This is the transcript by V.S. of the first part of my interview with Henrik Palmgren on Red Ice Radio from May 29, 2015. You can listen to it at Red Ice Creations. The second hour of the show is behind a pay wall. I recommend that all Counter-Currents readers become subscribers to Red Ice Creations. There is a huge amount of very good information and interviews behind their pay wall.
Henrik Palmgren: Welcome! Thank you for joining us today. I am Henrik Palmgren from Sweden, and you are listening to Red Ice Radio. . . . Today, we are speaking with Greg Johnson. He is the editor-in-chief of Counter-Currents and its journal and webzine, North American New Right. He is the author of Confessions of a Reluctant Hater and also New Right vs. Old Right.
We’ll be discussing a number of different topics today, but our theme in the background is going to be about Sweden. It’s not only a personal interest of mine, but I think it’s important as an example, as something to study and therefore it is something we keep returning to again and again and I hope you find value in this as well wherever you are in the world. We can all learn from the predicaments that we find ourselves in.
Welcome, Dr. Johnson, it’s great to have you with us. Thanks for coming on and spending some of your time here with us today.
Greg Johnson: Well, thank you for having me!
HP: You bet! You did a Europe tour of sorts recently. You managed also to make it all the way up to the north to visit Stockholm. I was surprised and also encouraged, by the way, to learn how many readers of yours that you have in Stockholm and in Sweden in general when you posted some of the statistics, the visits. So, I hope you enjoyed your stay in Sweden and that you had a good time.
GJ: Yeah, I really enjoyed it. Sweden has always been in our top ten countries in terms of readership and in terms of per capita readership, I think it’s probably our number one country. I think more Swedes per capita read Counter-Currents than citizens of any other country, and more Swedes donate per capita to Counter-Currents than any other country.
So, we have a lot of fans in the Nordic countries. We have a lot of fans in Denmark and Norway as well, and Finland. But the Swedes really are the mainstay. They’re always in our top ten, usually in our top five or top seven countries for Counter-Currents readers.
HP: Well, very encouraging! I think I know why that is. Why do you think that is?
GJ: I was really impressed with the English skills of Swedes. It’s very widespread, and it’s on a very high level, and I think part of it has to do with the education system, part of it has to do with the amount of specifically American television that I saw in Sweden. In the breakfast room of the hotel that we were staying at, they would have a TV on, but the sound was down and, you know, I would come in and out during the day, and it would be on all day, and there would be American TV shows all the time.
GJ: There were Swedish language cooking shows, Swedish language news programs, and things like that. But in terms of a lot of entertainment it seemed like it was a lot of American TV and American TV in English. So, I think that had a lot to do with it.
And I think that one of the reasons that Counter-Currents is popular there, and popular in Europe in general, is because we say things that are against the law to say in a lot of European countries, and a lot of European websites and publishers are operating under restrictions that in the United States, with the First Amendment, we don’t have. And so I think that we have a lot of credibility, because we can speak truth specifically about the racial problem and also the Jewish aspect of the racial problem that White nations face. So, I think those are the main reasons we have a lot of readership in Scandinavia.
HP: Yeah, absolutely. And how do you view the fate of Sweden in regards to awakening to its demographic destruction? Sweden is, I’d say, heading off the cliff quicker than most other countries. The immigration policies are among the most extreme in Europe. We take in more immigrants than Germany, England, and France combined, I think. Strangely enough, this could prove to be beneficial of sorts. Either as just a horrific example to other countries of what not to do, or we’ll manage to turn things around, and this will serve as an inspiration to other countries. Any thoughts on this?
GJ: It’s really interesting to me that during the time that I was in Sweden, and I was in Sweden for five-and-a-half days, basically, I didn’t see many non-Whites. I didn’t see any sub-Saharan Africans at all. I saw a few Middle Eastern types working in 7-Eleven stores at the bus station in Stockholm, and I saw a large number of Gypsies begging on the streets and probably stealing when I wasn’t looking. But I didn’t see very large numbers of those, and I didn’t see any Africans.
I was really just in central Stockholm, and I know there are places where that’s very different, and I think it’s possible for these policies to continue because where the elites live it still seems like Sweden is a Whitopia. Wandering around central Stockholm and the Gamla Stan, Södermalm, places like that — and we took a day trip to Gamla Uppsala — we just saw basically White people and really good-looking White people, really nice, friendly, trusting, open, attractive White people everywhere. And I think that the people who make these policies and support them actively or passively aren’t wandering around in places where they feel like they’re in the Third World or under some kind of foreign occupation. I think that’s generally the truth of how these policies are hatched and supported in the United States and a lot of White countries. The people who push these policies live in bubbles of prosperity and Whiteness which insulate them from the problems created by diversity, because the only non-Whites they have any contact with are generally outliers from their communities, exceptional people, and they don’t spend much time around average Blacks or average Muslims. So, they don’t get a sense of how those averages — those differing concentrations of social pathologies or stupidity or impulsiveness or whatever — are really retarding their society, dragging it down.
