Print this post Print this post

Too Much Putin?

putin3,012 words

US hegemony may be approaching its end. Once the world refuses to acknowledge the imperial authority of its humanitarian missiles, and thus stops paying tribute to its predatory model of the universe (as momentarily occurred in Syria), then American power inevitably starts to decline – and not simply on the world stage, but also domestically, among the empire’s subjects, who in the course of the long descent will be forced to discover new ways to assert themselves.


Historically, America’s counter-civilizational system was an offshoot of the Second World War, specifically the US conquest of Europe — which made America, Inc. (Organized Jewry/Wall Street/the military-industrial complex) the key-holder not solely to the New Deal/War Deal’s Washingtonian Leviathan, but to its new world order: an updated successor to Disraeli’s money-making empire, upon which the sun never set.[1]

The prevailing race-mixing, nation-destroying globalization of the last two and a half decades, with its cosmopolitan fixation on money and commerce and its non-stop miscegenating brainwashing, is, as such, preeminently a product of this postwar system that emerged from the destruction of Central Europe and from America’s Jewish/capitalist-inspired extirpation of its European Christian roots.[2]

The fate of white America, it follows, is closely linked to the “order” the United States imposed on the “Free World” after 1945 and on the rest of the world after 1989. This was especially evident in the recent resistance of the American “people” to Obama’s flirtation with World War III – a resistance obviously emboldened by the mounting international resistance to Washington’s imperial arrogance, as it (this resistance) momentarily converged with the worldwide Aurora Movements resisting the scorched-earth campaigns associated with US power.[3]


Everyone on our side recognizes the ethnocidal implications of America’s world order, but few, I suspect, understand its civilizational implications as well as Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

On September 19, barely a week after our brush with the Apocalypse, the Russian president delivered an address to the Valdai International Discussion Club (an international forum on Russia’s role in the world), which highlighted the extreme degree to which Putin’s vision of world order differs from that of Obama and the American establishment.[4] Indeed, Putin’s entire line of thought, in its grasp of the fundamental challenges of our age, is unlike anything to be found in the discourse of the Western political classes (though from the misleading reports in the MSM on his Valdai address this would never be known).[5]

Putin, to be sure, is no White Nationalist and thus no proponent of a racially-homogeneous ethnostate. This makes him like everyone else. Except Putin is not like everyone else, as we’ll see.

Certain East Europeans, instinctively anti-Russian, like our Cold War “conservatives,” refuse to appreciate Russia’s new international role because of historical grievances related to an earlier legacy of Tsarist or Soviet imperialism (though their grievances, they should know, bear little comparison to those “We Irish” hold against the English ruling class). In any case, such tribal grievances are not our concern, nor should they prevent the recognition that East Europeans and Russians, like Irish and English – and like all the national tribes belonging to that community of destiny distinct to the white man – share a common interest (a life-and-death interest) in being all prospective allies in the war against the globalist forces currently assaulting them in their native lands.

It’s not simply because Russia is anti-American that she is increasingly attractive to the conscious remnants of the European race in North America (though that might be reason enough). Rather it’s that Russia, in defying the globalist forces and reaffirming the primacy of her heritage and identity, stands today for principles that lend international legitimacy – and hence a modicum of power – to patriots everywhere resisting the enemies of their blood.


Qualitative differences of world-shaping consequence now clearly separate Russians and Americans on virtually every key issue of our age (more so than during the Cold War) – differences in my view that mark the divide between the forces of white preservation and those of white replacement, and, more generally, between the spirit of European man and the materialist, miscegenating depravity of the US system, which approaches the whole world as if it were a flawed and irredeemable version of itself.

In this sense, the decline of American global power and the rising credibility of Russia’s alternative model can only enhance the power of European Americans, increasing their capacity to remain true to their self-identity. US imperial decline might even eventually give them a chance to take back some of the power that decides who they are.

Putin’s discourse at the Valdai Club addressed issues (to paraphrase) related to the values underpinning Russia’s development, the global processes affecting Russian national identity, the kind of 21st-century world Russians want to see, and what they can contribute to this future.

His responses to these issues were historically momentous in being unlike anything in the West today. Cynics, of course, will dismiss his address as mere PR, though the Russian leader has a documented history of saying what he thinks – and thus ought not be judged like American politicians, who say only what’s on the teleprompter and then simply for the sake of spin and simulacra.

Foremost of Russia’s concerns, as Putin defined it in his address to the club’s plenary session, is “the problem of remaining Russian in a globalizing world hostile to national identity.” “For us (and I am talking about Russians and Russia), questions about who we are and who we want to be are increasingly prominent in our society.” In a word, Putin sees identitarianism as the central concern of Russia’s “state-civilization,” (something quite staggering when you consider that the very term [“identitarianism”] was hardly known outside France when I started translating it a decade ago). Identitarianism in the 21st century may even, as Putin implies, prove to be what nationalism and socialism were to the 20th century: the great alternative to liberal nihilism.

Like Bush, Clinton, or other US flim-flam artists, Obama could conceivably mouth a similar defense of national identity if the occasion demanded it, but never, not in a thousand years, could he share the sentiment motivating it, namely the sense that: “It is impossible to move forward without spiritual, cultural, and national self-determination. Without this we will not be able to withstand internal and external challenges, nor will we succeed in global competitions.”[6]

The operative term here is “spiritual, cultural and national self-determination” – not diversity, universalism, or some putative human right; not even money and missiles – for in Putin’s vision, Russia’s historical national, cultural, and spiritual identities are the alpha and omega of Russian policy. Without these identities and the spirit animating them, Russia would cease to be Russia; she would be nothing – except another clone of America’s supermarket culture. With her identity affirmed, as recent events suggest, Russia again becomes a great power in the world.

The question of self-determination is necessarily central to the anti-identitarianism of our global, boundary-destroying age. According to Putin, Russia’s national identity

is experiencing not only objective pressures stemming from globalisation, but also the consequences of the national catastrophes of the twentieth century, when we experienced the collapse of our state two different times [1917 and 1991]. The result was a devastating blow to our nation’s cultural and spiritual codes; we were faced with the disruption of traditions and the consonance of history, with the demoralisation of society, with a deficit of trust and responsibility. These are the root causes of many pressing problems we face.

Then, following the Soviet collapse of 1991, Putin says:

There was the illusion that a new national ideology, a development ideology [promoted by Wall Street and certain free-market economists with Jewish names], would simply appear by itself. The state, authorities, intellectual and political classes virtually rejected engaging in this work, all the more so since previous, semi-official ideology was hard to swallow. And in fact they were all simply afraid to even broach the subject. In addition, the lack of a national idea stemming from a national identity profited the quasi-colonial element of the elite – those determined to steal and remove capital, and who did not link their future to that of the country, the place where they earned their money.

Putin here has obviously drawn certain traditionalist conclusions from the failings of the former Communist experiment, as well as from capitalism’s present globalizing course.

A new national idea does not simply appear, nor does it develop according to market rules. A spontaneously constructed state and society does not work, and neither does mechanically copying other countries’ experiences. Such primitive borrowing and attempts to civilize Russia from abroad were not accepted by an absolute majority of our people. This is because the desire for independence and sovereignty in spiritual, ideological and foreign policy spheres is an integral part of our national character . . . [It’s an integral part of every true nation.]

The former Communist KGB officer (historical irony of historical ironies) stands here on the stump of that political/cultural resistance born in reaction to the French Revolution and its destruction of historical organisms.

In developing new strategies to preserve Russian identity in a rapidly changing world, Putin similarly rejects the tabula rasa contentions of the reigning liberalism, which holds that you can “flip or even kick the country’s future like a football, plunging into unbridled nihilism, consumerism, criticism of anything and everything . . .” [Like Burke, he in effect condemns the “junta of robbers” seeking to rip the traditional social fabric for the sake of short term profit, as these money-grubbers prepare the very revolution they dred.]

Programmatically, this means:

Russia’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity [against which America’s counter-civilizational system relentlessly schemes] are unconditional. These are red lines no one is allowed to cross. For all the differences in our views, debates about identity and about our national future are impossible unless their participants are patriotic.” [That is, only Russians, not Washington or New York, ought to have a say in determining who or what a Russian is.]

Self-criticism is necessary, but without a sense of self-worth, or love for our Fatherland, such criticism becomes humiliating and counterproductive. [These sorts of havoc-wreaking critiques are evident today in every Western land. Without loyalty to a heritage based on blood and spirit, Russians would be cast adrift in a historyless stream, like Americans and Europeans.] We must be proud of our history, and we have things to be proud of. Our entire, uncensored history must be a part of Russian identity. Without recognising this it is impossible to establish mutual trust and allow society to move forward. . .

The challenges to Russia’s identity, he specifies, are

linked to events taking place in the world [especially economic globalization and its accompanying destruction of traditional life]. Here there are both foreign policy and moral aspects. We can see how many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute the basis of Western civilisation. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities: national, cultural, religious, and even sexual. They are implementing policies that equate large families with same-sex partnerships, belief in God with the belief in Satan.

The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote paedophilia. People in many European countries are embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations. Holidays are abolished or even called something different; their essence is hidden away, as is their moral foundation. And people [i.e., the Americans and their vassals] are aggressively trying to export this model all over the world. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis. [Hence, the US-sponsored desecrations of Pussy Riot.]

What else but the loss of the ability to self-reproduce could act as the greatest testimony of the moral crisis facing a human society? Today almost all developed nations [infected with the system’s counter-civilizational ethos] are no longer able to reproduce themselves, even with the help of migration. Without the values embedded in Christianity and other world religions, without the standards of morality that have taken shape over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity. We consider it natural and right to defend these values. One must respect every minority’s right to be different, but the rights of the majority must not be put into question.

Tolerant and pluralist though he is here, Putin nevertheless affirms the primacy of Russia herself. Our politicians get this 100 percent wrong, Putin only 50 percent – which puts him at the head of the class.

At the same time we see attempts to somehow revive a standardized [i.e., Americanized] model of a unipolar world and to blur the institutions of international law and national sovereignty. Such a unipolar, standardised world does not require sovereign states; it requires vassals. In a historical sense this amounts to a rejection of one’s own identity, of the God-given diversity of the world.

Russia agrees with those who believe that key decisions should be worked out on a collective basis, rather than at the discretion of and in the interests of certain countries or groups of countries. Russia believes that international law, not the right of the strong, must apply. And we believe that every country, every nation is not exceptional [as the Americans think they are], but unique, original, and benefits from equal rights, including the right to independently choose their own development path . . .

This is our conceptual outlook, and it follows from our own historical destiny and Russia’s role in global politics. [Instead, then, of succumbing to America’s suburban consumer culture and its larger dictates, Russia seeks to preserve her own identity and independence.]

Our present position has deep historical roots. Russia itself has evolved on the basis of diversity, harmony and balance, and brings such a balance to the international stage.

The grandeur of Putin’s assertion here has to be savored: against the latest marketing or policy scheme the US tries to impose on Russia, he advances his queen, pointing to a thousand years of Russian history, as he disperses America’s corrupting ploys with a dismissive smirk.

Though seeing Russia as a multiethnic/multi-confessional state that has historically recognized the rights of minorities, he insists she must remain Russian:

Russia – as philosopher Konstantin Leontyev vividly put it – has always evolved in ‘blossoming complexity’ as a state-civilisation, reinforced by the Russian people, Russian language, Russian culture, Russian Orthodox Church and the country’s other traditional religions. It is precisely the state-civilisation model that has shaped our state polity . . .

Thus it is that Russians, among other things, “must restore the role of great Russian culture and literature. . . to serve as the foundation for people’s personal identity, the source of their uniqueness, and their basis for understanding the national idea. . .” Following Yeats, he might have added that the arts dream of “what is to come,” providing Russians new ways of realizing or re-inventing themselves.

I want to stress again that without focusing our efforts on people’s education and health, creating mutual responsibility between the authorities and each individual, and establishing trust within society, we will be losers in the competition of history. Russia’s citizens must feel that they are the responsible owners of their country, region, hometown, property, belongings and their lives. A citizen is someone who is capable of independently managing his or her own affairs . . .

Think of how the “democratic” powers of the Americanosphere now hound and persecute whoever insists on managing his own affairs: e.g., Greece’s Golden Dawn.

The years after 1991 are often referred to as the post-Soviet era. We have lived through and overcome that turbulent, dramatic period. Russia has passed through these trials and tribulations and is returning to herself, to her own history, just as she did at other points in its history. [This forward-looking orientation rooted in a filial loyalty to the Russian past makes Putin something of an archeofuturist.] After consolidating our national identity, strengthening our roots, and remaining open and receptive to the best ideas and practices of the East and the West, we must and will move forward.


As an ethnonationalist concerned with the preservation and renaissance of my own people, I hope Russia succeeds not only in defending her national identity (and ideally that of others), but in breaking America’s anti-identitarian grip on Europe, so as to insure the possibility of a future Euro-Russian imperium federating the closely related white, Christian peoples, whose lands stretch from the Atlantic to the Urals.

But even barring this, Russia’s resistance to the ethnocidal forces of the US global system, will continue to play a major role in enabling European Americans trapped in the belly of the beast to better defend their own blood and spirit.

And even if Europeans should persist in their servility and the United States continues to lead its “mother soil and father culture” into the abyss, Russians under Putin will at least retain some chance of remaining themselves – which is something no mainstream American or European politician seeks for his people.

If only for this reason, I think there can never be “too much Putin,” as our Russophobes fear.


1. Desmond Fennell, Uncertain Dawn: Hiroshima and the Beginning of Post-Western Civilization (Dublin: Sanas, 1996); Julius Evola, “Disraeli the Jew and the Empire of the Shopkeepers” (1940),

2. “Boreas Rising: White Nationalism and the Geopolitics of the Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis” (2005).

3. “Against the Armies of the Night: The Aurora Movements” (2010).

4. President of Russia, “Address to the Valdai International Discussion Club” September 19, 2013. (I have made several grammatical and stylistic changes to the translation.)

5. Much of my understanding of this comes from Dedefensa, “Poutine, la Russie et le sens de la crise” (September 23, 2013) at

6. Samuel P. Huntington was the last major representative of the US elite to uphold a view even vaguely affirmative of the nation’s historical culture – and he caught hell for it. See Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2005).


  1. Razvan
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

    Yes, it will never be enough Putin. Especially if Fradkov is the next in line.
    I can’t wait that moment. What rhetorical device will you deploy to convince us how a jewish-russian patriot will save us all.

    You are trying to endorse an Empire because you dislike much more the other Empire.
    And because you dislike so much, all the other are not allowed to dislike as much as you.

    You dismiss everybody else by using ridiculous tags as “Russophobia”. Probably the jailed Russian nationalists are the biggest russophobes in your book.

    I don’t think that “I’ve got it harder than you” game is useful to anyone, so do not insult the memory of the millions of innocents slaughtered by your favorite empire in these parts of the world. You’ll also diminish and insult the Irish victims.

    “The change of the emperor, the joy of the fool.” Or happy wishful thinking.

    • Lew
      Posted October 7, 2013 at 8:00 pm | Permalink

      The head of Russian intelligence is a Jew? Give me a break. It would be helpful if the defenders of the multi-polar concept would address Putin’s whole record instead of bits and pieces out of context.

    • Walter
      Posted October 8, 2013 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

      Are you not recognizing the piquant nature of the Western Elite Policies of a rule against their own people? Nations and nationalities cannot be treated like imbeciles who have to be reformed according to some ideological committees’ precepts. That is what the Frankfurt School did, Jews who left Germany in 1933, setting up their pseudo-humanistic institute in New York, where they produced a constant supply of anti-German writings. They returned to Germany on the coat-tails of the invading Americans and set immediately in motion their agenda of “re-education” turning decent people in moral and human wrecks. The toxic legacy of the Frankfurt School is now basis of anti-white policies world-wide.
      Putin recognizes that a people has the will and the need to strife for its own destiny. That is how simple the world functions, but the incessant manipulation with “human rights”, “humanity”, “responsibility”, “morality” (you’ll find a few more of these notions) by the heirs of the Frankfurt propagandists is subverting this simple truth. Just as the Bolsheviks were trying the subversion of the world by dint of huge armies, followed by treating the dissenters as traitors, the “Democrats” are trying the same with alluring phrases and obvious hypocritical “values”. Manipulation seems to work better than firing squads-so far.
      Putin is surely not an ally, but he thinks in the same terms as normal people do, hence he is a man loyal to his own blood, worrying about the future and the fate of his own nation. Who of the Western little democrat despot kings is doing that?

  2. Lew
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    Putin appears to want civic nationalism for Russia.

    it is clearly impossible to identify oneself only through one’s ethnicity or religion in such a large nation with a multi-ethnic population. In order to maintain the nation’s unity, people must develop a civic identity on the basis of shared values, a patriotic consciousness, civic responsibility and solidarity, respect for the law, and a sense of responsibility for their homeland’s fate, without losing touch with their ethnic or religious roots.

  3. Just me
    Posted October 8, 2013 at 12:47 am | Permalink

    What is known FOR SURE is the establishment in Russia is NOT as 100% united as it seems. Western nationalists forget one thing: Putin has NOWHERE near the power in Russia the western media says he does. Half of the channels censor what he says, or attack him 24/7. There’s almost too much freedom of speech in Russia, on one hand there are conservative channels, on the other ultra-liberal, western-style gay-liberal channels like “Dozhd” tv. In general, there is a conception in Russia that says there is currently a battle going on in the Russian establishment between pro and anti western forces that will play out in the next 5-10 years. A prime example is how the government funds both “Echo of Moscow”, an ultra-liberal, Soros style staton, and Russia Today, a great source for independent information. On one hand great people like Maxim Shevhchenko and Alexander Dugin have influence in society, on the other absolute degenertates like Ksenia Sobchak or Filip Kirkorov have no less influence. What is not quite clear is only one thing: is Putin truely ours, a nationalist and Christian soldier, or is he simply fooling people like us (Dugin, Shevchenko) in Russia to garner support and stop any true movement.

  4. rhondda
    Posted October 8, 2013 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    Thanks Dr. O’Meara. I have admired Mr. Putin from afar for a while now. He certainly knows how to play on weakness. He took on the thugs, and I thought that was great, even if I had to try and decode the reports. ( I guess alot of the Russian thugs now live in Britain). His support of the Russian Orthodox church is admirable too. It survived communism which has got to mean something whereas in the west the church joins in in the destruction of traditions.
    Yes, we are in the belly of the beast. Russia does have a history and has survived ordeals, whereas America doesn’t even know what an ordeal is. Oh, correction. An ordeal for N. Americans is that one cannot get the new gadget when one wants it. ( I include Canada because we are becoming Americans even if we beat them in the war of 1812)

  5. Hank
    Posted October 8, 2013 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

    I think, in context, its simply impossible to know precisely what Putin has planned. His outward actions have supported, quite indirectly of course, the general desires of western White Nationalists.

    As “Just me” has opined, Putin is not some totalitarian with total control over the state. Russia’s elite is divided, and many of its most powerful see no gain in turning their backs on a global economic system that had profited them so greatly.

    Compared to the West, of course, where consensus is held on all major issues: “invade the world, invite the world,”

    Is Putin jailing Russian nationalists, not out of ideological hate of Russian nationalism itself, but out of simple self-preservation? His mass jailing of nationalists may just be a signal that he sees these movements as the most powerful and likely to grow in Russia’s coming future, and thus rightly a threat to his current political system.

    Or, could he be jailing our nationalist brethren for bargaining reasons? Mere placating for his Western-oriented elites by promising to suppress those who would separate Russia from the global world order.

  6. WotanJugend
    Posted October 9, 2013 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

    Although it is quite an elaborated analysis, you’ve missed a crucial passage from his speech –

    “nationalists must remember that Russia was formed specifically as a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional country from its very inception. Nationalists must remember that by calling into question our multi-ethnic character, and exploiting the issue of Russian, Tatar, Caucasian, Siberian or any other nationalism or separatism, means that we are starting to destroy our genetic code. In effect, we will begin to destroy ourselves.”

    Personally, I think that Putin’s model of “national identity” has much more in common with american concept of the melting pot than with what you call “identitarianism”.

    • Arindam
      Posted October 10, 2013 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

      I’d argue there’s a fundamental difference: the Russian multi-ethnic state seeks to maintain the different ethnic identities, whereas the American melting pot seeks to dissolve these identities into a single homogenous one. Thus, the typical descendant of a nineteenth century Chechen – despite all the turmoil of the twentieth century, remains a Chechen as well as a Russian, whereas the typical descendants of the German or Italian immigrants to the USA in the beginning of the last century are today…. merely Americans.

      • Razvan
        Posted October 11, 2013 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

        It never was a mere turmoil.
        The Germans or Italians went to US by their free will.

        The Chechen and a score of other peoples (mainly Europeans) were brought in the Russian Empire by force, corruption, treason, intrigue, and western blindness and lack of knowledge.

        Their “integration” meant deportation, confiscations, induced famine, forced Russification, forced conscriptions, and endless wars, wars meant only to exterminate the best men of the occupied peoples. And above all the horrible economic exploitation led by the jews – jewish tax collectors, jewish merchants, jewish teachers, jewish bureaucracy, with the help of the Russian Police and Army.

        This is why a Chechen remains a Chechen. Because he can not be a Russian and doesn’t want to be one. Under occupation, a Chechen will be a second class citizen in his own ancestral home.
        The Chechen elite (all the elites) were and still are bribed into submission by the Empire. (Even this model have issues; you can read Tolstoy’s “Hadji Murad” and compare it with the story of Djohar Dudaev

        The truth is that the cost of this Empire over the Russian people is also horrible. This is why a Russian wants to be Russian and not Rossianiy or whatever. Because the Russians suffered from their own elite allied with the jews, as every other people.

        Putin wants to maintain and enhance the system. Which of course means to destroy the nationalists from everywhere, while attracting the jewish wealth from US to Russia. Putin wants to take the place of US. As simple as that. A weak US government is everything he may wish.

        You will not get rid of devil, you’ll find his daddy. And an Empire is still an Empire – i.e. jews voting taxes and collecting them.

        This idea of a dual identity is a lie or a mental illness. You witnessed it in action in US. It was differently packed but practically the same. Why the mexicans remain mexicans, and they don’t give a dam on that dumb theory of Bush and Rowe? Putin makes the same mistakes, but he can be more brutal than Bush so he’s trying it. You’ll see it soon enough.

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