2,106 words
Recently, I discovered that Counter-Currents, my writing, and the writings of other Counter-Currents authors have been discussed — sometimes extensively, sometimes in passing — in a number of academic books. This is a rather exciting development, which I shall chronicle from time to time in a new series, The Battle of the Books. The purpose of this series is to document our progress in the battle of ideas. It shows your donations at work.
In 2018, I began to notice that the establishment’s reaction to White Nationalism was shifting. The initial reaction was simply to censor our ideas, but because of the internet, that was increasingly difficult. Thus defenders of the system had to talk about us. This is always dangerous, though, because attacking our ideas brings attention to them. Moreover, there’s always the danger that independent-minded readers will agree less with the critic and more with his target, which can send people down the proverbial “rabbit holes” to “radicalization.”
I am an example of this. When I was in graduate school, I became deeply immersed in Heidegger. Naturally, I had questions. Fortunately, I stumbled upon the work of Heidegger scholar Thomas Sheehan, whose writings manage to combine depth with clarity and rigor. I made a point of tracking down, photocopying, and reading all of Sheehan’s work, which included two articles offering Heideggerian critiques (from the Left) of thinkers who were completely new to me: Alain de Benoist and Julius Evola.
- “Myth and Violence: The Fascism of Julius Evola and Alain de Benoist,” Social Research, 48 (Spring 1981). (This article was also my introduction to Georges Sorel and his idea of political myths.)
- “Diventare Dio: Evola, Nietzsche, and Heidegger,” Stanford Italian Review, 20 (December, 1986).
Both Benoist and Evola ended up influencing my thinking in important ways. Thus, although I was already on the Right, it is quite possible that without these two articles, Counter-Currents never would have happened.
At first the critics of the Alt Right (as we were called then) were middlebrow journalists writing smug, snarky takedowns. There was often little to no daylight between such journalists and outright antifa who resorted to doxing, vandalism, stalking, and violence. But since our ideas were breaking through despite the snark, higher-brow writers associated with academia and think tanks began to analyze and respond to nationalism, populism, and white identity politics. I have discussed a number of these books over the years:
- Francis Fukuyama’s Identity, here, here, and here.
- Eric Kaufmann’s Whiteshift, here.
- Yoram Hazony’s The Virtue of Nationalism, here, here, here, and here.
- William Galston’s Anti-Pluralism, here.
- Jan-Werner Müller’s What Is Populism?, here.
- Mark Lilla’s The Once and Future Liberal, here.
- Thomas J. Main’s The Rise of the Alt Right, here.
- George Hawley’s Making Sense of the Alt-Right, here.
- Ashley Jardina’s White Identity Politics, here.
- Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin’s National Populism, here, here, and here.
- José Pedro Zúquete, The Identitarians: The Movement against Globalism and Islam in Europe, here and here.
- Damon Berry’s Blood and Faith: Christianity in American White Nationalism, here.
- Ronald Beiner, Dangerous Minds, here.
- Mark Sedgwick, ed., Key Thinkers of the Radical Right: Behind the New Threat to Liberal Democracy, here.
But eventually, so many such books came out that I could no longer review all of them, because it would get in the way of writing my own books.
I put a lot of work into reviews. They are harder to write than essays, because in essays, I am primarily setting out my own ideas, whereas a review isn’t all about me. Instead, it is my dialogue with another writer, who is front and center.
But it strikes me that there’s no reason not to do brief tours of books simply to highlight where I and other Counter-Currents writers are mentioned. Thus these short reviews are all about me (and my associates). They are offered as evidence that the work we do here is having a cultural impact. Fundamental ideas incubated in the universities shape the culture and ultimately shape political policy as well.
Oxford University Press is one of the world’s prestigious academic publishers, so it is useful to be featured in their books, because compared to books from less prestigious imprints, they are more likely to be purchased by libraries, reviewed in journals, and read by scholars, and even the general public.
There is an entire chapter on “Greg Johnson and Counter-Currents” by Graham Macklin in Mark Sedgwick, ed., Key Thinkers of the Radical Right: Behind the New Threat to Liberal Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), which I review here.
Here I wish to call your attention to briefer discussions in two other Oxford titles.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto here
Arthur Versluis
American Gnosis: Political Religion and Transcendence
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2024
I have been reading Arthur Versluis’ books for decades now, so it was exciting to discover that he has read one of mine, The White Nationalist Manifesto. Versluis is Professor of Religious Studies at Michigan State University, the author of nearly two dozen books, and the editor of many others. He is interested in both Western esotericism and political radicalism, so perhaps it was inevitable that I would read his work and he would read mine.
I first encountered Versluis’ work in 1994 when I bought his translation Pollen and Fragments: Poetry and Prose of Novalis (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Phanes Press, 1989). Over the years, I have read his The Philosophy of Magic (London: Routledge, 1986), Song of the Cosmos: An Introduction to Traditional Cosmology (Bridport, Dorset: Prism Press, 1991) (dedicated to René Guénon, Titus Burckhardt, and Frithjof Schuon), American Transcendentalism and Asian Religions (Oxford: Oxford University Press: 1993), The Esoteric Origins of the American Renaissance (Oxford: Oxford University Press: 2001), and The New Inquisitions: Heretic-Hunting and the Origins of Modern Totalitarianism (Oxford: Oxford University Press: 2006).
American Gnosis is a tremendously interesting book about “gnostic” metaphors of awakening and initiation in contemporary American spiritual, political, and conspiratorial discourses. Versluis begins with They Live; he consumes a cocktail of Red, Purple, and Black Pills; then he plunges into the proverbial Internet rabbit holes, where he encounters such figures as Miguel Serrano, David Icke, Samael Aun Weor, and Charles Musès. He also discusses William S. Burroughs, David Lynch, and Robert Anton Wilson. Versluis is an omnivorous reader with a wonderfully synthetic intellect and imagination. American Gnosis is the wildest ride through the intersections of esotericism and politics since Joscelyn Godwin’s classic Arktos: The Polar Myth in Science, Symbolism, and Nazi Survival (London: Thames and Hudson, 1993). Versluis obviously enjoyed writing this book as much you will enjoy reading it.
Versluis discusses The White Nationalist Manifesto on pages 170–71 and again on 173. His discussion is brief, but I applaud it for being accurate, focusing on essentials, and avoiding snark and boilerplate denunciations.
Versluis praises the Manifesto for being “clearly organized to put forward an oppositional metapolitical agenda.” He notes that I begin by discussing the demographic decline of Europeans in Europe and around the world. Then I offer my solution, which is to create white ethnostates. He points out that I do not advocate a unified white superstate but rather ethnically homogeneous homelands for all white peoples. However, he also emphasizes that I believe in “pan-European cooperation” and “European solidarity.”
Versluis then points out that the Manifesto’s metapolitical radicalism was underscored by the fact that on February 24th, 2019, the manifesto was banned by Amazon.com, and “not just banned in the sense of not offering the book, but banned by leaving no trace that it existed, even its Amazon customer reviews removed.” He also points out that Amazon continued to sell copies of Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, the Unabomber manifesto, and the writings of Osama bin Laden.
Finally, Versluis points out that I take great pains to distinguish my New Right metapolitical approach from the Old Right, by which I mean German National Socialism, Italian fascism, and related interwar national-populist movements.
Versluis discusses the Manifesto in the chapter on “American Archontic Neo-Gnosticism.” In Gnosticism, the Demiurge is the creator and ruler of the material world, where souls are imprisoned in matter and ignorance and tormented by desire. The Archons are the helpers of the Demiurge. They are, in effect, the Dark Angels of the Dark Lord. The idea of Archons has been appropriated by contemporary New Agers and conspiracy theorists, but including my Manifesto in such a discussion might seem a stretch, for I don’t make use of Gnostic ideas or even Gnostic images and metaphors. But Versluis cites the Manifesto because it represents a fundamental critique of and break from American center-Right orthodoxy.
Versluis also discusses such Dissident Right figures as Andrew Torba (pp. 168–70, 177–78, 206) and Josh Neal (pp. 182–88). Another welcome discussion is Versluis’ critique of Eric Voegelin’s misuse of the concept of Gnosticism in his diagnosis of the roots of Leftism (pp. 164–67).
George Hawley
The Alt-Right: What Everyone Needs to Know
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019
George Hawley is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Alabama. He is also an amazingly prolific scholar. This is his second book on the Alt Right. I reviewed his first book, Making Sense of the Alt-Right (New York: Columbia University Press, 2017), here. Also see my review of Hawley’s Right-Wing Critics of American Conservatism (Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2016), here. Along with José Pedro Zúquete, Hawley is one of the few scholars who actually bothered to interview me before writing about my work.
Hawley’s second book on the Alt Right appears in Oxford University Press’ What Everyone Needs to Know Series, which consists of basic primers written in interview format. I understand why Hawley wrote this book. First, it is prestigious to publish at Oxford University Press. Second, a lot had happened since the publication of his first book.
Counter-Currents (without the hyphen) is mentioned on page 58 in the section “What is Highbrow White Nationalism?”
Counter-Currents is mentioned again on pages 63–64 in the section on “Is the Alt-Right Just an Outgrowth of White Nationalism 1.0?” Hawley’s answer is no, not really, since many on the Alt-Right knew very little about White Nationalism 1.0. But he does mention that “highbrow” White Nationalist sites like American Renaissance and Counter-Currents are links between the Alt-Right and older forms of White Nationalism. Indeed, “Counter Currents [sic] is one of the more important bridges between today’s white nationalists and their twentieth-century predecessors” (p. 64). This is correct.
Counter-Currents is mentioned on page 78 in the section on the European New Right for publishing translations of Guillaume Faye’s essays and on 79 in the section on Traditionalism for publishing translations of Julius Evola.
On pages 80–81, there is a section on “What Is the North American New Right?,” which of course refers to Counter-Currents and me. Originally, Counter-Currents (without the italics) was to be a publishing imprint, the North American New Right referred to the metapolitical movement I hoped to catalyze, and North American New Right (italicized) was to be the title of the webzine and occasional print journal drawing from the webzine. Eventually, I dropped the North American New Right designation for the webzine because everyone just called it Counter-Currents. Hawley accurately describes our approach as metapolitical and influenced by the European New Right. He is inaccurate in stating that Counter-Currents reprinted Ben Klassen and George Lincoln Rockwell, but we did reprint some of William Pierce’s writings when the National Alliance appeared to be defunct. He is also inaccurate to say that “much” of Counter-Currents deals with the Jewish question, although we do deal with it quite frankly.
Hawley also mentions me on page 166 in the section on the relationship between the Alt Right and the religious Right.
Unfortunately, The Alt-Right: What Everyone Needs to Know is inferior to Understanding the Alt-Right. There are many proofreading errors: “America nationalists” rather than “American nationalists” (p. 16), the missing hyphen in Counter-Currents, and the “Day of the Ropes” (p. 43), to pick three examples at random.
More problematic are many factual errors, which reduce the value of the book as a guide, for instance William Pierce worked at Oregon State University not the University of Oregon (p. 41), Richard Spencer banned Matt Heimbach from the 2015 not the 2014 National Policy Institute conference (p. 64), and Arktos Media was never part of the Alt-Right [sic] Corporation, although Daniel Friberg of Arktos was (p. 76), again to cite three examples at random.
Like Versluis, Hawley avoids snark and Leftist boilerplate and allows his readers to draw their own conclusions, for which I am very grateful.
* * *
The next installment in this series will cover another book on a highly prestigious press: Rita Abrahamsen, et al., World of the Right: Radical Conservatism and Global Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024), which argues convincingly for the success of New Right metapolitics. Counter-Currents is discussed extensively.
22 comments
Congratulations!
Versulius is an interesting author. His The Philosophy of Magic was a revelation to me but I could barely start Entering the Mysteries: The Secret Traditions of Indigenous Europe.
‘Gnosis’ is more like an Jungian archetype than some discrete ‘religion’ or ‘philosophy’. ‘Gnosis’ as a metaphor or framing device occurs in all kinds of times and places among Whites (and certainly some Semitic peoples). But the reputation of Gnosis suffers from the ‘intellectual connective tissue’ that links the ‘Demiurgic’ anti-world view of the typical ascetic and the ‘personal knowledge of transhuman reality’ more closely related to the Greek conception of ‘gnosis’. The Demiurgic view of the world and the mystical understanding of ‘gnosis’ are not intrinsically related to one another. It’s just an accident of history (and the efforts of ‘christian’ propagandists) that links them.
How was Versluis’ Novalis book?
Thanks for these comments. I read the Novalis book more than 30 years ago, but I do recall that it was an interesting read.
I know practically nothing about Gnosticism, I had not really had my attention drawn to it until I began reading Petra Mundik’s book A Bloody and Barbarous God: The Metaphysics of Cormac McCarthy, which as early as page 3 quotes Hans Jonas’s The Gnostic Religion linking it with the evil demiurge, etc. I’m not sure how accurate it is, but so far it seems interesting.
In case you weren’t aware, Greg Johnson is quoted in the book, ACCIDENTAL GODS, On Men Unwittingly Turned Divine by Anna Della Subin.
It is from the chapter, Mythopolitics, which discusses Savitri Devi. You get a mention as, “ a chief architect of the resurrection of Savitri Devi in the 21st century…”
Wow, thanks. I didn’t know that. I must take a look.
I just heard about Margot getting Doxxed. Imagine attending an event with Carl GCHQ Benjamin and not getting doxxed.
Did you mean Morgoth, or was there someone named Margot that also was doxxed?
Great article! Greg Johnson deserves every recognition he gets, if not for the quality (which is great), but also for his prolific output over the last fifteen years. 🙃
This INFJ has a good feeling about the new series. I love it.
Memeing, infographics, tweeting, sh*tposting, hot takes, news cycle podcasting and all the rest are indispensible narrative tools in short-term, pugalistic battle against enemy narratives. But it is nonetheless the case and always will be the case that long form writing grounded in advanced learning and intellectual rigor matter most for lasting influence.
That means people who produce books, or exceptional, long form essays, will matter more in the end than those who create ephemeral content (anything else) chasing algorithmic engagement.
F. Roger Devlin’s ideas are so deep in the cultural water table in 2025 I doubt most people who invoke them even know who he is. Jared Taylor has been steady for decades on the basics. Steve Sailer is another one, a steady producer of solid work, slow and steady on key topics that matter for white nationalism. Whatever one thinks of Costin Alamariu, his books definitely get more traction in circles of influence than his stream of entertaining tweets. Kevin MacDonald is yet another example–and the author of The Great Replacement. And then there is Greg Johnson and Counter Currents of course, too.
The notion of “taking our own side” is an idea that has been carried forward by CC now moving into 2026; the power of that argument lies in its simplicity and moral clarity–and it’s no a small thing that the publication that came up with it is still around and moving forward given it is more relevant than ever.
Thank you, I appreciate this.
I’m very glad to hear that there are some accomplished scholars who are paying attention to Counter-Currents. I’m sure there are many more who are well aware of it but have never mentioned it publicly.
It’s impossible to know for sure, but it seems almost certain that there are people working in politics right now- perhaps elected officials, but definitely aides and staffers- who read CC. Jared Taylor has mentioned before that there are state legislators who are fans of American Renaissance, the same might be true here.
I’d be curious to find out who the most well-known or influential person to read one of my articles is.
Congratulations, Greg!
[Alt-Right expert George] Hawley… is inaccurate in stating that Counter-Currents reprinted Ben Klassen and George Lincoln Rockwell, but we did reprint some of William Pierce’s writings when the National Alliance appeared to be defunct. He is also inaccurate to say that “much” of Counter-Currents deals with the Jewish question, although we do deal with it quite frankly…
[Hawley] does mention that “highbrow” White Nationalist sites like American Renaissance and Counter-Currents are links between the Alt-Right and older forms of White Nationalism. Indeed, “Counter Currents [sic] is one of the more important bridges between today’s white nationalists and their twentieth-century predecessors” (p. 64). This is correct.
Count on me to inform C-C readers that the William Pierce’s National Alliance is not defunct and that I will give life here to William Pierce’s timeless teachings. I can also let C-C readers in on pre-alt-right, presumably “lowbrow” leaders like Ben Klassen and George Lincoln Rockwell. ;o}
Will: I think that the academics would consider Klassen and Rockwell both highbrow; despite the latter’s at times inane (and tongue in cheek) provocations he wrote several books which qualifies him. Though I get the idea that when certified Professors call White Nationalists “highbrow” what they really mean is it’s just a better class of bigot.
Great news. Outlets like Counter-Currents and American Renaissance are now more important than magazines such as National Review.
In the past the Dissident Right was able to gain a metapolitical high ground by pushing white nationalism. This created an impact way above the numbers. Consider how mainstream influencers like Matt Walsh and Tucker Carlson have picked up and pushed pro-white talking points. And from the talking points pro-white policies can be implemented.
Today, there is a real risk that the Dissident Right will lose this initiative.
Why? Well, in part for the last couple years too much effort has been dissipated in reacting to events, effectively allowing other people to set the agenda.
Example: the cheerleading for various factions in the ongoing Middle East-Persian Gulf conflicts. Podcasts, panel discussions and online articles burn up a lot of time rah-rahing Iran or the Houthis. This may provide some schadenfreude in seeing clownworld being vexed while generating clicks, but does nothing to free any nationalist being held as a political prisoner.
The Dissident Right needs to concentrate on promoting white interests. Specifically:
The recent Battle of Downtown Los Angeles…analyzing how law enforcement can counter an actual third world insurrection in a major American city. Such analysis would be useful for policy makers.
Providing legal defense for the Charlottesville ’17 political prisoners. You gotta back your own people before standing in solidarity with third worlders.
Supporting white South Africans against ANC depredations. Also, supporting South African refugees coming to the United States. Maybe a welcome committee?
And as usual, promoting the creation of a white activist organization which can operate on the campuses and the courtrooms. It may be possible to get someone with a medium sized budget to back just such an organization. Not to mention a grant or three to Counter-Currents.
It would be nice if a bezos, musk, or some undercover racialist oligarch would pitch in a substantial amount to keep CC strong and going for several years worries-free. There’s no reservations when it’s a generational athlete or funding an election campaign while the infinitely more important survival & prosperity issue of ours is cobbled together with change found in sofa cushions.
I don’t think these lefty authors realize it or perhaps assumed we would never read their books but they are providing us with strategic level intel about what they think about us.
David M. Zsutty: July 2, 2025 I don’t think these lefty authors realize it or perhaps assumed we would never read their books but they are providing us with strategic level intel about what they think about us.
—
“What (((they))) think about us” in academia hasn’t changed much lately, with the exception of Professor Hawley perhaps. I must have six or eight university textbooks by Jews and other “hate” experts, that attack us mercilessly while they pack impressionable young minds with their anti-White brain rot in sociology, psychology and polital science classes.
As I’m working to republish the Alliance’s 22-page, well-known in our circles, booklet, “Who Rules America” that exposes Jewish control of media, I find this description of WRA? from WikiJews:
Who Rules America? is a book by research psychologist and sociologist G. William Domhoff, Ph.D.**, published in 1967 as a best-seller (#12).
**I could not find that Dr. Domhoff is Jewish, but he was claims to have been active in the Civil Rights movement, which makes him suspect, and his research partner Adam Schneider is a very Jewish yeshiva boy. WikiJews go on:
WRA is frequently assigned as a sociology textbook, documenting the dangerous concentration of power and wealth in the American upper class.[1] More recent editions have brought the discussion up to date, including the rise of Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and the trend toward nationalism in the Republican Party.[2] Domhoff argues in the book(s) that a power elite wields power in America transparently through its support of think tanks, foundations, commissions, and academic departments.[3]… In his introduction, Domhoff writes that the book was inspired by the work of four previous researchers: sociologists E. Digby Baltzell, C. Wright Mills, economist Paul Sweezy, and political scientist Robert A. Dahl.[5]
I searched for a friendlier description of WRA? on Metapedia, but that site was blocked. It took until page 3 in a search to find it, oddly enough, in full, on the thief Alex Linder’s anti-National Alliance site, here: Vanguard News Network » Who Rules America?
Also on the VNN site is this from 2021 by “Socrates”: Vanguard News Network » Blog Archive » How I Met Dr. William Pierce
How I Met Dr. William Pierce
…(Sadly, I never met Dr. William Pierce in person. When I say I “met” him, I mean that I “met” his essays, his videotaped public speeches, and his radio shows. Pierce was the biggest influence on me becoming a White Nationalist, especially his landmark essay “Who Rules America?”…
I read the article “Who Rules America?” [in 1993]. It was about Hollywood and the American news media. And, while I found it interesting, I also found it far-fetched. The article claimed that Jews controlled Hollywood and the American media. I had never heard this claim before, and so I was skeptical of the claim…
Weeks passed and I read the “Who Rules America?” article again. I decided to investigate some of the claims made in it for myself. I decided to ask around about it, and to also go to the local library as well. Mind you, this was before the internet, which wasn’t in place until circa 1996 and then it was mostly email stuff, very few websites.
My investigations into the “Jewish matter” turned up the fact that Jews were disproportionately involved with Hollywood. In fact, they founded Hollywood. So, that lent some credence to the claims. But I still needed more proof than just that essay… I still needed more convincing. So I did more research. It took months.
The bottom line is this: I tried and tried to catch Dr. Pierce telling a lie or pushing untrue propaganda. But I couldn’t… if Dr. Pierce says “X” is true, then it’s true. Period. His factual track record is 50 times better than that of any mainstream media outlet. If you want the truth, then read/listen to Dr. Pierce.. He seems very thorough in his research. (I am told that Pierce had a world-class library — i.e., the National Alliance book store and his own personal book collection as well — and in fact I’ve seen parts of that library in a video).
“Dr. Pierce was like a “book magnet,” attracting donations of many valuable volumes, many of them rare, out of print editions, which were entrusted to him because of his integrity — and the likelihood they would be put to good use.” — from the National Alliance Bulletin, March 2017.
Actually, I wrote what “Socrates'” quotes in his last paragraph there from my 3/17 NA Members BULLETIN. He fails to mention that I purchased Dr. Pierce’s “world class library ” and “personal book collection” in 2014 from Pierce’s successor to secure them for the National Alliance. The video he says he had watched of Pierce’s library is of me, documenting the moving of it from WV to TN before I became NA Chairman.
I received a report today that Alex Linder has died. Good riddance! It’s always good to outlive one’s detractors.
He was a smart man, especially good on the CQ (Christian Question). but had a nasty disposition. like Harold Covington, Linder was a talented writer, but so what? Lots of people are good writers. Good writing is not a virtue, telling difficult truths is.
