Print this post Print this post

Evolution, Eugenics, & God’s Will

2,691 words

Michelangelo,_Creation_of_Adam_04This famous scene from the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel has recently been interpreted in a startling new way. After it was cleaned and restored, the original details were revealed. The vehicle in which God is traveling, along with God himself, all the angels, the sashes, etc., conform remarkably well to the structures of a human brain (turned sideways, facing Adam). 

It’s long been known that Michelangelo performed dissections so that he could fully understand the human body. Instead of the old interpretation of God giving life to Adam, it seems clear that Michelangelo’s intention was to portray God giving the highest form of intellect to Adam, a uniquely human gift which is the product of the human brain (Meshberger, 1990).


This illustration is helpful, but unfortunately the brain is reversed.

This painting provides a wonderful artistic illustration for the subject of this paper. If one understands the large genetic component to our very souls — not only our intelligence, but our honesty, our kindness, our courage, our creativity, and our unique personalities — then one can immediately grasp the potential of eugenics for evolving ourselves into better people, more fully in the image of God. Francis Galton envisioned eugenics as a large-scale humanitarian endeavor, firmly grounded in science, which also contained the seed of a new religion:

The chief result of these Inquiries has been to elicit the religious significance of the doctrine of evolution. It suggests an alteration in our mental attitude, and imposes a new moral duty. The new mental attitude is one of a greater sense of moral freedom, responsibility, and opportunity; the new duty which is supposed to be exercised concurrently with, and not in opposition to the old ones upon which the social fabric depends, is an endeavor to further evolution, especially that of the human race. Those who enjoy a sense of communion with God can dwell on the undoubted fact that there exists a solidarity between themselves and what surrounds them, through the endless reaction of physical laws among which the hereditary influences are to be included. They know that they are descended from an endless past, that they have a brotherhood with all that is, and have each his own share of responsibility in parentage of an endless future (Blacker, 1952).

Evolution is the Crown Jewel of Creation

Evolution by natural selection fashioned creatures with conscious awareness from one-celled animals over vast expanses of time. The consciousness of human beings has evolved to such a degree that we are able to love one another, to experience joy at the beauty of nature, to create, to explore, to struggle to comprehend the nature of God, and even to manifest glimmerings of divinity ourselves. If Creation can be said to have anything resembling a purpose or destiny in a spiritual sense, the evolution of conscious beings has got to be at the very heart of it. For this reason, evolution by natural selection can legitimately be regarded as the “crown jewel” of Creation.

And isn’t “the crown jewel of Creation” a far cry from how Darwin’s theory was first greeted by the public in the late 1800s?! Christianity’s vehement rejection of the theory of evolution was understandable since it contradicted a literal interpretation of the Bible. Although it was a painful process, fraught with bitterness, in the long run this conflict was healthy. Now we think of the story of Adam and Eve as an allegory, and a lovely one at that. We have sufficient understanding to welcome Darwin’s message because we recognize evolution as a vitally important key to life, to our consciousness, and ultimately to God.

All major religions say, in one way or another, that we are created in God’s image. In Genesis it is written, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Jesus said, “The Kingdom of God is within you.” An Indian proverb (East Indian) elegantly expresses a similar notion:

Divinity sleeps in stones,
breathes in plants,
dreams in animals,
and awakens in human beings.

Consider the fact that we were created in God’s image through the process of evolution — this can hardly be an insignificant fact. The creation story in the Bible may be lovely, but isn’t the way we actually evolved into ourselves more awesome and more overwhelmingly beautiful than God merely dictating by fiat the existence of the first man and woman? Science has established conclusively that evolution is true, and this is not in doubt. But perhaps evolution could also be said to surpass the story of the Garden of Eden as being more probably true purely on aesthetic grounds (just as in physics sometimes the more beautiful of two theories is given more credence).

Dysgenics: A Cosmic Sacrilege?

