Counter-Currents
Response to My Critics of “Restoring the White Voice on College Campuses”
Derek Stark3,907 words 
Several days ago, in an article titled “Restoring the White Voice on College Campuses,” I proposed that we should reconsider forming European-American student groups on university campuses. I contended that it may be possible if we avoid direct political confrontations, gaining a foothold first by focusing on identity formation through a celebration of culture, rather than jumping into controversial, attention-getting issues such as anti-immigration.
Readers greeted my article with not a few objections, many of them with considerable merit. I endorse many of these objections, not because I feel my original proposal is in error, but because I believe in a “let many flowers bloom approach.” That is, we should use as many tactics as possible. By all means, young white-pilled students, should join off-campus groups such as the Patriot Front or participate in Active Clubs, as Ondrej Mann suggests. Quite a few comments called for a focus on starting new institutions, or creating secret societies, suggested by Gus, or by participating in what Ondrej Mann calls the “Dark Academy.” And as Anonymous wrote, “We must do the hard work to build our own academy; rather than squandering our few resources in futile attempts to recapture what our deceived ancestors ceded.”
Solid suggestions, all. They should be attempted by those so inclined. The Left has made great advances by forcing their opponents on the Right to play a version of political “whack-a-mole.” They attack on different fronts, retreating when necessary but always pressing forward on numerous issues. We can do the same—including forming student groups. Some attempts to establish permanence will likely fail, some may not.
Francis XB suggested a slightly different tack, only backward-looking: “Figure out what has failed over the last decade or so, and what has succeeded. Then go with the latter.”
Of course, we should be concerned with what succeeds. But we should be forward-looking. Our movement really has not been able to do much beside grow our voices on the Internet—yet. It is still in its infancy, stunted by much opposition coming from so many different directions. So there is only a small sample size of tactics from which to discern successful ones. But times change: in just a few years, our nation has gone through the Covid tyranny, the George Floyd-inspired anarcho-tyranny, and the aggressive importation of who-knows-how-many millions of low IQ third-worlders—including vicious criminal gangs. Many more white ears are likely to be receptive to our message today than in the past. Furthermore, we have had some positive developments, such as the 2019 court decision New Century Foundation v. Robertson, which prevents government entities from silencing our public speech by imposing huge security fees, and the purchase of Twitter (and support for free speech) by Elon Musk. Now is the time to be aggressive and creative, to employ different tactics to see which will bear fruit and which will fail.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s White Identity Politics here.
And even failure can bring positive change. It can wake people up to the injustice done to us. The struggle alone can expose people to ideas, facts, arguments, and issues they did not know existed; The key is to stimulate people’s basic sense of fairness, which is intrinsic to most Americans. Make them see the repression and identify with it.
The most common objection to my initial article raised the likelihood that participating in a white student organization would destroy a student’s career prospects. As Anonymous suggested, participation in a white students’ group “defeats the main purpose of white students: good-paying jobs and grad school.” Lord Shang adds that “it would be asking the students involved to commit career suicide . . . my advice would be to lay low, mouth whatever platitudes you have to, go to grad school, come out and make money—and then give money to the Right.” Or, he added, to run for office.
Of course, if the goal is solely to avoid hurting a specific student’s career prospects right now, Lord Shang is right. But he is effectively suggesting that we postpone a process and push it off onto the next generation when it may be too late. After all what will his future donors be giving money for? Largely for the same sort of organizing that can be done today with less money.
More important, individual success is unlikely if we are powerless second-class citizens. The outlook for career prospects is indeed changing, and the “hunker down and endure” strategy to career success is unlikely to work for much longer. In the past, white males made up the overwhelming percentage of medical students. According to the American Association of Medical Colleges, in the 2019-20 school year, they were down to 25.8 percent. Bad enough, but only four years later, in 2023-24, they were only 20.5 percent—a very rapid decrease. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2021, white males made up between 26 and 27 percent of the 18-24 age group, meaning that white males are not only shrinking as a percentage of the population, but they are increasingly underrepresented in medical schools. At the rate things are going, the medical profession will soon be essentially sealed off to white males.
A similar dynamic exists for the legal profession. According to the National Association for Law Placement (NALP), white males accounted “for 51.6% of all graduates in the class of 1991. By the time the Class of 2021 graduated, the share of the class accounted for by White men had decreased to about 34%.” NALP later added that during this same general period, “the percentage of the U.S. population accounted for by White, non-Hispanic men decreased from about 37% in 1990 to about 32% in 2020.” In other words, in 1991, white males were heavily overrepresented in law schools, but in 2021 white male law graduates were roughly equal to their percentage of the population. To give further context, according to the Stanford Graduate School of Business, in 1960, when white males were roughly 44 percent of the population, “94% of doctors and lawyers were white men.”
The trendline for lawyers mirrors that of medical students, only lagging by a few years. The legal profession, too, will soon only be available to a select few white men—most likely only the ones who will do the bidding of the establishment to further damage the white race.
Corporate America has also been committed to diversifying its workplace (meaning replacing white workers). According to Bloomberg News, in 2021, “the S&P 100 added more than 300,000 jobs — 94% went to people of color.” While hiring discrimination against whites may no longer be that extreme, the jobs outlook at big corporations that pay the highest salaries for young whites is not good. Technical fields once dominated by white males are increasingly staffed by Asians. And members of other ethnicities now getting the top positions generally retain their in-group preferences. The Great Replacement is real and pretending you don’t notice will cease to be an effective career strategy for white males. That kind of thinking is sort of our Achilles heel: for fear of losing status and comfort, we may be sacrificing our race. As Greg Johnson said on one of his recent podcasts (and I don’t know if it is originally from him), “You can’t have a revolution with benefits.”
So what can possibly be done? One potential antidote—and maybe the only one—to this anti-white discrimination is having whites organize and push back against it in a big enough way. The initial roadblock to becoming a strong voice is the lack of group identity and in-group preference. We can’t wait for individuals to randomly become white-pilled; we have to force the process. And where better than on campus, where intelligent young whites with leadership abilities generally spend some time?
Again, the future of the white race may be at stake; this is no small matter. Anonymous wrote that forming white student groups “is the equivalent of attempting to run at a machine gun nest while being armed with only spears.” But many people over the centuries have indeed risked literal life and limb when their nation is threatened. Of course, his comment was only meant figuratively; the risks for forming white student groups are generally much lower than actual machine gun fire. And sometimes, the best thing that can happen is that a little blood gets spilled, particularly if in the figurative sense. After all, nothing shapes a lad up like getting bloodied a bit in his first fight.
Young white men need to be encouraged to fight for their rights as whites. The race simply cannot be preserved without them. The future will not be a more propitious time to fight; as the replacement progresses and the white population shrinks, the opposition will not be weaker or more pliable. Furthermore, the sort of young men attracted to our cause will prove resilient in the long run; we should trust in them that, even though corporate America shuts its doors on them, they will find a way to get ahead. They’re white; that’s what we do.
And so, we must use the weapons left to us. Knowledge of how Jews have historically used victimhood and white guilt as weapons has become widespread. We have just such a weapon on campus: the inherent unfairness in the way we are not allowed the same right of association on campus that others are. Denying us a place in the university is an affront to the very concept of “fairness” that underlies much of our ethical reasoning. We should force one basic question into the public arena: are we second-class citizens who are to be denied the same rights as others?
We need to work this fairness angle, publicize it, push it into the national consciousness. The same way that our opponents pushed images of Jewish concentration camp (or, if you prefer, work camp) survivors, or pushed images of police using high-pressure water hoses and attack dogs during the 1950s civil rights protests.
Some other objections were concerned with the difficulty of finding allies, whether on campus or off. Anonymous wrote:
The few “conservative” and/or Republican professors and administrators at the institution would undoubtedly join in with their leftist colleagues in condemning the organization for its advocacy of White or European-American identity to avoid charges of racism regardless of how well the organization’s leadership uses the smoke screen of ethno-pluralism.
Anonymous certainly describes how normie Republicans and media personalities would react. However, I’m not sure this matches the reality on campus. For one thing, many academics are individual performers who are only concerned with their own research and teaching. Also, there are a great number of free speech absolutists in academia, including many liberals. If somebody feels passionately about free speech, they are also likely to accept that it is also our right to associate. Both rights come from the First Amendment. Even if they dislike our beliefs, they also assent that it is unpopular speech that needs to be protected. And while vicious leftist ideologues get most of the ink, there are quite a few faculty members, including liberals, who idealistically support fairness. They may not be the most vocal, but they exist. For instance, Youth for Western Civilization was able to find faculty members to sponsor them on very liberal campuses 15 or so years ago.