Also, like Covington, he lacked good character — a thief, a liar and somehow he saw the National Alliance as his competition. Not! He always resented that Dr. Pierce named KAS as NA’s Media Director, not him.
Will Williams: July 7, 2025 …I searched for a friendlier description of WRA? on Metapedia, but that site was blocked. It took until page 3 in a search to find it, oddly enough, in full, on the thief Alex Linder’s anti-National Alliance site, here: Vanguard News Network » Who Rules America?
Good for him for that, at least
—
Also on the VNN site is this from 2021 by “Socrates”: Vanguard News Network » Blog Archive » How I Met Dr. William Pierce
How I Met Dr. William Pierce
…(Sadly, I never met Dr. William Pierce in person. When I say I “met” him, I mean that I “met” his essays, his videotaped public speeches, and his radio shows. Pierce was the biggest influence on me becoming a White Nationalist, especially his landmark essay “Who Rules America?”…
I read the article “Who Rules America?” [in 1993]. It was about Hollywood and the American news media. And, while I found it interesting, I also found it far-fetched. The article claimed that Jews controlled Hollywood and the American media. I had never heard this claim before, and so I was skeptical of the claim…
Weeks passed and I read the “Who Rules America?” article again. I decided to investigate some of the claims made in it for myself. I decided to ask around about it, and to also go to the local library as well. Mind you, this was before the internet, which wasn’t in place until circa 1996 and then it was mostly email stuff, very few websites.
My investigations into the “Jewish matter” turned up the fact that Jews were disproportionately involved with Hollywood. In fact, they founded Hollywood. So, that lent some credence to the claims. But I still needed more proof than just that essay… I still needed more convincing. So I did more research. It took months.
The bottom line is this: I tried and tried to catch Dr. Pierce telling a lie or pushing untrue propaganda. But I couldn’t… if Dr. Pierce says “X” is true, then it’s true. Period. His factual track record is 50 times better than that of any mainstream media outlet. If you want the truth, then read/listen to Dr. Pierce..
—
I also received a report today that Socrates, a decent man of his race, parted company with Linder three or four years ago. Maybe he’d had enough. He could be a valuable contributor to the National Alliance if he’s still around and active.
And the long march down the corridors of power begin.
Well done Greg.
Douglas Mercer: July 2, 2025 Will: I think that the academics would consider Klassen and Rockwell both highbrow; despite the latter’s at times inane (and tongue in cheek) provocations he wrote several books which qualifies him. Though I get the idea that when certified Professors call White Nationalists “highbrow” what they really mean is it’s just a better class of bigot.
—
Maybe.
It’s great that academia is acknowledging Greg Johnson and Counter-Currents for good work and bridge-building for young WNs to 20th century, so-called “Old Right” White leaders. It’s important that youngsters are led to appreciate and learn upon whose shoulders they now stand. Not just men like Klassen, and Rockwell who used to speak on university campuses, but many others, including Robertson and Pierce that C-C features, to teach them this — or Dr. Revilo Oliver who can still dance circles around intellectually dishonest academicians about race and religion 30 years after his passing.
Personally I do not trust most academicians or the books they write about us. I’ve seen too many of their books, some used as textbooks in their university classes to bend and misinform impressionable young White minds away from us — when we’re right and they are dead wrong.
—
[Professor Hawley notes:] “Counter Currents [sic] is one of the more important bridges between today’s white nationalists and their twentieth-century predecessors”...
Greg writes: [Hawley] is also inaccurate to say that “much” of Counter-Currents deals with the Jewish question, although we do deal with it quite frankly.
—
Racial nationalists are indeed very fortunate to be able to deal frankly with the JQ here on C-C, Douglas. I was just reminded of this article of mine from two years ago that deals frankly with the JQ and noticed a comment under it by you. It doesn’t get much more frank than: “Chairman Williams Exchanges Pleasantries with Former High School Classmate” at nationalvanguard.org
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.