The process of evolution quite naturally evokes our deepest fascination and respect, but it is the product of evolution, our consciousness itself, which is precious — one might even say “divine.” Yet the shocking fact is that today, our evolution has shifted into reverse, and our precious consciousness — acquired at such an enormous cost in suffering and death, over so many millennia — is now deteriorating. Scientific studies have shown that we, as a species, are currently evolving to become less intelligent, more violent, less healthy, and more mentally disturbed (Van Court and Bean, 1985, Lynn and Van Court, 1996; Lynn 1995; Lynn, 1996; Comings, 1996). The word for this is “dysgenics,” which is the opposite of “eugenics.” Dysgenics means human genetic deterioration. It’s difficult to imagine worse news. If evolution by natural selection is the crown jewel of Creation — having produced human beings in the image of God — then dysgenics must constitute one cosmic sacrilege.

Un-natural Selection

How did dysgenics come about? Simple. By a process that might well be called “un-natural selection,” because it is a reversal of natural selection resulting from society’s corrupting influence. In a nutshell:

  1. Modern societies quite understandably take care of sickly people who previously would have died, but then these people go on to have children with a high incidence of the same illnesses, and
  2. although contraception is available to everyone, it’s more consistently and effectively used by all of the “best” and the most admirable people, i.e., the smartest, most responsible, hard-working people who make a positive contribution to the larger society.

A high percentage of the “worst” and least-admirable people either don’t know, or don’t care, that unprotected sex brings babies into the world, so they have sex with little or no thought of contraception. They include: psychopaths, sociopaths, criminals, psychologically disturbed people of all varieties, alcoholics, drug addicts, irresponsible, short-sighted, and selfish people, the mentally retarded, just-plain-dumb people, and people who are too lazy to take a trip to the corner drugstore. Because of their negligence, they contribute a disproportionate share of their least-admirable genes to future generations.

Professor Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster conducted a study in which he found that despite lengthy sojourns in prison, London criminals still managed to produce more children on average than ordinary, law-abiding citizens (Lynn, 1995). Lynn calculated the increase in crime that would be expected, given the degree to which criminal behavior is a function of heredity, and estimated the increase in crime which should result (other factors being equal) by the excess fertility of criminals. His excellent book, Dysgenics (reviewed here) is the most comprehensive and authoritative work on the issue of eugenics and dysgenics to date.

Instead of implementing a eugenics program of incentives and disincentives in order to rectify the problem of dysgenics, most governments are making it worse by subsidizing the reproduction of the least-productive segment of society, and taxing heavily the most productive segment.

Farmers and breeders have utilized the principle of “select the best” for their crops, livestock, and pets, and this has given us bountiful crops of every variety, high-yield milk cows, fast, beautiful, and gentle horses. Yet we take far less care when it comes to human beings, and in effect, we “select the worst.” It would be unconscionable to breed stupid, sickly, and vicious dogs — surely it’s at least as cruel to do this to human beings.


It’s not necessary, nor even possible, to do away with contraception entirely because the technologies and information for preventing conception are “out,” and only a severely repressive government could keep them from the people, and then only partially. However, we can reverse dysgenics and continue the process of improving the human species by implementing a eugenics program. We can once again evolve in a positive direction with self-directed evolution. From a spiritual point of view, when we take on the mantle of eugenics, we insure that our evolution will be guided more directly by God, who lives and breathes within us.

The word “eugenics” conjures up draconian images of Nazis and death camps, but even a cursory examination of the issues shows that this association is unwarranted. Eugenics has been practiced since ancient times, and in the 20th century Sweden had a eugenics program that lasted for 40 years (Broberg and Roll-Hansen, 1996). In fact, a total of 28 countries practiced eugenics in the 20th century, and one country, Germany, committed genocide, so despite Marxist propaganda to the contrary, it’s apparent that no causal association can be drawn between eugenics and mass murder. (For a more detailed discussion of these important issues, see the review of Dysgenics.)

Critics of eugenics often argue that we will never agree upon which traits we want, so therefore, the entire enterprise is hopeless. But this argument is utterly without merit. It’s perfectly predictable that we will choose health, beauty, intelligence, talent, courage, kindness, and honesty for our children because these are universally valued traits. All over the world parents value them today, just as parents valued them a hundred years ago, and a thousand years ago.

Is Dysgenics God’s Will? Three Fundamental Truths

Scientists entering the realm of theology for the first time suddenly find themselves on very shaky ground, indeed. How does one know this or that is true? Where’s the evidence? In this paper, I have assumed only that many readers believe in God. Now, given this assumption, at least it becomes possible to say, “If one accepts this statement about God, then such-and-such logically follows.”

Is the current genetic deterioration of the human species “God’s will?” I hope to address this question in a such a way that it will be applicable to Christians and devotees of other religions, as well as to most people who believe in God but don’t adhere to any particular religious creed. First I’ll state three fundamental truths about the nature of God upon which all major religions agree. Then I’ll attempt to draw inferences from them about dysgenics.

  1. God loves us. All major religions hold that this is so.
  2. God wants us to be kind to one another. Jesus said “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” The current Dalai Lama (spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists) says, “Be kind to one another.” Kindness to others is one of the most important — if not the most important — teaching of all religions.
  3. God has accorded human beings a special place in the animal kingdom, with a distinct destiny. All major religions believe that human beings are the pinnacle of God’s creation. In Genesis, God said, “[L]et [man] have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepith upon the earth.” In Hindu writings about reincarnation, people are considered the highest and most spiritually advanced creatures. No major religion teaches that we are indistinguishable from lower animals.

Now we get to the heart of the matter — namely, what inferences can we draw from these three fundamental truths? Is dysgenics God’s will? Is dysgenics contrary to God’s will? Or, is dysgenics simply irrelevant to God?

Let’s take the first statement, that God loves us. If God loves us, then he doesn’t want us to suffer unnecessarily. That certainly follows, doesn’t it? Dysgenics means that our children’s generation will be less well-endowed genetically than our generation is, and it’s inescapable that they will suffer as a result. To be sickly, to be retarded, to suffer psychiatric illness — these are all things we definitely do not want for our children, nor for anyone else we love. It hardly requires a giant leap of faith to conclude that if God loves us, he doesn’t want us to suffer needlessly.

With regard to the second point, that God wants us to be kind to one another — is it kind for us to leave the next generation genetically stupider, more sickly mentally and physically, and worse people morally? Inflicting pain and suffering on enormous numbers of innocent beings is hardly the definition of kindness. I challenge the reader: can you think of anything that is more cruel, on such a vast scale? Communism certainly comes to mind as a possible contender, but I would argue it ranks second to dysgenics. At any rate, we know what our health means to us — it means everything. And we know how much our intelligence means. Imagine what life would be like if you had been born mentally retarded — you wouldn’t even be you! These traits are profoundly important to everyone, past, present and future.

In addition to leaving our children’s generation a poorer genetic legacy, if we do nothing about dysgenics, we will also bequeath to them the same cultural taboo against eugenics which we have inherited — the taboo which has paralyzed the Western world for the past 50 years on the vitally important issue of our own biological evolution. Until dysgenics is reversed, each generation will become successively less and less capable of solving the problem of dysgenics — or any problem, for that matter.

Third, God has accorded human beings a special place in the animal kingdom, with a distinct destiny. Could our “distinct destiny” possibly be to evolve closer and closer in the image of God for hundreds of thousands of years — more intelligent, more loving and kind, healthier and more civilized — and then suddenly to reverse direction, to squander all the hard-won gains, and evolve backwards, less in the image of God, more like lower animals? How could this be God’s will? It’s inconceivable.

By examining three fundamental truths upon which all major religions agree, a very short and sure step of reasoning leads us, in each case, to the conclusion that dysgenics must be against God’s will.


Our biology and our spirituality are inextricably linked, and they evolve (or de-volve) hand in hand. From the standpoint of Christianity, it’s fascinating to realize that as we de-volve to become more criminal, more stupid, and more primitive, there will inevitably be (1) a large increase in the total amount of sin, and therefore (2) a higher percentage of people condemned to Hell! Amazing though it may seem, science has proven that Good and Evil have roots in biology, and we ignore this fact at our peril.

In conclusion, the most capable of our small, ape-like ancestors survived and reproduced in greater numbers so that our species gradually evolved larger brains, higher intelligence, and greater humanness, and the result of this extraordinary Creation is us. However, “we” aren’t the end of the story!! “Creation” is still in motion, and now we are participants in it, whether for good or for ill. We can, and we must, reverse the current process of dysgenics if we are to carry out God’s will, and if we feel any love or compassion for all those who come after us.


Blacker, C. P., 1952, Eugenics: Galton and After, Gerald Duckworth & Co, London

Broberg, Gunnar, & Nills Roll-Hansen, 1996, Eugenics and the Welfare State: Sterilization Policy in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland, Michigan University Press, East Lansing

Comings, David, 1996, The Gene Bomb, Hope Press, Duarte, CA Meshberger, Frank L., 1990, “An Interpretation of Michelangelo’s Creation of Adam Based on Neuroanatomy,” JAMA, Oct. 10, 1990, vol. 264, No. 14

Lynn, Richard, 1996, Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations, Praeger, Westport, Connecticut

Lynn, Richard, 1995, “Dysgenic fertility for crime,” Journal of Biosocial Science, 27, p. 405-408

Van Court, Marian, and Frank Bean, 1985, “Intelligence and Fertility in the United States: 1912-1982,” Intelligence, vol. 8, p. 23-32



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


  1. NND
    Posted July 18, 2014 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

    Excellent article. Thank you Marion for writing it, and also thank you Greg. Keep going this wonderful work of spreading the correct type of knowledge.

  2. Posted July 18, 2014 at 11:34 pm | Permalink

    I worked in the lemonade stand for the figure skating club today at a local art in the park show. This local woman who is pretty well known locally for being a makeup artist ( she does have a lovely head) is also a really friggin small dwarf. She is married to a pretty handsome tall guy who is over 6 feet. I knew that she had a dwarf baby with him but today I saw that these dumb fucks actually had a second child. Now what do you think the chances of that are? I cant believe that this guy would do that to his kids. I guess I might get the ” oh I fell in love with her” whatever bullshit, but why would you put your children through what must be a really difficult life? Not just being really fucking short but all the medical conditions and problems that come with it. You would think they would have done some genetic screening or had a surrogate or something. Also both of the kids are boys……WTF is all I can say.

    • Skinner Box Exile
      Posted July 20, 2014 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

      I have been thinking about your anecdote. I think the husband is suffering what I hypothesize as projected-pedophilia. It is close as he can come to having sex with a child without breaking the law. By the way, how are things going up there in the pacific northwest?

      • April
        Posted July 22, 2014 at 1:25 am | Permalink

        Things are going well. I have removed all my advertising since we are continuing to get refugees without it, people know about us and they continue to move here slowly but surely. Also without a public blog there is nowhere for the local media or “human rights” groups to direct their hate. Plus I like to keep them guessing. There is really no reason to let them know what we are up to. We continue to network and meet and greet and are pretty much enjoying life and our kids.

        • Skinnner Box Exile
          Posted July 24, 2014 at 9:27 am | Permalink

          That’s good! I would move up there if I was younger and I had a family. My belief is that young people starting out in life and with families should move up there. My goal is to live as long as I can and hopefully be able to sow mischief amongst our enemies.

  3. Sea Wolf
    Posted July 19, 2014 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

    Great article. I’m atheist (not to be confused with dumb white liberal cultural marxists) and I agree with the overall message and really enjoyed it.

    I kept thinking of this quote…

    “I believe in God, only I spell it Nature.” – Frank Lloyd

  4. rhondda
    Posted July 20, 2014 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    I would like a little more proof that all major religions believe the same thing. That is rather a huge conflation. To reduce religions to a few declarative sentences is truly the art of the scientist.
    To reduce great art to proof that god gave us an intellect is the most absurd thing I have ever read.
    It is not that I am against eugenics, but when scientists become preachers, we are in trouble, deep trouble.
    Actually the idea that we devolved is more interesting than the idea we evolved.

    • April
      Posted July 22, 2014 at 1:29 am | Permalink

      Why are we in trouble if scientists become preachers?

      How could they do any worse than the TV hucksters or the liberal suckups or the media or government preaching to us and telling us what to think and feel?

  5. Simon
    Posted July 24, 2014 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    I agree with the promotion of eugenics, but trying to tie it in with the concept of god, and especially christianity, is absolutely absurd. The desecration of the gene pool is just one testament out of thousands to the non-existence of a benevolent deity. Why would a loving god create bad genes, or why would he even create creatures as fragile as us to begin with? What is his motivation? He is either an underachiever, maniacally malevolent or non-existent.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted July 24, 2014 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

      You are overthinking and overeacting here. Millions of white people believe in the Biblical god. Do you think we are better off or worse off if some of them are persuaded that eugenics is not a bad thing?

      • Simon
        Posted July 24, 2014 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

        I could make the argument that anyone dumb enough to believe in god is unfit for reproduction, but maybe I would be setting the bar too high, considering the fact that we’re already a minority worldwide.

        It’s funny that white people cling to an utterly alien Abrahamic faith that has so blatantly been the destroyer, not the advancer, of their civilisation. Having a society that runs on Darwinian principals and at the same time has faith in a benevolent god would be an absurd paradox.

        • April
          Posted July 27, 2014 at 1:37 am | Permalink

          I’m with you man. I cannot even comprehend how people can believe that stuff. I have come to the conclusion though that maybe the brains of atheists and the brains of believers work differently. The concept of faith in something that they really have no proof of baffles me. But honestly I guess they need that and most White Christians are pretty decent people when it all boils down. Some of the biggest assholes I have ever met were atheists. Better to be an atheist in a Christian community than a Christian in an atheist community that’s for sure.

          It is funny to see sometimes how atheist racialists have to try to be “politically correct” even within the movement in order to prevent upsetting or offending Christians. I personally feel try not to offend but sometimes it just comes out and hopefully they understand I really dont want to change them as long as they realize I will never change either.

  6. David
    Posted July 24, 2014 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

    I’ve always interpreted the line from the Lord’s Prayer:

    “Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth, as it is in heaven. ….”

    ….to be a mandate for eugenics and immortality achieved via science and engineering. About a decade ago I got fairly heavily into studying the “singularity” concept. This essentially predicts that technology will accelerate such that by 2030 man will be immortal and self-aware computers are willing and able to do all of man’s manual work such that we live forever in a state of bliss. While many self-declared “geeks” called this trendy notion “rapture for the nerds”, I always just thought it would be the Rapture, period. That man had created Heaven, but that (somehow, some way) only true and moral people would profit from the Singularity. I thought this because creating the Singularity seemed precisely like what the Lord’s Prayer said to create.

    Anyway, the larger point I’m making is that Jesus commanded us to make Earth as Heaven is. And Heaven is not a dysgenic filthy pit full of IQ 85ers like Detroit is, nor is it a perverted and cluttered shopping mall artificially propped up by a police state, as New York City is.

  7. rhondda
    Posted July 24, 2014 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

    Are you starting a church Dr. Johnson? Americans are very good at that.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted July 24, 2014 at 9:51 pm | Permalink

      I’m afraid I am not cut out for that.

  8. Simon
    Posted July 25, 2014 at 5:36 am | Permalink

    So is anybody going to consider the issues I’ve raised? Anybody at all?

    If we’re going to be serious about promoting a genetic determinist society for whites, then I think you should all be secular about it. It’s the only consistent position to hold. Religion is something we need to admit is primitive remnant from a more ignorant age, and just let it go.

    • April
      Posted July 27, 2014 at 1:45 am | Permalink

      We’d probably have to create some myth or supernatural belief system that went along with eugenics. I dont think that the average person, even the average smart White person, can really hang with the whole concept of atheism. Lets face it that Christianity today is really a religion that was tweaked and changed into its present state by Europeans, not the Middle Easterners who created it. Most people love the idea of ritual and they dont want to actually take full responsibility for their lives, because they like the idea of a magic sky daddy who is looking out for them when the going gets tough.

      Personally nothing anyone has come up with about how ” heaven ” would be makes any sense to me or sounds even that inviting. But people are weak and they need to be able to think that when they die they dont really stop living they go on to a better place. Its childish but it gets them through. Sometimes I envy them that belief, it must be really nice to think that you go to a better place when you die and get to see all your loved ones.

  9. Posted July 27, 2014 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    Here’s the thing – I’m not religious in a conventional sense. I do believe in God and an afterlife because of an extraordinary experience I had while very sick and unconscious. (Similar to the light, tunnel, relatives, etc.) But I sometimes wonder if Christianity has done us more harm than good.

    I’m a eugenicist, and I want us to practice eugenics. And there are a lot of religious people in the world. So if I can appeal to them in some way, I want to do so.

    I read a fascinating book by a cardiologist who didn’t believe in the “life after life” phenomenon, so he set out to disprove it. And he’s the perfect person because he sees people die and be resuscitated a lot. He just started asking people who came back from actual, medical death if they remembered anything. Many said no. But many said yes, and of those, most described Heaven, and roughly 20% described Hell. It was fascinating that it seemed to make no difference about a person’s religious beliefs, whether he/she went to Heaven or Hell! Personally, I was delighted that some real churchy people went straight to Hell. I couldn’t contain my glee, and I remember I said out loud, “Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!” That’s because I’ve always resented the hoards of hypocrites I’ve been forced to endure all my life.

    This proves the Evangelicals are full of crap, and “belief in Jesus” is not a get-out-of-Hell-free card after all.

  10. Simon
    Posted July 27, 2014 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

    I don’t see how anyone could believe in any supernatural being or any other plane of existence, regardless of any personal “experiences” they might have had. There are several reasons my views are set in stone on this topic.
    Firstly, and most unfortunately, the universe does not revolve around humanity, our needs, our desires, or our preferences. There are countless other beings that share our world with us, and what happens to them when they die shall surely befall us as well. The only way you could reconcile the notion of heaven is by saying all other creatures go there too. Now, would you seriously consider the idea of insects going to heaven? How about dinosaurs? Or bacteria? Safe in the knowledge that none of you are relativist imbeciles, I shall assume that the absurdity of such a scenario is self-evident to all.

    Secondly, and as I’ve previously mentioned, the notion of a benevolent creator is incompatible with the horror of the human condition. I myself am committed to never having children, for a myriad of reasons. I have mostly bad genes, mental and physically illness, not to mention that I could never give a child the rich life they deserve. Yes I know I’m a white European, yes I have blue eyes and honey-blonde hair, yes I have a cute button nose and big full lips that I would love to pass on to a beautiful daughter. But I cannot do that, because I would, in all likelihood, pass on my problems and force an innocent child to share in my misery, and I simply refuse to do that.
    My example is just one out of millions of sad stories. Now, what kind of god would give with one hand and take with another? What kind of god would create a world as sick as this? I for one wouldn’t want to know him.

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

    Here’s the Thing

    Trevor Lynch: Part Four of the Trilogy

    Graduate School with Heidegger

    It’s Okay to Be White


    The Enemy of Europe

    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