Print this post Print this post

Greg Johnson interviewed on The Stark Truth

67 words

Greg Johnson was interviewed by Robert Stark on The Stark Truth about such topics as globalization; building political coalitions and appealing to groups, e.g. environmentalists, abandoned by the Left in favor of race replacement; Occupy Oakland’s protest in favor of anti-white genocide in South Africa; drug legalization; abortion; and how fascist medicine provides an alternative to socialized medicine.

To listen to the interview, click here: http://reasonradionetwork.com/20120321/the-stark-truth-greg-johnson-on-political-strategies

 

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.)

13 Comments

  1. Armor
    Posted March 30, 2012 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

    In the first half of the interview, Greg Johnson says that :

    1. capitalism is anti-nationalist and pro-immigration.

    2. Left-wing movements have been highjacked by Jews and turned into immigration advocacy groups. The neocons have done the same thing to the Republican party and conservative organizations.


    I disagree with the first point. I think that capitalism has been hijacked by Jews exactly like the left. The idea that capitalism is naturally anti-nationalist and pro-immigration is a Jewish canard. It has become so because of the Jews themselves. Before they became powerful in our countries, capitalism worked very well without the third-world immigration.

    Quotes from the End of Globalization article :

    “The labor movement, the political parties, the churches, and all other forces that are capable of resisting globalization have been coopted.”

    Other forces that have been coopted include government and big business.

    “Jews like Soros, of course, are the primary preachers of universalist schemes such as global trade, open borders, racial miscegenation, multiculturalism, and other forms of identity erasure.”

    And they do it in the name of capitalism, not just in the name of left-wing causes.

    “Even if the American owner of an American-founded, American-based, American-staffed shoe manufacturer had a sentimental attachment to his nation and his employees, he could not compete with rivals who had no such ties. In the end, he would have to close his factory: either to ship his jobs to the Third World or simply due to bankruptcy.”

    Moving the American industry to China can only hurt the American population as a whole, but it also hurts the collective interest of big business investors. The owners of an American factory or of a particular branch of the industry can make a profit by moving it to China, but American big business as a whole cannot make a profit by moving the whole industry to China, and by transforming the West into the third-world. So, the question is why didn’t big business got together with the labor movement and every one else to prevent the relocation of the entire industry to China and the gradual replacement of White people with low IQ third-worlders. It’s hard to find an explanation other than Jewish intervention.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 30, 2012 at 10:50 pm | Permalink

      As I understand it, you are asking: Why don’t different groups in the US set aside the pursuit of their factional interests when these conflict with the common good and instead act to preserve the common good?

      Your answer is that the Jews must be at fault. Although I am loath to exculpate the Jews for anything, they are not the problem here. The same dynamic would take place even without them.

      Why? Because capitalism is all about allowing different individuals and groups to pursue their factional interests, regardless of the consequences for the whole. Yes, Adam Smith assured us that we could all focus on our private interests and the Invisible Hand would take care of the common good. But the consequences of globalization prove Smith wrong.

      Jews or no Jews, as long as people are concerned with buying cheap and selling dear, it will be logical for them to import foreigners to depress wages (which was done in the 19th century before the vast wave of Jewish immigration — in fact, the Jews got in because of this policy) and logical to export jobs to the Third World.

      That’s the logic of capitalism. Which is why nationalists need to replace it with something better.

      In the past, capitalism was restained by national interests through mercantilist policies, i.e., tariffs on imported manufactured goods. It was better than what we have now, although one can and should do a whole lot more.

      • Armor
        Posted March 31, 2012 at 9:26 pm | Permalink

        “set aside the pursuit of their factional interests when these conflict with the common good and instead act to preserve the common good?”

        My point is that the capital owners themselves don’t have any financial interest in encouraging third-world immigration and in moving jobs abroad. It isn’t only the working class that suffers.

        It’s like theft, or any other way to cheat the system. The financial interest of an individual or a particular capitalist investor is to cheat the system, but the investors’ collective interest is to prevent cheating.

        Peter Brimelow once wrote this on VDare :

        “Although immigration is not beneficial in aggregate to Americans, it is beneficial to people who run factories and farms and things like that. They like it, and so they lobby for it. And, in a common phenomenon in political science, when you have a small organized group that benefits a lot from something, it can overwhelm the disorganized majority that is disadvantaged from it only slightly.”

        I think it needs to be rewritten like this :

        Although immigration is not beneficial in aggregate to big business investors, it is beneficial to some of them. They like it, and so they lobby for it.

        Even then, I don’t think it’s true. We need to be presented with the evidence. What I know is that the SPLC, which is specialized in targeting anti-immigration activists, is a Jewish organization. It has nothing to do with big business. Is there a big business equivalent to the SPLC? What is it called?

        Jewish influence can be both direct, with Jewish politicians in the government, and indirect, with their culture of critique and their control of the media. So, even if they didn’t push their racial agenda in the boardrooms of big corporations, it would still be true that Jews have an huge influence on capitalism through government and the media. I think they also have a strong presence in business schools and the financial press and have been able to impose Jewish gurus who support immigration in the name of the economy. I’m not sure that someone like Milton Friedman was less of a crook than Sigmund Freud and Franz Boas.

        Adam Smith was right to make the case that free-trade can be mutually advantageous. His arguments were not well known at the time and his work was very useful. But he is not responsible for today’s mass-immigration and the delocalization of the industry. Unlike Friedman, he never advised the government to let that happen.

        “Your answer is that the Jews must be at fault.”

        My main point in this thread is that capitalism cannot be at fault, as I think that allowing mass immigration and moving jobs abroad tend to destroy the economy. It isn’t in the interest of capitalist investors. What is at fault is not capitalism, but the anti-white ideology of a minority, whether they are Jews or not. I think they are mainly Jews.

        “as long as people are concerned with buying cheap and selling dear, it will be logical for them to import foreigners to depress wages / and logical to export jobs to the Third World.”

        Employers won’t make any profit if everyone else behaves in the same way. I think that employing illegal low IQ immigrants works like this :

        1. I’m the only one doing it = financially very rewarding for me
        2. No one is doing it = I’m doing okay, and my country is doing okay
        3. Everyone is doing it = my country is going downhill, and so am I
        4. I’m the only one not doing it = same as #3

        In a normal situation, the government would preserve the common good by enforcing the law so that no employer can import third-world immigrants. I think the 1965 immigration reform act had the effect of removing government control. From then on, one by one, the employers began recruiting immigrants. But capitalism is not responsible for that. The real rogues are those who removed the immigration law.

        “which was done in the 19th century before the vast wave of Jewish immigration”

        And it was successfully stopped because the US government had not yet been co-opted by Jews.

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted April 1, 2012 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

          The problem with this argument is that you are arguing in a reality vacuum. Businessmen actually do the things you think do not make sense.

      • Armor
        Posted March 31, 2012 at 9:42 pm | Permalink

        I’ll recycle some arguments I’ve made on another forum. I hope there are economists who make the same points as I do in a more convincing manner.

        1. There is no obvious benefit to the investors
        2. Transferring our money to the immigrants doesn’t make investors richer
        3. Businesses tend to follow the law and the dominant ideology
        4. Big business is in no position to dictate the government’s policy
        5. There are more effective ways to get rich through corruption


        1. Immigration has no obvious benefit to the employers

        • The immediate advantage of hiring a legal immigrant over a local white person isn’t obvious. It is more or less the same wage.

        • In the long term, immigration from the third-world will turn the West into the third-world, which is not good for capitalists.

        • In the medium term, mass immigration makes labor cheaper, but cheaper for competitors too. It means that the lower cost of labor has to be translated into lower prices, with no benefit to the employers. Any gain they still make will be offset by the third-worldization of the country and by the higher taxes levied on businesses in order to subsidize third-world immigrants.

        2. Transferring our money to the immigrants doesn’t make investors richer

        The main reason why the West is going down is non-white immigration. In recent decades, there has been a huge increase in the labor pool due to women, and a huge increase in productivity thanks to continued technical progress. It means that people should have a higher standard of living than they actually have. Where did all the money go? In government bureaucracy, in the Iraq war, in paying old-age pensions, in parasitic activities like advertising, lawsuits and finance. It is also said that the rich have become richer at the expense of the middle class. I think they would have become even richer if the middle class had been allowed to thrive. Anyway, I think the heaviest burden was immigration. That is where most of the money went, and that is what slowed down the creation of more wealth. I think investors would rather have the money flow into their own pockets than into the immigrants’ pockets.

        3. Businesses tend to obey the law and follow the dominant ideology

        Before 1965, business owners didn’t use to hire third-world immigrants. As long as they were not allowed to hire immigrants, they didn’t. Things began to change after the immigration law was changed thanks to Jewish activists. It has nothing to do with capitalism.

        In the 18th century, plantation owners used slave labor. When slavery was abolished, they stopped doing so. It is not only a matter of obeying the law. Most employers now feel that slavery is morally wrong. Most employers have morals. They won’t kill for money for example. Until recently, most of them also had a measure of racial loyalty to their fellow white people. They know that their own children will eventually be victims of the non-whites. But in the last decades, there have been huge amounts of propaganda in favor of race-replacement, as well as political pressure on employers so that they would hire third-world immigrants.

        If the problem was the employers’ lack of scruples, why would they support race-replacement and not try to abolish work legislation? Why do they accept to pay business taxes at all? I think their acceptance of immigration means that they are influenced by ideology.

        4. big business is in no position to dictate the government’s policy

        It’s easy for the government to impose new taxes on big business. When that happens, big business simply pays the money. So, it’s unlikely that the government was unable to resist the pressure coming from big business in favor of mass immigration. If the allegation is that politicians were bribed by big business, I’d like to know who paid the money and how much? How many business owners were involved? Is there any evidence?

        5. There are more effective ways to get rich through corruption

        For example: tax exemptions, and contracts to supply the administration.

        Bribing the government to allow more immigrants was never worth the cost. If for example a business gets a government authorization to import Indian computer programmers, it cannot pay them much less than a local programmer, or they will leave to work for a competitor. By importing immigrant workers, you help to marginally lower everyone’s wages, including your competitors, and it makes almost no difference to yourself.

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted April 1, 2012 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

          Again, you are arguing in a reality vacuum here. Businessmen do all the things you think make no sense, because as capitalists, it makes sense to them.

      • Fourmyle of Ceres
        Posted April 1, 2012 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

        THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?

        Armor in blockquote:

        I’ll recycle some arguments I’ve made on another forum. I hope there are economists who make the same points as I do in a more convincing manner.

        Only the irresponsible “economists” who support “Libertarian” economics – replacing the power of the State with the power of the Corporations controlling the State apparatus.

        1. There is no obvious benefit to the investors

        Nonsense. The investors – in my formulation, the Owners (HT: George Carlin) are the strongest advocates for such regulations. In fact, there are a range of immigrant worker visas, all of which have the function of providing very cheap, very controlled labor.

        2. Transferring our money to the immigrants doesn’t make investors richer

        In the short terms it does, because the investors get the advantage of cheaper, easily controlled, labor. “Investors” only “invest” for the short term. Indeed, a special tool of finance called High Frequency Trading defines the investing horizons in fractions of a SECOND.

        3. Businesses tend to follow the law and the dominant ideology

        Businesses ALWAYS work to rewrite the law to their benefit, specifically in limiting and controlling enforcement resources. Think offshore petroleum industry, and BP spills in the Gulf of Mexico.

        Why do you suppose corporations are the biggest supporters of Affirmative Action?

        4. Big business is in no position to dictate the government’s policy

        Read “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.” Now, look at the tax expenditures hidden from casual public view in the tax code, for one example. None of them are there by accident. Do you really think the four biggest banks – the Too Big To Fail banks – don’t – literally – DICTATE “government policy?”

        Are you so innocent?

        5. There are more effective ways to get rich through corruption

        Nonsense. Where else can you be guaranteed economic victory than by control of the government? Think of the General Motors bankruptcy. The biggest winner is Wall Street, when the government FORGAVE sixty billion dollars they “lent” General Motors. The interests of the bankers were well protected. The workers, not so much.

        This part deserves commentary, in part for its breathtaking, Child-like innocence.

        In the 18th century, plantation owners used slave labor. When slavery was abolished, they stopped doing so. It is not only a matter of obeying the law.

        No, emphatically not the case. The Northern banking interests won by replacing expensive slave labor – had to feed them, clothe them, take care of their illnesses, and they were bound to The Owners – with a system that bound them to the land, called “sharecropping.”

        They went from being political slaves, in fact, to economic slaves, in fact. They weer also bound, not to the Owners, but to the land, owned and controlled by the bankers. If they walked off an economically unrewarding proposition, law enforcement would go after them, returning them to their chattel status by the use of force.

        Most employers now feel that slavery is morally wrong. Most employers have morals. They won’t kill for money for example.

        Sure they will. They just do it slowly, through poisoning of the work environment, and the general environment. Look at the cancers clustering around the Louisiana oil refineries. Look at the people who worked with asbestos. Hell, momey is the one thing they WILL kill for. If they don’t, the Owners will hire new managers whose “minds are right.”

        Until recently, most of them also had a measure of racial loyalty to their fellow white people. They know that their own children will eventually be victims of the non-whites. But in the last decades, there have been huge amounts of propaganda in favor of race-replacement, as well as political pressure on employers so that they would hire third-world immigrants.

        WHO do you think has been behind this propaganda? The OWNERS. A few years back, Yahoo announced it would build its own search engine. They hired a young lady with a Master’s from IIT Bangalore, a school whose students consider MIT their “safe” school, their second choice. They were paying her what she considered to be a very generous amount of money – TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR.

        Acts like this mark your expensive college degree in Computer Science to its true value, nothing. This extends to other fields. Those H1-B and other immigrant work visas are not bound by our minimum wage laws.

        If the problem was the employers’ lack of scruples, why would they support race-replacement and not try to abolish work legislation? Why do they accept to pay business taxes at all? I think their acceptance of immigration means that they are influenced by ideology.

        Try it again. General Electric not only does not pay corporate income taxes (net/net/net), they get tax money given to them. They are not alone.

        See what Peter Brimelow and Edward Rubenstein have to say on these topics.

        Good luck to all of your friends at Galt’s Gulch.

        What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

  2. icr
    Posted March 31, 2012 at 3:45 am | Permalink

    I wonder why the American plutocrats of 1924 allowed the immigration cutoff.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 31, 2012 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

      The simple answer is that there were other forces at work in American society, and the plutocrats (and the Jews who rode in on them) were not strong enough to stop it.

  3. rhondda
    Posted March 31, 2012 at 9:06 am | Permalink

    Nice utopian vision you have. I haven’t read your book, so my comments are not really from your arguments there.
    As for the abortion issue, what is your opinion of one night stands resulting in pregnancy and the guy pretty pissed off and demanding she abort, that she tricked him, and not wanting anything to do with her again? Perhaps she did, perhaps she didn’t ( trick I mean as in not thinking) Should we shame her? How about him? The usual Christian attitude to this is that she is to blame for following a desire or being seduced. Also, it is pretty silly to try to stop boys from following theirs. The only thing I could think of to tell my sons was wax poetic on the invention of the condom and that 20 years of child support payments might hinder their idea of their future.
    We have socialized medicine where I live. It was started during the depression for those who could not afford life saving procedures. However, I have found that doctors are making pretty good money on it by prescribing pharmaceuticals for every life challenge. They get people to return and return. I have a feeling the dependency on these kinds of drugs are part of being zombified. The medical profession have a monopoly on this. Alternate medicines like herbalism (my favourite) can’t get much of a life here, yet in the states there are a number of schools, and online information. How about the cancer industry and its propaganda? I am not against doctors persay. Their specialty is emergency life saving and bone setting. But they are not the gods, they think they are and I do refuse to genuflect for doing their job. (I do say thank you)
    Just some of my reactions to your audio piece. I am not demanding answers.

  4. rhondda
    Posted March 31, 2012 at 10:26 am | Permalink

    Please do not read into what I said previously as personal. It is not. It is from what I have gleamed from the internet. (except for the sons part)

  5. BasilX
    Posted March 31, 2012 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

    I have a problem with the word capitalism.I believe capitalism has evolved or better said mutated.The interest of the corporation should be the the same as the interest of the stockholders. But is it the case now? No.There is discrepancy between them.
    The managerial elite has no long term interest in the corporation they run,they immediately cash their stock options..The corporation goes bankrupt,the executives collect their salaries, bonuses, and even find lucrative positions in other corporations.The mutual funds supposedly representing the stockholders invariably vote with the management to the detriment of stockholders.
    We have heard and read about “social responsibility” of the corporations.The “social responsibility” as defined by them.And quite often that responsibility does not benefit the corporation.
    There are many examples where there is a clear disconnect between stockholders and the managerial elite.

  6. Armor
    Posted March 31, 2012 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

    BasilX: “There are many examples where there is a clear disconnect between stockholders and the managerial elite.”

    For example, the managerial elite keeps hiring incompetent non-whites against the shareholders’ interests.

    There is the same disconnect between western governments and white people.

    And also between pro-immigration trade union leaders and the union members.

    And between parent-teacher associations and the best interests of White children.

    And so on.

  • Video of the Day:

  • Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    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

    The Lightning and the Sun

    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

    Carl Schmitt Today

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    Generation Identity

    Nietzsche's Coming God

    The Conservative

    The New Austerities

    Convergence of Catastrophes

    Demon

    Proofs of a Conspiracy

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    The Wagnerian Drama

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    An eagle with a shield soaring upwards

    A Life in the Political Wilderness

    The Fourth Political Theory

    The Passing of the Great Race

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    The Prison Notes

    It Cannot Be Stormed

    Revolution from Above

    The Proclamation of London

    Beyond Human Rights

    The WASP Question

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Jewish Strategy

    The Metaphysics of War

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    The French Revolution in San Domingo

    The Revolt Against Civilization

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    Archeofuturism

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Tyr

    Siege

    On Being a Pagan

    The Lost Philosopher

    The Dispossessed Majority

    Might is Right

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance