Print this post Print this post

A World European Congress?

3,539 words

europe-old-mapIn this essay I use terms which could cause confusion or disagreement: “The Left,” “the Right,” “European man,” etc. I do not want to argue about terms, but there are alternative ways of phrasing the terms and thereby promoting the argument I want to present. To keep the argument focused on the key message I shall keep to my terms, but you may have your own terms that would work equally as well. 

1. Introduction.

I have always thought that our cause needed an international body comparable in influence and prestige to the Socialist International; an organisation of the Left which gains financial and political support from Leftist parties currently in power around the world. The reason for this is as follows.

Our problem is a global one. No country on earth, or at least no European country, is secure and untouched from the destructive forces arrayed against us. We are all equally under attack and under pressure. This causes a further problem. The Left is international by its very nature, due to its being universalist. The Left is willfully blind to politically relevant differences of peoples and it has a vision of the future which necessarily leads to one world government and a homogeneous undifferentiated people, each individually replaceable by any other – thereby making easily them exploitable by international interests (business or otherwise).

The Right is not universalist, so it is harder for it to be truly international. Our aims are not simply universalistic, since our ambitions, unlike the Left, do not extend to all the human race, to the entire globe. We do not want a world government. Certainly not one conceived along the lines of the UN. Our aims do extend however so far as European man has extended. European man is not simply based in Europe, though historically, prior to colonization, that is where European man first arose and settled. We have a need for international co-operation on more than just an informal basis. As a people we are international, we need to start to show that to the world. We have common interests and a common enemy; to quote the famous Zionist, Theodor Herzl: “We are a people — the enemy forces us to be a people . . .” [“Wir sind ein Volk – der Feind macht uns ohne unseren Willen dazu…” Der Judenstaat].

So, let us look at a workable model.

The Socialist International

The Socialist International ( is a worldwide association of political parties which seek to establish what it calls democratic socialism. It consists of democratic socialist, social democratic, and labor political parties and other organizations. The Australian Labor Party is a member of this organisation, and the Labour Party of the UK is an Observer Party of it.

Although formed in 1951 as a successor to the Labour and Socialist International it has antecedents to the late 19th century. Initially dominated by parties from Western Europe, it has grown to include more than 160 member parties from more than 100 countries. Its members have governed in many countries, including most of Europe.

We have no parties in power that show an interest in something comparable for our side. So, let us look at a different model.

The Indigenous Model

Australia hosted the first World Indigenous Network (WIN) conference in Darwin last year, from Sunday 26 to Friday 31 May 2013. A glossy, well-publicized affair, it drew together 1,200 rangers and land and sea managers from across the globe for six days of discussion and information sharing. From its perspective the conference looks at “indigenous issues, industries and knowledges [sic].” A participant said that, “Not only are these types of gatherings timely as many governments look towards indigenous knowledges [sic] and practices as a way of reducing climate change and land degradation, they also have the power and potential to create significant global solidarity, growth, and change.” WIN joins a growing movement to address indigenous issues at a global, rather than just at a local level.

So where is our movement? We are being outpaced even by Aborigines.

Now, this Network and its cause are a current favorite of governments, and we cannot hope to be similarly funded, we need to look elsewhere again.

An Alternate Model

A suggested alternative is the idea of a congress for those of European descent modeled on the World Jewish Congress. After looking into the constitution and history of this entity, the model seems to be an apt one for various reasons. It would be a World European Congress, an international body of freely associated individuals and interested parties. But firstly, before delineated what that could be like, it is first necessary to detail the history and character of the World Jewish Congress.

2. History of the World Jewish Congress

I am going to go into a brief history of the World Jewish Congress now, to give you an idea of its scope, impact, and growth. (See And also it is a fascinating model about how to approach a solution which has (spectacularly) worked to our own, comparable problem. As there is not much written on this organisation (no US university has ever had a PhD thesis on this body, and there are very few available books published treating it), much of the following draws on information from their own website and from the Wikipedia article (

The World Jewish Congress (WJC) was founded in Geneva, Switzerland, in August 1936 as an international federation of Jewish communities and organisations. According to its mission statement, the World Jewish Congress’ main purpose is to act as “the diplomatic arm of the Jewish people.” Membership in the WJC is open to all representative Jewish groups or communities, irrespective of the social, political, or economic ideology of the community’s host country. The World Jewish Congress headquarters are in New York City, US, and the organisation maintains many international offices.

The last meeting of the Plenary Assembly, you may have seen in the news, was attended by over 600 delegates and observers from over 70 countries, and was held in Budapest, Hungary, in May 2013.

The WJC’s current policy priorities include combating anti-Semitism, especially the rise of neo-Nazi parties in Europe, providing political support for Israel, opposing the “Iranian threat,” and dealing with the legacy of the Holocaust, notably with respect to property restitution, reparation, and compensation for Holocaust survivors, as well as with Holocaust remembrance. One of the WJC’s major programs is concerned with the plight of Jewish refugees from Arab lands. The WJC is also involved in inter-faith dialogue with Christian and Muslim groups.

Since its foundation, it has been a permanent body with offices around the world. The main aims of the organisation originally were “to mobilize the Jewish people and the democratic forces against the Nazi onslaught,” to “fight for equal political and economic rights everywhere, and particularly for the Jewish minorities in Central and Eastern Europe,” to support the establishment of a “Jewish National Home in Palestine,” and to create “a worldwide Jewish representative body based on the concept of the unity of the Jewish people, democratically organized and able to act on matters of common concern.” Some of these aims have already been achieved.

The first impetus for the creation of the WJC came from the American Jewish Congress. In December 1917, the AJC adopted a resolution calling for the “convening of a World Jewish Congress,” “as soon as peace is declared among the warring nations” in Europe. Conferences took place in 1926 in London and in 1927 in Zurich, Switzerland. The latter was attended by 65 Jews from 13 countries, representing 43 Jewish organisations, though the main Jewish groups in Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, as well as the American Jewish Committee, declined the invitation to attend.

The First Preparatory World Jewish Conference was held in Geneva in August 1932. The purpose of the World Jewish Congress was stated as follows:

“It is to establish the permanent address of the Jewish people; amidst the fragmentation and atomization of Jewish life and of the Jewish community; it is to establish a real, legitimate, collective representation of Jewry which will be entitled to speak in the name of the 16 million Jews to the nations and governments of the world, as well as to the Jews themselves.”

The conference approved plans to set up the new organisation in 1934, with headquarters in New York and European offices in Berlin, Germany. In a manifesto, delegates called upon the Jewish people to unite as the only effective means of averting danger. The Jews, the declaration said, had to rely on their own power with the assistance of such enlightened sections of the world which had not yet been saturated with poisonous anti-Semitism. It added: “The World Jewish Congress does not aim at weakening any existing organisations, but rather to support and stimulate them.” The new organisation would be based on the “concept of the Jewish people as a national entity, and authorized and obligated to deal with all problems affecting Jewish life.”

In the summer of 1933, following the rise to power of Adolf Hitler and his NSDAP in Germany, American Jewish Congress President Bernard Deutsch called on US Jewish organisations to support the establishment of a World Jewish Congress “to prove the sincerity of their stand” in support of the Jews then in Germany.

After two more preparatory conferences in 1933 and 1934, the First Plenary Assembly, held in Geneva in August 1936, established the World Jewish Congress as a permanent and democratic organisation. Elections for delegates to that assembly had to be according to democratic principles (viz. secret, direct, and based on proportional representation). For example, the 52 American delegates were chosen at an Electoral Convention which met in Washington, DC, on 13/14 June 1936 and which was attended by 1,000 representatives from 99 communities in 32 US states.

The World Jewish Congress’s expressed goal was Jewish unity and the strengthening of Jewish political influence in order to assure the survival of the Jewish people, which involved the creation of a Jewish state. 230 delegates representing 32 countries gathered for the first WJC assembly.

In its fight against growing anti-Semitism in Europe, the WJC pursued a two-pronged approach: the political and legal sphere (mainly the lobbying of the League of Nations and public statements) on the one hand, and an attempt to organize a boycott of products from countries such as Nazi Germany on the other. Given the weakness of the League of Nations vis-à-vis Germany and the successful efforts by the Nazi regime to stave off an economic boycott of German products, neither track proved not very effective.

With the outbreak of World War II in September 1939, the WJC headquarters moved from Paris to Geneva to facilitate communications with Jewish communities in Europe. In the summer of 1940, by which time most of Europe had fallen under Nazi occupation, the World Jewish Congress’s headquarters were moved to New York to share office space with the American Jewish Congress, and a special WJC office was set up in London. The British Section of the WJC was tasked with acting as the European representative of the organisation.

After the war, the WJC took a leading role in rebuilding Jewish communities in Europe, pushed for indemnification and reparation claims against Germany, provided assistance to displaced persons and survivors of the Holocaust, and advocated for the punishment of Nazi leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The World Jewish Congress notably took part in the formulation of the principles governing the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal and furnished evidence against Nazi leaders to the US prosecutors. The WJC also supported the foundation of the United Nations Organisation in 1945. In 1947, the organisation became one of the first NGOs to be granted consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Although its principal purpose was to defend the rights of Jews in the Diaspora, the WJC always actively supported the aims of Zionism, i.e., the creation of a Jewish National Home in Palestine. The WJC, the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, the World Jewish Restitution Organisation, and the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims, founded in 1998, have secured payments for the victims and survivors of the Holocaust from Germany, Swiss banks, insurance companies, and other parties totaling $20 billion.

Coming from very little, it is an extremely powerful and wealthy organisation. We need to build something comparable. However, we are at the drawing board stage, and this is a work in progress which nonetheless will happen.

3. Comparison of Texts

The contemporary constitution of the WJC has a statement of aims which I have adapted for our purposes, which I will go through below. It would form the basis of our own World European Congress.

Now, when reading the Summary Statement one must keep in mind the following: the high sounding and outrageous rhetoric (if such it is), is the original, authentic voice of the claims of the Jewish people on their own behalf. This is what they lay claim to for themselves, as of right. Why should our claims be any less than their own? If you cringe at some of the claims, remember that the Jews do not cringe and would in fact severely reproach you, if not prosecute you, for denying those claims.

For the most part I have simply replaced the word “Jewish” with the word “European.”

Summary Statement

The main aims of the organisation are to mobilize the European people and their nations against the demographic onslaught, to fight for equal political and economic rights everywhere, and particularly for the European minorities in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and other former colonies of the European peoples, to support the establishment of European National Homes in Europe and elsewhere and to create a worldwide European representative body based on the concept of the unity of the European people, democratically organised and able to act on matters of common concern. Governments and international organisations need to provide adequate resources for the fight against hatred, notably by providing security to European communities and by improving education. Laws against racial dispossession and other forms of racism need to be adopted and enforced properly in every country: All forms and expressions of anti-white sentiment, multiculturalism, affirmative action, cultural relativism, xenophobia, and intolerance are unacceptable and have to be condemned, and the full force of the law needs to be applied to those who are a danger to democracy, liberty, and European communities. Marches by extremist, anti-White groups should be banned where national laws provide for such a possibility. Governments and political leaders should condemn such events and work together with local European communities.

Commentary on the Summary Statement.

In addition to changing “Jewish” to “European,” the term “Nazi” has simply been replaced by “demographic.”

Fighting to support European minorities: keep in mind that this will be an increasingly important one for our people, as London, I believe, is already over 50% non-European, and the entire USA is heading for this status in less than 30 years.

“Zion” has naturally been replaced by “Europe.”

Funding and education are the key: Jews are entrenched in education, and they receive money from the state. Notice that they claim this as of right — so should we.

Using the term “racism”: although this is a meaningless, empty term (less than 100 years old, and invented by Trotsky), if it is redefined to suit our purposes and interests I see no harm in using it. For example, multiculturalism and affirmative action can easily be made to fit under the term, as they violate basic reciprocal justice and are often motivated by ethnic animus. We should not be shamed by our enemies to use their terms against them, politically.

I thought I would excise the last two sentences, but as it is in the original, it shows that Jews say immediately after having said that they are all for democracy in fact that democracy stands or falls by their political objectives, that freedom of association should be banned if it is against their political objectives. I am in two minds whether to include this passage. Can we afford to be as brazen as the Jews? Freedom of Speech, Thought, and Association are ideas that arose solely from our European heritage and they are worth preserving. The fact of the matter is though that they are not preserved in contemporary Western societies – even in the US the Bill of Rights has come under increasing attack and compromise. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights lists freedom of speech as a fundamental human right, yet it is contradicted and undermined in most nations by hate speech legislation of one type or another and by later treaties and conventions by the UN itself.

Proposed Constitutional Aims and Purposes

Article 1. The World European Congress

a. The World European Congress is a voluntary association of representative European bodies, communities, and organisations throughout the world.

b. The World European Congress is politically non-partisan and represents the plurality of the European people.

c. The World European Congress does not wish to subvert the individual particularity of European peoples and European nation states, but rather our peoples and nation states collectively face international subversion which requires parallel organisation and opposition, and the recognition of a shared interest and cause.

Article 2. Mission Statement

a. The mission of the World European Congress is to foster the unity and represent the interests of the European people, and to ensure the continuity and development of its religious, spiritual, cultural, and social heritage. The World European Congress seeks, among other things:

    • to enhance solidarity among European communities throughout the world and, recognizing the centrality of Europe to contemporary European identity, to strengthen the bonds of European communities and Europeans in the Diaspora with Europe.
    • to secure the rights, status and interests of Europeans and European communities and to defend them wherever they are denied, violated or threatened;
    • to encourage and assist the creative development of European social, religious, and cultural life throughout the world, to support European education and the development of European values, and to ensure European continuity and the transmittal of European legacy from one generation to another;
    • to assist European communities in strengthening their European identities and in confronting problems in the political, legal, social, religious, cultural, or economic spheres;
    • to represent and act on behalf of Member Communities and the European people as a whole vis-à-vis governments, governmental authorities, international and intergovernmental organisations and authorities, non-governmental organisations, inter-faith groups, other faiths and civic bodies;
    • to preserve the memory of our Holocausts and of the millions of Europeans and countless European communities destroyed during the fraternal and foreign wars, and to advocate on behalf of their survivors and their families;[1]
    • to combat anti-white racism in all its manifestations and to raise the consciousness of the public at large to the dangers inherent in any incitement to religious, racial, or ethnic intolerance, oppression or persecution;
    • to foster, support and participate in inter-faith dialogue between Christian and pagan sects; and

b. The World European Congress will strive to co-operate with governments, nations, organisations, and individuals, to accomplish the above goals in the spirit of peace, freedom, equality, and justice.

Commentary on articles 1 and 2 of the World European Congress.

The first two sections of Article 1 only replace “Jewish” with “European,” otherwise they are identical to the original document of the WJC.

Article 1c is wholly my original contribution: to differentiate it from the EU, and to re-assure individual European nations that a supra-national, one-size-fits-all approach is not our aim.

Bullet-points 1–5 are virtually identical to the original WJC document.

Bullet point 6 deals with the Holocaust, and is one possible approach to the issue.

Bullet point 7 attempts a re-definition of terms to our own advantage.

Bullet point 8 addresses our own religious issues.

Article 2b is identical to the original WJC document (merely replacing WJC with our own Congress).

4. Can it be more than a Dream?

The proposed location would be Phuket, Thailand. Some questions may arise from this: Why Thailand, why not a European majority location? There are four strong reasons for this choice of location:

  1. Phuket Thailand is internationally central between all European inhabited continents.
  2. The costs are cheap in comparison to New York, London, Moscow, Sydney, and places within the countries of those cities.
  3. There is a large white presence at the location with tourists and expats from across the European world.
  4. As a non-white country it is politically free on these issues and has no “antifa” or state-funded mafia groups to cause disturbances.

In addition to all that, it is a beautiful and relaxing location with attractions beyond the conference itself.

Is it a case of the tail wagging the dog? To continue the analogy, the fact of the matter is: the dog is in peril, if the tail does not start wagging there will be neither dog nor tail.

Is this logistically possible? Yes. The aim could be for 100 people/groups, and 50 as the lowest possible viable number.


1. Def.: holocaust (“burnt [offering to god(s)] of the complete [animal]”) a Latinized Greek word for an ancient, ethnically diverse practice; a pagan and Biblical term for this type of sacrifice. Figurative holocausts are numerous among our peoples, the last century alone offering the following holocausts: WWI, the Russian Revolution, the Armenian Genocide, the Graeco-Turkish War, WWII, the Holodomor, Istanbul Riots, Detroit, American urban riots, and countless others in prior centuries.


This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , . Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. Greg Johnson
    Posted April 10, 2014 at 12:34 am | Permalink

    I think that this is a good idea, and if someone were to organize it, I would definitely try to attend.

  2. Gilles
    Posted April 10, 2014 at 5:54 am | Permalink

    Great idea. Even with a worst case scenario of being stuck in a Star Trek future, we can an at least maintain a historic enthused identity. But for the love of God, keep the word “white” in the background. It may be appropriate in some regions but the last thing this Council needs is “they look white to me” kind of characters involved.

    Oh and make sure to amp up the historical symbolism (medieval, renaissance, Victorian etc) so it looks back as much as it does forward. Another simple filter for infiltrators.

  3. katana
    Posted April 10, 2014 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    A World European Congress?
    John Gordon

    The proposed location would be Phuket, Thailand. …

    In addition to all that, it is a beautiful and relaxing location with attractions beyond the conference itself.

    Is it a case of the tail wagging the dog? To continue the analogy, the fact of the matter is: the dog is in peril, if the tail does not start wagging there will be neither dog nor tail.

    Is this logistically possible? Yes. The aim could be for 100 people/groups, and 50 as the lowest possible viable number.

    Nice idea but there is no need for it to get started with a physical meeting.

    Start with a website and work up from that. Once you have enough interested in a physical meeting then, only then, organize that.

  4. Catiline
    Posted April 10, 2014 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    Excellent idea. I am thinking along similar lines myself; toying with the idea of starting a non-profit that would advocate for closer and stronger political collaboration between Europe and Euro-Americans. I’ve worked out a very rough draft of practical proposals towards those ends. Nice to see others spontaneously arriving at similar conclusions.

  5. ewkeane
    Posted April 10, 2014 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

    I have it on good authority that the Thai people are partial to whites. The ones I know are nice. Here is a wiki bio on their king
    I like the idea of poking the chosenites in the eye by hyjacking their charter, and in this democratic global world, an idea that is timely indeed.

  6. Sandy
    Posted April 10, 2014 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

    After reading that I was inspired to burst out with a resounding chorus of “A Gordon for Me”

  7. Greg Johnson
    Posted April 10, 2014 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

    Some thoughts on how to organize this.

    1. Secure a location and a range of dates.

    2. Come up with a short list of star-quality speakers who will attract attendees. Try to find a political figure, an intellectual figure, and writer of the stature of Jean Raspail. If you can secure three such speakers, and find dates when they can all attend, you will be able to attract other people to attend.

    3. It might be better to hold the first congress somewhere in Europe, even though it would be a long hike for people in Australia and New Zealand. Why? (1) Because Europe is our homeland, and (2) Europe is where the most action is, so you should make it easy for delegates from European nationalist movements to attend if you want a large turnout for the first event, which would give it psychological momentum from the start. After one or two successful events in Europe, you could consider locations in North America and the antipodes. I have no objection, in principle, to holding such an event in a non-white country, but it would be best to have it in a white homeland. For a first congress, I would suggest Budapest, which is in central Europe and not as expensive as most Western European cities.

    4. I would open the event not just to delegates from different movements, but also to people who wish simply to pay to attend the lectures and gatherings. I would, however, try to be selective about such people. In general, I think that the event should be by invitation only and not widely advertised and publicized.

    5. The document you have outlined should not be open to debate, or the event will collapse into quibbling. Engrave it on stone tablets and only allow attendance from those who are willing to endorse the congress and its aims.

    6. Exclude Jews, who may be in Europe but can never be of Europe. Besides, they have the World Jewish Congress.

    7. For seed money, you should find a few financial backers who agree with the project as stated. People with money are used to getting their way. Thus you cannot allow your project to be deflected or corrupted by donors who suddenly wish to change things. Once the project shows some promise, donors will appear and they will generally be more tractable. Wine them, dine them, thank them profusely, listen to their suggestions, but learn to say no if they propose anything that would alter the course and meaning of the congress. If you say no early and often, you will have to say it less in the future, and you will enjoy steady financial support.

  8. Jaego
    Posted April 11, 2014 at 6:22 am | Permalink

    Somewhat on topic: anyone ever hear of this guy before? Seems like a quiet but historically important part of the opposition. A degenerate Euro-Asian Aristocrat who idolized the Jews.

    • Walter
      Posted April 11, 2014 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

      His book “Praktischer Idealismus” from 1923 describes the mongrelization of the world races as the goal for the future, excepting the Jews who are to rule as a new aristocracy over the mixed race, which is quick-witted, capable, depraved, unprincipled in Coudenhave-Kalergi’s expectation. Being deprived of all roots, a non-materialistic reason for living, deracinated, without bonds to anything, such a mass of people would be easily led by a determined, ruthless and infinitely selfish minority, which has kept its bloodline pure for many generations.
      Gerd Honsik wrote a book on him not long ago “Rassismus Legal”, which might be forbidden by now in the European countries.

  9. Andrew Hamilton
    Posted April 11, 2014 at 9:41 pm | Permalink

    Thinking big. I like it!

  10. Posted April 13, 2014 at 8:39 am | Permalink

    A world organisation is a great idea. The hitlerites ran WUNS successfully for decades. There are precedents such as the New European Order.

    On Kalergi, he was not so “quiet” and is acknowledged as the founder of the European Union. He was fumded by the Rothschilds and Warburgs in the USA, and his plan was derived from masonry . This is documented in my intro. to the Black House edition of Hilaire Belloc’s “Europe and the Faith.”

  11. Mimir's Well
    Posted April 13, 2014 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

    The formation of an umbrella organization along these lines has long been on my mind. As may be deduced from the above, from conception of the WJC to the present day, it’s been 80 years. Some might say we don’t have 80 years to inact the changes we need. Well, 80 years will pass no matter how we spend it. I believe that we are reaching a critical mass, so to speak, of quality leaders/writers/philosophers/etc. We need funding and we need an umbrella organization. A transparent, legally, financially, and structurally sound organization is something that I would support…

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted April 13, 2014 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

      I agree. We have enough time to do it right, and continuing to do the wrong thing — or nothing at all — will not save us anyway.

  12. R_Moreland
    Posted April 15, 2014 at 4:18 am | Permalink

    Excellent proposal. It has been one of the strengths of the left that they organize, and organize internationally. The right needs to do the same.

    Freedom of Speech, Thought, and Association are ideas that arose solely from our European heritage and they are worth preserving.

    There is a tactic in here. A World European Congress (WEC) would present itself as fighting for freedom against an increasingly repressive system. This would give it the moral highground as freedom fighters. And it throws the system on the defensive as being the side of repression.

    Look at how far the New Left got in the 1960s using “Free Speech” as a tactic.

    There is the old dilemma, though: if we are for freedom of speech, then can we deny it to our enemies? What if they use freedom to subvert a free society? My point would be that there is a social contract here, that one can only extend freedom of speech to those who respect other people’s freedom of speech. Obviously, the system and its minions have not respected this contract (hatespeech laws, banning dissenting books and authors, mob violence, shutting down opposition parties, proscribing scientific research on genetics, ad nauseam). Still, it’s something which needs to be resolved.

    There’s another front for freedom: gun rights. A WEC could promote an international Right to Bear Arms. I think we are all familiar with the NRA argument that an armed citizenry is a defense against tyranny (not to mention crime, rioting and one would think mass illegal migrations.). There’s also the practical end that gun rights would be useful in defense against the kind of mob violence that the multicult uses these decadent days. There might be a chance for an alliance with gun rights advocates globally. Perhaps a WEC could create a global movement for freedom?

    Anyway, please keep pushing a World European Congress.

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