Talk:Feral House

Adam Parfrey, Feral House, and fascism

User:Farstriker does not back up many assertions made in his or her most recent edit, nor does he or she use the style guide.

1. Lords of Chaos is not openly supportive of fascism; this is apparent to anyone who reads it—it is an anthropology. The allegations against Michael Moynihan and Lords of Chaos are not only inappropriate for this article, but are addressed in an article from Portland Oregon's Willamette Week .

2. There is no evidence to support that Keith Stimely ever worked at Feral House, nor that Parfrey or Feral House had anything to do with the publication of Siege. Its inclusion is completely irrelevant.

3. Much of what the editor says belies POV... word choice includes "good taste" and "obviously disturbed." The editor also is responsible for the page on David Emory, who is known to dislike Parfrey, and may be allowing the ideas of Emory to influence the editing of this article.

I am going to seek formal conflict resolution if the user doesn't discuss his or her next edit on the talk page.

Apocalypse cow 23:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers--Coogan's article is straightforward. The facts are just such--facts. Parfrey doesn't dispute his association with Stimely. And, yes, "Farstriker" has been influenced by Emory. we're big fans of his and have listened to him in both Northern and Southern California and now read his website. Given the influence of people like Boyd Rice, Moynihan and Parfrey on young people, the political message of Feral House content is very relevant. Calling Hitler a Nazi is not "partial." Identifying those who softpedal people following in his footsteps is necessary, and is not inapproprate to analysis of Feral House.

Neither is the mental state of its authors. The claim by Constantine is ludicrous. In the same [publicly published] letter, he claims that he was assailed by "audiograms." An audiogram is a graph of a sound wave and will yield no injury more significant than a paper cut. Because Feral House represents this creature as some sort of authority, his mental state (VERY disturbed) is relevant.

Hope this helps, Ms. Cow.

P.S.--Upon reflection, the use of the term "subtly supportive of fascism" rather than openly might be more accurate. Should have also added that, actually, "Farstriker" is actually a group of folks. Other than that, the response stands.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.35.123 (talk) 8 Aug 2006

I'm glad to see you on the talk page! I recommend reading some of the WP:Help, as the editing that user:Farstriker (whether one editor or a collective) does is not "kosher" according to Wikipedia. You simply must be able to back up statements (such as Stimely's having worked at Feral House) with NPOV sources. Your one source isn't NPOV, thus you aren't conforming to the rules. It's the same schtick (as it were) for using "weighted" language for describing Alex Constantine. As ludicrous as his claims may or may not be (and I'm inclined to agree with you), it's against Wikipedia policy to insert any judgemental language in an article. It's an encyclopedic article versus an analysis of motivations or anything "dicey." It's rather simple, and I've asked for a neutral third to come in and offer his or her opinion. To this end, I won't do any further editing and hope that you (plural) will agree to a similar truce, as they call it around these parts.

As for presenting Moynihan or Constantine as "authorities" or representative of the views of Parfrey or Feral House, reading through some of the outside links posted in which Parfrey discusses his modus operandi with respect to publishing, shall we say, unconventional thinkers. By your logic, Parfrey is also an extreme anarchist for publishing John Zerzan, Jesús Sepulveda, and The Bomb. Parfrey calls himself "a pot-smoking Green Party member" in the Reason article I cite. The publications of Feral House cover a wide spectrum of ideologies, and I think it supposes a great deal (at least too much for an NPOV article) to base claims of crypto-fascism off of Lords of Chaos and some nebulous friendships. It smacks of McCarthyesque guilt by association, in my opinion.

Best, Apocalypse cow 19:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

—Indicated portions of this comment added by 68.122.29.103 (talk • contribs) 9 August 2006

Wikipedia is not a place for original analysis. All information must be verifiable and properly sourced, or it may be removed. Fagstein 20:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, Ms. Cow--With regard to your assertions concerning Wikipedia stylistic demands, fair enough. We can see some validity in that regard. Your characterizations of our view are unfair and inaccurate, however. We pointedly did NOT discuss what Parfrey is or is not. We discussed what he does: among his many and varied projects are active promotion of fascists and their work. You may not be familiar with Moynihan and Rice. We are--they are doctrinaire fascists who use their professional projects to further their cause. Parfrey helps them, on occasion.

WHY he does so is anybody's guess. Is he an ideologue? Is he crazy? Or merely tasteless? Who knows WHY he does it? Again, we do not discuss this. Nor do we feel it is fair for you to label us McCarthyites. Moynihan's book deliberately misrepresents black metal as fascist. Some of it is, but some of it is merely agressively iconoclastic. It is, again, SUBTLY supportive of fascism. "Siege" on the other hand, is brazenly fascist, and Parfrey helped out with that.

Adam's association with Stimely is hardly a secret. We may not have a pay stub for the late, unfortunate Mr. Stimely, but that is irrelevant. They were tight, and Stimely was a damned Nazi.

Also: Our taste for Emory's work--dating back to our youths--does not undermine what we are saying. And Emory, we feel sure, does not "dislike" Parfrey. He has cricized Adam professionally, but has many other things on his radar. The last time we attended a lecture of his in Southern California, we asked him if he had any other shows in mind about black metal, fascism and Feral House. He replied, with a wry chuckle, that he'd already covered the subject and that there were many other things on his mind. If anything new and important arose, he probably would, but there is alot going on.

One more point about Emory's work. Someone has been attempting to subtly Jew-bait him on Wikipedia, not surprising consider his anti-Nazi stance. That was what first prompted our activism on this site.

In summation, we feel that your points about Wikipedia style being inconsistent with our posting are valid, although you have seriously misunderstood our situation, and Parfrey's. As far as Constantine, well, some of our Southern California contingent are in contact with a former associate of his, turned professional opponent. He may well help us put together a website about Magnetman. BTW--he might NOT be crazy. Perhaps he's merely a bald-faced liar who knows nothing about the physical universe. What he's claiming is impossible. But maybe he's merely dissembling, and not hallucinating.

Truce accepted, Ms. Cow.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.33.119 (talk) 9 August 2006

Fagstein is in accordance. I'm once again removing the unsourced, unverifiable statements until they can be backed up according to Wikipedia policies (as noted above).Apocalypse cow 22:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Edited to remove defamatory comments re Alex Constantine by known trolls.

Non-encyclopedic, non-notable list

There is no reason to put a massive of list of what looks like every work ever published by this company into this article. Most of these books are non-notable in the extreme, and irrelevant to any rational description of the company's history, business, or nature. No other publisher in Wikipedia has such a list, and this one shouldn't have it either. Rgr09 (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

+1 - that extensive link list should be moved to talk as well - David Gerard (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

No need, since they are already all used in the Adam Parfrey article, I have just deleted them. Rgr09 (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Constantine

Feral House has published three titles written by Alex Constantine: "Psychic Dictatorship in the USA," with chapters on the development of electronic weapons and "Havana Syndrome," - decades before the government and press acknowledged the existence of the technology - cult programming and the history of CIA mind control, and other topics. "Virtual Government" further explores CIA mind control, and a variety of subjects including America's neo-Nazi underground and the Oklahoma bombing, the OJ Simpson case, mass shootings, etc. "The Covert War Against Rock" was included in the Observer's list of "The 50 Best Music Books Ever." The book concerns the deaths of a number of rock musicians, including Jimi Hendrix, John Lennon, Brian Jones and Bob Marley. Constantine also edited "The Essential Mae Brussell: Investigations of Fascism on America," published by Feral House in 2014. His website, "The Constantine Report" (cpnstantinereport.com), has archived over 8,500 entries on American corporate collusion with the Nazi regime and industrial sector, the rise of fascism in the Republican Party, the crimes of the intelligence community 2600:1702:2211:2030:69D2:E3C1:6694:7F62 (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC), political assassinations, Mafia, propaganda, child sex rings, neo-Nazism, mind control, and other topics addressed in his books. He has appeared in scores of documentaries and media interviews.

Alex Constantine comment

I write about fascism in politics - it is inevitable that Wikipedia will be used to subvert my efforts with disinformation. In the past, "critics" bearing a grudge have left defamatory comments. But you get used to this after several decades of writing about fascism - I am constantly badgered and threatened. So are many others who have, since I began publishing, stirred up the enmity of the far-right. Any defamatory comments left here do not concern me much, but Wiki readers are advised to be skeptical.

- Alex Constantine

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexx33 (talk • contribs) 11 August 20062600:1702:2211:2030:69D2:E3C1:6694:7F62 (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)David Taylor

Spencer Sunshine

In 2024, respected academic Spencer Sunshine, PhD, in his book Neo-Nazi Terrorism and Countercultural Fascism, published by Routledge, manifestly settled the question of Feral House’s long suspected neo-Nazism. Although in his own defense neo-Nazi founder Adam Parfrey had claimed that his mother was Jewish or part-Jewish, Dr. Sunshine explicitly clarifies in no uncertain terms that indeed Feral House is a neo-Nazi enterprise. ~2025-40798-66 (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

No, he doesn't, as you admit in your own edit summary! And no, he does not say that. At no point does he say in this book that Parfrey or Feral House was a neo-Nazi enterprise. I own the book! That you want the book to say it, as you have admitted, is of no relevance. And even if he did, it would not be WP:DUE weight or in compliance with MOS:LABEL. If one source calls someone a neo-Nazi but most sources don't, we do not privilege that above the other sources; the totality of the sources on Parfrey or Feral House do not present him that way, and how are we to determine whether he has "settled the question"? Let the things he has said speak for themself, without engaging in WP:OR or improper labeling, which the article is already doing. The article already brings up the neo-Nazi ties for a respectable third of the article, which is honestly probably weighted too much to the one source that mentions it, it doesn't need uncited original research cited to nothing.

Also, your edits have no citations, and per WP:V all material without inline citations can be removed. Several of the things you mention were also not true (they never published books from Savitri Devi, for one). PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Feral House publishing "neo-nazi" materials

I think this statement is opinion and does not belong in this wiki page. "Despite this growing influence, Feral House continued to publish neo-Nazi materials, though their political topics widened over time." Feral house continues to publish many books on controversial subjects as part of its stated role as a publisher of Transgressive literature. MackDano (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

This statement (also from sunshine) is used earlier in the article and would seem to address the same topic, albeit more generally: "Early publications of Feral House expressed mostly far-right political views, though this expanded over time.[10]". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MackDano (talk • contribs) 20:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, it's not opinion. For example Cult Rapture contained multiple chapters from white supremacist murderers. I could probably condense it a bit. I removed the sentence you took issue with but more because it was kind of duplicative. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

This reminds me, I got halfway through an article on Cult Rapture and then did not finish it. Probably should get back to that. Very interesting book. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Parakanyaa, Thanks for agreeing to remove that later sentence.

Its interesting that you list Cult Rapture with, yes, several chapters about white supremacist murders. Is it a justification of "publishing neo-nazi material"?. Cult Rapture is a revealing? journalistic? expose? discussion? of the fascination of people with cults lead by radical thinking wackos. Not all of whom are white supremacist. Is it a balanced examination of the various, cults, cult leaders with background of religions, perversion, white supremacy,....? Or skewed toward the neo-nazi? Because there are a lot of neo-nazi cults, or because Parfrey skews it that way?

Is Parfrey a good journalist/author who is a neo-nazi supporter, or a guy with an adverse fascination with the weird, or a crappy fringe nerd? On subjects that most people would like to avoid talking about.

Yes, Feral House has published books that contain lots of nazi material, but is that material in support of naztionalism? or a commentary on it. Is "Hipster Hitler" neo-nazi and supporting nationalism, or sarcastic commentary on Hipsters and Hilter thrown together?

Is "The White Nationalist Skinhead Movement" pro nazi, or a journalistic examination of white nationalism in the music/punk music scene? As a companion to Lords of Chaos?, which deals with Satanism and all sorts of derivatives in punk music

Is"Struwelpeter" about weird childrens stories from the 1800's or pro nazi, just because the author wrote a parody story about hitler?

"Black Metal" Music is crime in Norway? or a support of neo-nazi music crime gangs in Norway?

etc......

Their stated genre/role is transgressive works. That stuff that other mainstream publishers won't publish. So that you get to read about it. Good or "bad". But what's bad? according to Jerry Falwell? Kirk? the pope? sunshine? you? me? MackDano (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I have read Cult Rapture. I mean, if we're even judging based on purely stuff Parfrey wrote, and not the chapters that solely say the opinions of far-right murderers, in that book, I would say it is in part clearly a "far-right" book insofar as anything is (see his chapter on OKC).

I think Parfrey was a lot of things. If I had to judge, personally (and I am not a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes), I would say he had a general interest in the weird but was also, at least for several years in the 1980s, a sympathizer to some degree. After that, I don't know.

They have published commentary on neo-Nazism. They have also published actual neo-Nazi materials. I am not saying that is right or wrong but it is a Thing that they did. But we include the evaluations of those who are considered reliable sources. And, factually speaking, I do think it is right. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I might also refer you to your own comment on the Adam Parfrey talk page.

"Neo-Nazi

I really doubt this editor will see this, given they jump from account to account every single edit. We have no source that calls him this, and even if we did, most don't, so it wouldn't be WP:DUE weight. We cannot just decide he is, and it is egregious source misrepresentation to say a book says something this negative, and then when confronted with evidence that it doesn't, backpedal and say oh, but it should say that. Okay, who cares, it doesn't! It isn't whitewashing to stick exactly to what reliable sources say, it is the only policy-allowed option. Stop. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:52, 7 " MackDano (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that editor tried, for months, with no sources, to insert the flat out "Parfrey was a neo-Nazi" into the article. And other articles. And I think Ward's article. And also the article of random celebrities. They'll probably be back. As I noted, we already note the ties between Parfrey and the far-right and I was opposed to removing that. I think we should let the facts speak for themselves and not label him or the publisher as one way. I haven't changed my mind. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

A full paragraph from a private letter about a single book (and not Feral House) that only appears in one source in this relatively short article is not WP:DUE. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:15, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

It's a paragraph specifically about using the publication of one book to balance out perceptions regarding publishing another, and gives direct voice to Parfey's motivations, intentions, and personal opinions/sympathies as a publisher handling racist and extreme-right material. It's hard to imagine what kind of original-source material would be more relevant to establish Parfrey's thinking with regard to publishing racist and extreme-right material in 1988. Suggesting that the letter does not constitute due weight is illogical.

The letter is sourced: do you have reason to suspect or allege that Sunshine was not quoting from it directly, or was altering its text? What would be the reason for such allegations, given such doubts and allegations are generally not levelled against quotes of original-source material cited in the notes of academically published volumes discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia?

Routledge is not a fly-by-night publisher: they're a respectable academic press, and to presume without evidence that Sunshine invented the letter or that it cannot be relied upon because it appeared in his book would seem to suggest an unmerited bias against him and his work, and in favour of protecting the reputation of Parfrey and his work.

If indeed there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the letter as quoted by Sunshine in his book (and you've provided none), then the letter is of critical importance in capturing Parfrey's position on the "controversial" (pro-racist, pro-fascist) material he published. It shows that whether or not he was in fact a racist, he was comfortable using extreme racist language (as well as "ZOG," a term specific to the American mid-80s neo-Nazi milieu) in communication with avowed racists and neo-Nazis. The letter and its contents are the opposite of having undue weight: they provide an important insight (otherwise unreflected on the entry as it was) into the thinking and strategy behind the way Feral House operated in 1988. ~2026-21245-64 (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

He's not even talking about Feral House, because Feral House did not exist in 1988. So how is it WP:DUE for the Feral House article, when it isn't about Feral House? It is a paragraph exclusively quoting at length a single letter that appears in one book to one person. Cherrypicking this quote and not any of the many others he made (and which are included in this, and other books) is ridiculous. He spoke plenty of times about what he was thinking; why is this one given so much weight?

No, but that doesn't matter, because this isn't an article for every single quote that Parfrey has said, and it adds nothing that is not explained in the text already. I am not arguing that the source is unreliable but it quotes Parfrey dozens of times in the book. Why shouldn't we include every quote? What makes this one WP:DUE weight to pick out? It cannot shine light on the operations of a company in 1988 that did not exist in 1988. It is not of critical importance, any more than any other letter he sent was; what is your evidence that it is? PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

PARAKANYAA that editor has been block, yet you didn't revert to the March 1 last version?? I deleted the two paragraphs with the extended discussion of Parfrey and the letter to Mason. And the link to "right wing publishing companies". Which Feral house is not. Again, its transgressive, it publishes lots of stuff that is controversial, big difference.

1987-1990 - Apocalypse Culure (yes- Neo-Nazi, and....Satanist, peodophiles, necrophiles, etc..)

1991 - I cried, You didn't listen, Death Scenes: A Homicide Detective's Scrapbook (death and homicide in raw picture form)

1992 The Devil's Notebook (a satanist commenting on a range of topics, occult faddism, cannibalism, erotic politics, and yes, nazism)

1994 - Beneath the Underground (about sub-culturists)

1995 - Cult Rapture (cults, all cults)

1998 -Lords of Chaos (the rise of satanix Metal Underground)

2000 - Apocalypse Culture II

2003- Voluptous Panic: The Erotic World of Wiemar Berlin, Extreme Islam (is this about Sex, or the erotic culture of Berlin leading up to the war -in the time of the nazi power, and extreme islam......)

2003 -It's a Man's World: Men's Adventure Magazines

2009 -Love, Sex, Fear, Death: The Inside story of the Process Church (about a weird church)

2013 - Ritual America (Sceret societies in America)

That is NOT a Right wing publishers list, its an interesting bunch of topics about the weird and fringe, which happens to includes nazis and neo-nazi's becuase they are part of the weird fringe.

What sunshine, this banned editor, and others fail to recognize is the methods that writers, producers, and publishers use to get interesting information and writing. They culture "friendships", meet with people, yeah maybe pay them a little to get the information. That doesn't specifically make them aligned with that organization. If you were trying to write a book about the KKK, you would have to get into the KKK or get members of the KKK to talk about it. How would you do that???.... write communications, foster friendships, pay for coffee or lunch or ???

With respect to current news: Is the Southern Poverty Law Center guilty of wire fraud, conspiracy and false statements to commit money laundering because it used its money to sometimes pay informants? garner information about extreme right wing organizations? Those are the same tactics law enforcement has used (the entire history of human kind) to get information about the law breakers. I'm sure the courts will rule correctly on that "trumped" up set of charges quickly. MackDano (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

This editor appears to be a different person than that one editor, thankfully. If you just revert back and forth without discussing it that is called edit warring and you get blocked for it. I did not want that to happen, though I agree one random blockquote shouldn't be in the article especially when the article as a whole isn't so lengthy. Maybe if we expand it more will be due.

I have said this before but I do think the connection Sunshine is making isn't so baseless; but also, one source is not the end all be all for how we write our articles. So I am opposed to not including it but I am opposed to putting too much weight on it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, Lords of Chaos specifically is, not the best evidence for Feral House not being far-right. I like that book but, uh, it had its own controversies. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. multiple new editors.... Hm...

Re: Lords of Chaos; well controversy(ies) = book sales. What business are you (FH) in?? Isn't book sales like TV. The goal is to generate interest and sell advertising (or books). ABC/CBS/HBO/etc are Neo-nazi or good sales/marketing machines?MackDano (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

The controversy with Lords of Chaos was less about its subject matter and more to do with Moynihan, who Parfrey was friendly with. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

usage of "Works cited"

Can someone show me where "works cited: is used in Wikipedia? I've looked at the reference style guides and explanation and I don't find any place that this is used in Wikipedia. The referencing system in this article was originally using inline footnotes but now seems to be a mix of that plus shortened footnotes. MackDano (talk) 18:39 17 February 2026 (UTC)

For the "short footnotes" to work, they have to be attached to the long references, or they throw errors. Read WP:Citing sources, particularly WP:SFN. "These are used together with full citations, which are listed in a separate "References" section, or have been provided in a footnote appearing earlier in the article." These are used in most Wikipedia articles that cite books, e.g. Abraham Lincoln. You cannot just use the short ref because that does not work. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, but Abraham Lincoln does not use "Works Cited", it uses "Sources". So where specifically is "works cited" used or called out in the citing sources or WP:SFN? Because I don't see usage that anywhere. MackDano (talk) 05:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@MackDano "Works cited"/"Sources" are synonymous here, there is no rule on what name we have to use for the long refs section. Other options used for this kind of section include "bibliography", like in today's featured article High and Low (1963 film), Fort Southerland, Mary Fortune. I could change the title to that right now and it would be the same. They are just different options for the same section which is the distinction between long and short refs. I don't think the name matters. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

As a "sources/Bibliography" that list should include all of the books referenced in the article vs links to web pages like the newspaper articles? MackDano (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@MackDano Yes. We have a lot of flexibility in how we do things, but this is one accepted style. Once a consistent style is established we are supposed to stick with it per WP:CITEVAR. When you're citing books with many pages you are more limited in style, the only other option is I believe RP tags, which are... controversial (you specify the page inline for every single citation). PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Oklahoma City Bombing Book Lawsuit

The first lawsuit in 1998, brought by Oliver "Buck" Revell was settled in 1999, at which time Feral House agreed to destroy all copies of the book "The Oklahoma City Bombing and The Politics of Terror", authored by David Hoffman.

In 2022 Revell filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - 309 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2002) seeking damages for defemation and civil conspiracy. Feral House was named but was dismissed. This article lists Feral house as a "Foreign Corporation" which is incorrect? The Oklahoman newspaper article:

Well, the book is notable. I can make an article on it if you want? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I was just documenting a little information, that maybe should/shouldn't go in the main article. But an article about the specific book would be interesting. I see there are copies available on ebay. MackDano (talk) 05:49, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I have a digital copy. I put it on my list of articles to write at some point, but that list is very long. And I think your addition about the book was fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)