Today, it may even be easier to find allies—on some campuses. On others, it will indeed be impossible or nearly so. The individual campus climate is an important consideration when deciding whether to form. Oberlin or Brown may not be the best places to start such a group. Ditto for the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. On the other hand, public universities in red states are likely the best places for such organizing, for they must eventually respond to the political will of the people. Two conservative faculty members I am friendly with recently moved from northern left-wing institutions, where they felt embattled and frustrated, to second-tier public universities in Tennessee and Florida, where they feel welcome and respected. Another category with potential is at small private colleges in rural areas that are struggling to maintain the enrollment necessary to keep their doors open.
On another note, Lord Shang wrote that “My sense is that the oppression of whites on campus in 2024 is infinitely worse than when I graduated undergrad in 1983.”
It is and isn’t. The Left has owned the American campus since the 1960s. Nobody was trying to start white student associations back in 1983; the nation was still overwhelmingly white and most were unaware of what our globalist friends had in store for us. But even back then, advocating for whites would have met with both official and popular disapproval.
And today, after 60 years of increasing radicalization of academia, the climate is starting to change in some sectors; the political polarization of the last couple of decades is causing colleges to sort themselves out a bit. Red state legislatures and governing boards are making changes; for instance, roughly 30 states have some sort of bill limiting “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” mandates passed into law or pending.
Another development that holds promise for the future is the emergence of independent academic centers or programs that function outside of the typical department structure. They are usually funded by outside donors—giving them additional independence from the administration. The outside donors often stipulate that the centers must focus on conservative or free market issues and approach these issues from a specified direction. Before 2000, there were a handful of these centers and programs; today there are hundreds, many of them well-established and hiring their own faculty. While none have a race-realist approach, they still serve as right-leaning campus organizations from which to build.
The most important thing about these independent centers for our movement is that, while usually directed and staffed by normie conservatives and libertarians who are not usually our allies, they all tend to hold very positive views about Western Civilization, unlike regular humanities departments. So, at least in this regard, these centers may offer at least some potential for alliance, support, and synergy.
One thing is for certain; If you never seek allies, it is unlikely that any will appear. In the new zeitgeist that has emerged since Covid, George Floyd, and the Biden years, we may find we have more friends than we thought we did. And it cannot be emphasized enough: we have the legal right to associate freely. We may not be welcomed by university administrations, but they cannot legally shut the door on us. We may need to get legal help at times, but that’s what one does in a political fight.
Another objection by Anonymous said that “the vast majority of the White persons who would be interested in joining such an organization would overwhelmingly be disaffected, young White males with right-wing political beliefs . . . white women would not join such an organization given the strong likelihood of social exclusion that they would experience as a result of becoming a member.
The suggestion that white student associations would only attract “disaffected young men” is largely correct. That’s OK; they are our target market: young men who have noticed the inherent unfairness of our treatment and feel alienated by the current society. After all, that society wants us gone or broken. Any young white man who does not feel some disaffection today is either not very intelligent or has blinders on. Who else would we attract? We want the ones who are smart enough to see that their country is being stolen from them, and whose disaffection will drive them to take action and influence their peers.
When it comes to female college students, women have never formed the major part of the racial realism movement. When they do participate, they can be outstanding contributors. But, at least in the early stages, organizing European-American student groups will be largely male. Fine. Once the tide starts to turn, we can expect women to join in a big way; they are hardwired to side with winners. Throughout our early history, all the way back to hunter-gatherer days, the men in losing wars were either slaughtered or isolated in slavery doing brutal work that killed them off quickly, such as rowing in galley ships or working in mines. Therefore, they disappeared from the gene pool. Women were also taken as slaves but integrated into society rather than removed from it. They needed to be able to switch sides, to not hate their captors, to get along in order to pass on their genes.
Even so, as more women realize the emptiness of the Left’s vision for them, they may come to our side. Fashions in thinking, as well as in clothes or music, can change.
Another major concern expressed by commenters to the article is the potential response by the radical left. Anonymous worries that the identities of white student group members will be made public, leading to all manner of mischief beyond the campus. Ondrej Mann writes that “establishing an openly pro-white organization will only lead to problems – bullying, doxxing, expulsion from school, and a lifetime of stigmas.”
All of that is at least partially true, except for expulsion. A university might ignore harassment of white student group members by campus radicals, but the law prevents a school from taking direct punitive actions such as expulsion (unless it is one of the few schools that adhere to a specific dogma, such as a strict religious college). And we are talking about starting white student groups that have official school status—it is hard to see how one could be expelled for participating in an officially recognized group.
As for bullying, doxing, and being stigmatized, we are still talking about our race being subjugated or eliminated if we continue to do nothing. A people must occasionally fight for their rights. Furthermore, whatever psychological, physical, or financial harm is done by the left to those who speak up is may be offset by the positive sense of purpose and camaraderie that will be gained by fighting for what is right. And as we develop our networks, associations, and institutions further, many of the negative tactics of the left will be less effective.
At least one commenter expressed a feeling that academia is beyond redemption and should be treated accordingly. “They need to be discredited and destroyed,” writes Lord Shang of universities. He calls for the “destruction” to question the value of college to discourage attendance; working to re-legalize corporate IQ tests so that the cognitive gatekeeper function of attending college is removed; and founding new colleges with anti-wokeness written into their founding charters.
The fact is that normie conservative organizations are already calling for all three of those reform tactics, but with uneven progress. Articles are routinely written calling for students to eschew traditional college for apprenticeship programs. Perhaps they have had some impact, as males have gradually diminished as a percentage of college students from 53 percent in 1976 to 42 percent in 2022. Between 2016 and 2021, 48 private colleges went out of business. And according to the National Center for Education Statistics, “between fall 2010 and fall 2021, total undergraduate enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions decreased by 15 percent (from 18.1 million to 15.4 million students).” Much of the decline came from young people rejecting the aggressive recruiting by colleges and easy availability of student loans of the early years of this century. However, the decline has levelled off, and enrollment is again expected to rise.
But a word of caution about rejecting college entirely. Race realists must remain technically proficient, and they must also arm themselves with all manner of information. While the Internet is filled with people claiming to be autodidacts who can easily master complex subjects without formal training, higher education still remains the best path to acquiring high-level knowledge for the vast majority of us who are not so cognitively blessed.
As for the IQ controversy, Griggs v Duke Power, which removed the rights of corporations to use IQ tests as a screening method for employment in 1971, was greatly narrowed in scope by Wards Cove Packaging Company v Atonio in 1989. The Supreme Court ruled in Wards Cove “that only a “business justification” was needed to avoid running afoul of disparate impact law.” However, President Bush signed the Civil Rights Act of 1991 that essentially overturned Wards Cove. I’ve read at least 20 articles by normie conservative and libertarians decrying Griggs over the years. While I am assuredly against the restriction on IQ tests, Griggs remains the law of the land despite the efforts of said normies. So putting lots of our eggs in that basket may not be the best move.
And creating new anti-woke colleges would be wonderful. However, I’ve worked almost 20 years for the reform of higher education. In that time, there has been fewer than one new college per year created (or fewer). The great majority of them are both tiny and Christian-based, meaning that, while not multicultural, they favor the universalist approach toward race. And they primarily focus on a relatively narrow swathe of the humanities; state universities and private technical schools will remain the best place for students to gain high-level scientific and technical expertise for some years to come. Furthermore, the cost of creating these schools—even though they are quite small—can be enormous. If resources are scarce, other tactics may be better.
And yet, I’m not saying Lord Shang is entirely wrong. Too many young people attend college without a real sense of purpose; better that they work a few years to learn what they want to do and to accumulate experience and wealth. Employers should be able to screen using IQ tests, and we should of course try to create our own educational and scholarly institutions. But relying only on those tactics may continue to prove to be disappointing, as they have for decades.
And finally, there were several claims that white student groups cannot be formed by themselves or not without a lot of money. Additionally, Francis XB said that, “One prerequisite to creating a white student movement is in getting elite support: an IT oligarch, a grant-awarding foundation, an existing conservative student front, a legal defense organization.”
The idea that organizations cannot be started without bazillions of dollars in funding is not true. One person with intelligence, energy, and persistence can start an organization on a shoestring and accomplish great things. Having spent a couple of decades working for and with small think tanks, I have witnessed this firsthand. A student group, on the scale I suggested in the original article, can be founded by just a few committed students; when it comes to needing resources, it is one of the least costly, most efficient methods to advance our cause. And a national network of such groups only needs a single individual to serve as a clearing house for ideas, best practices, legal fund-raising, and inter-campus communications.
I believe I have addressed just about all of the major criticisms of my article. (If I missed any, I apologize.) Again, many of them are very good, but as parts of the equation, not the whole. In the end, the fight cannot be pushed off any longer, every decade our percentage of the population drops significantly. As Willie Sutton is claimed to have said, he robbed banks because “that’s where the money is.” College campuses are where ideas are formulated and spread, and where intelligent young people often discover their adult identities or find that they possess leadership qualities. They are too important to ignore.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
22 comments
It is wonderful to see that you have strong conviction. In the end paralysis by analysis is capitulation. I think your reasoning is solid. Your best point is standing up and nobly fighting the necessary fight, even if you take losses will only galvanize and strengthen the fighters.
Go for it. Keep us posted on how it goes down.
P.S. Musk and Theil and those guys have grants and programs for people to not go to college and Musk advocates for hiring direct from high school. I think hitching your wagon to any and all such projects are great. On the one hand, you have sympathetic potential supporters and on the other you offer insurance against the worst case scenarios of total disenfranchisement and a benefit/incentive for those who would join.
That’s certainly a bleak picture on the job front. One possible solution for that is small businesses with like-minded people. They’ll have to stay small in order to skirt “diversity” laws (I believe the threshold is 100 employees) which will also prevent a lot of other red tape too. They can hire promising Whites out of high school and train them up, and avoid hiring blue-haired NPCs with Ph.Ds in lesbian ninja studies. This will require a lot of personal networking, as well as business know-how (which unfortunately I don’t have). Then someone hounded from a job by Social Justice Warriors can get a better job the next day. With luck, this can develop into an alternative economy.
Regarding alternative institutions of higher learning, I’d highly suggest that anyone with an interest in preserving Germanic studies in some form check into Stephen E. Flowers’ Woodharrow Institute.
Very good suggestion. I personally know people who have done these studies.
In 2024 schools will not side with “white” name organizations. Even if one formed with 10 people it would probably be met with international news headlines, protests and condemnations.
A sea-change in thinking or acceptance generally occurs in response to a national crisis, so this best be on the backburner until some death squad targeting whites is unveiled, or the like. But there is currently no ban on German clubs, Russian clubs, Italian clubs, Irish clubs, Welsh interest groups, Scottish history group, and so on. These should be joined and networks formed. When the time is right, then unite. Just leave out the goosestepping and the like or it will be all for naught.
“Even if one formed with 10 people it would probably be met with international news headlines, protests and condemnations.”
They say all publicity is good publicity… Just getting it out there and fighting the fight may be valuable. The more condemnation, the more obvious the double standards and unfairness.
It’s a reverse and honest work. Thank you for accurately quoting my comment. I haven’t changed my mind on the subject, but it was a pleasure to read your essay.
“I believe in a “let many flowers bloom approach.” That is, we should use as many tactics as possible.”
I disagree. This assumes that all approaches are equal and they are not. Some approaches are more effective than others and different approaches entail different risks.
With the ones that involve risk, you have to do a cost benefit analysis: how many people are you redpilling for every arrest or dox?
If an approach is empirically inefficient, it should not be continued just for the sake of diversity of tactics. We should be consolidating efforts and resources that achieve results most efficiently.
Hillel is so succesful because it has private joo cash and campus funding, including space on campus for socialization, game rooms, activities, etc. They bring the rabbis in to keep the hate going, so it is a bait and switch. They then also use Birth Right Israel to propagandize the Long Island kids to ingratiate with Israel.
Chabad is similar, but the hate of the goy is so great, you feel real unwelcome fast when you sit down for the free food as a student.
How can a student group, with none of these resources, do it?
It would be useful to have people with experience organizing on campus doing articles and podcasts for C-C.
Also, do interviews with reps of adjacent organization (like Turning Point USA) to see what it would take to create alliances between them and the Dissident Right. Perhaps develop some kind of Dissident Right online program devoted entirely to student issues.
Of course, we should be concerned with what succeeds. But we should be forward-looking.
The Dissident Right is halfway there, mainly via the exploitation of the Internet and social media to seize the high ground of alternative communications. There’s also the potential for mutual actions via Elon Musk. Again, will refer to the GamerGate and the GameStop actions as examples of what can be accomplished on this front.
I appreciate the author’s attempt to find solutions to a very considerable problem, but I remain unpersuaded. What Stark is advocating should and must be done, and once upon a time, decades ago, I tried to do it (and failed). But it must be done by established adults well on the outside of academia. The universities are the very worst places to start up anything explicitly prowhite. Expecting young whites to take up the racial burden that should be the responsibility of their fathers and, perhaps especially, retired grandfathers, is expecting too much.
True, in formulating my response, I hadn’t thought about starting Euro-American identity groups at conservative institutions, as there are so few of such. But they might be frowned upon even there. Many years ago, at an ISI conference, I got into an argument over race with the polite but rather race-liberal “conservative” historian Bradley Birzer. He actually was a professor at Hillsdale College, one of the few Right-leaning colleges. I could see this morally precious (but, to be fair, neither progressive nor Marxist) gasbag getting ‘offended’ if some students were to start a Youth for the West group at Hillsdale that was overtly prowhite.
There might be more latitude at Red State public universities, though I doubt it (but I admit that my thinking about the US university system is totally “Ivy”-centric).
My concern is myopically individualistic: what would cause young whites to commit academic/career suicide by openly creating or joining a prowhite campus group? I ask because leftists are very vicious about destroying their enemies; those on the Right, even the harder-edged Racial Right, are not. Thinking only of myself, if I were a professor (as I nearly became, long ago), would I give a crappy grade to an outstanding paper written by a known student leftist? I hate the Left, but my innate sense of integrity might well prevent me from doing so – and if I should have returned to the Christian faith of my parents, I almost certainly would grade as fairly as I could, even recognizing the evil of the Left and that we are in a state of permanent Cold Civil War with them.
The major problem facing the Right is that we are morally better people than the Left (I refer to our modal characters, not obviously more ethical ideology). The evil Left has weaponized our moral superiority against us (exactly as other races have weaponized the superiority of whites against whites generally). Ceteris paribus, the man who fights dirty will defeat the man who punches cleanly. The Right always loses because we are mostly more concerned about the eschatological fate of our souls than is the more atheistic Left. Even I, a philosophical agnostic, have always refrained from evil, even when such actions would have been to my advantage, out of the possibility that God might exist (and that I might have an immortal soul, and that God would punish me for my sins; basically, I intuitively accepted Pascal’s Wager nearly half a century ago, and undoubtedly, for the rest of my life, too).
Does Stark not realize that leftist profs, at least outside the STEM subjects, would do all they could to destroy the career prospects of any known “white racists” in their classrooms? If a prof is out to get you via your grades, how can you defend yourself in a “non-objective” subject? I myself, in the mid-80s, suffered prejudicial harassment from leftist grad school profs – and back then, there were very many of my profs who had attended grad school in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, and who I’m positive had a greater sense of academic integrity – greater respect for the ‘sacrality’ of the academic process and free exchange of ideas – than today’s profs, who are not just liberals (as my profs were; indeed, I had a well-known Marxist, one who nevertheless had tremendous personal integrity, who wrote a grad school rec for me, despite knowing I was an anti-marxist), but vicious wokesters. The woke will do anything they can to crush “racists” (but only white ones, of course – and which category will include any white, even a non-woke leftist, who merely refuses to engage in racial self-abasement).
I’ve long advocated the need to make the leap from the internet to real world prowhite networking, and I had an idea for this back in 1995. But my idea was for this prowhite networking clearinghouse to be implicitly prowhite, not explicitly so. I understood even then that there was something genetically wrong with whites as a whole, some incredible resistance to accepting racial reality, and especially, to practicing a dual code of ethics – one that stipulates that we owe greater duties of care to our fellow whites (I would now narrow that to “our fellow prowhites”) than to nonwhites. What has caused this peculiarity of evolution I don’t know, but who can deny its reality? Does any other race convulse itself over the merely alleged ‘racism’ of its own members?
We prowhites must see ourselves as the equivalent of Soviet era dissidents. That means that most of us cannot be Jared Taylors or Greg Johnsons (nor need we be). The majority of us must worm our way into the system, and termitically undermine it from within. Stark asserts that this is increasingly impossible due to worsening racial oppression. I disagree. I have legions of white friends who work, and often at high levels. Their white children are getting jobs and starting lives, even if they don’t have the privileges of affirmative action favoritism. It’s just harder than it was for earlier generations. But that itself should make our message increasingly attractive.
Perhaps what we need are young men who have no intention of depending on a university education – who aim at a trade school, say – who nonetheless join a university to agitate for whites – men who have nothing to lose from the university system. They don’t even need to go the full four years.
If we were Jews, we could surely find $100,000 to fund that…
Great article. I like how he incorporates the reader comments!
I think on campus white identity groups would be welcome. I don’t think the members would be all that stigmatized, and it would be helpful if a few brave individuals would test the water on that point. I bet your real problem, however, would be entryism. Like the usual suspects will take over all the key positions and shift the emphasis to Israel somehow. Once something becomes a significant social force it will be co-opted.
The IQ test and disparate impact thing is enforced by the threat of lawsuit. Even if some cases might turn out to be legal after a long legal battle, it’s not worth the potential legal costs and possibility of a devastating loss. It’s the possibility of lawsuit that is quelling, as described in Christopher caldwell’s recent book. For example tech firms use brain teaser interviews, which are a form of iq test, I suppose. But few minorities apply for those positions. Iq tests can be allowed when primarily white vs white or Asian.
Added later: my point being that those sectors where iq tests survive as a part of the interview process are those where you are not disadvantaging a large number of nams relative to whites.
I applaud the author for his thoughtful response to the objections raised in the comments to his original article. I must admit that this response has changed my thinking somewhat on the viability of his plan and the collective risk to our race that inaction poses. Briefly, I will set out a few matters which in my opinion would likely be necessary for the student organizer to have success.
Although it would not require millions of dollars or a media campaign to establish a European-American Student Association, it would be advisable for the student organizer to have access to an off-campus support network of some kind. Such a support network should ideally have access to funds for promoting the organization in its infancy and a relationship with some of the top administrators of the school and/or significant donors to the school. In other words, the student organizer should have a supporter who could apply pressure to the school administration or at least establish some channel of persuasive communication with those decision-makers. The supporters should also be willing to invest their time in mentoring or otherwise coaching the student organizer on how to best frame the organization and its goals. Prior to their successful campus revolution, leftists had developed networks and organizing strategies prior to their implementation.
A bottleneck of sorts for this plan would lie with the capabilities of the student organizer. The student organizer must be popular with the white students, have a very self-motivated personality, have a high level of discipline, possess a good reputation (one not involving roman salutes, swastikas, and racial slurs), and be very articulate. The student organizer would have to informally establish a group of white students with racial consciousness prior to the establishment of the student organization. This is no easy feat. This group would function as the nucleus of the future established student organization. Obviously, such a student leader is very rare. Perhaps, the support network could identify students with high leadership potential and hone their capabilities in an effort to grow the pool of students who could function as successful student organizers.
One cannot imagine how much stress and pressure such a student organizer would have to endure when they are forced to constantly respond to the provocations of left-wing protesters, faculty, and administrators as well as media onslaughts. The student organizer must endure this expense of time and energy while also studying. The student organizer may face rejection or disapproval from friends and family. This takes a will of iron to endure.
If one were to embark on this plan, one should begin by developing a network of supporters who could facilitate the student organizer’s laudable mission. The students should not be expected to go at this herculean task alone.
White advocates might consider some form of a distributed network for a student movement. Case in point is MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way). MGTOW has no hierarchical organization, making it impossible to crush in its entirety. It consists of a vast and shifting network of websites, podcasts, realworld MRA groups and negative actions. The latter includes such practices as “ghosting,” moving onto campuses but refusing to interact with the wider anti-male atmosphere. Meantime, the MGTOWer is sustained by the virtual networks.
There’s an element in MGTOW of Sorel’s Myth of the General Strike, substituting in the Marriage Strike (already in partial effect, by the way). The idea is that if enough men withdraw from the system this will cause a regime collapse. At this point, men will return to their natural positions as leaders of society – another myth in the form of the Return of Kings.
Now, the Dissident Right is in part already operating in this manner. One lesson here is that a Myth is required. There’s the White Strike and this is in part already in effect. Consider the decline in armed forces recruiting because members of traditional military families are no longer signing up to fight for the globalist clown world order.
This can be “weaponized” by turning it into a specific political demand: until all anti-White agitprop and discrimination is ended, White people will not enlist in the armed forces, nor “support the troops,” nor vote for “strong on defense” candidates. And let’s not forget, pro-White campus organizations are to be recognized.
The Dissident Right might consider some form of alliance with MGTOW. Both movements are opposed to the same regime. And again, look at the GameStop and GamerGate operations for more lessons learned. There are a lot of forces out there which could form a wider front of networks.
General Strikes are the least likely to accomplish anything. But MGTOW makes even the Groypers look Straight.
🙂
White nationalists certainly should not push away incels and MGTOWs.
As a teacher, I know how badly off today’s average-looking white boys are. This regime can well accomodate and corrupt the top 10% attractive white athletes, but it has virtually nothing to offer to average and ordinary guys. We can’t be a movement for fashion models. Every white man who is loyal to his race should find support and a political home with us.
I respectfully disagree. If they are so far gone that they cannot even form nuclear families, nor try to, then they are useless to us. Let’s not deny that.
Maybe some of them can be saved with the mentorship of the right people, and hopefully some of us might have a talent for just that. This was an important traditional role of education.
I am not in favor of pushing people away ─ and this is not about jocks and fashion models ─ but I don’t think that movements are made with a groundswell of misfits and losers. Full Stop.
There has to be some operating standards, and especially so when we “build cadre,” or otherwise it will be a predictable disaster ─ from outright assassinations to toxic resentment and sabotage.
Real life activism is surely not possible using an “angry misfit” model, but maybe edgy podcasts are safe enough ─ or at least better than nothing, and the Pool Parties are probably much more than Antifa has to offer.
I fully understand that “the American Dream,” if it was ever what they said it was, has only gotten less attainable with each passing decade since the 1950s.
I’m not just a Boomer who already has mine (I wish). I have lots and lots of nieces and nephews, and I do understand clearly the realities that they and their many children now face.
I have also observed campus academia for several decades, and the institutions are more Marxist now, and getting more so, than I would have ever imagined that they could ever be even just a few years ago.
I certainly don’t have all the answers. But I don’t agree that young White men cannot improve themselves even with the odds stacked so high against them.
In the past most of us learned many of these life lessons as teenagers, and at some very modest level, maybe becoming a manager at a McDonalds, or by getting an A on a term paper for the first time in one’s life. And those little wins (which teach big wins) are not going to come to anyone by playing Call of Duty in Mom’s basement.
Young men have always faced challenges, and I am not disputing how bad it is for young Whites now, but they have to want to change as well ─ and tolerating all this Incel and LGBTQ+ stuff is where I draw the line at excuses.
I’m no social darwinist by any means whatsoever ─ but life was never about participation trophies and edgy LARPing. Some of them just need a proverbial Sgt. Hartman to teach them how to pick up their dirty underwear for the first time in their lives ─ and someone caring about them enough not to be too sparing with the frozen boot to the rear when it’s called for. That is part of what Dads used to do. And we used to have lots of institutions like the Army and the churches and so on that could be counted on to help Mom as well.
The idea that only jocks and fashion models ever grew up and got their stuff squared away and became productive White men is complete nonsense. That is what Marxism teaches, and they don’t really believe it either; it is just an effective class weapon to be deployed. And I refuse to believe that it’s true now.
Telling young White men that their destiny is Loser is not the right message to send. Accomplishing goals sometimes has to be painstakingly taught by trustworthy elders ─ but worthwhile goals simply do not fall from trees or by playing the victim card either.
🙂
My apologies for this late response. The challenges faced by some young white men that are often exacerbated by social clumsiness is a recurring topic. The situation varies from individual to individual, usually with things improving over time as a result of personal experiences that are learnt from. Learning to know when to avoid contentious or irrelevant subjects of conversation; listening to other people’s points of view; presentational skills and grooming; self-reliance, are skills that are eventually picked up by the larger majority over time.
Yes, there are people our movement does not want; grown adult dress-up fantasists/larpers who are old enough to know better; habitual criminal elements and those with no self-perspective, who are incapable of seeing themselves through the eyes of others, and unable to learn from previous mistakes. Here in the UK we have a couple of very small groups that shall remain nameless but who reinforce the “Hollywood Nazi Nut” image.
However, progress is being made by modern, forward-looking groups made up of intelligent people, for example the Traditional Britain Group, Patriotic Alternative, Homeland and the British Democratic Party. Inspired by successful organisations based on mainland continental Europe, their “good optics” events are attended by significant numbers of younger, college educated people – you won’t find the sagging bellies, tattoos, piercings etc. of times gone.
The two scenes already overlap considerably, but they are not the same. They have their own platforms and leaders, so the two movements can happily continue in their own lanes.
One thing I very much disapprove of is the usually older men who take inceldom as an occasion for preening and shaming as opposed to an opportunity to learn that times have changed and a chance to show solidarity.
An UGLY incel White nationalist here! It was thanks to an incel forum that I found my way to White nationalist material 10 years ago. This is also why liberals hate the incel movement so much.
No one is suggesting that hideous incels put themselves in front of cameras for the White cause. But they have plenty of energy when it comes to hitting back at the wokeists in the internet.
It’s clear that genetically we’re not an asset, but so are all other White people who aren’t physically beautiful and perfectly healthy or extremely talented.
A final note: incels have NOTHING to do with LGBTQ++ They are the opposite of homosexuals. They very much desire to have sex with women but are rejected and ridiculed because of their BAD LOOKS.
As Greg Johnson said on one of his recent podcasts (and I don’t know if it is originally from him), “You can’t have a revolution with benefits.”
I liked very much the way Greg Johnson worded it in a recent podcast: If we survive the fiery plane crash our society is currently headed for, we mustn’t attempt to save all our luggage as we exit the plane!
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
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.