Counter-Currents
1,919 words
You can buy Greg Johnson’s White Identity Politics here.
American universities are clearly antagonistic to the concept of a unified white identity. The academy is now dominated by an egalitarian left that overwhelmingly favors multiculturalism, affirmative action, and, in some circles, white replacement. Furthermore, the right wing of racial politics on the American campus offers no support; it is occupied by devotees of a racially “colorblind” society that is ultimately self-negating. Beyond that, a few lonely scholars may bravely soldier on in the hostile academic domain as defenders of whiteness, but in a state of isolation or official censure.
So, given such an unpromising environment, should race realists just cede our place at academic institutions to our opponents and confine our efforts to where we already have a solid presence—the Internet? Or, perhaps, concentrate on building entirely new institutions? While the academic situation may seem hopeless, it is very valuable ground to yield entirely. And free speech rights and academic freedom still have a place in academia; there may be some way to gain a small handhold that could eventually lead to greater heights.
One way to regain influence on American campuses may be through student organizations. It is without question that whites have a legal right to organize as a group on campus, just as other racial, ethnic, or civilizational groups do. The right of free association is fundamental to both the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and court decisions such as N.A.A.C.P v. Alabama in 1958 have consistently affirmed that right at American colleges. One problem concerns the “all comers policy” created in the 2010 decision Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. This decision gives schools the right to demand that student groups accept all eligible students who wish to join, even if they are opposed to the purpose for which the group formed. This creates the possibility that opposing students could “swamp” an organization with greater numbers, take over the leadership, and render the organization ineffective. Yet this problem is not insurmountable; the policy will likely not survive a direct legal challenge.
Today, almost every significant identity group has an official status on large campuses, save for one: European-Americans, or, if you prefer, whites. There are Black Student Alliances, Asian-American Student Unions, Middle Eastern Student Associations, and on and on. The Communist Party USA has a presence on many campuses, as well as other radical political groups that openly promote political violence, including Black Lives Matter and the Campus Anti-Fascist Network (Antifa).
Many observe long-established Republican or Christian student groups and assume they represent whites, but they clearly do not represent whites as whites. They are idea-based, welcoming to all, and not focused on race. There may be an occasional outlier, as at Arizona State University where a group of Republican students who are open to race realism splintered off from the main Republican club and invited Jared Taylor, the author of White Identity, to speak on campus. Additionally, there may be groups for individual nationalities—the Stanford German Student Association, for instance—but their identity formation does not extend much beyond food and festivals. Again, they are not concerned with whites in the broader sense, as are groups for other races, cultures, and ethnicities.
We know why this is so: the political establishment clearly has problems with white identity. For the multicultural society they have planned will not work as intended if whites unite and successfully press for their own advantage. Rather, whites must constantly yield what is rightfully theirs to ameliorate the problems sure to arise in such an unworkable system, in which all other groups constantly push for more. And it is becoming increasingly possible that the end game is to make whites cease to exist as a distinct people, or at least be insignificant and subservient. Having a strong group identity would likely put an end to white acquiescence to their own diminishing. After all, a strong identity is a necessary precursor to effective political action in an unpromising environment. Preventing such identity formation is the globalist establishment’s first line of defense.
One source of confusion for whites seeking to organize on campus may be that student groups based on identity tend to have a dual mission. Certainly, such groups may have cultural and social purposes, but they also serve as advocates for their group. Indeed, many such groups seem to do little else but push for special treatment.
That may be the wrong approach for college European-Americans. The time to be aggressive may not be when the odds are greatly stacked against you. Prior attempts at gaining a campus presence have not worked well for European-American student groups. One previous attempt to bring European identity onto campuses that failed was the short-lived Youth for Western Civilization (YWC) that formed chapters at ten institutions in the first decade of this century. Right from the start, the name raised a red flag for opponents; using “Youth” in the name immediately conjures images of “Hitler Youth” in the minds of many people. Furthermore, the group immediately jumped into the political fray. At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the group invited as a speaker former U.S. Congressman Tom Tancredo. As a leading voice for limiting immigration at that time, Tancredo was a lightning rod for leftist antagonism.
The results of Tancredo’s invitation to UNC were predictable; over a hundred radicals stormed the event, breaking windows and battling with the campus police. Tancredo himself had to jettison his speech, hightail it from the podium, and flee from campus. No students were punished significantly by the school and those arrested eventually had their charges dropped.
The school did provide stronger security for YWC’s subsequent events that permitted them to occur without major disruptions, including a return to the UNC campus by Tancredo a year later. Yet even though the UNC administration upheld the YWC’s right to invite whoever they wanted, the group failed to thrive.
Perhaps the organizers of YWC, by giving themselves such an aggressive name and inviting such a controversial figure as Tancredo, were actively seeking to garner publicity to attract members or donors. However, the timing and situation were not right for such a strategy, and the group soon fizzled away on all ten campuses.
Another attempt occurred at Towson State University in 2013 with the creation of a White Students Union. It, too, was short-lived. In 2015, there was a surge of white student groups that formed online and met off-campus, with no official status. This occurred at over 30 colleges. They also did not last long.
Still, what failed in 2009, failed in 2013, and failed in 2015, may fare better in 2025. More people seem to be aware of the threat to the white race since it is becoming more obvious as we move further along the path to full replacement. White births first dipped below 50 percent in 2011 and, with continued high immigration levels, are still rapidly declining. There has also been political pushback against the anti-white agenda not seen in previous decades, such as anti-DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) legislation passed or pending in a majority of states.
This does not mean that forming white student groups will be easy; the same impediments will be in place as before. First of these is opposition by fellow students (or, often, by non-student radicals who live in the area). Any white student groups forming can expect the full array of Antifa-style tactics, including death threats, doxing, disruptive protests at meetings; white club organizers will likely need backbones of steel. School administrations, though legally bound to provide access to all groups, could throw up bureaucratic hurdles while remaining within the law. Or school officials may simply turn a blind eye to harassment by other students. And there is always the problem that many white students leaning toward race realism may be hesitant to openly join such a group for fear it will hurt their social or career opportunities.
For all these reasons, it may be that the best approach to instituting campus permanence will be to emphasize the cultural and social missions of a student group based on identity, rather than on the political. The European identity has been battered in recent decades; many in academia regard it as almost some sort of genetic flaw, a stain that cannot be erased. This includes many whites; large swaths of the young white population openly express their self-loathing. Rather than trying to start by doing political battle, it may be better to innocuously focus on reforming our identity among young people, without regard for the opinions of those who are not us. That is, to merely promote what is unique and special about whites—our anthropology, our history, our culture, our spirituality—without concern for today’s events and the actions of others. Food and festivals, for sure, but with an eye on the real prize: identity formation. Being non-political—non-threatening, if you prefer—may allay some of the concerns of all but the most radical opponents.
To get established, the proposed student groups will likely need to at least temporarily embrace the spirit of ethnic pluralism that has been foisted on us against our will. That means not denigrating other identities and avoiding confrontations; this time around, we should seek a less abrasive path. Submitting to pluralism may seem like capitulation to those who believe our national birthright has been stolen. Acceptance of being just one more ethnicity among many may rankle those who will accept nothing less than total separation, but we must play the cards we’re dealt. For, if such groups can form, members will not be “just one more” internally, but special unto ourselves; introducing the knowledge of our history and accomplishments will instill pride in our young people. Once that is accomplished, it will be time to press for further gain.
Furthermore, being non-political will give such student groups more solid ground against challenges coming from other students and officialdom. It reduces the points of attack against us; it is easier to defend one’s right to exist than to defend political opinions that offend the sensibilities of the majority of the campus (especially those who have jurisdiction over campus groups).
Unfortunately, mainstream conservatives will not be our allies in this endeavor. They will reject any attempt to create European identity groups on campuses, since doing so runs counter to their hopes for a multiracial, colorblind, meritocratic society. Yet, they are living in the past, when such a society still seemed like a potentially viable system. So many people from non-European countries with very strong in-group preferences have moved to the United States that the colorblind ideal is now undeniably naught but fantasy. The newcomers favor colorblind meritocracy only when it benefits themselves and press for group advantages when it does not. To maintain a belief in a colorblind meritocracy when in-group preferences are the norm is to invite group suicide.
Restoring white identity is an imperative if there is any hope for our survival as a significant race. So intensive has been the anti-white propaganda that many young people are unaware of our proud history. But so enormous are our achievements, and so impressive and beautiful are our various cultures, that some considerable segment of our rootless youth will be instinctively attracted once exposed to the facts about our past and identity in a positive light. That is where our hopes must lie. Once firmly entrenched on campus, European-American student associations may be able to successfully enter the political fray. For now, however, the focus should be on simply establishing a presence and restoring our identity.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
19 comments
Here’s an exception: https://x.com/realdschmidt/status/1835804388687852030
“In response, CareNotCops immediately called them racist, and the demands were dropped.”
Name calling is not an argument. Once they revert to name calling, they proved to everyone of losing the argument. Call them out.
Slander is the tool of the loser.
“Restoring America’s great cities would usher in a renaissance—it just requires courage.”
My understanding is, by 1492 the Spaniards kicked out almost all the non-Spaniards out of their homeland, thus, ushering in Europeans moving to the New World. No Renaissance is possible without taking back our homelands from Europa to Australia.
Unfortunately, the organizing of European-American student groups on college campuses would fail. It is the equivalent of attempting to run at a machine gun nest while being armed with only spears.
First, the members of the European-American Student organization would almost certainly have their identities released to the public due to the work of regime-aligned actors (leftist students, professors, administrators, and the media), and this would destroy the purpose for which the vast majority of the White students have decided to get a degree at an anti-White educational institution: well-paying employment. For a person who is interested in gainful employment (or further education) post-graduation, the acceptance of the high-probability, personal cost of being doxxed and the loss of career prospects (i.e., unpersoning by the regime) would be deemed foolish in light of the low-probability, group benefit of establishing a group for White student organizing.
Second, 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. As a general rule, 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. Also, what white male student who supports the Democratic party and espouses left-wing beliefs would join an organization that promotes a positive (or at least neutral) sense of White identity? The leftist student body, faculty and school administrators would rightfully identify the organization and thus empowerment of right-wing young white men as threats to their dominance at the institution and would treat them as such. 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. The GOP would also condemn such an assertion of white identity. The organization would receive virtually no support from right-wing elites or institutions and would be left largely defenseless against the onslaught of left-wing elite and institutional acts against it. Just as one could not successfully navigate as an open Protestant in a medieval monastery, one cannot successfully navigate as an open White advocate in a contemporary American university.
Third, this sanitized, ethno-pluralistic White identity organization would have a target on its back as a political enemy of the regime regardless of its de-stigmatization efforts. Given that the vast majority of persons who would join this organization would be disaffected young white men with right-wing beliefs and a high appetite for risk, the organization would, as the history of previous organizations shows, drift into the open advocacy of White identity and interests which is inescapably political. The high testosterone men who would join such an organization would likely not be content with solely engaging in the activities of a navel-gazing, “identity formation” book club. The left-wing elites and institutions that dominate contemporary American social life only accept Whites embracing a negative sense of their own racial identity. Even efforts to foster an ostensibly neutral sense of White racial identity formation would be viewed as a political act and a threat to left-wing dominance and would be treated as such.
Now is not the time for fantasies. Almost all educational institutions whether elite or non-elite, whether coded as right-wing or left-wing, have been subverted and captured by those adamantly opposed to White Americans who promote an explicit, positive understanding of White racial identity. 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.
I agree. My understanding is that ─ while Jared Taylor was able to speak at ASU under First Amendment provisions and that the University President was even respectful towards him ─ it still cost a prohibitive fortune for security costs, even though the BLM and AntiFa disruption was lackluster at best.
I don’t know all the details. But these are the types of things that would need to done on a regular basis to be effective.
Usually there are reams of paper left in the wake where faculty and academic professionals like Librarians protest “White Nationalists,” whether they really are or not. This happened at ASU a couple years ago when Charlie Kirk, and Dennis Praeger hosted some milquetoast Conservative event.
🙂
“As a general rule, white women would not join such an organization…”, speaking about our women, has anyone seen them with signs that read: “Will trade racists for rapists” & “better rapists than racists”?
I don’t wish to pour cold water on Mr. Stark’s ideas, which cannot be argued against on their own terms, but advocating the creation of European-American student groups, while wonderful in theory, would be asking the students involved to commit career suicide. My sense is that the oppression of whites on campus in 2024 is infinitely worse than when I graduated undergrad in 1983. And yet in that very year, my own thesis advisor, who had actually begged me to take his senior seminar that year, pointedly refused my request to write a recommendation to grad school because of what he literally called my “well-known opposition to nonwhite immigration rooted in the belief that Western Civilization cannot survive large-scale racial change.” (Umm, yeah? Something inaccurate about that sentiment, which accurately depicted my beliefs, then and now?)
Trust me: political correctness and even wokeness were there, embryonically, already in the early 80s, at least in the “cutting edge” Ivies – and probably as far back as the mid-60s. The types of arguments I made publicly were far weaker than what I make online, but they still got me into ideological trouble. Fortunately, I had other profs to write my grad school recs, but this asshole might well have harmed me, given that he was my Honors advisor (ie, it would have been natural for grad school admissions committees to wonder why I didn’t present a rec from the person supervising my senior year thesis, and for that to be a red flag, even without knowing any details).
Today, being a part of Youth for Western Civ, or a European-American discussion club, or a White Students Union, etc, would be a kiss of death in terms of obtaining grad school recs. Why expect that of young whites? The deck is stacked against them. My advice would be to lay low, mouth whatever leftist platitudes you have to, go to grad school, come out and make money – and then give money to the Right (like CC), or run for office as an immigration restrictionist, or for DA as a law and order defender, etc.
WRT the colonized universities, they need to be discredited and destroyed. That destruction will comprise several elements: questioning the value of college, to discourage attendance; working to relegalize 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.
But these approaches must come from established adults, not oppressed white collegians themselves.
I agree. The Universities are all Marxist bastions and are hopeless.
Also, the University Administrators are as bad as any else and they will give lip service at best to the First Amendment whilst really practicing Orwellian DEI. Unless a billionaire like Musk can give these people jobs when the hammer falls on them, there is zero chance of any remotely Rightwing student activism. They don’t even hire straight White men for anything anymore unless they can declare pronouns or eagerly play the game convincingly as an Ally. Nowadays all resumes of White males say stuff in their application letters about how the heteronormative and patriarchal system has made their lives hard ─ or some such nonsense. Any White woman will have pages and pages of experience with Marxist clubs and co-writing DEI articles in journals, etc.
Brigham Young University, which is privately-owned by the LDS church, might allow some Rightwing identity because LGBTQ+ is not allowed. But even they are split between traditionalists and Mitt Romney RINOs. The debates I hear are not whether there will be Black Lesbian bishops ordained one day but when. My view is that all Christians have feet of clay but that is just my opinion.
We need to figure out some other way besides the University system where people can be educated and to get marketable employment skills.
🙂
Excellent post. I think it must not wait until college. It must happen as a part of a robust home schooling and/or supplemental schooling curriculum. There must be modules that are dedicated to this. The youth must form a positive identity, but also understand what was lost/handed-over by traitors from their grandparents and parents, and they must learn the resolve to take it back over time.
This curriculum should also be activities and camps and gatherings in areas we control that build networks, strong social bonds and foster a masculine culture with a strong positive identity for our male and female youth.
This is a very theoretical article. Practically, this is impossible. Students at universities if they read this should rather support The Active Clubs or the Patriot Front organization. There is sometimes a so-called Dark Academy on campus. These people are theoretically open to our ideas and are majority white. Establishing an openly pro-white organization will only lead to problems – bullying, doxxing, expulsion from school, and a lifetime stigmas. This is the worst idea that can be recommended to young white students.
1: The United States has a First Amendment, guaranteeing the rights to free speech and assembly.
2: Every other racial-ethnic group organizes on campus, so why can’t white students?
Ok, ok, in the real world it does not quite work this way. But…
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.
Another prerequisite is in getting some kind of law passed prohibiting employment discrimination based on political beliefs.
Two decades ago all this was not quite in the cards, but with mainstream conservatives coming under increased repression, they may be open to a rational approach from white nationalists. There is common cause to be made on such issues as de-platforming, DEI based discrimination, third worlder migrations, defense against leftist mob action, and especially university echelon indoctrination.
A perusal of mainstream conservative websites and publications shows that there is a re-evaluation of strategy going on, based on the failure of the old conservativism to defeat the left. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the war against “white supremacy” is a war against both American civilization and white people themselves.
This realization is especially so among the up and coming generation. Consider the student group which invited Jared Taylor to an Arizona university. Or Free Expression Foundation, which handles First Amendment cases. Or how Nick Fuentes can mobilize a mass youth movement. Or Elon Musk who deploys vast tech resources as well as possible employment opportunities for graduates.
The priority is, then, to swing these adjacent groups behind the creation and defense of a network of pro-white student groups. Build the support infrastructure first, then move onto the campuses.
To emphasize, this will require a rational approach. Which means some discussion of dissident right tactics. Figure out what has failed over the last decade or so, and what has succeeded. Then go with the latter.
A very sensible article with a practical approach. Although the point is not limited to forming college groups, this sentence really stood out to me: To maintain a belief in a colorblind meritocracy when in-group preferences are the norm is to invite group suicide. I believe this is one of the key lynchpins to awakening racial consciousness in mainstream conservative Whites.
Why do not people just form secret societies like the Mason’s or the Thule society are and were? This is where we are at. It’s so obvious.
That would require a billionaire like Musk to pay for it. Plus, there would have to be a ready support staff of attorneys, etc. who can keep things within the letter of the law and to provide lawfare when necessary. And there would need to be some kind of insurance plan setup that could deal with catastrophes ─ like say a Subsaharan overdoses on fentanyl and one of our guys is nearby and gets blamed for it by the establishment and their media.
🙂
I couldn’t say if organizing formal groups on college campuses is a good path or worth the effort.
What is of prime importance is positive identity formation. No matter what this may be done. Perhaps the efforts should be concentrated solely on colleges in jurisdictions where good chances of winning the legal battles are strong.
Perhaps the formation of informal and quasi-temporary societies would be good. The European Naval Navigator’s Society that for a time focused on European man’s unprecedented sailing the global oceans in wind powered vessels. That then leads to the science and engineering that were involved that ultimately became the space exploration.
The Amero-European Space Explorer’s Society.
The Amero-European Martial History Society.
The Amero-European Ancient History Society.
The American Pioneer Society.
The American Family Structure Study Group.
…
…
These groups could focus on interactive self-study and celebration of these and the thousands of other aspects of our history. It would be conscious positive identity formation. Perhaps this level of informal or semi-formal organization would be some middle ground that is both more spirited and unencumbered by campus bureaucracy and politics.
One tactic would be to form a network of these groups off campus. Then when they have built up to sufficient strength (membership, financial, legal support, elite allies, etc) make the move onto campus.
We should also consider the role that alumni play. Since the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, wealthy Jewish alumni have threatened to withhold donations because of anti-Isreal protests on various campuses. There should be enough white nationalist alumni, even if they are secretive about their beliefs. Consideration should be given to them and normie alumni who donate to their various alma matters. Enough alumni could threaten to withhold donations if leftists get to out of control on campus. It would take some work and some organizing, but it could be done.
Agreed.
Use existing social media to publicize a nationwide boycott of donations to Leftist dominated universities. White nationalist alumni would not even have to identify themselves as such. Just cut the contributions with a statement that the university is no longer worthy of support.
Related: many universities rely on their athletic teams to bring in big buck$. And it’s not just ticket sales for the football, basketball and other games that are the money makers. College communities gain all sorts of income from alumni patronage of sports bars, hotels and memorabilia shops when the big game is in town. Loss of business from a boycott would hit them hard.
All this could be leveraged into changes of policy at the university administration echelon.
How about Mel Gibson style Scottish American “ Braveheart” college groups , or Polish Americans, Greek American groups?
If you have a Subscriber 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.