Of course, they see some crime statistics and other statistics, and they just think, “Well, we’ll have to fix those.” There’s this “can-do” attitude that Whites have, this Faustian attitude, this idea that really the kind of civilization that exists in Northern Europe is what everybody wants in the world — and they want the benefits of it, that’s for sure, they want all the goodies. But we Northern Europeans think that everybody wants to be like us and that everybody can be like us.
GJ: And I think evidence to the contrary is interpreted away as simply a product of insufficient effort on our part and also the product of evil on our part. It’s always our doing, right? We are entirely responsible for the pathologies of non-Whites in our societies. These people have no agency as far as the basic liberal narrative is concerned. If Blacks are overrepresented in prisons and underrepresented in colleges or boardrooms or wealthy neighborhoods that has nothing to do with Black ability or Black agency or Black choices. It has everything to do with White agency and White choices, White ill will.
So, this mentality is very, very immune to empirical refutation. The empirical evidence to the contrary is just interpreted away as a sign that we have yet to overcome retrograde attitudes — not among the non-Whites, although there is some acknowledgment that we need to teach them not to cut off the clitorises of their daughters and things like that — but the real problem is the retrograde attitudes of White people like us, like you and me, thought criminals. If we can only overcome that, everything is going to be fine.
Because that attitude is so difficult to overcome I’m really worried, frankly. I look at a country like South Africa. The South Africans parked there at the southern tip of the African continent and observed for decades the pathologies, the chaos, the slaughter, the savagery that ensued after the White-ruled colonies were handed over to Black majority rule. They had ample evidence that this was not a good idea; they had ample experience of their own Blacks and knew that they were just as restive and primitive and difficult to deal with; and yet they handed over control of their future to the Black majority. I don’t know what they were smoking. And in South Africa, worse hasn’t been better, you know. Worse has just gotten worse and worse and worse. I think one of the reasons for that, though, is that their population as a percentage is so low now, the White population, that even if they could rebel against it they feel like they couldn’t win.
Of course, I think that’s generally untrue. When Whites colonized Africa, the Whites who did it were a tiny minority on the continent, and yet what they had is a questing spirit, and they had Europe behind them both morally and demographically. They had the wind at their back morally, demographically, technologically, and so forth, and they don’t have that anymore. So, I think in a way that even though their small population is not really an impediment to wresting control of their destiny again, I think that the moral problem is really what stands in the way and I think that’s what is standing in the way of basically all Whites. I think we’re demoralized; we’re confused; we don’t feel like we have one another’s backs when it comes to any conflict between Whites and other racial groups. Whenever those conflicts exist the tendency is for people to think that we have to give way, and that if there is a conflict it’s all our fault, and that these conflicts will never cease to exist until Whites show sufficient good will.
I just think that those attitudes are very, very difficult to overcome. I think they are being worn away by reality, by experience, and by people like you and me and the other dissidents who are finally standing up and saying, “Listen, this can’t work. This is not going to continue. This is going to end in tears. We have to stop this.”
But I think eventually what’s going to have to happen is that Whites who can’t learn this lesson simply have to be deprived of political power. We simply have to say, “I’m sorry, you’re not old enough for this ride. You’re not old enough to drive. You’re not old enough to vote. You’re not mature enough to deal with the reality of racial conflict anymore.” And we’ll simply have to deprive them of political power and make sure that whatever they can vote on in the future, questions having to do with whether or not our race is going to survive are not going to be among those questions.
HP: Well, there’s some things you mentioned there that we definitely will want to go into a bit more detail later, but let’s just talk about Sweden more. It’s a good example.
Recently, it was our former Prime Minister mentioned that Sweden is a humanitarian superpower. And he mentioned that we should open our hearts in the last election there. And it certainly is a moral question. And I guess a delusion to a certain extent also of believing that a country of about eight to nine million ethnic Swedes can take on the burden of the world and save the world. I think it’s a way of feeling good about themselves, to give themselves a purpose perhaps, a challenge to a certain degree in our safe environments, the way we’ve lived in the last 200 years, kind of isolated to a certain extent from the problems of the world.
But I think it’s more than that as well. It almost operates in Sweden like it’s a new state religion. It’s a belief, and this is tremendously difficult to challenge, Greg.
GJ: Yeah, I think that we really do need to get to the bottom of this mentality. We need to understand it. One of the things that I thought was most useful about the visit to Sweden was actually the meeting that was co-sponsored by Counter-Currents and Logik Förlag, the publisher. It was very generous of them, by the way, to say that I was the co-sponsor because I did almost nothing. They did all the work. I just suggested a few names. At this meeting, Mark Weber spoke, I spoke, and Kevin MacDonald spoke.
Kevin MacDonald gave a talk on the psychological mechanisms of White dispossession. The basic argument that he gave is that the evolutionary history of Europeans, and especially Northern Europeans — the further north you go in Europe, the more people you have who are descended from basically Ice Age hunter-gatherers and the stronger predisposition you have to being open to strangers.
Why would that be? Well, if you’re a small group of people wandering around in the Ice Age, which is a very harsh environment, and you meet other people, and you have a predisposition to be trusting and open to other people, you can increase your social size, the size of your social band, and increase your chances of surviving tremendously in that kind of harsh environment. Whereas if you lived in an environment where there’s greater plenty in terms of resources there would be a tendency, I think, to greater distrust among people because people would be more afraid of strangers coming to take away what they have, right? So, there’s a tendency as you go south in Europe and into the Near East to find greater ethnocentrism, greater distrust of strangers and things like that.
I think that is definitely part of the mentality of Northern Europeans that we have to fathom. We have a strong tendency towards individualism and towards being trusting to strangers and towards building high trust societies in which we are extremely concerned to punish people who break the rules of high trust society. The consequence of that is that we’ve been able to create enormously complex and productive social orders, whereas if you come from, say, the Near East, where social trust is very, very low, it’s very difficult to get any large enterprise off the ground. Why? Because you can’t trust people. You can’t just go out and hire the best people for the job, and if you have some enterprise that can be scaled up to being colossal you’ll not be able to find enough people to man those positions who are qualified, because the only people you can trust are members of your generally ethnically-defined tribal in-group.
If you look at large-scale institutions in Near Eastern societies, the Muslim world and places like that, and scratch away the surface, often times you realize that what they are is just giant ethnic mafias. They’re tribal groups. The state in a particular society will just be an ethnic mafia. Why? Because those are the only people who can work together in large-scale enterprises because they’re the only people who can trust one another.
Well, there are huge costs though to that kind of low trust environment. 1. You can’t hire the best people for the job, because they might be from another group, another tribe, and you can’t trust them and they don’t trust you and 2. The institutions that you can create are not easily scaled up. You run into absolute limits in terms of the number of people in your in-group, and if you run up against that limit you’re stuck there.
Whereas if you live in a Western society where people are basically individuals and can be treated as individuals rather than as members of groups . . . Basically, you have this idea where every individual carries around with him a certain moral status just as an individual, a certain conscientiousness, a certain outlook on the world that you can trust is there, and you can reach out to this person and you know that your handshake will be generally reciprocated and that you can cooperate with this person. You don’t need to know their genealogy.
There’s this story, I think it’s from one of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s books, where she talks about her upbringing in Somalia, and she says that when two Somalis meet with one another who are strangers they start rehearsing their genealogies. They carry this data around with them. They know in their heads their genealogies, and if they discover that they are from the same tribe or general constellation of groups that are considered in-group, they will trust one another. If they discover that they are not, they won’t trust one another.
We don’t have to go through that complicated ritual. If you put out an ad for a cashier in Sweden or the United States and somebody comes in who fits the qualifications of the job, you don’t have to find out what his genealogy is. You don’t have to do that kind of elaborate dance, that kind of elaborate get acquainted ritual, because there’s an assumption that everybody who walks in is a potential member of your in-group, because your in-group really extends to all of humanity. There’s this universalist attitude that we have that goes along with individualism. We’re all individuals. We can all be judged as individuals. But that’s not a problem, because all individuals basically belong to the same group which is the human race. We have that assumption, and of course it breaks down in the face of tribal, low trust peoples.
Tribal, low trust peoples, when they encounter Northern Europeans, just look at our openness as a design flaw that can be exploited, and that’s what they do.
When I was wondering around in central Stockholm I saw these sort of tattered looking brown people sitting on the pavement on their knees with a little hat on the ground in front of them, and they were in this intense prayerful pose. And I thought, “What are these? Sufi mystics or something? What’s going on here? Is this some kind of religious group?” Immediately, seeing that sort of triggered an attitude of respect, or just putative respect, because what I saw was a person in a posture that required a certain bodily discipline, and it conveyed piety.
It was explained to me, “No, these are Gypsy beggars, and it’s all a put-on precisely calibrated to try to get people to throw a few pennies in their hat because they think they’re somehow holy.”
GJ: That made me so angry I wanted to kick over the hat of the next person I saw doing that. It made me really, really angry. This is what happens when these so-called EU migrants, the Gypsies, show up. Nordic people are trusting, they’re open-minded, they respect effort and what was going on there in my reaction was that I, in effect, was being tricked into thinking that this person was exercising some kind of ascetic discipline and was very pious in some way or another, and that to me was a sign of effort, a sign of work. They know how to exploit that, and they do it mercilessly.
They always will exploit our willingness to treat them as individuals and give them the benefit of the doubt, but they always are working to benefit their own in-group. They don’t have this sense that we’re citizens of a greater humanity, and the net result of that is whenever Nordic Europeans encounter these tribal groups, we get exploited by it, and we really can’t compete with them in fair terms, because our tendency is always to treat these people as individuals and give them the benefit of the doubt, and if they, according to our judgment, are the best guy for the job or whatever, we’ll give them the job. In their interactions with us, they don’t extend the same courtesy. They’re always acting partially and prejudicially for the benefit of their group.
So, we might give a job to a Gypsy, let’s say, if he had job qualifications . . . Let’s say a Syrian or somebody like that from the Near East. A Syrian doctor shows up at a hospital in Stockholm, and he’s got excellent credentials. The Swedish administrator will give him the job over another Swede with similar credentials, but just not quite as good, let’s say. The Swedish administrator will not take into account the fact that the Swede who is losing the job is closely related to him, genetically speaking, and the Syrian who gets the job is not related to him very closely.
GJ: Whereas the Syrian in his interactions with every Swede will never give us, us Nordics, the same benefit of the doubt. They will always prefer a member of their own group to an equally or more qualified member of an out-group. They will always do that, and what happens, therefore, is wherever these people gain a foothold they start bringing in their own crowd. If they get any power at all, they start bringing in more of their own people, and they create these little states within a state, they create these little ethnic mafias, and the relationship that these groups have with the larger society is entirely parasitic. It’s parasitic in the sense that it transfers resources, of course, but it’s morally parasitic because what they’re doing is benefiting to an unfair extent by exploiting the unreciprocated openness that Nordics have to outsiders. And that really means that the only way that we can have this kind of high trust society — that has made Northern European civilization, and more broadly European civilization in general, so highly functional, so prosperous, so capable of mounting large-scale endeavors, so capable of exploring space and conquering continents and things like that — is that we have to exclude these people.
We have to realize that our attitudes are not the attitudes of all other people of the world, that there are other types of people, and that we think that we are citizens of the world, and that everybody can be part of our in-group, but until other people reciprocate that attitude, what’s going to happen is we’re just going to be exploited by them, and if enough of them come in — and there are no brakes now on this process, in fact they want to accelerate it — they will destroy our societies. It will no longer be possible for Swedes to act like Swedes anymore, or have a Swedish society or any other European group to have the kind of society that fits us and has benefited the world so enormously.
Africa would be a lot better off if Europe continued to exist, but European policies, out of pity towards Africans today, are going to ensure that Europe doesn’t exist if these policies are not stopped, and when Europe ceases to exist, the Chinese aren’t going to come and have Live Aid concerts and food airlifts the next time Africa has a famine. They’re going to sit back and watch them die off and then treat it as an opportunity to export a lot of their surplus population. That’s the way they think.
Out of short-sighted kindness and a kind of high-mindedness we’re really destroying a lot of these people who we think we’re trying to benefit. We’re destroying them because we’re destroying ourselves, and once we’re destroyed sufficiently, or our societies are reduced to a Third World level, we’re not going to have the ability to be “moral superpowers” anymore. We’re not going to be able to afford that nonsense. We’re going to be cracking open bones and sucking the marrow out in the ruins of our great cities, and that’s the sad future I see for Europe unless we get off this path.
HP: Well, it’s a sobering thought for sure. It’s about, again, satisfying that short-term, we could analyze why that is, but I guess gratification that people get in helping others but without looking at the long-term consequences of what is going to happen.
I did a video recently and I argued the very same thing that Sweden, a country that for example in 2012 alone managed to donate close to two billion dollars to Africa in foreign aid — and this was without any kind of reinvestment plans or anything that cost us to develop into some kind of investment for Sweden. So, a country of about nine-and-a-half million people is giving aid to a continent of about one billion people, and this very engine that has been developed in the way that it has in Sweden is obviously going to be overwhelmed and overloaded and destroyed ultimately where we won’t be in a position to help in this kind of way again. And that’s what I think people are not understanding about all of this.
GJ: Yeah, when Africa’s population quadruples over this century to four billion, and these people are pouring into Europe and Europe is extinguished, well, the African population will eventually go down to a sustainable level, but only because Europeans who would otherwise maintain it at unsustainable levels won’t be there or they won’t be able to help anymore.
I think part of it is pity and altruism and desire just to help and do good things. That happens when you send aid to the Third World. Then the other level of the problem is not understanding that we cannot have Western-style civilization without high trust, and we cannot therefore integrate these backwards, tribal, highly ethnocentric people into Western countries. That really addresses the whole problem of immigration, and I think that the combination of just altruism — short-sighted, feel good altruism — and naiveté about our ability to integrate low trust, tribal people into our societies without basically being exploited by them and eventually overwhelmed by them are the two horsemen, if you will, of this apocalypse. I’m sure we can come up with another couple horsemen to round out the set.
HP: Right. Well, recognizing differences as we know is heresy in our day and age, but it’s about understanding these differences and recognizing them, facing them without . . . I mean, again, not necessarily about making moral value judgments on top of them. It’s understanding the reality of it.
For example, the politicians who were close to banning organized beggary recently in Sweden, but this was denied, despite I think about 70% of Swedes wanted to ban this, because there have been tremendous problems. People all over Europe come to Sweden because they know it’s a lucrative market. There are even fights that are breaking out between some of the different groups that are competing for the prime real estate in high traffic shopping malls, like around the government-controlled liquor stores, Systembolaget for example. That’s where people may feel guilt over the weekend that they’re going to do something relaxing and do something which others may not have the ability to do. It’s playing on our guilt there again, but it’s almost like we don’t understand it. Some of these people are run by pimps, and the beggars are pimped out, and they are driving around in vans to different parts, to different small towns in Sweden. I’ve done this, traveled between two different smaller towns and you end up meeting the same people there sitting outside one of the stores, for example.
This very aspect is something that is not understood and we lack the ability to deal with it in some way and the question then, Greg, is what do you think it will take for us to recognize that this is the reality and is it just one of those scenarios where it has to get a whole lot worse before it get better or what are we looking at here do you think?
GJ: The “worse is better,” or “worse is better for now,” statement originally comes from Lenin actually. He said, “Worse is better for now.” And worse is not necessarily better all the time. Worse is worse, and better is better. But when it comes to teaching people hard lessons the truth of this “worse is better” slogan that gets tossed around is that basically people learn by suffering rather than by the admonitions of wiser people.
However, that said, we have to keep admonishing them. We have to keep pointing out the lessons of history and so forth and try to wake people up. Most people do not learn from reason, most people do not learn from the experience of their elders, they learn from their own experience and their own suffering. I think that’s unfortunate.
I also think it can be somewhat overstated. There’s this attitude that’s very widespread, for instance, in the United States that, “Oh, you can’t teach your children anything. You can’t pass on your values to them.” That’s absolute total nonsense!
HP: Yeah. Of course.
GJ: Every study that’s been done shows that the primary determinant of the values of the children are the values of their parents. So, why do we have this myth floating around that, “Oh, if you try to teach values to your children they’ll rebel inevitably, so you might as well just let them figure it out for themselves.” The reason why that’s floating around is because there are people who want to teach your children different values, and they don’t want to have the competition of you doing it.
GJ: And when the politically correct teachers and advertisers and movie makers and all of these people who are trying to teach different and incompatible and pathological values to your children, when you confront them, they’re not going to listen to you when you say, “Why are you trying to teach our children values? Don’t you know that they’ll just rebel against that?” That’s never been an impediment, an inhibition, a concern of the Left, of the government, of the Establishment. They know that when you teach people values they generally stick. Most people do not rebel against the values they are taught, and that’s one of the problems. The values that are being taught in our society are bad values. They’re pathological and inimical to survival, and we need to recognize that we can teach better values. We can get in this struggle.
People on the Right have been disarmed, I think, by this false meme that you can’t teach people values. It’s never been a deterrent to the people on the Left. And the reason we believe that nonsense is because it is a way of disarming us in the face of the Leftist agenda.
HP: Yep. I know, and I think that’s why, for example, homeschooling is outlawed in Sweden because the government is simply too afraid that — I think this is a real quote by one of the persons talking about this – she said that, “We can’t have the bias of the parents being passed down to the children.”
It’s a very education-oriented society as well where you value education highly, which is another problem, for example, of why there is so much unemployment among the immigrants coming to Sweden.
This is one of the issues where they’ve taken complete control of how our children are being educated, and if this continues and continues and continues, then only really, really bad experiences are going to start waking people up if it’s true what you just said about teaching and learning.
GJ: Yeah, I hope that we can make more people realize the truth and that it won’t require a catastrophe, because we’ve seen catastrophes in this century, and people still haven’t woken up because of them. I think of South Africa and Rhodesia as examples. I desperately hope that things don’t get as bad in the United States or Sweden or England or any other White country as it’s gotten in South Africa and Rhodesia without producing an awakening.
HP: Do you think it could get that bad?
GJ: I hope not. I think that there are countervailing tendencies that will probably prevent things from getting that bad.
GJ: I think the fear of things getting that bad is one of those tendencies, though, that might stop it, so I don’t want to poo-poo it too much for public consumption. We know it’s possible because it’s happened in South Africa and Rhodesia. Will it happen in the European heartland? I don’t know. Will it happen in the United States and Canada? I don’t know.
My feeling is fundamentally optimistic. I think that the number of people who are aware of our issues and our concerns is growing enormously and it’s growing for two reasons. 1. Because the system itself is producing racial nationalists. We are constantly being bombarded with racialized messages. It’s no longer politically correct to be a color-blind anti-racist, right? They are driving home this idea that, “No, you might think you’re not racist. You might think you’re color-blind, but you’re still racist! That’s still a very White attitude!” And they’re right! That is a very White attitude! I mean, that’s the core problem in a way. We think that the whole world can be like White people, right? The whole world can be like Stockholm. The whole world can be like New England. And that is now being attacked by the Left. The Left is attacking that idea, and that’s great, because they control the educational system. So, let them attack that idea and see what it gets them. That’s one of the attitudes that we need to attack as well.
The only difference between our message and their message is that we are going to say, “And there’s nothing wrong with that. There’s nothing wrong with these White attitudes, except the failure to recognize that they cannot be applied to the whole world.”
Our color-blind individualism really only works with people of the same color, paradoxically enough. People who are very much like us, we can afford to be color-blind to. People who are very different from us, we can’t do that without being exploited.
And that’s another thing that I think is very important. Our moral sensibility requires reciprocity on some level. Unfortunately, it doesn’t require it right away, because we’re willing to take risks to expand our moral community and that means that we are willing to suffer loss. It’s the classic sort of Star Trek scenario. You meet the spaceship of the alien civilization, and you’ve got shields up, and it’s a tense situation. And what did the high-minded captain of the Enterprise do? Well, he takes the risk of dropping the shields, extending friendship, right? Well, you know, if that ships full of the wrong kind of people, they’re going to take advantage of that and blow you out of the sky. Of course, that doesn’t happen in Star Trek because they think the whole world could be like New England or southern California or whatever.
But the point is that we have that attitude programmed into our sense of morality, our sense of moral high-mindedness. We feel morally superior to be willing to take that risk of being open. Being open to loss. Being open to being exploited, to being rebuffed. But we extend our hand in friendship again and again and again. Why? Because we feel good about ourselves. But on another level, on a deeper level, an evolutionarily encoded level, that attitude is actually functional because in the past that’s what worked for our people and that’s what allowed us to create great civilizations, high trust, high complexity civilizations.
The trouble is that our leaders are practicing a lot of really, really high-minded openness, and they’re not necessarily getting the message that enough is enough. What has to happen is we’ve got to scale back our altruistic tendencies to within biologically, sociologically functional bounds, because at this point it’s becoming a detriment. I think that slowly but surely, if we can make more people aware of this problem it’ll happen.
Why? Because even though we do have this high-minded willingness to extend our hand in friendship again and again and again without reciprocity, eventually, our moral sensibility does require reciprocity. We get tired of being taken advantage of. We think that’s wrong. We think that’s very wrong.
And the same White people who are extremely accommodating and altruistic towards non-Whites are extremely harsh to Whites who don’t reciprocate good behavior. So, we know that we’re capable of great harshness, because right now it’s directed at our own people. We need to recognize that at a certain point enough is enough, that we cannot transform fundamentally different people, people with fundamentally different moral sensibilities, and at a certain point it’s self-destructive, it’s pathological, and it has to be reined in. And if these people can’t rein it in themselves we’re going to have to, again, deprive them of political power. So, they can practice this with stray dogs and cats or other harmless little things, but they can’t practice it on a national and a global scale with people who will destroy us.
HP: Well, ironically, picking up with what you said, the detractors have it right to a certain extent that it is a kind of supremacy at least on part of the liberal Left then, right? Because this is really so confusing then if you’re trying to follow what you’re supposed to do, their argument. It’s not quite clear, because it keeps changing. First, you were supposed to be color-blind, right? But the latest now with White privilege and all these kind of things is that you have to become hyper-sensitive about every little nuance. You have to be educated and trained. There are White privilege seminars, diversity trainings, sensitivity indoctrination programs. This has no end in sight. It’s just going to go on.
GJ: There’s no end in sight. There’s no brakes to it, and at a certain point I think we’re just going to reach exhaustion. I think more and more people are reaching exhaustion, and I think the people who were very proud color-blind liberals are getting really angry when they’re being told that now they’re the problem too.
HP: Right. Exactly.
GJ: Yeah. They are the problem. I agree they are the problem, you know? I can certainly agree with that. But they are getting very angry at that fact: “I’ve done this and that and everything all these years for these people, and this is the gratitude I get!” Right? Suddenly, they’re demanding a little reciprocity. They’re demanding a little bit of gratitude. I’m hearing that kind of stuff. I’m hearing that from the liberals I know — and most the people I know, most of the people I’m related to, most of the people in their broader social circles are liberal, and they’re getting tired of it.
The PC thing has been ramped up to the point where even really big-hearted liberals are getting frustrated. And they’re not publicly frustrated yet, but privately they’re very frustrated, and so I feel like it’s hollowing out, that people are still going along with this stuff on the surface, but their hearts are less and less in it anymore, and as it intensifies and gets more ridiculous with micro-aggressions and all this crap, this silliness, fewer and fewer serious people can take this seriously. Eventually, I think more and more people will publicly say, “I’ve had it. I’ve had enough. I’m done with this.”
Now, whether something good can be made of these people or they’re just neutralized politically speaking, I don’t know. Frankly, I think a lot of these people, it’s best if they just become politically neutralized and passive. But some of them will actually swing over to the other extreme, the extreme that I’m at and say, “OK damn it! We’ve got to change things. We’ve got to start taking our own side. We’ve got to start demanding reciprocity, and if these people will reciprocate we simply have to exclude them, and we have physically remove them from our societies.” I think that will happen, and that’s really what I’m banking on. That’s what I’m hoping.
I do think that nature is on our side. I just think we have to work very, very hard to overcome certain deeply encoded moral attitudes, our sense of high-mindedness and so forth, that’s getting in the way of our people taking their own side and pulling ourselves out of what is currently a spiral to death. We are on a bad, bad path. We are on a slippery slope. If present trends continue, we are going to cease to exist. It’s that simple. It’s simple biological extinction staring us in the face in the long term, and it’s being aided by these policies of non-White immigration, low White birth rates, which has a lot to do with the fact Whites are being crowded out of opportunities and living spaces where they feel comfortable raising children, and miscegenation and outright rape and murder. That’s happening to more and more of our people as these non-Whites enter our societies.
You can’t take more money out of your bank account than you put in without reaching zero, and you cannot take more people out with death than you’re putting in with birth without reaching zero. The tendencies in all of the White countries in the world now are towards negative population growth. Unless that is stopped we will simply cease to exist. We’re facing simple biological extinction, and I think that just wrapping our heads around that fact is very important because, goodness, lots of high-minded White people are concerned about tigers and whales and even ugly little things, you know, snail darters and insects and stuff like that, non-cuddly animals. We’re worried about the extinction of little animals that aren’t even cuddly and cute, right? And yet, we’re not worried about the extinction of our own race, the race that cares about all these other animals.
I think the time is coming where we’re going to turn the corner though. I’m fundamentally optimistic.
HP: We’re going to take a break in a little bit. Just one more point on this before we move along here and speak more about your website.
But I think it’s becoming more clear with stories . . . For example, I mentioned to you before this recording about a Latino gentleman who had a barbeque joint in Colorado or something. He wanted to have White Appreciation Day. He wanted to give White customers a 10% discount as a way to show appreciation for White Americans and it was very interesting to see some of the reactions and how this completely blew out of proportion. At some point people have to start asking themselves that just showing an inkling of positivity towards the fact if you happen to be a White American in America today. I mean, at one point will people start asking themselves, “Wait a minute. Who is the one group that you’re not allowed to support again. Who is the one you have to hate to make it morally justified?” It’s unbelievable.
GJ: Yeah. Yeah, I think that more Whites are realizing that by the rules we’re playing by now we’re going to lose. We can’t help but lose. Let’s say we’re playing poker, right? If you’re playing poker with people, and they all get to play a wild card, the race card, and you don’t get to play that wild card, it doesn’t matter how many chips you’ve got now, how many advantages you have, if you play by the rules that everybody else at the table has a wild card and you don’t, you’re going to lose all your chips. That’s the way the game is rigged today. Every group can play the race card, the victimization card. Every group can appeal to naked, petty racial interest sometimes in the most irrational form, like the tendency of Blacks to side with Black criminals who prey on them rather than on the police who protect them. This is madness. This is stupidity of the highest order, yet people feel quite self-righteous about that kind of stupidity. But Whites are not allowed to appeal in any positive way to their White identity. They’re quite encouraged to talk about it negatively and hang their heads in shame, right?
HP: Oh, sure.
GJ: But that rule is enough, if you play enough hands of poker, if you play enough hands of this game that we call life in the White world today, we’re going to lose everything by those rules, and we have to stop playing by those rules. It’s rigged. It’s a racket. It’s a crooked game, and we have to stop playing this goddamn crooked game because of our high-minded attitude that if we just keep sacrificing ourselves and giving these people little benefits and things like that — throw’em another sop, right? — that they’ll hike up their pants and join hands with us and we’re going to usher in some new rainbow utopia. It’s not going to happen, and I think more people are realizing that. They’re realizing it and they’re not just realizing it in a guilty kind of furtive way. They’re going to realize it in a very angry and self-righteous way, because we are being exploited, and we are being destroyed, and there’s a tendency among White people to be very, very patient for very long periods of time. Again, it’s this openness, right? It’s like, “Oh, let’s give him another chance, and see if he’ll do it right this time.”
But along with that openness and that patience and that ability to suffer fools for a very long time, there’s also an anger and a self-righteousness and a punitiveness that builds up as well. I think of Rudyard Kipling talking about the Saxons finally beginning to hate. It took a very, very long time, but when they got really, really righteous and fighting mad, then things could change. And I do think that we are approaching that kind of breaking point with a lot of people.
Unfortunately, the outliers — the sort of canaries in the coal mine types, the super-sensitive ones to it, where that breaking point is reached first — a lot of them tend to do really stupid things. They’ll shoot a postman or some store clerk or some dumb thing like that, and that doesn’t actually change anything.
HP: Of course not.
GJ: But if that anger can be channeled properly then I think that we can institute sane and humane and rational policies that will turn everything around.
And we don’t have to turn everything around overnight. I think we would all breathe a giant sigh of relief if we were told tomorrow that without any doubts, without any possibility of changing course, that from henceforth over the next 50 years Sweden is going to export all of its recent refugees and become entirely Swedish again. I think that a lot of Swedes, even people who won’t live to see that day 50 years hence, would feel enormous relief. They’d be relieved and energized, even if they didn’t live to see the day when the last of these people would leave their shores.
So, we don’t even have to do it overnight. We just have to know that we’re on the right path, and I think that knowing we’re on the right path into the future gives us enormous benefits right now in the present day.
HP: Well, we have much more to discuss, Greg. I want to ask you more about the role of the Church and Christianity in the next hour, Christendom and what part that has played in our European tradition as opposed to our native European spirituality, etc. It’s an important topic.
But before we take a break, tell us more about Counter-Currents. You have a lot of titles on the website; you have authored your own books; you’re a publisher; you have a lot of excellent articles on the website. What do you think our audience should know about what you’re doing.
GJ: Well, Counter-Currents has been around for almost five years now next month. In less than a month, actually, we’re going to celebrate our fifth anniversary. It’s counter-currents.com. It’s a publishing imprint. We publish about six books a year, and it’s a webzine as well called North American New Right. We just call it Counter-Currents. Everyone calls it Counter-Currents.
The purpose of Counter-Currents really has been to create a New Right in North America, a New Right analogous to the New Right in Europe, which is a metapolitical movement. It’s a very highbrow movement that realizes that before we can have positive political change towards recovering control of our destiny, our demographic destiny, saving our race from extinction, we need to lay certain metapolitical foundations. Those are foundations that have to do with our sense of what’s moral, our sense of who we are, our identity, our sense of what’s politically possible and also more broadly, we just try comment on really everything from this point of view, from a White Nationalist, New Rightist point of view. So, there’s a sort of encyclopedic quality about Counter-Currents. We have articles about everything; eventually we’ll have articles about everything. It’s the whole world viewed from a White Nationalist perspective.
I highly recommend that people, if you haven’t visited it, make it the first day you visit Counter-Currents, and I guarantee you will find something there that’s very challenging and stimulating and interesting and it will be just the first of many visits.
HP: Very good. Counter-currents.com. We’ll have the link up on redicecreations.com as well. Alright. We’ll take a music break right here. Stay with us everybody. We’ll be right back with more. . . .
“A Lifetime of Wars” is the translation of the song that you just heard. It’s a song about both honor and dedication to your people and to your country. I’m talking about the true meaning of a nation now. Not the state, but the people. And if you replace the people, by the way, or change the demographic make-up it’s not going to be the same country anymore.
The song is at the same time about the meaningless slaughter during the Thirty Years’ War. This was the longest and most destructive conflict in European history. Don’t get me wrong. I know the World Wars were pretty bad, but this was going for over thirty years and, with the numbers that we had at the time, with over 8 million casualties this was absolutely horrific. Sweden was at the center of this conflict as well as a defender of a religion that only some 600 or 700 years prior basically had slaughtered some of the bravest warriors right in front of their own families simply for being heathen and not converting to this new, universalist incoming religion with origins in Greece and modifications in the Middle East and some of the controlled territories of Rome.
But the Thirty Years’ War was a conflict that was fought on a religious basis, a religion that wasn’t even native to Europe. I’m talking about Christianity, of course. So, our ancestors sacrificed themselves to protect Christianity and the kind of Christianity that they believed in so much that they would fight and kill their own European brethren for it.
The question though is today when we would need this kind of help from the Christian church, would Christianity or Christendom sacrifice itself for us in the way that we sacrificed ourselves for it and die to protect Europe and the Europeans? No, it doesn’t now does it? Christianity in these times doesn’t care who worships it because it’s a universal religion. It’s for everyone. It’s a globalist religion. It would turn against us again as it did in the past in order to perpetuate itself.
So, in a way, of course you could blame nations where the king or the people behind the throne controlling things at the time, but really I think it was the new religion that exploited our honor and our allegiance to our own people and our dedication to our king that caused this mass slaughter.
We’ll pick up this topic in the second hour.