Negrophillic entertainment, and watching Negro-dominated sports all day?

    Not to mention being socially pressured to dress and talk like a Negro.

    Not to mention every other commercial showing interracial couples.

    • karsten
      Posted November 6, 2012 at 9:25 am | Permalink

      Now, with this, I somewhat agree. Not just “Negrophilic,” which is merely a subset of the problem, but a culture underpinned by cultural-Marxist brainwashing in general. If it’s not Negrophilic, it’s homophilic, or gynophilic, or semitophilic, or whatever group the enemies wish to use against traditional European culture and values.

      I would believe in the “worse is better” argument as a presage to “flipping the table and starting a new game” if there were any viable plan whatsoever for achieving victory in the latter manner. Until anyone indicates how the table can be flipped, I maintain that only a patient retaking of the culture can work.

      I think the absence of PATIENCE is the greatest weakness of WN. Our enemies realized that their attempt at flipping the table — traditional Marxist revolution — couldn’t work, therefore they employed an incrementalist strategy. Incrementalism worked for them all too dismally well. They had patience — and in fact, they didn’t even need THAT much patience, as it turned out. Their takeover happened within a few generations.

      I have yet to see a compelling case — or any case, for that matter — made that demonstrates that any approach other than cultural incrementalism is even possible, let alone superior.

      • Greg Johnson
        Posted November 6, 2012 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

        Flipping the table and starting a new game is not necessarily the same thing as a violent revolution TODAY, which would not work. As I see it, we are not going to see change toward the ethnostate in the short term, neither through moving the system incrementally in that direction (since IT WILL NOT GO in that direction) nor though revolution (since we do not have the means to bring that about or a population that is receptive to it or an opponent too weak to stop it).

        So how do we change the game? We withdraw and divest from the existing system, meaning we give up the idea that it can be salvaged. We let it go. Then we focus our energies on laying the metapolitical foundations for a new society. We build up our worldview; we build up our organizations; we build our community and networks; we aim for sustainable life styles that are maximally independent of the existing system; whenever we have a choice to strengthen the existing system or our own (e.g., whenever a swindler like Ron Paul comes knocking), we always take our own side and work toward the White Republic.

        Just because we have nothing invested in the system, does not imply that we would cease to critically engage the system, since that is one of the ways that we can break people away from it. Nor does it mean that some of our people cannot work as deep cover agents within the system (provided their loyalties really are clear).

        What is necessary, however, is that we cease to think of ourselves as citizens of the United States or Canada and instead come to think of ourselves as exiled citizens of the White Republic to come.

        We also have to give up the arrogance and delusional thinking of the “chess players: the people who believe that because they can run law practices or businesses, they can roll up their sleeves and game the existing system toward the ethnostate. These people always think they are just a few moves away from checkmating the black king.

        As America slips further away from us, their thinking becomes increasingly delusional. Much of it is premised on thinking that individuals and groups that explicitly despise and run away from us (Ron Paul, the Tea Party) are really secret sympathizers. The only pawns we have in this game are ourselves, and they are being moved by hands other than our own for aims other than our own. The sooner we get out, the better.

      • Roissy Hater
        Posted November 6, 2012 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

        Mr. Johnson, that is a very sound approach. The only option is to form a meta-political alternative with as many outsiders as possible. And wait for whatever is to come.

        We don’t have the numbers to act. As I have said before, even if we violently overthrew the U.S. government, the white masses, at this point, would probably prefer the Zionists, rather than ourselves (sadly).

        *One thing I hope continues to be addressed within this movement is the criminal history of our opponents, especially in the last century. We cannot ignore what our opponents are capable of, nor should we be ignorant of the fact that the modern world is not merely the random product of decline or inevitability.

        The white race is in serious trouble.

      • karsten
        Posted November 6, 2012 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

        From the above comment, action points numbered:

        1. we focus our energies on laying the metapolitical foundations for a new society
        2. we build up our worldview; we build up our organizations
        3. we build our community and networks
        4. we aim for sustainable life styles that are maximally independent of the existing system:

        Let’s consider these.

        I have nothing to say about 4, as it sounds a little vague to me, and to be honest, I don’t think it’s that important. Then again, given what happened in New York with just a little flooding, it has some practical value. I consider 4 a worthy goal that doesn’t particularly benefit white interests specifically but generally, the way that, say, eating well and getting exercise would help us.

        That leaves 1-3 as the important ones. Of those, 2 and 3 are self-explanatory, and can be accomplished by people who learn community organization skills and such. Worthy pursuits.

        But #1, ay, that’s the rub. “Laying the metapolitical foundations for a new society.” That really is everything, isn’t it?

        It invites the question, “How?”

        I think addressing that practical “How?” should be one of the prime topics of future essays on this site, mixed with the many excellent analytical essays.

        Dr. Kevin MacDonald pithily but accurately stated one very effective answer to “How”: “Get rich. Buy media.” But given that this is no more easily realizable for many of us than winning the lottery, I’d say that everyone should, if they have any creative inclinations whatsoever, go into the media field, whether in screenwriting, TV writing, documentary filmmaking, or — an interesting new possibility — video-game creation.

        Learning these disciplines takes patience and time. It’s a whole new skill set, little akin to writing essays or even novels. There are a lot of books to read and a lot of trail and error to go through. Plus, obviously there are the predictable ideological hurdles to jump. But as the cases of Mel Gibson and even Merlin Miller show, one can get somewhere.

        Ideally, we would create our own networks and studios and distribution system. Some wealthy Christians have had some real success in this regard with religious films, and of course, the Mormons have a dedicated film program of their own. But lacking those resources, at least we can get our people to learn the craft. Then, we would have members of our community with the ability to take the first steps toward laying metaphysical foundations.

  16. Posted November 5, 2012 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

    Snout Smack (the most powerful blog in the world) Endorsed Obama for the reasons you cited:

  17. Sandy
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

    Your middle name must be Machiavelli, Mr Hood!

  18. fnn
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 8:48 pm | Permalink

    CofCC used to have a radio show on a station in St. Louis owned by a Jewish gentleman (now deceased) who was unusually kind and tolerant and genuinely believed in free speech. I was listening to the show online right after the 2004 election. Incredibly, both CofCC co-hosts were ecstatic that W had won and really seemed to think it presaged a return to something like the 1950s. Well, I think we all can agree that it would have been very hard for Kerry to have been a worse president for whites than W was.

    I think the best outcome would be for Romney to win the popular vote by two million or more and still lose the EC. I’m sick of hearing dull-witted “conservatives” say that the Electoral College is some sort of essential bulwark for “the preservation of our constitutional republic.”

  19. guiscard
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

    The only reason to disagree with ‘worse is better’ is because you are concerned with your personal well being. ie. it might buy a few more years before the deluge or it’ll make you feel better that a white guy won. Objectively speaking, the white soul is flat-lining right now!

    Any white politician should be thrown into the fire until they speak directly to the issues. No wink wink, code style controlled-opposition like Patty or Ron Paul. Just the Byzantine solution for the J-question and ethnic/cultural separation for ‘everyone’s’ benefit.

    Anyway, perhaps the issue should also be ‘What is better for the young generation of white males?’ With Obama socialism, they can at least stay alive and hopefully become aware. With Vulture-Cap Romney, they’ll be suicided for new Wars or be left to starve in the streets.

    • Vick
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 10:45 pm | Permalink

      With respect, you’re missing the main reason why most white people (and why most people in general) tend not to buy into “worse is better” arguments. They have kids. No parent in their right mind hopes that things will be worse for their kids than they were for themselves. The only sort of parent who does buy into “worse is better” are parents who genuinely have nothing in the present. For them, things can’t get much worse for their kids. Thus, they’re willing to bank on a “collapse” of some sort.

      You can see plenty of examples of this in third world Marxist national liberation struggles of the cold war era i.e. Maoist-style rebel “base areas” populated by dirt poor peasant families and villages and so on. “Worse is better” only makes sense to this kind of audience. This is certainly not the white middle class in the US circa 2012.

      • guiscard
        Posted November 6, 2012 at 9:55 am | Permalink

        Oh I agree. Am just stating that from a meta perspective, in these situations ‘worse is better’. eg. The persecutions of Jews (real or otherwise) have become a good thing for them now. Or the persecution of Prots/Puritans became a good thing for the building of early USA.

        This again is the problem with having enemies who have long-range visions and group minds. ‘They WILL sacrifice their kids’.

  20. Junghans
    Posted November 6, 2012 at 1:07 am | Permalink

    What can be honestly said about Romney is that he is a self-serving SCALAWAG of the worst stripe. Like David Duke says, this is the ‘election from hell’, and there is no good outcome from this sordid dilemma. Come what may, racial and economic forces will rapidly alter the delusional wave length that ever credulous, make-believe, Anglo-White America has been riding for way too long. After foolishly putting an idiot named Bush, and then next, a Mulatto into the White House, the Amerikinder are now having buyer’s remorse again, and are tempted by a fresh, kosher vetted pale face. What can certainly be honestly said (a la Revilo Oliver), is that the willfully ignorant, politically immature White American “voters” are fated to learn the hard way about racial politics.

  21. phil white
    Posted November 6, 2012 at 8:37 am | Permalink

    Here in Jacksonville the whites formed long lines in early voting. Some of them seemed desperately grim. That may be due to their having a black mayor the last few years.
    The Rational Elites are saying that we need to vote third party because the Republicans won’t save us.
    But they also say Romney must win. Apparently in the rarified atmosphere of the cocktail party circuite RE’s like Buchanan inhabit there is insider knowledge of evils an Obama second term would unleash.
    The RE spokesman are saying if you are in a solidly red or blue state where the electoral issue is not in doubt you should vote third party to build up their name recognition and visibility.
    Apparently there is an RE consensus that is moving toward the idea of having a third party displace the Republicans. The RE’s are slow learners but as I’ve predicted they are getting there.
    However, as for some reason they think Obama is on the verge of establishing a Bolshevik dictatorship in the second term, they are also saying that whites in swing state should go ahead and vote for Romney. Their short-term plan is to avoid an Obama second term while still building visibility and recruitment for small third parties.
    I voted early for the Constitution Party here in Florida, but am now leaning to the idea that we should vote for Obama if we are in swing states.
    One of the goals of the RE’s is to avoid a bloody civil war. But in the process they are sabotaging the growth of white racial consciousness or at least our organization. In that sense they are just kicking the can down the road on the race issue and civil war.
    If whites are not allowed to organize racially by the RE’s, I think what will happen is civil war will be forced on the whites eventually any way, and at a time when we are a significantly smaller part of the population. This will make the civil war longer and bloodier for everyone.
    Also by that time third generation Mexican “Americans” will be much less willing to depart “their country” in the former U.S.A. where their grand parents are now buried. That also will guarantee a bloodier civil war, and possibly one in which American whites are defeated in their effort to take back the future of their founding fathers “posterity.”
    If you haven’t voted yet and are in a swing state, as of this morning I’d recommend you vote for Obama. Tomorrow I may well change my mind, I often do.
    But what we must do is talk to fence sitting whites in a calm way and build the ranks of white dissidents. And we must start coalescing into geographical communities.

    • Jaego
      Posted November 6, 2012 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

      I’m on the same page and I voted for Virgil Goode. I like what Mr Johnson said, but my question is whether the Elite will give us the kind of time that we need to lay those foundations. War might be forced on us and we may have no choice. And it will be mass confusion since alot of White Conservatives hate our guts but will be on the same side with us. The Elite know about the time factor and show every sign of haste now, barely bothering to cover their tracks anymore. Waiting may be fatal for us but so would premature action. Hopefully, real persecution if and when it comes, will forge us together and not apart. This may have to be the Foundation instead of decades of education and planning. In any case, we cannot act until we are more unified one way or another. And until then, we must try to keep our first and second ammendment rights.

    • Fourmyle of Ceres
      Posted November 6, 2012 at 8:39 pm | Permalink

      One of the critically important themes in Gregory’s excellent commentary is this: the white (small “w”) Republicans are trapped in two intellectual systems.

      First, they all suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. Ever think you’d see the day Utah sent a Black Female Republican to Congress? Look at the Tea Party people, desperate to prove they are not “racists.” Nothing we can imagine will get them to shift, absent the pain of many of their illusions being stripped from them, and a creative alternative offered that will actually work. THAT is why Harold Covington’s Northwest Republic is so important, first, as an Analytical Model to define issues in a more appropriate Light, and secondly, as a Creative Alternative they can use to begin to define their personal lives, and their personal values. Escaping the prison of Stockholm Syndrome requires fashioning a key made of the lightest, most intangible structure of all, Thought.

      Second, they conflate “conservative” with a mythical, 1950’s America type system, that is never coming back, failing to see that “conservative” is, in practice, simply a code word for “corporatism.” Their value to the corporation is zero. That, in good part, is why voting Republican – “conservative” – has been like pumping quarters into an empty Coke machine. The lights is on, the machine is cold, “I can hear something rattling around inside,” there MUST be a Coke in there for me!” But there isn’t. Forced equality in public education has made their children the uneducated Eloi, the prey of the Morlocks. Another Coke machine that does not work. Run that out for two or three generations, and you have a System that is incapable of further development in any meaningful term.

      The Northwest Republic remains our last, best hope.

      Period. Full stop.

      • karsten
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 8:42 am | Permalink

        The Northwest Republic remains our last, best hope.

        1. At least some people say “White Republic.” What in the world could possibly make the Northwest of the United States any more viable a location for such a republic than anywhere else?

        2. If this is our hope, how can it possibly be achieved? I mean in specific action steps that can happen in the real world.

      • Fourmyle of Ceres
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

        karsten in blockquote, cites in italics:

        The Northwest Republic remains our last, best hope.

        1. At least some people say “White Republic.” What in the world could possibly make the Northwest of the United States any more viable a location for such a republic than anywhere else?

        Mr. Covington has dealt with this issue in depth in numerous posts, especially on this website. In as few words as possible, the United States south of the boundary line of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo is now Mexican in all but name. Go West, and see what California has to ofer us, a state where those white people who can are fleeing for their lives. Literally. The Northwest is concentrated as the headquarters of The Opposition. The Northwest offers something, say, the northern Midwest doesn’t – a coastline. As well, it offers access to Canadian resources – various forms of energy, especially hydroelectric, and Canadian grains.

        2. If this is our hope, how can it possibly be achieved? I mean in specific action steps that can happen in the real world.

        See my comments in the thread. That is for openers – particularly the reference in the second post I made in that thread.

        The foundation begins by sending money to counter-currents, each and every month.

        The steps mentioned in the thread are easy to do. If you can’t do those, then you are reduced to the historic impotence of the self-identified White nationalist, waiting on the sidelines for the torchlight parades to begin…except they don’t. You could join with Whitaker’s BUGSTERS, and become skillful in using the Mantra, for example, and help to prepare the soil for the seed to take root in.

        Here is a useful thought exercise: write a diary entry of a day in your life fifty years from now; make it easy, twenty years from now. What is on the news, and what do you see from your bedroom window in the morning? Why is this so, and what could you have done, today, to make that better? What did you do the rest of the day, and why?

        We can do a lot, and are finally laying the effective foundation for doing so. Yet, we can not live your life for you. Look at the demographic projections for where you are twenty ears from now, and include an imploded economy, using Greece as an example. What would you do when you left the house in the morning? What does that house look like? Who is in it with you, if anyone? Why?

        Covington has filled in many of those blanks with examples, if assistance is needed. Here’s one: imagine you and your family are fleeing Chicago for your lives, with only the clothes on your back. How would you get from there to our Homeland, and what would you do when you got there?

        What excuses are you willing to make for your self-selected choice of ineffectiveness in the meanwhile? How will you explain them to your Posterity?

  22. BlackSun
    Posted November 6, 2012 at 8:39 am | Permalink

    James Kirkpatrick over at VDare has pointed out that “conservatism” is simply a way of harnessing white votes to a pro-corporate agenda that not only will do nothing to advance white interests, it is actively opposed to them. The Republicans could win this election easily if they appealed directly to working and middle class whites, but they don’t – not because they aren’t interested in winning the election (as some assume), but because doing so would run counter to the real interests they represent. As this article points out, Romney is one of the worst examples of corporatism in existence, despite the fact that has some personally appealing features, like his large family. I’d like to see Obama taken down as much as anyone else, but I have to agree that Romney would only energize the left and do nothing at all for white interests. Better we get an open opponent than a fake friend.

    • Roissy Hater
      Posted November 6, 2012 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

      “The Republicans could win this election easily if they appealed directly to working and middle class whites, but they don’t – not because they aren’t interested in winning the election (as some assume), but because doing so would run counter to the real interests they represent.”

      Yes, and what are those real interests?

      Many will argue that the corporations who control this country allow Mexicans in because it helps the economic productivity of the country, and thus the federal gov’t and banks get more income to comb. But does that make any sense?

      Let’s think about that again. If the white birth rate were booming (which is enormously influenced by social policy and corporate entertainment), won’t the economic production of the United States be substantially increased? Why don’t the bankers want a high white birth rate, if more white babies mean more economic productivity?

      There’s something else going on here. Social policy (determined by the Brookings Institute and other technocratic communist fronts) is planned out in detail, not by accident.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    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

    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


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace