Print this post Print this post

Marching through the Institutions:
A Review of No Campus for White Men

2,087 words

Scott Greer
No Campus for White Men
WND Books, 2017

The point of American conservatism is misdirection. It is a movement designed to fail, a program organized to lose, a racket masquerading as resistance. For that reason, much of what passes as “intellectual conservatism” is an attempt to disguise the obvious and to funnel political momentum into pointless dead ends. Even as European-America perceives that its country, culture, and future are slipping away, American conservatives are still babbling about the need to give tax cuts to billionaires, abolish Social Security, and start a nuclear war with Russia over Crimea. Be it out of stupidity or malevolence, you can always count on an American conservative to miss the point.

Thus, ordinary college students mired in the open-air lunatic asylums of higher education will greet first-time author Scott Greer’s No Campus for White Men with no small amount of surprise and relief. Greer doesn’t just make the usual conservative complaints about “liberal bias” or lack of attention toward “limited government.” Nor does he create some elaborate theory about an obscure ideology which has mysteriously captured academia. He concisely, passionately, and accurately defines what college is all about today – hating white people.

Greer writes:

Diversity in today’s America simply means having fewer whites around. Segregation, such as universities having racially exclusive dorms and events, is great as long as that racial exclusion doesn’t mean “white only.” An all-black dorm is a sign of diversity, but an all-white fraternity is a sign of Jim Crow.

For racially conscious European-Americans, this may seem basic. But for conservatives, this is revolutionary. The American conservative movement (sometimes called Conservatism, Inc.) has spent many millions of dollars trying to bring its message to college students. Yet its programs focus solely on limited government wonkery, Boomer nostalgia (like celebrating Ronald Reagan’s birthday), or celebrating “free market capitalism.” As Greer points out, American higher education is now dominated entirely by questions of race, culture, and identity. Meanwhile, young conservatives are being told they should be mobilizing in opposition to President Trump’s proposal to impose a tariff.

Greer’s inaugural authorial effort is an invaluable guide to planning a counter-offensive. Critically, Greer does not claim multiculturalism is simply a way to trick minorities into supporting a “big government agenda.” Instead, Greer calmly explains why the current campus hysteria is the natural result of both misguided policies and unchallenged ideological assumptions.

Among the former, Greer explicitly identifies affirmative action as the key enabler of campus multiculturalism. Originally, affirmative action was meant to be temporary, and would be abolished once “white institutional racism” had ended. Of course, once established, affirmative action created a self-perpetuating constituency within higher education which needed new explanations about why “white institutional racism” was still present in order to justify its own existence. Furthermore, when unqualified students are admitted to universities and find they can’t meet the requirements, they are told white racism is the only explanation. Thus, admitting minority students actually encourages radical racial activism, rather than bridging the racial divide.

Still, the Supreme Court needed a rationalization for the continued existence of affirmative action. What they came up with was “diversity,” which was declared a compelling state interest justifying continued racial discrimination. Most conservatives are deeply defensive about diversity, and are uncomfortable with the monochromatic character of their movement and their party. Greer, to his credit, attacks it head-on as a “religion” and a “cult.” He points out there is little actual evidence to suggest that racial diversity is, in itself, a benefit. In contrast, as the Putnam study showed, diversity destroys social trust.

However, what makes this book truly to superior to a Conservative Book of the Month type of publication is Greer’s knowledge of the realities of power. Conservatives are committed to the fantasy of being in control. Therefore, they are quick to dismiss liberal protesters as powerless losers or spoiled brats. Greer does not make this mistake. He takes the campus Left seriously rather than dismissing them as snowflakes or for being fragile.

He writes:

What we are presently witnessing at college campuses is not the result of overly coddled backgrounds and helicopter parenting. It’s the beginning of an extreme version of identity politics. An identity politics that encourages students to demand power and privilege on the sole basis of their race, gender, or sexual orientation. An identity politics that hopes to disenfranchise and humiliate large segments of one’s fellow students. An identity politics that’s increasingly bordering on outright hatred for white people, especially white men.

The importance of this point cannot be overestimated. Every conservative will denounce “liberal bias” on campus but few will recognize that political correctness is part of a system of power. It is politics in its purest sense – who doing what to whom. Citing Marcuse’s famous justification of “repressive tolerance,” Greer dismisses the egalitarian rhetoric of the Left as simply a justification for a new hierarchy. “Simply put, political correctness assigns more power to protected classes and stifles the speech of those who don’t fall into a special category,” he observes.

These classifications are defined according to “victimhood culture,” an entirely new system of morality which replaces the honor- and rights-based systems of the past. “Dominance is horrible, and victimhood is a sign of virtue,” Greer writes. The worst sin, indeed; the new definition of sin in this system is “privilege.”

And “privilege” is racially determined, with whites serving as the Satan figure in this new religion:

The one group now allowed to have a powerful identity is whites. Every identity bases itself on opposition to either “whiteness” or the majority culture, or both. No form of “white identity” would be allowed by either administrators or activists. Individuals who join with the activists who can’t claim protected class status are given short shrift by their supposed allies. Those students, particularly Greek life participants, who don’t join in the social justice cause are singled out for harassment.

Even those who are racially aware will benefit from Greer’s chronicle of fake hate crimes, all of which were used to justify sweeping campaigns against whites and press for further concessions. And no matter what the circumstances, any concessions made only serve to fuel the next campaign. “The admission of guilt only serves to intensify the grievances of those who feel whites have done them wrong,” Greer notes.

In short, don’t cuck. It doesn’t do any good. It’s the same lesson conservatives should have learned (but didn’t) from the 2016 election.

Critically, Greer identifies the Greek community, fraternities and sororities, as a potential source of resistance to campus multiculturalism, and calls for them to mobilize politically to defend themselves. Considering how fraternities have largely gone into a defensive crouch in response to campus radicalism, his faith in the frat boys may be misplaced. But it’s as good a place to start as anywhere. And, as Greer notes, it was the Greeks who led the “chalkening” effort, that is, chalking Donald Trump’s name around campuses across the country last year, throwing many schools into outright hysteria.

Unlike many books of this kind, Greer actually has some strong policy recommendations. Some, like encouraging state legislators to crack down on public universities and calling for student action, are expected. But the most important is his call to abolish affirmative action, one of the few issues which actually unites the American Right.

Even figures who support more immigration and fiercely opposed Trump, like Linda Chavez, are against affirmative action. One of the very few conservative figures who has not even rhetorically attacked affirmative action is Trump himself. This is the key issue which the Alt Right must champion in order to insert itself into the mainstream, as it is explicitly built upon the racial caste system Greer effectively dismantles, and is a great way to “heighten the contradictions” of the existing order.

Of course, there are two notable problems with the book. The first, as you might expect, is that a (((certain question))) is left mentioned. Jews are never identified as a separate constituency, let alone as a powerful force within the American university. Greer is right to see political correctness as an inevitable outgrowth of affirmative action policies, and we can’t really expect a mainstream conservative book (especially one published by WorldNetDaily) to broach the third rail of all Western discourse. Yet it’s impossible to imagine campus multiculturalism advancing as far as it has without Jews constantly pushing for further radicalization and serving in key administrative roles within the university system. Indeed, as Greer identifies administrative support for campus radicalism as an important cause of the collapse of universities, the role of Jews in this system is the critical element explaining why things have happened as they did.

A second issue is Greer’s larger rejection of “identity politics.” Greer spends the entire book identifying and analyzing a racial double-standard which explicitly dehumanizes and attacks whites as a group. In response, Greer suggests a renewed Americanism:

Ultimately, the full elimination of campus insanity’s poison would require massive cultural changes. Restoring an authentic national identity not dependent on empty platitudes would be a start. Undercutting the ideology of multiculturalism – which encourages Balkanization and separation from the national community – would also be a step in the right direction. Our society ceasing to feed into the Victimhood Olympics would send a strong signal to college kids to stop playing their own extreme version.

Yet given that anti-white hatred, overt and unashamed, is now the core principle of America’s academic elite, how could an “authentic national identity” be created that did not depend on “empty platitudes”? The historic American nation was an ethnic and racial creation, as even center-Left scholars such as Samuel Huntington recognized. If affirmative action was abolished and a raceless meritocracy restored at the American university, it would be a step in the right direction, but it would also be portrayed as a triumph of “whiteness.” It would be (accurately) interpreted as a restoration of the older, “white” university system, just as a majority-white America which prevented further Third World immigration would be interpreted in racial terms. After all, Donald Trump’s civic nationalist campaign is widely understood, by both supporters and opponents, as nothing less than the first mainstream white identarian movement in the United States in recent memory.

Greer wants to put the “identity politics” genie back in the bottle and return America to a united national identity. But American national identity, insofar as it ever existed nationwide, was always based on white racial consciousness, with Americans understanding themselves as a white country. The exceptions, black Americans and American Indians, were not considered part of the polity until recently. Their “inclusion” in the American identity didn’t lead to the creation of some colorblind “new American,” but simply imposed a new racial hierarchy and redefined the country as belonging to non-whites rather than to whites. Indeed, as Greer himself has noted in the immigration debate, respectable opinion now considers America as belonging to the eternal outsider, with the “bad-old citizens” now “apparently less American than the immigrants who just arrived.”

European-Americans, especially students, can’t abandon identity politics. Nor is taking it up something new. It is simply a return to the normal, historical, and healthy sense of self European-Americans possessed when this country was conscious of itself as a white nation created by a particular people. This process has to begin on the college campus, because it is here the attack on whites is most extreme. And as Greer notes, what happens on the college campus will eventually spread to the entire country.

The SPLC, that noxious, profiteering, fraudulent coven of smear merchants, says a hate group has “beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” Greer’s critically important book shows that we can regard the entire American university system as one giant hate group targeting white men.

Tactically, Greer presents some effective solutions towards resolving this problem, though he is ultimately too optimistic about the possibility of rebuilding an American civic nationalist identity. Yet even for those who understand that all politics is identity politics, No Campus for White Men is that rare conservative movement publication, a book no one interested in a serious analysis of the Western situation can afford to ignore. Perhaps no other book lays out so calmly, clearly, and systematically the real state of American higher education.

Read it. Internalize it. But don’t make the mistake of thinking we’ll be able to defeat an entire system built around hatred of our people without conflict.

Related

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

8 Comments

  1. R_Moreland
    Posted March 4, 2017 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    We have seen the triumph of capitalism both domestically and transnationally in the last quarter century. It’s great big foes, communism and socialism, have been vanquished and the free market reigns supreme. How’s that working for conservatives? Consider…

    The American conservative movement (sometimes called Conservatism, Inc.) has spent many millions of dollars trying to bring its message to college students. Yet its programs focus solely on limited government wonkery, Boomer nostalgia (like celebrating Ronald Reagan’s birthday), or celebrating “free market capitalism.” As Greer points out, American higher education is now dominated entirely by questions of race, culture, and identity.

    Supposing tomorrow the big capitalists like Bill Gates and George Soros had a moral awakening and decided to yell stop in the face of the anti-White agenda. They could make a few phone calls, approve some quick financial transfers, hold a news conference or two and – voila!

    * Corporate foundations cut off all grants to leftwing groups and universities.
    * Corporate HR departments terminate all “diversity” programs.
    * Corporate media end their obvious liberal-left bias.
    * Corporate PACs defund liberal politicos.
    * Corporate policies support a national economy.
    * …and then those foundations, departments, media, PACs and policies shift their moneys, energies, PR flaks and bandwiths to promoting conservatism.

    Conservatives would find themselves at the head of the pack and the left consigned to the outer darkness. Yet this does not happen.

    Part of the reason is that conservatives (and many libertarians) since at least the 1950s jumped on the pro-capitalism bandwagon. You could understand this back during the Cold War, since if the choice was between Stalin and Rockefeller, one put on the tinted spectacles, waved the flag, chose the latter and hoped for the best. Yet in return conservatives got…nothing.

    If I were to give advice to conservatives it would be this: before you gin up a single position paper in support of capitalism, demand that the capitalists be 100% on board with a conservative agenda. They need you more than you need them. Without the ideological scaffolding provided by conservatives, capitalism would collapse in the face of the first challenger. We saw this come close to happening at a couple of points in the 20th century. And it was conservatives who rode to the rescue with their ideological arguments for capitalism against socialism-communism.

