Print this post Print this post

Martha Nussbaum:
Premier Citizen of the World


Ecstatic with herself

3,166 words

The world of academia is full of hyper-inflated academics with multiple titles, prizes, honors, publications, grants and “original” ideas. Martha Nussbaum, Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago, is a typical case in point; and since she is a woman, the accolades border on the preposterous. She has 50 honorary degrees from colleges and universities in North America, Europe, Africa and Asia. Among the many awards she has received are the “American Philosophical Society’s Henry M. Phillips Prize in Jurisprudence” and the “Prince of Asturias Award for Social Sciences.” She has been honored multiple times including as Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy, Past President of the American Philosophical Association, and listed among the world’s Top 100 Intellectuals by The Prospect/Foreign Policy global poll in 2005, 2008, and 2010.

Martha’s Capabilities

Her great contribution to knowledge, apparently, has been a “capabilities approach” to development, which she originated together with economist Amartya Sen. The approach is actually very pedestrian and merely regurgitates the old Marxist idea that achieving the economic well being of all humans in the planet should be biggest priority in the pursuit of justice. She argues that humans need real opportunities in order to develop their “capabilities.” Humans cannot live up to old age and develop their “capabilities” when they are deprived of food, political freedom, and religious tolerance. This is a variation on Friedrich Engels’ speech at the grave of Marx, “Mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing before it can pursuit politics, science, religion and art.” The difference is that Nussbaum scavenges a few thoughts from Aristotle to argue that humans should be afforded with cultural opportunities together with economic means to develop their full capabilities. In short, Nussbaum is one more cultural Marxist in academe.

Combined with her “capabilities approach,” her other original accomplishment has been the promotion of multiculturalism in Western societies and the idea of “a citizen of the world.” Her driving motivation is that whites have a moral responsibility to develop the capabilities of all humans. She offers no policies about how to solve world poverty other than the same empty slogans leftists have bandied around for decades. But she is quite good moralizing about the subject and inflicting guilt on her whites students about their privileges, “ethical egoism,” and antisemitism. She condemns the practice of female genital mutilation alright, but the moral onus is on white feminists to abolish this practice and thereby promote the capabilities of non-European females.

But if whites are held responsible with the task of raising the capabilities of all humans, they are not to be commended for their ethical lineage. Nussbaum, you see, was born into “the East Coast WASP elite” but converted to Judaism after her marriage to Alan Nussbaum. She later divorced in 1987, but had her bat mitzvah in 2008. In Judaism, she found a religion dedicated to justice in the world, a religion that teaches humans to feel the pain of others, not only of friends and family members, but also of those “on the other side of the world.” In contrast, the WASP world she grew in was “very sterile, very preoccupied with money and status.” In 2002, while visiting Israel, she commented,

I converted to Judaism at the age of 21, and I felt then, as I do now, that Judaism is above all a moral identity, connected to the love of justice. I felt that I was dedicating myself to a program of moral action aimed at realizing justice in the here-and-now rather than in some dim Christian afterlife–that, as Moses Mendelssohn once wrote, “The highest stage of wisdom is incontrovertibly doing that which is good.” More viscerally, I felt I was leaving an elitist WASP culture that cared not one whit for social justice to join a liberal, socially alert Jewish family that read I.F. Stone and The Nation.

Nussbaum’s Take on the West

What Nussbaum found in Judaism was an ideological program for the reinterpretation of Western Civ in a cosmopolitan direction against European ethnocentrism and uniqueness. There are a number of ways in which the history of Western Civ has been misinterpreted, misused, and manipulated. Some in the European New Right blame Christianity for the current promotion of diversity and mass immigration, which I questioned here; still, the ENR has the proper attitude towards Europeans, and does not willfully seek to mislead anyone, but is sincerely trying to understand how we got into the current mess. Then we have the pathological leftists who hate the West or think it managed to “diverge” from Asia only as a result of “windfall gains” from the Americas. Then there are those who actually voice great admiration for Western Civ on the alleged grounds that this civilization mandates, from its very origins through to modern times, the promotion of race-mixing and mass immigration. They believe that the West engendered the universal values that are necessary for the creation of a race-mixed New World order, and they admire the West for this, but demonize Europeans who show loyalty to their ancestors and any form of ethnic affirmation. European ethno-nationalists, and only European ethno-nationalists, are seen as retrograde fascists on the “wrong side of history.”

Nussbaum admires the West but calls her WASP father a “racist.” In Judaism she encountered a morality that would allow her to bring out the multiculturalism she alleges is embedded in classic Western works, unappreciated by the radical leftists. When I first encountered Nussbaum’s work some 15 years ago, I interpreted it as a sensible questioning of leftist excoriations of the West; only later did I start to see that her admiration was not for the ideas of Europeans but for ideas that she could manipulate to justify the promotion of a radical program of race mixing against any form of European ethnic identity.

Although Nussbaum is not a Neocon, she is a strong defender of certain “universal values” our establishment has come to identify with the Enlightenment. Her much talked-about criticism of Judith Butler’s obscure writing style (not Butler’s radical constructionist claim that there are no natural differences between males and females), and her rejection of Jacques Derrida’s postmodernist denial of truth and objectivity seemingly placed her on the side of Western rationalism. She seemed to offer a fresh view against the influential postmodernist strain in academia:

What is deeply pernicious in today’s academy, then, is the tendency to dismiss the whole idea of pursuing truth and objectivity as if those aims could no longer guide us. . . . Postmodernists do not justify their more extreme conclusions with compelling arguments. . . .  Derrida on truth is simply not worth studying for someone who has been studying Quine and Putnam and Davidson.[1]

But as the reviewer who cited this passage points out, much as Martha Nussbaum eulogizes over the importance of an education in the classics, “she is an unscrupulous propagandist.” She cleverly twists the ideas of classical philosophy to serve the contemporary ends of feminism, gay rights, racial integration, and mass immigration. Rather than making generalizations, here I will focus on one essay, Kant and Cosmopolitanism, published in a book, Perpetual Peace: Essay’s on Kant’s Cosmopolitan Ideal, commemorating the 200th anniversary of the publication of Kant’s essay “Toward Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch” (1795). This book contains essays by major luminaries such as Jürgen Habermas, Axel Honneth, Thomas McCarthy, and David Held. The argument of Nussbaum’s essay is that Kant was deeply influenced by Roman Stoic philosophy in his defense of a “politics based upon reason rather than patriotism or group sentiment.”[2] Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, and Cicero, she says, were the main intellectual sources behind Kant’s cosmopolitan citizen.

Martha versus the Stoics

Again, as I argued in my essay on Roman citizenship, on the surface it appears that Roman Stoics, and Roman legal reasoning generally, were committed to the idea of creating a nation based on values held to be true for humanity; but only on the surface. Nussbaum recklessly goes about using forms of expression used by the Stoics which bespeak of a “common humanity” to justify a radical program of indoctrinating American children to join the fight against “racism and sexism” and create citizens who no longer see the United States in patriotic terms but love all humans on the planet as rightful members of the US. We can start with two passages she cites from Aurelius:

If reason is common, so too is law; and if this is common, then we are fellow citizens. If this is so, we share in a kind of organized polity. And if that is so, the world is as it were a city state. […] It makes no difference whether a person lives here or there, provided that, wherever he lives, he lives as a citizen of the world.[3]

According to Nussbaum, what Aurelius means here is that:

any human being might have been born in any nation. . . . Recognizing this, we should not allow differences of nationality or class or ethnic membership or even gender to erect barriers between us and our fellow human beings.

This is a very tendentious reading of a classical author by someone who is supposedly a “world authority” on classical philosophy. The “common humanity” Aurelius was writing about is that of humans as fellow citizens of a Universe in which “all things are woven together” and in which all humans have “one common Reason.” In this respect, he says:

We should not say ‘I am an Athenian’ or ‘I am a Roman’ but ‘I am a citizen of the Universe‘.

This is a metaphysical statement about the nature of the universe and man’s place in it. It would be extremely anachronistic to align Aurelius’ Stoicism with mass immigration, the “irrelevance of tradition, identity, and group membership,” and the creation of a New World Order ruled by the ideas of Martha. After a few additional warm expressions cited from the Stoics about human connectedness, she is compelled to admit that the Stoics “did not and could not conclude, as Kant does, that colonial conquest is morally unacceptable.[4] She is also obligated to admit that Kant did not object to colonialism per se, but to the brutal treatment of colonized peoples. Nevertheless, she tries to persuade us that in his Anthropology, Kant was a multiculturalist who enjoined Europeans to realize that:

we owe it to other human beings to understand their ways of thinking, since only that attitude is consistent with seeing oneself as a “citizen of the world.”[5]

Nussbaum refers to page two of the Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View (1798), and it may be that she only read this far since in this book Kant classifies (and ranks) humans racially into white (European), yellow (Asians), black (Africans) and red (American Indians), and then argues that non-Europeans lacked adequate self-consciousness and “rational will.” After calling whites “the most perfect race,” Kant goes on to say:

The race of the American cannot be educated. It has no motivating force; for it lacks affect and passion . . . They hardly speak, do not caress each other, care about nothing and are lazy. . . . The race of the Negroes . . . is completely the opposite of the Americans; they are full of affect and passion, very lively, talkative and vain. They can be educated but only as servants.

This aspect of Kant’s thought has been well documented by Emmanuel Chukwudi Eze in his long essay, The Color of Reason: The Idea of ‘Race’ in Kant’s Anthropology.

But the most egregious infraction in Nussbaum’s reading of philosophical texts is her claim that:

the Stoics believed that a central goal of the world citizen was the complete extirpation of anger, both in oneself and in the surrounding society (my italics).[6]

Most of the writing by Nussbaum under examination is concerned with this claim. She relies mainly on Seneca’s book on anger to make the claim that for the Stoics anger was not an instinct of human nature; rather, anger was a socially generated attitude that could be removed from humans. Humans “are born for mutual aid and mutual concord,” but anger stands in the way; therefore children must be educated in such a way that they never become angry in the face of difficulties and conflicts. This removal of anger “will cut down greatly on the world’s total conflict.”[7] Anger, and the accompanying attitudes of fear and hatred, “are constructed by social evaluations and can be undone by the patient work of philosophy.”[8] In fact, according to Nussbaum’s interpretation of the Stoics, all the passions (grief, fear, love, hatred, envy, jealousy) are the product of the way children are raised and educated. She makes these claims without any direct quotations from the Stoics or Seneca, other than indirect references to some books and article titles.

I am not an expert on Stoicism. I have read Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations, Seneca’s Letters from a Stoic, and a number of chapters about this subject in histories of Western philosophy. But I know enough to know there is something fundamentally wrong with Nussbaum’s interpretation, and it has to do primarily with the way she misuses the Stoic emphasis on the improvement of one’s character through self-control, and acceptance of the limitations nature imposes on all humans, into a call for a radical alteration in the nature of humans through the total socialization of humans from the moment they are born. According to her, if we are to fulfill the intended goals of the Stoics, we need

some fairly radical changes in moral education on a large scale [will be required], so that people will increasingly define themselves in terms of their reason and character rather than in terms of honor, status wealth, [and] power.[9]

Nussbaum’s Inirascibility

She gets even more absurd employing Stoic philosophy to “eradicate” racism, which she calls the most “pernicious form of anger and hatred,” the “hatred of other members of other races.” “The rearing of nonracist children” and the “suppression of unreasoning misogyny”[10] is what Stoicism is all about. There will be “Stoic success” in education when “hatred of the foreigner” is “eradicated” “through programs of education that will make the Stoics’ and Kant’s idea of world citizenship real in our schools and universities.” “Eradicating passions” that have existed in humans as humans since the beginning of time is not “in the least a totalitarian idea,” says Nussbaum, but a fulfillment of classical philosophy.

Now, as members of a privileged elite in charge of transforming human nature, Martha and her like-minded clones will continue to define themselves in terms of wealth and power:

“We have great power over racism, sexism, and other divisive passions that militate against cosmopolitan humanism” (my italics).[11]

This is cultural Marxism writ large; it has nothing to do with Stoicism. Seneca’s advice on how to deal with anger was dramatically different. For Seneca, people get angry because they are too optimistic in their expectations of what is possible in life; people should lower their expectations, come to terms with the limits set by nature and by the fact that there are many things in life that are beyond our control; we can learn to self-control our own passions, but we should not delude ourselves overestimating our capacities to change our surroundings in such a way that we will never encounter problems and difficulties that will tax our patience and self-control; we should learn to expect problems and to accept the inevitability of bad situations and bad outcomes, and bad people (like Nussbaum). What we can do is learn to master better our emotional reactions to those things that are beyond our control.

But our Premier Citizen will have none of this; she is determined to eradicate racism; and she means the racism of whites who disagree with her; the alleged racism of her father against blacks and Jews. She wants men like her father to be eradicated. And she wants the full power of the government to punish those whites who do not follow her philosophical goals:

Where we cannot altogether eradicate racial hatred, we can ensure that heavy penalties for ethnic and racial hate crimes are institutionalized in our codes of criminal law — and this is now being done (my italics).[12]

If it were only a matter of criminalizing “racist” acts, but we are dealing with an ideology that is dedicated to the transformation of European-majority cultures into race-mixed societies; a “radical program,” as Nussbaum likes to say, in which European children (regardless of whether they acted in a “racist” way or not) are being compelled to accept the destruction of their parents heritage and those who question it are being criminalized! Yet, this incredibly affected, pretentious, artificial, actorly, and super-mediocre woman has the nerve to demand the “extirpation” of anger from children who may voice discontent and prideful anger against the demoralization of their cultural lineage. She wants to designate any form of anger as a form of psychological maladjustment requiring life-time forms of brainwashing and policing.

Nussbaum, said to be a foremost scholar on Aristotle, might have considered Aristotle’s argument that lack of anger “at the right things” is a vice in that it shows a lack of pride. When someone infringes on your status, attacks your family, friends, and beloved culture, anger is a necessary response; it is what a good man would show. Let Aristotle have the last word, and let it be known that the great minds of the Western tradition would have never agreed with the efforts of Nussbaum to destroy any sense of pride among Europeans by “extirpating anger” from them.

The man who is angry at the right things and with the right people, and, further, as he ought, when he ought, and as long as he ought, is praised. This will be the good-tempered man, then, since good temper is praised. For the good-tempered man tends to be unperturbed and not to be led by passion, but to be angry in the manner, at the things, and for the length of time, that the rule dictates; but he is thought to err rather in the direction of deficiency; for the good-tempered man is not revengeful, but rather tends to make allowances.

The deficiency, whether it is a sort of ‘inirascibility’ or whatever it is, is blamed. For those who are not angry at the things they should be angry at are thought to be fools, and so are those who are not angry in the right way, at the right time, or with the right persons; for such a man is thought not to feel things nor to be pained by them, and, since he does not get angry, he is thought unlikely to defend himself; and to endure being insulted and put up with insult to one’s friends is slavish.[13]


1. Martha Nussbaum, Cultivating Humanity, 1997: 40, 41.
2. Ibid., 27.
3. Ibid., 31.
4. Ibid., 38.
5. Ibid., 36.
6. Ibid., 34.
7. Ibid., 45.
8. Ibid., 46.
9. Ibid., 48.
10. Ibid., 48.
11. Ibid., 49.
12. Ibid., 49.
13. Nicomachean Ethics, Book IV: CH. 5, in The Basic Works of Aristotle, Ed. with an Introduction by Richard McKeon, 1941.

Reprinted from:


  1. Hadrian
    Posted November 14, 2014 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

    I’ve never heard of this woman before, but she makes me sick. Obviously her rhetoric about equality and inclusiveness is fundamentally dishonest, as she enthusiastically betrayed her family and heritage to go and join an extravagantly wealthy tribe of people who subsist on exclusiveness, separateness, superstition, and racial supremacy.

    No doubt the actual jews love her; they’ve certainly given her enough awards for betraying her own people. If we ever take power back from these criminals who are destroying our civilization, we need to take people like her and subject them to intense psychological scrutiny to find out why they do the things they do.

    • Peltast
      Posted November 16, 2014 at 5:28 am | Permalink

      Professor Revilo P. Oliver didn’t like Stoicism, the creator of Stoic philosophy was Zeno of Kition, a Phoenician/Canaanite merchant (maybe even a jew), Zeno first book about Stocism was called ‘Republic’ like Plato famous work, in his Republic Zeno advocated a perfect communism where there was no private property and even women are shared.

      It was only much later that Stoicism was re-worked to become a philosophy palatable for the Romans, Stoics were strong because they’re always involved in politics different from other Philosical schools, Stoicism was a sort of pre-Christianity with the Animus Mundi being Yahweh and preaching unversalist morals about love for humanity.

  2. JCNC
    Posted November 14, 2014 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    When will The Uniqueness of Western Civilisation be available as an ebook?

  3. DJF
    Posted November 14, 2014 at 10:32 pm | Permalink

    “””so that people will increasingly define themselves in terms of their reason and character rather than in terms of honor, status wealth, [and] power.[9]”””

    Yet she collects awards like some people collect baseball cards. Shouldn’t she be rejecting these awards and their status?

  4. John
    Posted November 14, 2014 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

    I wonder if the ancients sometimes erred in thinking Reason being a difference in kind that does not admit of more or less. Aurelius’s hypothetical seems to depend on Reason being an attribute either had or not had. But what makes the attribute? Is there a certain amount of “Reason” less than which the possessor is not considered “Reasonable”? Kant, meanwhile, explicitly states the difference in degree of Reason. In the Critique of Pure Reason, he states that he is more reasonable who more “quickly” and more “often” notices the rule or paradigm or Universal behind the particulars. I would like to hear if anyone knows more of this.

  5. Brenton Sanderson
    Posted November 15, 2014 at 9:30 am | Permalink

    A great article. I was made to read Nussbaum at university and agree she’s a vastly overrated figure whose interpretations of Aristotle are a travesty. Her career is a good illustration of the rich rewards to be gained by a White woman who betrays her race and becomes and who devotes her professional life to fighting for Jewish interests.

  6. rhondda
    Posted November 15, 2014 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

    I am so glad that Dr. Duchesne and the other writers started that site with a Canadian flavour. They now have a Face book page too.

  7. White Republican
    Posted November 16, 2014 at 1:14 am | Permalink

    Although Martha Nussbaum is not a Jew by race, she exhibits all the chutzpah — the sheer effrontery, brazen mendacity, and colossal conceit — which makes the Jews so obnoxious, and which the Jews regard as a virtue. Joseph Goebbels made some good points on chutzpah in his splendid article “Mimicry,” of which there is an English translation at:

    We should remember that the Stoic philosopher Seneca characterized the Jews as “that most criminal nation” in his lost work, De superstitione. Seneca was evidently capable of the righteous anger that Nussbaum wants to stamp out, and saw nothing wrong in it.

  8. John Doeman
    Posted November 17, 2014 at 10:34 am | Permalink

    She left behind a world that was “very sterile, very preoccupied with money and status” to become Jewish. Hahahaha. Does anyone see the irony there?

  9. Franklin Ryckaert
    Posted November 17, 2014 at 11:48 am | Permalink

    Nothing is more contemptible than the anti-White White, but by converting to Judaism and from there engaging in destructive intellectual activism against Whites, this woman really tops everything.

    “In Judaism she found a religion dedicated to justice in the world, a religion that teaches humans to feel the pain of others, not only of friends and family members, but also of those on the other side of the world.”

    Nothing is farther from the truth. Judaism is the most materialistic, selfish, tribal, hateful and revengeful religion of the world. Has this woman never read the Old Testament, the Talmud or Maimonides and heard pronunciations of modern rabbis or studied the behavior of Jews throughout history, but especially in the modern terrorist rogue state of Israel?

    I think we have to see in this woman a shabbos goy on a special mission for the Jews *).

    After having “reinterpretated” modern Western culture, the Jews moved on to “reinterpretate” Christianity for us (by Vatican II for Catholics, and by the Scofield Bible for Protestants), and now the Jews want to “reinterpretate” our classical past, all to our detriment. That is the task of this woman with her “reinterpretations” in a multicultural sense of Stoicism, Aristotle and Kant. It is all meant to promote our own destruction by allowing mass immigration of non-Whites and subsequent miscegenation. But it’s all for the Higher Good of course!

    Thanks, but no thanks, Mrs. “Nussbaum”!

    *) Lavishly rewarding Gentiles, both with money and with “honors”, for cooperating in the destruction of their own people is a well known practice of the Jews. In this light the absurd number of “honorary degrees” of this woman has to be seen.

    • White Republican
      Posted November 19, 2014 at 7:29 am | Permalink

      I remember reading a while ago of The Jewish Annotated New Testament published by Oxford University Press. Of course, as with works like the Scofield Bible, the objective of such works is to further Judaize Christianity.

      It would seem that Martha Nussbaum’s “reinterpretation” of Stoicism is akin to the “ideological translations” described in the appendix on Newspeak in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which various classics were translated into Newspeak in such a manner that they were not simply bowdlerized, but wholly misrepresented and falsified. Orwell wrote:

      “Pre-revolutionary literature could only be subjected to ideological translation — that is, alteration in sense as well as language. Take for example the well-known passage from the Declaration of Independence:

      “‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government . . .’

      “It would have been quite impossible to render this into Newspeak while keeping to the sense of the original. The nearest one could come to doing so would be to swallow the whole passage up in the single word crimethink. A full translation could only be an ideological translation, whereby Jefferson’s words would be changed into a panegyric on absolute government.

      “A good deal of the literature of the past was, indeed, already being transformed in this way. Considerations of prestige made it desirable to preserve the memory of certain historical figures, while at the same time bringing their achievements into line with the philosophy of Ingsoc. Various writers, such as Shakespeare, Milton, Swift, Byron, Dickens, and some others were therefore in process of translation: when the task had been completed, their original writings, with all else that survived of the literature of the past, would be destroyed.”

      I should have previously cited the larger context in which Seneca wrote of “that most criminal nation”: “The customs of that most criminal nation have gained such strength that they are now received in all lands. The conquered have given laws to the conquerors.” The Judaization of societies is nothing new.

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