Print this post Print this post

Anders Breivik Revisited

The campers on Utøya the day before Breivik’s attack.

3,452 words

My recent article, “Anders Breivik and the Manchester Bombing,” elicited such controversy and outrage among our readership that I felt an encore was necessary. The Breivik massacre is fairly unique in that it acts as a firecracker, causing explosive reactions in many different – and sometimes opposite – directions among those of us who otherwise share many fundamental values. It would certainly make the Alt Right a more cohesive movement if we could minimize such a scatter effect when reflecting upon such violent and conclusive acts as the ones committed by Anders Breivik. A good deal of controversy is certainly a good thing. But it is possible to have too much of it.

I noted that Breivik was a White Nationalist who advocated many policies also advocated by the Alt Right today, especially in terms of ending non-white immigration and the mass deportation of non-whites.

To condense the article’s themes, I posited that the way in which whites of the future will look back on Anders Breivik depends on how history plays out in the meantime. If the situation resolves peacefully for whites, they will look back on him as a deranged criminal. On the other hand, if we are plunged into war and bloodshed, they will see him as a hero.

This caused a backlash from several directions. One was a powerful objection to my best-case scenario, which was insufficiently best for many. In fact, several commenters expressed an absolutist vision of the future of Europe which involved no non-whites at all. So, bollocks to my “best-case” idea of non-whites assimilating and making Europe even a little bit browner. Best case means keeping Europe one hundred percent white, and that’s all there is to it.

When I abandon my historical perspective and reflect upon this as an individual, I agree. Europe for whites only. Let’s do it. Sure, non-whites would be welcome to visit and sightsee. They can live in Europe temporarily as students or as foreign dignitaries. Some exceptions might also be made for political or military reasons. But in general, we keep Europe white, keep out the non-whites, and abide by strict anti-miscegenation laws.

This is what Spencer Quinn wants. But who cares about what Spencer Quinn wants? I don’t matter. I don’t even live in Europe. If the recent elections in France and the Netherlands are any indication, my viewpoint is far to the Right of acceptable opinion in most areas of Western Europe. If I were appointed King of all Europe today, it’s undeniable that many European whites would vociferously oppose my “report-and-deport” platform, and not just the Left-wing ones. So when I previously forecast my best-case scenario, I was acting in a historical frame of mind and considered only likely scenarios for the near future, not Right-wing fantasies which at this point still seem fairly anachronistic (as welcome as they would be to many of us).

Like it or not, white people are an extremely generous people. We have big hearts. Although in the past this helped lead us to greatness, today it is threatening to destroy us. Nonetheless, people will not turn on a dime against their inner natures. It will likely require turmoil and bloodshed before enough whites finally do this and turn the tide of history. Since my best-case scenario includes relatively little turmoil and bloodshed, I based my prediction on the majority of European whites forcing change but still keeping much of their generous nature, hence the dreaded non-white assimilation.

The next waves of backlash involved Breivik’s choice of victims, most of whom were white. How can a White Nationalist hero slaughter white people, especially young, innocent ones? This is a difficult question. Some commenters found this to be wrong in all circumstances, and others mitigated, pointing to the fact that the Utøya victims were being groomed as the next generation of leaders for Norway’s Left. “Those children would have probably grown up to become the next generation of Merkels, Macrons, Sarkozies, Blairs, and Clintons,” as one commenter put it. Another called them “race traitors” and “antifa-in-the-making.”

Ah, but “antifa-in-the-making” is not the same as antifa, some argued. Which one of us didn’t flirt with destructive dogma in their youth? And how do we know these kids wouldn’t have been red-pilled at some point? So the disagreement stemmed from the identification of our enemies. If the victims on the island of Utøya had all been hardened, middle-aged Leftists who’d been occupying the highest rungs of power in Norway for the last twenty years, then there would have been no question of their status as enemies. And this, presumably, would have raised Breivik’s esteem at least a little for some.

But since Breivik targeted young people who were not yet our enemies, the questions raged. Was what he did right? Was it honorable? Here is a question I would like to ask, given that some commenters were so concerned about what these young victims would have turned into as adults: supposing that in an alternate universe where the Breivik massacre hadn’t occurred, nine of the Utøya victims ultimately become red-pilled race-patriots, twenty would have lost interest in politics altogether, and the remaining forty would have become major players among the Norwegian and European liberal elite, helping to make whites a minority in many parts of western Europe by 2040. Never mind the questions of right or honor. With such a dreadful future in the offing, would the Breivik murders have been worth such a bullet dodged? One guilty soul damned to Hell and twenty-nine innocent people slaughtered for a shot at avoiding mass dhimmitude, slavery, or worse. Would it have been worth it?

Of course, this is an impossible question to answer, and a stomach-turning one at that, given that we’re considering not issuing our unqualified condemnation to a mass murderer. Yet I believe there is something important here that many of us do agree upon, and I hope that this will temper the scatter effect mentioned above. That something is that the greatest enemies of white people today are other whites. Since turning to the Alt Right, I have noticed how many of us have what I called “pet hates,” that is, a healthy (or sometimes not-so-healthy) fixation on one group of people whom they really don’t like. For some, it’s the Jews. For others, it’s Muslims or blacks. But without millions of educated white people willing not only to dance to the beat set by non-whites but to actually hold in contempt those of us who don’t, non-whites would not have the power they have today. Whites would still be lords of their own domains, exhibiting a healthy racial pride and doing great things, just as our forefathers had done.

From here, some commenters delved into deeper concerns: when is it ever appropriate to lionize a mass murderer? And in doing so, aren’t we encouraging the fanaticism which breeds future mass murderers?

One side of the debate described Breivik’s actions as malum in se, that is, evil for its own sake, and cautioned against extremism. It also painted them as damaging the Alt Right. One commenter claimed that Anders Breivik played into the hands of our Leftist overlords who control the media’s “narrative.” “If we insist on filling the role they have assigned to us of being nothing but fanatical gun-toting vigilantes,” he wrote, “then we will remain the fringe to their whole cloth.” Indeed, acts of such horrific violence can only be a setback to a movement which craves to one day bask in the sunlight of the mainstream.

As sensible as this is, a response to it is equally so. It says that “we are in a war for white survival,” and therefore “one’s philosophy of the nature and ethics of war” must dictate how we view Breivik’s actions. Do we have the luxury of doing what’s right when what’s right may get in the way of what’s necessary? As I pointed out in the original article, our enemies no longer come at us across battlefields in uniforms under the unfurled flags of their nations. They dress like civilians and smile at us as they allow our murderers and future oppressors to enter our countries against our wills. Or else they are these murderers and oppressors themselves, who, by the way, also dress like civilians. Both groups of enemies see ordinary whites as subhuman. Either we’re fair game in a fifteen-hundred-year-old holy war or we are worth expending in order to preserve the power of the Leftists currently running many parts of Europe.

How do we fight an enemy like this? Anders Breivik certainly had an opinion, and he had the guts and determination to carry it out. So, if one views this current war as inter cives rather than inter milites, then it will be hard not to appreciate the blow struck by Anders Breivik.

But the opposing viewpoint simply denies we are at war, in which case, Breivik comes across as nothing more than a twisted lunatic. Since I cannot improve upon one particular commenter’s lucid prose, I will present a large chunk of it below and let it speak for itself:

Your counter-argument is that we are at war. We often use this word “war” to describe our struggle, because it renders the moral and vital seriousness of our plight. But we must recognize that as of this day this word is still metaphorical, simple proof of which is that we are not generally forced to defend our properties, our families, our communities, with arms, each and every day. We live yet, in most places and in most circumstances, in a time of peace. I recognize that it is in some ways an intermittent peace, that some of us really are more embattled, and that this peace, thanks to the efforts of individuals like those that Breivik targeted, is preparing a future war – but none of this changes the fact this is still a time of peace. If we are not permitted to draw a clear line between what is right and what is wrong in a time of peace, between the strict rightness of arguing our position, and the strict wrongness of murdering individuals who have some taint of guilt, how do we ever hope to govern a truly peaceful society in some distant future? How can we ever hope to establish a state which is not merely dictatorial, and as coldly ruthless toward all dissidents as a Breivik would certainly be?

Indeed. If we’re going to get loosey-goosey now with the ancient moral imperative against cold-blooded murder (to say nothing of mass murder), how are we ever going to create a state worth living in? Vox Day may claim that the founders of all great nations are killers, but that usually refers to killers killing other killers who were also trying to form great nations, or who were at least preventing them being formed. Sure, Julius Caesar slaughtered the Gauls in appalling numbers and Rome completely obliterated Carthage after the Third Punic War, but once upon a time both Gaul and Carthage were at Rome’s doorstep, bent on conquest. Just because they were weak and toothless when they met their ends doesn’t make them innocent bystanders in the game of empires, if you catch my drift.

Can we honestly say the same about the Anders Breivik and his young, unarmed, and unsuspecting victims?


So now we finally learn about what Spencer Quinn thinks of all this. Does he admire Anders Breivik or doesn’t he?

Before I respond, I would like to point out that no matter how I answer, I feel like I am sinning. If I take the hard line against Breivik, then I am squelching what amounted to the most successful act of insurrection against the Western European Left so far this century and telling whites that they should act like good citizens and place their trust in their Leftist enemies’ sense of justice. Basically, I will be encouraging them to do nothing as they are slowly displaced and herded closer and closer to extinction. This can only lead to bloodshed which will dwarf what happened on the island of Utøya.

On the other hand, an enthusiastic thumbs-up for Breivik’s will only encourage more fanaticism. Who’s to say who the next bomb-throwing, gun-wielding maniac will be? Or who his victims will be? Or what his agenda will be, if he even has one at all? This also says nothing of retaliation on the part of the rank-and-file Left, which may decide to start blowing up incipient Right-wingers. No nation can survive such internecine strife for long. This is why we have laws against murder and why we should stick to them. Yesterday it was young people on the island of Utøya. Tomorrow it will be your family or mine. Is this really what we want?

So my first response must entail real-world action. If I had been in charge when the murders occurred, I would have given Anders Breivik the death penalty. If possible, I would have hanged him from a tree so that people could see it for miles around, keeping him there for over a week as his body rotted and birds plucked out his eyes and organs. In fact, since Mr. Breivik is still drawing breath at the expense of the state, and I believe he relinquished that God-given right the moment he wasted seventy-seven souls on July 22, 2011, I call for his execution right now. Regardless of who his victims were, I’m sure their family members loved them. As law-abiding citizens, these people deserve closure. Further, the citizens of Norway deserve protection against demented outlaws who kill them and then sit in comfortable prison cells with three squares a day, playing video games for the rest of their lives.

So this is what I think we should do about Anders Breivik. But how we should feel about him is a much more difficult question.

I will begin answering it by relating something that happened to me on September 12, 2001.

Of course, I was shell-shocked over the attacks. Like many people, I was furious and in a nasty, unforgiving mood. And on that day, I had a conversation with a young woman that I will never forget. After explaining to her the biblical vengeance I wished I could bring down upon the heads of the perpetrators of the attack, she looked at me with soft eyes and said, “Yes, but they had their reasons.”

They had their reasons.

Think about that for a moment. The smoke was still rising from the ashes of the Twin Towers, the impromptu grave of three thousand murdered Americans, and this Leftist shill dares offer her qualified sympathy for the terrorists. I have never before or since wanted to punch a woman, but for a moment I felt the animalistic urge to get in her face and put her to sleep with a hard shot to the jaw. Of course, I did no such thing and never would. But I felt it then, and I still feel it.

The teachable moment here comes when we view this person as a microcosm of the modern Left and how it views the Right. They truly do see us as subhuman. They want us out of the way and marginalized until we have no political power with which to defend ourselves against their progressive nihilism. In the early Soviet Union, we were the Ukrainian kulaks or the political dissidents or the Czarist holdovers or the faithful Christians or the bourgeois middle class. In today’s America, we are simply the whites; that is, the whites who refuse to supplicate at the altar of political correctness as no other race is required to do. The Left, which always views a stark discrepancy between what is and was on one hand versus what will be on the other, despises any person or group that even appears to appreciate a status quo (I use the indefinite article here because for the Left, there is always more than one status quo).

For a recent example, when a white (or possibly Jewish) college professor dared to stand his ground against college students who wanted to evict all white people from campus for a day, he was excoriated in the harshest possible terms. So what if he was a Leftist like them? Didn’t matter. He was guilty of being white and of not praying hard and long enough at that PC altar. And for that, he might as well have been a kulak. When these college kids gain real political power in twenty years, I have no doubt they will apply the same awful suppression of unrepentant whites that the Soviets applied towards the kulaks and others. The main difference is that, in the Soviet Union, the Left had the virtue of doing its own dirty work. In America and Western Europe, they import or coddle Third World savages so they can do it for them.

So every time a gang of blacks rapes a white woman or a Mexican illegal murders a white child or a Muslim refugee blows up dozens of us at a concert, we really shouldn’t get too bent out of shape over it. They had their reasons, you see.

And what are those reasons? In the eyes of the Left, the reason is simply to destroy the enemies of the Left. And since these are honorable reasons, they must be taken into account when judging such base criminals, who, if you think about it, are not the real bad guys. This is exactly the attitude Solzhenitsyn ascribes to the Soviets in his Gulag Archipelago, and it is no different today. The Left has a history of manipulating real criminals (thieves, thugs, rapists, murderers) in order to stifle those who oppose their always-progressing political agendas.

How else can you explain the speaker at last year’s Women’s March in Washington, DC, who was a convicted rapist who had once sodomized a man with a steel pole? Only the Right-wing press uncovered that little news item.

How else can you equate the national media blackout that followed when two white kids, Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian, were raped and tortured for days by a gang of niggers (sorry, no other word) with the wall-to-wall coverage the media inflicted on George Zimmerman after he shot down a crazed, black amateur mixed martial artist who was trying to kill him?

How else can you explain the mainstream media’s reluctance to cover stories which link Hillary Clinton and her allies to the murder of “troublesome staffers” and to pedophile rings in pizza parlors, and to mentally-ill thugs who are paid to violently disrupt Trump rallies?

For that matter, how else can you explain the benevolence the Left has shown towards Barack Obama’s rather cozy past associations with anti-American terrorists?

The list goes on, trust me. The Ace of Spades, Ann Coulter, Steve Sailer, Jared Taylor, and many, many others have written it all down.

So when considering this war versus peace dichotomy, I tend to agree with the war faction, even though I don’t have to carry a semi-automatic rifle every time I step out my front door. Our enemies wish to destroy us; they wish to bury us under their rainbow-colored steamroller of progress. And, make no mistake, this hatred they have for us is primarily racial. This is why I joined the Alt Right to begin with. I lost faith that our existing conservative leadership would ever be able to view this war in honest, racial terms. Our enemies are now equipping themselves with knives and rocks and clubs, and we still think we can take them on with our fists. How can that result in anything other than honorable defeat?

Is this a somewhat jaundiced view of the Left? Perhaps. Are all Leftists actually like this? Perhaps not. I don’t care. I don’t care because the Left-vs-Right Race War model is simply the best descriptor of what’s going on in Western Europe and America today. No other model can explain the insistence with which our Leftist, globalist elites continue to bring Third World barbarians into our homelands despite all the demonstrable harm they cause.

I challenge anyone to come up with a better model.

In the meantime, I will take it easy on the memory of Anders Breivik. If the Angela Merkels of the world were to suddenly end non-white immigration and deport the vast majority of non-whites already in our ancestral homelands, then I might reconsider. Until then, however, I will neither praise nor renounce Anders Breivik.

After all, he had his reasons.

He had his reasons.


  1. Sig Sawyer
    Posted June 5, 2017 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

    “Indeed, acts of such horrific violence can only be a setback to a movement which craves to one day bask in the sunlight of the mainstream.”

    That ignores human psychology. You need your extremists. The same way ‘moderate’ Islam plays the “give us what we want or ISIS kills you” game. It’s a Mutt and Jeff act. The mainstream side of WN says “of course we condemn Breivik, but what do you expect to happen when whites are being pushed out of their homelands…” while the gas mask WN run amok.

    “Leave me alone” carries a lot more weight once you’ve made the opponent bleed, even if he is stronger than you. Breivik chose his target well. Only in a life-or-death, existential conflict do you kill your enemy’s children.

    People submit to dominance, and to violence. Every jihadist attack in Europe creates more jihadis, because it makes the young 2nd generation Muslim feel like the radicals are winning.

  2. Carefull
    Posted June 5, 2017 at 11:46 pm | Permalink

    Consider this: What if Breivik’s vicitms had all been black/arabic/muslim?

  3. Ben
    Posted June 6, 2017 at 8:28 am | Permalink

    The white traitors are a problem, but let’s not forget (((who))) bought them off to implement (((their))) plan.

  4. E.
    Posted June 6, 2017 at 8:45 am | Permalink

    Even if feasible to achieve, non-immigration w/ non-White deportations might create/sustain White Nationalism for Europe, …but what is to be done in countries that already have large, self-propagating, highly distinct minorities (USA, Canada now, & even Brazil with their declining White)?

    White Nations, …and White peoples, do not exist by defenses alone; and those defenses would need to be flawless over time; not a single generational hiccup. (Hence, not sustainable / implausible position.)

    Fortress Europe conceptions are insufficient; esp. where the enemy already substantially lies within.

    For ethos & cultural change consider:

    For methods consider:

    ** So long as contemporary, highly democratic-democracy (Universal Suffrage), remains the order, only a certain brute force, can I envision, as being successful:

    1) Create the means to out-breed our rivals. We cannot rely on simplistic solutions such as opening the doors to poor, populous, brown countries. It will take far superior planning as Whites have no similar equivalent at our disposal; and nor is removal of anyone permitted, only surplus life is.

    2) Create the means to preserve, or take some natural ecosystems/spaces out of competition, such that there is something left after the breeding & blending wars.

    Got better ideas, I’m all ears/eyes: [email protected].

    3) Do nothing, challenge nothing, take no risks & costs for the free riders, & just become the Stronger ones (the global poor, procreative, & mobile; the fashioners of the global gene pool & culture), then loose interest & applicability. The EurAsian-Mulatto future student can just study the 2nd millennial, North American/W. European, White Neanderthals as moralistic but ultimately misconceived historical curiosities.

  5. Tim
    Posted June 6, 2017 at 8:56 am | Permalink

    Or: I ain’t saying it’s right, but I understand.

  6. Tribal Thunder
    Posted June 6, 2017 at 9:46 am | Permalink

    The Arab blogs and news people an the “left’ bring up Anders Brevik every time there is a muslim terror attack in Europe too.

  7. Victor smith
    Posted June 6, 2017 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

    The parallel between the Breivik attack and this one was that both were aimed at the degenerate, cosmopolitan cultural Marxist youth of the regime. It is unlikely that any working-class girls were at this event, they could not have afforded it. The teenagers present would almost certainly have held up a banner saying ‘welcome the refugees’ at the drop of a hat. These are the offspring of occupied Britain who would in the case of the dead, or will in the case of the living, grow up to be the progressive, anti-white MPs, judges, police chiefs or administrators of Britain’s downfall. The fact that they were attending a concert by a mystery-meat Satanist promoting miscegenation says it all. I don’t know a single British nationalist who felt anything for the victims as we are the victims of this new political and social parasitic aristocracy.

  8. Carpenter
    Posted June 6, 2017 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

    I recall reading a number of anonymous comments online in our circles in the aftermath of the Breivik incident that said something along the lines of “Don’t sweat it. This isn’t going to forever tarnish nationalism. Most people will forget about this in half a year.” At the time, there were lots and lots of people basically saying it was time to close up shop. Nationalism was dead, and Anders Breivik killed it. Some people even unceremoniously dropped out, logged off the entire internet it seemed.

    Now, I hear it’s different in Norway itself, but honestly how many people in Normiedom could tell you who Anders Behring Breivik is and what he did?

    After the recent London Bridge Islamic terrorist attack, a number of high profile people in our scene have basically said, “No amount of Islamic terrorism, no amount of European dead is going to wake the normies up and bring them to our position.” They’re probably more right than they are wrong. And maybe there are two sides to this.

    So, I wonder if White Right-wing acts of violence are really going to register to the normies either. I’m not in favor of it (NSA pls no bully), but would anything other than a brief signal-fest and massive media coverage happen? I have little doubt our own governments would be far more aggressive in shutting down native right-wing groups than they are Islamic groups, but as far as the normies are concerned I think they might just clutch their pearls. I’m not sure it would “scare them away” anymore than having children raped and murdered by Muslims has “woken them up.” Perhaps the limit of peacetime/non-collapse normie side-choosing is reaching its peak and most are either doctrinaire, fundamentalist liberals or too content to while away their fleeting time on this planet in relative ease and comfort than to rock the boat a little by having an unauthorized opinion? Normies are being told monthly Islamic terror attacks in the West is the “new normal,” so would their reaction to Right-wing anti-Islamic violence be any less passive?

    Because we know it’s going to happen again somewhere, right? It would be foolhardy to think it won’t. Of course, as Enoch Powell said, predicting a thing doesn’t mean you want it to happen.

    • john
      Posted June 7, 2017 at 6:25 am | Permalink

      The only reason what the muslims have been doing havent woken up the normies is because the media and educators make sure to instruct them not to judge islam.

      Actions done by people on the right have a profoundly bad effect on the situation of the white race. The reason the confederate memorials were taken down is because of what Dylan Roof did. The media instructs people how to respond to events and they instructed people to judge white people for what Dylan did.

      White people should be using their words to challenge the antiwhite system. Any unlawful actions engaged in by white people will likely be exploited by the system to justify oppressing whites more than whites already are.

      I am against unlawful actions. White activists should be law abiding. Use words.

      • Carpenter
        Posted June 7, 2017 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

        Of course the government will try to use anything like that against us, but it’s just an excuse. The media could honestly drum up a ruckus about just about anything regarding racism and the very fact that the media was going full tilt on it would mean the normies would have to talk about it, which means they would sniff out the status-boosting opinion and then accept whatever was done towards that direction.

        Talking to normies about the Confederate statues and so on, I’m very surprised that virtually none mention Dylann Roof. Within the first few months of it happening when the flags were coming down, yes, Dylann Roof was in everyone’s mind. But these statues a year after the fact? People just say that the Confederacy stood for “racism” and they’ll usually mention something about how “they lost, why should the monuments be there?” Nothing about Roof.

        The stronger argument against right-wing violence is a) that the government WOULD take it seriously (normies, ultimately, probably not so much) and b) simply that it’s ineffective.

    • Othmar Regin
      Posted June 7, 2017 at 7:12 am | Permalink

      This is a very important question. “When is violence the right strategy”

      1st – not yet
      2nd – when the general population, say 60%-75% would accept it as legitimate self-defense

      and we are many many bombings/rapes/stabbings away from that. A partisan war can only be effective if at least 2/3 of the population supports it.

  9. Othmar Regin
    Posted June 7, 2017 at 6:47 am | Permalink

    “It will likely require turmoil and bloodshed before enough whites finally do this and turn the tide of history” – This! Bloodshed is not only inevitable it’s necessary for us Whites to come to our senses not only that it would purify much of our gene-pool of degenerates and weaklings, in other words the ONLY way out of the current situation is bloodshed at quite a lot of it.

    Not so long ago, think a century or two in the past was bloodshed not only accepted but expected – not to mention olden times like the 30 or 100 year wars, the crusades, the Roman conquests, the Greek-Persian wars.

    What did Rome finally do to Carthage? and Why? Hannibal invaded the Roman heartland with 100,000 men and threatened it’s very existence a few decades later Rome leveled Carthage to the ground.. just say’n

  10. eyeslevel
    Posted June 8, 2017 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    The problem is decades of anti-white propaganda has put white people into a brainwashed state of demoralization where they cannot defend themselves. Nothing Breivik did went toward reversing that brainwashing. It just gave anti-whites propaganda ammunition.

    Breivik didn’t deprogram a single white person.

    Breivik did nothing to help get pro-whites in power. He didn’t impose any pro-white terminology. He didn’t discredit any anti-white terminology. Power goes to the group that controls public opinion. Breivik did nothing to change public opinion our way.

  11. WWWM
    Posted June 13, 2017 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

    Breivik is no fool. His understanding of long-term political struggles can be quite astute. He wanted to make us all think. Such an act will always bring up the Breivil comparison when talking about white identity. I have thought about this. Could it be, that anything short of Breivik is just another form of conservativism (cuckservative)? In other words, with varying degrees of truth on their side, but who never take real action. Commander Rockwell said no great debating or “pretty language” will change anything. The idea being that this is a war. Breivik is a disturbing figure. He wants to make us compare ourselves to 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

    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