    The basic flaw to conservatism (as inferred in the quote above) is that it became an economically based proposition, a sort of vulgar marxism in which all that counted is who could put the most cereal boxes and coffee makers on the store shelves. But conservatives completely ignored the racial dimension to politics. Meanwhile, the left ditched the economics and turned the Revolution into a race-based struggle. The campuses have been the primary battleground because these set the meta-politics for the rest of the country, stamp of approval by the corporate sector.

    Conservatives made a bad deal and are now paying for it.

    It’s all “lesson learned” for Nationalists.

  2. Richard Edmonds
    Posted March 4, 2017 at 7:47 am | Permalink

    Having just watched the disgraceful scenes of Dr. Charles Murray, American sociologist and author of the Bell Curve, being mobbed by students and prevented from speaking at their college, one is further convinced that an undeclared war is being waged against our western civilization. It is clear that in a different and more healthy society the students here would not dream of attacking and abusing a man of the status of Dr. Charles Murray. There is an agenda here: these young people, as with so many of their contemporaries in the western world, have been turned, deliberately and with malice aforethought, into Mao-tsetung -style Red Guards into order for them to play their allotted role in the destruction of the West.

  3. Dr ExCathedra
    Posted March 3, 2017 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    One element, taken for granted now as a law of nature but a recent bit of social engineering , is the complete victory of co-education in the university system. The presence of females in this once male institution has the same effect that it has whenever the opposite sex gains entrance to any male institution: it turns into a Stalinist day-care center. Without the massive dominance of estrogen in the academic population, much of this nonsense would never get off the ground. Men, in the presence of other men, do seem to retain a capacity for shame. Women apparently have none.

  4. nineofclubs
    Posted March 2, 2017 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

    Great review. Can’t wait to read the book.

  5. Posted March 2, 2017 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    The review turned into an excellent one. Good job.

    I say “turned into” because more than halfway through the essay, there was still no mention of the obvious cause of this campus war on White men, making me think it would continue just as Roger Devlin’s otherwise fine review of the same book did on AmRen. (Of course no experienced reader of AmRen was going to expect to see reference to the real cause, so we can’t blame Devlin. Besides, his reference to Marxism is enough of a nod to those in the know.)

    Thankfully, finally, Rohrer spelled it out: “The role of the Jews in this system is the critical element explaining why things have happened as they did.”

    Really, does anything more need to be said? Any of us writers on The Jewish Problem could certainly put together a case that this is true. But at this late date — 2017 — do we need to run through this yet again? We KNOW this stuff already. Was it already a decade ago that MacDonald was writing about Slezkin’s admissions on “Stalin’s Willing Executioners”?

    Or maybe I should style it (((Stalin’s Willing Executioners))).

    The campus War on White Men is but a prelude to the real war — the coming hot extermination of the White race (as opposed to the current “cool” extermination through immigration, destruction of White families, etc.).

    Now that the thrill of the Trump victory turns into the grueling reality of politics, let’s hope Counter-Currents and kindred sites return to writing about The Jewish Problem bluntly and honestly.

    Timothy Rohrer’s essay is a great start.

  6. Will Windsor
    Posted March 2, 2017 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    Incisive review.

    The Left is already preparing for Affirmative Action to end. They’d like to keep it, but the explicit discriminatory nature of Affirmative Action has made it hard for the Left to advocate for complete non-discrimination.

    To be specific, the ACLU and academia is willing to sacrifice Affirmative Action in order to make any distinction about race off-limits for any Government policy. This is their plan of attack against Trump’s immigration bans and probably any future immigration laws. (((They’re))) so desperate to maintain the foreign invasion of America that they’re willing to sacrifice Affirmative Action to make race completely off-limits for any consideration of government policy, most importantly immigration.

    Don’t be surprised to see Leftists begin parroting cuckservative “colorblind” arguments when it suits their interest on thwarting immigration restrictions.

  7. Gordo
    Posted March 2, 2017 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    ‘a racket masquerading as resistance’ yep, we’ve had decades of that, from Monday Club to John Birch.

    • nineofclubs
      Posted March 2, 2017 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

      + 1. Well said Gordo.

    Kindle Subscription
  • EXSURGO Apparel

    Our Titles

    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Tyr, Vol. 4

    Reuben

    The Node

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    Siege

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Prison Notes

    Standardbearers

    Tyr

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories