Print this post Print this post

The Great Sex Worker Shuttening

1,557 words

In recent years, White Nationalists and identitarians have been the most censored people in the world. But lately, one other group has been trying to steal our thunder as free speech martyrs: sex workers.

Prostitution has operated fairly openly on the internet for many years on adult dating websites and even in personals sections of otherwise respectable websites. It’s long been joked that “there are no real women on Craigslist,” meaning any “woman seeking a man” on Craigslist personals is either a bot, a scammer, or a prostitute. Prostitutes will post ads with coded language like “generous gentlemen only” or EXCE$$IVE U$E OF DOLLAR $IGN$ to denote that the young maiden expects to be financially compensated for her companionship. The internet has made finding a prostitute no more difficult than buying a used couch.

But no more, it would appear. Craigslist has closed their “Personals” section.  Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and Reddit are banning accounts and threads relating to escorting. Even some adult dating sites are now cracking down on personals ads that sound a little too business-minded. To the hookers, camgirls, professional dominatrixes, and miscellaneous fetish specialists who use the internet as their primary means of advertising, this is the apocalypse.

The interesting aspect about all this, the one white identitarians can’t help but notice, is how the sex workers themselves seems to be framing this crisis as a “free speech” issue. You know,  because these ladies have something important to say (their hourly rates), but “the man” won’t let them sing the song that’s in their hearts.

Now, it would be ridiculous to draw some kind of moral equivalence between the censorship of White Nationalists’ constitutionally protected speech and sex workers being banned from social media for engaging in criminal activity. Still, it is ironic that the only group of people other than White Nationalists that the establishment has shown any interest in censoring is prostitutes. White Nationalists and prostitutes.

A White Nationalist also can’t help noticing that the great sex worker shuttening would appear to go against our narrative of an establishment actively promoting degeneracy. After years of pushing gay marriage and tranny bathrooms down our throats, it would seem against the cultural Zeitgeist for our overlords to suddenly take an interest in prostitutes.

So where did this all come from?

The sex worker shuttening arose out of a U.S. Senate hearing into, a competitor of Craigslist whose personals section was being used by under-aged prostitutes and/or their pimps with the company’s knowledge. The hearing found that Backpage was “involved in 73 percent of all child trafficking reports that the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children receives from the general public.”

While it is true that Backpage forbade certain words in their personal ads, such as “teen,” to prevent child prostitution, it would not block the account or IP address of people who tried to post ads with those words. Instead, Backpage simply allowed users to re-write their ads until they were in compliance. Recently, Backpage was seized by the federal government and the owners have been charged with sex trafficking.

But the more lasting consequence of the Senate hearing are the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA) and the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) which make it illegal for online services to assist or support sex trafficking. You would think those things would already be illegal, but apparently not. Section 230 in the 1996 Communications Decency Act stated that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” It was this loophole that allowed websites like Craigslist to become the red-light district of the internet.

To get the other side of the issue, I talked to comedian and sex worker advocate Kaytlin Bailey. I met Ms. Bailey through the NYC comedy scene many years ago and asked her what she thought of all this.

“They’re using the shield ‘child trafficking victims’ to crack down on adult sex workers, but no one will admit that’s what they’re doing.” Bailey says. “I’ve been studying this for a while, I think it’s about controlling women.”

And the “they” in question? Bailey says “I think it combines the conservative instinct to punish women for expressing sexuality with the liberal instinct to ‘help’ people they can’t be bothered to understand.”

Interesting theory, Ms. Bailey. But we wouldn’t be doing our jobs as White Nationalists if we didn’t at least consider the possibility that this is all some Jewish plot.

Well, leave it to the message boards to do all the considering for you. One theory I’ve heard is the recent crackdown of online prostitution is the result of Jews consolidating their control of the sex trade by squeezing out free agents and low-level pimps, thus forcing women to go back to work for Jewish-owned escort services, porn studios, and strip clubs.

While I’m skeptical that a secret cabal of Jewish pimps is behind the SESTA legislation (although I don’t rule it out), there is some logic to this. The internet revolutionized prostitution like it revolutionized everything else. The internet allowed musicians to bypass the record companies and gain huge audiences without leaving their bedrooms. It allowed writers to bypass the traditional print media. But the internet also allowed prostitutes to bypass the escort services and basically become their own pimps. Any college co-ed, lonely housewife, or 9-5 office girl could do it.

In 2012, it was a scandal when it was discovered that former three-time Olympic athlete Favor Hamilton had been moonlighting as a Vegas call-girl and had been advertising her services online for several years before she was recognized. She was married and apparently didn’t need the money but claims her prostituting was a result of being put on anti-depressant medication.

The hysteria from the feminist and sex worker rights activists is less about “free speech” than about being forced back onto the sex work plantation of escort services and street corners with pimps taking out their percentage for “administrative costs.” Which is certainly understandable. But if that’s the case, I wish they would just come out and say so rather pretending that they are Galileo being burned at the stake for speaking their truth.

I’m hardly a libertarian on the subject of prostitution. I am fatalistic. Assuming they are not rendered obsolete by sex robots in a few years, there will probably always be some demand for prostitutes and some women willing to be the supply. On the one hand, I wouldn’t want to live in a society where prostitutes are selling themselves in shop windows, but on the other hand, what can you do? Prostitution has been around forever; it hasn’t destroyed us yet and is probably a lot less harmful to society than casual hookup culture.

There seems to be a surprising amount of sympathy for prostitutes among White Nationalists who often see them as more genuine that your typical conniving millennial adventuress. But, given the levels of misogyny in the White Nationalist movement, perhaps this should not be surprising at all.

Last summer, The Daily Stormer published an article entitled “Prostitutes Represent the Very Best in White Millennial Women.” In it Lee Rogers writes:

After having sex with numerous European prostitutes, I can safely say that they represent the very best that the White millennial woman has to offer. The average White millennial woman is a whore who claims she’s not a whore while emotionally manipulating men for her own gain. The average White millennial prostitute is a whore who is at least honest about her whoring.

Out of all the experiences I’ve had with women, some of the most positive ones have been with prostitutes. It’s an honest exchange of sex for money with no bullshit. I’ve also found these women to be far more real and open about things than any other type of millennial woman I’ve been with. Some of the best conversations I’ve had with women have been those I’ve had with prostitutes.

Other White Nationalists I’ve talked to have expressed sympathy for prostitutes on the grounds that prostitutes tend to be extremely racist or “racially woke.” As evidence, they point to how frequently escorts include “No blacks” or “Whites and Asian Only” in their ads. This would make sense. Due to the nature of sex work, errors of judgement can have fatal consequences, so one does not have the luxury of being inclusive.

So hookers are racist, they won’t break your heart and take half your stuff, and they are an ancient institution. Hell, they’re in the Bible. As a Right-winger, I almost want to side with the hookers against a wicked establishment that is assaulting our culture in almost every other conceivable way. Almost.

But in the end, I can’t see how this is in any way our fight. I didn’t see any of these hookers crying when Andrew Anglin was being banished from the internet, so why should I care about their “free speech” problems now? Let me see a Million Hooker March to get Jared Taylor back on Twitter and maybe I’ll consider making common cause with them.

They’ll be fine though. Sex workers of the world may be getting kicked off the internet, but to paraphrase Joan Blondell, as long as there are sidewalks, they will always have jobs.


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


  1. Oil Can Harry
    Posted April 13, 2018 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    Lee Rogers was half right. While hookers are far more honorable than gold diggers, they’re hardly “the Very Best in White Millennial Women”, a phrase I’d rather use to describe he likes of Lana Lokteff or Emily Youcis.

    Still, I remember Mr. Rogers’ article had something like 1200 responses so he definitely struck a nerve.

    • Trinacrian
      Posted April 18, 2018 at 6:43 am | Permalink

      Let me say one thing to Lexi writing in the post just above: your real argument is not so much against the obvious boors in the manosphere, but against the Sexual Revolution itself. That disaster wrecked male-female relationships in the West in a permanent way. See my two articles below, one of which was reprinted here at Counter Currents:

  2. Posted April 13, 2018 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

    As between prostitutes and feminists, the choice is easy. Better yet is my recent invention the “escrubilator,” a diesel powered device that delivers orgasms on demand.

    • Lexi
      Posted April 17, 2018 at 5:50 am | Permalink

      If I am not mistaken, Mr. Purdue, you are an old man. When the young men, attack “feminists” (i.e. women with self-respect), I try to be understanding. After all, they weren’t there to see the worst of the abuses that led to feminism.

      When I was young, fathers freely admitted that boys only want “one thing” when speaking with their daughters. Then they turned around and snickered about it when their sons took advantage of innocent girls who thought they knew better than dear old Dad (in the universal arrogance of youth).

      I don’t know a single girl who didn’t at least go through a phase of swearing off men because of their deceitful and predatory behavior. Some of us got over it and found a good man. We have been richly rewarded with happy families. Others never got over it, or at least not before it was too late.

      It is long past time that men start seriously taking a look at how we wound up here and taking their share of responsibility.

      • Posted April 17, 2018 at 6:49 am | Permalink

        According to your theory, radical feminism ought to have emerged in those antediluvian days when louts like me were being awful to sweet young things. Except that psychiatric feminism is distinctly a post-modern eruption having rather to do with hormonal grievances than with men.

        • E
          Posted April 17, 2018 at 10:03 am | Permalink

          I happen to know quite a few psychiatric case feminists, and they are all angry as hell with their incompetent, unjust, good-for-nothing fathers.

        • Lexi
          Posted April 17, 2018 at 10:58 am | Permalink

          “According to your theory, radical feminism ought to have emerged in those antediluvian days when louts like me were being awful to sweet young things.”

          In other words:

          We’ve always been like this. Countless generations of women before you put up with our crap, why won’t you?

      • Trinacrian
        Posted April 17, 2018 at 7:32 am | Permalink

        Yes, men can be sexually predatory towards women, and will try to take advantage of them. But in the not-too-distant past women were tougher, and knew how to handle unwanted advances. They’d give a boorish man a verbal put-down, or a slap in the face, or a solid kick in the gonads if necessary.

        That female feistiness in respectable (and self-respecting) girls, plus the free availability of honest whores, kept things in balance. The insanity that we see today is due to a general spinelessness in character, plus the vicious anti-male motivation behind the anti-prostitution drive.

        By the way, in the past sexually predatory guys frequently faced the wrath of a girl’s father or brothers or male friends. I saw plenty of men left in a bloody heap after having taken advantage or having insulted a respectable woman.

        Feminism is first and foremost a political ideology that is a subset of Left-Liberalism. Its supposed connection with anybody’s sexual behavior is largely a cover story.

        • Travis LeBlanc
          Posted April 17, 2018 at 10:02 am | Permalink

          “By the way, in the past sexually predatory guys frequently faced the wrath of a girl’s father or brothers or male friends.”

          Up until the 1950’s or so, you also had “Breach of Promise” laws. Which meant that if a man had sex with a woman and then did not marry her, she could sue him in court. Basically, she would claim that she only agreed to have sex with him because he promised to marry her (which at the time was considered a legally binding contract).

          Breach of Promise laws occasionally turn up as a plot device in pre-code Hollywood movies. The finale of the Mae West movie “I’m No Angel” is her suing Cary Grant for Breach of Promise.

          • Lexi
            Posted April 17, 2018 at 11:20 am | Permalink

            True. The problem is manosphere crybabies aren’t interested in these old-fashioned remedies. They want all the rights of prerevolutionary patriarchy with none of the obligations. They are degenerates posing as victims.

      • Posted April 17, 2018 at 8:10 am | Permalink

        Lexi, I don’t completely disagree with you that modern men need to start taking responsibility and examining their own attitudes in terms of relationships, since very often these days conservative men try to portray themselves as victims rather than as being part of the problem, and certainly that includes the reduction of all women to the status of club sluts, and accompanying general lack of social skills stemming from being raised on social media and such things. By the same token, however, if one peruses the articles and such being published by American and Western European women on this topic in recent years, the message being sent is simultaneously “white men are too sexist and aggressive” and “white men don’t act like men anymore, and need to be more assertive.” (Okay, people rarely say white in this context, but that’s implicitly the message.) Needless to say, these two attitudes can’t coexist. What it amounts to is that mainstream white women want a man who is docile and submissive except when the woman finds it convenient for her own romantic and/or sexual pleasure, and woe upon any man who opts for the wrong side of that equation at the wrong time, or if a woman takes a dislike to him for whatever reason and wants to get revenge. In other words, women want a gynaecocracy where they have all the power – and have gone pretty far towards achieving that already. So there’s plenty of blame to go around, although it seems to me that women are demanding much more, and more unilaterally, than men are at this point. I’m not saying this is necessarily your attitude but this is basically the mainstream view.

        All we can say is that relationships in general are in a state of FUBAR.

        • E
          Posted April 17, 2018 at 9:57 am | Permalink

          the message being sent is simultaneously “white men are too sexist and aggressive” and “white men don’t act like men anymore, and need to be more assertive.”… Needless to say, these two attitudes can’t coexist.

          Only if we equate sexist and aggessive with acting like men and being assertive.

          Actually I even have a problem with words like acting like men or being assertive, they imply putting up a facade instead of being something.

          The Romans had 2 words for “man” (esp. footnote #26).

        • Lexi
          Posted April 17, 2018 at 11:49 am | Permalink

          Thank you for this. First of all, let me just say that I don’t dispute that the pendulum has swung too far in favor of women’s interests and we are now out of balance. The question is what comes next? Moderation, or another violent swing back to the bad old days, which of course will result in yet another violent swing back to radical feminism.

          Now, you say that women hold contradictory attitudes about men. I really can’t speak to that one way or another. I have never been interested in aggressive, brutish men. I will say this, though. Women have been subject to various selection pressures throughout our evolutionary history. Women who were attracted to very violent men put themselves and their children in harms way. On the other hand, women who were attracted to overly submissive or cowardly men would have lacked protection for themselves and their offspring from other men as well as predators. In the end, you would expect these conflicting evolutionary pressures to shape women to prefer brave and assertive, but not wantonly violent men who lack self-control. That may be confusing for men, but it’s not particularly confusing for us, or at least not the better of us. Virtue lies in a mean.

          Now, the question of false rape allegations is more complicated than even well-meaning right-wing men, such as yourself, might think. Sexual coercion is not experienced by women as a black or white violation. There are shades of gray. Generally, the more powerless a woman is in a sexual encounter, the more care a man should take in securing her consent for sex. It would be better still for young men to just avoid the situation altogether by not having sex outside of marriage. I assure you, that gets women’s attention. We have a great deal of respect for sexual continence in men. It assures us that we won’t have to share the resources and loyalty of our mates with other women.

          Finally, don’t misunderstand my defense of feminism as satisfaction with the status quo. It’s only that this word has indeed come to mean self-respect on our part. A woman can’t raise her head in this movement without being called “feminist.” As long as this state of affairs continues, I’ll have to consider myself a feminist.

          • Trinacrian
            Posted April 17, 2018 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

            The problem is that the word “feminism” has been utterly ruined and co-opted and politicized. In the minds of almost everyone, right and left, it carries connotations of Left-Liberal orthodoxy, political correctness, anti-natalist and anti-maternal bias, and a censorious anti-male animus. There’s no way to fight this — once a word picks up certain unshakable connotations it is simply useless as a tool of human discourse.

            Why not fight for a better term? How about “self-respecting woman,” or “woman of character,” or “rightist woman”? If people know your political views, Lexi, you’ll be struck from the rolls of feminism in a nanosecond anyway.

            I’m seventy years old. In all my life I have never touched a woman without her explicit permission, and I have known and loved many. I don’t think I’m unusual in this respect, and of all the male friends I have known in life, I cannot imagine single one to have acted differently. Who are these manosphere guys you mention?

            • Lexi
              Posted April 18, 2018 at 5:21 am | Permalink

              The problem is that manosphere guys are attempting to redefine the word as any woman who doesn’t hate herself so they can use it as a weapon against women who oppose their agenda (White Sharia). They have had a good measure of success with this in our circles, though not in mainstream society, of course, where as you say feminists would not recognize me as one of their own.

              Now, who are these manosphere guys? Well, I don’t really know any personally, but I know their views, and they have come a long way in penetrating WN. Rapey Roosh coaches men on how to intimidate women into sex while maintaining plausible deniability, justifying it on the grounds that women are quasi-masochists who like “dominant men.” They say asking permission for sex is unmanly and therefore unattractive, which is of course true in very unambiguous situations. Context is key, though, and sometimes explicit consent really is indispensable. If you go have a look at the Daily Stormer, you’ll see what I mean.

              You might dismiss the DS as unrepresentative of our movement, but the fact is they seem to be pulling our movement in their direction, and that is my real concern. I don’t care what DS does, and to be honest, I don’t think Anglin really hates women. It’s largely an act. I just want it quarantined. I’m not asking for censorship either. I can handle the manosphere guys on the merits in a free and fair debate.

              Thank you for your interest in this issue. I very much appreciate it.

          • E
            Posted May 7, 2018 at 11:16 am | Permalink

            It’s only that this word has indeed come to mean self-respect on our part.

            What are the goals of contemporary feminism?

            – Equality of outcomes. 50% of CEOs, politicians, soldiers and software engineers should be female, regardless of women’s abilities or inclinations.

            – Do away with presumtion of innocence in sexual harrasment and rape cases.

            – Istanbul Agreement: codify in law that gender is a social construct, enact legislation that explicitly favors women.


            I don’t agree with any of these, so why would I call myself a feminist?

            Not calling myself a feminist doesn’t mean I don’t notice problems.

  3. ellone
    Posted April 14, 2018 at 2:02 am | Permalink

    Due to massive male surplus caused by tens of millions of instreaming Muslim men, prostitution should be fully legal.

  4. Drumph
    Posted April 14, 2018 at 8:02 am | Permalink

    The point of this crackdown is twofold: (i) To stop the trafficking of underage girls, which is legitimately revolting; and (ii) A feminist push to eliminate prostitution and/or punish johns.

    The latter is motivated in part by female police officers, many of whom are lesbians with an intense dislike of hetero men. Are you aware that many police departments now post the photographs of johns arrested for patronizing prostitutes online? They have not even been convicted of a crime, merely charged! The next step is charging johns as accessories to trafficking. Imagine a family man’s life being ruined in the blink of an eye.

    This may sound absurd, but I think of male access to female prostitutes as a human right. Any man with a longtime girlfriend or wife understands that there exists an imbalance in drive among the sexes. Is protected sex with a call girl any more degenerate than viewing extreme pornography? At least the former has a storied history throughout the ages. I’d go so far as to call it “normal”, though not especially moral.

    The larger point is that many men who visit prostitutes are normal, well-adjusting human beings satisfying a very important biological urge. I submit that these legal maneuvers are designed to impugn the sexuality of MEN, not women.

    Thanks for your piece! This is an important issue and it’s almost impossible for anyone to have an honest, reasoned discussion about the topic.

    • Trinacrian
      Posted April 15, 2018 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

      Prostitution is a perfectly normal and well-established profession that serves an age-old need. Women should have the right to choose it, and men should have the right to avail themselves of it. Only stupid sentimentalists can’t see this.

      The problem is, as you say, the presence of arrogant, hard-core lesbians in many police departments, who have a vicious anti-male agenda, and their support from fanatically anti-male feminist organizations that wish to demonize and punish heterosexual men.

      But the even deeper problem is with our so-called “allies” among Evangelical Christians. Their preachy, bible-thumping moralism against prostitution is just what the Liberal-Left needs to fulfill the anti-heterosexual and anti-male agenda. The worst things in America happen when the Left comes to agreement with the faux conservative Right about something.

  5. rhondda
    Posted April 14, 2018 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    Aside from the fact that Galileo was not burnt at the stake, but subject to house arrest, (Gordiano Bruno was burnt at the stake) an amusing essay. If I recall correctly, Jack Donovan wrote an essay ‘we are all prostitutes now.’ Purity spirals and feminist church ladies aside, this also reminds me of Neil Young’s song Heart of Gold which for some reason I had always added searching for the whore with the heart of gold which meant giving it for free. Perhaps I was wrong there.

  6. mick
    Posted April 14, 2018 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

    This campaign fits the establishment agenda of de-sexualizing heterosexual White men. Though it will effect women and non-whites as well, even if White men are punished more harshly by the legal system.

  7. Trinacrian
    Posted April 14, 2018 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

    There is another ideological actor to be considered, one which I consider decisive. Left-liberalism is still very much a Puritan creed, rooted in preachy moralism. The rage against prostitution is based on the fact that it is supposedly “exploitation of women” (an absurd notion, if you consider that many women go into it freely, enjoy it, and get rich by it); and on the fact that it provides many men with sexual satisfaction minus the headaches of long-term commitment to some obnoxious Millennial bitch. Seeing some people happy and prosperous drives a lot of left-liberals insane with fury.

    Also, consider the new laws governing prostitution in those brain-dead Scandinavian countries. Prostitutes may ply their trade freely and without police interference, but any male who dares to go out with a prostitute is subject to arrest and prosecution. That kind of insanity is the pure product of super-feminist rage against men. “Men shouldn’t have any pleasure” is the ideological maxim governing that kind of law. In America, it takes the form of preventing prostitutes from advertising on the internet.

    The crap about “saving women from sex trafficking” and “underage girls from abuse” is nothing but propagandistic blather. Left-liberals always come up with some kind of virtue-encrusted reason for putting their resentments into law.

    • Lexi
      Posted April 17, 2018 at 5:10 am | Permalink

      “It’s an honest exchange of sex for money.”

      I agree. If men want casual sex, they should go pay for it rather than lying about their intentions towards normal women.

  8. Randy
    Posted April 14, 2018 at 8:04 pm | Permalink

    Not that it matters particularly but before I hit 50 I dated many women off craigslist who werent prostitutes.

  9. Marc
    Posted April 19, 2018 at 9:46 am | Permalink

    Actually, many of the first Feminists were politically quite conservative! Many of them even being prominent in the Racialist-Eugenic Movement of the early 20 th Century… Something that would be simply unthinkable among today’s radical “Feminists”!

    • Trinacrian
      Posted April 19, 2018 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

      Don’t confuse an interest in eugenics (which was pretty widespread and uncontroversial in the past) with anything necessarily conservative. Feminism per se has always wanted to circumscribe and control the activities of males, while preserving and expanding the special privileges of women. Read the author Ernest B. Bax and his 1913 book on feminism. He points out how in his time feminists were not simply seeking suffrage for women, but also demanding that women enjoy all sorts of preferential treatment in law. (By the way, Bax was NOT a conservative — he was a committed socialist.)

      Did these early feminists succeed? Ask any husband involved in a divorce case today if men receive fair and equal treatment by the courts. The bitches have come a long way since 1913.

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